EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Transcription

1 EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 Main Document March 2011

2 Main Report Abstract Executive Summary Section 1 Purpose and Need Section 2 Alternatives Section 3 Affected Environment Section 4 Environmental Consequences Section 5 List of Preparers Section 6 Public Involvement Section 7 References Section 8 Index Appendices Appendix A Engineering Appendix B Ecological Analyses Appendix C Water Quality Appendix D Pertinent Correspondence Appendix E USACE ERTP Biological Assessment Appendix F USFWS ERTP Biological Opinion Appendix G Coastal Zone Management Consistency Appendix H Monitoring Plan

3 EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT March 2011

4 This page intentionally left blank

5 Abstract U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement examines the environmental consequences of implementation of the Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP), which will supersede the 2006 Interim Operational Plan for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (IOP). The purpose of ERTP is to define water management operating criteria for Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF) features and the constructed features of the Modified Water Deliveries and Canal-111 projects until a Combined Operational Plan is implemented. ERTP objectives include improving conditions in Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) for the endangered Everglade snail kite, wood stork and wading bird species while maintaining protection for the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS) and Congressionally authorized purposes of the C&SF Project. The proposed action is a modification of IOP with operational flexibilities to provide further hydrological improvements amenable to multiple listed species. The ERTP tentatively selected plan was chosen based upon hydrological modeling of system conditions using the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM). Results of the modeling efforts were evaluated in relation to the ERTP performance measures (PMs) and ecological targets (ETs) to select the alternative which best met the ERTP objectives, PMs and ETs. The SFWMM Alternative 9E1 represents the ERTP tentatively selected plan. This plan incorporates more flexible operating criteria to better manage WCA-3A for the benefit of multiple species and represents a positive step towards balancing the competing needs of a complex system. ERTP also integrates consideration of new information consisting of current meteorological, hydrological and species conditions, project specific PMs and Periodic Scientists Calls that serve as a forum to provide input to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision making process for WCA-3A water management operations. Send your comments by: April 18, 2011 For further information on this statement, please contact: Dr. Gina Paduano Ralph U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL Telephone: ertpcomments@usace.army.mil i

6 Abstract This page intentionally left blank ii

7 Executive Summary FIGURE ES- 1: KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN iii

8 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank iv

9 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background. On February 19, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Final Biological Opinion (BO) under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for actions required to assure the continued existence of the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS), as affected by operation of components of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in Miami-Dade County. The FWS BO required rapid implementation of structural and operational changes to existing operations of the constructed portions of the C&SF Project, specifically Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to Everglades National Park (ENP) Project and the Canal-111 South Dade (C-111) Project, which were then operating under Test 7 of the Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to ENP. The FWS BO concluded that the continuation of Test 7, Phase I operations would cause adverse modification of CSSS critical habitat and would jeopardize the sparrow s continued existence. The FWS BO presented a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that would avoid jeopardizing the CSSS. The RPA recommended that the following hydrological conditions be met for protection of the CSSS: (1) a minimum of 60 consecutive days of water levels at or below 6.0 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) would have to be achieved at the NP-205 gauge (the NP-205 gauge is representative of conditions within CSSS subpopulation A [CSSS-A]) between March 1 and July 15; (2) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would have to ensure that 30, 45, and 60 percent of required regulatory releases crossing Tamiami Trail enter ENP east of the L-67 extension in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively, or produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of subpopulations C, E, and F that meet or exceed those produced by the 30, 45, and 60 percent targets; and (3) produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that equal or exceed conditions that would be produced by implementing the exact provisions of Test 7, Phase II operations (USACE 1995), and implement the entire MWD Project no later than December 2003 (Refer to Figure 1-1). Interim Structural and Operational Plan. Although the final BO was not issued until 1999, Emergency deviations from Test 7 were implemented in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 by the President s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to allow USACE to conduct water control operations to protect the CSSS (USACE 1999b, 1999c, 2000). These Interim Structural and Operational Plans (ISOP) enabled USACE to maintain water levels, particularly within western CSSS-A, that would maximize breeding seasons for the sparrow. The Structural part of the ISOP operations included construction of an interim pump station and a 140-acre impoundment (S-332B West Seepage Reservoir). Operational changes under ISOP included closing the S-12A, S-12B and S-12C structures (gates at the southern end of Water Conservation Area [WCA] 3A that send water into ENP west of the L-67 extension levee) sequentially from west to east beginning in November (late rainy season) each year to avoid flooding sparrow breeding habitat within CSSS-A. To compensate for the closures and prevent excessively high stages in WCA-3A, operational changes were made to allow conveyance of some of the water through the S-333 structure into the L-29 Canal and thence down the L-31 North (L-31N) Canal and into the new impoundment, from which it could overflow or seep into ENP lands near eastern CSSS subpopulations. This loop flow was conceived as a temporary expedient that would not be v

10 Executive Summary necessary once the 8.5 Square Mile Area (8.5 SMA) and Tamiami Trail Modification features of the MWD Project were built and operational, then expected by the end of Interim Operational Plan Implementation. Beginning in 1999 and through early 2002, a multi-agency team developed and evaluated alternatives for the Interim Operational Plan (IOP). (Refer to Figure ES- 1). The plan proposed during this process, Alternative 7, consisted of two different modes of water management operation for the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS) and a structural modification of the L-67 extension levee. The first mode (Column 1) was No WCA-3A regulatory releases to SDCS operation in which the L-31N Canal would be maintained at Experimental Program Test 7, Phase I level when there were no WCA-3A regulatory releases. Citing a concern that maintaining L-31N Canal at ISOP level would impact ENP resources, a No WCA-3A regulatory releases to SDCS operation was proposed that essentially reverted back to Test 7, Phase I canal level when no regulatory releases were routed through S-333 and S-334 to SDCS. USACE and SFWMD agreed to incorporate this operation into Alternative 7. The second mode of operations (Column 2) was WCA-3A regulatory releases to SDCS operation in which L-31N Canal would be lowered to minimize potential flood impacts in SDCS and, at the same time, provide necessary downstream gradient to move WCA-3A regulatory releases through S-333 and S-334. The purpose of routing of regulatory releases (releases needed to lower WCA-3A stages when they exceed that water body s regulation schedule) from WCA-3A to SDCS with lower canal stage in L-31N was to provide sufficient water to be delivered via S-332B to the habitats of the CSSS-E and CSSS-F, while at the same time minimize potential flood impacts to the 8.5 SMA and agricultural area adjacent to L-31N Canal. Alternative 7 included a 215-acre retention basin at the S-332B structure, increasing capacity from 140 acres of retention to 355 acres, and operations of this area intended to re-hydrate adjacent CSSS habitat inside ENP were modified to avoid pumping to overflow except under unusual and uncommon circumstances. Modifications to Alternative 7 were developed in response to comments submitted by the public and cooperators during the 2001 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) comment period. Due to stakeholder concerns, including SFWMD and agricultural interests, Alternative 7 was adjusted to address flood control concerns with L-31N Canal levels under certain meteorological conditions. Resulting from these modifications, Alternative 7R was developed which included additional features that provided increased capability to drawdown groundwater levels (L-31N Canal levels) while retaining the CSSS protective features of Alternative 7. The increased capability was obtained by constructing an additional interim pump station (S-332C) and seepage reservoirs along the L-31N Canal to supplement the capacity of S-332B to lower canal and groundwater levels. The water is pumped into reservoirs along the eastern ENP boundary, and although some of the pumped water returns as seepage to the canal, there is reduction in canal stages. During non-storm conditions, the pump stations are operated at reduced capacity to collect seepage from ENP along the reach vi

11 Executive Summary of the L-31N Canal for seepage control. This hydraulic ridge concept was developed in the authorized C-111 Project (USACE 1994). Pumping has been adjusted seasonally to maintain the desired water conditions in CSSS habitat within ENP conducive to breeding and habitat maintenance. In conjunction with features along L-31N, the authorized MWD S-356 pump station was included as part of Alternative 7R. The pump was constructed in L-29 at the MWD-authorized location where it would be used to collect seepage from ENP along the reach of the L-31N Canal, which extends from S-335 to G-211. When conditions permit, S-356 pumps water west behind S-334 and into L-29 and Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS). Although constructed, S-356 is currently not in operation. Construction of these additional authorized C-111 (S-332B North Seepage Reservoir; S-332B to S-332D Seepage Reservoir; S-332B West Seepage Reservoir; S-332C Seepage Reservoir; S-332B/C Partial Connector; Frog Pond Seepage Reservoir) and MWD (S-356 Pump Station; removal of L-67 Extension Levee) Project features was concurrent with the evaluation of Alternative 7R and were not treated as proposed features of Alternative 7R. However, their construction and operation were addressed in the 2002 IOP Final EIS and 2006 Final Supplemental EIS. Toward Everglades Restoration Transition Plan. In early 2009, USACE and FWS identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations. In June 2009, due to endangered species concerns within WCA-3A and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP BO was set to expire on November 17, 2010, USACE and FWS began informal consultation on the Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP). IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and SDCS based upon the current status of endangered species within WCA-3A. The primary objective in implementing IOP was to reduce damaging high water levels within CSSS habitat west of Shark River Slough (i.e. CSSS-A) to the maximum extent possible through water management operations. The purpose of IOP was to provide an improved opportunity for nesting by maintaining water levels below ground level for a minimum of 60 consecutive days between March 1 and July 15, corresponding to the CSSS breeding season. It is recognized in the 1999 FWS BO that there could be times when unseasonable rainfall events could overwhelm the ability of the water management system to provide the necessary dry conditions. Since implementation of IOP, FWS recommendations for protection of CSSS in CSSS-A were met in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and Direct rainfall on CSSS-A prevented meeting RPA requirements for 2003, 2005 and 2007 contributing to the lack of recovery of CSSS-A. Efforts to regulate the S-12 structures under ISOP and IOP to protect CSSS-A and its habitat west of Shark River Slough (SRS) have resulted in lower water depths during the sparrow breeding season as measured at gauge NP-205. However, the persistence of wetter vegetation within the vicinity of gauge P-34 may have limited the recovery of CSSS-A within this part of its habitat. This suggests water flow from the northwest, resulting in deeper water levels and longer hydroperiods within this portion of CSSS-A habitat. CSSS-A population estimates during IOP ranged from a low of 16 (one bird counted) in 2004 to a high of 128 (eight birds counted) in 2003, with no signs of recovery to former population levels. vii

12 Executive Summary Since 1999, the snail kite population in Florida has progressively and dramatically decreased (Martin et al. 2006b; Cattau et al. 2008, 2009). Historically, the WCAs, and WCA-3A in particular, have fledged, proportionally, the large majority of young in the region. However, no young were fledged out of WCA-3A in 2001, 2005, 2007, or 2008, and only two young successfully fledged in This trend of lowered regional reproduction is a cause of concern regarding the sustainability of the population. A population viability analysis conducted in 2006 predicts very high extinction probabilities within the next 50 years (Martin 2007). Given the 2009 population estimate (i.e. 662 birds), the extinction risk may be even greater than the previous estimate (Cattau et al. 2009). The persistence of the snail kite in Florida depends upon maintaining hydrologic conditions that support the specific vegetative communities that compose snail kite habitat, along with sufficient apple snail availability across their range each year (Martin et al. 2008). WCA-3A has been previously identified as the most critical component of snail kite habitat in Florida, in terms of its influence on demography (Mooij et al. 2002; Martin 2007; Martin et al. 2007). A principal concern is the lack of reproduction within this area in recent years. The current regulation schedule associated with IOP operations shortens the window of time during which kites can breed, and rapid recession rates often result in nest abandonment (Cattau et al. 2008). USACE has funded a program to monitor nesting effort and success of the snail kite in WCA-3 since 1995, with Wiley Kitchens, Ph.D., of USGS and the University of Florida as principal researcher. The study objectives are to track the numbers and success of snail kite nesting activities in WCA-3A as part of an on-going demographic study of the kite over its range and to identify the environmental variables related to successful breeding. As a result of the on-going research, Dr. Kitchens and his research team have identified three major potentially adverse effects associated with the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule as: 1) prolonged high water levels in WCA-3A during September through January; 2) prolonged low water levels in WCA-3A during the early spring and summer; and 3) rapid recession rates. In order to address these adverse effects, FWS along with Dr. Kitchens, Phil Darby, Ph.D. of the University of West Florida, and Christa Zweig, Ph.D. of the University of Florida, developed a series of water depth recommendations for WCA-3A that addresses the needs of the snail kite, apple snail and vegetation characteristic of their habitat (Figure ES-2). This water management strategy is divided into three time periods representing the height of the wet season (September 15 to October 15), the pre-breeding season (January) and the breeding season (termed dry season low, May 1 to June 1) and illustrates appropriate water depths to attain within each time period. Water depth recommendations as measured at the WCA-3, 3-guage average (WCA-3AVG, Sites 63, 64 and 65) proposed within the FWS Multi-Species Transition Strategy (MSTS) form the basis for ERTP. viii

13 Executive Summary Note: Please refer to Appendix F for a full description of this strategy. FIGURE ES-2: U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE MULTI-SPECIES TRANSITION STRATEGY FOR WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A Everglades Restoration Transition Plan. On June 30, 2009, USACE ERTP team members met with FWS to discuss the effects of IOP from 2002 to 2009 on threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat and developed a scope for ERTP. The USACE and FWS, along with members from ENP, SFWMD and the Miccosukee reviewed empirical hydrological, meteorological and ecological data from IOP operations in order to evaluate the limited flexibility in the current system and identify any water management actions which might improve conditions for Everglade snail kite and wood stork in WCA-3A, while maintaining the FWS RPA for CSSS. The overall action objective of ERTP is to maximize operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for Everglade snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the CSSS, along with C&SF Project purposes. In order to achieve the ERTP objectives, USACE and FWS, in conjunction with the multi-agency ERTP team, developed performance measures (PMs) and ecological targets (ETs) based upon the FWS MSTS for each species and their habitat (refer to Section 1.3.1). ix

14 Executive Summary In July 2010, USACE, Water Resources Engineering Branch (EN-W) conducted a review of the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 33 General Design Memorandum for Conservation Area No. 3 (June 1960) and the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes Part I Supplement 49: Agricultural and Conservation Areas General and Detailed Design Memorandum (August 1972). This review was prompted by stakeholders concerns with prolonged high water levels within WCA-3A. Based upon the Phase 1 results of the EN-W review and analysis, USACE identified the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Regulation Schedule as an interim measure water management criteria for WCA-3A Zone A, necessary to mitigate for the observed effects, including discharge limitations of the S-12 spillways. Phase 1 of this analysis also recommended further consideration of additional opportunities to reduce the duration and frequency of WCA-3A high water events (Appendix A-5). As such, the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule utilized under IOP required amending to reflect the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A. Based upon the interim water management criteria for WCA-3A as well as the current condition of endangered species within WCA-3A, IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and SDCS. The ERTP tentatively selected plan (TSP) is a modification of the 2006 IOP Alternative 7R plan, with operational flexibilities to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species. ERTP represents a bridge between IOP and COP, which will supersede ERTP and define water management for the completed MWD and C-111 Projects. USACE delivered a Biological Assessment (BA) for ERTP to FWS on October 15, Alternatives. The ERTP alternatives formulation process may best be described by dividing the action into chapters (Refer to Figure 2-1). Chapter 1 involved an extensive review of system components and performance to identify a limited suite of actions with the potential to achieve ERTP objectives. A suite of three representative alternatives were formulated between August 2009 and June 2010 and were coordinated with the multi-agency team comprised of members from USACE, FWS, ENP, SFWMD, FWC, Miccosukee, DERM, FDEP and FDACS. As a result of this coordinated effort, the following agreements were reached: 1) no closure criteria for S-12C with inclusion of stoppers in the Shark Valley Tram Road; 2) marsh operations would be considered; 3) Periodic Scientists Calls (PSC) were integral to implementation; and 4) ERTP PMs and ETs, based upon the FWS MSTS, serve as operational guidance. Three Chapter 1 Alternatives were presented; however, Chapter 1 alternatives were dismissed from further evaluation in July 2010, after the Phase I EN-W analysis resulted in interim high water management criteria for WCA-3A, lowering Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Concurrent with the EN-W Phase 1 analysis, South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) simulations were conducted independently of the ERTP process to assess potential effects of a lowered WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. These alternatives (Alternatives 5b1 and Alternative 7) employed a WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in which all of the zones (Zones A through E) were lowered. These became Chapter 2 alternatives and an ecological analysis of the results was performed for consistency with ERTP PMs and ETs. Although the results were positive for reducing high water levels in WCA-3A, there was also x

15 Executive Summary an increase in frequency and duration of dry events resulting in undesirable ecological effects in WCA-3A. As a result, a final array of alternatives (Chapter 3 alternatives) was formulated using SFWMM to incorporate both the WCA-3A interim high water management criteria and ERTP PMs and ETs. The modeling runs and ecological analyses were posted on the USACE FTP site (i.e. internet based site for transferring files) for agency and public view. The alternatives were compared to the 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS) base run, which represents IOP C&SF operations in the WCA-3A/ENP/SDCS area. The No Action alternative, IOP, is not a viable alternative due to endangered species issues and interim high water management criteria established in July The final action alternatives, Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1, incorporate lowered WCA-3A Regulation Schedules to meet specified WCA-3A interim high water management criteria. The final action alternatives were evaluated to determine which alternative best met the ERTP objectives, PMs and ETs, resulting with Alternative 9E1 as the tentatively selected alternative while maintaining C&SF Project purposes (refer to Table ES-1, Figure ES-3, Figure ES-4 and Figure ES-5). It is important to note that SFWMM does not include the capability of modeling the management strategies proposed within ERTP; thus, the modeling results serve as a baseline of potential hydrological conditions within the ERTP action area. A WCA-3A Water Budget Spreadsheet Analysis (Appendix A-2) was prepared to simulate potential water management operations that could occur in any given year in order to meet the PSC recommendations for FWS MSTS (Figure ES-2) water depths, recession and ascension rates within WCA-3A depending upon current hydrological, meteorological and species conditions. Ecological Input (Figure ES-4) and Release Guidance (Figure ES-5) were formulated to guide water management strategies depending upon actual and forecasted hydrological conditions and PSC ecological recommendations (Appendix A-3). Potential scenarios are outlined and evaluated to compare the ERTP alternatives performance within Appendix A-2. The adjustment to Zone A as well as S-12C, as modeled by the SFWMM, are important operational changes. However, the management strategies that will be implemented under ERTP, but are not able to be predicted by the model, especially usage of the MSTS within Zone E-1, are important tools in truly moving towards multi-species management under ERTP. Environmental Consequences of the Tentatively Selected Alternative. Implementation of this action is an incremental component in the restoration of habitat within WCA-3A and a step toward multi-species management. This action would provide a means for reducing high water periods and prolonged flooding within WCA-3A, restoring vegetation within the area and directly benefitting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Under ERTP, protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and the implementation of WCA-3A PSCs would enable real-time water management decisions to provide benefits to multiple species within WCA-3A. Therefore, ERTP is expected to contribute to a net beneficial cumulative impact on the regional ecosystem. xi

16 Executive Summary Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues. Areas of controversy and unresolved issues may be best characterized as trade-offs between competing needs and interest. These issues include water quality, cultural resources, and operational flexibility inherent within ERTP. The Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) provides the following synopsis of the controversy and trade-offs with water management: CISRERP, Page 10: WCA-3 is a growing focus of public controversy and management concern because of its location and the way the entire system is operated to manage water distribution and quality. WCA-3A supports extensive and relatively intact landscapes including ridge and slough patterns and tree islands and provides critical habitat for endangered species, such as the snail kite and wood stork. It is the homeland of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and supports the tribe members traditional and contemporary lifestyles. Over the past decade, however, there have been drastic declines in snail kite numbers and nesting success in WCA-3A, as well as continued slow declines in tree island size and number. The imminent loss of the snail kite from WCA-3A may precipitate a crisis in water management. To some degree this situation has been exacerbated by the current operation of the compartmentalized Everglades that alters flows across the Tamiami Trail to restore Cape Sable seaside sparrows and ecosystem functioning in Everglades National Park. (CISREP, 2010) Water Quality. The primary unresolved issue is potential water quality impacts resulting from implementation of ERTP. Phosphorus is currently the only constituent of significant concern for inflows to Shark River Slough (SRS). The 1991 Everglades Settlement Agreement ended a 1988 Everglades lawsuit (Case No CIV-Hoeveler) that was brought forward by the Federal Government against the State of Florida (SFWMD and FDEP, 1988) for violations of the Clean Water Act. The subsequent 1992 Consent Decree, as modified in 1995, specified interim and long-term phosphorus concentration levels for the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, SRS, Taylor Slough and Coastal Basins in ENP. Water quality was not a major part of ERTP plan formulation, nor was it used to select the tentatively selected plan. A detailed water quality analysis on all of the ERTP alternatives was conducted to determine the impact of the proposed operational changes to the SDCS on FWM TP concentrations and loads to SRS. The evaluation used output from the SFWMM for LORS (IOP, No Action alternative) and the Chapter 3 alternatives (Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1). Data used included WCA-3A gauge stages and flows through the WCA-3A outflow structures (S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, S-333, S-334 and S-334FC). Five methods were employed by USACE to calculate the average annual FWM TP concentrations for each year of the period of record. All methods assume that changes to the distribution, source and timing of flows in WCA-3A are minimal for the considered alternatives, relative to the base condition, and that such changes will not materially alter water quality conditions within the compartment. Based upon the USACE water quality analysis, the tentatively selected plan, Alternative 9E1, resulted in no additional exceedances of long-term (LT) concentration limits in the Consent Decree compared with IOP. Water quality will continue xii

17 Executive Summary to be monitored throughout ERTP operations (see Appendix H for a summary of on-going water quality monitoring). It should be noted that all analysis methods are based on postprocessing of the SFWMM output. As with any model, there is a level of error associated with SFWMM and the post-processing methodologies. However, these evaluation techniques represent the best analytic tools available at this time. Accuracy, to the tenths of a part per billion (ppb), is not expected to be available in any predictive tool for this large, complex system in the foreseeable future. The methods employed are suitable for comparison among the ERTP action alternatives. Cultural Resources. Cultural resource considerations were not part of plan formulation, nor were they used to select the recommended plan; however, the potential for changes in hydrologic regime exists within all actionable plans. Therefore, the potential to adversely affect significant cultural resources exist within each plan. To understand the effects of hydrologic changes on cultural resources, USACE is developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) as specified under 36CFR800.14b(1)(ii). The PA will allow USACE to complete needed studies and incorporate its final determination of effects into the Combined Operation Plan (COP) which will supersede ERTP. Refer to Appendix D-5 for further details describing coordination of the PA. Operational Flexibility. ERTP represents a paradigm shift in water management within the WCA-3, ENP and SDCS system. Under IOP, there are hard and fast structural closure dates designed to protect nesting season requirements of CSSS-A. The structures will open or close on the specified dates independent of WCA-3A water levels, CSSS nesting or other endangered species requirements. Under ERTP, the needs of multiple species, including other endangered bird species, and their habitats are considered along with current hydrological and climatological conditions. ERTP incorporates protective measures for CSSS-A (most structures retain existing IOP closure dates), but also includes a lowered regulation schedule to meet both the WCA-3A interim high water management criteria and endangered species needs (FWS 2010). The WCA-3A Regulation Schedule proposed under ERTP contains extended regulation zones that allow for up to maximum releases, providing for management of recession rates and seasonal water levels, which are important for snail kite, wood stork and wading bird nest success. As with any change, there is resistance to flexibility in water management operations. Therefore, USACE is committed to conducting PSCs to provide a forum for stakeholders to provide input to be considered in the USACE decision making process for WCA-3A water management operations. These calls are discussed in further detail in Appendix H. The Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) has commended this new approach to water management within the greater Everglades: CISRERP, Page 122: These regular multi-agency consultations are the first step towards multi-species adaptive management, which is essential to restoration progress. They represent a change in the way that agencies have interacted and especially in the consultation process for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under ERTP consultation has moved away from a retroactive process that often evaluates the ecological effects of proposed water management on listed species to determine if a jeopardy opinion would occur, to a more xiii

18 Executive Summary proactive process that attempts to recover species before further population declines accrue. The committee commends this incremental multi-agency approach to improve water management and ecological conditions in WCA-3 during the transition period before significant new storage and conveyance features are built. This represents a form of incremental adaptive restoration as proposed by Natural Resources Council (NRC 2007). Water management operating criteria outlined within ERTP is to be superseded after the COP ROD is signed and features of the MWD Project and the C-111 Project are available for water management operations. Currently, the MWD Project elements are scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2013, and the COP ROD is scheduled for early In the event that COP is not completed by 2013, the incidental take precautions outlined within the FWS 2010 ERTP Biological Opinion are authorized for the period continuing the IOP to the signing of the ERTP-1 ROD, and during the implementation of ERTP-1 through January 1, 2016 (FWS 2010). However, it is important to note that the ERTP water management operating criteria NEPA coverage may be relevant past January 1, In summary, USACE recognizes that there are few opportunities within the current constraints of the C&SF system to completely avoid impacts to listed species. ERTP represents an incremental improvement over the current water management operating regime and serves as a transition between IOP and COP. This transitional approach allows USACE to take advantage of the best science currently available, and to better balance the competing needs of multiple species. The ERTP related documentation can be accessed at htm. xiv

19 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule TABLE ES-1: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 9E1 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Parts A, B and C shown on Figure ES-3, Figure ES-4 and Figure ES-5, respectively. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Parts A, B and C shown on Figure ES-3, Figure ES-4, and Figure ES-5 respectively. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) These operations are recommended to support the following performance measures: A, B, E, F, G, H, I When in Zone A: S-12s, S-333, S-343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s open full, S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP- SDCS as needed and make maximum allowable discharge subject to downstream conditions, S- 151 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed and make maximum allowable discharge when stage is below 8.5 feet, NGVD. S-343A&B and S-344, if non-nesting season, make maximum allowable discharge if downstream conditions permit. When in Zone D: S-12s, S-333, S-343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. If S-333 is closed or discharging less than 28 percent of computed flow for Shark River Slough, S-12 must discharge at least 73 percent and up to 100 percent of the computed flow for SRS, if capacity is available. S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed, discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 when permitted by downstream conditions. S-151 makes water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed and make up to maximum allowable discharge when WCA-3B stage is below 8.5 feet, NGVD. S-343A&B and S-344 normally closed in this Zone unless water is needed for environmental reasons. When in Zone A: S-12s, S-333, S-343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s open full, S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP- SDCS as needed and make maximum allowable discharge subject to downstream conditions, S- 151 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed and make maximum allowable discharge when stage is below 8.5 feet, NGVD. S-343A&B and S-344, if non-nesting season, make maximum allowable discharge if downstream conditions permit. When in Zone D: S-12s, S-333, S-343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. If S-333 is closed or discharging less than 28 percent of computed flow for Shark River Slough, S-12 must discharge at least 73 percent and up to 100 percent of the computed flow for SRS, if capacity is available. S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed, discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 when permitted by downstream conditions. S-151 makes water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed and make up to maximum allowable discharge when WCA-3B stage is below 8.5 feet, NGVD. S-343A&B and S-344 normally closed in this Zone unless water is needed for environmental reasons. xv

20 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough When in Zone E: S-12s, S-333, S-151, S- 343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed, discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 when permitted by downstream conditions. S-151 makes water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed. S-343A&B and S-344 normally closed in this Zone unless water is needed for environmental reasons. The L-67A Borrow Canal stage should not be drawn down below 7.5 feet, NGVD unless water is supplied from another source. When in Zone E1: make up to maximum practicable releases at S-12C, S-12D, S-142, S- 151, S-31, S-337, S-335, S-333, S-355 A&B, and S-334 when permitted by downstream and upstream conditions. S-12s, S-333, S-151, S- 343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. Revert to Zone E rules if the FWS has determined that nesting for the CSSS-A has ended, or if the headwater at S-333 falls below 8.25 feet, NGVD. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS When in Zone E: S-12s, S-333, S-151, S- 343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. S-333 make water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed, discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 when permitted by downstream conditions. S-151 makes water supply discharges to the East Coast and ENP-SDCS as needed. S-343A&B and S-344 normally closed in this Zone unless water is needed for environmental reasons. The L-67A Borrow Canal stage should not be drawn down below 7.5 feet, NGVD unless water is supplied from another source. When in Zone E1: make up to maximum practicable releases at S-12C, S-12D, S-142, S- 151, S-31, S-337, S-335, S-333, S-355 A&B, and S-334 when permitted by downstream and upstream conditions. S-12s, S-333, S-151, S- 343A&B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge Rainfall Plan target flow for S-12s. Revert to Zone E rules if the FWS has determined that nesting for the CSSS-A has ended, or if the headwater at S-333 falls below 8.25 feet, NGVD. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) Rainfall Plan (ERTP changes include replacement of Zone B and Zone C with Zone A, replacement of a portion of Zone E by extending Zone D by two months later and beginning Zone E1 one month earlier, as depicted in Figure ES-3) Rainfall Plan located in Appendix A-3. S-12s and/or S-333 release up to projected WCA-3A inflow based upon system water management operations and/or rainfall to create storage in WCA-3A for expected inflow. S- 12s/S-333 pre-emptive releases. (ERTP changes include replacement of Zone B and Zone C with Zone A, replacement of a portion of Zone E by extending Zone D by two months later and beginning Zone E1 one month earlier, as depicted in Figure ES-3) Rainfall Plan located in Appendix A-3. S-12s and/or S-333 release up to projected WCA-3A inflow based upon system water management operations and/or rainfall to create storage in WCA-3A for expected inflow. S- 12s/S-333 pre-emptive releases. Ability to match inflow with S-12s and/or S- 333 releases intended to avoid damaging high water levels in WCA-3A. This calculation and comparison is recommended in order to identify and keep a record of the difference in the Rainfall Plan in Annex A versus the Modified Rainfall Plan. xvi

21 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Pre-Storm/ Storm/and Storm Recovery Operations for the South Dade Conveyance System Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough Regulatory component of the Rainfall Plan determined by multiplying the distance (in feet) the WCA-3A water level is above Zone E by 2,500 cfs from January 1 through June 30 and by 5,000 cfs from July 1 through December 31. Utilize Modified Rainfall Plan to gather comparison and historical information. Pre-Storm/Storm/and Storm Recovery Operations for the SDCS in Appendix A-3. S-343 A/B and S-344 Closed from November 1 through July 14 independent of WCA-3A levels. S-12 A/B/C/D S-12A closed from November 1 through July 14, S-12B closed from January 1 through July 14 subject to below and unless FWS has determined that nesting season for the CSSS-A has ended. WCA-3A stage may require the Stoppers under Tram opening of S-12A and/or S-12B during the Road by February 1, if period from November 1 through July 14 to necessary. avoid unacceptable risk of failure of WCA-3A levees and/or outlet structures. S-12A Year-round: To provide access to cultural areas, when Rainfall Plan results in S- 12 target flows, S-12A up to 100 cfs release. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS Regulatory component of the Rainfall Plan determined by multiplying the distance (in feet) the WCA-3A water level is above Zone E by 2,500 cfs from January 1 through June 30 and by 5,000 cfs from July 1 through December 31. Utilize Modified Rainfall Plan to gather comparison and historical information. Pre-Storm/Storm/and Storm Recovery Operations for the SDCS in Appendix A-3. Closed from November 1 through July 14 independent of WCA-3A levels. S-12A closed from November 1 through July 14, S-12B closed from January 1 through July 14 subject to below and unless FWS has determined that nesting season for the CSSS-A has ended. WCA-3A stage may require the opening of S-12A and/or S-12B during the period from November 1 through July 14 to avoid unacceptable risk of failure of WCA-3A levees and/or outlet structures. S-12A Year-round: To provide access to cultural areas, when Rainfall Plan results in S- 12 target flows, S-12A up to 100 cfs release. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) These operations are recommended to support the following performance measures: S-12C/D Year-round: A,B,E,F,G,H,I S-12s Flow Distribution: Due to the position of S-12D near the center of Shark River Slough, S-12D should generally pass the most water, with less water passed to the west. S-12C/D Year-round: S-12C and/or S-12D release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target flow). S-12s Flow Distribution: S-12 opening sequence to meet Target Flows is from east (S-12D) to west (S-12A); S-12s flow distributions would not be limited to the historical percentage distribution of flow from the S-12s (10 percent at S-12A, 20 percent at S- 12B, 30 percent at S-12C, 40 percent at S-12D). S-12C/D Year-round: S-12C and/or S-12D release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target flow). S-12s Flow Distribution: S-12 opening sequence to meet Target Flows is from east (S-12D) to west (S-12A); S-12s flow distributions would not be limited to the historical percentage distribution of flow from the S-12s (10 percent at S-12A, 20 percent at S- 12B, 30 percent at S-12C, 40 percent at S-12D). xvii

22 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component S-333: G-3273 less than 6.8 feet, NGVD Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough S-12A/B/C/D Headwater greater than 11.0 feet, NGVD: Open an amount sufficient to stop overtopping of gates Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 (to NESRS). When WCA-3A is in Zone E1 or Zone A, maximum practicable through S-333 to NESRS. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS S-12A/B/C/D Headwater greater than 11.0 feet, NGVD: Open an amount sufficient to stop overtopping of gates. Rainfall Plan target flow for S-333 (to NESRS), plus as much of the remaining Rainfall Plan target flow that the S-12s cannot discharge to be passed through S-334 and subject to capacity constraints, which are 1,350 cfs at S-333, L-29 maximum stage limit, and canal stage limits downstream of S-334. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) When WCA-3A is in Zone E1 or Zone A, maximum practicable through S-333 to NESRS. S-333: G-3273 greater Closed Match S-333 with S-334 flows. than 6.8 feet, NGVD L-29 constraint 9.0 feet, NGVD 9.0 feet, NGVD S-355A and S-335B Follow the same constraints as S-333. Open whenever gradient allows southerly flow. Follow the same constraints as S-333. Open whenever gradient allows southerly flow. S-337 Water supply Regulatory releases pursuant to WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule. S-151 Water supply Regulatory releases pursuant to WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule. S-335 Water supply The intent is to limit the volume of water passed at S-335 to pre-isop conditions and not use S-332B, S-332C, or S-332D or other triggers to pass additional flows. When making regulatory releases through S- 151, limit S-335 outflows to not exceed inflows from the S-151/S-337 path. Use S-333/S-334 before S-151/S-337/ S-335 Note: It is recognized that under these conditions operations of S-335 would be infrequent. S-334 Water supply Pass all or partial S-333 flows depending on stage at G S-338 Open 5.8 feet, NGVD Open 5.8 feet, NGVD G-211 Tailwater constraint 5.3 feet, NGVD Close 5.5 feet, NGVD Open 6.0 feet, NGVD Close 5.5 feet, NGVD Close 5.4 feet, NGVD Open 5.7 feet, NGVD Close 5.3 feet, NGVD xviii

23 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough S-331 Angel s Criteria If Angel s well is less than 5.5 feet, NGVD, then no limit on S-331 hw level. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS Angel s Criteria If Angel s well is less than 5.5 feet, NGVD, then no limit on S-331 hw level. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) S-332B Note 1: There will be two 125 cfs pumps and one 75 cfs pump directed to the west seepage reservoir. The remaining two 125 cfs pumps will be directed to the north seepage reservoir. Note 2: A new indicator will be established for Subpopulation F. Operations will be modified as necessary to achieve desired habitat conditions consistent with the restoration purposes outlined in the C-111 GRR. S-332B North Seepage Reservoir If Angel s well is 5.5 to 6.0 feet, NGVD, S-331 avg. daily is between 5.0 to 4.5 feet, NGVD. If Angel s well is above 6.0 feet, NGVD, S-331 avg. daily is between 4.5 to 4.0 feet, NGVD. until Angel s well is 5.7 feet, NGVD Pumped up to 575 cfs* On 5.0 feet, NGVD Off 4.7 feet, NGVD** *Pump to capacity if limiting conditions within the Sparrow habitat are not exceeded. There will be no overflow into ENP when the project (i.e., the S-332B north seepage reservoir and the partial S-332B/S-332C connector) is complete and when it is practical to do the construction necessary to raise the western levee. There may be overflow during emergency events until the project is complete and the western levee is raised. **If, after the first 30 days of operation, there is no observed drawdown at the pump, this stage level will be raised to 4.8 feet, NGVD The north reservoir is the new 240-acre reservoir located to the north of the pump station with a weir discharging to the east. Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period If Angel s well is 5.5 to 6.0 feet, NGVD, S-331 avg. daily is between 5.0 to 4.5 feet, NGVD If Angel s well is above 6.0 feet, NGVD, S-331 avg. daily is between 4.5 to 4.0 feet, NGVD until Angel s well is 5.7 feet, NGVD Pumped up to 575 cfs* On 4.8 feet, NGVD Off 4.5 feet, NGVD *Pump to capacity if limiting conditions within the Sparrow habitat are not exceeded. There will be no overflow into ENP when the project (i.e., the S-332B north seepage reservoir and the partial S-332B/S-332C connector) is complete and when it is practical to do the construction necessary to raise the western levee. There may be overflow during emergency events until the project is complete and the western levee is raised. The north reservoir is the new 240-acre reservoir located to the north of the pump station with a weir discharging to the east. Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period xix

24 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) Northern Area Detention This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. The future Northern Detention Area (NDA) is planned to connect the 8.5 SMA Detention Cell/STA with the Southern Detention Area. This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. The future Northern Detention Area (NDA) is planned to connect the 8.5 SMA Detention Cell/STA with the Southern Detention Area. Southern Area Detention This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if the USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. The Southern Detention Area (SDA) is the result of combining the S-332B West Seepage Reservoir, the S-332C Seepage Reservoir, and the S-332B/C Connector and raising the western levee of the 332B West Seepage Reservoir. It is very unlikely that there will be overflow from the SDA. This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if the USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. The Southern Detention Area (SDA) is the result of combining the S-332B West Seepage Reservoir, the S-332C Seepage Reservoir, and the S-332B/C Connector and raising the western levee of the 332B West Seepage Reservoir. It is very unlikely that there will be overflow from the SDA. Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the seepage reservoir during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the seepage reservoir during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if xx

25 Executive Summary S332C Structure/ Operational Component The S-332C pump capacity is temporary. Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. Pumped up to 575 cfs* On 5.00 feet, NGVD Off 4.70 feet, NGVD** *Pump to capacity unless habitat conditions are not being achieved within the Rocky Glades. There will be no overflow into ENP. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to 4.0 feet when possible. Pumped up to 575 cfs* On 4.8 feet, NGVD Off 4.5 feet, NGVD *Pump to capacity unless habitat conditions are not being achieved within the Rocky Glades. There will be no overflow into ENP. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) S-332D S-332DX1 Pump up to 500 cfs from July 15 (or the end of the breeding season, as confirmed by FWS) through November 30; 325 cfs from December 1 through January 31; and 250 cfs from February 1 through July 14. Meet Taylor Slough Rainfall formula consistent with marsh restoration (No L-31W constraint) On 4.85 feet, NGVD Off 4.65 feet, NGVD Open when stage difference between RG4 and NTS18 exceeds 1.0 feet and CR2 stage is higher than NTS18 stage (Gauge locations shown on Figure 1-2). Utilize RG4 water level gauge located in northern portion of the SDA, NTS18 water level gauge located in southern portion of the SDA, and CR2 water level gauge located in ENP west of the SDA. Pump up to 500 cfs from July 15 (or the end of the breeding season, as confirmed by FWS) through November 30; 325 cfs from December 1 through January 31; and 250 cfs from February 1 through July 14. Meet Taylor Slough Rainfall formula consistent with marsh restoration (No L-31W constraint) On 4.7 feet, NGVD Off 4.5 feet, NGVD Open when stage difference between RG4 and NTS18 exceeds 1.0 feet and CR2 stage is higher than NTS18 stage (Gauge locations shown on Figure 1-2). Utilize RG4 water level gauge located in northern portion of the SDA, NTS18 water level gauge located in southern portion of the SDA, and CR2 water level gauge located in ENP west of the SDA. xxi

26 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough Close when stage difference between RG4 and NTS18 is less than 0.25 feet or NTS18 stage is 0.75 feet greater than CR2 stage. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS Close when stage difference between RG4 and NTS18 is less than 0.25 feet or NTS18 stage is 0.75 feet greater than CR2 stage. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) Frog Pond Seepage Reservoir (S-332D Detention Area) ENP may make a recommendation to USACE to adjust the open/close criteria by plus/minus 0.50 feet. 810 acres with overflow into Taylor Slough Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. ENP may make a recommendation to USACE to adjust the open/close criteria by plus/minus 0.50 feet. 810 acres with overflow into Taylor Slough Normal operations will be targeted to achieve marsh restoration and phased in over a period of years. However, this provision does not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing water in from outside the drainage basin. This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if USACE determines that a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to a maximum of 4.0 feet. However, a depth of 4.0 feet in the Frog Pond is not possible at this time due to the constraint of the S-332D pump station outlet elevation. S-332 Closed Closed S-175 Closed Closed S-194 Open 5.5 feet, NGVD Close 4.8 feet, NGVD This seepage reservoir will have a normal maximum water depth of 2.0 feet. However, if USACE determines a flood emergency exists similar to an event like the No Name storm, the depth of water would be increased to a maximum of 4.0 feet. However, a depth of 4.0 feet in the Frog Pond is not possible at this time due to the constraint of the S-332D pump station outlet elevation. Operated to maximize flood control discharges to coast S-196 Open 5.5 feet, NGVD Close 4.8 feet, NGVD S-176 Open 5.0 feet, NGVD Close 4.75 feet, NGVD Open 4.9 feet, NGVD Close 4.5 feet, NGVD Operated to maximize flood control discharges to coast Open 4.9 feet, NGVD Close 4.5 feet, NGVD Open 4.9 feet, NGVD Close 4.7 feet, NGVD xxii

27 Executive Summary Structure/ Operational Component Column 1 Column 2 No WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS or Shark River Slough S-177 Open 4.2 feet, NGVD (see S-197 open) Close 3.6 feet, NGVD S-18C Open 2.6 feet, NGVD Close 2.3 feet, NGVD S-197 If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.1 feet or S- 18C headwater is greater than 2.8 feet, open 3 culverts. WCA-3A Regulatory Releases to SDCS Open 4.2 feet, NGVD (see S-197 open) Close 3.6 feet, NGVD Open 2.25 feet, NGVD Close 2.00 feet, NGVD If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.1 feet or S- 18C headwater is greater than 2.8 feet, open 3 culverts. WCA-3A Ecological Intent and/or Performance Measures (defined at bottom of Table) If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.2 feet for 24 hours or S-18C headwater is greater than 3.1 feet, open 7 culverts. If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.3 feet or S- 18C headwater is greater than 3.3 feet, open 13 culverts. Close gates when all the following conditions are met: 1. S-176 headwater is less than 5.2 feet and S- 177 headwater is less than 4.2 feet 2. Storm has moved away from the basin 3. After Conditions 1 and 2 are met, keep the number of S-197 culverts open necessary only to match residual flow through S-176. All culverts should be closed if S-177 headwater is less than 4.1 feet after all conditions are satisfied. S-356 When conditions permit (i.e., G-3273 and L-29 constraints), discharges from S-356 will go into L-29. Pumping will be limited to the amount of seepage into L-31N in the reach between S-335 and G-211. A technical team will evaluate pumping limits and operations. The pumps will be operated accordingly. S-346 Normally, this structure is open when S-12D is open and is closed when all S-12 structures are closed If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.2 feet for 24 hours or S-18C headwater is greater than 3.1 feet, open 7 culverts. If S-177 headwater is greater than 4.3 feet or S- 18C headwater is greater than 3.3 feet, open 13 culverts. Close gates when all the following conditions are met: 1. S-176 headwater is less than 5.2 feet and S- 177 headwater is less than 4.2 feet 2. Storm has moved away from the basin 3. After Conditions 1 and 2 are met, keep the number of S-197 culverts open necessary only to match residual flow through S-176. All culverts should be closed if S-177 headwater is less than 4.1 feet after all conditions are satisfied. When conditions permit (i.e., no S-334 regulatory releases and G-3273 and L-29 constraints), discharges from S-356 will go into L-29. Pumping will be limited to the amount of seepage into L-31N in the reach between S-335 and G-211. A technical team will evaluate pumping limits and operations. The pumps will be operated accordingly. Normally, this structure is open when S-12D is open and is closed when all S-12 structures are closed xxiii

28 Executive Summary Note: Pre-storm drawdown will be the same as in the 2001 Supplemental Draft EIS with the additional language. Refer to Appendix A-3 for full details on Pre-storm drawdown. Operations for other than named events: SFWMD will monitor antecedent conditions, groundwater levels, canal levels, and rainfall. If these conditions indicate a strong likelihood of flooding, SFWMD will make a recommendation to USACE to initiate pre-storm operations. The USACE will review the data, advise ENP and FWS of the conditions, consult with the Miccosukee Tribe, and make a decision whether to implement pre-storm drawdown or otherwise alter system wide operations from those contained in the table. Note: The Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida or his designated representatives will monitor the conditions in WCA-3A and other tribal lands and predicted rainfall. If the Tribe determines these conditions potentially compromise the health or safety of the Tribe, the Chairman will make a recommendation to USACE to change the operations of the S-12 structures or other parts of the system. The USACE will review the data and advise appropriate agencies of the conditions, and the District Commander will attempt to personally consult with the Chairman prior to making a decision whether to implement changes to the S-12 operations. Note: Performance Measures and Ecological Intent Cape Sable seaside sparrow Performance Measure A. NP-205 (CSSS-A): Provide a minimum of 60 consecutive days at NP-205 below 6.0 feet, NGVD beginning no later than March 15. Ecological Targets 1. NP-205 (CSSS-A): Strive to reach a water level of less than 7.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by December 31 for nesting season water levels to reach 6.0 feet, NGVD by mid- March. CSSS: Strive to maintain a hydroperiod between 90 and 210 days (three to seven months) per year throughout sparrow habitat to maintain marl prairie vegetation. Everglade Snail Kite/Apple Snail (Note: All stages for WCA-3A are as measured at WCA-3-gauge average (WCA-3AVG [Sites 63,6465]) Performance Measures B. WCA-3A: For snail kites, strive to reach water levels between 9.8 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31, and between 8.8 and 9.3 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June 1. C. WCA-3A: For apple snails, strive to reach water levels between 9.7 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31 and between 8.7 and 9.7 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June 1. D. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.05 feet per week from January 1 to June 1 (or onset of the wet season). This equates to a stage difference of approximately 1.0 feet between January and the dry season low. E. WCA-3A (Wet Season Rate of Rise): Manage for a monthly rate of rise less than 0.25 feet per week to avoid drowning of apple snail egg clusters. Ecological Target: WCA-3A (Dry Years): Strive to maintain optimal snail kite foraging habitat by allowing water levels to fall below ground surface level between one in four and one in five years (208 to 260 weeks average flood duration) between May 1 and June 1 to promote regenerations of marsh vegetation. Do not allow water levels below ground surface for more than four to six weeks to minimize adverse effects on apple snail survival. Wood Stork/Wading Birds (Note: All stages for WCA-3A are as measured at WCA-3AVG Performance Measures F. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.07 feet per week, with an optimal range of 0.06 to 0.07 feet per week, from January 1 to June 1. G. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 25 cm) within the Core Foraging Area (18.6 mile radius, CFA) of any active wood stork colony. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 15 cm) within the Core Foraging Area (seven to nine mile radius) of any active white ibis or snowy egret colony. Tree Islands (Note: All stages for WCA-3A are as measured at WCA-3AVG Performance Measures WCA-3A: For tree islands, strive to keep high water peaks less than 10.8 feet, NGVD, not to exceed 10.8 feet, NGVD for more than 60 days per year, and reach water levels less than 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31. xxiv

29 Executive Summary FIGURE ES-3: DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION AREA-3A INTERIM REGULATION SCHEDULE PART A xxv

30 Executive Summary Note: Refer to Figure ES-1 for a list of Performance Measures (PMs) and Ecological Targets (ETs). FIGURE ES-4: DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION AREA-3A INTERIM REGULATION SCHEDULE PART B xxvi

31 Executive Summary Note: This operational guidance provides essential supplementary information to be used in conjunction with other supporting documentation including text within the Water Control Plan. Alternative RUN9E1S, Part C: Establish Allowable Water Management Operations for WCA-3A START WCA-3A 3-gage average is in: Zone A Zone D Zone E Zone E1 Use Part B to provide ecological input: desired 3-gage recession and desired 3-gage stage. Date is between 31 May and 15 July NO YES Inflows to WCA-3A or rainfall expected to cause increase in 3-gage average YES YES Current date is between 14 July and 1 November YES Inflows to WCA-3A or rainfall expected to cause increase in 3-gage average NO Up to maximum releases at S-12s, S-333, S-343s, and S-344. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. YES Up to maximum releases at S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO Current date is between 31 October and 1 January NO Up to maximum releases at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. YES Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO Current date is between 31 October and 1 January Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO With Rainfall Plan target flows release, recession anticipated to be less than Part B desired recession rate or 3-gage average likely to be higher than Part B desired NO YES Current date is between 14 July and 1 November YES Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12s and S-333, up to maximum releases at S-343s and Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO Current date is between 14 July and 1 November YES YES Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO NO Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. With Rainfall Plan target flows release, Part B desired recession rate anticipated to be exceeded or 3-gage average likely to be lower than Part B desired YES Current date is between 31 October and 1 January NO Up to Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12s and S-333. Up to maximum release at S-343s and S-344. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. YES Current date is between 14 July and 1 November NO Up to Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. Current date is between 31 October and 1 January Up to Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. NO Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. With Rainfall Plan target flows release, recession anticipated to be less than Part B desired recession rate or 3-gage average likely to be higher than Part B desired NO With Rainfall Plan target flows release, Part B desired recession rate anticipated to be exceeded or 3-gage average likely to be lower than Part B desired YES Up to Rainfall Plan Target Flows release at S-12C, S-12D, and S-333. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. YES Up to maximum releases at S-12C, S-12D, S-142, S-151, S-31, S-337, S-335, S-333, S-355s, and S-334 when permitted by downstream conditions. If the headwater at S-333 falls below 8.25 ft., NGVD, use Zone E rules. Includes up to 100 cfs release at S-12A. FIGURE ES-5: DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION AREA-3A INTERIM REGULATION SCHEDULE PART C YES NO xxvii

32 This page intentionally left blank ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement xxviii

33 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS... xxix List of Figures... xxxiii List of Tables... xxxv List of Appendices... xxxvi ACRONYMS... xxxvii 1 ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED ACTION AUTHORIZATION LOCATION OF ACTION PURPOSE OF ACTION Performance Measures Ecological Targets Background NEED Ecological Need Interim Water Management Criteria for Water Conservation Area 3A Zone A RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS DECISIONS TO BE MADE ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Chapter 1 Alternatives Chapter 2 Alternatives Chapter 3 The Final Array of Alternatives ISSUES AND BASIS FOR CHOICE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN ALTERNATIVES AND COMPONENTS ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Alternatives Other Components COMPARISON OF TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE GEOLOGY AND SOILS HYDROLOGY Northeast Shark River Slough Western Shark River Slough Water Conservation Area Water Conservation Areas 2A and 2B Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxix

34 Table of Contents Big Cypress National Preserve Taylor Slough Lower East Coast Area Square Mile Area Biscayne Bay Florida Bay REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY FLOOD CONTROL WETLANDS VEGETATION Slough/Open Water Marsh Sawgrass Marsh Wet Marl Prairies Tree Islands Mangroves Seagrass Beds Rockland Pine Forest Tropical Hardwood Hammock FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTED SPECIES Federally Listed Species State Listed Species AIR QUALITY NOISE AESTHETICS RECREATION LAND USE SOCIOECONOMICS AGRICULTURE HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES CULTURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction General Definitions CLIMATE GEOLOGY AND SOILS HYDROLOGY Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E WATER QUALITY FLOOD CONTROL WETLANDS VEGETATION ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxx

35 Table of Contents Water Conservation Area-3A Water Conservation Area-3B Northeast Shark River Slough Western Shark River Slough and Western Marl Prairies Eastern Marl Prairies and Taylor Slough Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay Non-native/Invasive Vegetation FISH AND WILDLIFE Invertebrates Fish Amphibians and Reptiles Birds PROTECTED SPECIES Federally Listed Species State Listed Species AIR QUALITY NOISE AESTHETICS RECREATION LAND USE SOCIOECONOMICS AGRICULTURE HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE CULTURAL RESOURCES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Conclusion Scoping: Cumulative Effects Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Affecting Resources within the Action Area Tamiami Trail Water Conservation Area-3A Regulation Schedule: Lowering of Zone A C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project Water Conservation Area-3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project Everglades National Park Seepage Management Project Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL STATUTES Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxi

36 Table of Contents Coastal Zone Management Act Endangered Species Act Estuary Protection Act Federal Water Project Recreation Act; Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, As Amended Farmland Protection Policy Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Marine Mammal Protection Act Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, As Amended Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Inter Alia) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, As Amended Rivers and Harbors Act of Submerged Lands Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, As Amended Executive Order 11514, Protection of the Environment Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments LIST OF PREPARERS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCOPING AGENCY COORDINATION LIST OF STATEMENT RECIPIENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE REFERENCES INDEX ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxii

37 Table of Contents Figure ES-1 Figure ES-2 LIST OF FIGURES Keys to Understanding Everglades Restoration Transition Plan... iii U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Multi-Species Transition Strategy for Water Conservation Area 3A... ix Figure ES-3 Draft Water Conservation Area-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Part A xxv Figure ES-4 Draft Water Conservation Area-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Part B xxvi Figure ES-5 Draft Water Conservation Area-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Part C xxvii Figure 1-1 Everglades Restoration Transition Plan History and Summary Figure 1-2 Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Action Area Figure 1-3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Multi-Species Transition Strategy for Water Conservation Area 3A Figure 2-1 Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Alternatives Formulation Process. Figure Interim Operational Plan Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule for Chapter 1, Alternative A (two-year graph) Figure 2-3 Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule for Chapter 1, Alternative B Figure 2-4 Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule for Chapter 1, Alternative C Figure 2-5 Chapter 3 Alternative 7AB Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule Figure 2-6 Chapter 3 Alternative 8D Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule Figure 2-7 Chapter 3 Alternative 9E1 Water Conservation Area 3A Regulation Schedule Figure 3-1 Critical Habitat for the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Figure 3-2 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Subpopulations (A-F) and Designated Critical Habitat Units (U1-U5) Figure 3-3 Critical Habitat for the American Crocodile Figure 4-1 Percentage of Years in Which the Number of Consecutive Dry Days Fell Within Each of Four Categories for the Period Between 1965 through Figure 4-2 Percentage of Years in Which the Number of Consecutive Dry Days Fell Within Each of Four Categories for the Period Between 1990 through Figure 4-3 Number of Consecutive Dry Days for the Period Between 1990 through 2000 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 Figure Ideal Range of Water Levels That Provides Wood Stork Foraging Throughout Breeding Season South Florida Water Management Model Results: Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-Populaton A Nesting Period Percentage of Years in Which There Were More Than 60 Consecutive Dry Days during the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Breeding Window ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxiii

38 Table of Contents Figure 4-7 Change in NP-205 Number of Consecutive Dry Days during the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Nesting Window (March 1- July 15) with Implementation of Alternative 9E Figure 4-8 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population A Discontinuous Hydroperiod Figure 4-9 Change in NP-205 Discontinuous Hydroperiod with Implementation of Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Figure 4-10 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-B Discontinuous Hydroperiod Figure 4-11 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-C Discontinuous Hydroperiod Figure 4-12 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-D Discontinuous Hydroperiod Figure 4-13 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-E Discontinuous Hydroperiod Figure 4-14 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-F Discontinuous Hydroperiod ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxiv

39 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Description of Alternative 9E1 Operational Guidance... xv Table 1-1 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Bird Count and Population Estimates Table 1-2 Successful Snail Kite Nests and Number of Young Successfully Fledged within Water Conservation Area 3A Table 1-3 Number of Wood Stork Nests from 2002 through Table 1-4 Significant Milestones Preceding Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Table 2-1 Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Performance Measures and Ecological Targets Table 2-3 Comparison of Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Chapter 2 Alternatives Table 2-4 Comparison of Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Chapter 3 Alternatives Table 3-1 Successful Snail Kite Nests and the Number of Young Successfully Fledged Since Implementation of Water Management Activities for the Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Table 3-2 Number of Wood Stork Nests from 2002 to 2009 in the Interim Operational Plan/Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Action Area Table 3-3 Status of Threatened and Endangered Species Likely to be Affected by Everglades Restoration Transition Plan and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer s Affect Determination Table 3-4 Species within Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Action Area That Are Candidate Species for Protection Under Endangered Species Act Table 4-1 Potential Environmental Effects of Final Alternatives Table 4-2 Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations Table 4-3 Number of Years Shark River Slough Long-Term Limit Is Exceeded for Four Alternatives Estimated Using Five Methods Table 4-4 Flows and Total Phosphorus Loads for Four Alternatives Estimated Using Five Methods Table 4-5 Alternatives Comparison of Number of NP-205 Consecutive Dry Days during Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Nesting Window and Date NP-205 First Reached Less Than 6.0 Feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum Table 4-6 Comparison between Final Alternatives of NP-205 Discontinuous Hydroperiod Table 4-7 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Plans Affecting the Action Area Table 4-8 Summary of Cumulative Effects Table 4-9 Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders: Tentatively Selected Plan Table 5-1 List of Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Preparers Table 5-2 List of Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Reviewers Table 6-1 Public Involvement Summary ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxv

40 Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Engineering Appendix A-1. Chapter 3 SFWMM Model Results A-2. Spreadsheet Analysis A-3. Operational Guidance for Recommended Plan (9E1) A-4. Evaluation of Marsh Operations A-5. WCA-3A Analysis of Standard Project Flood Appendix B: Ecological Appendix B-1. Alternatives Evaluation Methodology B-2. Ecological Evaluation of Spreadsheet Analysis Results Appendix C: Water Quality Analysis Appendix D: Pertinent Correspondence D-1. Scoping Letter D-2. Scoping Response Letters D-3. Notice of Intent D-4. Comments Response Matrix D-5. Correspondence Appendix E: ERTP USACE Biological Assessment Appendix F: ERTP FWS Biological Opinion Appendix G: Coastal Management Zone Consistency Appendix H: Monitoring Plan ERTP Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 2011 xxxvi

41 Acronyms ACRONYMS 8.5 SMA 8.5 Square Mile Area 95 Base 1995 Base A APA ASR Administrative Procedures Act Aquifer Storage and Recovery B BA Biological Assessment BCNP Big Cypress National Preserve BMP best management practices BO Biological Opinion Broward WPA Broward County Water Preserve Areas C c/n chicks per nest C-111 Canal-111 South Dade Project C111-SDA Canal-111 South Detention Area C&SF Central and Southern Florida CAR Coordination Act Report CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CFA Core Foraging Area CFR Code of Federal Regulation cfs cubic feet per second CISREP Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration COP Combined Operational Plan CSOP Combined Structural and Operations Plan CSSS Cape Sable seaside sparrow CSSS-A Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation A CSSS-B Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation B CSSS-C Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation C CSSS-D Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation D CSSS-E Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation E CSSS-F Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulation F CWA Clean Water Act D DCP DDM Decomp DERM DOI DPM data collection platform Detail Design Memorandum Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management Department of the Interior Decomp Physical Model xliii

42 Acronyms DSS E EA EAA EDR EIS ENP EN-W E.O. ER ERTP ESA ET EN-W F FACA FDACS FDEP FONSI FWC FWM FWS G GDM GOES GRR Data Storage System Environmental Assessment Everglades Agricultural Area Engineering Documentation Report Environmental Impact Statement Everglades National Park USACE Water Resources Engineering Branch Executive Order Engineering Regulation Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Endangered Species Act Ecological Target USACE Water Resources Engineering Branch Federal Advisory Committee Act Florida Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Environmental Protection Finding of No Significant Impact Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Flow-weighted Mean U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service General Design Memorandum Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite General Re-evaluation Report H HEC HHD HPC HSWA HTRW I IECR IMC IOP ISOP Hydrologic Engineering Center Herbert Hoover Dike Hydrometeorlogic Prediction Center Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution International Modeling Center Interim Operational Plan Interim Structural and Operational Plans J xliv

43 Acronyms K kaf/yr L L-31N LEC LNWR LOSA LORS LORSS LTL LWSMP M mg/l MSTS MWD thousand acre feet per year L-31 North Lower East Coast Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Lake Okeechobee Service Area Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study Long-Term Limits Lake Okeechobee Water Shortage Management Plan milligrams per liter Multi-Species Transition Plan Modified Water Deliveries N NDA NEPA NESDIS NESRS NEXRAD NGVD NHC NMFS NOA NOAA NOI NPS NRC NSM O P PA PIR PL PM POR ppb ppt PSC PVA Northern Detention Area National Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service Northeast Shark River Slough Next-Generation Radar National Geodetic Vertical Datum National Hurricane Center National Marine Fisheries Service Notice of Availability National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Intent National Park Service Natural Resources Council Natural System Model Programmatic Agreement Project Implementation Report Public Law Performance Measure Period of Record part per billion parts per thousand Periodic Scientists Calls Population Viability Analysis xlv

44 Acronyms Q R RCRA ROD RPA S SA SARA SAV SDA SDCS SHPO SJRWMD SWFWMD SFWMD SFWMM SPF SRS STA T TOC TP TSCA TSP U USACE USEPA USFWS USGS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Record of Decision Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Service Area Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Southern Detention Area South Dade Conveyance System Florida State Historic Preservation Officer St. Johns River Water Management District Southwest Florida Water Management District South Florida Water Management District South Florida Water Management Model Standard Project Flood Shark River Slough Stormwater Treatment Area Technical Oversight Committee Total Phosphorus Toxic Substances Control Act Tentatively Selected Plan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey V W WCA Water Conservation Area WCA-3AVG Water Conservation Area 3-Gauge Average WRDA Water Resources Development Act WSRS Western Shark River Slough WCP Water Control Plan WSE Water Supply and Environment WY Water Year X Y Z xlvi

45 Section 1 Purpose and Need SECTION 1 ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED

46 Section 1 Purpose and Need This page intentionally left blank

47 Section 1 Purpose and Need 1 ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 ACTION AUTHORIZATION A minimum schedule of water deliveries from the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project to Everglades National Park (ENP) was authorized by Congress in 1970 in Public Law (PL) Section 1302 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1984 (PL ), passed in December 1983, authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with the concurrence of the National Park Service (NPS) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), to deviate from the minimum delivery schedule for two years in order to conduct an Experimental Program of water deliveries to improve conditions within ENP. Section 107 of PL amended PL to allow continuation of the Experimental Program until modifications to the C&SF Project, authorized by Section 104 of the ENP Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (PL ), were completed and implemented. PL eventually led to the Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to Everglades National Park Report and project that was authorized by PL in 1989 (USACE 1992). The following stated objectives of the MWD Project were intended to take steps to restore the natural hydrologic conditions within ENP, to the extent practicable, given the identified constraints: i. Timing: Changing the schedule of water deliveries so that it fluctuates in consonance with local meteorological conditions, including providing for long-term and annual variation in ecosystem conditions in the Everglades; ii. Location: Restoring Water Conservation Area (WCA)-3B as a functioning component of the Everglades hydrologic system and restoration of water deliveries to Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS), the center of the historic Shark River Slough (SRS); iii. Volume: Adjusting the magnitude of water discharged to ENP to minimize the effects of too much or too little water. The MWD to ENP General Design Memorandum (GDM) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were published in July The MWD Final EIS includes a discussion of the location, capacity, and environmental impacts for the proposed structural modifications, which included structures S-345A, B and C; S-349A, B and C; S-355A and B; S-334 modification, removal of the L-67 Extension Levee and borrow canal filling; and a levee and canal system for flood mitigation in the developed East Everglades area (also referred to as the 8.5 Square Mile Area [8.5 SMA]). The levee and canal system included two pumping stations, S-356 and S-357. The MWD recommended plan provides a system of water deliveries to ENP across the full width of the historic SRS flow-way. The C-111 South Dade County 1994 Integrated General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and EIS was published in May This report described a conceptual plan for five pump stations and levee-bounded retention/detention areas to be built west of the L-31N Canal, between the 8.5 SMA and the area known as the Frog Pond, to control seepage out of ENP while providing flood mitigation to agricultural lands east of C-111 Canal (C-111). The original and current configuration of these structural features is further discussed in the description of Interim Operational Plan (IOP) Alternative 7R, within the 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS.

48 Section 1 Purpose and Need Test Iteration 7 of the Experimental Program of MWD to ENP (herein referenced as the 1995 Base [95Base]) was initiated in October 1995 (USACE 1995). In February 1999, FWS issued a Final Biological Opinion (BO) under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which concluded that Test 7, Phase I was jeopardizing the continued existence of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) further concluded that ultimate protection for the species would be achieved by implementing the MWD Project (PL ) as quickly as possible. In the opinion of FWS, the FWS Biological Opinion (BO) presented a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to Test 7, Phase I of the Experimental Program that would avoid jeopardizing CSSS during the interim period leading up to completion of the MWD Project. The FWS RPA recommended that certain hydrologic conditions be maintained in the CSSS s breeding habitat. In March 2000, Test 7, Phase I was replaced by the Interim Structural and Operational Plan (ISOP) (USACE 2000). ISOP was designed to meet the conditions of the FWS RPA included in the FWS BO from March 2000 until implementation of IOP in 2002 that further refined water management operations to protect the CSSS. The Record of Decision (ROD) for IOP was signed in July 2002, and IOP was implemented to continue the FWS RPA protective measures for the CSSS. Because of the need to have an operational plan in place prior to the CSSS breeding season, the 2002 IOP EIS and ROD were finalized prior to completion of modeling for Alternative 7R. Pursuant to a March 14, 2006 order by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, USACE supplemented the 2002 IOP EIS with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS. The 2006 IOP BO only covers impacts through November For this reason, in addition to relevant new species information, USACE initiated Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation on the Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP). The consultation resulted in the publication of a BO on November 17, The new BO includes numerous terms and conditions formulated through the consultation process. These terms and conditions relate to the operations of constructed features in a manner which ensures the continued existence of listed species, and in some cases, is designed to enhance species conditions while maintaining the Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project objectives. Figure 1-1 represents a graphical depiction of the historical relevant actions. The purpose of ERTP is to adhere to the ESA consultation process, which defined water management operating criteria for C&SF features and the constructed features of the MWD and C-111 projects until a Combined Operational Plan (COP) is implemented.

49 Section 1 Purpose and Need FIGURE 1-1: EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN HISTORY AND SUMMARY 1-3

50 Section 1 Purpose and Need This page intentionally left blank 1-4

51 Section 1 Purpose and Need 1.2 LOCATION OF ACTION The water management operating criteria relating to ERTP affects an area within the C&SF Project located in south Florida and includes portions of several counties as well as portions of ENP, Big Cypress National Preserve, and adjacent areas (Figure 1-2). ERTP will define water management operating criteria for C&SF features and for the constructed features of the MWD and C-111 projects. The USACE June 1992 MWD GDM defines the project boundary as SRS and that portion of the C&SF Project north of S-331 to include WCA-3. The C-111 Project is situated within the C-111 Basin which includes approximately 100 square miles of mostly agricultural lands in the Homestead/Florida City area. The C-111 Project is adjacent to ENP to the west and discharges to the eastern panhandle of ENP, Florida Bay, Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound. The major project components of the MWD and C-111 Projects are shown in Figure

52 Section 1 Purpose and Need This page intentionally left blank 1-6

53 Section 1 Purpose and Need FIGURE 1-2: EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN ACTION AREA 1-7

54 Section 1 Purpose and Need This page intentionally left blank 1-8

55 Section 1 Purpose and Need 1.3 PURPOSE OF ACTION The ERTP proposed action is a modification of IOP and the water management operating criteria for features of the C&SF Project to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species, while maintaining Congressionally-authorized project purposes. Because some components of the MDW Project are not currently complete and/or operational, as was envisioned in the 2006 IOP BO, ERTP represents a bridge between IOP and COP, which will define water management operations for the completed MWD and C-111 projects. This transitional approach allows USACE to take advantage of the best science available to better balance the competing needs of multiple species, as compared to the singlespecies emphasis embodied in IOP. The purpose of ERTP is also to maintain compliance with the ESA via adoption of the Terms and Conditions of the 2010 FWS ERTP BO. The overall action objective of ERTP is to maximize operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for the snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the CSSS, along with Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project purposes. In order to achieve the ERTP action objective, USACE and FWS, in conjunction with the multi-agency ERTP team, developed performance measures (PMs) and ecological targets (ETs) for each species and their habitat. ERTP PMs are defined as a set of operational rules that identify optimal WCA-3A water stages and recession rates to improve conditions in WCA-3A for the snail kite, wood stork, wading birds and tree islands. In addition, PM-A addresses the nesting window for CSSS-A, as outlined in the 1999 FWS RPA. ERTP ETs are designed to support the intent of the PMs by providing hydroperiod guidelines to help maintain appropriate nesting and foraging habitat. For example, ET-1 specifies a stage at NP-205 of less than 7.0 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) by December 31. Based upon NP-205 recession rate calculations (FWS 2010c), a stage of less than 7.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 on December 31 would enable water levels to reach less than 6.0 feet, NGVD by mid-march (PM-A). Figure 1-2 shows the locations of the gauges specified within the ERTP PMs and ETs Performance Measures Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow A. NP-205 (CSSS-A): Provide a minimum of 60 consecutive days at NP-205 below 6.0 feet, NGVD beginning no later than March Snail Kite/Apple Snail (Note: All stages for WCA-3A are as measured at WCA-3- gauge average [WCA-3AVG] [Sites 63, 64, 65]) B. WCA-3A: For snail kites, strive to reach waters levels between 9.8 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31, and between 8.8 and 9.3 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June

56 Section 1 Purpose and Need C. WCA-3A: For apple snails, strive to reach water levels between 9.7 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31 and between 8.7 and 9.7 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June 1. D. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.05 feet per week from January 1 to June 1 (or onset of the wet season). This equates to a stage difference of approximately 1.0 feet between January and the dry season low. E. WCA-3A (Wet Season Rate of Rise): Manage for a monthly rate of rise less than or equal to 0.25 feet per week to avoid drowning of apple snail egg clusters Wood Stork/Wading Birds F. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.07 feet per week, with an optimal range of 0.06 to 0.07 feet per week, from January 1 to June 1. G. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 25 centimeters) within the Core Foraging Area (CFA, 18.6 mile radius) of any active wood stork colony. H. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 15 centimeters) within the CFA (seven to nine mile radius) of any active white ibis or snowy egret colony Tree Islands (Note: All stages for WCA-3A are as measured at WCA-3AVG [Sites 63, 64, 65]) I. WCA-3A: For tree islands, strive to keep high water peaks less than 10.8 feet, NGVD, not to exceed 10.8 feet, NGVD for more than 60 days per year, and reach water levels less than 10.3 feet, NGVD by December Ecological Targets Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow 1. NP-205 (CSSS-A): Strive to reach a water level of less than or equal to 7.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by December 31 for nesting season water levels to reach 6.0 feet, NGVD by mid-march. 2. CSSS: Strive to maintain a hydroperiod between 90 and 210 days (three to seven months) per year throughout sparrow habitat to maintain marl prairie vegetation Snail Kite 3. WCA-3A (Dry Years): Strive to maintain optimal snail kite foraging habitat by allowing water levels to fall below ground surface level between one in four and one in five years (208 to 260 weeks average flood duration) between May 1 and June 1 to promote regenerations of marsh vegetation. Do not allow water levels below ground surface for more than four to six weeks to minimize adverse effects on apple snail survival. 1-10

57 Section 1 Purpose and Need Background On February 19, 1999, FWS issued a Final BO for the MWD Project, Experimental Water Deliveries Program, and C-111 Project under provisions of the ESA of 1973, as amended. The 1999 FWS BO concluded that continuation of Test 7, Phase I operations would cause adverse modification of CSSS critical habitat and would jeopardize the continued existence of the CSSS. Currently, six such CSSS population clusters are known and are distributed within the southernmost portion of the C&SF Project area within ENP. The operating criteria for Test 7 were defined in a concurrency agreement between USACE, ENP, and SFWMD in October 1995 (refer to Table 2.1 of 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). Test 7 was to be implemented in two phases. Phase I consisted of operating the structures in place at that time until Phase II structures could be completed. The ultimate goal of Test 7 was to improve the timing, volume, and location of water deliveries to ENP to more closely reflect natural pre-development flows. The 1999 FWS BO also concluded that ultimate protection for the CSSS would be achieved by the rapid completion and implementation of the MWD Project. ISOP was designed to take the place of Test 7 until completion and implementation of IOP. IOP would avoid jeopardizing the CSSS during the interim period leading up to full MWD implementation. ERTP will supersede IOP and is expected to regulate operations of the C&SF Project features in the south Dade area until implementation of COP. On November 17, 2006, FWS issued a new IOP BO. The intent and overall effect of the 2006 IOP BO was two-fold: (1) it superseded the original 1999 final BO for the USACE MWD Project, the Experimental Water Deliveries Program, and the C-111 Project, and (2) it also superseded the 2002 amended final IOP BO for protection of the CSSS. In the opinion of FWS, the FWS 1999 BO presented a RPA to the Experimental Program that would avoid jeopardizing the CSSS. The FWS RPA recommends that the following hydrological conditions be met for protection of the CSSS: (1) a minimum of 60 consecutive days of water levels at or below 6.0 feet, NGVD at gauge NP-205 between March 1 and July 15; (2) ensure that 30 percent in 2000, 45 percent in 2001, and 60 percent in 2002 of required regulatory releases crossing Tamiami Trail enter ENP east of the L-67 Extension Levee, or produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS sub-populations C (CSSS-C), E, (CSSS-E), and F (CSSS-F) that meet or exceed those produced by the 30, 45, and 60 percent targets; and (3) produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that equal or exceed conditions that would be produced by implementing the exact provisions of Test 7, Phase II operations (USACE 1995). During implementation of ISOP, USACE received confirmation from FWS that producing the hydrologic equivalent of the 30, 45, and 60 percent conditions, as opposed to the actual release percentages, would also meet the FWS RPA conditions. Alternative 7R, which was implemented, allows USACE to meet the FWS RPA conditions and minimize impacts to other natural and human resources, while managing the system for purposes authorized under the C&SF Project. 1-11

58 Section 1 Purpose and Need 1.4 NEED Ecological Need In early 2009, USACE and FWS identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations. In June 2009, due to endangered species concerns within WCA-3A, and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP BO was set to expire on November 17, 2010, USACE and FWS began informal consultation on ERTP. IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS), based upon the current status of endangered species within WCA-3A Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow The primary objective in implementing IOP was to reduce damaging high water levels within CSSS habitat west of SRS (i.e. CSSS-A). IOP was designed to protect the CSSS to the maximum extent possible through water management operations. The purpose of IOP was to provide an improved opportunity for CSSS nesting by maintaining water levels below ground level for a minimum of 60 consecutive days between March 1 and July 15, corresponding to the CSSS breeding season. In addition, a secondary purpose of IOP was to allow CSSS habitat to recover from prolonged flooding during the mid-1990s. It is recognized in the 1999 FWS BO that there could be times when unseasonable rainfall events could overwhelm the ability of the water management system to provide the necessary dry conditions. Since implementation of IOP, the FWS recommendations for protection of the CSSS in CSSS-A were met in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and Direct rainfall on CSSS-A prevented meeting the RPA requirements for 2003, 2005 and 2007, contributing to the lack of recovery of CSSS-A. As reported from the range-wide survey (Table 1-1) the estimated total CSSS population during IOP has remained between 2,704 bird (2002) and 3,584 birds (2004). CSSS-A population estimates during IOP ranged from a low of 16 (1 bird counted) in 2004 to a high of 128 (8 birds counted) in The population estimates for CSSS-A may be inflated due to the potential inaccuracy of the estimation factor in smaller subpopulations as suggested by recent research (Boulton et al. 2009a). Another factor in lack of recovery is change in vegetative structure resulting from physical damage during the high water events of 1993 through 1995 and a shift in the vegetative community dominants away from previous species. This phenomenon was studied by Michael Ross, Ph.D. and Jay Sah, Ph.D. of Florida International University, along with James Synder of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in a monitoring study funded by USACE (Ross et al. 2003, 2004, 2006; Sah et al. 2007, 2008, 2009). Based upon several years of vegetation studies within CSSS habitat, the researchers concluded that the direction and magnitude of short-term vegetation change within marl prairie is dependent upon the position of the habitat within the landscape. Efforts to regulate the S-12 structures under ISOP and IOP to protect CSSS-A and its habitat west of SRS have resulted in lower water depths during the sparrow breeding season as measured at gauge NP-205. However, the persistence of wetter vegetation within the vicinity of gauge P-34 may have limited the recovery of CSSS-A within this part of its habitat. This suggests water flow from the northwest, resulting in deeper water levels and longer hydroperiods within this portion of CSSS-A habitat. As shown in Table 1-1, 1-12

59 Section 1 Purpose and Need CSSS-A has not recovered under IOP operations, but has remained relatively stable since its implementation. Recent research suggests that sparrow populations are slow to recover, or cannot recover, once they reach very small population sizes due to low adult and juvenile recruitment, many unmated males, biased sex ratios, lower hatch rates and other adverse effects associated with small population size (i.e. the Allee effect) (Boulton et al. 2009a; Virzi et al. 2009). 1-13

60 Section 1 Purpose and Need TABLE 1-1: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW BIRD COUNT AND POPULATION ESTIMATES Population/ Year CSSS-A CSSS-B CSSS-C CSSS-D CSSS-E CSSS-F Total BC EST BC EST BC EST BC EST BC EST BC EST BC EST , , , , , , , , ,224 NS NS NS NS NS NS 151 2, , , , , , , , , a , , b , NS NS , a , , , b , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , NS NS * NS NS * CSSS bird count and population estimates by year as recorded by the Everglades National Park range-wide survey. BC EST NS Bird Count Estimate Not Surveyed * These numbers do not reflect a significant decline in CSSS population. CSSS-B, the largest and most stable subpopulation, was not surveyed in 2008 or Adding the 2007 CSSS-B population estimate of 2,512 birds to those of the other subpopulations, the estimated total CSSS population size is 3,056 and 3,120 birds for 2008 and 2009, respectively. 1-14

61 Section 1 Purpose and Need Everglade Snail Kite The persistence of the snail kite in Florida depends upon maintaining hydrologic conditions that support the specific vegetative communities that compose their habitat, along with sufficient apple snail availability across their range each year (Martin et al. 2008). WCA-3A has been previously identified as the most critical component of snail kite habitat in Florida, in terms of its influence on demography (Mooij et al. 2002; Martin 2007; Martin et al. 2007). A principal concern is the lack of reproduction within this area in recent years. The current regulation schedule, associated with IOP operations, shortens the window of time during which snail kites can breed, and rapid recession rates often result in nest abandonment (Cattau et al. 2008). USACE has funded a program to monitor nesting effort and success of the snail kite in WCA-3 since 1995 with Wiley Kitchens, Ph.D., of USGS and the University of Florida, as principal researcher. The study objectives are to track the numbers and success of snail kite nesting activities in WCA-3A as part of an on-going demographic study of the snail kite over its range and to identify the environmental variables related to successful breeding. USACE is also funding Dr. Kitchens to monitor vegetation responses to altered hydrologic regimes in WCA-3A in areas of traditional snail kite nesting and foraging habitat, in accordance with recommendations in the 2006 IOP BO. The snail kite population in Florida has progressively and dramatically decreased since 1999 (Martin et al. 2006b; Cattau et al. 2008, 2009). The population essentially halved between 2000 and 2002 from approximately 3,400 to 1,700 birds; and halved again between 2006 and 2008 from approximately 1,500 to 1,600 birds in 2006 to approximately 685 birds in The estimated 2009 population size of 662 birds indicates that there is no sign of recovery (Cattau et al. 2009). Each decline has coincided, in part, with a severe regional drought throughout the southern portion of the snail kite s range (Martin et al. 2008; Cattau et al. 2008). Survival of both juveniles and adults rebounded shortly after the 2001 drought, but the number of young produced has not recovered from a sharp decrease that preceded the 2001 drought. Historically, the WCAs, and WCA-3A in particular, have fledged, proportionally, the large majority of young in the region. However, no young were fledged out of WCA-3A in 2001, 2005, 2007, or 2008, and only two young successfully fledged in Nesting activity is summarized in Table 1-2 for the years 1998 through 2009, since the Emergency Deviations to the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule for the protection of the CSSS began in This trend of lowered regional reproduction is a cause of concern regarding the sustainability of the population. A population viability analysis conducted in 2006 predicts very high extinction probabilities within the next 50 years (Martin 2007). Given the 2009 population estimate (i.e. 662 birds), the extinction risk may be even greater than the previous estimate (Cattau et al. 2009). 1-15

62 Section 1 Purpose and Need TABLE 1-2: SUCCESSFUL SNAIL KITE NESTS AND NUMBER OF YOUNG SUCCESSFULLY FLEDGED WITHIN WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A Year Number of Successful Nests Number of Young Successfully Fledged Note: Successful snail kite nests and the number of young successfully fledged within WCA-3A since implementation of water management activities for the protection of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (i.e. Emergency Deviations 1998, 1999; ISOP 2000, 2001; and IOP ). Numbers are as reported by annual surveys conducted by Dr. Kitchens and his research team. Both short-term natural disturbances (e.g. drought) and long-term habitat degradation limit the snail kite s reproductive ability. To date, most concern and interest regarding potential impacts to snail kites have focused on the higher water levels and hydroperiods occurring during IOP, resulting in the conversion of wet prairies to sloughs within WCA-3A (Zweig 2008). The current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule does not mimic the seasonal patterns driven by the natural hydrological cycle, resulting in water depths in WCA-3A that are too high for the period of September through January (Cattau et al. 2008). In addition, Dr. Kitchens and his research team feel that management activities associated with attempting to mitigate potential high water level impacts may well have potentially amplified those detrimental impacts to snail kite nesting and foraging activities. For example, in addition to the negative effect on reproduction, the rapid water level recession rates from the elevated stage schedule between February and July, intended to mitigate the extended hydroperiods and excessive depths between September and December, present extreme foraging difficulties to both juvenile and adult snail kites. In fact, Cattau et al. (2008) demonstrated that the recession rate had significant effects on nest success. Recession rate was defined as the stage difference between that on January 1 and the annual minimum stage divided by the number of days from January 1 to the annual minimum stage (Cattau et al. 2008). As a result of the on-going research, Dr. Kitchens and his research team have identified three major potentially adverse effects associated with the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule: 1) prolonged high water levels in WCA-3A during September through January; 2) prolonged low water levels in WCA-3A during the early spring and summer; and 3) rapid recession rates. In order to address these adverse effects, FWS along with Dr. Kitchens, Phil Darby, Ph.D. of the University of West Florida, and Christa Zweig, Ph.D. of the University of Florida, developed a series of water depth recommendations for WCA-3A that addresses the needs of the snail kite, 1-16

63 Section 1 Purpose and Need apple snail and vegetation characteristic of their habitat (Figure 1-3). This water management strategy is divided into three time periods representing the height of the wet season (September 15 to October 15), the pre-breeding season (January) and the breeding season (termed dry season low, May 1 to June 1) and illustrates appropriate water depths to attain within each time period. Water depth recommendations, as measured at the WCA-3AVG proposed within the FWS water management transition strategy, form the basis for ERTP. These recommendations and their proposed intent are included in their entirety in Appendix E. Please note that these water depths are not targets and represent a compromise between the needs of the three species. Interannual variability is extremely important in the management of the system to promote recovery of the species. The recommendations within the FWS Multi-Species Transition Strategy (MSTS) form the basis for ERTP PMs and ETs. The inclusion of these recommendations into ERTP represents a significant improvement over IOP operations. Note: Please refer to Appendix F for a full description of this strategy. FIGURE 1-3: U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE MULTI-SPECIES TRANSITION STRATEGY FOR WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A 1-17

64 Section 1 Purpose and Need Wood Stork The original Everglades ecosystem, including the WCAs, provided abundant primary and secondary wading bird production during the summer and fall months (Holling et al. 1994). This productivity was concentrated during the dry season when water levels receded. The concentrations of food provided ideal foraging habitat for numerous wetlands species, especially large flocks of wading birds (Bancroft 1989; Ogden 1994). However, the hydrology of the Everglades ecosystem, including WCA-3A, has been severely altered by extensive drainage and the construction of canals and levees (Abbott and Nath 1996). The resulting system is not only spatially smaller, but also drier than historical levels (Walters et al. 1992). Breeding populations of wading birds have responded negatively to the altered hydrology (Ogden 1994; Kushlan and Fohring 1986; Bancroft 1989). Within WCA-3A, IOP was expected to result in continued high water levels during the wet season and early dry season, followed by a rapid spring recession and rapidly increasing stages in the early wet season. These effects would result in relatively high abundance of wood stork prey because of high stages and long hydroperiods, and this prey would become available to wood storks at a rapid rate in the late dry season. Because the IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule resulted in an increased rate of recession beginning on February 1, availability of prey to wood storks early in their nesting season prior to February 1 would be limited in WCA-3A. The expected effect of this condition would be later initiation of nesting or reduced rates of nest initiation in those colonies closely associated with WCA-3A (i.e. L-28 Crossover, Jetport, and others) (2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). Within the vicinity of western ENP and lower SRS, IOP was expected to result in early recession rates within the short-hydroperiod marshes south of Tamiami Trail due to the closures of the S- 12 and S-343 structures. This tended to result in early initiation of nesting within these areas, but the limited water deliveries into SRS in the dry season may have resulted in reduced amounts of potential foraging habitat for colonies closely associated with this region, especially during dry years (2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). On November 17, 2006, FWS issued a BO evaluating the past, current, and projected future impacts to the wood stork due to continued operation of IOP. In their 2006 BO, the FWS concluded: Impacts to wood stork foraging and nesting are likely to occur under IOP resulting from reductions in foraging habitat suitability and potential increased risk of depredation within some stork colonies. These effects are not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Wood stork nesting success has been variable throughout IOP operations (Table 1-3) and in several instances may be attributed to reversals that occurred as a result of heavy rainfall events. 1-18

65 Section 1 Purpose and Need TABLE 1-3: NUMBER OF WOOD STORK NESTS FROM 2002 THROUGH 2009 Colony Name Tamiami East Tamiami East Tamiami West (NESRS) * , * 400* 242 2B Melaleuca n/a n/a Crossover (WCA-3A) 76* * Jetport (WCA-3A) 550* n/a 0 n/a 1,167 Mud East (WCA-3B) Jetport South (WCA-3A) n/a n/a 29 0 n/a 0 n/a 238 Loxahatchee n/a n/a n/a 21 Total (Action Area) 2,416 1, ,811 Note: Number of wood stork nests from 2002 through 2009 in the IOP/ERTP Action Area as reported by Dr. Peter Frederick and Ross Tsai, Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Florida and the South Florida Wading Bird Reports Source: SFWMD * Some nests successfully fledged young; where a range was reported, the average was used to calculate the total number of nests. n/a = data not available Interim Water Management Criteria for Water Conservation Area 3A Zone A In July 2010, due to stakeholder concerns, the USACE Water Resources Engineering Branch (EN-W) conducted a review of the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 33 GDM for Conservation Area No. 3 (June 1960) and the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 49: Agricultural and Conservation Areas General and Detail Design Memorandum (DDM) (August 1972). Based upon the results of their review, USACE concluded that a rigorous evaluation of the Standard Project Flood (SPF) conditions within WCA-3A should be conducted to consider changed operational parameters as compared to the original design assumptions (USACE 2010, Appendix A-5). EN-W proposed a two-phase analysis approach that included the identification and assessment of interim water management criteria for WCA-3A, including operational changes proposed under ERTP, and a future WCA-3A flood routing hydraulic analysis. The Phase 1 analysis of WCA- 3A high water events indicates that, based on current system conditions as simulated in the water budget spreadsheet, the current peak SPF stage is greater than the peak stage specified in the design documentation for WCA-3A (C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I, Supplement 33). The analysis also illustrates, through the use of current USGS rating curves for the S-12 spillways, that the peak SPF stage is increased over the original design due to a reduction in outlet capacity from WCA-3A through the S-12s. Due to the simplistic nature (i.e., volumetric and not hydraulic routing) of the Phase 1 analysis, the level of flood protection afforded by WCA-3A was not completely addressed during this initial assessment; additional analyses, as identified for inclusion under Phase 2, are required to investigate and specify the level of protection afforded by the WCA-3A water management regime and levee configuration. 1-19

66 Section 1 Purpose and Need Phase 1 of the analysis identified the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Regulation Schedule as a required component for the interim water management criteria for WCA-3A Zone A under ERTP, necessary to mitigate for the observed effects of discharge limitations of the S-12 spillways. Zone A is the top zone of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and, when water levels are within Zone A, releases from WCA-3A are to be made up to maximum practicable given operational constraints. This represents a return to pre-experimental Program stage levels for Zone A. Phase 1 of the analysis also recommended further consideration of additional opportunities to reduce the duration and frequency of WCA-3A high water events. The original C&SF design documents for WCA-3A specified a regulation schedule varying between 9.5 and 10.5 feet, NGVD to maintain optimum water levels for management of marsh vegetation within the conservation area, based on information available during the design efforts (1960). The intent is to maintain marsh vegetation that would mitigate against hurricane induced wave action within WCA-3A and thus allow for the bounding levees to be of reduced height. The analysis of marsh vegetative cover and its effects on hurricane induced wind tide and wave run-up will be fully addressed in Phase 2. The ability to contain flood flows during hurricane season will be improved with the lowering of Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, as additional storage capacity will be available. The current IOP Regulation Schedule for WCA-3A has a seasonally varying stage of between to 10 feet, NGVD in Zone A, while the proposed schedule under ERTP has a seasonally varying stage of between 10.5 to 9.5 feet, NGVD in Zone A. Thus, the lowering of Zone A allows for an additional 0.25 to 0.50 feet of storage capacity within the conservation area, at all times of the year. Further study is necessary to address the public health and safety aspects associated with WCA-3A and its bounding levees. The Phase 1 analysis was limited to a simplified hydrology and hydraulics assessment, while Phase 2 will include a more robust hydrology and hydraulics assessment and additional engineering analysis of the structural and geotechnical design aspects for WCA-3A. The Phase 2 analysis, currently in the initial scoping phase, is projected to include SPF flood routing for each of the WCAs that addresses system changes that have occurred since the original C&SF design. The Phase 2 analysis will incorporate current system regulation schedules for the WCAs and Lake Okeechobee, as well as changes in local flow regime due to additions of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) and other features affecting C&SF Project conditions. This assessment is expected to identify proposed water management operating criteria and potential infrastructure modifications to address identified concerns. Results from Phase 2 will be incorporated into future phases of ERTP and/or COP, as appropriate. Upon completion of the SPF routing, additional engineering analysis, incorporating current USACE guidelines for risk analysis requirements will be performed to analyze levee stability and safety issues. 1.5 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS A number of actions relevant to the action currently proposed have been implemented since the 1983 Experimental Program was authorized (Figure 1-1). Table 1-4 identifies significant milestones preceding ERTP. Some of the key environmental documents relevant to the proposed 1-20

67 Section 1 Purpose and Need action are the 1995 Test 7 Summary, the 2001 Final ISOP Environmental Assessment (EA), the 2000 Final 8.5 SMA Supplemental EIS, the 2002 IOP EIS and the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS. The USACE is currently utilizing water management operating criteria contained within the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS. A critical component to implementing the actions recommended in the FWS BO is the protection of the 8.5 SMA, a residential area located to the east of NESRS and west of L-31N. A Final Supplemental EIS was prepared and coordinated in August 2000 for implementation of a perimeter levee, an internal canal/levee system, a pump station (S-357), a detention cell/ STA, as well as the acquisition of lands adjacent to ENP and west of the perimeter levee. The ROD for the 8.5 SMA Supplemental EIS was signed on December 6, After legislative reconsideration and re-authorization of Alternative 6 for the 8.5 SMA in 2003, a second ROD identifying Alternative 6 as the selected plan was signed in Construction of the 8.5 SMA flood mitigation features is largely complete. Remaining activities include exotic plant control, finalizing water management operating criteria, transferring lands from USACE to NPS, and transferring lands and features from USACE to SFWMD. As part of the interagency agreement that accompanied approval of Test Iteration 7 of the Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to ENP, USACE participated in a monitoring program to determine the ecological and hydrologic benefits of the program. The monitoring program evaluated changes in hydrologic conditions beginning in November 1995 through May In addition, ecological factors that included freshwater fish and macroinvertebrates, mangrove resident fish, wading birds, CSSS, and American crocodile were monitored to determine the effects of the Test Iteration 7 Experimental Program on natural resources in the ENP. After a December 17, 1999 emergency meeting of the SFWMD Governing Board was held, USACE presented ISOP, which was prepared to modify hydrologic conditions in ENP to avoid jeopardizing the CSSS. In a letter to USACE dated January 20, 2000, SFWMD stated: The ISOP explicitly represents a departure from Test Iteration 7 of the Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park operating criteria: consequently, the three-party concurrency agreement established for Test Iteration 7 cannot adequately facilitate implementation of the ISOP. At that point, Test Iteration 7 of the Experimental Program was replaced by ISOP. An EA was prepared for ISOP 2000, which provided a plan for operations to meet the requirements of the BO during ISOP 2001 provided for operations of water deliveries to ENP until it was replaced in August

68 Section 1 Purpose and Need TABLE 1-4: SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES PRECEDING EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN Date Action 1983 Authorization of the Experimental Program 1989 ENP Protection and Expansion Act of Draft GDM on MWD 1990 BO on MWD 1992 Final GDM on MWD 1993 BO and EA for Test 6 of the Experimental Program - Taylor Slough Iteration 1994 C-111 GRR 1995 Implement Test 6 of the Experimental Program 1995 Extension of Test EA for Test 7 of the Experimental Program 1995 Implement Test 7, Phase I of the Experimental Program 1995 Initiate Test 7 Hydrologic and Ecological Monitoring 1997 FWS Request USACE to Reinitiate Section 7 Consultation 1998 Implement 1998 Emergency Deviation from Test 7, Phase I 1999 BO on the Experimental Program, MWD, and C-111 Project 1999 Implement Emergency Deviation from Test 7, Phase I 2000 Implement ISOP 2000 Emergency Deviation SMA Plan GRR, Final Supplemental EIS and ROD 2001 Completion of Test 7 Hydrologic and Ecological Monitoring Report 2001 Implementation of ISOP 2001 Emergency Deviation 2001 Draft EIS for IOP for Protection of CSSS 2001 Supplemental Draft for IOP for Protection of CSSS 2002 Amended BO on IOP 2002 Final EIS for IOP for Protection of CSSS 2002 ROD for IOP for Protection of CSSS SMA Plan 2nd ROD for Alternative 6D 2005 Final Revised GRR and Supplemental EIS for Tamiami Trail Modifications 2006 ROD for Tamiami Trail Modifications 2006 Draft Supplemental EIS for IOP for Protection of CSSS 2006 New BO on IOP 2006 Final Supplemental EIS for IOP for Protection of CSSS 2007 Design Modifications for the Canal-111 Project EA and Engineering Documentation Report (EDR) 2007 Critical Habitat Revised Designations for the CSSS 1-22

69 Section 1 Purpose and Need Date Action 2008 Tamiami Trail Modifications Limited Reevaluation Report/EA/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) SMA S-357 Water Control Plan Draft EA 2009 Canal-111 Spreader Canal Project Implementation Report (PIR) 2009 Canal-111 Spreader Canal BO 2009 USACE Initiates Consultation on ERTP 2010 ERTP Biological Assessment (BA) and BO A Draft EIS for IOP for the protection of the CSSS was issued by USACE in February 2001; six alternatives were assessed under IOP. Due to the number of issues that were still unresolved after public coordination of the Draft EIS, USACE was directed by the President s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to work collaboratively with the various agencies to formulate a consensus plan that would meet the BO requirements while satisfying other authorized C&SF Project purposes. At the suggestion of the CEQ, USACE engaged the services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (IECR) to facilitate the development of an improved plan to address FWS concerns. A number of facilitated meetings and teleconferences were held between FWS, ENP, and SFWMD from May through August 2001 to resolve issues regarding IOP. As a result of this process, an additional alternative (Alternative 7) was developed for review under the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) process, and a Supplemental Draft EIS was issued in October During the review process, and based on letters from various stakeholders, it was decided to further develop Alternative 7 to provide additional flood control capacity because it appeared that Alternative 7 might result in an increased risk of flooding in agricultural areas located east of the L-31 Levee in comparison to present conditions. USACE, in consultation with FWS, ENP, and SFWMD, determined that construction of certain previously authorized components of MWD (S-356 pump station, removal of L-67 Extension Levee) and C-111 projects (S-332B North Seepage Reservoir; S-332B to S-332D Seepage Reservoir; S-332B West Seepage Reservoir; S-332C Seepage Reservoir; S-332B/C Partial Connector; and Frog Pond Seepage Reservoir) would provide flexibility to the system operations to maintain current flood protection capacity. Although modeling results for a modified Alternative 7 were not complete, the preferred alternative evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS, Alternative 7, was adjusted to utilize these components. The modified alternative, Alternative 7R, was identified as the recommended plan in the Final EIS. A ROD was signed in July 2002 selecting Alternative 7R as IOP, which was implemented in August After Alternative 7R was selected in 2002, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (further referred to as Miccosukee) filed a lawsuit challenging the USACE decision to implement IOP, alleging violations of NEPA, ESA, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Fifth Amendment, Federal common law (nuisance), the Indian Trust Doctrine, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and also alleging improper delegation of agency authority. Among other objections, the Miccosukee noted that no model runs for Alternative 7R were available at the time Alternative 7R was recommended in the Final EIS, or at the time the ROD was signed. 1-23

70 Section 1 Purpose and Need The Miccosukee also objected to incorporation of elements of the C-111 and MWD projects without a full description of these structural elements as constructed and the impacts of their construction. The Court ruled in favor of USACE on the ESA, APA, and FACA claims, but against USACE with regard to NEPA. While the court did not enjoin USACE from implementing Alternative 7R, it did order USACE to supplement the NEPA analysis of Alternative 7R by May 15, 2006, but granted an extension until September 18, and subsequently, December 22, A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS for IOP was published in the Federal Register (71 Fed. Reg , May 5, 2006). A Scoping Letter was issued to various stakeholders and interested parties on May 10, 2006 and comments were received through June 10, A Draft Supplemental EIS was prepared, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register (71, Fed. Reg , July 3, 2006). The Draft Supplemental EIS was distributed to the public and comments were received until August 17, USACE re-initiated formal consultation with FWS regarding the CSSS, Everglade snail kite, and wood stork on July 10, 2006, and FWS issued a BO on November 17, It was intended for IOP to be continued until the completion of the MWD Project; however, authorized MWD Project components have not been fully completed and the 2006 IOP BO only covers impacts through November For these reasons, in addition to relevant new species information, USACE initiated consultation with FWS on ERTP, Phase 1. On June 30, 2009, USACE ERTP team members met with FWS to discuss the effects of IOP from 2002 to 2009 on threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat and develop a scope for ERTP. USACE and FWS, along with members from ENP, SFWMD and the Miccosukee conducted weekly or bi-weekly meetings from July 2009 through April 2010 to review empirical hydrological, meteorological and ecological data from IOP operations, in order to define an array of water management actions to improve conditions for the Everglade snail kite and wood stork, while maintaining the 1999 FWS RPA for CSSS. In addition, monthly meetings (September 2009 through January 2010) were held with other Governmental agencies, including the FWC, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). After January 2010, these agencies were invited to participate in all ERTP team meetings. After April 2010, USACE continued to consult with FWS on proposed ERTP operations through October Based upon the interim water management criteria identified for WCA-3A, as previously discussed in Section 1.4.2, and consideration of endangered species within WCA-3A and the current status of these endangered species within WCA-3A, IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the SDCS. The ERTP tentatively selected plan (TSP) is a modification of IOP and the operations of the IOP structures and impoundments in the C&SF Project under the 2006 IOP Alternative 7R plan, with operational flexibilities to provide further hydrological improvements consistent with protection of multiple listed species. ERTP represents a bridge between IOP and COP. This transitional approach allows USACE to take advantage of the best science available, and to better balance the competing needs of multiple species, as compared to the single-species emphasis embodied in IOP. USACE delivered a BA for ERTP to FWS on October 15,

71 Section 1 Purpose and Need 1.6 DECISIONS TO BE MADE USACE is considering alternatives to implement as the ERTP proposed water management operating criteria in order to be in compliance with the ESA via adoption of the Terms and Conditions of the 2010 FWS ERTP BO. 1-25

72 Section 1 Purpose and Need This page intentionally left blank

73 Section 2 Alternatives SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES 2-i

74 Section 2 Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-ii

75 Section 2 Alternatives 2 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) alternatives formulation process may best be described by dividing the project into Chapters (Figure 2-1), corresponding to the evolution of the team s analysis and progress. Chapter 1 alternatives were formulated between August 2009 and June 2010 with participation of a multi-agency team comprised of members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Everglades National Park (ENP), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Miccosukee Tribe of Indians (Miccosukee), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM). Formulation of Chapter 1 alternatives resulted from an extensive review of observed hydro-meteorological and species data and lessons learned during the time period between 1998 and 2009, corresponding to the 1998 and 1999 Emergency Deviations, 2000 and 2001 Interim Structural and Operational Plan (ISOP) and the 2002 and 2006 Interim Operational Plan (IOP). This review is contained within Appendix B of the ERTP Biological Assessment (BA) (Appendix E of this document). During this time, FWS also consulted with species experts to develop and refine a Multi-Species Transition Strategy (MSTS) for Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A; Figure 1-3). The ERTP team used this MSTS to develop a series of Performance Measures (PMs) and Ecological Targets (ETs) for ERTP (Table 2-1). 2-1

76 Section 2 Alternatives TABLE 2-1: EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND ECOLOGICAL TARGETS Performance Measures Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow A. NP-205 (Cape Sable seaside sparrow sub-population A [CSSS-A]): Provide a minimum of 60 consecutive days at NP-205 below 6.0 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) beginning no later than March 15. Everglade Snail Kite B. WCA-3A: For snail kites, strive to reach waters levels between 9.8 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31, and between 8.8 and 9.3 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June 1. C. WCA-3A: For apple snails, strive to reach water levels between 9.7 and 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31 and between 8.7 and 9.7 feet, NGVD between May 1 and June 1. D. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.05 feet per week from January 1 to June 1 (or onset of the wet season). This equates to a stage difference of approximately 1.0 feet between January and the dry season low. E. WCA-3A (Wet Season Rate of Rise): Manage for a monthly rate of rise less than or equal to 0.25 feet per week to avoid drowning of apple snail egg clusters. Wood Stork/Wading Birds F. WCA-3A (Dry Season Recession Rate): Strive to maintain a recession rate of 0.07 feet per week, with an optimal range of 0.06 to 0.07 feet per week, from January 1 to June 1. G. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 25 centimeters) within the Core Foraging Area (18.6 mile radius, CFA) of any active wood stork colony. H. WCA-3A (Dry Season): Strive to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (5 to 15 centimeters) within the Core Foraging Area (seven to nine mile radius) of any active white ibis or snowy egret colony. Tree Islands I. WCA-3A: For tree islands, strive to keep high water peaks less than 10.8 feet, NGVD, not to exceed 10.8 feet, NGVD for more than 60 days per year, and reach water levels less than 10.3 feet, NGVD by December 31. Ecological Targets Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow 1. NP-205 (CSSS-A): Strive to reach a water level of less than or equal to 7.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by December 31 for nesting season water levels to reach 6.0 feet, NGVD by mid- March. 2. CSSS: Strive to maintain a hydroperiod between 90 and 210 days (three to seven months) per year throughout sparrow habitat to maintain marl prairie vegetation. Everglade Snail Kite 3. WCA-3A (Dry Years): Strive to maintain optimal snail kite foraging habitat by allowing water levels to fall below ground surface level between one in four and one in five years (208 to 260 weeks average flood duration) between May 1 and June 1 to promote regenerations of marsh vegetation. Do not allow water levels below ground surface for more than four to six weeks to minimize adverse effects on apple snail survival. Note: Refer to Figure 1-2 for gauge locations. 2-2

77 Section 2 Alternatives At this time, USACE also reviewed and identified potential operational flexibility within the current constraints of the Central and Southern (C&SF) Project that could be used to meet the ERTP objectives of improving conditions for the Everglade snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in WCA-3A, while maintaining nesting season requirements of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS). As a result of this coordinated effort, the following agreements were reached: 1) no closure criteria for S-12C with inclusion of stoppers in the Shark Valley Tram Road; 2) marsh operations would be considered; 3) Periodic Scientists Calls (PSC) were integral to implementation; and 4) ERTP PMs and ETs, based upon the FWS MSTS, serve as operational guidance. Three Chapter 1 Alternatives were presented: Alternative A, IOP, was the No Action alternative; Alternative B represented the coordinated multi-agency team-proposed operational plan and Alternative C was intended to represent a Department of the Interior (DOI) proposed alternative. As previously discussed in Section 1.4.2, in July 2010, USACE Water Resources Engineering Branch (EN-W) conducted a review of the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 33 General Design Memorandum (GDM) for Conservation Area No. 3 (June 1960) and the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 49: Agricultural and Conservation Areas General and Detailed Design Memorandum (August 1972). Based upon the results of their review, USACE identified the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Regulation Schedule as a required component of the interim water management criteria for WCA-3A Zone A under ERTP. This represents a return to pre-experimental Program stage levels for Zone A. As such, the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule utilized under IOP needed to be modified to reflect the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A. Concurrent with the EN-W review, Chapter 2 alternatives were developed independently of the ERTP process to address a lowered WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and were simulated using the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM). These alternatives employed a WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in which all of the zones (Zone A through E) were lowered. In order to evaluate whether Chapter 2 alternatives were consistent with ERTP objectives, an ecological analysis of the SFWMM results was then performed for consistency with ERTP PMs. Although the results were positive for reducing high water levels in WCA-3A, there was also an increase in frequency and duration of dry events resulting in undesirable ecological effects in northern WCA-3A. As a result, Chapter 3 alternatives were formulated using SFWMM to incorporate both the interim high water management criteria and ERTP PMs and ETs. The final array of alternatives is detailed in the following section. 2-3

78 Section 2 Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-4

79 Section 2 Alternatives FIGURE 2-1: EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION PROCESS 2-5

80 Section 2 Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-6

81 Section 2 Alternatives 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Chapter 1 Alternatives Chapter 1 Alternatives are outlined in Table 2-2. Alternative B includes greater flexibility for water management as compared with IOP and Alternative C. Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 illustrate Chapter 1 WCA-3A Regulation Schedules for Alternative A (No Action IOP), Alternative B and Alternative C, respectively. TABLE 2-2: COMPARISON OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN CHAPTER 1 ALTERNATIVES Structure/ Component S-343 A/B and S-344 Alternative A (No Action): IOP Closed November 1 through July 14 independent of WCA-3A water levels. Alternative B Year-round: When WCA-3A is in Zone A of the Regulation Schedule and NP-205 exceeds 6.6 feet, NGVD, S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 maximum releases. If WCA-3A is not in Zone A and/or NP-205 is below 6.6 feet, NGVD, S-343A, S- 343B, and S-344 release up to maximum if ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report concurs. January 1 through End of Dry Season: S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 are closed unless ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report identifies desired NP-205 (or other gauge) rehydration rate (rate of rise) allowing S-343A, B, and S-344 up to maximum release. Start of Wet Season through End of Hurricane Season: when NP-205 exceeds 6.6 feet, NGVD and ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report concurs with use of S-343A, B, and S-344 release up to maximum releases otherwise S- 343A, B, and S-344 are closed. Alternative C Consistent with IOP. Closed from November 1 through July 14, independent of WCA-3A water levels. S-12 A/B/C/D S-12A closed from November 1 through July 14; Month of December: When WCA- 3A is above Zone E S-343A, B, and S-344 up to maximum releases otherwise S-343A, B, and S-344 are closed. S-12A March 1 through May 31: When NP-205 is below 6.6 feet, NGVD, S-12A up to 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) release when S-12A no change from IOP; S-12B no change from IOP; S-12C no closure dates; S-12D no closure dates. 2-7

82 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/ Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP S-12B closed from January 1 through July 14; S-12C closed from February 1 through July 14; S-12D no closure dates. Follow WCA-3A Regulation Schedule after July 14. Alternative B Rainfall Plan results in S-12 target flows. Otherwise, S-12A closed from March 1 through May 31 until NP-205 reaches 6.6 feet, NGVD and confirmed start of the wet season and ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report concurs. S-12A Year-round: When Rainfall Plan results in S-12 target flows, S- 12A up to 100 cfs release. Alternative C WCA-3A discharges to be implemented by utilization of most eastern structure (S- 12D) first then utilization of additional structures from east to west as available and as needed to discharge regulation schedule (Zone A) and Rainfall Plan target flows. Note: If closure requires regulatory releases to South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS), switch to operations for regulatory releases to SDCS. S-12A/B Year-round: When WCA- 3A is in Zone A of the regulation schedule and NP-205 exceeds 6.6 feet, NGVD, S-12A, S-12B, maximum releases. If WCA-3A is not in Zone A and/or NP-205 is below 6.6 feet, NGVD, S-12A and/or S-12B release up to WCA 3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target) if ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report concurs. Block Tram Road culverts with best technology available and monitor effectiveness of flow blockage. Blockage must be installed for S-12C operation during breeding season. S-12C/D Year-round: S-12C and/or S-12D release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target). S-12A/B January 1 through End of Dry Season: S-12A and S-12B are closed unless ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report identifies desired NP-205 (or other gauge) rehydration rate (rate of rise) allowing S-12A and/or S-12B release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target). S-12A/B Start of Wet Season through End of Hurricane Season: When NP-205 exceeds 6.6 feet, NGVD and ENP/FWS CSSS-A Habitat Nesting Conditions Report concurs with use of S-12A and/or S- 12B, S-12A and/or S-12B release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target) otherwise S-12A and S-12B are closed. S-12A/B Month of December: 2-8

83 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/ Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP Alternative B When WCA-3A is above Zone E, S- 12A and/or S-12B release up to WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Zone A maximum) or Rainfall Plan (target) otherwise S-12A and S-12B are closed. Alternative C Rainfall Plan S-12s Flow Distribution: S-12s flow distributions would not be limited to the historical percentage distribution of flow from the S-12s (10 percent at S-12A, 20 percent at S-12B, 30 percent at S-12C, 40 percent at S-12D) Consistent with IOP except for the following: S-12s and/or S-333 release up to projected WCA-3A inflow based upon system water management operations and/or rainfall to create storage in WCA-3A for expected inflow. S-12s/S-333 pre-emptive releases Consistent with IOP. WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Eastern ENP Marsh Operations Note that normal operations would be targeted to achieve march restoration. Marsh operations under IOP did not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing Utilize Modified Rainfall Plan to gather comparison and historical information. Zone D extended forward to December 31; and Zone E1 extended backwards to January 01. When in Zone E1, Make up to maximum practicable releases at S- 12C, S-12D, S-142, S-151, S-31, S- 337, S-335, S-333, S- 355 A/B, and S-334 when permitted by downstream and upstream conditions. S-12s, S-333, S-151, S- 343A and B, and S-344 subject to conditions below, otherwise, S-12s discharge 45 percent of the computed flow for SRS. Revert to Zone E rules if the FWS has determined that nesting for the CSSS-A has ended, or if the headwater at S-333 falls below 8.25 feet, NGVD. If depth of water in Southern Detention Area (SDA) reaches 2.0 feet, stop S-332B/C/D pumping into SDA. If depth of water in S-332B North Reservoir reaches 2.0 feet, NGVD stop S-332B pumping into S- 332B North Reservoir. However if S-176 is anticipated to open or is open, no depth restriction in SDA or Zone E1 extended to include 0.5 feet below the bottom of Zone C from November 1 through January 31. When in Zone E1, make up to maximum practicable releases at S-12C, S-12D, S- 142, S-151, S-31, S-337, S- 335, S-333, S- 355 A/B, and S-334 when permitted by downstream and upstream conditions. If the headwater at S-333 falls below 8.25 feet, NGVD, use Zone E Rules. Same depth restrictions as Alternative B. Operational Guidance Annex B contains additional details on Eastern ENP Marsh Operations. Utilizes new gauge adjacent 2-9

84 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/ Component S-346 (L-67 Ext flows) S-332D/S- 332DX1 Alternative A (No Action): IOP water in from outside the drainage basin. The 2002 IOP Final Supplemental EIS recognized that marsh operation would be phased in over a period of years. Not included in 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS S-332: Pumped up to 500 cfs from July 15 (or the end of the breeding season, as confirmed by FWS) to November 31; 325 cfs from December 1 to January 31; and 165 cfs* from February 1 through July 14. Meet Taylor Slough rainfall formula consistent with marsh restoration (No L- 31W constraint). Alternative B S-332B North Reservoir and S- 332B/C/D may pump into SDA and S-332B North Reservoir. Operational Guidance Annex B contains additional details on Eastern ENP Marsh Operations. Utilizes gauges MRSHOP B1, RG2; MRSHOP C1, MARSHOP C2 which are approximately 1.4 to 1.6 miles apart, starting 0.6 miles west of SDA. Gradient that would result in discontinuation of pumping ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 feet per mile on a seasonal basis. Open if S-12D is open. S-332DX1 open when S-332D is on to ensure no more than 325 cfs sent to CSSS-C from December 1 through January 31 and no more than 165 cfs sent to CSSS-C subpopulation from February 1 through July 14. From July 15 (or based upon ENP/FWS CSSS-C Habitat Nesting Conditions Report) through November 30 pump up to 500 cfs. Alternative C to SDA at B Transect, MRSHOP B1; RUTZKE, MARSHOP C1 which are approximately 0.6 miles apart, starting adjacent to the SDA at the B and C Transects. Gradient that would result in discontinuation of pumping is 0.01 feet per mile. Same as Alternative B Consistent with IOP except pump up to 250 cfs from December 1 through January 31. No requirement for use of S-332DX1. *New information will be sought to reevaluate the feasibility of modifying the 165 cfs constraint. Note: Only proposed changes to IOP are included. Refer to 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS Table ES-1 for a full description of IOP Operations. 2-10

85 Section 2 Alternatives Zone A Zone A Zone E FIGURE 2-2: INTERIM OPERATIONAL PLAN WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE FOR CHAPTER 1, ALTERNATIVE A (TWO-YEAR GRAPH) 2-11

86 Section 2 Alternatives FIGURE 2-3: WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE FOR CHAPTER 1, ALTERNATIVE B FIGURE 2-4: WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE FOR CHAPTER 1, ALTERNATIVE C 2-12

87 Section 2 Alternatives Chapter 2 Alternatives Chapter 2 Alternatives resulted from a USACE SFWMM modeling investigation designed to assess the capability to significantly lower stages in WCA-3A without impacting CSSS-A, while also improving or mitigating other parts of the system and maintaining Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project purposes. These alternatives were developed independently of both the ERTP planning process and EN-W Phase 1 analysis of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Table 2-3 includes a comparison of Chapter 2 Alternatives. Since this SFWMM modeling investigation was initiated external to the ERTP process, the modeling effort did not include specific alternative formulation based on ERTP PMs and ETs, utilization of information gained from the ERTP assessment of Chapter 1 alternatives, or coordination between the ERTP multi-agency team. Following completion of the initial SFWMM modeling investigation, the SFWMM simulations were analyzed for compatibility with ERTP objectives, PMs and ETs. The USACE review revealed that although there were some promising aspects of the alternatives, there were adverse impacts associated with increased dry events within WCA-3A and associated impacts on wildlife, water supply and water quality. Due to the negative ecological impacts, Alternative 5b1 was eliminated from further analysis. Alternative 7 was modified to address FWS concerns with the S-12A and S-12B structures and became a Chapter 3 Alternative (Alternative 7AB). 2-13

88 Section 2 Alternatives TABLE 2-2: COMPARISON OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Structure/Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP S-343 A/B and S-344 Closed November 1 through July 14 independent of WCA- 3A water levels. S-12 A/B/C/D S-12A closed from November 1 through July 14; S-12B closed from January 1 through July 14; S-12C closed from February 1 through July 14; S-12D no closure dates. WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Follow WCA-3A Regulation Schedule after July 14. Note: If closure requires regulatory releases to SDCS, switch to operations for regulatory releases to SDCS. IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Alternative 5b1 Alternative 7 No change from IOP. S-12A: closed from November 1 through July 14 for low and medium flows (Zones B C, D); open all year for flood flows (Zone A) S-12B: closed from November 1 through July 14 for low and medium flows (Zones B C, D); open all year for flood flows (Zone A) S-12C: No closure dates; S-12D: No change from IOP. After July 14: No change from IOP. Alternative 7 Regulation Schedule All Zones lowered: Zone A lowered to 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD; Zone B lowered to to 9.25 feet, NGVD; Zone C lowered to 10.0 to 9.0 feet, NGVD; Zone E1 eliminated; Zone E no change from IOP. Zones A, B, C and E consistent with IOP; Zone D rainfall formula releases at S-333 and capability for IOP releases to South Dade No change from IOP. S-12A closed from November 1 through July 14 for low and medium flows (Zones B C, D); open all year for flood flows (Zone A) S-12B closed from November 1 through July 14 for low and medium flows (Zones B C, D); open all year for flood flows (Zone A) S-12C: No closure dates; S-12D: No change from IOP. After July 14: No change from IOP. Same as Alternative 5b

89 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP S-151 Regulatory releases in Zones A, B, C, E1 during Column 2 operations. Rainfall Plan Target Flows (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Rainfall Plan flow targets into Shark River Slough (SRS) during the wet and dry seasons, for regulatory and non-regulatory flows target components: 55 percent to the east (S-333); 45 percent to west (S-12s). WCA-3A regulatory coefficient of 2,500 cfs per foot above the base of the lowest regulatory zone during January through December. Alternative 5b1 Alternative 7 Regulatory Release in Zones A and B during Column 2 operations. (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Rainfall Plan flow targets: No change from IOP. WCA-3A regulatory coefficient increased from 2,500 cfs per foot to 5,000 cfs per foot above the base of the lowest regulatory zone (Zone C) during July through December. Regulatory Release in Zones A, B, C during Column 2 operations. (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Increased S-333 flow targets into Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS) during the dry season (November 1 through June 1) for non-regulatory flows (rainfall plan target flows): 80 percent to the east (S-333); 20 percent to west (S-12s). WCA-3A regulatory coefficient increased from 2,500 cfs per foot to 5,000 cfs per foot above the base of the lowest regulatory zone (Zone C) during July through December. Note: Only proposed changes to IOP are included. Refer to 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS Table ES-1 for a full description of IOP Operations Chapter 3 The Final Array of Alternatives Chapter 3 Alternatives represent the final array of ERTP alternatives and include IOP as the no action alternative and three action alternatives that address both the interim high water management criteria and multi-species recommendations. The Chapter 3 ERTP alternatives evaluation analysis utilized SFWMM Version ; the model uses a thirty-six year period of record (POR) from 1965 through This version of the SFWMM was developed jointly in 2006 by USACE and SFWMD staff to support Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS) modeling, with model simulation results and model assumptions described in the November 2007 LORS Final Supplemental EIS. The SFWMM simulation of the 2007 LORS Final Supplemental EIS selected alternative plan, which was formally implemented with a 2008 Record of Decision (ROD), was utilized to develop the SFWMM Base Run simulation utilized for the ERTP Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 alternatives. This Base Run simulation already included the 2008 LORS and the IOP water management operating criteria for WCA-3A and the SDCS (consistent with the original Alternative 7R modeling, previously referenced within the 2002 IOP EIS and 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS). To be consistent with current water management practices for the L-29 Canal and the S-356 pump station, the ERTP modeling Base Run contains updates to incorporate the L-29 stage 2-15

90 Section 2 Alternatives constraint of 7.5 feet, NGVD and the current inability to operate S-356 for water management purposes. The 2006 SFWMD draft Lake Okeechobee Water Shortage Management Plan (LOWSM) from the LORS modeling was included within ERTP model runs (although it is recognized that the 2006 SFWMD draft LOWSM was subsequently modified by the SFWMD following completion of the LORS modeling). Subsequent SFWMM version and platform revisions were not utilized because the 2010 as-built SFWMM IOP baseline simulation was not readily available from the Interagency Modeling Center (IMC) due to the ongoing IMC/SFWMD SFWMM update project. Since use of the SFWMM to support ERTP evaluations was not anticipated, USACE modeling network updates (to include SFWMM version updates from the IMC, subsequent to LORS) were also on hold pending completion of IMC/SFWMD SFWMM update. Based on these technical considerations and the project schedule requirements for ERTP, the updated LORS Base Run simulation represented the most appropriate, readily available SFWMM simulation for USACE to initiate ERTP SFWMM modeling. In summary, although the most current IMC version of the SFWMM and the most current set of system-wide assumptions were not able to be utilized for USACE ERTP modeling due to project schedule requirements, a valid and previously-applied SFWMM tool was utilized to provide technically defensible model simulation results able to support relative comparisons between ERTP alternatives. The current operating regime, IOP, is included within the LORS Base Run and served as the comparison point for the three action alternatives. Alternative 7AB represents the modification of Chapter 2, Alternative 7, in response to FWS recommendations to retain IOP closure dates for S-12A and S-12B. Alternative 8D represents IOP with the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule modified for lowering of Zone A, in response to interim high water management criteria for WCA-3A, and the removal of IOP S-12C closure dates. Alternative 9E1 best represents Chapter 1, Alternative B, with incorporation of the interim high water management criteria (0.25 to 0.5 feet lowering of Zone A); however, Alternative 9E1 does not include the operational flexibility of S-12A and S-12B that was originally proposed under Chapter 1, Alternative B. Each action alternative includes changes from IOP water management operating criteria (Alternative A) for WCA-3A/ENP/SDCS and is listed in Table 2-4. Also included within all of the Chapter 3 alternatives is the provision for releases up to 100 cfs through S-12A (when Rainfall Plan results in S-12 target flows) for the purpose of providing the Miccosukee with access to cultural areas (Appendix A-3). During the alternatives formulation process, USACE coordinated with the Miccosukee and FWS to define guidance for the proposed releases through S-12A. Although the S-12A releases were included within the USACE 2010 ERTP BA, there was no language within the 2010 ERTP FWS Biological Opinion (BO) on the subject. In subsequent discussions on S-12A releases, FWS has stated that USACE must request informal consultation when a release is proposed from November 1 through July 14, in order to avoid impacts to CSSS-A. FWS will amend the 2010 ERTP FWS Biological Opinion to reflect this language. It is important to note that the features listed in Table 2-4 do not represent the full array of WCA-3A/ENP/SDCS operational components, but only serve to highlight changes from IOP. Refer to Table ES-1 (Executive Summary) and Appendix A-3 for complete operational guidance details for IOP and the tentatively selected plan (TSP). 2-16

91 Section 2 Alternatives TABLE 2-3: COMPARISON OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES Structure/Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP S-343 A/B and S-344 Closed from November 1 through July 14 independent of WCA-3A water levels. S-12 A/B/C/D S-12A: Closed from November 1 through July 14 Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 No Change from IOP. S-12A: No change from IOP. No Change from IOP. S-12A: No change from IOP. No Change from IOP. S-12A: No change from IOP. WCA-3A Regulation Schedule S-12B: Closed from January 1 through July 14 S-12C: Closed from February 1 through July 14. S-12D: No closure dates. Follow WCA-3A Regulation Schedule after July 14. Note: If closure requires regulatory releases to SDCS, switch to operations for regulatory releases to SDCS. IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (Figure 2-2) S-12B: Closed from January 1 through July 14; closed from November 1 through December 31 unless WCA- 3A is in Zone A. S-12C: No closure dates. S-12D: No closure dates. Follow WCA-3A Regulation Schedule after July 14. Note: If closure requires regulatory releases to SDCS, switch to operations for regulatory releases to SDCS. Alternative 7AB Regulation Schedule (Figure 2-5): All Zones lowered: Zone A lowered to 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD; Zone B lowered to to 9.25 feet, NGVD; Zone C lowered to 10.0 to 9.0 feet, NGVD; Zone D, with operations S-12B: No change from IOP. S-12C: No closure dates. S-12D: No closure dates. After July 14: Same as Alternative 7AB. Alternative 8D Regulation Schedule (Figure 2-6): Zone A lowered to 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD; Zones B and C eliminated; Zones D, E1and E no change from IOP. S-12B: No change from IOP. S-12C: No closure dates. S-12D: No closure dates. After July 14: Same as Alternative 7AB. Alternative 9E1 Regulation Schedule (Figure 2-7): Zone A lowered to 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD; Zones B and C eliminated; Zone D extended forward to December 31; Zone E1 extended backwards to January 1; Zone E no change from 2-17

92 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/Component Alternative A (No Action): IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 modified from IOP Zone D, lowered to 8.5 to 8.0 feet, NGVD; Zone E1 eliminated; Top of Zone E lowered to 8.5 to 8.0 feet, NGVD. IOP. S-151 Regulatory releases in Zones A, B, C, E1 during Column 2 operations. Regulatory releases in Zone D, while permitted under IOP 2006 operations, were not included in the SFWMM modeling for Alternative A, consistent with previous SFWMM modeling for IOP 2002 and IOP Zones A, B, C and E Rainfall Plan operations consistent with IOP; Zone D rainfall formula releases at S-333 and capability for IOP releases to South Dade Regulatory Release in Zones A, B, C during Column 2 operations. (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Regulatory releases in Zones A, E1 during Column 2 operations. (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Regulatory releases in Zones A, D, E1 during Column 2 operations. (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Tram Road Stoppers (Note: S-151 water supply only during Column 1 operations) Sand bag culverts under Tram Road by February 1 if necessary. S-346 Normally, this structure is closed. It is opened during Stoppers will be purchased, installed and maintained by DOI. Operations will be determined in conjunction with DOI. Open when any S- 12 is open, closed when all S-12s are Same as Alternative 7AB. Same as Alternative 7AB. Same as Alternative 7AB. Same as Alternative 7AB 2-18

93 Section 2 Alternatives Structure/Component Rainfall Plan Target Flows Maximum WCA-3A stage for Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases to WCA-3A Alternative A (No Action): IOP unusually dry conditions when the minimum deliveries to the ENP cannot otherwise be made. It is operated in conjunction with S-347 and S-12D. Rainfall Plan flow targets into Shark River Slough (SRS) during the wet and dry seasons, for regulatory and non-regulatory flows target components: 55 percent to the east (S-333); 45 percent to west (S-12s). WCA-3A regulatory coefficient of 2,500 cfs per foot above the base of the lowest regulatory zone during January through December. Maximum WCA- 3A stage for Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases to WCA-3A set at feet, NGVD, equivalent to the maximum stage for WCA-3A Zone A. Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 closed. Increased S-333 flow targets into NESRS during the dry season for nonregulatory flows (rainfall plan target flows): 80 percent to the east (S-333); 20 percent to west (S-12s). WCA-3A regulatory coefficient increased from 2,500 cfs per foot to 5,000 cfs per foot above the base of the lowest regulatory zone during July through December. Maximum WCA- 3A stage for Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases to WCA-3A set at 10.5 feet, NGVD, equivalent to the maximum stage for WCA-3A Zone A. Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB FWS MSTS Not Included Manage for MSTS Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB PSC Not Included Included Included Included Note: Only proposed changes to IOP are included. Refer to 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS Table ES-1 for a full description of IOP Operations and Table ES-1 or Appendix A-3 for a full description of proposed ERTP operations. 2-19

94 Section 2 Alternatives Note: IOP Zones A through E have been lowered and the inflection point has been moved from June 1 to July 1. Refer to Figure 2-2 for comparisons between IOP and Alternative 7AB. Note: This is also the same regulation schedule used for Chapter 2, Alternatives 5B1 and Alternative 7. FIGURE 2-5: CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE 7AB WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE 2-20

95 Section 2 Alternatives Zone A Zone A Zone E Note: IOP Zone A has been lowered and Zones B and C have been eliminated. Refer to Figure 2-2 for comparisons between IOP and Alternative 8D. FIGURE 2-6: CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE 8D WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE 2-21

96 Section 2 Alternatives Zone A Zone A Zone E Note: IOP Zone A has been lowered, Zones B and C have been eliminated, and Zones D and E1 have been extended. Refer to Figure 2-2 for comparisons between IOP and Alternative 9E1. FIGURE 2-7: CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE 9E1 WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A REGULATION SCHEDULE 2.3 ISSUES AND BASIS FOR CHOICE Selection of the TSP included elimination of Chapters 1 and 2 alternatives for the following reasons: Chapter 1 Superseded by the July 2010 Phase 1 EN-W analysis and the need to lower WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Chapter 2 Unacceptable ecological impacts due to extended dry events in northern WCA-3A Chapter 3 alternatives were reviewed using SFWMM results, ecological analysis of the ERTP PMs and ETs, and comparison with FWS MSTS recommendations. The alternative that best met the ERTP objectives of improving conditions within WCA-3A for the snail kite, wood stork and other wildlife species, while maintaining protection for the CSSS and meeting Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project purposes, became the TSP. In addition, the TSP also has the least potential for adverse effects on other parts of the C&SF system. 2-22

97 Section 2 Alternatives 2.4 TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN Alternative 9E1 is the ERTP TSP. Refer to Table ES-1 and Appendix A-3 for detailed water management operations for the ERTP TSP. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES AND COMPONENTS ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Alternatives Chapter 1 alternatives were dismissed from further evaluation in July 2010, after the Phase I EN-W analysis resulted in interim high water management criteria for WCA-3A, thereby lowering Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. The Chapter 1 evaluation approach (WCA-3A water budget spreadsheet analysis) was limited to determining impacts on WCA- 3A and could not quantitatively predict effects on ENP, CSSS habitat and other C&SF system functions, such as water supply. This WCA-3A water budget spreadsheet analysis approach was proposed in Chapter 1 due to the inability of SFWMM to simulate the period of IOP operations (post 2002; SFWMM POR ) and the inability of the SFWMM to effectively model management operations, such as flexible closure dates, as proposed under Alternative B. The WCA-3A water budget spreadsheet analysis was prepared to simulate potential water management operations that could occur in any given year in order to meet the PSC recommendations for the FWS MSTS water depths, water levels, recession and ascension rates within WCA-3A. Ecological Input and Release Guidance for Chapter 1 alternatives were formulated to determine water management strategies depending upon actual and forecasted hydrological conditions and PSC ecological recommendations. The WCA-3A water budget spreadsheet analysis approach was further refined in response to interagency review comments and then utilized in the assessment of Chapter 3 alternatives (Appendix A-2). Chapter 2 alternatives were also dismissed from further evaluation due to ecological concerns with extended dry downs in WCA-3A, which were most prominent in northern WCA-3A, and FWS concerns with the recommended operations of S-12A and S-12B (open all year if in Zone A). In addition, there were unacceptable impacts to water supply, water quality and minimum flows and levels within other areas of the C&SF project area Other Components Other items considered and dismissed as part of the ERTP planning process are listed below: Eastern ENP Marsh Operations: The selected alternative from the 2002 IOP Final EIS included the concept of marsh operations for the operation of C-111 Southern Detention Area (C-111 SDA) Reservoirs, indicating that normal operations would be targeted to achieve marsh restoration. The marsh operations envisioned under IOP did not include a requirement to maintain water levels in the reservoirs during dry conditions by bringing water in from 2-23

98 Section 2 Alternatives outside the drainage basin. The 2002 IOP Final EIS recognized that marsh operations would be phased in over a period of years. Completion of the C-111 SDA construction, as envisioned under the 2002 IOP Final EIS, occurred on April 5, Formulation and evaluation of several preliminary alternatives for marsh operations were conducted during the Combined Structural and Operations Plan (CSOP) effort from 2003 through However, the CSOP effort was never formally completed with the release and approval of a NEPA document. Marsh operations criteria, therefore, have not been identified for implementation or testing. A CSOP water management sub-team recommended and installed several new monitoring gauges within ENP in 2006 to support future testing of marsh operations. Limited monitoring data is available for the marsh operations gauges prior to October 2007, but nearly continuous water stage data is available since October As part of the ERTP planning process, an evaluation of all available data from these marsh operations gauges and other adjacent gauges was conducted to quantify potential impacts under each of the three ERTP Chapter 1 alternatives (Alternative A/No Action Alternative, or IOP; Alternative B; Alternative C) on the availability of the C-111 SDA for both the management of local canal levels and transfer of excess water from WCA-3A under Column 2 operations. Evaluation of Chapter 1, Alternative A (IOP), assumed no marsh operations criteria for C-111 SDA operations of the S-332B and S-332C pump stations. Marsh operations criteria for Chapter 1, Alternative B, and Chapter 1, Alternative C, specified a gradient criterion along two east-west transects within ENP and west of the C-111 SDA. Each transect specifies two gauges for evaluation of the gradient criteria. If the specified gradient criteria are exceeded along the northern transect, pumping is discontinued at S-332B until the gradient criteria falls below the specified threshold. If the specified gradient criteria are exceeded along the southern transect, pumping is discontinued at S-332C until the gradient criteria falls below the specified threshold. Chapter 1, Alternative B, specifies gradient criteria that range between 0.1 feet per mile during the dry season and 0.4 feet per mile during the wet season, utilizing the following monitoring gauges: MRSHOP B1, RG2 (northern transect); MRSHOP C1, MRSHOP C2 (southern transect). Chapter 1, Alternative C specifies a minimal gradient criteria of 0.01 feet per mile during both the dry and wet seasons, utilizing the following monitoring gauges: New Gauge (RG3 used as a surrogate for evaluations), MRSHOP B1 (northern transect); RUTZKE, MRSHOP C1 (southern transect). The evaluation of marsh operations for the ERTP alternatives utilized the complete available POR for the monitoring gauge data of October 24, 2008 through April 30, A complete discussion of the marsh operations evaluations, including important assumptions, is available in Appendix A-4. This analysis revealed that, due to implementation of eastern ENP marsh operations, there would be potential structure discharge reductions of the C-111 pump operations (S-332B, S-332C) and IOP Column 2 Operations (S-334). The percent of reduction would be dependent upon selected gradient criteria. As illustrated in Appendix A-4, continuation of IOP (Alternative A) would result in no changes in the C-111 pump operations or Column 2 operations. Utilizing the POR since completion of the C-111 SDA (April 5, 2009 April 30, 2010) for the marsh operations evaluation, Alternative B would 2-24

99 Section 2 Alternatives result in a maximum potential 25 percent reduction in C-111 pumped volume at S-332B and S-332C and a maximum potential 26 percent reduction in S-334 structure discharge during Column 2 operations. For this same POR, under the Alternative C surrogate (i.e foot per mile at Marsh Operations gauges), there would be a maximum potential 81 percent reduction in C-111 pumped volume at S-332B and S-332C and a maximum potential 94 percent reduction in structure S-334 discharge during Column 2 operations. Utilizing the full POR for the marsh operations gauges ( October 7, 2008 April 30, 2010) for this marsh operation evaluation, Alternative B would result in a maximum potential 22 percent reduction in C-111 pumped volume at S-332B and S-332C and a maximum potential 25 percent reduction in S-334 structure discharge during Column 2 operations; for this same POR, under the Alternative C surrogate (i.e foot per mile at Marsh Operations gauges), there would be a maximum potential 83 percent reduction in C-111 pumped volume at S-332B and S-332C and a maximum potential 94 percent reduction in S-334 structure discharge during Column 2 operations. With a reduction in C-111 pump operations and Column 2 operations, there may be a quantity of water that could potentially be retained within C-111 and WCA-3A, respectively. This quantity of water varies among the gradient criteria. Under Alternative B, for the full POR (October 8, 2008 April 30, 2010), there is the potential to retain 33,880 acre-feet of water in C-111 if the S-332B and/or S-332C pump operations are unavailable; and 43,610 acre-feet of water in WCA-3A without Column 2 operations due to the Alternative B Marsh Operations criteria. Under the Alternative C surrogate, there is the potential to retain 121,351 acre-feet of water in C-111 if the S-332B and/or S-332C pump operations are unavailable; and 167,518 acre-feet of water in WCA-3A without Column 2 operations due to the Alternative C Marsh Operations criteria. The excess water that could no longer be pumped due to implementation of marsh operations could potentially be retained in WCA-3A (reduced availability for Column 2 operations), sent downstream through the L-31N and/or C-111 (between S-176 and S-197), sent to tide through the S-336, S-338, S-194 and/or S-196 structures into Biscayne Bay, sent to tide through the S-197 structure to Barnes Sound, or routed through S-332D to Taylor Slough. The option chosen would be dependent upon, but not limited to, hydrological, meteorological and environmental conditions, canal levels, and pump operating criteria. Each option has potentially adverse flood control or environmental impacts and is in general contrary to the identified objectives of ERTP. Due to these potential impacts, eastern ENP marsh operations were dismissed from further evaluation. G-3273 Relaxation: Early ERTP investigations showed that relaxation of the G-3273 constraint would have the greatest impact on lowering stages in WCA-3A. The results were based upon the existing WCA-3A Regulation Schedule (i.e. interim high water management criteria not included, regulatory coefficient of 2,500 cfs) and the L-29 Canal constraint of 7.5 feet, NGVD. The G-3273 trigger stage exists as a flood protection measure. A stage of 6.8 feet, NGVD at G-3273 has been used as a trigger to cease S-333 discharges, thereby preventing water from flowing south into NESRS as a protective measure for residential areas to the east, particularly the 8.5 SMA. Since many of the MWD features have been built, including the protective levee around the 8.5 SMA and much of the C-111 detention area to the south, there are more opportunities to begin testing the relaxation of the G-3273 constraint. 2-25

100 Section 2 Alternatives The releases from S-333 are part of a WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and are typically dependent upon a Rainfall Plan. This Rainfall Plan consists of a rainfall-based delivery formula that specifies the amount of water to be delivered to ENP in weekly volumes through the S-333 and S-12 structures. Under IOP, when WCA-3A is not in Zone A, the weekly flow volume is distributed to achieve a target flow of 55 percent through S-333 into NESRS and a target flow of 45 percent through the S-12 structures into ENP west of the L-67 Extension. Releases through the S-333 are constrained by the trigger stage at G-3273, which is 6.8 feet, NGVD under the 2006 IOP. Therefore, when G-3273 is less than 6.8 feet, NGVD, the S-333 target flow is released into NESRS. However, when G-3273 is 6.8 feet, NGVD or higher, S-334 is used to route all or a partial amount of the S-333 target flows to the SDCS. When S-333 is closed and partial flows cannot be passed through S-334, the volume of flow that could not be delivered at S-333 is delivered at the S-12 structures. In this manner, the G-3273 trigger stage limits the volume of water entering NESRS. Relaxation of the G-3273 trigger stage (even with existing 7.5 feet, NGVD L-29 constraint) is anticipated to reduce the number of times that S-333 discharge is reduced and increase the number of times the maximum (i.e. 55 percent) rainfall plan deliveries from WCA-3A through S-333 into NESRS are achieved. In order to control additional seepage from ENP into the urbanized areas to the east of the L-31N due to the relaxation of G-3273, the S-356 pump station would be employed. The S-356 structure was authorized under the 1992 MWD GDM and constructed during ISOP. It acts as a seepage control feature by pumping seepage from ENP into L-29 Canal. Considerable stakeholder controversy surrounds the use of S-356 and inclusion of G-3273/S-356 into ERTP would have severely impacted the project timeline, which was constrained by the November 2010 expiration of the 2006 IOP BO. It should be noted that the ERTP TSP will adjust the distribution of target flows from 55 percent to up to 80 percent at S-333 during dry conditions to allow for similar quantities of water to be released into NESRS as compared with IOP. Furthermore, an operational permit would be needed to operate the S-356 pump station, further impacting the timeline for implementation. In addition to those issues, the 8.5 SMA operations are currently being developed in order to operate the S-357 pump station located within the 8.5 SMA. The S-357 pump station was tested in 2009, after which it was determined that some adjustments to the operating criteria were needed to maintain the authorized levels of flood mitigation. The criteria are currently being developed and would need to be operational before the G-3273 relaxation can take place. Due to the potential benefits to NESRS through relaxation of G-3273, USACE anticipates planning and coordinating with a multi-agency technical team to conduct a field test for an incremental relaxation approach and use of the S-356 pump station. This field test would allow USACE to gather data, analyze and report the findings to support operating criteria for G-3273 and permit application for S-356. No S-12/S-343A-B/S-344 Required Closure Dates: The IOP closure dates were retained for S-12A, S-12B, S-343A, S-343B and S-344 due to DOI concerns relating to the hydroperiod within the western marl prairies and potential effects on marl prairie vegetation. This same issue was brought before the 2007 Avian Ecology Workshop when it was suggested that CSSS emergency management measures cease and regulatory releases be allowed through the S-12 structures during the CSSS nesting season. This panel concluded: 2-26

101 Section 2 Alternatives Given the extensive previous work on the water level requirements of the sparrow, the panel concludes that without mitigation this action in isolation is likely to result in extirpation of subpopulation A and is unclear as to what extent it will benefit or otherwise impact the other subpopulations or other endangered species. However, because of the interconnected structure of the subpopulations (see below) there may be unintended consequences for the other subpopulations. Ultimately, if any action is expected to have a negative overall effect on the sparrow, its justification as a conservation measure would require a clear demonstration that there would be positive effects on other elements of the Everglades ecosystem. (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, 2007) Due to the lack of clear demonstration of positive effects within other parts of the C&SF system, removing closure dates on these structures was not justified. Therefore, closure dates on the S-12A, S-12B, S-343A, S-343B and S-344 were retained under ERTP. Changing WCA-1 and/or WCA-2 Regulation Schedules: WCA-3A may receive water from other C&SF Project components, such as WCA-1 and WCA-2, which have their own respective regulation schedules. As part of the management of the C&SF Project, water from WCA-1 may flow south through the S-10 structures into WCA-2A and then continue south through the S-11 structures into WCA-3A. To assist in lowering water stages in WCA-3A, changing the WCA-1 and/or WCA-2 Regulation Schedules was proposed during formulation of Chapter 1 alternatives. Since these proposals would have severely impacted the ERTP project timeline, which was constrained by the November 2010 expiration of the 2006 IOP BO, both of these proposals were eliminated from further consideration. WCA-1 is managed by the FWS as the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (LNWR). Water levels are managed to protect the species and habitats on which they rely. In addition, water quality is also measured for compliance with the Everglades Settlement Agreement. Although USACE determined that no changes would be made to the WCA-1 and/or WCA-2 Regulation Schedules as part of the ERTP process, the ERTP process did consider optimization of existing operational flexibilities to better manage the potential effects of WCA-2 inflows on conditions within WCA-3A. Changing the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule: WCA-3A may receive water from other C&SF Project components, such as Lake Okeechobee, which has its own regulation schedule. The Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study (LORSS) was initiated to address continued high lake levels, estuary ecosystem conditions and lake ecology conditions that occurred during the 2003 to 2005 time period. At the forefront of LORSS were the back-to-back historically significant hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005, the recognized integrity issues of the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD), and the potential danger that any hurricane season poses for the people relying upon the protection provided by HHD. Years 2004 and 2005 are ranked eighth and ninth for Lake Okeechobee s highest net inflow during the wet season (June-October) since In light of the State s independent review report released in April 2006, which evaluated the structural integrity of HHD, a great deal of public and media attention has been focused on the HHD issue. The State s independent report essentially validated USACE previous findings from 1998 that HHD is in need of rehabilitation (USACE 1998). In response to the 2-27

102 Section 2 Alternatives USACE findings back in 1998, a rehabilitation plan was developed and approved in 2000, and implementation of that plan is currently underway. After the State s independent report was released, USACE received a letter of concern from the Governor of Florida. The Governor s concern was the potential failure of the dike and the effects it would have on the communities around Lake Okeechobee. While USACE considers public health and safety as its highest priority, the attention given to the HHD stability issue underscores the importance of the implementation of the plan. Issues such as seepage, piping, and boils are exacerbated when the lake elevation approaches 18.5 feet, NGVD (USACE, 2005). As a result, LORSS only considered alternatives that would allow Lake Okeechobee to be managed at a lower average level year-round compared to the previous Water Supply and Environment (WSE) Regulation Schedule. To ensure that the integrity of HHD is maintained, USACE eliminated alternatives that did not achieve zero, or close-to-zero, days above lake elevation feet, NGVD. The feet constraint was based on the schedule s ability to store rainfall and runoff anticipated from a storm event comparable to Hurricane Wilma in 2005 without having HHD integrity issues. Other important considerations for this study (USACE, 2007) were the environmental needs of Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, and the greater Everglades (including the WCAs). The work performed for this study consisted of identifying the effects, both beneficial and adverse, associated with the alternatives developed for LORS and the approved regulation schedule currently in place, water supply and environmental (WSE). Broadly, the effort involved: a. Identifying all environmental, fish and wildlife, cultural and recreational resources in the study area; b. Assessing the effects of the alternative regulation schedules on these resources; c. Quantifying impacts to the competing lake management objectives such as flood protection, water supply, water quality, recreation and navigation; d. Evaluating the socio-economic impacts associated with the alternative regulation schedules, and; e. Preparing the required documentation including graphics to present the study s findings and recommendations. USACE has determined that no changes would be made to the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule as part of the ERTP process. Increasing Stage in WCA-3B: WCA-3B is managed by FWC as the Everglades and Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area. As part of ERTP, DOI requested that stages in WCA-3B be increased to help alleviate high water stages in WCA-3A. WCA-3B would effectively serve to store water from WCA-3A, due to the lack of outflow capacity out of WCA-3B to NESRS. Currently, without the MWD L-67A and L-67C conveyance features constructed, S-151 serves as the only structural connection between WCA-3A and WCA-3B; therefore, in order to implement the DOI request, S-151 flows would have to be increased. S-151 discharges into northern and central WCA-3A, while the authorized, but not constructed, MWD conveyance features would discharge to central and southern WCA-3B. Increasing S-151 flows could potentially result in significant negative water quality impacts 2-28

103 Section 2 Alternatives within WCA-3B due to the quality of water flowing through the S-151 structure, in addition to potential concerns with increased seepage to the east of WCA-3B. Potential ecological concerns of increasing stages on vegetation and tree islands, as well as wading bird use of WCA-3B habitats also had not been evaluated. In addition, FWC did not agree with increasing stages in WCA-3B due to ecological and water quality concerns and limited WCA-3B outflow capacity. Therefore, increasing stage in WCA-3B was eliminated from ERTP. 2.6 COMPARISON OF TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN Selection of the ERTP TSP included elimination of Chapters 1 and 2 alternatives for the above mentioned reasons, followed by comparison of the Chapter 3 alternatives using SFWMM results, ecological analysis of the ERTP PMs and ETs, and comparison with FWS MSTS recommendations. Chapter 3 alternatives were also screened to ensure they maintained existing Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project purposes. Appendix B-1 contains a detailed comparison of the ERTP Chapter 3 alternatives, including SFWMM results and ecological analyses. A detailed description of the ERTP evaluation methodology and selection process is also included. 2-29

104 Section 2 Alternatives This page intentionally left blank 2-30

105 Section 3 Affected Environment SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-i

106 Section 3 Affected Environment This page intentionally left blank 3-ii

107 Section 3 Affected Environment 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 CLIMATE The subtropical climate of south Florida, with its distinct wet and dry seasons, high rate of evapotranspiration, and climatic extremes of floods, droughts, and hurricanes, represents a major physical driving force that sustains the Everglades while creating water supply and flood control issues in the agricultural and urban segments. Seasonal rainfall patterns in south Florida resemble the wet and dry season patterns of the humid tropics more than the winter and summer patterns of temperate latitudes. Of the 53 inches of rain that south Florida receives on average annually, 75 percent falls during the wet season months of May through October. During the wet season, thunderstorms that result from easterly tradewinds and land-sea convection patterns occur almost daily. Wet season rainfall follows a bimodal pattern with peaks during May through June and September through October. Tropical storms and hurricanes also provide major contributions to wet season rainfall with a high level of interannual variability and low level of predictability. During the dry season (November through April), rainfall is governed by large-scale winter weather fronts that pass through the region approximately weekly. However, due to the variability of climate patterns (La Nina and El Nino), dry periods may occur during the wet season and wet periods may occur during the dry season. High evapotranspiration rates in south Florida roughly equal annual precipitation. Recorded annual rainfall in south Florida has varied from 37 to 106 inches, and interannual extremes in rainfall result in frequent years of flood and drought. 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The geology and soils of south Florida represent many of the opportunities, constraints, and impacts of regional water management. The high transmissivity of the Biscayne Aquifer allows rapid recharge of lower east coast (LEC) well fields, while it sets the stage for water competition between the Everglades and Biscayne Bay regarding the issue of seepage control. The loss of peat soils of the Everglades provides an indicator of ecosystem change due to drainage activities. Peat soils predominate in previously flooded areas. Peat soils have subsided as a result of oxidation due to drainage, which has affected local topography and hydroperiods. On the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, the LEC is mostly underlain by thin sand and Miami Limestone that are highly permeable and moderately to well-drained. To the west of the coastal ridge, LEC soils contain fine sand and loamy material and have poor drainage. Rockland areas on the coastal ridge in Dade County are characterized by weathered limestone surfaces and karst features, such as solution holes and sinkholes. Higher elevation marshes of the southern Everglades on either side of Shark River Slough (SRS) are characterized by calcitic marl soils deposited by calcareous algal mats and exposed limerock surfaces with karst features, such as solution pits and sinkholes. 3-1

108 Section 3 Affected Environment South Florida contains three major carbonate aquifer systems. The surficial aquifer system comprises rocks and sediments from the land surface to the top of an intermediate confining unit. The discontinuous and locally productive water-bearing units of the surficial aquifer include the Biscayne aquifer, the undifferentiated surficial aquifer, the coastal aquifer of Palm Beach and Martin counties, and the shallow aquifer of south Florida. Practically all municipal and irrigation water is obtained from the intermediate aquifer system. The intermediate aquifer system consists of beds of sand, sandy limestone, limestone, and dolostone that dip and thicken to the south and southwest. In much of south Florida, the intermediate aquifer system represents a confining unit that separates the surficial aquifer system from the Floridan aquifer system. The Floridan aquifer system is divided by a middle confining unit into the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers. In the LEC, the Upper Floridan aquifer is being considered for storage of potable water in an aquifer storage and recovery program. In the Lower Floridan aquifer, there are zones of cavernous limestones and dolostones with high transmissivities. However, because these zones contain saline water, they are not used as a drinking water supply and are used primarily for injection of treated effluent wastewater. 3.3 HYDROLOGY The major characteristics of South Florida s hydrology are: (1) local rainfall, (2) evapotranspiration, (3) canals and water control structures, (4) flat topography, and (5) the highly permeable surficial aquifer along a thirty to forty mile-wide coastal strip. Local rainfall is the source of all of south Florida s fresh water. The surface water that is not removed from the land by evapotranspiration and seepage to the underlying aquifer is drained to the Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay or the Gulf of Mexico by very slow, shallow sheetflow through wetlands or relatively quickly through man-made canals. Levees and canals constructed during the last 60 years under the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project have divided the former Everglades into areas designated for development and areas for fish and wildlife benefits, natural system preservation, and water storage. The natural areas consist of the three Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) located north of Tamiami Trail and Everglades National Park (ENP) to the south. The WCAs provide detention storage for water from Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), and parts of the east coast region. Detention of water helps prevent floodwaters from inundating the east coast urban areas; provides water supply and detention for east coast urban and agricultural areas and ENP; improves the water supply for east coast communities by recharging underground freshwater reservoirs; reduces seepage; and provides control for saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers. While the WCAs may reduce the severity of the drainage of the Everglades caused by the major canal systems, thus reducing impacts to fish and wildlife caused by the major drainage systems, the levees surrounding the WCAs still function to impound the Everglades, precluding the historic flow patterns. The C&SF Project infrastructure makes it difficult to provide natural timing, volume and distribution. In wet periods, water is impounded in the WCAs and then discharged to ENP or coastal canals for eventual release to tide. During dry periods, water can flow through the canals to coastal areas and bypass the ENP wetlands. 3-2

109 Section 3 Affected Environment The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) project area primarily consists of WCA-3A and ENP. The outer perimeter levees of WCA-3 are the L-4, L-5, L-38 (separating WCA-3 from WCA-2A and WCA-2B), L-37, L-33, L-30, L-29 and L-28 (L-28 contains three gaps to allow for natural drainage from Collier County to the west). Interior parallel levees, L-67A and L-67C, along with their associated borrow canals subdivide WCA-3 into two parts: WCA-3A and WCA-3B. The L-67A and L-67C levees were originally constructed (completed in 1962 and 1966, respectively) for several reasons, including as a step-down system to reduce seepage to the east to allow for urban and agricultural developments in Miami-Dade County, and to increase storage of water in WCA-3A to provide water supply to an expanding urban population to the east. The construction of Tamiami Trail and WCA-3 impounded and altered the historic SRS, effectively creating a barrier through the Everglades, between the northern Everglades (i.e. WCAs) and ENP. The Miami Canal extends from Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean and crosses WCA-3 from northwest to southeast. To remedy excessive drainage caused by the Miami Canal, two structures, S-339 and S-340, were built across the C-123 Canal to block water from flowing directly down the canal, except at times of extreme high water or when increased conveyance capacity is needed to deliver water for the ENP and/or the LEC. Upstream from each structure, water was expected to flow laterally from the canal into the marsh through 100- foot gaps that had been left at 500-foot intervals in the canal s spoil piles. South of WCA-3 and within ENP, the northern portion of SRS is also partially divided by the remaining 5.5 miles of the L-67 Extension Levee, which extends south from the southern terminus of L-67A at Tamiami Trail. Outflows from WCA-3A to ENP are regulated according to the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, with some additional WCA-3A outflows to ENP from groundwater seepage across Tamiami Trail and seasonal surface water flows through the L-28 gaps, which then continue south along the L-28 borrow canal. Stage variability within WCA-3 typically follows an annual cycle; the levels vary from high stages in the late fall and early winter to low stages at the beginning of the wet season (typically late May or early June). The cycle is primarily driven by rainfall, though it is also heavily influenced by water management operations designed to maintain congressionallyauthorized project purposes, including to provide water supply to the LEC and ENP and to provide the adjacent EAA and LEC with flood protection, including protection for tropical cyclone events and other extreme storm events. The annual cycle permits the storage of runoff during the wet season and the release of stored water to ENP during the dry season and maintains elements of the habitat essential to fish and wildlife. The distribution of water for flood control and water supply varies seasonally. The regulation schedules for the WCAs include a minimum water level, below which water releases are not permitted unless water is supplied from another source. Overall, water stage decreases from northwest to southeast within WCA-3, consistent with the general direction of surface water flow and prevailing topography within WCA-3. Water depth is typically between one to two and a half feet, with the shallower waters in the higher elevation northwestern portion of WCA-3. Water stages and depths in WCA-3B are typically much lower than water stages and depths in WCA-3A, due to limited surface water inflows into WCA-3B and the reduction of seepage from WCA-3A to WCA-3B due to the 3-3

110 Section 3 Affected Environment design of L-67A and L-67C levees. Water levels in WCA-3B are affected by seepage losses to the east towards the L-30 borrow canal and to the south towards the L-29 Canal. The most important component of the groundwater system within the study area is the Biscayne aquifer, an unconfined aquifer unit underlying an area of approximately 3,000 square miles in southeast Florida, from southern Palm Beach County southward through Broward County to South Dade County. This huge, freshwater, underground water body is highly productive along the coastal ridge and for a considerable distance to the west. Groundwater in WCA-3 generally flows from the northwest to the southeast, with extensive seepage across the eastern and southern levees, L-30 (southeast corner of WCA-3B) in particular. However, the direction of flow may be influenced by rainfall, drainage canals, or well fields. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are seasonal. Groundwater levels within WCA-3 are influenced by water levels in adjacent canals. Where there is no impermeable formation above the aquifer, surface water recharges the system and the groundwater level can rise freely. In times of heavy rainfall the aquifer fills and the water table rises above the land surface, contributing to seasonal inundation patterns throughout the area. Over much of its extent, the aquifer is covered by only a few inches of soil. The permeable limestone of the aquifer is shielded against upward intrusion of saline water from the Floridan aquifer by relatively impermeable beds of clay and marl. The timing and distribution of water within WCA-3A, WCA-3B, and ENP is affected by direct rainfall, evapotranspiration, and regional water management operations. Regional water management operations, with primary focus on the ERTP project area, are more thoroughly described in Section 3.4. Specific areas within the ERTP boundaries have distinct hydrologic conditions that could be affected by changes in water management operations. These areas are addressed in the ensuing text Northeast Shark River Slough Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS) is a complex area located in the northeast corner of ENP. It is currently the northern terminus of SRS, which is aligned from the northeast to southwest across ENP. Tamiami Trail is the northern boundary, the L-31N Canal the eastern boundary, and the L-67 Extension Canal the western boundary of the area. Historically, the area would be characterized as wet most of the year, but regional developments have impacted historic fresh water routes into the area. In addition, if historic levels are not maintained through the end of the wet season, significant reductions in surface water can occur during the dry season below historic dry season levels. Water enters NESRS primarily from WCA-3A, via S-333, and then to the L-29 borrow canal and subsequent passage through culverts under Tamiami Trail. In addition, S-355A, S-355B, and G-69 may also be used to deliver water from WCA-3B to the L-29 Canal for subsequent passage through the culverts to NESRS. The releases from S-333 are part of a regulation schedule for WCA-3A and are typically dependent on a Rainfall Based Management Plan. This Rainfall Based Management Plan (Appendix A-3) consists of a rainfall-based delivery 3-4

111 Section 3 Affected Environment formula that specifies the amount of water to be delivered to ENP in weekly volumes through the S-333 and S-12 structures. Under the current Interim Operational Plan (IOP), the flow distribution is 55 percent through the S-333 into NESRS and 45 percent through the S-12 structures into ENP west of the L-67 Extension. Eastern portions of the ENP are also influenced by the system of canals and structures that provide flood control and water supply for the LEC urban and agricultural areas. Efforts to provide flood control for LEC have apparently resulted in over-drying and adverse ecological effects in eastern portions of ENP (USACE 1999a). Over-drainage in the peripheral wetlands along the eastern flank of NESRS has resulted in shifts in community composition, invasion by exotic woody species, and increased susceptibility to fire (FWS 1999a) Western Shark River Slough Western SRS, located to the west of L-67 Extension Levee and bounded on the north by Tamiami Trail, is primarily influenced by rainfall and water management operations at the S-12 structures (A, B, C and D). Under IOP 2006, the utilization of the S-12s and the seasonal sequential closure periods beginning from the west at S-12A, S-12B, and S-12C, respectively, is meant to move water from WCA-3A into SRS while providing conditions for Cape Sable seaside sparrow Subpopulation-A (CSSS-A) nesting and breeding. Although not required in water management operations, there is a rule-of-thumb that is often utilized that includes delivering the Rainfall Plan S-12 target flows from east to west with 40percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, and 10 percent being discharged at S-12D, S-12C, S-12B, and S-12A, respectively. Releases from WCA-3A are part of a regulation schedule for WCA-3A and are typically dependent on a Rainfall Based Management Plan. This Rainfall Based Management Plan (Appendix A-3) consists of a rainfall-based delivery formula that specifies the amount of water to be delivered to ENP in weekly volumes through the S-333 and S-12 structures. Under IOP, the flow distribution is 55 percent through S-333 into NESRS and 45 percent through the S-12 structures into ENP west of the L-67 Extension Water Conservation Area 1 WCA-1, also known as the Arthur B. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (LNWR), is approximately 21 miles long from north to south and comprises an area of approximately 221 square miles. The West Palm Beach Canal lies at the extreme northern boundary, and on the south, the Hillsboro Canal separates WCA-1 from WCA-2A. Ground elevations slope approximately five feet in ten miles, both to the north and to the south from the west center of the area, varying from over 16 feet in the northwest to less than 12 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) in the south. The area, which is enclosed by approximately 58 miles of levee, approximately 13 miles of which are common to WCA-2A, provides storage for excess rainfall runoff from areas that drain to EAA canals, the West Palm Beach Canal (230 square miles) and the Hillsboro Canal (146 square miles). In addition, WCA-1 may receive water from Lake Okeechobee under certain conditions. Discharges from WCA-1 to meet water supply demands can occur to the West Palm Beach Canal, Hillsboro Canal, and the canal infrastructure east of WCA-1, in accordance with the WCA-1 Regulation Schedule. The WCA-1 Regulation Schedule also defines when excess water in WCA-1 can be discharged to WCA-2A and to tide via the Hillsboro Canal. Due to 3-5

112 Section 3 Affected Environment its limited discharge capacity and its relatively small size compared to the watershed from which it receives water, consecutive rainfall events have the potential to quickly utilize storage within WCA-1, resulting in discharges from WCA-1 to WCA-2A via the S-10s Water Conservation Areas 2A and 2B Covering an area of 210 square miles, WCA-2 is comprised of two areas, 2A and 2B, and measures approximately 25 miles from north to south. WCA-2A is separated from the other WCAs by the Hillsboro Canal to the north and the North New River Canal to the south. Ground elevations slope southward approximately two to three feet in ten miles, ranging from over 13 feet, NGVD in northwest WCA-3A to less than 7 feet, NGVD in southeast WCA-3B. The area is enclosed by approximately 61 miles of levees, of which approximately 13 miles are common to WCA-1 and 15 miles to WCA-3. The upper pool, WCA-2A, provides an area of approximately 173 square miles for storage of excess water from WCA-1 and a portion of the EAA (125 square miles) which drains to the North New River Canal. Water supply to the east coast urban areas of Broward County is provided by WCA-2A, in accordance with the WCA-2A Regulation Schedule. Due to its limited discharge capacity and its relatively small size compared to the watershed from which it receives water, consecutive rainfall events have the potential to quickly utilize storage within WCA-2, resulting in discharges from WCA-2A to WCA-3A via the S-11s. Ground elevations in WCA-2B range from 9.5 feet, NGVD in the northern portions to 7 feet, NGVD in the southern portions of the area. The area experiences a high seepage rate, which does not allow for the long-term storage of water, and as a result, water is not typically released from WCA2-B Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B The largest WCA is WCA-3, which is divided into two parts, 3A and 3B. It is approximately 40 miles long from north to south and covers approximately 915 square miles. Ground elevations slope southeasterly one to three feet in ten miles ranging from 13 feet, NGVD in northwest WCA-2A to 6 feet, NGVD in southeast WCA-2B. The area is enclosed by approximately 111 miles of levees, of which 15 miles are common to WCA-2. An interior levee system across the southeastern corner of the area reduces seepage into an extremely pervious aquifer. The upper pool, WCA-3A, provides an area of approximately 752 square miles for storage of excess water from WCA-2A; rainfall excess from approximately 750 square miles in Collier and Hendry counties and from 71 square miles of the former Davie agricultural area lying east of Pumping Station S-9 in Broward County; and excess water from a 208 square mile agricultural drainage area of the Miami Canal and other adjacent areas to the north. WCA- 3A provides water supply to the LEC as well as the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS) in accordance with the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and provides water supply to ENP in accordance with the Rainfall Plan and the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Due to its limited discharge capacity compared to the watershed from which it receives water, consecutive 3-6

113 Section 3 Affected Environment rainfall events have the potential to quickly utilize storage within WCA-3A resulting in discharges from WCA-3A to SRS and/or the SDCS via the S-12s and/or S-333 and S Big Cypress National Preserve The Big Cypress Swamp spans approximately 1,205 square miles from southwest of Lake Okeechobee to the Ten Thousand Islands in the Gulf of Mexico. The 1,125 square miles of the Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) was originally created in 1974 by Public Law (PL) and subsequently expanded in 1988 by the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Act. BCNP was established to protect natural and recreational values of the Big Cypress watershed to allow for continued traditional uses, such as hunting, fishing, and oil and gas production, and to provide an ecological buffer zone and protect the water supply to ENP. The BCNP is a large, flat area with maximum elevations of 22 feet, NGVD in the northern region which gradually slope south to sea level in the BCNP coastal region along the Gulf of Mexico. The L-28 Levee presently separates WCA-3A and the BCNP. Surface water flows from BCNP are introduced to WCA-3A from Mullet Slough; WCA-3A is also hydrologically connected to BCNP through three degraded gaps along the northern tie-back of the L-28 Levee and seasonally through water management operations of S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 along the southern L-28 Levee. Surface water flows introduced to the L-28 Canal from these three structures and upstream inflows to BCNP from the L-28 gaps may additionally contribute to deeper water depths and prolonged hydroperiods within the western portion of the CSSS-A habitat, as this water is directed south to the Tamiami Trail section between the Forty-mile bend (located west of S-12A) and Fifty-mile bend. Tamiami Trail and Loop Road, which include bridges and culvert connections to allow southerly flow west of Fortymile bend, also affect hydropatterns within southern BCNP Taylor Slough Taylor Slough is in the southeast quadrant of ENP. The area through the Rocky Glades and Taylor Slough is higher in elevation compared to ground levels north, south or west. Because of this characteristic, the area is normally drier than other areas in the ENP. The Rocky Glades and Taylor Slough are somewhat like an island or a peninsula extending from the canals into the ENP. Parts of this area have been affected by over-drainage resulting in woody shrub invasion and frequent fires (FWS 1999a). Under IOP 2006, specified canal water levels/ranges result in Taylor Slough being provided water from C-111 mainly during the wet season. During the dry season, water deliveries to Taylor Slough are limited to provide conditions conducive to CSSS nesting Lower East Coast Area The LEC area is located to the east of the L-31N, L-31W, and C-111 canals. Under IOP 2006, specified canal water levels/ranges are meant to provide flood protection, water supply, and prevention of saltwater intrusion for the LEC. The LEC can be provided water supply 3-7

114 Section 3 Affected Environment from WCA-3A and Lake Okeechobee according to their respective regulation schedules. In wet conditions, the excess water from the LEC is discharged to tide Square Mile Area The 8.5 Square Mile Area (8.5 SMA) is a primarily residential area adjacent to, but west of, the L-31N Canal. The 8.5 SMA, which is also known as the Las Palmas community, is bordered on both the west and north by NESRS. The community has water management infrastructure consisting of a perimeter levee, a seepage collection canal, a pump station (S-357), and a southern stormwater treatment area (STA)/detention cell meant to collectively provide flood mitigation as part of the Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) Project Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay is a shallow, tidal sound located near the extreme southeastern part of Florida. Biscayne Bay, its tributaries and Card Sound are designated by the State of Florida as aquatic preserves, while Card and Barnes Sounds are part of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. A significant portion of the central and southern portions of Biscayne Bay comprise Biscayne National Park. Under IOP 2006, specified canal water levels/ranges are meant to provide flood protection for the portions of the LEC and Miami-Dade County which may result in discharges to Biscayne Bay Florida Bay Florida Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands comprise approximately 1,500 square miles of ENP. The bay is shallow, with an average depth of less than three feet. To the north is the Florida mainland and to the south lie the Florida Keys. Sheet flow across the marl prairies of the southern Everglades and 20 creek systems fed by Taylor Slough and the C-111 Canal provide direct inflow of freshwater to the bay. Surface water from SRS flows into Whitewater Bay and may also provide essential recharge for central and western Florida Bay. Exchange with Florida Bay occurs when this lower-salinity water mass flows around Cape Sable into the western sub-region of the bay. 3.4 REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT The C&SF Project has numerous water management structures consisting of culverts, spillways, and pump stations that have specified operating criteria for managing or regulating water levels for Congressionally-authorized project purposes. The C&SF Project contains multiple water bodies created by implementation of the water management operating criteria, including WCA-1, WCA-2, and WCA-3. Associated with the inflow to and discharge from the water bodies is an infrastructure of structures and canals that are managed by the implementation of water management operating criteria that can include specified water levels or ranges. The WCA-3A Regulation Schedule is a compilation of water management operating criteria, guidelines, rule curves, and specifications that govern storage and release functions. Typically, a regulation schedule has water level thresholds which vary with the time of year and result in discharges. The threshold lines of regulation schedules define the 3-8

115 Section 3 Affected Environment discharge zones and are traditionally displayed graphically. Additionally, a corresponding table is typically used to identify the structure discharge rules for the zones. As with most regulation schedules, the WCA-1, WCA-2, and WCA-3A regulation schedules must take into account various, and often conflicting, project purposes. The WCAs are regulated for the Congressionally-authorized C&SF Project purposes to provide: flood control; water supply for agricultural irrigation, municipalities and industry, and ENP; regional groundwater control and prevention of saltwater intrusion; enhancement of fish and wildlife; and recreation. An important component of flood control is the maintenance of marsh vegetation in the WCAs, which provide a dampening effect on hurricane-induced wind tides that have the potential to affect residential areas to the east of the WCAs. The marsh vegetation, along with the east coast protection levee, also prevents floodwaters that historically flowed eastward from the Everglades from flowing into the developed areas along the southeast coast of Florida. Besides releases from WCA-2A via the S-11s, WCA-3A receives inflow from pumping stations S-8, S-9, and S-140. The S-9 pump station removes runoff in the area west of Ft. Lauderdale known as Western C-11. The S-9A pump station, located adjacent to the S-9 pump station, returns seepage water from WCA-3A and WCA-3B collected in the L-37, L-33 and the US 27 borrow canals. The S-140 pump station serves the 110 square mile area north and east of the interceptor canal and west of L-28. This station is used to maintain canal levels below 10.5 feet, NGVD unless gravity flow into WCA-3A is possible at an adequate rate. Water also enters northeastern WCA-3A by gravity through S-150. Discharges at S-142 are made from WCA-3A into the North New River Canal. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) can pump runoff from the North New River Canal and C-13 into WCA-3A through S-142 by operating their pump station, G-123. Water levels in WCA-3A are managed primarily by five gated spillways: the S-12 structures (S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, and S-12D) and S-333. Additionally, S-151, S-343A, S-343B and S- 344 can also be utilized to discharge from WCA-3A. The S-12s and S-333 are utilized to provide water deliveries to ENP, in accordance with the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Since 2002, WCA-3A has been regulated according to a seasonally varying 8.75 to feet, NGVD regulation schedule and the Rainfall Plan, as per IOP (2006 IOP Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]). The WCA-3A Regulation Schedule utilizes a 3-gauge average (WCA-3AVG) elevation of sites 63, 64, and 65 in the management of WCA-3A water levels (also known as 3A-3, 3A-4 and 3A-28, respectively). The discharges made from WCA-3A through the S-12s and S-333 are target flows determined from the Rainfall Plan; when WCA-3A is in Zone A, these target flows are the maximum flow possible. Under the Rainfall Plan, water deliveries would be computed and operations adjusted, weekly, if necessary based on the sum of two components: a rainfall response component and a WCA-3A regulatory component. The Rainfall Plan provides for the rainfall response component within all zones of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, with the additional regulatory release requirement added when the WCA-3A water levels fall within the higher regulation schedule zones above Zone E, including Zone E1. Under IOP, the goal of the rainfall and regulatory components is to split the flows between the S-12s and S-333, with 45 percent of the total flow from WCA-3A passing through the S-12s to Western SRS 3-9

116 Section 3 Affected Environment and the remaining 55 percent to discharge through S-333 to NESRS, establishing the target flows for both the S-12s and S-333. Water deliveries to eastern ENP are controlled by the stage in L-29 Canal, as pressure from the water within the canal (hydraulic head), is required to force water through the Tamiami Trail culverts and into ENP. As canal stage increases, more water is forced beneath the road through 19 sets of culverts (55 total culverts, three culverts per set in most locations). The L-29 Canal stage is limited due to concerns regarding potential flooding and seepage effects within residential or agricultural areas of Miami-Dade County and potential damage to the Tamiami Trail roadway sub-base. The water management operating criteria for the L-29 borrow canal between S-333 and S-334 is meant to limit the L-29 borrow canal stage to no more than 7.5 feet, NGVD in response to roadway sub-base concerns identified by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), although short-term deviations have been previously implemented in response to specific hydrologic conditions. Higher water levels within the canal may erode the roadway sub-base and create a potential safety hazard. In addition, the L-29 borrow canal water level has an additional constraint related to potential flooding and seepage effects within residential and/or agricultural areas of Miami-Dade County. When the G-3273 water level within NESRS reaches 6.8 feet, NGVD, S-333 discharges to NESRS will be discontinued until G-3273 falls below 6.8 feet, NGVD. When WCA-3A water levels are in Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 can be utilized to discharge from WCA-3A into BCNP. Discharges can also be made through S-343A, S-343B and S-344 when agreed to by SFWMD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and National Park Service (NPS) to extend hydroperiods within BCNP. The S-151 gated culvert structure, which is located along the Miami Canal and operated according to the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, is the only existing surface water connection between WCA-3A and WCA-3B. S-151 discharges into C-304 in WCA-3B for flood diversion and for the purpose of providing water supply to LEC canals and the ENP SDCS. Under existing conditions, water does not flow directly from WCA-3B into the L-29 Canal. There are two discharge structures, S-355A and S-355B, along L-29 south of WCA-3B that are designed to move water from WCA-3B into the canal, although the operation of these structures has not been previously authorized for more than short-term, temporary operations. The S-355 structures are completed components of the MWD Project, intended to function in concert with the proposed MWD S-345 structures to address the MWD Project objective of restoring WCA-3B as a functioning component of the Everglades hydrologic system and restoration of water deliveries to NESRS. There are three distinct modes of water management operations for IOP: Column 1, Column 2, and water supply. Water management operating criteria within Column 1 occurs when WCA-3A discharges can be achieved by discharges from the S-12s, S-333, S-151, S-343A, S-343B, and/or S-344. Water management operating criteria within Column 2 occurs when WCA-3A discharges are made via S-333 to the L-29 Canal and L-31N Canal, the ENP SDCS; Column 2 generally requires the use of pump stations S-331, S-332B, S-332C, and S-332D. Column 2 is used to offset or mitigate for adverse effects on WCA-3A related to closure periods at water management structures to protect CSSS-A. Column 2 generally occurs when any S-12 structure is closed in order to protect the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS) (November 1 through July 14, under IOP), although Column 1 may continue until the 3-10

117 Section 3 Affected Environment capacity of the S-12s that remain open is insufficient to handle the discharge from WCA-3A. If necessary, Column 2 may continue past re-opening of the S-12s (July 15 under IOP) to mitigate for adverse effects on WCA-3A resulting from the IOP closures of the S-12s, S-343A, S-343B, and S-344. Water supply discharges from WCA-3A occur when water levels in the ENP SDCS fall to a level that indicates additional water is required. During droughts, a minimum elevation in the borrow canals of 7.5 feet, NGVD is established in the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Below this elevation no further releases will be permitted from WCA-3A unless an equal supply of water from another storage area is transferred to WCA-3A. 3.5 WATER QUALITY Water quality in the study area is significantly influenced by development. The C&SF Project led to significant changes in the landscape by opening large land tracts for urban development and agricultural uses, and by the construction of extensive drainage networks. Natural drainage patterns in the region have been disrupted by the extensive array of levees and canals and, as a result, nonpoint source (stormwater) runoff and point sources of pollution (wastewater discharges) are now entering the system in many areas. Several pollutants of concern have been identified and include metals, pesticides, nutrients, biological and physical pollutants, and other various industrial constituents. Specifically, phosphorus and pesticides are considered the most important contributors to water quality degradation in the area. For water year (WY) 2009 the mean concentrations for phosphorus were: inflow concentration for ENP was 8.1 parts per billion (ppb) (interior 4.3 ppb); inflow for refuge was 29.2 ppb (interior 10.3 ppb); inflow for WCA-2A was 25.1 ppb (interior 10.8 ppb); and inflow for WCA-3A was 26.4 ppb (interior 5.8 ppb) (SFMWD 2010). Recent water quality trends in WCA-3A indicate that flow-weighted mean (FWM) total phosphorus (TP) concentrations and SRS loads are decreasing (Walker 2010). This is a slow trend and there may be periodic reversals due to weather conditions (droughts resulting in WCA dry downs, followed by wet periods flushing the mobilized nutrients). Within the WCAs there is a large internal nutrient load resulting from decades of high-level nutrient inputs from the EAA. This large internal load will cause a slower nutrient level drop rate for the WCAs than desired for the downstream users, such as the ENP. Water quality monitoring is currently being performed by SFWMD to determine phosphorus levels in waters entering the Everglades through a number of the water control structures. The Executive Summary of the 2010 South Florida Environmental report volume 1, Chapter 3A stated: The district monitors over 100 water quality parameters in the EPA. For this chapter, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection compares water quality data for parameters with state Class II water quality criteria In WY 2009; most water quality data from the EPA met their applicable water quality criteria. Excursions were noted for dissolved oxygen (DO), alkalinity, ph, specific conductance, turbidity, and un-ionized ammonia. Atrazine, a pesticide, was detected once at a level slightly above its toxicity-based guideline concentration at the Water 3-11

118 Section 3 Affected Environment Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) S-8 inflow structure. Similar to earlier years, a few parameters exceeded state criteria with the number and type of excursions varying across different EPA regions due to local environmental conditions and water management activities. In WY 2009, these excursions were generally localized to specific areas of the EPA, with the exception of DO, which exhibited excursions in all regions except the Park. For WY 2009, an evaluation of the non-ecp basin data and IOP-related data indicates that the quality of water discharging into and within the EPA is generally acceptable. A synopsis from the Executive Summary of the March 1, 2010 South Florida Environmental Report, Volume 1, Chapter 3B (SFWMD 2010), regarding mercury concerns, is provided below: Methylmercury in fish tissue has been of concern in the EPA. Methyl mercury is a highly toxic form of mercury that bioaccumulates in aquatic food chains and presents a risk to any fish eating wildlife or human consumers. Mercury entering the EPA is currently believed to be primarily sourced from atmospheric deposition. Bacterial activity converts the mercury species entering the system from atmospheric deposition to the methyl mercury form. This mercury conversion is closely linked to sulfur, which apparently enhances the biological activity that results in methylation of mercury. Fish tissue levels of methylmercury in the WCA s have been above the EPA human health criterion of.3 mg per kg for 50 percent of bass collected since Large-mouth bass mercury levels in the WCA s have decreased by 62% for the period ENP mercury fish tissue levels have generally increased in this same time period ( ). It may not be possible to greatly reduce atmospheric deposition of mercury in the ENP in the near-term as it mostly is globally sourced. Further research is needed to better manage issues linked to elevated mercury levels and sulfur concentrations. This research will help identify appropriate management options for this region. Groundwater in south Florida consists of the surficial Biscayne aquifer and the Floridan aquifer. Both are critical to the ecology and economy of south Florida. The Biscayne aquifer has been classified as a Sole Source Aquifer under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act based on the aquifer s susceptibility to contamination and the fact that it is a principal source of drinking water. The Floridan aquifer system is one of the most productive aquifers in the world and is a multi-use aquifer system. Where it contains freshwater, it is the principal source of water supply. In several places where the Floridan aquifer contains saltwater, treated sewage and industrial wastes are injected, including areas along the southeastern coast of Florida. Because the Biscayne aquifer is highly permeable and is at or near the land surface in many locations, it is readily susceptible to groundwater contamination. Major sources of contamination are saltwater intrusion and infiltration of contaminants carried in canal water. Additional sources include direct infiltration of contaminants, including chemicals or pesticides applied to or spilled on the land; fertilizer carried in surface runoff; leachate from 3-12

119 Section 3 Affected Environment landfills, septic tanks, and sewage-plant treatment ponds; and wells used to dispose of storm water runoff or industrial waste. 3.6 FLOOD CONTROL Water management and flood control is achieved in south Florida through a variety of canals, levees, pumping stations, and control structures within the WCAs and ENP SDCS. The WCAs provide a detention reservoir for excess water from the EAA and parts of the east coast region, and for flood discharge from Lake Okeechobee to the sea. The WCAs provide levees to prevent the Everglades floodwaters from inundating the east coast urban areas; provide a water supply for the east coast areas and ENP; improve water supply for east coast communities by recharging underground freshwater reservoirs; reduce seepage; ameliorate salt-water intrusion in coastal well fields; and provide mixed quality habitat for fish and wildlife in the Everglades. The regulation schedules contain instructions and guidance on how project spillways are to be operated to maintain water levels in the WCAs. The regulation schedules essentially represent the seasonal and monthly limits of storage which guides project regulation for the authorized purposes. In general, the schedules vary from high stages in the late fall and winter to low stages at the beginning of the wet season. These regulation schedules must take into account various, and often conflicting, project purposes. The East Coast Canals are flood control and outlet works that extend from St. Lucie County southward through Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties to Dade County. The East Coast Canal watersheds encompass the primary canals and water control structures located along the LEC of Florida and their hydrologic basins. The main design functions of the project canals and structures in the East Coast Canal area are to protect the adjacent coastal areas against flooding; store water in conservation areas west of the levees; control water elevations in adjacent areas; prevent salt-water intrusion and over-drainage; provide freshwater to Biscayne Bay and provide for water conservation and public consumption. There are 40 independently operated canals, one levee, and 50 operating structures, consisting of 35 spillways, 14 culverts, and one pump station. The project works to prevent major flood damage; however, due to urbanization, the existing surface water management system now has to handle greater peak flows than in the past. The ENP SDCS provides a way to deliver water to areas of south Dade County. This canal system was overlain on top of the existing flood control system. Many of these canals are used to remove water from interior areas to tidewater in times of excess water. 3.7 WETLANDS Wetlands are defined by USACE (33 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 328.3) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands and open waters are 3-13

120 Section 3 Affected Environment regulated under Section 404 of the 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. The Everglades ecosystem is characterized by the unique mosaic of freshwater wetland communities that dominates the landscape between Lake Okeechobee and Florida Bay. The Everglades wetlands comprise a highly productive system of open water sloughs and marshes, dense grass- and sedge-dominated marshes, forested islands, and wet marl prairies. The Everglades has experienced dramatic impacts over the last century, with approximately one-half of the original 2.96 million-acre system of wetlands being lost to urban and agricultural development. The remaining wetlands have largely been negatively affected by water management practices that have altered the natural Everglades hydrological regime. A more thorough discussion of wetland types, trends, and impacts are included with the vegetative community descriptions in the following section. 3.8 VEGETATION The Everglades landscape is dominated by a complex of freshwater wetland communities that includes open water sloughs and marshes, dense grass- and sedge-dominated marshes, forested islands, and wet marl prairies. The primary factors influencing the distribution of dominant freshwater wetland plant species of the Everglades are soil type, soil depth, and hydrological regime (FWS 1999a). These communities generally occur along a hydrological gradient with the slough/open water marsh communities occupying the wettest areas (flooded more than nine months per year), followed by sawgrass marshes (flooded six to nine months per year), and wet marl prairie communities (flooded less than six months per year) (FWS 1999a). The Everglades freshwater wetlands eventually grade into intertidal mangrove wetlands and subtidal seagrass beds in the estuarine waters of Florida Bay. Development and drainage over the last century have dramatically reduced the overall spatial extent of freshwater wetlands within the Everglades, with approximately half of the predrainage 2.96 million acres of wetlands being converted for development and agriculture (Davis and Ogden 1997). Alteration of the normal flow of freshwater through the Everglades has also contributed to conversions between community types, invasion by exotic species, and a general loss of community diversity and heterogeneity. Vegetative trends in ENP have included a substantial shift from the longer hydroperiod slough/open water marsh communities to shorter hydroperiod sawgrass marshes (Davis and Ogden 1997; Armentano et al. 2006). In addition, invasion of sawgrass marshes and wet prairies by exotic woody species has led to the conversion of some marsh communities to forested wetlands (Gunderson et al. 1997). Vegetative communities of the WCAs have suffered from both over-drainage and prolonged periods of inundation associated with the stabilization of water levels (USACE 1999a). Increased flooding and water depths in WCA-2A have resulted in the loss of wet prairie communities, drowning of tree islands, and loss of sawgrass marshes along slough edges. Major plant communities of WCA-2A now consist of remnant (drowned) tree islands, open water sloughs, and large expanses of sawgrass and sawgrass-cattail marshes. The increase in cattails in WCA-2A is attributed to an increase in nutrient loading associated with agricultural runoff. WCA-2B has suffered from lowered water levels resulting in heavy melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) infestations throughout the area. Increased deliveries 3-14

121 Section 3 Affected Environment of water to WCA-2B associated with drawdowns of WCA-2A in the 1980s has helped somewhat to slow the advance of melaleuca. Many areas of WCA-3A still contain relatively good wetland habitat consisting of a complex of tree islands, sawgrass marshes, wet prairies, and aquatic sloughs. However, the northern portion of WCA-3A has been over-drained, resulting in increased fire frequency and the associated loss of tree islands, wet prairie, and aquatic slough habitat. Northern WCA-3A is currently dominated largely by mono-specific sawgrass stands and lacks the diversity of communities that exists in southern WCA-3A. Typical Everglades vegetation, including tree islands, wet prairies, sawgrass marshes, and aquatic sloughs is contained in WCA-3B. The estuarine communities of Florida Bay have also been affected by upstream changes in freshwater flows through the Everglades. A reduction in freshwater inflows into Florida Bay and alterations of the normal salinity balance have affected mangrove community composition and may have contributed to a large-scale die-off of seagrass beds (FWS 1999a). In contrast to the vast extent of wetland communities, upland communities comprise a relatively small component of the Everglades landscape and are largely restricted to Long Pine Key, the northern shores of Florida Bay, and the many tree islands scattered throughout the region. Vegetative communities of Long Pine Key include rockland pine forest and tropical hardwood forest. In addition, substantial areas of tropical hardwood hammock occur along the northern shores of Florida Bay and on elevated portions of some forested islands Slough/Open Water Marsh The slough/open water marsh community occurs in the lowest, wettest areas of the Everglades. This community is a complex of open water marshes containing emergent, floating aquatic, and submerged aquatic vegetation components. The emergent marsh vegetation is typically dominated by spikerushes (Eleocharis cellulosa and E. elongata), beakrushes (Rhynchospora tracyi and R. inundata), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). Common floating aquatic dominants include fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), floating hearts (Nymphoides aquatica), and spatterdock (Nuphar lutea); and the submerged aquatic community is typically dominated by bladderwort (Utricularia foliosa) and periphyton. As shown by Davis et al. (1994), vegetative trends in ENP have included the conversion of slough/open-water marsh communities to shorter hydroperiod sawgrass marshes Sawgrass Marsh Sawgrass marshes are dominated by dense to sparse stands of Cladium jamaicense. Sawgrass marshes occurring on deep organic soils (more than one meter) form tall, dense, nearly monospecific stands. Sawgrass marshes occurring on shallow organic soils (less than one meter) form sparse, short stands that contain additional herbaceous species such as spikerush, water hyssop (Bacopa caroliniana), and marsh mermaid weed (Proserpinaca palustris) (Gunderson et al. 1997). The adaptations of sawgrass to flooding, burning, and oligotrophic conditions contribute to its dominance of the Everglades vegetation. Sawgrassdominated marshes once covered an estimated 300,000 acres of the Everglades. 3-15

122 Section 3 Affected Environment Approximately 70,000 acres of tall, monospecific sawgrass marshes have been converted to agriculture in the EAA. Urban encroachment from the east and development within other portions of the Everglades has consumed an additional 79,000 acres of sawgrass-dominated communities (Davis and Ogden 1997) Wet Marl Prairies Wet marl prairies occur on marl soils and exposed limestone and experience the shortest hydroperiods of the slough/marsh/prairie wetland complex. Marl prairie is a sparsely vegetated community that is typically dominated by muhly grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris) and short-stature sawgrass. Additional important constituents include black sedge (Schoenus nigricans), arrowfeather (Aristida purpurascens), Florida little bluestem (Schizachyrium rhizomatum), and Elliot's lovegrass (Eragrostis elliottii). Periphyton mats that grow loosely attached to the vegetation and exposed limestone also form an important component of this community. Marl prairies occur in the southern Everglades along the eastern and western periphery of SRS. Approximately 146,000 acres of the eastern marl prairie has been lost to urban and agricultural encroachment (Davis and Ogden 1997) Tree Islands Tree islands occur within the freshwater marshes on areas of slightly higher elevation relative to the surrounding marsh. The lower portions of tree islands are dominated by hydrophytic, evergreen, broad-leaved hardwoods such as red bay (Persea palustris), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and pond apple (Annona glabra). Tree islands typically have a dense shrub layer that is dominated by coco-plum (Chrysobalanus icaco). Additional constituents of the shrub layer commonly include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and large leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium). Elevated areas on the upstream side of some tree islands may contain an upland tropical hardwood hammock community dominated by species of West Indian origin (Gunderson et al. 1997). Extended periods of flooding may result in tree mortality and conversion to a non-forested community. Portions of the WCAs have been flooded to the extent that many forested islands have lost all tropical hardwood hammock trees. Tree islands are considered an extremely important contributor to habitat heterogeneity and overall species diversity within the Everglades ecosystem (FWS 1999b) Mangroves Mangrove communities are forested wetlands occurring in intertidal, low-wave-energy, estuarine and marine environments. Within the ERTP action area, extensive mangrove communities occur in the intertidal zone of Florida Bay. Mangrove forests have a dense canopy dominated by four species: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). Mangrove communities occur within a range of salinities from 0 to 40 parts per trillion (ppt). Florida Bay experiences salinities in excess of 40 ppt on a seasonal basis. Declines in freshwater flow through the Everglades have altered the salinity balance and species composition of mangrove communities within Florida Bay. Changes in 3-16

123 Section 3 Affected Environment freshwater flow can lead to an invasion by exotic species such as Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) Seagrass Beds Seagrasses are submerged vascular plants that form dense rooted beds in shallow estuarine and marine environments. This community occurs in subtidal areas that experience moderate wave energy. Within the action area, extensive seagrass beds occur in Florida Bay. The most abundant seagrasses in south Florida are turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii). Additional species include star grass (Halophila engelmannii), paddle grass (Halophila decipiens), and Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii). Widgeon grass may also occur in seagrass beds in areas of low salinity. Seagrasses have an optimum salinity range of 24 to 35 ppt, but can tolerate considerable short-term salinity fluctuations. Large-scale seagrass die-off has occurred in Florida Bay since 1987, with over 18 percent of the total bay area affected. Suspected causes of seagrass mortality include high salinities and temperatures during the 1980s and long-term reductions of freshwater inflow to Florida Bay Rockland Pine Forest Pine rocklands within the action area occur on the Miami Rock Ridge and extend into the Everglades as Long Pine Key. Pine rocklands occur on relatively flat terrain with moderately to well-drained soils. Most sites are wet for only short periods following heavy rains (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990). Limestone bedrock is close to the surface and the soils are typically shallow accumulations of sand, marl, and organic material. Pine rockland is an open, savanna-like community with a canopy of scattered south Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) and an open, low-stature understory. This is a fire-maintained community that requires regular burns to maintain the open shrub/herbaceous stratum and to control hardwood encroachment (Gunderson et al. 1997). The overstory is comprised of scattered south Florida slash pines. The shrub layer is comprised of a diverse assemblage of tropical and temperate species. Common shrubs include cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), coco-plum (Chrysobalanus icaco), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), southern sumac (Rhus copallinum), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), swamp bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), white indigo berry (Randia aculeata), and willowbustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium). The herbaceous stratum is comprised of a very diverse assemblage of grasses, sedges, and forbs. Common herbaceous species include crimson bluestem (Schizachyrium sanguineum), wire bluestem (Schizachyrium gracile), hairy bluestem (Andropogon longiberbis), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilis), candyweed (Polygala grandiflora), creeping morning-glory (Evolvulus sericeus), pineland heliotrope (Heliotropium polyphyllum), rabbit bells (Crotolaria rotundifolia), and thistle (Cirsium horridulum) (FWS 1999b). This community occurs on areas of relatively high elevation and consequently, has been subject to intense development pressure. In addition, fragmentation, fire suppression, invasion by exotic species, and a lowered water table have negatively affected the remaining tracts of pine rockland (FWS 1999b). 3-17

124 Section 3 Affected Environment Tropical Hardwood Hammock Tropical hardwood hammocks occur on upland sites where limestone is near the surface. Tropical hardwood hammocks within the action area occur on the Miami Rock Ridge, along the northern shores of Florida Bay, and on elevated outcrops on the upstream side of tree islands. This community consists of a closed canopy forest dominated by a diverse assemblage of hardwood tree species, a relatively open shrub layer, and a sparse herbaceous stratum. This community is dominated by West Indian species and contains numerous species whose entire United States distribution is limited to tropical hammocks of south Florida. Common canopy species include gumbo-limbo (Bursera simaruba), paradise tree (Simarouba glauca), pigeon-plum (Coccoloba diversifolia), strangler fig, wild mastic (Sideroxylon foetidissimum), willow-bustic, live oak (Quercus virginiana), short-leaf fig (Ficus citrifolia), and wild tamarind (Lysiloma bahamense). Common understory species include black ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreum), inkwood (Exothea paniculata), lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), marlberry (Ardisia escallonoides), poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), satinleaf (Chrysophyllum oliviforme), and white stopper (Eugenia axillaris). Common species of the sparse shrub/herbaceous layer include shiny-leaf wild-coffee (Psychotria nervosa), rouge plant (Rivinal humilis), false mint (Dicliptera sexangularis), bamboo grass (Lasciacis divaricata), and woods grass (Oplismenus hirtellus). This community occurs on areas of relatively high elevation and consequently, has been subject to intense development pressure. Fragmentation of remaining tracts, invasion by exotic species, and alterations of water table elevations have also had negative impacts on this community. Tropical hardwood hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge have been affected by a lowered water table associated with the reduction of freshwater flow through the Everglades. In contrast, tree islands in the WCAs have been flooded to the extent that many have lost all tropical hardwood hammock trees. 3.9 FISH AND WILDLIFE Aquatic macroinvertebrates form a vital link between the algal and detrital food web base of freshwater wetlands and the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and wading birds that feed upon them. Important macroinvertebrates of the freshwater aquatic community include crayfish (Procambarus alleni), riverine grass shrimp (Palaemonetes paludosus), amphipods (Hyallela aztecus), Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa), Seminole ramshorn (Planorbella duryi), and numerous species of aquatic insects (USACE 1999a). Small freshwater marsh fishes are also important processors of algae, plankton, macrophytes, and macroinvertebrates. Marsh fishes provide an important food source for wading birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Common small freshwater marsh species include the golden topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus), least killifish (Heterandria formosa), Florida flagfish (Jordenella floridae), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna), bluefin killifish (Lucania goodei), oscar (Astronotus ocellatus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrookii), and small sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) (USACE 1999a). The density and distribution of marsh fish populations fluctuates with seasonal changes in water levels. Populations of marsh fishes increase during extended periods of continuous flooding during the wet season. As marsh surface waters recede during the dry season, 3-18

125 Section 3 Affected Environment marsh fishes become concentrated in areas that hold water through the dry season, such as alligator holes, limestone solution holes, and longer-hydroperiod marshes and sloughs. Concentrated dry season assemblages of marsh fishes are more susceptible to predation and provide an important food source for wading birds (USACE 1999a). Numerous sport and larger predatory fishes occur in deeper canals and sloughs. Common species include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), Florida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natilis), white catfish (Ameiurus catus), bowfin (Amia calva), and tilapia (Tilapia spp.) (USACE 1999a). Larger fishes are an important food source for wading birds, alligators, otters, raccoons, and mink. The freshwater wetland complex supports a diverse assemblage of reptiles and amphibians. Common amphibians include the greater siren (Siren lacertina), Everglades dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), pig frog (Rana grylio), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), Florida cricket frog (Acris gryllus), southern chorus frog (Pseudacris nigrita), squirrel tree frog (Hyla squirela), and green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) (USACE 1999). Amphibians represent an important forage base for wading birds, alligators, and larger predatory fishes (USACE 1999a). Common reptiles of freshwater wetlands include the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), striped mud turtle (Kinosternon bauri), mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), cooter (Chrysemys floridana), Florida chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), Florida softshell turtle (Trionys ferox), water snake (Natrix sipidon), green water snake (Natrix cyclopion), mud snake (Francia abacura), and Florida cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) (USACE 1999a). The alligator was historically most abundant in the peripheral Everglades marshes and freshwater mangrove habitats, but is now most abundant in canals and the deeper slough habitats of the central Everglades. Drainage of peripheral wetlands and increasing salinity in mangrove wetlands as a result of decreased freshwater flows has limited the occurrence of alligators in these habitats (Mazzotti and Brandt 1994). The freshwater wetlands of the Everglades are noted for their abundance and diversity of colonial wading birds. Common wading birds include the white ibis (Eudocimus albus), glossy ibis (Plegadus falcenellus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue heron (Ardea herodius), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), snowy egret (Egretta thula), green-backed heron (Butorides striatus), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax violacea), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), and wood stork (Mycteria americana) (USACE 1999a). Populations of breeding wading birds in the Everglades have decreased by approximately 90 percent, and the distribution of breeding birds has shifted away from ENP into the WCAs (Bancroft et al. 1994). The WCAs support fewer numbers of breeding pairs with relatively 3-19

126 Section 3 Affected Environment lower reproductive success (USACE 1999a). Water management practices and wetland losses are believed to be the primary cause of the declines (Bancroft et al. 1994). Seasonal dry-down and the associated concentration of prey in isolated pools is a critical component of wading bird ecology in the Everglades. Historically, wading birds bred primarily during the winter-spring dry season when prey became concentrated in these drying pools (Bancroft et al. 1994). Successful breeding requires a continuous source of prey within the foraging range of the nesting site (Hoffman et al. 1994). Changes in the availability of prey, resulting from wetland losses and water management practices, are believed to have contributed to the declines in breeding wading bird populations (Bancroft et al. 1994). Many foraging wading birds avoid dense, high sawgrass marshes and show a preference for slough/sawgrass marsh/ tree island mosaics that provide foraging habitat over a wider range of water stages (Hoffman et al. 1994). Vegetative trends have included substantial conversions of the wetter sloughopen water marsh communities to dense sawgrass marshes and an apparent reduction in aquatic productivity (Davis et al. 1994). In addition, the important low-salinity mangrove fish assemblage has been depleted as a result of changes in the salinity regime. Abandonment of the traditional breeding colony locations of the southern Everglades is largely attributed to declines in the freshwater marsh and mangrove food bases (USACE 1999a). Mammals that are well-adapted to the aquatic and wetland conditions of the freshwater marsh complex include the rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator), round-tailed muskrat, and river otter (Lutra canadensis). Additional mammals that may utilize freshwater wetlands on a temporary basis include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and racoon (Procyon lotor) PROTECTED SPECIES Federally Listed Species USACE has coordinated the existence of federally-listed species with FWS and with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate. Specifically, coordination with NMFS includes listed fish and sea turtles at sea. Coordination with FWS includes other listed plants and animals. Twenty-four federally-listed threatened and endangered species are either known to exist or potentially exist within the action area and, subsequently, may be affected by the proposed action (Table 3-3). Many of these species have been previously affected by habitat impacts resulting from wetland drainage, alteration of hydroperiod, wildfire, and water quality degradation. Federally-listed animal species include the Florida panther, Florida manatee, CSSS, Everglade snail kite, wood stork, American alligator, American crocodile, and Eastern indigo snake. A number of candidate animal species (Table 3-4) are also known to exist or potentially exist within the action area and include the Florida bonneted bat (Eumpos floridanus), Bartram s hairstreak butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami), Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyte floridalis) and Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri). Action effects on these species are not anticipated due to their distribution and habitat requirements. 3-20

127 Section 3 Affected Environment Other federally-threatened or endangered species that are known to exist, or potentially exist, in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, but are not likely be of concern in this action due to the lack of suitable habitat in and within close proximity of the action area, include the redcockaded woodpecker, roseate tern, Okeechobee gourd, Schaus swallowtail butterfly and Stock Island tree snail. Five federally-listed sea turtle species also exist or potentially exist in the action area, but are not likely to be of concern for ERTP. These species include green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp s Ridley sea turtle and loggerhead sea turtle. Federally-listed plant species that may occur in the action area include crenulate lead-plant, deltoid spurge, Garber s spurge, Okeechobee gourd, Small s milkpea and tiny polygala. With the exception of the Okeechobee gourd, most of these plant species are associated with pine rocklands, which are highly unlikely to be affected by the action. A number of candidate plant species (Table 3-4) are known to exist or potentially exist in the action area, most of which are also associated with pine rocklands (FWS 2004). Adverse effects to federally-listed candidate species are not anticipated due to implementation of ERTP. Species descriptions, life history strategies, population trends and Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects determinations are detailed within the USACE Biological Assessment (BA) (Appendix E). The BA represents a detailed comparison of IOP and potential effects due to implementation of the ERTP tentatively selected plan (TSP), Alternative 9E1, on endangered species within the ERTP action area. Potential effects are described in the following sections for each of the Chapter 3 Alternatives Everglade Snail Kite The persistence of the snail kite in Florida depends upon maintaining hydrologic conditions that support the specific vegetative communities that compose its habitat along with sufficient apple snail availability across their range each year (Martin et al. 2008). In terms of its influence on demography, WCA-3A has previously been identified as the most critical component of snail kite habitat in Florida (Mooij et al. 2002; Martin 2007; Martin et al. 2007). A principal concern is lack of reproduction within this area in recent years. The current IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule shortens the window of time during which snail kites can breed and rapid recession rates often result in nest abandonment (Cattau et al. 2008). Since 1995, USACE has funded a program to monitor nesting effort and success of the snail kite in WCA-3, with Wiley Kitchens, Ph.D. of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the University of Florida, as principal researcher. The study objectives are to track the numbers and success of snail kite nesting activities in WCA-3A as part of an ongoing demographic study of the snail kite over its range and to identify the environmental variables related to successful breeding. In addition, USACE has funded Dr. Kitchens to monitor vegetation responses to altered hydrologic regimes in WCA-3A in areas of traditional snail kite nesting and foraging habitat, in accordance with recommendations in the 2006 IOP Biological Opinion (BO). The snail kite population in Florida has progressively and dramatically decreased since 1999 (Martin et al. 2006; Cattau et al. 2008, 2009). The population essentially halved between 3-21

128 Section 3 Affected Environment 2000 and 2002 from approximately 3,400 to 1,700 birds; and halved again between 2006 and 2008 from approximately 1,500 to 1,600 birds in 2006, to approximately 685 birds in The estimated 2009 population size of 662 birds indicates that there is no sign of recovery (Cattau et al. 2009). Each decline has coincided, in part, with a severe regional drought throughout the southern portion of the snail kite s range (Martin et al. 2008; Cattau et al. 2008). Survival of both juveniles and adults rebounded shortly after the 2001 drought, but the number of young produced has not recovered from a sharp decrease that preceded the 2001 drought. Historically, the WCAs, and WCA-3A in particular, have fledged, proportionally, the large majority of young in the region. However, no young fledged out of WCA-3A in 2001, 2005, 2007, or 2008, and only two young successfully fledged in Nesting activity is summarized in Table 3-1 for the years , since the Emergency Deviations to the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule for the protection of the CSSS began in This trend of lowered regional reproduction is a cause of concern regarding the sustainability of the population. A population viability analysis conducted in 2006 predicts very high extinction probabilities within the next 50 years (Martin 2007). Given the 2009 population estimate (i.e. 662 birds), the extinction risk may be even greater than the previous estimate (Cattau et al. 2009). TABLE 3-1: SUCCESSFUL SNAIL KITE NESTS AND THE NUMBER OF YOUNG SUCCESSFULLY FLEDGED SINCE IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW* Year Number of Successful Nests Number of Young Successfully Fledged * i.e. Emergency Deviations 1998, 1999; ISOP 2000, 2001; and IOP Note: Numbers are for WCA-3A as reported by annual surveys conducted by Wiley Kitchens, Ph.D. (University of Florida). Both short-term natural disturbances (e.g. drought) and long-term habitat degradation limit the snail kite s reproductive ability. To date, most concern and interest regarding potential impacts to snail kites have focused on the higher water levels and hydroperiods occurring during IOP, resulting in the conversion of wet prairies to sloughs within WCA-3A (Zweig 3-22

129 Section 3 Affected Environment 2008). The current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule does not mimic the seasonal patterns driven by the natural hydrological cycle, resulting in water depths in WCA-3A that are too high for the period of September through January (Cattau et al. 2008). In addition, management activities associated with attempting to mitigate potential high water level impacts may well have potentially amplified those detrimental impacts to snail kite nesting and foraging activities (Cattau et al. 2008). For example, in addition to the negative effect on reproduction, the rapid water level recession rates from the elevated stage schedule between February and July, intended to mitigate the extended hydroperiods and excessive depths between September and December, present extreme foraging difficulties to both juvenile and adult snail kites. In fact, Cattau et al. (2008) demonstrated that the recession rate had significant effects on nest success. Recession rate was defined as the stage difference between that on January 1 and the annual minimum stage divided by the number of days from January 1 to the annual minimum stage (Cattau et al. 2008). As a result of the on-going research, Dr. Kitchens and his research team have identified three major potentially adverse effects associated with the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule: 1) prolonged high water levels in WCA-3A during September through January; 2) prolonged low water levels in WCA-3A during the early spring and summer; and 3) rapid recession rates. Each of these adverse effects is discussed in detail below Prolonged High Water Levels From approximately 1993 to present, which coincides with Test 7 of the MWD Experimental Program and the subsequent Interim Structural and Operational Plan (ISOP) and IOP operations, WCA-3A stages have shown relatively little annual variation compared to the previous decades, with an annual average stage of approximately 9.5 feet, NGVD. In addition, stages in WCA-3A have exceeded 10.5 feet, NGVD in 12 of the past 17 years, in contrast to only approximately four occurrences of stages exceeding 10.5 feet, NGVD during the 40-year period from 1953 to Stages in 1994, 1995, 1999 and 2008 also exceeded 11.5 feet, NGVD, and are the four highest stages within the period of record (POR) (FWS 2006). Hydrological modeling of IOP in 2002 indicated that implementation of IOP would not relieve high water levels within WCA-3A, and in fact, would result in excessive ponding and extended hydroperiods, further contributing to declines in the condition of nesting and foraging habitat in WCA-3A (IOP Final Supplemental EIS 2006). However, in their 2002 and 2006 IOP BOs, FWS determined that IOP would adversely affect snail kites and designated snail kite critical habitat in WCA-3A, but would not likely jeopardize the species. As stated in the 2006 Final IOP BO, FWS anticipated that IOP would result in incidental take in the form of harm resulting from reduced ability to forage successfully due to habitat changes that affect prey availability. High water levels during the wet season are important in maintaining quality wet prairie and emergent slough habitat (FWS 2010). However, high water levels and extended hydroperiods have resulted in vegetation shifts within WCA-3A, degrading snail kite critical habitat. The extended flooding from September to January resulting either from weather 3-23

130 Section 3 Affected Environment conditions, IOP, or both, appears to be shifting plant communities from wet prairies to open water sloughs (Zweig 2008; Zweig and Kitchens 2008). These shifts from one vegetation type to another may occur in a relatively short time frame (one to four years) following hydrological alteration (Armentano et al. 2006; Zweig 2008; Zweig and Kitchens 2008; Sah et al. 2008). This vegetation transition directly affects snail kites in several ways, most importantly by reducing the amount of suitable foraging and nesting habitat, and reducing prey abundance and availability. Wetter conditions reduce the amount of woody vegetation within the area upon which snail kites rely for nesting and perch hunting. In addition, prolonged hydroperiods reduce habitat structure in the form of emergent vegetation, which is critical for apple snail aerial respiration and egg deposition (Turner 1996; Darby et al. 1999). Drying events are essential in maintaining the mosaic of vegetation types needed by a variety of wetland fauna (Sklar et al. 2002), including the snail kite (FWS 2010) and its primary food source, the apple snail (Karunaratne et al. 2006; Darby et al. 2008). However, little annual variation in water depths has occurred within WCA-3A since 1993, virtually eliminating the drying events necessary to maintain this mosaic. This is particularly apparent in southwestern WCA-3A, which has experienced excessive ponding in recent years. Prey availability has also been affected by the vegetation transition. Apple snails tend to avoid areas where water depths are greater than 50 centimeters (Darby et al. 2002). Avoidance of deeper depths may be related to the type and density of vegetation in deeper water areas, food availability or energy requirements for aerial respiration (van der Walk et al. 1994; Turner 1996; Darby 1998; Darby et al. 2002). Water-lily sloughs support lower apple snail densities as compared with wet prairies (Karunaratne et al. 2006). Limited food quality and lack of emergent vegetation in the sloughs may account for the lower densities. Research indicates that apple snails depend upon periphyton for food (Rich 1990; Browder et al. 1994; Sharfstein and Steinman 2001), which may be limited within deeper water environments. Karunaratne et al. (2006) observed little or no submerged macrophytes and epiphytic periphyton in the sloughs they studied in WCA-3A. In contrast, species commonly encountered within wet prairie habitat (e.g. Eleocharis spp., Rhynchospora tracyi, Sagittaria spp.), along with sawgrass that grows within the ecotones between the two vegetative communities, support abundant populations of epiphytic periphyton (Wetzel 1983; Browder et al. 1994; Karunaratne et al. 2006). Apple snails also depend upon emergent vegetation for aerial respiration and oviposition. A reduction in the number of available emergent stems for egg deposition would also contribute to the observed lower snail densities within sloughs. Drying events are needed to maintain the emergent plant species characteristic of typical apple snail and snail kite habitat (Wood and Tanner 1990; Davis et al. 1994). As shown by Darby et al. (2008), apple snails can survive these events and it is the timing and duration of the dry down event that are critical determinants of apple snail survival and recruitment Prolonged Low Water Levels Under the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, there is a high likelihood that the water levels in WCA-3A will fall below a critical threshold, below which snail kite foraging success and apple snail reproduction is severely reduced, for an extended period of time. 3-24

131 Section 3 Affected Environment Zone E1 was first incorporated into the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under ISOP and subsequently included in IOP. The 0.5 feet (15 centimeters) reduction in the bottom zone (Zone E) of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule was intended to help offset the effects of reduced outflows through the S-12 structures that resulted from IOP closures in the dry season and early wet season. This change resulted in a greater reduction in WCA-3A stages prior to the wet season. While this new zone may have helped to achieve the desired result of reducing high water impacts that could result from S-12 closures during the early wet season, it may have contributed to detrimental impacts to snail kite nesting and foraging within WCA-3A. During the years of ISOP and IOP operations, the low stages (as indicated by gauge 3A-28) that have occurred have reached approximately 8.4 feet, NGVD, with the exception of 2003, when the low reached 8.9 feet, NGVD. In the six years prior to IOP, the low stages at Gauge 3A-28 (Site 65) had been above approximately 8.9 feet, NGVD at their lowest point. A difference of 0.5 feet (15 centimeters) is not large. However, depending on where snail kites choose to nest, this difference could have a notable impact on how hydrologic conditions change near snail kite nests during the spring recession. Snail kites reliance on the area immediately around the nest for foraging and capturing sufficient prey to feed nestlings during the two months of the nestling period make them vulnerable to rapidly changing hydrologic conditions. Low water levels have a significant effect on snail kite nest success in WCA-3A (Cattau et al. 2008). If water levels become too low and food resources become too scarce, adults will abandon their nest sites and young (Sykes et al. 1995). A strong relationship exists between juvenile snail kite survival rate and annual minimum stage (Martin et al. 2007; Cattau et al. 2008). Estimated juvenile snail kite survival rates for years when water levels fell below 10 centimeters was substantially lower compared to years where estimated water depths stayed above 10 centimeters (Cattau et al. 2008). Due to their inability to move large distances, juvenile snail kites rely upon the marshes surrounding their nests for foraging. If water levels within these marshes become too low to support foraging (due to low apple snail availability), juvenile survival will be diminished. Apple snail egg production is maximized when dry season low water levels are less than 40 centimeters but greater than 10 centimeters (Darby et al. 2002; FWS 2010). Water depths outside this range can significantly affect apple snail recruitment and survival. If water levels are less than 10 centimeters, apple snails cease movement and may become stranded, hence they are not only unavailable to foraging snail kites, they are also unable to successfully reproduce. Depending upon the timing and duration of the dry down, apple snail recruitment can be significantly affected by the truncation of annual egg production and stranding of juveniles (Darby et al. 2008). Apple snails have a 1.0 to 1.5-year life span (Hanning 1979; Ferrer et al. 1990; Darby et al. 2008); as such, they only have one opportunity (i.e. one dry season) for successful reproduction. There is a delicate trade-off between low and high water, and timing seems to be critical. Drying events following managed recessions have the potential to induce mortality of juvenile and adult snail kites and apple snails, whereas repeated and extended flooding tends to result in long-term degradation of the habitat, which also reduces reproduction and hinders kite recovery. 3-25

132 Section 3 Affected Environment Rapid Recession Rates Given the high water levels early in the nesting season, birds are initiating nests in upslope shallower sites. Often water managers initiate rapid recession rates to meet the target regulation schedule and avoid impacts of sustained higher water levels. These rapid recession rates have serious implications for snail kite nesting success. Breeding adults may not be able to raise their young before the water levels reach a critical low, below which apple snail availability to snail kites is drastically reduced. In addition, when water levels recede below an active snail kite nest, predation risk increases due to nest exposure to terrestrial predators (Sykes et al. 1995). As a result, nesting success is further reduced in these areas. Of all the hydrological variables modeled by Cattau et al. (2008), recession rate had the strongest negative effect on nest success. Rapid recession rates also result in reduced apple snail productivity. Apple snails may become stranded if water levels fall too rapidly, effectively preventing apple snails from reaching areas of deeper water. Stranded apple snails cease movement and, as a result, apple snail reproduction is essentially terminated. In the 2006 IOP BO, FWS determined that incidental take of snail kites would occur with continued IOP operations. The incidental take would occur in the form of reduced ability to forage because of habitat changes with high water levels and injury or death of nestlings and eggs due to rapid dry-season recession rates that occur under the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. The 2006 IOP BO Incidental Take Statement states that the recession rate in WCA-3A cannot result in a WCA-3A stage difference that exceeds more than 1.0 foot during the period from February 1 to May 1; and that take will be exceeded if the WCA-3A stage difference during this period exceeds 1.7 feet. Gauge 3A-28 (Site 65) is used by FWS to measure incidental take of snail kites in WCA-3A, as outlined in the 2006 FWS IOP BO. As shown in Appendix E, Table 10, recession rates during IOP ( ) exceeded 1.0 foot in five of the eight years (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009), but did not exceed 1.7 feet in any year. For comparison, the number of young snail kites that were successfully fledged from WCA-3A during these years was 32, 29, 0, 13 and 2 (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009, respectively). As shown by Cattau et al. (2008), recession rates had a significant negative effect on nest success; however, its effect may be buffered by other hydrological variables (e.g. annual minimum stage, depth). This buffering effect may account, in part, for the variability in nest success observed during the years when recession rates exceeded the 1.0 foot stage difference. In the light of recent research (Cattau et al. 2008), it is abundantly clear that a slower recession rate is needed within the pre-breeding and breeding season to support snail kite nesting and juvenile survival within WCA-3A. The 2006 FWS IOP BO recommended recession rate of 1.0 feet between February 1 and May 1 is not appropriate and, as a consequence, FWS now recommends a rate of 0.05 feet per week from January 1 through June 1 (or the onset of the wet season). This would correspond to a total stage difference of 0.60 feet between February 1 and May 1 and a stage difference of 1.0 foot between January 1 and June 1. In order to address these adverse effects, FWS along with Dr. Kitchens, Phil Darby, Ph.D. of the University of West Florida and Christa Zweig, Ph.D. of the University of Florida, 3-26

133 Section 3 Affected Environment developed a series of water depth recommendations for WCA-3A that addresses the needs of snail kite, apple snail and vegetation characteristic of their habitat (Figure 1-3). This water management strategy is divided into three time periods representing the height of the wet season (September 16 to October 15), the pre-breeding season (January) and the breeding season (termed dry season low, May 1 to June 1) and illustrates appropriate water depths to attain within each time period. These water depth recommendations form the basis for ERTP performance measures and ecological targets Wood Stork The primary cause of the wood stork population decline in the United States is loss of wetland habitats or loss of wetland function resulting in reduced prey availability. Almost any shallow wetland depression where fish become concentrated, either through local reproduction or receding water levels, may be used as feeding habitat by the wood stork during some portion of the year; however, only a small portion of the available wetlands support foraging conditions (high prey density and favorable vegetation structure) that wood storks need to maintain growing nestlings. Browder et al. (1976) and Browder (1978) documented the distribution and the total acreage of wetland types occurring south of Lake Okeechobee, Florida, for the period 1900 through They combined their data for habitat types known to be important foraging habitat for wood storks (cypress domes and strands, wet prairies, scrub cypress, freshwater marshes and sloughs, and saw grass marshes) and found these habitat types have been reduced by 35 percent since Wood storks forage primarily within freshwater marsh and wet prairie vegetation types, but can be found in a wide variety of wetland types, as long as prey are available and the water is shallow and open enough to hunt successfully (Ogden et al. 1978; Browder 1984; Coulter 1987; Gawlik and Crozier 2007; Herring and Gawlik 2007). Calm water, approximately 5 to 25 centimeters in depth and free of dense aquatic vegetation, is ideal; however, wood storks have been observed foraging in ponds up to 40 centimeters in depth (Coulter and Bryan 1993; Gawlik 2002). Typical foraging sites include freshwater marshes, ponds, hardwood and cypress swamps, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, and artificial wetlands such as stock ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, and managed impoundments (Coulter and Bryan 1993; Coulter et al. 1999; Herring and Gawlik 2007). During nesting, these areas must also be sufficiently close to the colony to allow wood storks to efficiently deliver prey to nestlings. Wood storks feed almost entirely on fish between 2 and 25 centimeters (1 to 10 inches) in length (Kahl 1964; Ogden et al. 1976; Coulter 1987) but may occasionally consume crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and arthropods. Hydrologic and environmental characteristics have strong effects on fish density, and these factors may be some of the most significant in determining foraging habitat suitability, particularly in southern Florida. Within the wetland systems of southern Florida, the annual hydrologic pattern is very consistent, with water levels rising over three feet during the wet season (June-November), and then receding gradually during the dry season (December-May). Wood storks nest during the dry season, and rely on the drying wetlands to concentrate prey items in the ever-narrowing wetlands (Kahl 1964). Because of the continual change in water 3-27

134 Section 3 Affected Environment levels during the wood stork nesting period, any one site may only be suitable for wood stork foraging for a narrow window of time when wetlands have sufficiently dried to begin concentrating prey and making water depths suitable for storks to access the wetlands (Gawlik 2002; Gawlik et al. 2004). Once the wetland has dried to where water levels are near the ground surface, the area is no longer suitable for wood stork foraging, and will not be suitable until water levels rise and the area is again repopulated with fish. Consequently, there is a general progression in the suitability of wetlands for foraging based on their hydroperiods, with the short hydroperiod wetlands being used early in the season, the midrange hydroperiod sites being used during the middle of the nesting season, and the longest hydroperiod areas being used later in the season (Kahl 1964; Gawlik 2002). In addition to the concentration of fish due to normal drying, several other factors affect fish abundance in potential foraging habitats. Longer hydroperiod areas generally support more fish and larger fish (Loftus and Ecklund 1994; Jordan et al. 1998; Turner et al. 1999; Trexler et al. 2002). In addition, nutrient enrichment (primarily phosphorus) within the oligotrophic Everglades wetlands generally results in increased density and biomass of fish in potential wood stork foraging sites (Rehage and Trexler 2006), and distances from dry-season refugia, such as canals, alligator holes, and similar long hydroperiod sites also affect fish density and biomass. Within the highly modified environments of southern Florida, fish availability varies with respect to hydrologic gradients, nutrient availability gradients, and it becomes very difficult to predict fish density. The foraging habitat for most wood stork colonies within southern Florida includes a wide variety of hydroperiod classes, nutrient conditions, and spatial variability. Receding water levels are necessary in south Florida to concentrate suitable densities of forage fish (Kahl 1964; Kushlan et al. 1975) to sustain successful wood stork nesting. During the period when a nesting colony is active, wood storks are dependent on consistent foraging opportunities in wetlands within their core foraging area (CFA) (30 kilometer radius, FWS 2010) surrounding a nest site. The greatest energy demands occur during the middle of the nestling period, when nestlings are 23 to 45 days old (Kahl 1964). The average wood stork family requires 201 kilograms (443 pounds) of fish during the breeding season, with 50 percent of the nestling stork s food requirement occurring during the middle third of the nestling period (Kahl 1964). Although the short hydroperiod wetlands support fewer fish and lower fish biomass per unit area than long hydroperiod wetlands, these short hydroperiod wetlands were historically more extensive and provided foraging areas for wood storks during colony establishment, courtship and nest-building, egg-laying, incubation, and the early stages of nestling provisioning. This period corresponds to the greatest periods of nest failure (i.e. 30 percent and eight percent, respectively, from egg laying to hatching and from hatching to nestling survival to two weeks) (Rodgers and Schwikert 1997). The annual climatological pattern that appears to stimulate the heaviest nesting efforts by wood storks is a combination of average or above-average rainfall during the summer rainy season prior to colony formation and an absence of unusually rainy or cold weather during the following winter-spring nesting season. This pattern produces widespread and prolonged flooding of summer marshes that maximizes production of freshwater fishes, followed by steady drying that concentrates fish during the dry season when storks nest (Kahl 1964; 3-28

135 Section 3 Affected Environment Frederick et al. 2009b). However, frequent heavy rains during nesting can cause water levels to increase rapidly. The abrupt increases in water levels during nesting, termed reversals (SFWMD 2003), may cause nest abandonment, re-nesting, late nest initiation, and poor fledging success. Abandonment and poor fledging success was reported to have affected most wading bird colonies in southern Florida during 2004, 2005 and 2008 (SFWMD 2004, 2005, 2008). The original Everglades ecosystem, including the WCAs, provided abundant primary and secondary wading bird production during the summer and fall months (Holling et al. 1994). This productivity was concentrated during the dry season when water levels receded. The concentrations of food provided ideal foraging habitat for numerous wetlands species, especially large flocks of wading birds (Bancroft 1989; Ogden 1994). However, the hydrology of the Everglades ecosystem and WCA-3A has been severely altered by extensive drainage and the construction of canals and levees (Abbott and Nath 1996). The resulting system is not only spatially smaller, but also drier than historical levels (Walters et al. 1992). Breeding populations of wading birds have responded negatively to the altered hydrology (Kushlan and Fohring 1986; Bancroft 1989; Ogden 1994). Within WCA-3A, IOP was expected to result in continued high water levels during the wet season and early dry season, followed by a rapid spring recession and rapidly increasing stages in the early wet season. These effects would result in relatively high abundance of wood stork prey because of high stages and long hydroperiods, and this prey would become available to wood storks at a rapid rate in the late dry season. Because the IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule resulted in an increased rate of recession beginning on February 1, availability of prey to wood storks early in their nesting season prior to February 1 would be limited in WCA-3A. The expected effect of this condition would be later initiation of nesting or reduced rates of nest initiation in those colonies closely associated with WCA-3A (i.e. L-28 Crossover, Jetport, and others) (2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). Within the vicinity of western ENP and lower SRS, IOP was expected to result in early recession rates within the short-hydroperiod marshes south of Tamiami Trail resulting from the closures of the S-12 and S-343 structures. This tended to result in early initiation of nesting within these areas, but the limited water deliveries into SRS in the dry season may have resulted in reduced amounts of potential foraging habitat for colonies closely associated with this region, especially during dry years (2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). In most years within the vicinity of NESRS, IOP resulted in reduced stages during the dry season because of constraints on inflows. This may have caused increased recession rates in this area, resulting in a reduction in the amount of suitable foraging habitat available near the end of wood stork nesting in the late dry season, when stages in that area reached their lowest levels. In addition, reduced flows had the potential to result in the risk of drying below the Tamiami West wood stork colony, potentially increasing nest depredation rates and risk of nest abandonment, particularly in drier-than-average years. The close proximity of the colony to the L-29 Canal helped to reduce the risk of drying below the colony because canal stages were maintained at a relatively stable level throughout the dry season. 3-29

136 Section 3 Affected Environment Modeling also indicated that IOP would occasionally result in increased water levels in NESRS during the spring dry season (2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). These conditions presumably occurred when stages were sufficiently low that the G-3273 constraint did not restrict inflows, and water from WCA-3A was diverted into NESRS through the S-333 structure. In these cases, water levels within NESRS, in the immediate vicinity of the Tamiami West wood stork colony, would rise by up to one foot during the period when wood storks were nesting and when water levels were generally receding throughout the system. This results in an artificial reversal and would cause a reduction in wood stork foraging conditions in areas near the colony, and may be significant enough to cause colony abandonment. Because the foraging radius of the Tamiami West colony includes parts of WCA-3A and WCA-3B, ENP, the Pennsuco Wetlands, and urban areas, sufficient foraging opportunities remained in other areas to offset the poor foraging conditions that resulted from IOP in NESRS, but some reduction in foraging opportunities was expected. On November 17, 2006, FWS issued a BO evaluating the past, current, and projected future impacts to the wood stork due to continued operation of IOP. In their 2006 BO, the FWS concluded: Impacts to wood stork foraging and nesting are likely to occur under IOP resulting from reductions in foraging habitat suitability and potential increased risk of depredation within some stork colonies. These effects are not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Since 1986, USACE has funded a program with Peter Frederick, Ph.D. of the University of Florida to monitor nesting effort and success of wading birds, including wood storks, in the WCAs. The objectives are to track the demographics of the various species and to try to understand the environmental variables related to successful breeding. The program includes aerial surveys to identify locations of wading bird nesting colonies each year as they develop and to estimate the number of nests produced by each wading bird species. Ground surveys by airboat are conducted in colonies that contain wood storks to estimate nesting success (young fledged) in a sub-set of marked nests. Nesting effort (number of nests) of wood storks from 2002 to 2009 in the various named colonies in the WCAs and just south of WCA-3B in ENP is outlined in Table 3-2 and summarized below. 3-30

137 Section 3 Affected Environment TABLE 3-2: NUMBER OF WOOD STORK NESTS FROM 2002 TO 2009 IN THE INTERIM OPERATIONAL PLAN/EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN ACTION AREA Colony Name Tamiami East Tamiami East Tamiami West (NESRS) * , * 400* 242 2B Melaleuca n/a n/a Crossover (WCA-3A) 76* * Jetport (WCA-3A) 550* n/a 0 n/a 1,167 Mud East (WCA-3B) Jetport South (WCA-3A) n/a n/a 29 0 n/a 0 n/a 238 Loxahatchee n/a n/a n/a 21 Total (Action Area) 2,416 1, ,811 Source: SFWMD a; as reported by Dr. Peter Frederick and Ross Tsai, Department 0f Wildlife Ecology, University of Florida and the South Florida Wading Bird Reports * Some nests successfully fledged young; where a range was reported, the average was used to calculate the total number of nests. n/a = data not available. Wood stork nesting success has been variable throughout IOP operations and in several instances may be attributed to reversals that occurred as a result of heavy rainfall events (Frederick 2009). Monitoring efforts by Dr. Frederick and his research team have shown: In 2002, wood storks had generally high nesting success at all colonies. The number of wood storks nesting within the WCAs was 2.9 times the average of the previous five years and 3.7 times the average of the previous ten years. Many large groups of juvenile storks were seen throughout early summer foraging in the WCAs, BCNP, and the EAAs. In 2003, nesting effort in the WCAs was 2.1 times the average of the previous five years and 3.9 times the average of the previous ten years, but large numbers of these nests were abandoned. These failures can be attributed in large part to heavy rainfall, particularly in late March. The nest success rate at Tamiami West was 31 percent lower than in 2002, generally occurring early in the nesting season, during March. In 2004, wood storks initiated nesting somewhat late, even by the standards of the previous 20 years, and these birds began abandoning nests in response to heavy rainfall in early March. However, there was no evidence of abandonment at the Crossover colony, and the birds there appeared to have fledged substantial numbers of young. In 2005, nests were largely unsuccessful as a result of stable or rising water levels during March due to unseasonable rainfall. Tamiami West had a maximum of 25 to 35 successful nests. 3-31

138 Section 3 Affected Environment In 2006, wood storks experienced a bumper year for nesting within the WCAs and ENP. It was the best year since 2002 at the Tamiami West colony. Approximately 400 nests were located at this colony with a nest success rate of 0.72 and an average of 2.58 chicks fledging per nest. Late summer rainfall in 2005 resulted in high water stages within WCA-3A. In the fall of 2005 rapid drying occurred throughout the season and was essentially uninterrupted during the wood storks nesting season, with the exception of two rainfall events in The abundance of water and rapid recession rates created essentially perfect conditions for high prey availability during much of the breeding season, contributing to the high number of successful nests. In 2007, the numbers of nests and nest success were below average with no pairs attempting to nest in the WCAs. Nest success was well below historical averages with 1.37 chicks per successful nests and 0.57 chicks fledged per nest starts. This level is well below the level considered necessary for either demographic replacement or for recovery of the species. During the winter and spring of 2007, water levels were relatively low; this, coupled with a general lack of rainfall and drying conditions, is generally associated with good foraging conditions and above average nesting. However, fish sampling efforts indicated that food was not very abundant. The favorable foraging conditions produced by the low water levels and recession rate, however, could not overcome the reduced standing stocks of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates necessary for successful reproduction. In 2008, no wood stork nests were successful anywhere within the Everglades, with all nests abandoned by mid-may. This poor performance was not surprising given the weather and water conditions preceding and during the breeding season. The drier-thanusual wet season of 2007 created suboptimal conditions for the production of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Unseasonable rainfall in February, March and April of 2008 led to stable or increasing water stages, low or negative foraging rates in most pools and generally poor foraging conditions. In 2009, wood stork nest numbers were exceptionally high with a 14.5-fold increase over the previous five-year average and a four-fold increase above the ten-year average. In fact, wood stork numbers were the highest recorded since Nest starts experienced a greater than 75 percent chance of fledging at least one young, and successful nests produced over 2.6 young each. Relatively high water levels in 2008 favored ample production of fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates. The abundance of prey in conjunction with a long and continuous period of drying (September 2008 through May 2009) contributed to the high nest success rate in In addition, the high numbers may be attributed to the number of young birds produced during the bumper 2006 season that had just reached breeding age or from storks from outside the region that were attracted by the favorable conditions. In summary, wood stork nesting success during the eight full years since IOP implementation was mixed, with meteorological events overcoming any hydrological effects of water management operations. 3-32

139 Section 3 Affected Environment Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Presently, the known distribution of the CSSS is restricted to two areas of marl prairies east and west of SRS in the Everglades region (within ENP and BCNP) and the edge of Taylor Slough in the Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area in Miami-Dade County. A comprehensive survey of CSSS was first undertaken by ENP staff in 1981 to identify all areas where sparrows were present. This survey, hereafter referred to as the range-wide survey, resulted in the first complete range map for CSSS (Bass and Kushlan 1982; Kushlan and Bass 1983). The survey design consisted of a one-kilometer survey grid over any suspected CSSS habitat. As much of CSSS habitat is inaccessible, a helicopter was employed and landed at the intersection of each grid line (i.e. every one kilometer). At each site, the researchers would record every CSSS seen or heard (singing males) within an approximate 200 meter radius of their landing location (Curnutt et al. 1998). From the resulting range map, Curnutt et al. (1998) divided the CSSS into six separate subpopulations, labeled as A through F (Figure 3-1), with CSSS-A as the only subpopulation west of SRS. Once thought to be critical to the existence of the CSSS, CSSS-A is located in Western SRS, immediately in the path of water discharges out of WCA-3A through the S-12 structures. Unusually intense and unseasonable rainy periods during the winter of 1992/93 and again in 1993/94 and 1994/95 caused prolonged flooding in CSSS-A, sufficient enough that the high water levels may have nearly precluded breeding in 1993 and 1995 (Walters et al. 2000). In addition, little or no breeding was possible during the 1994 and 1996 breeding seasons, due to the limited availability of suitable dry habitat. The flooding of the habitat by direct rainfall was compounded by discharges of water through the S-12 structures needed to meet the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. With an average life-span of two to three years, several consecutive years with little or no reproduction could significantly affect population size. This is reflected in the dramatic reduction of sparrows detected in subsequent surveys in CSSS-A, in addition to the reduction in occupancy reported by Cassey et al. (2007) for the time period between 1992 and As a consequence, FWS issued a BO in 1999 providing recommendations to USACE on how water levels should be controlled within CSSS-A nesting habitat so that the existence of the CSSS would not be jeopardized. In response, USACE developed changes to water management operations through emergency deviations in 1998 and 1999, two iterations of ISOP in 2000 and 2001, culminating in IOP in 2002, which has been in effect since that time. The goals for ISOP and IOP were to keep subpopulations (particularly CSSS-A) dry during the breeding season and to also keep the habitat for sub-populations B, C, D, E, and F (CSSS-B, CSSS-C, CSSS-D, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F) from excessive drying in order to prevent adverse habitat change from unseasonable fire frequencies. The primary objective in implementing IOP was to reduce damaging high water levels within CSSS habitat west of SRS (i.e. CSSS-A). IOP was designed to protect CSSS to the maximum extent possible through water management operations. The purpose of IOP was to provide an improved opportunity for nesting by maintaining water levels below ground level for a minimum of 60 consecutive days between March 1 and July 15, corresponding to the CSSS breeding season. In addition, a secondary purpose of IOP was to allow CSSS habitat to recover from prolonged flooding during the mid-1990s. It is recognized in the 1999 FWS 3-33

140 Section 3 Affected Environment BO that there could be times when unseasonable rainfall events could overwhelm the ability of the water management system to provide the necessary dry conditions. Since implementation of IOP, the FWS recommendations for protection of the CSSS in CSSS-A were met in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and Direct rainfall on CSSS-A habitat prevented meeting the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) requirements for 2003, 2005 and 2007 (Appendix E), contributing to the lack of recovery of CSSS-A. As reported from the range-wide survey (Appendix E), the estimated total CSSS population during IOP has remained between 2,704 birds (2002) and 3,584 birds (2004). CSSS-A population estimates during IOP ranged from a low of 16 (one bird counted) in 2004 to a high of 128 (eight birds counted) in The population estimates for CSSS-A may be inflated due to the potential inaccuracy of the estimation factor in smaller subpopulations as suggested by recent research (Boulton et al. 2009). In addition, it should be noted that the estimates for a particular year have relevance for potential breeding that year, but this would not be reflected in the population estimates until the following year. Another factor in lack of recovery is change in vegetative structure resulting from physical damage during the high water events of 1993 through 1995 and a shift in the vegetative community dominants away from previous species. This phenomenon was studied by Michael Ross, Ph.D. and Jay Sah, Ph.D. of Florida International University, along with James Synder of USGS in a monitoring study funded by USACE (Ross et al. 2003, 2004, 2006; Sah et al. 2007, 2008, 2009). Based upon several years of vegetation studies within CSSS habitat, the researchers concluded that the direction and magnitude of short-term vegetation change within marl prairie is dependent upon the position of the habitat within the landscape. Efforts to regulate the S-12 structures under ISOP and IOP to protect CSSS-A and its habitat west of SRS have resulted in lower water depths during the sparrow breeding season as measured at gauge NP-205. However, the persistence of wetter vegetation within the vicinity of gauge P-34 may have limited the recovery of CSSS-A within this part of its habitat. This suggests water flow from the northwest, resulting in deeper water levels and longer hydroperiods within this portion of CSSS-A habitat. As shown in Appendix E, CSSS-A has not recovered under IOP operations, but has remained relatively stable since its implementation. Recent research suggests that sparrow populations are slow to recover, or cannot recover, once they reach very small population sizes due to low adult and juvenile recruitment, many unmated males, biased sex ratios, lower hatch rates and other adverse effects associated with small population size (i.e. the Allee effect) (Boulton et al. 2009; Virzi et al. 2009) Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the CSSS was designated on August 11, 1977 (42 Federal Register [FR] 42840) and revised on November 6, 2007 (72 FR ). Currently, the critical habitat includes areas of land, water and airspace in the Taylor Slough vicinity of ENP in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, Florida. Primary constituent elements include suitable soil, vegetation, hydrologic conditions and forage base. The designated area encompasses approximately 156,350 acres and includes portions of CSSS-B through CSSS-F (Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2). CSSS-A is the only area occupied by CSSS that does not have associated designated critical habitat. 3-34

141 Section 3 Affected Environment Because the majority of designated critical habitat lies within ENP, there have been relatively few impacts. However, about acres of critical habitat were altered during construction of the S-332B detention areas and a portion of the B-C connector. No other permanent alteration of critical habitat is known. Degradation of critical habitat has resulted from flooding within the area of CSSS-D, and frequent fires and woody vegetation encroachment in over-drained areas near CSSS-C and CSSS-F. Degradation of these habitats is not permanent, and they may improve through restoration efforts. Under IOP, water is routed from WCA-3A through the S-333 and S-334 structures into south Miami-Dade County to improve hydrological conditions within Critical Habitat Units (Unit) 2, 3 and 5. Longer hydroperiods and more natural hydrologic regimes have been produced by IOP operations within the eastern marl prairies occupied by CSSS-C, CSSS-E and CSSS-F. Hydrologic and habitat conditions within Unit 2 have been improved during IOP. Through a reduction of seepage out of ENP, use of the S-332 Detention Areas has lessened the overdrying of potential CSSS habitat within Unit 2 (CSSS-C) and Unit 5 (CSSS-F). The operations of these features were predicted to reduce the risk of damaging wildfires, reduce encroachment by woody vegetation and result in a more natural response to rainfall events. The only subpopulation to show signs of recent recovery is CSSS-C (Cassey et al. 2007). Desired effects have not been produced within Unit 5 under IOP operations. Very few birds have been detected by the ENP range-wide survey since IOP implementation and no CSSS were encountered in 2007, 2008 or In 2008, the Mustang Corner fire swept through this unit, devastating large areas of sparrow habitat. Research has shown that burned prairies are unsuitable for sparrows for approximately two years after the fire (Pimm et al. 2002; Lockwood et al. 2006; La Puma et al. 2007), and frequent fires within shorter hydroperiod wet prairies will exclude use of the habitat by CSSS (Curnutt et al. 1998). Increased water flows are required within this area to alleviate dry conditions and help prevent future wildfires. Long hydroperiods leading to growth of marsh vegetation within Unit 3 (CSSS-D) have precluded the recovery of CSSS within this area. Over the past eight years, IOP operations had little impact on hydrological conditions within this area and have not been able to significantly reduce hydroperiods within Unit

142 Section 3 Affected Environment FIGURE 3-1: CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW 3-36

143 Section 3 Affected Environment FIGURE 3-2: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUBPOPULATIONS (A-F) AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS (U1-U5) American Crocodile Critical Habitat As defined in CFR (50 parts 1 to 199; 1 October 2000), critical habitat for the American crocodile includes all land and water within the following boundary: beginning at the easternmost tip of Turkey Point, Dade County, on the coast of Biscayne Bay; then southeastward along a straight line to Christmas Point at the southernmost tip of Elliott Key; then southwestward along a line following the shores of the Atlantic Ocean side of Old Rhodes Key, Palo Alto Key, Anglefish Key, Key Largo, Plantation Key, Windley Key, Upper Matecumbe Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, and Long Key; then to the westernmost tip of Middle Cape; then northward along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the north side of the mouth of Little Sable Creek; then eastward along a straight line to the northernmost point of Nine-Mile Pond; then northeastward along a straight line to the point of beginning (Figure 3-3). 3-37

144 Section 3 Affected Environment FIGURE 3-3: CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE AMERICAN CROCODILE State Listed Species The action area also provides habitat for several state listed species (Table 3-3). State listed endangered animal species include the Florida mastiff bat (Eumops glaucinus floridanus) and the Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus [= Hermiargus] thomasi bethunebakeri). Threatened animal species include the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Everglades mink (Mustela vison evergladensis), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines), least tern (Sterna antillarum), white-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephalus), and rim rock crowned snake (Tantilla olitica). State-listed species of special concern include the Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), limpkin (Aramus guarauna), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), snowy egret (Egretta 3-38

145 Section 3 Affected Environment thula), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia), mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), gopher frog (Rana capito) and the Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus) Endangered Species Florida Mastiff Bat The Florida mastiff bat (also known as the Florida Bonneted Bat) is Florida s largest bat, weighing approximately 1.2 to 1.7 ounces, with a 19 to 21 inch wingspan, and a body length of 3.3 to 4.3 inches. The species has dark brown fur and large broad ears that join together and slant forward over the eyes. Florida mastiff bats roost in tree cavities and dead palm fronds. In residential communities, the bats roost in Spanish tile roofs. Colonies are small, with the largest reported as just 32 individuals. The bat is a nocturnal insectivore and relies upon echolocation to navigate and detect prey. Females give birth to a single pup from June through September (Scott 2004). The Florida mastiff bat is Florida s only endemic bat and is listed by FWC as a state listed endangered species. The range of this species is limited to southern Florida. Records indicate that it was once common in the 1950s and early 1960s near Coral Gables. Since 1967, the bat has only been recorded four times in Florida (Scott 2004). In 1979, eight mastiff bats were found roosting in a woodpecker cavity of a long leaf pine in Punta Gorda. The colony consisted of one male and seven females. Of the females, five were postlactating, and one was pregnant, indicating that although rare, they were reproducing. In 1988 a pregnant female was found in a commercial property and in 1995 a male was found in a residential property, both in Coral Gables. Most recently, a small colony was found roosting in a bat house in Fort Myers in Prior to development, Coral Gables consisted of tropical hardwood hammock and rockland pine forest, suggesting that Florida mastiff bats utilized these two habitat types. Loss of suitable habitat is believed to be the primary cause of population declines. Other perceived threats include pesticide and herbicide use, which decrease populations of insects, the bats primary prey Miami Blue Butterfly The Miami blue is a small butterfly endemic to Florida and is listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as endangered. The Miami blue has a forewing length of 10 to 13 millimeters. Males and females are both bright blue dorsally, but females have an orange eyespot near their hind wing. Both sexes have a gray underside with four black spots. The Miami blue occurs at the edges of tropical hardwood hammocks, beachside scrub, and occasionally in rockland pine forests. Larval host plants include the seed pods of nickerbeans (Caesalpinia spp.), blackbeards (Pithecellobium spp.), and balloon vine (Cardiospermum halicababum), a non-native species. Adults feed on the nectar of Spanish needles (Bidens pilosa), cat tongue (Melanthera aspera) and other weedy flowers near disturbed hammocks (FWC 2003a). 3-39

146 Section 3 Affected Environment Primarily a south Florida coastal species, the Miami blue s historical distribution ranged as far north as Hillsborough County on the Gulf Coast and Volusia County on the Atlantic Coast and extended south to the Florida Keys and the Dry Tortugas (FWC 2003a). The butterfly was thought to be extinct following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but was observed in November 1999 at Bahia Honda State Park in the Florida Keys. More than 329 surveys conducted at locations in mainland Florida and the Keys have failed to detect other colonies of this species. The population at Bahia Honda State Park is estimated to contain between 51 and 66 individuals (FWC 2003a). Population declines are primarily a result of loss and degradation of suitable habitat due to residential, recreational, and commercial development. In coastal areas where undeveloped lands remain, the introduction of exotics has led to the direct loss of larval host plants and nectar sources. Other perceived threats include human-caused mortality from pesticide and herbicide use. Butterfly collecting has also been cited as a potential threat (FWC 2003a) Threatened Species Everglades Mink The Everglades mink is an exceedingly rare, small, semi-aquatic mammal. The mink is medium to dark brown in color with dense, glossy, water repellant fur. Minks have a small head with beady black eyes and an elongated body with five partially-webbed toes. Males weigh 2 to 3.5 pounds and are typically two feet in length; females are smaller in size. Minks are nocturnal and generally solitary, except when raising young; three to six kits are born inside the den during the spring and are weaned at five to six weeks. Dens typically consist of a hollow log. Minks are carnivorous, primarily feeding on crayfish, fish, insects, small snakes, small mammals, and birds (Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2009). The Everglades mink is listed by FWC as a state listed threatened species. Historically, the Everglades mink ranged into the northern Everglades, near the Lake Okeechobee region, but no sightings have been reported in the northern range in recent years. The range of the Everglades mink is currently limited to the shallow freshwater marshes and swamps of ENP, BCNP, and Fakahatchee Strand. Most of the recent sightings of the minks occurred in ENP, near U.S. Highway 41 (Smith 1980). Seasonal habitat use by the Everglades mink was documented by Humphrey and Zinn (1982) within a large wetland in south Florida (Big Cypress Swamp) using line transects of chalkdusted trackboards and anal scent attractant. Results indicated a higher frequency of track station visits to marshes in autumn (late wet season) than in spring (late dry season). In the late dry season, most mink track station visits occurred in swamps, where aquatic habitat and high concentrations of prey (fishes) persisted, suggesting that disruptions in the timing and magnitude of water level fluctuations or hydroperiods may negatively impact the species. The quality of the Everglades mink habitat has been degraded through development and the drainage of wetlands. Unnatural high water levels have also resulted in flooding of dens and an increase in road-related deaths. Suitable freshwater wetland habitat for the species exists 3-40

147 Section 3 Affected Environment within the action area. Evidence of direct impacts to the Everglades mink as a result of the existing operating regime (i.e. IOP) is lacking, however the species is extremely rare and difficult to trap and/or monitor. IOP has resulted in lower average water levels and shorter periods of surface water inundation in the WCAs to the north of ENP (WCA-3A and WCA- 3B), as well as in central and Western SRS. Shorter hydroperiods potentially decrease the distribution and abundance of small fish species sensitive to hydrologic changes upon which the Everglades mink feeds Florida Black Bear The Florida black bear is one of three subspecies of American black bear recognized in the southeastern United States. The bear is characterized by a highly arched forehead and long narrow braincase. Adult males normally weigh 250 to 450 pounds and females 125 to 250 pounds. Both sexes have soft, black hair, often with blonde chest markings, small round ears, short tails, stout curved claws, and large canine teeth (FWC 2003b). Females give birth every two years, breeding in June and July. Young are born in January and February; litter size is two to four cubs. Females generally first give birth at three to four years of age. Males generally live to be 8 to 12 years old and females 10 to 15 years (FWC 2003b). Florida black bears may inhabit large tracts of forestland of any type. Habitat includes; pine flatwoods, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, cabbage palm forest, sand pine scrub and mixed hardwood hammock. Home range sizes vary greatly among individuals, age classes, and populations, but average approximately 37 square kilometers for females and 161 square kilometers for males; individuals tend to be solitary (Maehr and Wooding 1992). Florida black bears are omnivorous, primarily feeding upon vegetation, nuts, berries, and insects. In Florida, black bears are dependent upon saw palmetto plants, black gum, and oak trees for a significant portion of their diet. The species may prey upon animals such as armadillos, deer fawns and hogs, but overall, these food sources make up a small percentage of their diet (Maehr and Wooding 1992). The Florida black bear is listed by FWC as a state listed threatened species. Historically, the subspecies ranged throughout the southeastern United States, inhabiting all of Florida, including the upper keys and portions of southern Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (FWC 2003b). This widespread distribution has been severely reduced; the range has now been restricted to eight locations within Florida (Apalachicola, Big Cypress, Eglin, Ocala, Osceola, and St. Johns) and two remnant areas (Chassahowitzka and Glades/Highlands) (FWC 2003b). Unregulated hunting up to the mid 1900s has had the greatest impacts on population declines. More recently, development associated with Florida s growing population has led to an increase in the loss of forested lands and human-induced mortality. The annual number of recorded vehicle/bear collisions and reported human/bear conflicts (nuisance complaints) has risen substantially. 3-41

148 Section 3 Affected Environment Shore Birds Snowy Plover, Piping Plover, Least Tern, Black Skimmer, and American Oystercatcher Snowy plovers are small in size, weighing about two ounces, with a 13 inch wingspan, and a length of six to seven inches. Snowy plovers have inconspicuous plumage, with white undersides, pale-brown upperparts, a short black bill, and dark grey to blackish legs (Warriner et al. 1995). Piping plovers are similar in size and appearance and are distinguished by yellow-orange legs and a thinner, longer black bill (Haig 1992). Least terns are slightly larger than both, with a wingspan of 20 inches and a length of nine inches. Least terns have a grayish-white body with yellow legs, a short notched tail, and a yellow bill unique among North American terns (Thompson et al. 1997). The snowy plover, piping plover and least tern are listed by FWC as state listed threatened species. Florida populations of snowy plovers are made up of both migrant and resident species. Breeding birds are discontinuously distributed along the Gulf coast from Marco Island north to Anclote Key and along the coast of the Florida Panhandle, where most Florida breeders now occur. In central and southern Florida, breeding occurs only in a few protected parks, such as Caladesi Island, Fort DeSo Park, and Cayo Costa and on isolated peninsulas (FWC 2003c). No breeding records exist from the Keys or Atlantic coast. The least tern is more widely distributed than the snowy plover; breeding populations are distributed along both the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and the Florida Keys (FWC 2003c). The piping plover does not breed in Florida; breeding populations occur near the Great Lakes, the Northern Great Plains, and the Atlantic Coast. Piping plovers regularly winter in the south Florida counties of Broward, Collier, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Sarasota (Haig 1992). These shorebirds inhabit sparsely vegetated sandy beaches where they nest in shallow depressions on bare, open ground. They typically form loose colonies and require open dry sand near dunes for breeding; access to inner dunes is essential for brood protection (FWC 2003c). For all three species, females typically lay two to three eggs; eggs are incubated for less than 30 days. Nestlings fledge in approximately four weeks and the breeding season extends from March to September (FWC 2003c). Plovers feed on crustaceans, mollusks, marine worms, and insects, by directly capturing prey or by probing in the sand for food. Least terns forage over open water and primarily feed upon small fish and crustaceans. The numbers and distribution of these shorebirds have steadily decreased due to loss and degradation of coastal habitats and breeding grounds. Continued development of beachfront property into residential, commercial, and recreational areas has led to population declines. Birds quickly abandon nesting attempts when they are disturbed by people. Conservation efforts include closing nesting beaches, monitoring nests, roping off or fencing in breeding sites, posting educational signs and banning pets and vehicle use. 3-42

149 Section 3 Affected Environment State Listed Species of Special Concern White Ibis The white ibis is easily identified by its long red legs, all white plumage, red face, long decurved red bill and black tipped wings. White ibises are medium-sized wading birds, weighing about two pounds, with a 36-inch wingspan, and a length of 24 inches. White ibises inhabit shallow coastal marshes, wetlands and mangrove swamps and feed on crayfish, crabs, insects, snakes, frogs and fish (Kushlan and Bildstein 1992). Nesting occurs in trees, shrubs, and grass clumps from ground level to a height of 50 feet. Nests are constructed of vegetation sticks, leaves and/or roots. Females typically lay two to three eggs; eggs are incubated for 21 to 22 days. The young are able to leave the nest at 9 to 16 days of age. Nestlings are independent at 40 to 50 days of age. Breeding season extends from March to August (FWC 2003c). Ibises are known for frequent shifts in roost and colony sites. The white ibis has been recorded breeding throughout the state of Florida; the center of breeding abundance occurs in the Everglades, with breeding populations extending into Florida Bay and the Keys (FWC 2003c). Aerial surveys have revealed 90 percent declines in south Florida breeding pairs since the 1940s and 20 to 50 percent declines statewide during the past decade. Because of this, the FWC listed the white ibis as a state listed species of special concern (FWC 2003c). Population declines of the species are attributed to loss and degradation of suitable habitat; however, large populations of white ibises remain Snowy Egret, Reddish Egret, Little Blue Heron and Tricolored Heron The snowy egret, reddish egret, little blue heron and tricolored heron are listed by the FWC as a species of special concern. Snowy egrets are medium sized herons, with entirely white plumage, long slender black bills, long black legs and bright yellow feet (Parsons and Masters 2000). The snowy egret breeds in Florida from January through August, breeding mostly in central and southern Florida in freshwater and saltwater marshes (FWC 2003c). The tricolored heron occupies similar habitats; breeding occurs in February through August (FWC 2003c). The tricolored heron is ornately colored; it is slate-blue on its head and upper body and has a purplish chest with white under parts and fore-neck (Frederick 1997). The little blue heron is a smaller-sized heron, dark overall with yellow-green legs, and a blue bill with a black tip (Rodgers and Smith 1995). The little blue heron shows a preference for freshwater habitat; however, it also inhabits saltwater marshes. Little blue herons breed later than tricolored herons or snowy egrets; breeding occurs in April through September in Florida. The little blue heron is more widely distributed throughout the state in comparison to the tricolored herons or snowy egrets. Like the snowy egret, breeding populations are concentrated in central and southern Florida (FWC 2003c). Reddish egrets have two color morphs; white and dark. Dark morphs have gray bodies with chestnut heads, blue legs and pink bills with black tips (Lowther and Paul 2002). The 3-43

150 Section 3 Affected Environment reddish egret is the rarest heron in Florida and is entirely restricted to the Florida coast with concentrations in Florida Bay and the Keys; two-thirds of the state s breeding population. The heron forages on shallow flats and sandbars for fish species, including killifish. In Florida Bay, reddish egrets nest from November through May (FWC 2003c). Population declines of the species are attributed to loss and degradation of suitable habitat. Target nest numbers for snowy egrets and tricolored herons combined are 10,000 to 20,000 pairs. Nesting targets for the snowy egret and tricolored heron have not been met in the WCAs and ENP since the implementation of IOP in Nesting effort (number of nests) of these species from 2002 to 2008 is summarized as follows; : 8,614 pairs, : 8,088 pairs, : 8,079, : 4,085 pairs, : 6,410 pairs, : 4,400 pairs, ,778 pairs(sfwmd 2009b). However, target numbers have not been met prior to the current operating regime; : 2,788 pairs, ,270 pairs. Little blue heron censuses from aerial surveys are unreliable due to its dark plumage and tendency to nest in small, isolated colonies (FWC 2003c) Limpkin Limpkins are large (approximately 66 centimeters) brown to olive colored birds with a long, heavy down-curved yellow bill with a dark tip. Occurring from peninsular Florida and southern Mexico through the Caribbean and Central America to Northern Argentina, limpkins are listed as species of special concern in Florida. Limpkins inhabit freshwater marshes and swamps with tall reeds, as well as mangroves. They are largely nocturnal, but daytime activities have also been observed (Holyoak and Colston 2003). Limpkins forage primarily in shallow water and on floating vegetation, such as water hyacinth and water lettuce. Similar to snail kite, this wading bird species feeds primarily on apple snails of the genus Pomacea. The availability of apple snails has a significant effect on the local distribution of the limpkin (Cottam 1936). Freshwater mussels and other species of snail are secondary food resources. Less important prey items include insects, frogs, lizards, crustaceans and worms, which may be important dietary components during periods of drought or flooding when birds may be forced to forage in suboptimal areas Roseate Spoonbill Roseate spoonbills have a pink body with a white neck and breast, pink wings with highlights of red and long reddish legs. Spoonbills have an unfeathered head which can be yellow or green. Roseate spoonbills are large wading birds, weighing about three pounds and have a 50-inch wingspan. Characteristic to the species is a long, spatulate bill. The spoonbill feeds by wading through shallow water, head down, probing the bottom by sweeping its long, spoon-shaped bill back and forth in the water. When prey is detected by touch, the bill snaps shut; small fish, crustaceans, and insects make up the bulk of the diet (Dumas 2000). Spoonbills typically establish nests in Florida Bay between November 1 and December 15, with a mean nest initiation date of November 18. Females typically lay three eggs; eggs are incubated for about 21 days. After the young spoonbills hatch, chicks require a continuous 3-44

151 Section 3 Affected Environment supply of food for 42 days. Spoonbills primarily feed on wetland fishes. Foraging adult spoonbills require water levels at or below 13 centimeters within the coastal wetlands to forage efficiently and feed young (Lorenz et al. 2010). Nestlings fledge in approximately four weeks (FWC 2003c). Thirty-nine of Florida Bay s keys have been used by roseate spoonbills as nesting colonies. These colonies have been divided into five distinct nesting regions based on the colonies primary foraging locations: northeast region, northwest region, central region, south region, and southwest region. The northeast and northwest colonies contain the largest nesting colonies and these birds principally use wetlands on the mainland as their primary foraging grounds (Lorenz et al. 2010). In addition to a large nesting population in Florida Bay, roseate spoonbills historically nested along the southwest coast of the Everglades in the SRS and Lostman s Slough estuaries. Although there has been some documentation of spoonbill nesting in this area, the numbers have been negligible (Lorenz et al. 2009). The roseate spoonbill is state listed by the FWC as a species of special concern. In 1979, 1,258 roseate spoonbill nests were located in Florida Bay. More than half of these nests (688) were located in the northeast region (Lorenz et al. 2008). Drops in nests coincide with the completion of the SDCS in 1982, when water deliveries to Taylor Slough and northeastern Florida Bay changed dramatically. Since completion of the SDCS, spoonbill nesting effort has shifted to the northwest region of Florida Bay; nesting effort has been consistent since the early 1980s and the population remains stable with an average of 1.24 chicks produced per nest, per year (Lorenz et al. 2008). Prior to the construction of the SDCS, spoonbills in the northeast region of Florida Bay produced an average of 1.38 chicks per nest, per year. Following completion of the SDCS, spoonbill production dropped to 0.67 chicks per nest, per year (Lorenz et al. 2008). Wading bird studies suggest that a population that does not produce at least one chick per nest, on average, will decline. 3-45

152 Section 3 Affected Environment TABLE 3-3: STATUS OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN AND U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AFFECT DETERMINATION Common Name Scientific Name Status Agency May Affect No Effect Mammals Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E Federal X Florida manatee Trichechus manatus E, CH Federal X Florida black bear Ursus americanus T State floridanus Everglades mink Mustela vison T State evergladensis Florida mouse Podomys floridanus SC State Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinus E State floridanus Birds Cape Sable seaside Ammodramus E, CH Federal X sparrow maritimus mirabilis Snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E, CH Federal X Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E Federal X woodpecker Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii T Federal X Wood stork Mycteria americana E Federal X Piping plover Charadrius melodus T State Snowy plover Charadrius T State alexandrinus American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus E State Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SC State Black skimmer Rynchops niger SC State Least tern Sterna antillarium T State White-crowned pigeon Columba T State leucocephalus Least tern Sterna antillarum T State Limpkin Aramus guarauna SC State Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SC State Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor SC State Snowy egret Egretta thula SC State Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SC State White ibis Eudocimus albus SC State Roseate spoonbill Ajaja ajaja SC State Reptiles American alligator Alligator T/SA Federal X mississippiensis American crocodile Crocodylus acutus T, CH Federal X Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T Federal X Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas E Federal X 3-46

153 Section 3 Affected Environment Common Name Scientific Name Status Agency May Affect No Effect Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Federal X Kemp s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Federal X Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Federal X Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T Federal X Miami black-headed Tantilla oolitica T State snake Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SC State Fish Smalltooth sawfish Pristia pectinata E Federal X Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus SC State Invertebrates Schaus swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus E Federal X Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus E State [=Hermiargus] thomasi bethunebakeri Stock Island tree snail Orthalicus reses (not T Federal X incl. nesodryas) Florida tree snail Liguus fasciatus SC State Plants Crenulate lead plant Amorpha crenulata E Federal X Deltoid spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea E Federal X spp. deltoidea Garber s spurge Chamaesyce garberi T Federal X Okeechobee gourd Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeenis E Federal X Small s milkpea Galactia smallii E Federal X Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E Federal X Pine-pink orchid Bletia purpurea T State Lattace vein fern Thelypteris reticulate E State Eatons spikemoss Selaginella eatonii E State Wright s flowering fern Anemia wrightii E State Tropical fern Schizaea pennula E State Mexican vanilla Manilla mexicana E State *Marine species under the purview of NMFS E: Endangered T: Threatened SC: Species of Special Concern SA: Similarity of Appearance CH: Critical Habitat 3-47

154 Section 3 Affected Environment TABLE 3-4: SPECIES WITHIN EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN ACTION AREA THAT ARE CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR PROTECTION UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Mammals Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridamus C Plants Big pine partridge pea Chamaecrista var. keyensis C Blodgett s silverbush Argythamnia blodgettii C Cape Sable thoroughwort Chromolaena frustrata C Carter s small-flowered flax Linum carteri var. carteri C Everglades bully Sideroxylon reclinatum spp. C austrofloridense Florida brickell-bush Brickellia mosieri C Florida bristle fern Trichomane spunctatum spp. C floridanum Florida pineland crabgrass Digitaria pauciflora C Florida prairie-clover Dalea carthagenensis var. C floridana Florida semaphore cactus Consolea corallicola C Pineland sandmat Chamaesyce deltoidea spp. C pinetorum Sand flax Linum arenicola C Invertebrates Bartram s hairstreak butterfly Strymon acis bartrami C Florida leafwing butterfly Anaea troglodyta floridalis C Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri C C: Candidate Species 3.11 AIR QUALITY The existing air quality within south Florida is considered good, as outlined within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2009 Air Monitoring Report Executive Summary. In 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Florida as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants, based on data collected in the previous three years. In 2009, Florida continued to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Primary sources of air pollution in south Florida, including Dade County and ENP, are related to transportation, stationary fuel combustion sources, and solid waste disposal. New lower standards for ozone are being finalized that, when implemented, may result in some counties in Florida being designated as non-attainment areas. An extract from FDEP website (October 27, 2010) regarding ozone is provided below: Current data ( ) show that 9 to 30 counties would violate the new ozone standard depending on where in the proposed range the final standard is set. However, 3-48

155 Section 3 Affected Environment EPA s designations of nonattainment areas are typically based on county groupings where, if any monitor within a designated metropolitan area exceeds the standard, then the entire area is considered nonattainment. Therefore, the number of counties actually designated as nonattainment could range from 14 to 38 based on the data. Since data will ultimately be used to make the final designations, the number of counties could increase or decrease, depending on the ozone measurements in It is important to note that ozone levels in Florida, and the entire eastern United States, have come down over the past 20 years or so. This improvement in air quality has been the result of state and federal requirements on industries and motor vehicle manufacturers to reduce air pollutant emissions NOISE Within the major natural areas of south Florida, external sources of noise are limited and of low occurrence. Rural areas typically have noise levels in the range of 34 to 70 decibels, and urban areas may attain noise levels of 90 decibels or greater. Noise levels within ENP are associated predominately with the natural undeveloped landscape, with recreational traffic and occasional air traffic contributing intermittent higher levels. Noise levels are associated with surrounding land use. There are no significant noise generating land users within the project area for the WCAs; however, there is periodic boat and airboat activity in the WCAs. An un-muffled airboat, frequently powered by a V-8 car engine, registers between 115 to 130 decibels at 50 feet, according to University of Florida researchers. Fishing boats have lower noise levels. For the roads adjacent to and cutting through the project area, sound levels typical for automobile, motorcycle and truck traffic could be as high as 90 decibels but typically are lower, in the range of 75 decibels at 50 feet AESTHETICS The visual characteristics of south Florida can be described according to the three dominant land use categories: natural areas, agricultural lands, and urban areas. The natural areas consist of a variety of upland and wetland ecosystems, including lakes, ponds, vast expanses of marsh and wet prairie, with varying vegetative components. Uplands are often dominated by pine, although other sub-tropical and tropical hardwoods such as fig, gumbo limbo, and cypress occur within their ecotone. Overall, the land is extremely flat, with few natural topographic features. Much of the visible topographic features are man-made, including canals and levees. Additional man-made features include pump stations, navigation locks, secondary and primary roads, highways, electrical wires, communication towers, occasional buildings, and borrow pits RECREATION Recreational opportunities are abundant in south Florida. In addition to the marine based recreation activities of the urbanized east coast, ENP and the WCAs provide high-quality boating, fishing, hiking, and nature interpretation activities which, annually, attract many recreational visitors. 3-49

156 Section 3 Affected Environment ENP has been designated a World Heritage Site, an International Biosphere Reserve, and a Wetland of National Significance. In addition, 86 percent of ENP is designated Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of The State of Florida has designated ENP an Outstanding Florida Water LAND USE The existing land use within the ERTP boundaries varies widely from agricultural to highdensity multi-family and industrial urban uses. A large portion of south Florida remains natural, although much of it is disturbed land. The dominant natural features are the federally protected ENP, Biscayne National Park, BCNP, and the state-protected WCAs. Generally, urban development is concentrated along the LEC from Palm Beach County to Dade County. The LEC extends approximately 100 miles through the coastal portions of Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties. As the most densely populated sub-region in the state, the LEC is home to one-third of the state s population, more than 4.5 million people. The sub-region is primarily an urban megalopolis, but it also contains substantial agricultural acreage, particularly in southwestern Dade County (90,000 acres). Rapid population growth and land development practices have resulted in notable western urban sprawl; the predominant land use is single-family residential. The once significant rural population in the western areas of Broward County has practically disappeared, resulting in an urbanized makeup in population. Much of the land within the area potentially impacted by the proposed action is within the ENP and is publicly owned. However, a number of privately owned parcels still exist within this region. The 8.5 SMA is an inhabited residential and agricultural area bounded on the west by ENP and separated from more intensively developed urban lands to the east by the L-31N flood protection levee and borrow canal SOCIOECONOMICS Florida s economy is characterized by strong wholesale and retail trade, government, and service sectors. The economy of south Florida is based on services, agriculture, and tourism. Florida s warm weather and extensive coastline attract vacationers and other visitors and help make the state a significant retirement destination. The three counties that comprise the LEC (Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade) are heavily populated, and it is estimated that over 6.9 million people will reside in this region by the year A complete socioeconomic description of the C&SF Project area was completed in the Comprehensive Review Study (USACE 1999a) AGRICULTURE The Miami-Dade County agricultural industry is unique in both the types of commodities produced and the method of cultivation. The majority of agricultural activities in the county are located south of Tamiami Trail and east of ENP. A variety of vegetables, fruits, and 3-50

157 Section 3 Affected Environment ornamentals are grown within this region and include many tropical and subtropical crops, which are grown year-round. The most active growing season is between September and May. Because of the wet and dry rainy seasons in the area, planting times are controlled by the elevation of ground water. No prime or unique farmland occurs within the project area (refer to Appendix D-5 for Farmland Conversion Impact Rating [Form AD-1006]). Soils in these agricultural areas are rocky soils and marl soils. The finer texture of the marl soils make them more suitable for tuber crops, such as potatoes and ornamentals, requiring root balls when harvested. The rocky soils, including rockdale and rockland, require a preparation process, which gives this type of farming a unique character. It is necessary to break the hard limestone outcroppings into smaller particles by scarifying or rock plowing before cultivation can take place. When the material is sufficiently pulverized, the fields are prepared in row mounds to gain added protection from the high water tables. Extensive fertilizer is used in both marls and rockland soil farming HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES The project area has low potential for hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW) concerns, as ENP and the WCAs have essentially no industrial, residential or agricultural history. Portions of the WCAs have been used as bombing ranges previous to, and during, the 1960s. Some unexploded ordnance may exist in the project area. Some underground fuel storage tanks along the south-side of Tamiami Trail, between the S-333 and S-334 structures, have been previously identified as leaking fuel products. These locations were monitored for years until the monitoring indicated the problem was sufficiently abated. These tanks are not considered to be a current problem CULTURAL RESOURCES Within the larger region that includes ENP, there are numerous recorded archeological sites indicative of Native American habitation. Prior to European contact, the Everglades were a heavily populated area. Native Americans traveled via canoe and on foot through the saw grass and inhabited many of the tree islands that dot the landscape. The earliest known habitation sites date to the Early Archaic period (7,500 BC) when the Everglades were much drier. However, within the larger area of south Florida, evidence of Paleo-Indian (12,000 to 7,500 BC) habitation has also been recorded (i.e. Warm Mineral Springs (8SO18) and Little Salt Spring (8SO79) (Griffin 1988). Some of the Early Archaic habitation sites have only recently been rediscovered as the result of managed drainage programs in south Florida. As the climate warmed and sea level rose, many Native Americans abandoned the lowest of the tree islands as they became submerged. This process continued through what is known as the Middle Archaic, until climate conditions stabilized around 300 BC at the start of the Late Archaic. Today many sites from both the Early and Middle Archaic periods are no longer submerged and may have more modern Native American use. After the Archaic period, the region became incorporated into what is known as the Glades region and remained inhabited until European contact, when Old World diseases and slave raiding heavily reduced the Native populations during the late 1,500s-1,700s. Many of the 3-51

158 Section 3 Affected Environment tree islands through this portion of the Everglades have sites associated to the Glades period. This period has been broken down into successive stages starting with Glades I, which dates from 500 BC to 750 AD, Glades Period II dating from 750 to 1,200 AD, and Glades Period III dating from 1,200 AD to European contact in the 1,500s. Typical habitation sites through this region are commonly referred to as middens, which are the accumulation of daily life activities on these tree islands. Material remains can stretch from the surface to well over one meter below the surface on certain islands. Native American burials can also be found among these habitation sites. After European contact, Native American populations in the region continuously declined and remained at low levels until Miccosukee and Seminole groups moved into the area while fleeing the U.S. Army and U.S. Governments forced relocation program. Many sites associated with both the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes are known to exist throughout the region. The SRS area contains numerous sites associated with all ages of Native American habitation, with the exclusion of the Paleo-Indian period. The SRS has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The slough was nominated as the Shark River Slough Archaeological District (8DA6693), containing 63 total resources, of which 39 of those resources are contributing resources to the district (Schwandron 1996). Site types typically found include multi-occupation sites such as Tiger Hammock (8DA11), which has middens associated with Glades II and III and Seminole occupations. Within WCA-3, there are currently 109 reported archaeological sites. Unfortunately, only 18 of these sites has had any archaeological work conducted on them. The remaining 91 sites were reported based on aerial analysis alone. There have been no significant studies produced as a result of any investigations on the 18 confirmed sites, other than identification. 3-52

159 Section 4 Environmental Consequences SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-i

160 Section 4 Environmental Consequences This page intentionally left blank 4-ii

161 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 INTRODUCTION This assessment of environmental consequences evaluates the anticipated environmental effects of the alternative actions described in Section 2.0. Since the final array of alternatives contained a no action alternative (the Interim Operational Plan [IOP]), the other three action alternatives were compared to and evaluated against the no action alternative to describe changes to existing conditions with implementation of each Everglades Restoration Transitional Plan (ERTP) action alternative. These potential effects are detailed within this section and summarized in Table General Definitions The following definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, and cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives: Context: The setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as the affected region, society as a whole, the affected interests, and/or a locality. In this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the intensity of impacts is evaluated within a local or project area context, while the intensity of the contribution of effects to cumulative impacts is evaluated in a regional context. Impact Intensity: For this analysis, intensity or severity of the impact is defined as follows: Negligible-impact to the resource or discipline is barely perceptible and not measurable and confined to a small area Minor-impact to the resource or discipline is perceptible and measurable and is localized Moderate-impact is clearly detectable and could have appreciable effect on the resource or discipline; or the impact is perceptible and measurable throughout the project area Major-impact would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on the resource or discipline on a regional scale Duration: The duration of the impacts in this analysis is defined as follows: Short term-when impacts last less than one year; or Long term-impacts that last longer than one year. 4-1

162 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 CLIMATE No effect No effect No effect No significant impacts to geology or soils. GEOLOGY AND SOILS NORTHEAST SHARK RIVER SLOUGH (NESRS) WESTERN SHARK RIVER SLOUGH (WSRS) WATER CONSERVATION AREA 1 (WCA-1) Minor to Moderate: No change in water level in Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS). Current flow-weighted mean phosphorus levels are higher than desired and a continuation of IOP would not change that condition. Under IOP, Settlement Agreement limits have been just at or slightly under the required Total phosphorus (TP) target for the past three years. No significant impact to flows within Western Shark River Slough (WSRS). No increases in discontinuous hydroperiod within Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Subpopulation-A (CSSS-A). Continuation of IOP would have no effect on Water Conservation Area 1 (WCA- 1). WCA-1 would continue to be managed in accordance with the WCA-1 Regulation Schedule. Moderate: increased potential for oxidation, subsidence, and peat fires due to increased duration of dry downs in northern Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A). HYDROLOGY Minor to Major: NESRS water level increase in response to considerable increase in S-333 flow of 43.4 thousand acre feet (kaf) per year. This results in significant improvement in the dry season stages over current conditions. However, increases in flow through S-333 may affect water quality within NESRS due to potential increases in phosphorus loads. Negligible: increased flow into WSRS would occur under this alternative as compared with IOP and Alternative 8D, however, hydroperiods are expected to be less than South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) predictions due to inclusion of Tram Road stoppers. Minor: increased potential for oxidation, subsidence, and peat fires due to increased duration of dry downs in northern WCA-3A. Potential effects are less than under Alternative 7AB. Minor to Moderate: No significant NESRS water level change, even though there was an increase in inflow of 11.7 kaf per year through S-333 to NESRS. However, increases in flow through S-333 may affect water quality within NESRS due to potential increases in phosphorus loads. Negligible: increased flow into WSRS would occur under this alternative as compared with IOP, Alternative 9E1 and 7AB, however, hydroperiods are expected to be less than SFWMM predictions due to inclusion of Tram Road stoppers. No effect No effect No effect Same as under Alternative 8D. Minor to Moderate: No significant change in water level in NESRS even though there was an increase in inflow of 2.2 kaf per year through S-333 to NESRS. However, increases in flow through S-333 may affect water quality within NESRS due to potential increases in phosphorus loads. Negligible: increased flow into WSRS would occur under this alternative as compared with IOP; however, hydroperiods are expected to be less than SFWMM predictions due to inclusion of Tram Road stoppers. 4-2

163 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Continuation of IOP would No effect No effect No effect have no effect on Water WATER Conservation Area 2 (WCA- CONSERVATION 2). WCA-2 would continue AREA 2 (WCA-2) to be managed in accordance with the WCA-2 Regulation Schedule. WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A (WCA-3A) WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3B (WCA-3B) Moderate: prolonged high water levels and hydroperiods in WCA-3A would continue under IOP. Minor: current WCA-3B stages would be maintained under IOP. Moderate: significant reduction in water level (by as much as 0.4 feet) from about the highest 15 percent to about 40 percent of the time range. A slight reduction in water levels for the lowest water levels (bottom right of the plot). Similar reductions were also evident in the eastern part of WCA-3A. In northern WCA-3A where ponding does not normally occur, there were only modest changes in the water levels. Minor: increase in inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) did not result in significantly higher water level in wettest periods. Slight decrease in the normal to drier stage periods which is likely a result of less inflow from WCA-3A during drier times. A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA-3B. Moderate: significant reduction in water level (by as much as 0.2 feet) from about the highest five percent to about 50 percent of the time range. Unlike Alternative 7AB, there was no significant reduction in water levels for the lowest stages. In the eastern part of WCA-3A, a similar reduction was evident. However, in northern WCA-3A where ponding does not normally occur, there were only slight changes in the water levels. Minor: decrease in inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) resulted in lower water levels in normal to wetter periods (no decrease in the drier stage periods). A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA-3B. Moderate: significant reduction in water level (by as much as 0.2 or 0.3 feet) from about the highest five percent to about 50 percent of the time range. Unlike Alternative 7AB, there was no significant reduction in water levels for the lowest stages. In the eastern part of WCA-3A, a similar reduction was evident. However, in northern WCA- 3A there were only slight changes in the water levels. Minor: increase in inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) did not result in significantly higher stages in wetter periods. Slight water level increase in the normal range (no change in the drier stage periods). A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA-3B. 4-3

164 Section 4 TAYLOR SLOUGH Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Minor: pumping at S-332D Minor: improvement in dry Minor: no changes in the water would remain limited at 165 season water levels due to an levels even though there was a cubic feel per second (cfs), slight decrease in flow deliveries thus Taylor Slough would from WCA-3A into the L-31N receive less flow as canal (0.3 kaf per year). The compared with the action alternatives. LOWER EAST COAST (LEC) 8.5 SQUARE MILE AREA (8.5 SMA) increase in flow deliveries from WCA-3A into the L-31N canal and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). Although the flows through G- 211 to the southern area of L- 31N increased by 4.1 kaf per year, the flows at S-332D increased by 10.3 kaf per year in response. The increased water level in the vicinity of the 8.5 Square Mile Area (8.5 SMA) caused additional flows to enter L-31N and resulted in 8.5 kaf per year increase in flow to the lower portion of L- 31N from S-331. Although not modeled, this alternative's increase in S-332D pump limitation from 165 to 250 cfs would allow an increase in flow into Taylor Slough. No effect Negligible: no significant change in groundwater and/or canal levels and no increase in number of water supply cutback months. Moderate impact to water supply source during drought years for Service Area 3 (SA-3). For SA-3, there was a decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries from Lake Okeechobee. flows through G-211 to the southern area of L-31N decreased by 6.5 kaf per year and the flows into all the seepage reservoirs decreased in response. Although not modeled, this alternative's increase in S-332D pump limitation from 165 to 250 cfs would allow an increase in flow into Taylor Slough. Negligible: no significant change in number of groundwater and/or canal levels and no increase in water supply cutback months. Minor impact to water supply source during drought years for Service Area 3. For SA-3, there was a small decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries from Lake Okeechobee. No effect No effect No effect No effect Minor: no changes in the water levels even though there was a slight decrease in flow deliveries from WCA-3A into the L-31N canal (0.2 kaf per year). The flows through G-211 to the southern area of L-31N decreased by 2.0 kaf per year but resulted in no significant downstream changes. Although not modeled, this alternative's increase in S-332D pump limitation from 165 to 250 cfs would allow an increase in flow into Taylor Slough. Negligible: no significant change in number of groundwater and/or canal levels and no increase in water supply cutback months. Minor impact to water supply source for Service Area 3 (the Miami- Dade area) during drought years. For SA-3, there was a decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries from Lake Okeechobee. 4-4

165 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 No effect Minor: decrease in flow into the Minor: decreases in flow into the Negligible: slight change in Miami River and Central Miami River, Central Biscayne flow to the bay areas. Biscayne Bay areas, and a Bay and South Biscayne Bay BISCAYNE BAY minor increase into the South areas. None of the changes are Biscayne Bay area. Neither likely to be significant. change is likely to be FLORIDA BAY WATER QUALITY FLOOD CONTROL WETLANDS The potential for exceedance of the Settlement Agreement is the same as under Alternative 8D or 9E1. No impact: existing levels of flood control would be maintained. Negligible to Moderate: dependent upon location within action area. Negative impacts on vegetation within southern WCA-3A and snail kite critical habitat would continue under IOP. significant. Minor: the transect flows for Florida Bay show a minor increase in flow for T23B and T23C. The changes, about 2 to 3 kaf per year, are not likely to be significant. Moderate: one additional exceedance of 1995 Settlement Agreement long term limit (LTL) as compared with IOP. Minor: more water passed to SDCS as compared with IOP. Increased water passed to S- 332D reservoir. Negligible to Moderate: dependent upon location within action area and associated hydrological changes within a particular location. This alternative has the greatest potential impacts to wetlands, particularly within WCA-3A, due to lowering of the zones with the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Refer to hydrology and vegetation within this section for full details. No wetlands will be dredged or filled as a result of implementation. Negligible: the transect flows for Florida Bay show were essentially unchanged in flow for T23A, T23B and T23C. Minor: no additional exceedances of 1995 Settlement Agreement LTL as compared with IOP. No impact: less water passed to SDCS as compared with IOP. Similar as Alternative 7AB; however, changes within WCA- 3A would not be as great, due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. No wetlands will be dredged or filled as a result of implementation. Negligible: the transect flows for Florida Bay show were essentially unchanged in flow for T23A, T23B and T23C. Minor: no additional exceedances of 1995 Settlement Agreement LTL as compared with IOP. Same as Alternative 8D Similar to Alternative 8D, however, greater potential to reduce water levels within southern WCA-3A. No wetlands will be dredged or filled as a result of this action. 4-5

166 Section 4 VEGETATION Regulation schedule. Vegetation change associated with lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule would be greatest under this Alternative as compared with Alternatives 8D or 9E1. Impacts to vegetation in NESRS may occur due to potential changes in water quality, the extent of which are uncertain at this time. The potential for adverse impacts due to water quality would be greatest under this alternative due to the increase in flows through S-333 into NESRS. Water quality monitoring would continue under this alternative. Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Negligible to Moderate: Negligible to Moderate: Negligible to Minor: similar to Negligible to Minor: similar depending upon location. depending upon location. The Alternative 7AB; however, to Alternative 7AB; Negative impacts on greatest effects on vegetation vegetation change associated with however, indirect impacts to vegetation within southern will be observed within WCA- lowering of the WCA-3A vegetation due to water WCA-3A and snail kite 3A where water levels will be Regulation Schedule and indirect quality would not be as great critical habitat would reduced and prolonged periods impacts to vegetation due to water as under Alternative 7AB or continue under IOP. of flooding will be lessened quality would not be as great as Alternative 8D. SFWMM through lowering of WCA-3A under Alternative 7AB. FISH AND WILDLIFE Negligible to Moderate: depending upon location and species. Negative impacts on fish and wildlife species within WCA-3A, including the endangered snail kite and its critical habitat within WCA-3A, would continue under IOP. Negligible to Moderate: depending upon location and species. Refer to text for details. Since all zones within the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule were lowered under Alternative 7AB, the greatest impacts to fish and wildlife would be expected under this alternative as compared with Alternative 8D or 9E1. Indirect effects on fish and wildlife resources would also be greatest under this alternative (refer to Appendix C for Water Negligible to Moderate: depending upon location and species. Refer to text for details. This Alternative does not result in as great a duration of dry periods within northern WCA-3A as compared with Alternative 7AB. However, this Alternative also does not allow for flexibility in water management operations to better meet fish and wildlife resource needs as compared with Alternative 9E1. results revealed an increase of 2.2 kaf per year through S-333 under Alternative 9E1 as compared with an increase of 11.7 kaf per year through S-333 under Alternative 8D. Negligible to Moderate: depending upon location and species. Refer to text for details. This alternative also does not result in as great a duration of dry events within northern WCA-3A as compared with Alternative 7AB. Due to the extension of Zones D and E1, there is greater opportunity for more flexible water management operations in WCA-3A to meet needs of fish and wildlife species as compared 4-6

167 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Quality analysis). with Alternative 8D. EVERGLADE SNAIL KITE Major: Negative impacts on the endangered snail kite and its critical habitat within WCA-3A, would continue under IOP. Limited ability to manage for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Multi-Species Transitional Strategy (MSTS) water depths and recession rates as compared with Alternative 9E1. PROTECTED SPECIES Moderate: hydrological changes associated with implementation of the action are expected to alter and slightly improve some of the physical and biological features essential to the nesting and foraging success of the species. These changes pose fewer impacts on the snail kite, apple snail and their habitat as compared with the current operational regime and thus represent an improvement over current operations. Alternative 7AB resulted in an increased frequency and duration of dry events and water levels that fell outside the FWS MSTS recommended depths for snail kite and apple snails. Their effects were greater than viewed with Alternatives 8D and 9E1. Moderate: Alternative 8D showed positive benefits due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule; however the FWS MSTS recommended depths for snail kites and apple snails were not met as often as under Alternative 9E1. Alternative 8D also showed improved conditions in northern WCA-3A as compared with Alternative 7AB with less severe dry events. In comparison with Alternative 9E1, Alternative 8D does not include extension of water regulation zones and, therefore, does not contain as much flexibility to manage for FWS MSTS recommended recession rates. Releases from S- 12A, S-12B, S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 from November 1 to January 31 would be governed by the Rainfall Plan and, thus, an opportunity to meet endangered species requirements in term of recession rates or water depths would be lost under implementation of Alternative 8D. Moderate: Similar to Alternative 8D; however, the intent of extending Zones D and E1 is to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels within WCA-3A for the protection of multiple species and their habitats. Through this modification, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will have additional flexibility as compared with the existing WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in making water releases from WCA-3A in order to better manage recession and ascension rates, as well as to alleviate high water conditions in southern WCA-3A (refer to Appendix E). Lowering of WCA-3A water levels under Alternative 9E1 would provide the greatest relief from prolonged high water levels, prolonged low water levels and rapid recession rates as compared with Alternatives 7AB and 8D species and their habitats. 4-7

168 Section 4 WOOD STORK Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Moderate: Foraging depths Moderate: hydrological Moderate: Alternative 8D showed within WCA-3A would positive benefits due to lowering remain high within WCA-3, of the WCA-3A Regulation particularly within southern Schedule; however the FWS WCA-3A. Limited ability to MSTS recommended depths for manage for FWS MSTS snail kites and apple snails were recession rates and water not met as often as under depths as compared with Alternative 9E1. Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1. changes associated with implementation of the action are expected to alter and slightly improve some of the physical and biological features essential to the nesting and foraging success of the species. Alternative 7AB resulted in an increased frequency and duration of dry events and water levels that fell outside the FWS MSTS recommended depths. There effects were greater than viewed with Alternatives 8D and 9E1. also showed improved conditions in northern WCA-3A as compared with Alternative 7AB with less severe dry events. In comparison with Alternative 9E1, Alternative 8D does not include extension of water regulation zones and therefore does not contain as much flexibility to manage for FWS MSTS recommended recession rates. Releases from S-12A, S- 12B, S-343A, S-343B, and S-344 from November 1 to January 31 would be governed by the Rainfall Plan and, thus, an opportunity to meet endangered species requirements in term of recession rates or water depths would be lost under implementation of Alternative 8D. Moderate: similar to Alternative 8D; however, the intent of extending Zones D and E1 is to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels within WCA-3A for the protection of multiple species and their habitats. Through this modification, USACE will have additional flexibility as compared with the existing WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in making water releases from WCA-3A in order to better manage recession and ascension rates, as well as to alleviate high water conditions in southern WCA-3A (refer to Appendix E). 4-8

169 Section 4 CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Minor: the 1999 FWS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) would continue to be met under this alternative. Minor: the 1999 FWS RPA would continue to be met under this alternative. The proposed action potentially raises groundwater levels in sensitive areas, hydrological changes associated with implementation of the action are expected to alter some of the physical and biological features essential to the nesting success and overall conservation of the subspecies. Although the action related hydrological changes are expected to be minimal, USACE has determined the action may affect the CSSS. SFWMM results showed a net increase in hydroperiod at NP- 205 (CSSS-A) of 32 days over the 36-year Period-of-Record (POR) as compared with IOP. This alternative would also provide 60 consecutive dry days at NP-205 in 67 percent of years modeled. Minor: Same as Alternative 7AB; however, SFWMM results showed a net increase in hydroperiod at NP-205 (CSSS-A) of 52 days. Alternative 8D would meet the FWS RPA 60 dry day requirement in 64 percent of years (one less year than IOP and Alternative 7AB), providing only 57 consecutive dry days in 1994 as compared with 60 consecutive dry days under Alternative 7AB. Minor: Same as Alternative 8D; however, SFWMM results showed a net increase in hydroperiod at NP-205 (CSSS-A) of 15 days, representing an increase of 0.02 percent over the 36-year POR. Like Alternative 8D, Alternative 9E1 would meet the FWS RPA 60 dry day requirement in 64 percent of years (one less year than IOP and Alternative 7AB), providing only 57 consecutive dry days in 1994 as compared with 60 consecutive dry days under Alternative 7AB. 4-9

170 Section 4 STATE LISTED SPECIES Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Negligible to Moderate: Negligible to Moderate: same as Same as Alternative 8D depending upon species and Alternative 7AB but with fewer associated habitats. Foraging adverse impacts on state listed depths for state-listed wading wading bird species in northern birds species have potential WCA-3A. to remain too high for effective foraging within southern WCA-3A. No impacts to upland species are expected. AIR QUALITY NOISE AESTHETICS No effect No effect No effect Negligible to Moderate: depending upon species and associated habitat. Effects on wading bird species expected to be similar to effects on wood storks. Impacts to state-listed wading bird colonies in northern WCA-3A would be greatest under this Alternative as compared with Alternatives 8D or 9E1, due to lowering of all of the zones within the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and the potential for extended dry events in northern WCA- 3A as compared with Alternatives 8D or 9E1. Negligible impacts on upland species. Negligible to Minor: slightly increased fire potential due to drier conditions within northern WCA-3A, which would negatively impact air quality. Negligible: slight decrease in noise may be associated with less air boat traffic during very dry periods. Minor: due to installation of Tram Road stoppers, water may pond on the east side of the Tram Road drawing wildlife closer to the roadway and enhancing the Everglades National Park (ENP) visitor s experience. Negligible: no effects on air quality are anticipated. Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 8D Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB 4-10

171 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 No effect Minor: potential impacts to Air boat usage within WCA-3A Same as Alternative 8D airboat access to some areas of would be less impacted under this WCA-3A during dry periods alternative than Alternative 7AB. RECREATION due to lowering of WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. However, areas of the marsh will still be available for recreational air boaters. No effect Minor: potential for limited air boat access to some areas of the Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB marsh during dry periods. Since other areas will remain SOCIOECONOMICS wet, potential impacts on concessionaires will be minor and largely determined by meteorological conditions rather than water management AGRICULTURE No effect operations. Negligible: while more water is sent to the SDCS, the increase was passed through S-332D. Negligible: less water is passed to the SDCS as compared with IOP. Same as Alternative 8D 4-11

172 Section 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Consequences Alternatives No Action/IOP Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Minor to Moderate: high Unknown: at this time it is not Same as Alternative 7AB Same as Alternative 7AB water levels within WCA-3A clear if further fluctuations would continue to impact created through controlled cultural resources within this staging of the water will further area, most notably tree impact resources. islands. To understand the effects of hydrologic changes on cultural resources USACE is developing a survey strategy to understand the effects on significant cultural resources, including an assessment of both past (IOP) and future Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) water management changes. This effort will take multiple years to complete and as such USACE will be implementing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) as specified under ER Appendix C4 (5)(d)(2) and 36CFR800.14b(1)(ii). 4-12

173 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.2 CLIMATE Implementation of Alternatives 7AB, 8D or 9E1 would have no effect on climate. 4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Lowering of water levels within Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A), particularly in northern WCA-3A, has the potential to affect geology and soils within this region of the ERTP action area. Potential effects include oxidation, subsidence and increased potential for peat fires due to a slight increased duration of dry downs within northern WCA-3A. The South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) results suggest that Alternative 7AB would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on soils within this region, as illustrated by Figure 4-1. Using data from SFWMM results for Gauge 3A-3 in northern WCA-3A (refer to Figure 1-2 for gauge location), Figure 4-1 compares the percentage of years in which the number of consecutive dry days was more than four to eight weeks in duration. Alternatives 8D and 9E1 revealed similar levels of potential impacts with Alternative 9E1 performing best overall of the three action alternatives. Similar figures for central and southern WCA-3A are included within Appendix B. When comparing SFWMM results using only the period between 1990 and 2000, which experienced similar climatic conditions as the contemporary period (Appendix F), the percentage of years experiencing dry downs is significantly reduced, as illustrated by Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, respectively. The effects of implementation of the tentatively selected plan (TSP) have the potential for small localized effects on soils within northern WCA-3A, depending on climatic conditions. 4-13

174 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Note: 1. Based on SFWMM results. 2. As measured at Gauge 3A-3, located within Northern WCA-3A. FIGURE 4-1: PERCENTAGE OF YEARS IN WHICH THE NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS FELL WITHIN EACH OF FOUR CATEGORIES FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1965 THROUGH

175 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Note: 1. Based on SFWMM results. 2. As measured at Gauge 3A-1, located within Northern WCA-3A. FIGURE 4-2: PERCENTAGE OF YEARS IN WHICH THE NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS FELL WITHIN EACH OF FOUR CATEGORIES FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1990 THROUGH 2000 Note: 1. Based on SFWMM results. 2. As measured at Gauge 3A-3, located within Northern WCA-3A. FIGURE 4-3: NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1990 THROUGH

176 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.4 HYDROLOGY Although lowering the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule represents a significant step in lowering the water levels in WCA-3A, not all areas of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project would be affected. The greatest potential for change from lowering the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule is in the ponded areas of WCA-3A. However, other areas could be affected to a lesser extent; therefore, each sub-region of the C&SF Project will be discussed separately. All figures referenced within the Hydrology section of this document are located within Appendix A and will be notated as Figure A-H-# throughout this document. The reader should refer to Appendix A to locate the referenced figures. The intent of lowering Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule is to not only initiate regulatory releases sooner in the wet season, but also to open the outflow structures more quickly in response to WCA-3A stage increases and to sustain larger magnitude releases later in the wet season and into the early dry season. The lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule may result in more accumulated outflow during the wet season and early dry season. In all the alternatives, the operation of the S-12C structure was not restricted with seasonal closures and can provide more outflow in the early dry season, as well as during the spring, to help reduce undesirable rises in the WCA-3A water stage; in contrast, IOP required closure of S-12C from February 1 through July 14 each year. The hydrologic effects of the ERTP alternatives were analyzed using the SFWMM. A regional-scale hydrologic model, the SFWMM simulates physical processes in the natural (coupled surface water and groundwater) and man-made (canals, structures and reservoirs) systems in South Florida (South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] 2005). The SFWMM includes management and operational rules established for operating the C&SF Project for flood control and other purposes. As a planning tool, the model is applied to predict the response of the hydrologic system to proposed changes in hydraulic infrastructure and/or operating rules. The design of the model takes into consideration the distinct hydrologic and geologic features of subtropical South Florida which includes: 1) the strong interaction between canals and the highly permeable surficial aquifer, especially in the eastern portion of the region; and 2) the effects of rainfall, evapotranspiration, overland flow and groundwater movement within the WCAs and Everglades National Park (ENP). To jointly simulate these complex processes, a distributed parameter/cell-based network is used. The SFWMM integrates hydrologic processes with the hydraulic infrastructure and associated policy-based rules and guidelines related to water management in south Florida. The SFWMM is the primary tool used to evaluate the interaction of water supply and demand with hydrologic conditions in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties and portions of seven other counties in south Florida. For this analysis of hydrologic effects, relative comparisons are provided between the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study (LORSS) Base Run simulation (LORSS_T3), which includes the current IOP regulation schedule for WCA-3A, and the simulation results from the proposed ERTP alternatives. Discussion of hydrologic effects on the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS) sub-populations is based on review of previously applied SFWMM CSSS standard output graphics. The current SFWMM simulation period-of-record (POR) is

177 Section 4 Environmental Consequences to 2000, and the SFWMM is, therefore, presently unable to simulate the period of IOP operations (post-2002) to allow for a direct comparison of SFWMM model predictions to observed IOP hydrologic conditions. Future planned updates to the SFWMM, not available at the time of ERTP modeling efforts, will extend the simulation POR through It is important to note that the SFWMM does not include the capability of modeling condition dependent operations that result from the adaptive management strategies proposed within ERTP; thus, the modeling results serve as a baseline of potential hydrological conditions within the ERTP project area. Therefore, in order to assess the potential effects of adaptive management operations proposed within ERTP, a WCA-3A Water Budget Spreadsheet Analysis (Appendix A-2), referred to as ERTP Sim, was prepared to simulate a representative sample of potential water management operations that could occur in any given year in order to meet the Periodic Scientists Call (PSC) recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Multi-Species Transitional Strategy (MSTS) (Figure 1-3) water depths, recession and ascension rates within WCA-3A, depending upon observed hydrological, meteorological and species conditions. Ecological Input and Release Guidance Flow Charts (Appendix A-3, Figure A-3-4 and Figure A-3-5) were formulated to guide water management strategies depending upon actual and forecasted hydrological conditions and PSC ecological recommendations. Potential scenarios are outlined and evaluated to compare the performance of the ERTP alternatives within Appendix A-2. The adjustments to Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and S-12C operations, for example, are important operational changes that are effectively modeled and evaluating by using the SFWMM; however, the adaptive management strategies that are proposed to be implemented under ERTP, but are not able to be predicted by the model, especially usage of the MSTS within Zone E-1, are equally important tools in this ERTP strategy to truly move towards multi-species management. Because the greatest effect of the ERTP alternatives was observed in water stage changes within WCA-3A, the discussion of hydrology for each alternative will start with WCA-3A, followed by a discussion of changes to WCA-3B and ENP, and then will follow a counterclockwise progression for each sub-region throughout the C&SF Project. The figures referenced in this paragraph were provided to give the reader necessary background information with regard to the locations referenced within the following alternative evaluation discussions. Figure A-H-1 shows the location of the Indicator Regions that will be presented and discussed. Figure A-H-2 shows the generalized topography as used in the SFWMM. Figure A-H-3 shows the locations of the "flow transect" lines where the overland flow has been calculated for comparisons. Figure A-H-4 shows the locations of various gauges with respect to the SFWMM modeling grid. Stage Hydrographs are graphs showing the daily water stage changes over the 36-year POR used for modeling purposes (1965 through 2000); the information contained within stage hydrographs may also be presented as depth hydrographs, through conversion utilizing the SFWMM grid cell or average indicator region topographic elevations. An example of a stage hydrograph is shown in Figure A-H-5 (Indicator Region 119). A related graphic, termed a stage duration curve, is shown in Figure A-H-6 for the same region. To generate a stage 4-17

178 Section 4 Environmental Consequences duration curve graphic, all the individual daily stage values are ranked (from the stage hydrograph data) and then displayed from the highest value to the lowest stage value (from left to right), expressed as a percent of time exceeded for the 36-year POR. The stage duration curve often shows the effect on alternative water levels (may be expressed as either stage or depth) more clearly than a stage hydrograph. Accordingly, most of the stage evaluation discussion in this section will reference changes in the stage duration curves. The green line in both the stage hydrograph and stage duration curve represents the stages for the Natural System Model (NSM), version The dashed horizontal line at 2.5 feet defines the high water depth criteria utilized for the SFWMM high/low water depth criteria graphics. The topography of WCA-3A (Figure A-H-2) shows a general downward slope from the northwest corner; hence, the water tends to pond in the eastern and southern areas. Water flowing across the northeast and northern areas tend to be sheet flow (broad, overland flow), except where canals exist Alternative 7AB Unlike the other final alternatives, Alternative 7AB has a unique WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, as discussed within Section 2. The operations of Alternative 7AB are similar to IOP in Zone A, B, and C, but all the zones were lowered. Alternative 7AB was developed to achieve a more significant lowering of the stages in WCA-3A than the other alternatives Water Conservation Area-3A The result of lowering the zones can be seen in the southern areas of WCA-3A, such as Indicator Region 124, Figure A-H-7 and Figure A-H-8. Some stage reductions can be seen clearly in Figure A-H-7; however, the overall change can be seen more easily in Figure A-H-8. The stages show a significant reduction (by as much as 0.4 feet) from approximately the highest 15 percent to approximately 40 percent of the time range. A slight reduction in stages at the lowest stages (bottom right of the plot) can also be observed. In the eastern part of WCA-3A, similar reductions were also evident (Figure A-H-5 and Figure A-H-6). However, in the northern part where ponding does not normally occur (such as in Indicator Region 115, Figure A-H-9), there were only modest changes in the stages. The improvement to WCA-3A high water conditions can be seen in Figure A-H-10 (for southern WCA-3A). The number of weeks of high water under the current condition (392 weeks) was reduced to 230 weeks, with the increase in the number of low water events (from two to seven weeks). This equates to a 41 percent reduction in exceedance of the high water stage criterion. The lower stages predicted in WCA-3A were the result of greater outflows from WCA-3A caused by the lower regulation schedule, since the inflows from Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), and WCA-2A remained similar to the current (IOP, Base Run) condition. The outflows were increased primarily to the ENP and WCA-3B. On 4-18

179 Section 4 Environmental Consequences an average annual basis, the total structure inflows to WCA-3A increased by 2.2 thousand acre-feet (kaf) per year, while the total structure outflows increased by 69.9 kaf per year. Outflow to WCA-3B increased by 8.7 kaf per year, the outflow through the S-12s increased by 12.6 kaf per year, and the outflow to the NESRS increased by 30.8 kaf per year Water Conservation Area-3B For Alternative 7AB, the increase in regulatory inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) did not result in significantly higher stage in the wettest periods (see Figure A-H-11). However, there is a slight decrease in the normal to drier stage periods which is likely a result of less inflow from WCA-3A during drier times. A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA-3B. ERTP modeling of Alternative 7AB was updated to account for utilization of S-151 during Column 2 operations within Zone D, although it should be recognized that this is a SFWMM modeling update for consistency with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS and historical operations, and not a specified change to S-151 operations already in place under IOP. SFWMM modeling of the IOP recommended plan (ALT7R) included in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, which was based on SFWMM modeling conducted concurrent with completion of the 2002 IOP EIS, assumed S-151 regulatory releases (releases other than for downstream water supply) during Column 2 operations would not occur within Zone D of the IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule when the S-12s are all open (after July 14). This assumption was retained in the LORSS Base Run simulation that was utilized for the ERTP modeling representation of IOP. However, in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS (page 55), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recognized that Column 2 operations may extend beyond the July 15 date for S-12 opening, to account for lost discharge capacity caused by S-12 closures; consistent with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, regional water management operations under IOP have not precluded utilization of S-151 for regulatory releases during Column 2 operations when WCA-3A stage is within Zone D of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Everglades National Park (Western Shark River Slough, Northeast Shark River Slough, and Taylor Slough) Because of the increase in flows into the ENP, careful examination of the hydroperiod was warranted, especially in the region of the CSSS-A. It should be noted that the blocking of the Tram Road culverts was not included in the modeling of the alternatives. The effect of blocking the Tram Road culverts would be to move water discharged from S-12C in a more southerly path, away from the CSSS-A. Therefore, the model would likely over predict any impact to that subpopulation. In addition, to further prevent westward flow of water from the borrow canal associated with the old Tamiami Trail road, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) may elect to purchase, install, monitor and maintain a removable stopper in this borrow canal between S-12C and S-12B. This structure is not included in the selected plan nor was the operations part of the modeling. However, DOI has identified that this removable stopper may be desired in the future. If DOI decides that they want to install this structure (in coordination with USACE), it would be compatible with the currently proposed 4-19

180 Section 4 Environmental Consequences plan. However, USACE would have authority to remove this stopper in the event that increased conveyance capacity is required to remove water from WCA-3A due to high water concerns. In addition to the discussion regarding CSSS-A in this section, more detail is provided in Section Figure A-H-12 shows the hydroperiod for the CSSS-A Indicator Region. The figure shows the hydroperiod to be slightly increased across the POR, with lesser changes observed within the two-to-four month and four-to-six month target windows. Figure A-H-13 shows that the CSSS-A nesting conditions were not adversely impacted. The CSSS-A region, although much drier than NSM, shows to be close to the indicated target boxes for the CSSS-A. Thus, modeling the increased flow into ENP through the S-12s did not show any significant adverse impacts to CSSS-A, even though the model would tend to over-predict any such impact. For Alternative 7AB, the increase in stage in Northeast Shark River Slough (NESRS) is a positive response to the significant increase in flow from S-333. Figure A-H-14, the stage duration curve for the NESRS Indicator Region 129, shows significant improvement in the dry season stages compared to current conditions. For Taylor Slough, a slight improvement in the dry season stages can be seen (Figure A-H-15, the stage duration curve for the NESRS Indicator Region 133). This is due to an increase in flow deliveries from WCA-3A into the L-31N Canal and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). Although the flows through G-211 to the southern area of L- 31N increased by 4.1 kaf per year, the S-332D pumping increased by 10.3 kaf per year in response. The increased stage in the vicinity of the 8.5 Square Mile Area (8.5 SMA) caused additional flows to enter L-31N and resulted in an 8.5 kaf per year increase in flow to the lower portion of L-31N from S Florida Bay The transect flows for Florida Bay show a slight increase in flow for T23B and T23C. Figure A-H-19 shows the transect flow for Florida Bay. The changes in T23B and T23C flows, (approximately two to three kaf per year) are not likely to be significant Square Mile Area No significant changes within the 8.5 SMA would be expected with this alternative, based upon the review of model stage output at G-596 (Figure A-H-20) and along the adjacent L- 31N canal South Dade Because any increase in flow into L-31N was passed on to the C-111 South Detention Area (SDA) reservoirs, no significant changes were noted for the water stages in the SDCS. 4-20

181 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Biscayne Bay The mean structure flows discharged into Biscayne Bay can be seen in Figure A-H-21. The graphic shows a slight decrease in flow into the Miami River and central Bay areas, but a slight increase into South Bay; however, neither change is likely to be significant Lower East Coast There were no significant changes in the water stages in the Lower East Coast (LEC). For Service Areas (SA) 1, 2 and 3, there were no increases in the monthly water supply cutbacks. However, there was a significant change in the water supply source for SA-3 (the Miami- Dade area) during drought years, as shown in Figure A-H-22. For SA-3, there was a decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries needed from Lake Okeechobee. The number of simulated days for Lake Okeechobee water supply deliveries to the LEC SA-3 increased from 763 days in the Base Run to 960 days, a 26 percent increase. Drought year water supply deliveries from Lake Okeechobee can be problematic or extremely difficult if the lake stages are below the level at which pumping is needed to pass the water supply releases. Alternative 7AB showed the greatest impact to SA- 3 water supply sources over all other alternatives Lake Okeechobee As shown in the stage duration curve for Lake Okeechobee (Figure A-H-23), only a slight change is noted in the drier stage, which is due to the increased need by the LEC SA-3 for water supply deliveries during droughts. This has a potential for increasing the exceedance of the minimum water level criteria for Lake Okeechobee (stage below 11 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD] for 80 consecutive days) one additional time (see Figure A-H-24) over the 36-year POR. It should be noted that in the Base Run, a 1971 drought event was a borderline case where the 11-foot criterion was briefly exceeded (for three days) by 0.02 feet, which broke the drought event into two events, both having less than 80 days. The same 1971 event triggered an exceedance for all other alternatives because they did not go over the 11-foot mark for those three days. The modeling does not show a significant change in meeting the minimum level requirements. The Lake Okeechobee minimum water level criterion is not equivalent to the Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flows and Levels criteria, the latter of which additionally includes a consideration for drought frequency. Except for the low stage changes, the lake stage was essentially unchanged. The changes in structure outflows were not significant (Figure A-H-25), with the exception that 10 kaf per year less water was sent to the WCAs Northern Estuaries There were no significant changes in flow to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries (see Figure A-H-25) and no change in the performance of these areas was indicated. 4-21

182 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Lake Okeechobee Service Area For the water supply deliveries around Lake Okeechobee, including the EAA, no significant change was noted even in the drought years (Figure A-H-26), although a slight increase was noted for Alternative 7AB Water Conservation Area-1 No significant changes were indicated for this area Water Conservation Area 2A and 2B No significant changes were indicated for these areas Alternative 8D As discussed in earlier sections, only Zone A was lowered in Alternative 8D, thus eliminating Zones B and C. As will be discussed, Alternative 8D results in lesser changes in the C&SF system than does Alternative 7AB Water Conservation Area 3A The result of lowering Zone A can be seen in the southern areas of WCA-3A, such as Indicator Region 124 (Figure A-H-7 and Figure A-H-8). Figure A-H-7 shows some peak stage reductions; however the overall change can be seen in Figure A-H-8. The stages show a significant reduction, by as much as 0.2 feet, from about the highest five percent to about the 50 percent of the time range. Unlike Alternative 7AB, there was no significant reduction in stages for the lowest stages. In the eastern part of WCA-3A, a similar reduction was evident (Figure A-H-5 and Figure A-H-6). However, in the northern part where ponding does not normally occur, such as in Indicator Region 115 (Figure A-H-9), there were only slight changes in the stages. The improvement to WCA-3A high water conditions can be seen in Figure A-H-10 (Indicator Region 124). The number of weeks of high water under the current condition (392 weeks) was reduced to 289 weeks, with no increase in the number of low water events. This equates to a 26 percent reduction in the high water stage criterion. The lower stages in WCA-3A were the result of greater outflows from WCA-3A and a decrease in the inflows from Lake Okeechobee and EAA. Outflows were increased to the ENP, but reduced to WCA-3B. On an average annual basis, the total structure inflow into WCA-3A decreased by 8.4 kaf per year, while the total structure outflows increased by 18.8 kaf per year. Outflow to WCA-3B decreased by 30.3 kaf per year, but the total outflow through the S-12s increased by 41.0 kaf per year with an increased outflow to NESRS by 12.0 kaf per year. 4-22

183 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Water Conservation Area 3B For Alternative 8D, the decrease in regulatory inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) resulted in lower stages in normal to wetter periods (see Figure A-H-11); there was not a decrease in the drier stage periods. A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA- 3B. ERTP modeling of Alternative 8D was updated to account for utilization of S-151 during Column 2 operations within Zone D, although it should be recognized that this is a SFWMM modeling update for consistency with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS and historical operations, and not a specified change to S-151 operations already in place under IOP. SFWMM modeling of the IOP recommended plan (ALT7R) included in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, which was based on SFWMM modeling conducted concurrent with completion of the 2002 IOP EIS, assumed S-151 regulatory releases during Column 2 operations would not occur within Zone D of the IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule when the S-12s are all open (after July 14). This assumption was retained in the LORSS Base Run simulation that was utilized for the ERTP modeling representation of IOP. However, in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS (page 55), USACE recognized that Column 2 operations may extend beyond the July 15 date for S-12 opening, to account for lost discharge capacity caused by S-12 closures; consistent with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, regional water management operations under IOP have not precluded utilization of S-151 for regulatory releases during Column 2 operations when WCA-3A stage is within Zone D of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule Everglades National Park (Western Shark River Slough, Northeast Shark River Slough, and Taylor Slough) Because of the increase in flows into ENP, careful examination of the hydroperiod was warranted, especially in the in region of the CSSS-A. It should be noted that the blocking of the Tram Road culverts was not included in the modeling of the alternatives. The effect of blocking the Tram Road culverts would be to move water in a more southerly path, away from CSSS-A. Therefore, the model would likely over-predict any impact to that subpopulation. In addition, to further prevent westward flow of water from the borrow canal associated with the old Tamiami Trail road, DOI may elect to purchase, install, monitor and maintain a removable stopper in this borrow canal between S-12C and S-12B. This removable stopper and its operations were not included in the selected plan and were not part of the modeling. However, DOI has identified that this removable stopper may be desired in the future. If DOI decides that they want to install this structure (in coordination with USACE), it would be compatible with the currently proposed plan. USACE would have authority to remove this stopper in the event that increased conveyance capacity is required to remove water from WCA-3A due to high water concerns. In addition to the discussion regarding the CSSS-A in this section, more detail is provided in Section Figure A-H-12 shows the hydroperiod for the CSSS-A Indicator Region. The figure shows the hydroperiod to be essentially unchanged, especially in the target windows. Figure A-H-13 shows that the CSSS-A nesting conditions were not adversely impacted. The 4-23

184 Section 4 Environmental Consequences CSSS-A region, although much drier than NSM, shows to be close to the targets for the CSSS-A. Thus, modeling the increased flow into the ENP through the S-12s did not show any adverse impacts to CSSS-A, even though the model would tend to over-predict any such impact. No significant change in stage in NESRS was seen, even though there was an increase in inflow (11.7 kaf per year) to NESRS through S-333. Figure A-H-14 shows no significant change compared to current conditions. For Taylor Slough, no changes in the stages can be seen (Figure A-H-15) even though there was a slight decrease in flow deliveries from WCA-3A into the L-31N canal and the SDCS (0.3 kaf per year). The flows through G-211 to the southern area of L-31N decreased by 6.5 kaf per year and the flows to the C-111 SDA and S-332D decreased in response Florida Bay The transect flows for Florida Bay show were essentially unchanged in flow for T23A, T23B and T23C (Figure A-H-19) Square Mile Area No significant changes within the 8.5 SMA would be expected with this alternative, based upon the review of model stage output at G-596 (Figure A-H-20) and along the adjacent L-31N Canal South Dade Although there was a slight decrease in flow into L-31N (as discussed earlier), no significant changes were noted for the water stages in the SDCS Biscayne Bay The mean structure flows discharged into Biscayne Bay can be seen in Figure A-H-21. The graphic shows slight decreases in flow into the Miami River, Central Bay and South Bay areas; however, none of the changes are likely to be significant Lower East Coast There were no significant changes in the water stages in the LEC. For Service Areas 1, 2 and 3, there were no increases in monthly water supply cutbacks. However, there was a slight change in the water supply source for SA-3 (the Miami-Dade area) during drought years, as shown in Figure A-H-22. For SA-3, there was a small decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries needed from Lake Okeechobee. The number of simulated days for Lake Okeechobee water supply deliveries to LEC SA-3 increased from 763 days in the Base Run to 813 days, a seven percent increase. Drought year water supply deliveries from Lake Okeechobee can be problematic or extremely difficult if the lake stages 4-24

185 Section 4 Environmental Consequences are below the level at which pumping is needed to pass the water supply releases. Alternative 8D showed the least change in sources for SA-3 water supplies over all other alternatives Lake Okeechobee As shown in the stage duration curve for Lake Okeechobee (Figure A-H-23), no change is noted in the drier stages even though there was an increased need by the LEC SA-3 for water supply deliveries during droughts. This has a potential for increasing the exceedance of the minimum water level criteria for Lake Okeechobee by one additional time (see Figure A-H-24). It should be noted that in the Base Run, a 1971 drought event was a borderline case where the 11-foot criterion was briefly exceeded (for three days) by 0.02 feet, which broke the drought event into two events, both having less than 80 days. The same 1971 event triggered an exceedance for all other alternatives because they did not go over the 11-foot mark for those three days. The modeling does not show a significant change in meeting the minimum level requirements. Overall, the lake stage was essentially unchanged. The changes in structure outflows were not significant (see Figure A-H-25), with the exception that seven kaf per year less water was sent to the WCAs Northern Estuaries There were no significant changes in flow to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries (Figure A-H-25) and no change in the performance of these areas was indicated Lake Okeechobee Service Area For the water supply deliveries around Lake Okeechobee, including the EAA, no significant change was noted, even in the drought years (Figure A-H-26) Water Conservation Area-1 No significant changes were indicated for this area Water Conservation Area-2A and 2B No significant changes were indicated for these areas Alternative 9E1 Like Alternative 8D, Alternative 9E1 basically lowered Zone A and eliminated Zones B and C. However, Zones E1 and Zone D were extended for smoother operational transitions to the full regulatory releases required in Zone A. As a result, stages within WCA-3A were slightly lower for the normal to wet periods than in Alternative 8D. 4-25

186 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Water Conservation Area-3A The result of lowering the Zone A and extension of Zones E1 and D can be seen in the southern areas of WCA-3A, such as Indicator Region 124, Figure A-H-7 and Figure A-H-8. Figure A-H-7 shows some peak stage reductions; however the overall change can be seen in Figure A-H-8. The stages show a significant reduction (by as much as 0.2 or 0.3 feet) from about the highest five percent to about the 50 percent of the time range. Unlike Alternative 7AB, there was no significant reduction in stages for the lowest stages. In the eastern part of WCA-3A, a similar reduction was evident (Figure A-H-5 and Figure A-H-6). However, in the northern part, such as in Indicator Region 115 (Figure A-H-9), there were only slight changes in the stages. The improvement to WCA-3A high water conditions can be seen in Figure A-H-10 (for southern WCA-3A). The number of weeks of high water under the current condition (392 weeks) was reduced to 252 weeks, with no increase in the number of low water events. This equates to a 36 percent reduction in exceedance of the high water stage criterion. The lower stages in WCA-3A were the result of greater outflows from WCA-3A; the inflows from Lake Okeechobee, the EAA, and WCA-2A were nearly unchanged. Outflows were primarily increased to ENP and WCA-3B. On an average annual basis, the total structure inflow changed by 2.8 kaf per year, while the total structure outflows increased by 58.2 kaf per year. Outflow to WCA-3B increased by 34.2 kaf per year, the total outflow through the S-12s increased by 31.1 kaf per year, and the outflow to NESRS increased by 2.4 kaf per year. There were slight deceases in the outflows from structures S-343A, S-343B and S Water Conservation Area-3B For Alternative 9E1, the increase in regulatory inflow to WCA-3B (through S-151) did not result in significantly higher stages in wetter periods (see Figure A-H-11). However, there was a slight stage increase in the normal range (30 to 50 percent of the time); there was not a change in the drier stage periods. A similar condition exists in the northern and eastern regions of WCA-3B. The SFWMM modeling of IOP recommended plan (ALT7R) included in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, which was based on SFWMM modeling conducted concurrent with completion of the 2002 IOP EIS, assumed S-151 regulatory releases during Column 2 operations would not occur within Zone D of the IOP WCA-3A Regulation Schedule when the S-12s are all open (after July 14). This assumption was retained in the LORSS Base Run simulation that was utilized for the ERTP modeling representation of IOP. However, in the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS (page 55), USACE recognized that Column 2 operations may extend beyond the July 15 date for S-12 opening, to account for lost discharge capacity caused by S-12 closures. Consistent with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS, regional water management operations under IOP have not precluded utilization of S-151 for regulatory releases during Column 2 operations when WCA-3A stage is within Zone D of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. ERTP modeling of Alternative 9E1 was updated to account for utilization of S-151 during Column 2 operations within Zone D, although it should be 4-26

187 Section 4 Environmental Consequences recognized that this is a SFWMM modeling update, for consistency with the 2006 IOP Supplemental EIS and historical operations, and not a specified change to S-151 operations already in place under IOP Everglades National Park (Western Shark River Slough, Northeast Shark River Slough, and Taylor Slough) Because of the increase in flows into ENP, careful examination of the hydroperiod was warranted, especially in the in region of CSSS-A. It should be noted that the blocking of the Tram Road culverts was not included in the modeling of the alternatives. The effect of blocking the Tram Road culverts would be to move water in a more southerly path, away from CSSS-A. Therefore, the model would likely over predict any impact to that subpopulation. In addition, to further prevent westward flow of water from the borrow canal associated with the old Tamiami Trail road, DOI may elect to purchase, install, monitor and maintain a removable stopper in this borrow canal between S-12C and S-12B. This structure is not included in the selected plan nor was the operations part of the modeling; however, DOI has identified that this removable stopper may be desired in the future. If DOI decides that they want to install this stopper (in coordination with USACE), it would be compatible with the currently proposed plan. USACE would have authority to remove this stopper in the event that increased conveyance capacity is required to remove water from WCA-3A due to high water concerns. In addition to the discussion regarding the CSSS-A in this section, more detail is provided in Appendix B. Figure A-H-12 shows the hydroperiod for the CSSS-A Indicator Region. The figure shows the hydroperiod to be essentially unchanged, especially in the target windows. Figure A-H-13 shows that CSSS-A nesting conditions were not adversely impacted. The CSSS-A region, although much drier than NSM, shows to be close to the targets for CSSS-A. Thus, modeling the increased flow into ENP through the S-12s did not show any adverse impacts to CSSS-A even though the model would tend to over predict any such impact. No significant change in stage in NESRS was seen, even though there was an increase in inflow of 2.2 kaf per year through S-333 to NESRS. Figure A-H-14 shows no significant change compared to current conditions. For Taylor Slough, no changes in the stages can be seen (Figure A-H-15) even though there was a slight decrease in flow deliveries from WCA-3A into the L-31N Canal and SDCS (0.2 kaf per year). The flows through G-211 to the southern area of L-31N decreased by 2.0 kaf per year, but resulted in no significant downstream changes Florida Bay The transect flows for Florida Bay show were essentially unchanged in flow for T23A, T23B and T23C (Figure A-H-19). 4-27

188 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Square Mile Area No significant changes within the 8.5 SMA would be expected with this alternative, based upon the review of model stage output at G-596 (Figure A-H-20) and along the adjacent L- 31N canal South Dade Although there was a slight decrease in flow into L-31N (discussed earlier), no significant changes were noted for the water stages in SDCS Biscayne Bay The mean structure flows discharged into Biscayne Bay can be seen in Figure A-H-21. The graphic shows no significant change in flow to the bay areas Lower East Coast There were no significant changes in the water stages in the LEC. For Service Area 1, 2 and 3, there were no increases in monthly water supply cutbacks. There was a significant change water supply source for SA-3 (the Miami-Dade area) during drought years, as shown in Figure A-H-22. For SA-3, there was a decrease in the delivery of water from the WCAs and an increase in deliveries needed from Lake Okeechobee. The number of simulated days for Lake Okeechobee water supply deliveries to LEC SA-3 increased from 763 days in the Base Run to 795 days, a four percent increase. Drought year water supply deliveries from Lake Okeechobee can be problematic or even difficult if the lake stages are below the level at which pumping is needed to pass water supply releases. Although Alternative 9E1 showed an increased dependence for Lake Okeechobee deliveries over Alternative 8D, Alternative 9E1 required fewer delivery days that all other alternatives (an additional 32 days over the current condition for the 36-year POR) Lake Okeechobee As shown in the stage duration curve for Lake Okeechobee (Figure A-H-23), no change was noted in the drier stages even though there was an increased need by SA-3 for water supply deliveries during droughts. This has a potential for increasing the exceedance of the minimum water level criteria for Lake Okeechobee by one additional time (Figure A-H-24). It should be noted that in the Base Run, a 1971 drought event was a borderline case where the 11-foot criterion was briefly exceeded, for three days, by 0.02 foot, which broke the drought event into two events, both having less than 80 days. The same 1971 event triggered an exceedance for all other alternatives because they did not go over the 11-foot mark for those three days. The modeling does not show a significant change in meeting the minimum level requirements. Overall, the lake stage and outflows were essentially unchanged. The changes in structure outflow were not significant (Figure A-H-25). 4-28

189 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Northern Estuaries There were no significant changes in flow to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries (Figure A-H-25) and no change in the performance of these areas was indicated Lake Okeechobee Service Area For the water supply deliveries around Lake Okeechobee, including the EAA, no significant change was noted even in the drought years (Figure A-H-26) Water Conservation Area-1 No significant changes were indicated for this area Water Conservation Area-2A and 2B No significant changes were indicated for these areas. 4.5 WATER QUALITY The Everglades Settlement Agreement Consent Decree (1995) specified that interim and long-term total phosphorus (TP) concentration limits for discharges into ENP through Shark River Slough (SRS) be met by October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2006, respectively. It was specified that the TP concentrations be presented as 12-month flow-weighted means (FWM). Only the TP concentrations for the water year (WY, October 1 through September 30) are evaluated for compliance with the Consent Decree limits. The long-term TP concentration limit for inflows to SRS through structures S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, and S-333 represents the concentrations delivered during the Outstanding Florida Waters baseline period of March 1, 1978, to March 1, 1979, and is adjusted for variations in flow. Inflow concentrations of TP through SRS are compared to the interim and long-term limits (LTL) at the end of each WY from 1991 to 2009 (SFWMD 2010). The LTLs are based on an inverse relationship between concentration and flow; as flow increases, phosphorus limits decrease. Historically, discharges through S-333 had the highest TP concentration of waters entering ENP. The concern is that increased discharges through S-333, due to ERTP implementation, will increase TP concentrations and loads entering ENP and may have the potential to contribute to exceedances of the Everglades Settlement Agreement. TP FWM concentrations for the WY 2000 through 2009 are listed in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2: FLOW WEIGHTED MEAN CONCENTRATIONS FWM Concentrations (Historic Data WY) 12A 12B 12C 12D S333 Annual Dry Season Wet Season Note: Historic data WY 4-29

190 Section 4 Environmental Consequences USACE conducted a detailed water quality analysis of the ERTP alternatives to determine the potential impacts of the proposed operational changes to SDCS on FWM TP concentrations and loads to SRS. Phosphorus is the primary nutrient of concern for the Everglades, which historically has been a phosphorus limited system. The analysis, provided in Appendix C, evaluated potential changes to phosphorus loading, shift of loading, and exceedances of the Settlement Agreement Consent Decree flow weighted annual mean long term target. The evaluation used output from the SFWMM for the ERTP Base Run (LORSS_T3; representing existing condition, IOP), Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1. Data used included WCA-3A gauge water levels and flows through the WCA-3A outflow structures (S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, S-333, S-334 and S-334FC). USACE used five methods to calculate the average annual FWM TP concentrations for each year of the POR. All methods assume that changes to the distribution, source and timing of flows in WCA-3A are minimal for the considered alternatives relative to the base condition and that such changes will not materially alter water quality conditions within the WCA-3A. The five methods used by USACE predict between one and seven percent TP Total Load increase to SRS. TP concentrations in WCA-3A are trending downwards so it is likely that net increase will be less (Walker 2010). The change in the average FWM concentration ranged (considering all five methods) from a decrease of 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) to an increase of 0.4 ppb. Based upon the USACE water quality analysis, the TSP, Alternative 9E1, resulted in no additional exceedances of long-term concentration limits in the Consent Decree as compared with IOP, under any of the five different methods. Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 summarize the results of the USACE water quality analysis. 4-30

191 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-3: NUMBER OF YEARS SHARK RIVER SLOUGH LONG-TERM LIMIT IS EXCEEDED FOR FOUR ALTERNATIVES ESTIMATED USING FIVE METHODS Alternatives Average FWM (ppb TP)* Average Difference Between FWM and LTL (ppb) Average Difference Between FWM and LTT (ppb) Number of LTL Exceedance Years Walker Equations LORS AB D E Stage Neutral LORS AB D E Partial Stage Neutral LORS AB D E Structure FWM LORS AB D E Seasonal Structure FWM LORS AB D E *Average annual Flow-Weighted-Mean Total Phosphorus Concentration 4-31

192 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-4: FLOWS AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS FOR FOUR ALTERNATIVES ESTIMATED USING FIVE METHODS Total SRS Flow (Kaf per year) Total SRS Load (1,000 Kg TP) Change in Load (1,000 Kg TP) Annual Change in Load (Kg/yr) Change in Total Load (%) Walker Equations LORS 28, AB 30, % 8D 30, % 9E1 29, % Stage Neutral LORS 28, AB 30, % 8D 30, % 9E1 29, % Partial Stage Neutral LORS 28, AB 30, % 8D 30, % 9E1 29, % Structure FWM LORS 28, AB 30, % 8D 30, % 9E1 29, % Seasonal Structure FWM LORS 28, AB 30, % 8D 30, % 9E1 29, % A special SFWMD Technical Oversight Committee meeting was held on October 19, 2010 to discuss the USACE water quality analysis and water quality implications of ERTP implementation. The TOC participants discussed the provided analysis and agreed that any operational change that will impact the quantity and timing of flows delivered to NESRS has the potential to change FWM and LTL. In summary, the TSP showed no additional exceedances as compared with IOP (the LORSS T3 model run) and had the least impacts to phosphorus loads and flow weighted annual mean exceedances of the three ERTP action alternatives. 4-32

193 Section 4 Environmental Consequences All analysis methods involved post-processing of the SFWMM results. The methods used by USACE for ERTP have some uncertainty, but represent the best techniques currently available to USACE for this large, complex system. A water quality model for this system (WCAs combined with ENP), with accuracy and precision to the tenths of a ppb for phosphorus concentration, is not expected to be available in any predictive tool for this large complex system in the foreseeable future. The methods used by the USACE for ERTP are suitable to evaluate the differences between the alternatives but they are not an absolute prediction of the actual future performance to the tenth of a ppb. The Settlement Agreement target has been hitting the limit exactly, to the tenth of a ppb, for the past three WYs. An additional tenth of a ppb added to the annual FWM for any of the past three years would have resulted in non-compliance with the LTL. The purpose of presenting this information is to help the reader understand that if the current operational plan (IOP), as represented by the LORRS T3 model run, was followed for this upcoming WY, an exceedance of the LTL could potentially occur. A slight change in weather conditions or other contributing factors could cause the balance to shift by 0.1 ppb either higher or lower, possibly even more. The timing of the rainfall, as well as the total yearly rainfall, has large impacts on the nutrient response from the WCAs. If dry-outs occur in northern WCA-3A, followed by heavy rainfall, a nutrient pulse could result. If the same quantity of rainfall was more evenly distributed throughout the year, fewer dry-out conditions would exist to create nutrient pulses. Much of what drives the system s phosphorus concentration in the short-term is meteorological. Recent water quality trends in WCA-3A indicate that FWM TP concentrations and SRS loads are slowly decreasing (Walker 2010); however, this is expected to be a slow, long-term trend that may have periodic reversals on an annual basis. 4.6 FLOOD CONTROL SFWMM results indicate that no flood control issues are likely for the action alternatives compared to the existing conditions. As discussed in Section 4.4, changes in flows were minor outside of the natural areas. While Alternative 7AB sent more water to the SDCS, the increase was passed to the S-332D reservoir. Alternatives 8D and 9E1 passed less water to the SDCS as compared with Alternative 7AB and IOP. Tram Road stoppers may have the potential to cause flooding of the Tram Road, which is used by ENP visitors and staff. The highest potential for flooding is during September and October, a period when, generally, the greatest annual rainfall is experienced. The likelihood of flooding the Tram Road will be dependent upon rainfall conditions, which vary seasonally and annually. The Tram Road is located entirely within ENP; therefore, there are no residents or businesses on this road. The inclusion of Tram Road stoppers was at the request of DOI; therefore, Tram Road stoppers will be purchased, installed, monitored and maintained by DOI, including monitoring of the Tram Road for flooding. 4-33

194 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.7 WETLANDS ERTP is an operational plan. There are no associated construction activities that would directly impact wetlands through dredge or fill activities. Indirect impacts to wetlands would occur under each of the three action alternatives; these would be minor to moderate depending upon location within the action area. Potential indirect effects are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4 and Section 4.8. With an increase in S-333 flow, there is an increased likelihood of increased total phosphorus entering NESRS. This potential would be the greatest under Alternative 7AB with the fewest impacts predicted under the TSP, Alternative 9E1. Potential changes in water quality due to implementation of the ERTP action alternatives have a slight possibility of affecting wetlands within ENP. However, it would be difficult to attribute changes solely to water management operations. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP. Due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, impacts on wetland hydrology and vegetation would potentially occur under each of the three action alternatives. Water level changes within WCA-3A would be greatest under Alternative 7AB; showing the greatest improvements in southern WCA-3A, through reduction in prolonged high water events and water depths. Lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under all of the ERTP alternatives will help reduce water levels and flooding duration within WCA-3A and, thereby, benefit tree island and marsh vegetation. However, Alternative 7AB also has the greatest impacts to wetlands within northern WCA-3A through extended dry-down events as compared with Alternatives 8D and 9E1. Potential impacts to wetlands outside of WCA-3A would be minor under all three action alternatives due to only slight changes in hydroperiod within those areas. 4.8 VEGETATION Water Conservation Area-3A The greatest effect of the action alternatives within ERTP action area was observed as water level changes within WCA-3A. Very few hydrological changes were observed within other parts of the action area, including WCA-3B and ENP; therefore, changes in hydrology would have the greatest effect on vegetation within WCA-3A. Potential impacts on vegetation outside of WCA-3A, due to hydrological changes associated with implementation of the ERTP alternatives, would be similar to those described for the current operational regime in the 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS and are hereby incorporated by reference. During IOP, the average daily water level has been significantly higher in WCA-3 than in any other water management regime since completion of the C&SF Project (Natural Resources Council [NRC] 2010). As anticipated within the 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS, IOP implementation resulted in unavoidable impacts in the form of loss of tree island vegetation and adverse impacts on snail kite critical habitat due to detention of excess water in the WCAs. High water levels during the wet season are important in maintaining quality wet prairie and emergent slough habitat (FWS 2010). However, prolonged high water levels 4-34

195 Section 4 Environmental Consequences (i.e. during both wet and dry season) and extended hydroperiods have resulted in vegetation shifts within WCA-3A, degrading snail kite critical habitat within this area. The extended flooding from September to January resulting either from weather conditions, IOP, or both, appears to be shifting plant communities from wet prairies to open water sloughs (Zweig 2008; Zweig and Kitchens 2008). These shifts from one vegetation type to another may occur in a relatively short time frame (one to four years) following hydrological alteration (Armentano et al. 2006; Zweig 2008; Zweig and Kitchens 2008; Sah et al. 2008). Lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under all ERTP alternatives will help reduce water levels and flooding duration within WCA-3A and, thereby, benefit tree island and marsh vegetation. As discussed in Section 4.4 and shown in Figure A-H-10, all ERTP alternatives would result in a 26 percent (Alternative 8D) to 41 percent (Alternative 7AB) reduction in exceedance of the high water level criterion; with a 36 percent reduction under the TSP (Alternative 9E1). Extended ponding of deep water, most notably within southern WCA-3A, has resulted in a lack of seedling establishment on tree islands due to stress from prolonged inundation (McKelvin et al. 1998). According to Wu et al. (2002), when water depths on tree islands exceed one foot for greater than 120 days, even the most water tolerant species are affected. Lowering of water levels within WCA-3A would aid in reducing future tree island degradation due to prolonged inundation and high water depths. Lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under Alternative 9E1 would also result in a significant reduction, by as much as 0.2 to 0.3 feet, from the highest 5 to 50 percent of the time range. The greatest effects of the reduction are viewed within southern WCA-3A, which has experienced prolonged high water levels associated with IOP water management operations. The impact of the reduced water levels and stages may act to slow or reverse the vegetation shifts noted by Zweig and Kitchens (2008). Changes in water management regime which alter the hydroperiod or increases the duration of dry downs, particularly in northern WCA-3A, may potentially allow invasion of exotic species or an increased fire potential, both of which would impact native vegetation in the affected area. As noted in Section 4.4, Section 4.3, and Section 4.11, the minor changes in water levels may result in slightly drier conditions in northern WCA-3A, but that change is expected to be minimal and would be very difficult to attribute to changes in water management proposed under ERTP. Weather patterns have the highest degree of control over dry-downs in the WCAs. Extreme dry-downs can increase the probability of muck fires, which can have significant negative impacts on vegetation. Increased probability for fire is most likely to occur under Alternative 7AB. However, the TSP, Alternative 9E1, is not expected to increase the fire potential within this region. It is important to note that the SFWMM does not include the capability of modeling the flexible management strategies proposed within ERTP; thus, the modeling results serve as a baseline of potential hydrological conditions within the ERTP action area. A WCA-3A Water Budget Spreadsheet Analysis (Appendix A-2) was prepared to simulate potential flexible water management operations that could occur in any given year in order to meet the PSC recommendations for the FWS MSTS (Figure 1-3) water depths, recession and ascension rates within WCA-3A, depending upon current hydrological, meteorological and 4-35

196 Section 4 Environmental Consequences species conditions. Ecological Input and Release Guidance Flow Charts (Appendix A-3) were formulated to guide water management strategies depending upon actual and forecasted hydrological conditions and the PSC ecological recommendations. Potential scenarios are outlined and evaluated to compare the ERTP alternatives performance within Appendix A-2. The proposed adjustments to Zone A and S-12C, as modeled by the SFWMM, are important operational changes. However, the management strategies that will be implemented under ERTP but are not able to be predicted by the model, especially usage of the MSTS within Zone E-1, are important tools in this strategy to truly move towards multi-species management Water Conservation Area-3B During dry periods, under Alternative 7AB there would be less inflow from WCA-3A into WCA-3B. This may result in a higher frequency or duration of dry-downs which could have potential impacts on vegetation within WCA-3B. With drier conditions during dry periods, there is an increased fire potential. However, marsh vegetation requires periodic dry events to promote regeneration, so drier conditions may also have potential benefits in this area as long as the frequency of these events does not exceed the recommended dry-down frequency of one in four to one in five years. In addition, Florida is a fire-adapted ecosystem, so natural periodic fire events also encourage regrowth through nutrient and competitive release. Under Alternative 8D, a decrease in inflow from WCA-3A during normal and wet periods resulted in lower water levels than present conditions. Significant shifts in vegetation, however, are not expected as a result. This decrease was not observed during drier periods and, therefore, impacts to vegetation as described under Alternative 7AB would not be expected under Alternative 8D. An increase in inflow to WCA-3B is predicted under Alternative 9E1. This increase did not result in significantly higher water levels during wet periods and resulted in a slight water level increase during normal periods. Significant shifts in vegetation, however, are not expected as a result. This decrease was not observed during drier periods and, therefore, impacts to vegetation as described under Alternative 7AB would not be expected under Alternative 9E Northeast Shark River Slough Under Alternative 7AB, the increase in water level in NESRS is a positive response to the significant increase in flow from S-333. No significant change in water level in NESRS was seen, even though there was an observed increase in inflow through S-333 to NESRS for both Alternatives 8D and 9E1. Significant impacts on vegetation due to changes in hydrology within NESRS are not expected under any of the alternatives. With an increase in S-333 flow, there is an increased likelihood of increased TP entering NESRS. This potential would be the greatest under Alternative 7AB, with the fewest impacts predicted under the TSP, Alternative 9E1. Potential changes in water quality due to implementation of the ERTP action alternatives have the possibility to affect vegetation 4-36

197 Section 4 Environmental Consequences within ENP. The Everglades, a phosphorus-limited system, historically received most inputs of phosphorus through rainfall, with average TP concentrations of less than 0.01 milligrams per liter (mg/l) (McCormick et al. 1996, Newman et al. 2004). However, more recently, areas within ENP, including NESRS, have been exposed to TP concentrations at or in excess of 0.10 mg/l (SFWMD 2010). These concentrations, and any additional inputs resulting from implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives (see Section 4.5 for details), have the potential to result in vegetation changes within NESRS. Chaing et al. (2000) suggested that phosphorus loadings alter the Everglades plant communities through increased plant productivity, tissue phosphorus storage, soil phosphorus enrichment and shifts in plant species composition. Substantial vegetation changes may result from elevated phosphorus concentrations. Previous studies have shown that slough and sawgrass communities have been replaced by cattail-dominated communities (Davis et al. 1994; Rutchey and Vilchek 1994; Newman et al. 1998). However, Craft et al. (1995) and Chaing et al. (2000) observed no significant change in macrophyte species diversity or expansion of cattails in study plots receiving nutrient additions during the two years and four years, respectively, of their studies. Vegetation that can assimilate nutrients directly from the water column appears to be the most sensitive to nutrient enrichment and include periphyton and floating-leaved plants, such as spatterdock and water lily (Chaing et al. 2000; Newman et al. 2004). The periphyton-utricularia complex may be quite sensitive to increased phosphorus, as illustrated by the disappearance of this complex from enriched study plots after the third year (Chaing et al. 2000). Potential impacts to vegetation within NESRS due to potential increases in phosphorus loads cannot be determined at this time. Water quality within ENP will continue to be monitored, as described in Appendix H, to determine any changes; however, it will be very difficult to attribute any such changes to ERTP implementation Western Shark River Slough and Western Marl Prairies There are no anticipated effects on vegetation within WSRS or the western marl prairies with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. SFWMM results predict a very slight increase in hydroperiod as compared with IOP, but substantially drier conditions than predicted by NSM and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Inclusion of the Tram Road stoppers (not included within the model) will help to minimize any increases in hydroperiod and, therefore, any changes in vegetation within this region of ENP. A detailed discussion for this area is also included in Appendix B. Water quality at the S-12 structures is generally lower in phosphorus as compared with the S-333 structure. Alternative 9E1 would send more water through the S-12s; however, since the water quality is better through the S-12s relative to water through S-333, no negative effects on vegetation are anticipated Eastern Marl Prairies and Taylor Slough The SFWMM predicted no significant changes in the eastern marl prairies or Taylor Slough due to implementation of any of the ERTP action alternatives; therefore, no significant 4-37

198 Section 4 Environmental Consequences impacts to vegetation within the eastern marl prairies of Taylor Slough are anticipated with any of the ERTP alternatives. A detailed discussion for this area is also included in Appendix B Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay No significant change is predicted to vegetation in Florida Bay or Biscayne Bay due to implementation of any ERTP alternative Non-native/Invasive Vegetation Non-native and invasive plant infestations in the action area may be exacerbated by soil disturbance, increased nutrients and hydrological modification. Many non-native and invasive species are flourishing in a variety of habitats and are negatively affecting the ecology throughout the Everglades. Non-native and invasive plant species are most frequently encountered in disturbed areas and areas where water quality has been impacted by increased nutrient loads. Hydrological modification under each of the action alternatives, due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, may potentially influence the growth of non-native plant species within WCA-3A. This potential impact would be greatest under Alternative 7AB due to the lowering of all of the regulation schedule zones and the potential for longer dry down events, particularly within northern WCA-3A, as compared with Alternatives 8D or 9E1. Due to the potential for increased (or decreased) phosphorus loads within NESRS under the three action alternatives, there is also potential for expansion of native invasive plant species (e.g. cattail) within this area. This potential would also be greatest under Alternative 7AB. Alternative 9E1, the TSP, shows very little difference from IOP (Appendix C); therefore, it would be very difficult to attribute the spread of non-native vegetation solely to changes in water management strategies proposed under ERTP. 4.9 FISH AND WILDLIFE Invertebrates Significant impacts to the invertebrate community are not anticipated under any of the ERTP action alternatives; however, implementation of any of the ERTP action alternatives will directly benefit apple snails within WCA-3A. All alternatives include the FWS MSTS (Figure 1-3), which is an improvement over the no action alternative. This strategy includes specific depth and ascension rate recommendations to promote apple snail reproduction. In addition, it also includes a periodic dry-down recommendation to promote regeneration of marsh vegetation where apple snail resides. The dry-down recommendation limits the extent of drying to ensure that apple snails are not directly impacted by these dry events. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP and potential effects are largely uncertain at this time. 4-38

199 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Fish Implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives is not expected to significantly impact fish populations. During dry years, lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule may act to reduce the number or spatial extent of deeper water refugia for large predatory fish species within WCA-3A. Although posing a negative impact on larger fish species, these events may enable smaller fish populations to increase due to predator release. Drying of the marsh vegetation may also act to release nutrients into the water column, causing an increase in primary productivity and, consequently, increasing the food source of smaller fish species. Too frequent of drying events, however, may act to reduce fish populations. Frequent dry events are not anticipated under the proposed water management operations; however, climatic and meteorological conditions are more significant determinants in the frequency and extent of dry events. Introduction or expansion of non-native fish species due to water management operations proposed under any of the ERTP alternatives is not anticipated, as new access points will not be created under ERTP. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP and potential effects are largely uncertain at this time Amphibians and Reptiles Significant impacts to the amphibian and reptile community are not anticipated under any of the ERTP alternatives. All alternatives include the FWS MSTS (Figure 1-3), which is an improvement over the no action alternative. This strategy includes a periodic dry-down recommendation to promote regeneration of marsh vegetation. Introduction or expansion of non-native species due to water management operations proposed under any of the ERTP alternatives is not anticipated, as new access points will not be created under ERTP. Under all of the ERTP action alternatives, there is potential for the Tram Road stoppers to remove a refuge for alligators and wildlife that may use alligator holes (e.g. shade, deeper water during the dry season). These impacts would be localized and short-term, as alligators will eventually find other refuge. Ponding may occur on the east side of the Tram Road, which could potentially impact vegetation; again, the effects would be localized. By creating deeper water habitat on the east side of the Tram Road, alligators and wildlife dependent upon water within alligator holes during dry periods would be less effected by the loss of the culverts. Finally, ponding on the east side may also act to bring wildlife closer to the roadway and view-shed of visitors. Changes in water quality also have the potential to affect amphibian and reptiles through altering of vegetation composition or structure or impacts to their forage base. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP and potential effects are largely uncertain at this time Birds Nesting and foraging activities of resident bird species are not anticipated to be significantly affected by implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Impacts to the CSSS, snail kite, wading birds and shore bird species are further discussed in Section Changes in water 4-39

200 Section 4 Environmental Consequences quality also have the potential to affect birds through altering of vegetation composition or structure or impacts to their forage base. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP and potential effects are largely uncertain at this time Mammals No significant impacts to mammals within the ERTP action area are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Mammals that utilize upland habitat within WCA-3A will benefit from lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and improvements to tree island habitat. Mammals occurring within the action area are adapted to the naturally fluctuating water levels in the Everglades. Impacts to state and federally listed species are described in further detail in Section Changes in water quality also have the potential to affect amphibian and reptiles through altering of vegetation composition or structure. Water quality will continue to be monitored under ERTP; potential effects are largely uncertain at this time PROTECTED SPECIES Federally Listed Species A full assessment of potential impacts to federally listed species is provided in the 2010 USACE ERTP Biological Assistant (BA) and the 2010 FWS Biological Opinion (BO) located in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. Impacts to listed species would be similar under Alternatives 8D and 9E1, with slightly greater impacts to species within WCA- 3A under Alternative 7AB, as detailed in the following sections. It is important to note that the SFWMM does not include the capability of modeling the flexible management strategies proposed within ERTP; thus, the modeling results serve as a baseline of potential hydrological conditions within the ERTP action area. A WCA-3A Water Budget Spreadsheet Analysis (Appendix A-2) was prepared to simulate potential water management operations that could occur in any given year in order to meet the PSC recommendations for the FWS MSTS (Figure 1-3) water depths, recession and ascension rates within WCA-3A, depending upon current hydrological, meteorological and species conditions. Ecological Input and Release Guidance Flow Charts (Appendix A-3) were formulated to govern adaptive water management strategies depending upon actual and forecasted hydrological conditions and PSC ecological recommendations. Potential scenarios are outlined and evaluated to compare the ERTP alternatives performance within Appendix A-2. The proposed adjustments to Zone A and S-12C, as modeled by the SFWMM, are important operational changes. However, the management strategies that will be implemented under ERTP but are not able to be predicted by the model, especially usage of MSTS within Zone E-1, are important tools in this strategy to truly move towards multispecies management. In the 2010 FWS BO (Appendix F), FWS determined that this level of incidental take is not likely to result in jeopardy to CSSS, Everglade snail kite, or wood stork, or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for CSSS and Everglade snail kite, either during the 4-40

201 Section 4 Environmental Consequences interim period from IOP to implementation of ERTP, during the implementation of ERTP, or during the interim when IOP remains in place. Effective the date the 2010 FWS BO was signed, November 17, 2010, the incidental take protections for the Everglade snail kite, CSSS, and wood stork, as described in this BO, are authorized through January 1, Everglade Snail Kite In order to address adverse effects associated with WCA-3A water management under IOP, FWS, along with Dr. Kitchens, Phil Darby, Ph.D. of the University of West Florida, and Christa Zweig, Ph.D. of the University of Florida, developed a series of water depth recommendations for WCA-3A that addresses the needs of the snail kite, apple snail and vegetation characteristic of their habitat (Figure 1-3). This water management strategy is divided into three time periods representing the height of the wet season (September 15 to October 15), the pre-breeding season (January) and the breeding season (termed dry season low, May 1 to June 1) and illustrates appropriate water depths to attain within each time period. Water depth recommendations as measured at the WCA-3AVG proposed within the FWS MSTS, form the basis for ERTP. These recommendations and their proposed intent are summarized in Appendix F. Please note that these water depths are not targets and represent a compromise between the needs of the three species. Inter-annual variability is extremely important in the management of the system to promote recovery of the species. The recommendations within the FWS MSTS form the basis for the ERTP Performance Measures (PMs) and Ecological Targets (ETs). The inclusion of these recommendations into ERTP represents a significant improvement over IOP operations. Appendix D of the ERTP BA (ERTP Draft EIS Appendix E) includes a graphical comparison of IOP and ERTP operations with respect to the ERTP PMs for the snail kite and apple snail, including WCA-3A water depths, recession and ascension rates Potential Effects to the Snail Kite Major components of the ERTP alternatives that may affect the snail kite and its designated critical habitat include modifications of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule and removal of the S-12C IOP closure dates. Potential effects of these action features to the snail kite are discussed in detail below. Other ERTP action components that will have little impact on the snail kite include Rainfall Plan Target Flows, S-346 and S-332D operations, Pre-storm, Storm, and Storm Recovery Operations for the SDCS. In addition, the WCA-3A PSC will provide a mechanism to evaluate hydrological and ecological conditions within WCA-3A to allow for management of the system to protect the needs of multiple species, including the snail kite Water Conservation Area-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Alternative 7AB The Alternative 7AB WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-5. Revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A and a subsequent lowering of Zones B through D, with elimination of Zone E1. While there were 4-41

202 Section 4 Environmental Consequences some positive benefits associated with lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, there were also negative impacts associated with water levels that were too low, particularly in northern WCA-3A. Alternative 7AB resulted in an increased frequency and duration of dry events and water levels that fell outside the FWS MSTS recommended depths for snail kite and apple snails. There effects were greater than viewed with Alternatives 8D and 9E Alternative 8D The Alternative 8D WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-6. The revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A, and elimination of Zones B and C; Zone D and Zone E1 were not changed. Alternative 8D also showed positive benefits due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule; however, the FWS MSTS recommended depths for snail kites and apple snails were not met as often as under Alternative 9E1. Alternative 8D also showed improved conditions in northern WCA- 3A as compared with Alternative 7AB, with less severe dry events. In comparison with Alternative 9E1, Alternative 8D does not include extension of water regulation zones and, therefore, does not contain as much flexibility to manage for FWS MSTS recommended recession rates. Water releases during the period between November 1 and January 31 would be governed by Rainfall Plan Target Releases and, thus, an opportunity to meet endangered species requirements in term of recession rates or water depths would be lost under implementation of Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 The Alternative 9E1 WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-7. The revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A, elimination of Zones B and C, along with extension of Zone D forward to December 31 and extension of Zone E1 backwards to January 1. Zone E1 was designed to aid in the management of high water levels within WCA-3A in order to alleviate prolonged high water conditions in WCA-3A during closure of the S-12, S-343 and S-344 structures. The creation of Zone E1 permitted the lowering of water levels by 0.5 feet lower than regulations prior to the implementation of this zone. Water from WCA-3A is transferred through S-333 and S- 334 into the L-31N Canal and pumped, via S-332B and S-332C, into the C-111 SDA. The proposed modification is designed to further aid in the reduction of high water levels within WCA-3A; and specifically to address the protracted flooding that occurred between September and January under IOP. The intent of extending Zones D and E1 is to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels within WCA-3A for the protection of multiple species and their habitats (ERTP PM B-I). Through this modification, USACE will have additional flexibility as compared with the existing WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in making water releases from WCA-3A in order to better manage recession and ascension rates, as well as to alleviate high water conditions in southern WCA-3A (refer to ERTP BA Appendix A, Table A-1 [ERTP Draft EIS Appendix E]). As previously discussed, water levels within portions of WCA-3A (e.g. southwestern 3A) have been too high for too long, resulting in detrimental effects to vegetation, apple snails and snail kites. Under ERTP, the WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Zone A has been 4-42

203 Section 4 Environmental Consequences lowered by 0.25 feet (i.e to feet, NGVD under the IOP versus 9.50 to feet, NGVD under ERTP), thereby lowering the trigger stage for water releases from WCA-3A. By providing an additional mechanism to reduce high water levels within WCA-3A, modifications to the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under ERTP have the potential to provide beneficial effects to the snail kite and its critical habitat within WCA-3A. Two detrimental impacts associated with the creation of Zone E-1 observed under IOP include rapid recession rates and low water levels during the snail kite s breeding season. In order to correct these detrimental impacts under ERTP, both a recession rate and a low water level criterion have been developed (refer to Figure 1-3). The ERTP includes a recession rate criterion of 0.05 feet per week between January 1 and June 1 (ERTP PM-D) to avoid recession rates that are too rapid and thus detrimental to snail kites and apple snails. In addition, to avoid water levels that are too low at the end of the dry season, specific water depth criteria have been developed based on the water level at the WCA-3AVG. The criteria include depths favorable for snail kites, apple snails and wet prairie vegetation and were created in conjunction with the species experts (Dr. Kitchens, Dr. Darby, and Dr. Zweig) and FWS. Appendix E contains a detailed description of these recommendations. Results from the SFWMM indicate an improvement in WCA-3A water levels under ERTP operations. As shown in Appendix B-1, Figures 22 through 25, ERTP operations improve water levels in WCA-3A that directly benefit the snail kite and its primary food resource, the apple snail Snail Kite Critical Habitat Effect Determination In the 2006 IOP BO, FWS recognized that degradation of critical habitat within WCA-3A would continue, but determined that it is not likely to result in jeopardy to the snail kite. Furthermore, FWS concluded that this habitat degradation would be reversible under improved hydrologic conditions. No permanent loss of critical habitat was expected (FWS 2006). Proposed modifications to IOP under ERTP are designed to reduce the frequency of damaging water levels (highs and lows). By restoring favorable hydrological conditions within WCA-3A, the observed habitat changes could potentially be reversed. However, the timeframe for this vegetation change is uncertain and fire may be a necessary catalyst. In addition, USACE recognizes that the proposed modifications, while helpful, do not represent full hydrological restoration within WCA-3A; however, given the current constraints of the C&SF system, they are considered to be improvements to IOP. Based upon this information, USACE has determined that implementation of ERTP may affect snail kite critical habitat Wood Stork Potential Effects to Wood Stork The major components of ERTP that potentially may affect the wood stork and other wading bird species include the WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule and modifications of the IOP restriction dates on the S-12C structure. In addition, the WCA-3A PSC will provide a mechanism to evaluate hydrological and ecological conditions within wood stork habitat to 4-43

204 Section 4 Environmental Consequences allow for management of the system to protect the needs of multiple species, including the wood stork and other wading bird species Alternative 7AB The Alternative 7AB WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-5. Revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A and a subsequent lowering of Zones B through D with elimination of Zone E1. While there were some positive benefits associated with lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, there were also negative impacts associated with water levels that were too low, particularly in northern WCA-3A. Alternative 7AB resulted in an increased frequency and duration of dry events and water levels that fell outside the FWS MSTS recommended depths. There effects were of a greater magnitude than effects of Alternatives 8D and 9E Alternative 8D The Alternative 8D WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-6. The revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A, and elimination of Zones B and C; Zone D and Zone E1 were not changed. Alternative 8D also showed positive benefits due to lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule; however, the FWS MSTS recommended depths were not met as often as under Alternative 9E1. Alternative 8D also showed improved conditions in northern WCA-3A as compared with Alternative 7AB with less severe dry events. In comparison with Alternative 9E1, Alternative 8D does not include extension of regulation zones and, therefore, does not contain as much flexibility to manage for FWS MSTS recommended recession rates. Water releases during the period between November 1 and January 31 would be governed by Rainfall Plan Target Releases and, thus, an opportunity to meet endangered species requirements in terms of recession rates or water depths would be lost under implementation of Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 The Alternative 9E1 WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is shown in Figure 2-7. The revisions include incorporation of the WCA-3A to 10.5 feet, NGVD Zone A, along with extension of Zone D forward to December 31 and extension of Zone E1 backwards to January 1. The proposed modification is designed to further aid in the reduction of high water levels within WCA-3A; and specifically to address the protracted flooding that occurred between September and January under IOP. The intent of extending Zones D and E1 is to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels within WCA-3A for the protection of multiple species and their habitats (ERTP PM B-I). Through this modification, USACE will have additional flexibility as compared with the existing WCA-3A Regulation Schedule in making water releases from WCA-3A in order to better manage recession and ascension rates, as well as to alleviate high water conditions in southern WCA-3A. The ERTP BA Appendix A, Table A-1 (ERTP Draft EIS, Appendix E) provides a detailed description of the proposed modification. 4-44

205 Section 4 Environmental Consequences As previously discussed, water levels within portions of WCA-3A (e.g. southwestern 3A) have been too high for too long, resulting in detrimental effects to vegetation and wood stork foraging. Under ERTP, the WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule Zone A has been lowered by 0.25 feet (i.e to feet, NGVD under IOP versus 9.50 to feet, NGVD under ERTP), thereby lowering the trigger stage for water releases from WCA-3A. By providing an additional mechanism to reduce high water levels within WCA-3A, modifications to the WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule under ERTP have the potential to provide beneficial effects to the wood stork and its habitat within WCA-3A. Results from the SFWMM indicate an improvement in WCA-3A water levels under ERTP operations. Water depth and recession rate are the two most important hydrological variables for wood storks (Gawlik et al. 2004). In their analysis of habitat suitability, Gawlik et al. (2004) identified feeding sites where the weekly average water depths from November to April (prebreeding and breeding season) were between 0.0 and 0.5 feet as the most suitable. Suitability drops to 0.0 when water depths are negative 0.3 feet below marsh surface or greater than 0.8 feet. Implementation of the ERTP WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule is expected to produce a mosaic of wetland habitats within WCA-3A that will provide favorable foraging opportunities for wood storks. In addition, the incorporation of PM-G into ERTP addresses wood stork foraging depth requirements, particularly within the highly important marshes of their core foraging area during the breeding season. Appendix B contains a detailed analysis of wood stork foraging conditions within the core foraging areas of wood stork colonies within WCA-3, based upon the SFWMM results. Under the current WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, recession rates have been too rapid in many years to support successful snail kite nesting and foraging; however, wood storks and other wading birds require a more rapid recession rate to condense their prey items into shallow pools for more effective foraging. On the other hand, too rapid drying conditions, if repeated year after year, would soon reduce the prey base required for successful breeding (Fleming et al. 1994). ERTP attempts to avoid recession rates that are unfavorable to wood storks and other wading birds by including a recommended range of recession rates targets (PM-F). The ERTP recommended recession rate for wood storks and other wading birds is 0.06 to 0.07 feet per week from January 1 to June 1. The recession rate for any given week or period of time may be determined based upon input received during the WCA-3A PSC. Results from the SFWMM were evaluated for recession rate and are included in Appendix B- 1, Figure 28. The results suggest an improvement in recession rates under ERTP implementation. However, it is important to note that the recession rates shown in Appendix B-1 may be improved using real time water management operations and incorporation of WCA-3A PSC recommendations. The SFWMM does not contain the ability to model flexibility thus simply provides a baseline indicator of recession rates. As previously described, in order to meet the WCA-3A PSC recommended recession rates for any given period; USACE may utilize the operational flexibility inherent within ERTP to achieve the recommendation. In addition, SFWMD developed water management guidelines for the wood stork using hydrological data and wood stork foraging location information obtained through systematic reconnaissance flights (Beerens and Cook 2010). These guidelines have been incorporated 4-45

206 Section 4 Environmental Consequences into the FWS MSTS (Appendix F) and therefore, will also be incorporated into ERTP operations. The SFWMD methodology is explained in detail in Appendix E and the ideal range of water levels that provides wood stork foraging in WCA-3A throughout the course of the breeding season is illustrated in Figure 4-4. Finally, ERTP PM-G addresses the need to maintain areas of appropriate foraging depths (i.e. 5 to 25 centimeters) within the core foraging area of any wood stork nesting colony. It is recognized that areas of suitable foraging habitat will vary both within and between years due to microtopography, antecedent conditions, hydrological and meteorological conditions, and water management actions. It is anticipated that these provisions within ERTP will help to improve foraging conditions within WCA-3A and provide a direct benefit to the wood stork and other wading bird species. Source: Beerens and Cook 2010; ERTP Biological Assessment (Appendix E) Note: For wood stork foraging in WCA-3A FIGURE 4-4: IDEAL RANGE OF WATER LEVELS THAT PROVIDES WOOD STORK FORAGING THROUGHOUT BREEDING SEASON 4-46

207 Section 4 Environmental Consequences S-12C Restriction Date Modifications Removal of the S-12C restriction date would provide an additional outlet for water flow that was not available under IOP. This may allow more water to flow from WCA-3A, aiding to lower water levels within the WCA and reducing the prolonged high water levels in WCA- 3A associated with the IOP structural closings. Lowering of water levels within WCA-3A may affect wood storks by potentially increasing the number of areas with sufficient depths for foraging; thereby increasing foraging opportunities within WCA-3A. Lowering of water levels may also reduce hydroperiods within some areas of WCA-3A. Since fish densities vary with the duration of the hydroperiod, this could potentially affect wood stork foraging and nest productivity. For instance, research on the Everglades fish populations has shown that the density of small forage fish increases with hydroperiod: marshes inundated for less than 120 days average ± 4 fish/m 2 ; whereas those flooded for more than 340 days of the year average ± 25 fish/m 2 (Loftus and Eklund 1994; Trexler et al. 2002). ERTP ET-3 also provides for a one in four or one in five year dry down to promote regeneration of marsh vegetation. This provision, in concert with the lowering of WCA-3A water levels, will help to ensure healthy marsh vegetation, as well as act to promote forage fish abundance through predator release and increased nutrient availability. The S-12C restriction date modification, however, will likely not produce a substantial decrease in hydroperiods within WCA-3A to significantly affect fish densities. In addition, as wood storks rely upon a variety of wetland types of differing hydroperiods throughout the year, restriction date modifications under ERTP may help to maintain a network of suitable foraging conditions both within WCA-3A and ENP. Historically, the short hydroperiod wetlands within ENP have been important for wood stork foraging during the pre-breeding season, with the storks shifting to longer hydroperiod wetlands as the dry season progresses. ERTP ET-2 provides for a hydroperiod requirement between 90 to 210 days within CSSS habitat and, thus, would help to produce a mosaic of wetlands of varying hydroperiods within ENP. Hydrological patterns that produce a maximum number of patches with high prey availability (i.e. high water levels at the end of the wet season and low water levels at the end of the dry season) are necessary for high reproductive outputs (Gawlik 2002; Gawlik et al. 2004). Depending upon the elevation and microtopography throughout the WCAs and ENP, implementation of ERTP will produce a variety of wetland habitats that would support prey densities conducive to successful wood stork foraging and nesting. Significant hydrologic changes within ENP (NESRS, WSRS, Taylor Slough, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay) are not anticipated under implementation of the TSP, Alternative 9E1; and thus the effects described within the 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS for these areas would also occur under ERTP Species Effect Determination Wood storks forage and nest within the ERTP action area. ERTP proposed modifications to IOP regulations and the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule are designed to reduce water levels within WCA-3A, avoid extreme high and low water conditions and provide for a more favorable recession rate during the breeding season. In addition, ERTP includes specific 4-47

208 Section 4 Environmental Consequences water depth targets and recession rates aimed at improving nesting and foraging conditions for the wood stork (Figure 1-3). Hydrological changes associated with implementation of the action are expected to alter and slightly improve some of the physical and biological features essential to the nesting and foraging success of the species. Although the action related hydrological changes are expected to be minimal, USACE has determined the action may affect the wood stork; however, these changes represent improvements over the current operational regime. Implementation of a coordinated management plan incorporating species monitoring data will benefit the species Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow A detailed analysis of ERTP alternatives performance, including PMs and ETs specifically designed to protect CSSS, is contained within Appendix B. Standard SFWMM PMs for CSSS were utilized to compare performance among ERTP alternatives for both the CSSS nesting window and hydroperiod for each of the six CSSS subpopulations. As shown in Appendix B-1, Figure 9 through Figure 14, there is very little difference in performance among alternatives within any of the CSSS subpopulations. A detailed comparison between IOP and Alternative 9E1, the TSP, is contained within the USACE ERTP BA, located in Appendix E. The FWS 1999 BO presented a Recommended and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the Experimental Program that would avoid jeopardizing CSSS. The FWS RPA recommended that the following hydrological conditions be met for protection of CSSS: (1) a minimum of 60 consecutive days of water levels at or below 6.0 feet, NGVD at gauge NP-205 between March 1 and July 15; (2) ensure that 30 percent in 2000, 45 percent in 2001, and 60 percent in 2002 of required regulatory releases crossing Tamiami Trail enter ENP east of L-67 Extension, or produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that meet or exceed those produced by the 30, 45, and 60 percent targets; and (3) produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that equal or exceed conditions that would be produced by implementing the exact provisions of Test 7, Phase II operations (USACE 1995). During implementation of ISOP, USACE received confirmation from FWS that producing the hydrologic equivalent of the 30, 45, and 60 percent conditions, as opposed to the actual release percentages, would also meet the FWS RPA conditions. Alternative 7R, which was implemented, allows USACE to meet the FWS RPA conditions and minimize impacts to other natural and human resources, while managing the system for purposes authorized under the C&SF Project. The 1999 FWS RPA will continue to be met under Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1. Under the 2006 IOP, the S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S-343A, S-343B and S-344 structures were closed according to the schedule presented in Table 2-2 (IOP) in order to meet the FWS RPA of 60 consecutive dry days at gauge NP-205 between March 1 and July 15. Under ERTP Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1, the S-12A, S-12B, S-343A, S-343B and S344 closure dates would remain as identified under IOP. However, under ERTP, S-12C would not have any associated closure dates designed to meet the FWS RPA for CSSS. Due to its more eastern location, S-12C is farther removed from CSSS-A as compared with the S-12A and S-12B structures and, thus, has less of an impact on hydrological conditions within CSSS-A (refer to 4-48

209 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 2006 IOP Final Supplemental EIS). In addition, DOI will maintain stoppers within the culverts along the Tram Road within ENP to prevent westward flow of water from S-12C into the western marl prairies and CSSS-A. These stoppers will help to prevent S-12C flows west of the Tram Road and maintain shorter hydroperiods within the western marl prairies. Also, S-346 will be open when S-12D is open to further facilitate the movement of water into central SRS. Figure 4-5 compares the final array of alternatives with IOP for the 1999 FWS RPA of 60 consecutive dry days at NP-205 between March 1 and July 15. As shown in Figure 4-5, there is very little difference between alternatives and the slight differences are within the SFWMM error. FIGURE 4-5: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL RESULTS: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATON A NESTING PERIOD ERTP PM-A improves upon the 1999 FWS RPA by adjusting the breeding window in an attempt to maximize earlier breeding success. The IOP RPA mandated water levels below ground surface level, as measured at gauge NP-205, anytime between March 1 and July 15. For example, under IOP, the 60 day time period potentially could have started as early as March 1 or as late May 15 and the FWS RPA would still have been achieved. ERTP recommends that water levels be below ground surface level (6.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205) beginning no later than March 15 for a period of at least 60 consecutive days in order to capture the most successful breeding period of April and May. By mandating March 15 as below ground surface level, there would be a minimum of a two-week window prior to nest 4-49

210 Section 4 Environmental Consequences initiation for most of the population (Virzi et al. 2009; Virzi 2009), while still meeting water depth requirements for those few birds that may nest earlier (Baiser et al. 2008). In this manner, management actions are aimed at maximizing the number of early broods, as recommended by the 2007 Avian Ecology Workshop (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute 2010). As shown in Figure 4-7, the 60 consecutive dry day requirement during the CSSS nesting window of March 1 to July 15 would have been achieved in 24 of the 36 years (67 percent) under LORS and Alternative 7AB and in 23 of the 36 years (64 percent) under Alternatives 8D and 9E1. In 1996, LORS and Alternative 7AB operations would have provided 60 consecutive dry days at NP-205 with March 24-26, 1996 water levels ranging between 5.89 and 5.99 feet, NGVD. In comparison, Alternatives 8D and 9E1 operations would have provided 57 consecutive dry days at NP-205 with March 24-26, 1996 water levels ranging between 6.02 and 6.12 feet, NGVD. This equates to a difference between IOP and ERTP operations of three days and 0.13 to 0.15 feet (3.96 to 4.57 centimeters). The majority of CSSS nests are initiated between March 25 and April 22. Since CSSS build their nests an average of 17 centimeters above ground level, a difference of 3.96 to 4.57 centimeters over a three day period at the start of the nest initiation period would likely have a negligible impact on CSSS breeding. As shown by Nott et al. (1998) and Dean and Morrison (1998), CSSS will initiate nesting even if water depths are at or above 10 centimeters. Figure 4-7 shows the change in the number of nesting days between IOP and Alternative 9E1, the TSP, at NP-205. Blue bars represent the change in the consecutive number of dry days at NP-205 during the CSSS nesting window of March 1 to July 15 under Alternative 9E1, as compared with IOP. Note: 1. As measured at NP CSSS breeding window is defined as March 1 to July

211 Section 4 Environmental Consequences FIGURE 4-6: PERCENTAGE OF YEARS IN WHICH THERE WERE MORE THAN 60 CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS DURING THE CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW BREEDING WINDOW FIGURE 4-7: CHANGE IN NP-205 NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS DURING THE CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW NESTING WINDOW (MARCH 1- JULY 15) WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE 9E1 Note: Blue bars represent the change in the number of consecutive dry days at NP-205 as compared with IOP. Only years in which the FWS RPA was met are included with the exception of 1996 when the FWS RPA would have been achieved under IOP and not under Alternative 9E1. (1996 IOP operations would have resulted in 60 consecutive dry days at NP-205 as compared with 57 consecutive dry days under Alternative 9E1). As illustrated in Table 4-5, water levels were below 6.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by March 15 in 22 of the 36 years (61 percent) under IOP and Alternatives 8D and 9E1, and in 23 of 36 years (64 percent) under Alternative 7AB; by March 25 in 28 of the 36 years (78 percent) under IOP and Alternative 7AB and in 27 of the 36 years (75 percent) under Alternatives 8D and 9E1. For the years in which the FWS RPA was achieved, water depths were below 6.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by March 25 in 22 of the 24 years (92 percent) under IOP and in 22 of the 23 years (96 percent) under the TSP. The majority of CSSS nests are initiated between March 25 and April 22 (Virzi 2009). By providing water depths below 6.0 feet, NGVD at NP-205 by March 25, Alternative 9E1 operations will provide appropriate habitat conditions for CSSS nesting during the peak period for nest initiation and nest success. Based upon the numbers presented in Table 4-5 and Figure 4-7, USACE has concluded that changes in the number of consecutive dry days at NP-205, due to implementation of ERTP alternatives, do not result in a significant impact on CSSS-A. 4-51

212 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-5: ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF NP-205 CONSECUTIVE DRY DAYS DURING CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW NESTING WINDOW AND DATE NP-205 FIRST REACHED LESS THAN 6.0 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM NP-205 Number of Consecutive Dry Days LORS Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Date NP-205 Date NPfirst 205 first Date NPreached NP-205 reached NP first < 6.0 Number of < 6.0 Number of reached NP-205 Number feet Consecutive feet Consecutive < 6.0 feet of Consecutive NVGD Dry Days NVGD Dry Days NVGD Dry Days Date NP- 205 first reached < 6.0 feet NVGD Year Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar , 97 3-Mar 3, 97 3-Mar 3, 96 3-Mar 3, 95 3-Mar Mar 83 1-Mar 83 1-Mar 83 1-Mar , Mar 59, Mar 24, 34, Mar 24, 34, Mar May 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 68 9-Mar 71 6-Mar 72 5-Mar Mar Mar 130, 1 1-Mar 130, 1 1-Mar , 3 1-Mar 128, 3 1-Mar 128, 3 1-Mar 128, 3 1-Mar , 2 1-Mar 114, 2 1-Mar 114, 2 1-Mar 114, 2 1-Mar Mar 88 1-Mar 88 1-Mar 88 1-Mar , 22 1-Mar 113, 23 1-Mar 113, 23 1-Mar 113, 23 1-Mar , Apr 3, Apr 3, Apr 3, 1, Apr ,32,8 1-Mar 77,32,8 1-Mar 77,32,8 1-Mar 77,32,8 1-Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 88 1-Mar 88 1-Mar 88 1-Mar May 1 29-May 0 NA 0 NA ,3, 49,18,5 1-Mar 23,6,50,28 2-Mar 21,3,48,18,5 1-Mar 22,4,50,24,1 3-Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar ,50 3-May 16,50 2-May 15,50 3-May 16,50 2-May Mar 98 1-Mar 98 1-Mar 98 1-Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 80 1-Mar 80 1-Mar 80 1-Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar ,2,28 3-Apr 2,19,43 28-Mar 3,26 13-Apr 1,25 14-Apr ,10,3,3 17-Mar 1,99,3,4 14-Mar 86,10,3,3 16-Mar 86,10,3,3 16-Mar NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA Mar Mar Mar Mar 4-52

213 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Year NP-205 Number of Consecutive Dry Days LORS Alternative 7AB Alternative 8D Alternative 9E1 Date NP-205 Date NPfirst 205 first Date NPreached NP-205 reached NP first < 6.0 Number of < 6.0 Number of reached NP-205 Number feet Consecutive feet Consecutive < 6.0 feet of Consecutive NVGD Dry Days NVGD Dry Days NVGD Dry Days Date NP- 205 first reached < 6.0 feet NVGD ,29,17,1,11 1-Mar 23,17,10,17,11 1-Mar 23,28,17,1,11 1-Mar 23,16,10,4,12,11 1-Mar ,4 12-May 2,8,34,1 17-May 1,7,33,1 18-May 1,7,33,1 18-May Mar Mar Mar Mar ,32 16-Mar 28,32 17-Mar 24,30 21-Mar 24,29 21-Mar Note: Numbers highlighted in red indicate years when the FWS RPA would not have been achieved CSSS breeding window is defined as March 1 to July 15 Hydroperiods within CSSS-A may potentially be affected by changes in the WCA-3A Interim Regulation Schedule. As shown in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-8 implementation of Alternatives 7AB, 8D or 9E1 will slightly alter hydroperiods at NP-205. Based upon SFWMM results (36-year POR, ), increases in hydroperiod would occur under Alternatives 8D and 9E1 in 12 of the 36 years (33 percent), and 13 of the 36 years (36 percent) under Alternative 7AB. Decreases in hydroperiod would occur in 15 of the 36 years (42 percent) under Alternative 9E1, 13 of the 36 years (36 percent) under Alternative 7AB, and in 10 of the 36 years (28 percent) under Alternative 8D. There would be no change in hydroperiod experienced in 14 of the 36 years (39 percent) under Alternative 8D, 10 of the 36 years (28 percent) under Alternative 7AB, and in nine of the 36 years (25 percent) under Alternative 9E

214 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Note: Based on SFWMM results. FIGURE 4-8: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION A DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD The total net increase in hydroperiod over the 36-year POR is 15 days under Alternative 9E1; 32 days under Alternative 7AB, and 52 days under Alternative 8D. These numbers lie within the error of the SFWMM to accurately predict hydroperiod, and thus according to the model, there is no discernable difference in hydroperiod within CSSS-A between IOP and ERTP alternatives (refer to Figure 4-8). It is important to note that the SFWMM results do not include the Tram Road stoppers, which are designed to block S-12C flows from reaching the western marl prairies where CSSS-A resides; based upon assumptions developed during the SFWMM calibration and precedent established with prior model application, the ENP Tram Road is not explicitly included within the SFWMM. Therefore, USACE expects that with inclusion of the Tram Road stoppers, hydroperiods at NP-205 and within CSSS-A will be shorter than indicated by the modeling results and potentially of shorter duration than those experienced under IOP operations. Figure 4-9 shows the change in hydroperiod between IOP and Alternative 9E1 at NP-205, measured by the number of days. Blue bars represent the change in the number of days inundated under Alternative 9E1 as compared with IOP. In addition, previous USACE modeling efforts (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute 2007) have indicated that hydroperiods within the western marl prairie will increase under CERP. Based upon the numbers presented in Table 4-6, Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9, along with the inclusion of the Tram Road stoppers, USACE has concluded that changes in NP

215 Section 4 Environmental Consequences discontinuous hydroperiod due to implementation of ERTP Alternative 9E1 do not result in a significant impact on CSSS-A habitat. TABLE 4-6: COMPARISON BETWEEN FINAL ALTERNATIVES OF NP-205 DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Year LORS Discontinuous Hydroperiod Alternative 7AB Discontinuous Hydroperiod Alternative 8D Discontinuous Hydroperiod Alternative 9E1 Discontinuous Hydroperiod

216 Section 4 Environmental Consequences FIGURE 4-9: CHANGE IN NP-205 DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN Also included within all of the ERTP action alternatives is the provision for releases up to 100 cfs through S-12A (when Rainfall Plan results in S-12 target flows) for the purpose of providing the Miccosukee with access to cultural areas (Appendix A-3). When a release is proposed from November 1 through July 14, USACE must request consultation with FWS to avoid impacts on CSSS-A. The duration of this release would not exceed five consecutive days. During S-12A up to 100 cfs release, NP-205 and area rainfall would be monitored with NP-205 increase or anticipated increase above 5.9 feet, NGVD, resulting in closing of S- 12A. A new water level gauge would be installed between S-12A and NP-205 to provide additional hydrologic information including but not limited to; S-12A release that provides access to cultural areas and S-12A release to avoid impact on CSSS-A. USACE and DOI would continue coordination with the intent to install this gauge prior to ERTP Record of Decision. The initial release request would be managed as a field test to determine any potential effects associated with the release on CSSS-A. If no adverse impacts occur, subsequent releases would be permitted and monitored appropriately using data obtained from the new gauge and gauge NP-205. Due to inclusion of the identified triggers and constraints, installation of a new monitoring gauge, and coordination with FWS, USACE does not anticipate any adverse impacts on CSSS-A associated with S-12A up to 100 cfs releases. Other ERTP alternatives components that would have little impact on the CSSS include S- 346 and S-332D operations, Rainfall Plan Target Flows and Pre-storm, Storm, and Storm Recovery Operations for the SDCS. In addition, the WCA-3A PSC may provide an 4-56

217 Section 4 Environmental Consequences important mechanism to evaluate hydrological and ecological conditions within CSSS habitat to allow for management of the system to protect the needs of multiple species, including the CSSS Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Critical Habitat The 1999 FWS RPA stated that, in addition to the 60-day dry nesting constraint, the USACE would have to ensure that 30, 45, and 60 percent of required regulatory releases crossing Tamiami Trail enter ENP east of the L-67 Extension in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively, or produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that meet or exceed those produced by the 30, 45, and 60 percent targets; and produce hydroperiods and water levels in the vicinity of CSSS-C, CSSS-E, and CSSS-F that equal or exceed conditions that would be produced by implementing the exact provisions of Test 7, Phase II operations (USACE 1995). Based upon the SFWMM results, these IOP RPA conditions would continue to be met under ERTP alternatives Critical Habitat Unit 1/Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-B SFWMM results indicated no significant change in hydroperiod within Critical Habitat Unit (Unit) 1 under any of the ERTP Alternatives (Figure 4-10). Unit 1 is relatively well protected from the managed water releases under IOP. Consequently, implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives is not expected to alter any of the primary constituent elements within Unit 1 or affect the status of CSSS-B. 4-57

218 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Note: Based on SFWMM results FIGURE 4-10: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION-B DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Critical Habitat Unit 2/ Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-C SFWMM results indicated no significant change in hydroperiod within Critical Habitat Unit 2 under Alternatives 8D or (Figure 4-11). Alternative 7AB resulted in longer hydroperiods and wetter conditions within this subpopulation. Habitat of varying suitability occurs within Unit 2. Long-hydroperiod marshes occur south of the S-332 pumping station, while areas to the north are over-drained and prone to frequent fires. Unit 2 holds relatively few CSSS. Recent research has indicated that within Unit 2, CSSS-C is suffering from the ill-effects of small population size, including fewer breeding individuals, male-biased sex ratios, lower hatch rates, and lower juvenile return rates (Boulton et al. 2009; Virzi et al. 2009). Existing conditions would be maintained within this critical habitat unit through implementation of Alternatives 8D or 9E1. Pump limitations on S-332D between February 1 and July 15 (or the end of the CSSS nesting season, as determined by FWS) will increase from 165 cfs to 250 cfs under all ERTP alternatives. Field data from the Experimental Program and data from 2008 and 2009 (SFWMD, unpublished data) reveal that currently a volume of water equivalent to 4-58

219 Section 4 Environmental Consequences approximately half of the flow pumped into S-332D flows as seepage to the C-111 Canal. With approximately half of the water pumped flowing to C-111 as seepage, limiting S-332D discharges to 165 cfs results in considerable less water reaching Taylor Slough than when S- 174 and S-332 were used (SFWMD, unpublished data). This represents an improvement in flows to Taylor Slough. As a result, USACE has determined that increased pumping at S- 332D will not have a significant impact on Unit 2 and implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives will continue to provide the same benefits to Unit 2 as those provided under IOP. Note: Based on SFWMM results FIGURE 4-11: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION-C DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Critical Habitat Unit 3/ Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-D SFWMM results indicated no significant change in hydroperiod within Critical Habitat Unit 3 under Alternatives 8D and 9E1, and an increase in hydroperiod under Alternative 7AB (Figure 4-12). Since 2000, high water levels and longer hydroperiods have prevailed resulting in a sawgrass-dominated community interspersed with patches of muhly grass at higher elevations (Ross et al. 2003). Vegetation within this critical habitat unit is largely unsuitable for CSSS breeding. Conditions resulting from implementation of Alternative 7AB 4-59

220 Section 4 Environmental Consequences would exacerbate this problem. Current conditions would be maintained under Alternatives 8D and 9E1 and, thus, this area would remain largely unsuitable for breeding. Results of the SFWMM indicate that implementation of ERTP will not significantly reduce the hydroperiods within Unit 3 that have been observed under IOP. However, it is important to note that the Canal 111 Spreader Canal (C-111 SC) Project will likely increase groundwater levels within Unit 3; therefore, the extent of hydrological alteration within Unit 3 is uncertain, but likely to be minimal under ERTP alternatives. Note: Based on SFWMM results FIGURE 4-12: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION-D DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Critical Habitat Unit 4/ Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-E SFWMM results indicated no significant change in hydroperiod within Critical Habitat Unit 4 under Alternatives 8D or 9E1 (Figure 4-13). Alternative 7AB would result in longer hydroperiods and wetter conditions within this subpopulation. Due to its location ( Figure 4-13), Unit 4 is relatively well protected from the managed water releases that occurred under IOP. Effects of IOP operations on Unit 4 have been relatively small and are 4-60

221 Section 4 Environmental Consequences expected to continue to be minor under implementation of ERTP alternatives. Therefore, ERTP is not expected to alter the status of CSSS-E or its designated critical habitat. Note: Based on SFWMM results FIGURE 4-13: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION-E DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Critical Habitat Unit 5/Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Sub-population-F SFWMM results indicated no significant change in hydroperiod within Critical Habitat Unit 5 under Alternatives 8D and 9E1, and an increase in hydroperiod under Alternative 7AB (Figure 4-14). Habitat within this critical habitat unit suffers from over-drainage, reduced water flow, exotic tree invasion and frequent human-induced fires (Lockwood et al. 2003; Ross et al. 2006). To alleviate the perpetual drier conditions and its associated problems, increased water flows within this area are required. Alternative 7AB would best meet this objective due to the increased hydroperiod and overall wetter condition indicated by the model. Implementation of ERTP alternatives is not anticipated to produce impacts to Unit 5 compared to existing conditions. 4-61

222 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Note: Based on SFWMM results FIGURE 4-14: CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW SUB-POPULATION-F DISCONTINUOUS HYDROPERIOD Based on an evaluation of impacts to the primary constituent elements identified as essential to the conservation of the species, implementation of the proposed action could establish hydrological changes that may alter some of the physical and biological features within designated CSSS Critical Habitat Units 2, 3, and 5. The ERTP alternatives may affect vegetation within designated critical habitat through hydrological changes that increase hydroperiods within the eastern marl prairies within CSSS-C and CSSS-F. Increased use of the Southern Detention Area may act to decrease hydroperiods within Unit 3, an area that has suffered in the past from extended hydroperiods leading to a transition in vegetation from muhly grass to sawgrass (Ross et al. 2004, Virzi et al. 2009). Although anticipated modifications are expected to be minimal and are not expected to appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat, USACE has determined that the proposed action may affect designated critical habitat. Since the proposed action potentially raises groundwater levels in sensitive areas, hydrological changes associated with implementation of the action are expected to alter some of the physical and biological features essential to the nesting success and overall conservation of the subspecies. Although the action related hydrological changes are 4-62

223 Section 4 Environmental Consequences expected to be minimal, USACE has determined the action may affect the CSSS. Implementation of a coordinated management plan incorporating real-time ground monitoring could minimize potential effects to the subspecies Florida Panther The Florida panther, also known as cougar, mountain lion, puma and catamount, was once the most widely distributed mammal (other than humans) in North and South America, but it is now virtually exterminated in the eastern United States. Habitat loss has driven the subspecies known as the Florida panther into a small area, where the few remaining animals are highly inbred, causing such genetic flaws as heart defects and sterility. Recently, closelyrelated panthers from Texas were released in Florida and are successfully breeding with the Florida panthers. Increased genetic variation and protection of habitat may save the subspecies. Florida panthers presently inhabit lands in ENP adjacent to the Southern Glades, and radio tracking studies have shown that they venture into the Southern Glades on occasion during post-breeding dispersion. Reference is made to the revised Panther Key and Panther Focus Area Map for use in determining effects to the Florida panther. ERTP Alternatives the potential to affect both the Primary and Secondary Zones for Florida panther habitat. Since potentially suitable habitat occurs within the action area, increased water deliveries under all of the ERTP alternatives to ENP could affect Florida panther habitat. However, as lands within the ERTP action area become restored to their more historic natural values, the concomitant improved prey base would result in greater use by the Florida panther utilizing these areas. In addition, by lowering the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, more upland habitat may become available within the Florida panther s primary and secondary zone, directly benefiting the species. Based on this information, and the fact that the Florida panther is a wide-ranging species with the majority of sightings west of the action area, the proposed action may affect the Florida panther. In their 2002 IOP BO, FWS acknowledged that there would be some loss of suitable Florida panther habitat due to construction of the C-111 detention areas, but that was marginal habitat, the loss of which would be offset by overall ecological improvement in adjacent habitat in ENP; this determination was upheld in the 2006 FWS IOP BO. Accordingly, it is determined that completion of those features and the implementation of ERTP may affect the Florida panther American Alligator The American alligator is listed as threatened by FWS due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile, an endangered species. The American alligator is known to be widespread throughout the action area based upon field observations and the presence of available habitat. The hydrological changes in the timing and distribution of water deliveries as a result of the ERTP alternatives are not expected to adversely affect the alligator or its habitat. Modifications to the current operating regime are transitional between IOP and full 4-63

224 Section 4 Environmental Consequences restoration and, thus, are designed to benefit multiple species and their habitats, including the American alligator. Therefore, ERTP alternatives may affect the American alligator American Crocodile American crocodiles are known to exist throughout the action area (Cherkiss 1999). The cooling canals of the Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Power Plant, which occur within the action boundary, support the most successful crocodile nesting population in south Florida (Mazzotti et al. 2002). These cooling canals offer premium nesting habitat because they satisfy the crocodile s two primary nesting requirements: suitable substrate above the normal high water level and adjacent deep-water refugia. While crocodiles prefer sandy substrates, they will often utilize canal spoil banks (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989). Although the American crocodile has a high probability of occurrence within the action area due to the presence of available habitat, no adverse impacts to the American crocodile are expected as a result implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Additionally, as more freshwater is delivered to ENP, overland flows may potentially increase suitable habitat for juvenile crocodiles. The area affected by ERTP represents only a small portion of the species habitat and, therefore, USACE has determined that the action may affect the American crocodile American Crocodile Critical Habitat Each of the ERTP alternatives would produce similar effects within American crocodile critical habitat. According to 50 CFR 17.95, the easternmost tip of Turkey Point defines the northern boundary of designated critical habitat for the American crocodile; this boundary extends southwest throughout Florida Bay. Anticipated benefits of the proposed action may include improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to ENP. This could potentially aid in restoring more natural salinities in estuarine habitats where critical habitat has been designated for the American crocodile. It is possible that the effects of distributing overland flow through the wetlands into Florida Bay could have effects on tidal wetlands and near-shore salinities that lie within American crocodile critical habitat, but these effects are expected to be minimal. Since the ideal salinity range for American crocodiles is 0 to 20 ppt, action implementation has the possibility of enhancing American crocodile habitat within the action area; however, the degree to which this may occur is uncertain. It is, therefore, determined that this action may affect critical habitat for the American crocodile Eastern Indigo Snake The Eastern indigo snake is the largest native non-venomous snake in North America. It is an isolated subspecies occurring in southeastern Georgia and throughout peninsular Florida. The Eastern indigo snake prefers drier habitats, but may be found in a variety of habitats from xeric sandhills, to cabbage palm hammocks, to hydric hardwood hammocks (Schaefer and Junkin 1990). Eastern indigo snakes need relatively large areas of undeveloped land to maintain their population. The main reason for its decline is habitat loss due to development. 4-64

225 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Further, as habitats become fragmented by roads, Eastern indigo snakes become increasingly vulnerable to highway mortality as they travel through their large territories (Schaefer and Junkin 1990). In south Florida, the Eastern indigo snake is thought to be widely distributed. Given their preference for upland habitats, Eastern indigo snakes are not commonly found in great numbers in the wetland complexes of the Everglades region, even though they are found in pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and mangrove forests in extreme south Florida (Duellman and Schwartz 1958; Steiner et al. 1983). Since Eastern indigo snakes occur primarily in upland areas, their presence in the action area is somewhat limited. The hydrologic effects of the proposed action alternatives are expected to benefit existing or historic wetlands and are not expected to have significant effects on the upland habitats preferred by this species. In addition, by lowering the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule more upland habitat may become available for the Eastern indigo snake. Therefore, USACE has determined the Eastern indigo snake may be affected by the proposed action Deltoid Spurge, Garber s Spurge, Small s Milkpea and Tiny Polygala Pine rocklands are the primary habitat for deltoid spurge, Garber s spurge, Small s milkpea and tiny polygala. This community occurs on areas of relatively high elevation and consequently, has been subject to intense development pressure. In addition, pine rocklands are a fire-maintained community and require regular burns to maintain the open shrub/herbaceous stratum and to control hardwood encroachment (Gunderson et al. 1997). Fire suppression, fragmentation, invasion by exotic species, and a lowered water table have negatively affected the remaining tracts of pine rocklands, prompting the listing of these species under the ESA (FWS 1999). Within the action area, pine rocklands occur on the Miami Rock Ridge and extend into the Everglades as Long Pine Key. These listed plant species have the potential to occur within the rocky glades surrounding the Frog Pond Detention Area. Under the ERTP alternatives, there are no proposed changes to the operations of this C-111 SDA, and as such, any effect on pine rocklands from action implementation is expected to be insignificant. Therefore, USACE has determined the action may affect the deltoid spurge, Garber s spurge, Small s milkpea or tiny polygala State Listed Species Endangered Species Florida Mastiff Bat Evidence of direct impacts to the Florida mastiff bat as a result of the existing operating regime (i.e. IOP) is lacking, although negative impacts to the species are unlikely. Due to the lack of preferred tropical hardwood hammocks and pine rocklands directly within the action 4-65

226 Section 4 Environmental Consequences area and the limited distribution of the species to residential and commercial properties, ERTP alternatives would have no effect on the Florida mastiff bat Miami Blue Butterfly Evidence of direct impacts to the Miami Blue Butterfly as a result of the existing operating regime (i.e. IOP) is lacking, although negative impacts to the species are unlikely. Due to the lack of preferred tropical hardwood hammocks and pine rocklands directly within the action area and the limited distribution of the species to Bahia Honda State Park in the Florida Keys, ERTP alternatives would have no effect on the Miami blue butterfly Threatened Species Everglades Mink Seasonal habitat studies of the Everglades mink (Humphrey and Zinn 1982) propose that changes in habitat use were related to changes in the distribution of aquatic habitat and prey species. Therefore, it is suggested that successful management of the Everglades mink should revolve around the maintenance of natural season water levels in the Everglades. ERTP represents an improvement over the existing operating regime (i.e. IOP). Anticipated benefits of the proposed project include improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to ENP. The increase in water availability to ENP anticipated under the ERTP alternatives will likely benefit the species as a result of increased prey availability (forage fish). Therefore, USACE has determined that the TSP may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the species Florida Black Bear Florida black bears are habitat generalists; they are dependent upon forest vegetation but are not limited to specific forest types. Forested wetlands and bottomland hardwoods provide optimal habitat, but forested areas of large size with diverse foods and dispersed cover are suitable. Although suitable habitat exists within the project area and the Florida black bear is a wide-ranging species, the majority of black bear sightings are west of the project area (BCNP); none of the ERTP alternatives would have any effect on the Florida Black Bear Shore Birds Snowy Plover, Piping Plover, Least Tern, Black Skimmer, and American Oystercatcher Snowy plovers, piping plovers, and least terns primarily utilize open sandy beaches. Although suitable habitat along the shoreline exists within the project area, ERTP alternatives are not likely to adversely affect their feeding habits or nesting areas. Implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives would have no effect on these species. 4-66

227 Section 4 Environmental Consequences The black skimmer and American oystercatcher are recognized by FWC as state listed species of special concern. Similar to the plovers and least tern, these shorebirds are distributed in Florida along the Atlantic and gulf coasts of Florida, nest on bare, open ground and feed on similar prey (FWC 2003c). Implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives would have no effect on these species State Listed Species of Special Concern Wading Birds Impacts to state-listed wading bird species would be similar to those outlined for the wood stork and are therefore incorporated within this analysis by reference. White ibis and snowy egret are short-legged wading bird species and are affected by water depth and density. Gawlik (2002) classified these species as searchers in that they select the highest quality patches and abandon them quickly. In a system like the Everglades, a relatively small area of wetland has high quality feeding sites at any one time and these are clumped in distribution. Formation of these high quality patches is dependent upon seasonal dry downs that concentrate prey. As such, only a small fraction of the landscape has high-quality sites at any given time; thus, searchers require a larger spatial area to meet their nutritional needs. In contrast, Gawlik (2002) classifies other wading birds, such as great blue heron, great egret, glossy ibis, little blue heron and tri-colored heron, as exploiters. These species have adaptations that mitigate the effects of decreasing fish density and, thus, are able to continue to exploit a given forage site well after the site has been abandoned by the searchers. Searchers are more constrained in their selection of forage sites; therefore, changes in water levels, most notably increases in water levels during the dry season, have a greater negative effect on searchers than on exploiters (Gawlik 2002). Potential effects on white ibis, snowy egret and other state-listed wading bird species are described in greater detail below White Ibis Target nest numbers for white ibises are 10,000 to 25,000 pairs; nest numbers are based on the known numbers of nests during the pre-drainage period ( ). Nesting targets for the white ibis between February and June have been met in the WCAs and ENP since the implementation of IOP in Nesting effort (number of nests) of white ibises from 2002 to 2008 is summarized as follows: : 23,983 pairs; : 20,758 pairs; : 24,947 pairs; : 20,993 pairs; : 24,926 pairs; : 21,133 pairs; ,541 pairs (SFWMD 2009b). Given the above survey, implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the species. The major component of ERTP that may potentially affect wading bird species including the white ibis include lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, designed to aid in the management of high water levels within WCA 3A. In addition, ERTP includes specific water depth targets and recession rates aimed at improving nesting and foraging conditions. PM-H strives to maintain appropriate foraging depths of (5 to 15 centimeters) within the Core Foraging Area (seven to nine mile radius) of any active white ibis or snowy egret colony. This PM target is directly applicable to foraging depth requirements for white ibises 4-67

228 Section 4 Environmental Consequences which forage for small fish and crustaceans in shallow water at 5 to 20 centimeters. (Frederick et al. 2009a). Historically, white ibises initiated nesting in most years in mid-tolate dry seasons (February to April), with a nesting cycle of 60 to 80 days (Frederick et al. 2009a); breeding season can currently extend through October (FWC 2003c). PM-F strives to maintain a recession rate of 0.06 to 0.07 feet per week in WCA-3A during February through May. This PM target is directly applicable to the white ibis as well, since like the wood stork, white ibis are also classified as searchers and require high quality forage patches (Gawlik 2002). A detailed analysis of water depths and recession rates under each of the ERTP alternatives for white ibis foraging is provided within Appendix B and Appendix E. White ibises forage relatively close to their nesting colonies (less than 20 kilometers) and relocate their colony sites and change timing of nesting from year to year in response to shifting locations of prey (Frederick et al. 2009a). ET-2 provides a hydroperiod requirement (i.e. 90 to 240 days) within CSSS habitat and thus would help to produce a range of wetland habitats of varying hydroperiods within ENP. This will also be conducive to white ibis foraging by further supporting prey densities. Implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives would likely benefit the white ibis, with the greatest benefit provided by Alternative 9E Snowy Egret, Reddish Egret, Little Blue Heron and Tricolored Heron It is anticipated that ERTP will help to improve foraging conditions within WCA-3A and provide a direct benefit to wading bird species. ERTP attempts to avoid foraging depths and recession rates unfavorable to wood storks and other wading birds by including a recommended range of foraging depth and recession rates targets (Section Wood Stork). Suitable foraging depths are often species specific; species that hunt by sight (egrets, herons) typically forage in deeper water, while tactile feeders (white ibises, wood storks, roseate spoonbills) depend on concentrated prey and forage in shallower water (5 to 25 centimeters). Sight-foraging birds forage by slowly stalking their prey, while tactile feeders depend on touch. Because tactile foraging birds in general are more dependent on high prey concentrations, Gawlik (2002) suggests that these species are more sensitive to changes in environmental conditions that determine fish concentrations, specifically water levels. Changes in timing and distribution of water deliveries resulting in water level reversals during the dry season would have less of an impact on wading birds that hunt by sight. Within the Everglades ecosystem, Gawlik (2002) suggests that increases in water levels during the dry-down have a greater negative effect on snowy egrets, wood storks and white ibises than on little blue herons, tricolored herons and great blue herons. Snowy egrets hunt by sight, but experienced similar effects to water reversals when compared to ibises and wood storks (Gawlik 2002). In fact, several studies note an apparent shift in the species composition of wading birds in the WCAs, ENP and Florida Bay; dominated by tactile-foraging storks and ibises to one dominated by sight-foraging species. Frederick et al. (2009b) suggest that populations of Great egrets (maximum foraging depth of 28 centimeters) in freshwater marshes have 4-68

229 Section 4 Environmental Consequences benefited from ponding created by the management of water control structures at the expense of storks and ibises. Regardless, population numbers of egrets and herons remain low compared to historic predrainage estimates (target of 10,000 to 20,000 pairs for snowy egrets and tricolored herons combined). Since all of the ERTP alternatives lower water levels within WCA-3A, implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives will likely benefit the snowy egret, tricolored heron, little blue heron and other wading bird species by increasing the availability of forage fish in WCA-3A and ENP and by creating an Everglades landscape with a range of wetland habitats with more suitable hydroperiods. For those species of herons or egrets that also inhabit Florida Bay and/or the Keys, in addition to WCA-3A and/or are restricted to these areas (reddish egret), anticipated benefits of the proposed project also include improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to ENP. Restoration of freshwater flows is expected to restore more natural salinities in estuarine habitats within Florida Bay. Implementation of Alternative 9E1 may affect these species by providing direct benefits to their forging and nesting habitat conditions Limpkin Due to their reliance on apple snails as their primary food resource, limpkin will directly benefit from implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Lowering of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule will increase the number of areas with shallow water depths preferred by foraging limpkins. In addition, inclusion of the FWS MSTS (Figure 1-3) within ERTP will provide appropriate water depth targets for apple snail, as well as periodic dry down events to promote regenerate of marsh habitat upon which the limpkin and apple snail depend. Due to these action components, USACE has determined that implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives may beneficially affect limpkin by increasing foraging prey base and improving habitat conditions within WCA-3A Roseate Spoonbill In May of 2005, the National Park Service (NPS) published an assessment of the hydrologic and ecological effects of ISOP and IOP on ENP under a congressional directive (House Repro ). Aggregate data sets suggested that spoonbill nesting improved nearly fivefold under IOP compared to Test 7 operations by creating lower water levels during the dry season within the mangrove areas utilized by the species. IOP appeared to reduce the frequency of dry season pulse releases to the C-111 Basin, decreasing the number and extent of reversals. Relative water depths under Test 7 averaged well above the concentration threshold of 12.5 centimeters from December 1 to March 31, a critical period during spoonbill nesting; Under IOP, water levels were well below this stage (NPS 2005). Lorenz et al. (2010) conducted a more recent analysis of spoonbill nesting dynamics in Florida Bay. Nest production was estimated from the largest colonies in the northeastern and northwestern regions during three nesting cycle ( , , ); results indicated three consecutive successful nesting years. Spoonbills in the northwest region were successful in nesting, producing 1.7, 1.8, and 2.1 chicks per nest for each respective nesting 4-69

230 Section 4 Environmental Consequences cycle. In the northeastern region spoonbills were successful as well, producing 1.0, 1.8, and 1.8 chicks per nest for each respective breeding season. Successful nesting cycles were attributed to favorable hydrologic conditions (Lorenz et al. 2010). In all three nesting cycles, hydrologic conditions were favorable in both the eastern (Taylor Slough, C-111 Basin and Southern Biscayne Bay) and western (SRS and Cape Sable) watersheds, with water levels at or below 13 centimeters within at least one site within each watershed for the entire nesting period. Both studies suggests that the existing operating regime (i.e. IOP) has resulted in better foraging conditions for roseate spoonbills in Florida Bay; it must be noted however, that the current total number of nests in Florida Bay for all five nesting regions is well below historical numbers. The total number of nests in Florida Bay for nesting years , , and were 547, 457, and 292 respectively (RECOVER 2009). Given the above studies, and the fact that none of the ERTP alternatives result in any significant changes water levels within Florida Bay, ERTP implementation will continue to provide benefits to roseate spoonbill AIR QUALITY No air quality issues are anticipated to result from implementation of Alternative 9E1. The minor changes in water levels may result in slightly drier conditions in the northern section of WCA-3A but that change is expected to be minimal and would be very difficult to attribute to changes in water management criteria proposed under ERTP. Weather patterns, which this operational plan will not affect, have the highest degree of control over dry downs in the WCAs. Extreme dry downs could increase the probability of muck fires, which can have significant temporary negative impacts to air quality. Increased probability for fire is most likely to occur under Alternative 7AB. However, the TSP, Alternative 9E1, is not expected to affect the frequency of muck fires which are primarily controlled by the weather patterns within the project area NOISE No changes to noise levels are expected to result under any of the ERTP alternatives. It could be argued that the potentially slighter drier conditions in northern WCA-3A could reduce airboat traffic in that area due to lower water levels, however, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the operational plan caused that condition. Drier conditions in northern WCA-3A can be more strongly linked to weather patterns as opposed to the small potential water level changes in the WCAs during dry years that could result from the implementation of the TSP. No impacts to road traffic expected AESTHETICS No significant impacts to aesthetics are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Tram Road stoppers will be placed within the culverts beneath the Tram Road and have been designed and fabricated to fit snugly within the culvert and will not aesthetically impede the view shed for ENP visitors. One potential consequence of 4-70

231 Section 4 Environmental Consequences installation of the Tram Road stoppers is ponding of water on the east side of the Tram Road. This ponding effect has the potential to bring wildlife closer to the road, particularly during dry periods when other areas of the marsh may be dry, thereby enhancing the ENP visitor s experience RECREATION No significant impacts to recreation are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Due to lowering of water levels with WCA-3A, there is a slight potential to reduce airboat access during extremely dry periods, particularly within northern WCA-3A. However, SFWMM results reveal only slight changes in low water levels within northern WCA-3A under Alternative 9E1 (Figure A-H-9), and therefore, the likelihood of limited airboat access will largely be determined by climatic and meteorological conditions, rather than water management operations. Due to incorporation of the FWS MSTS into the ERTP TSP, minimum water levels in WCA-3A will try to be maintained, which will further aid to mitigate any potential impacts to airboat access. Recreational fishing would only potentially be affected during extremely dry years when canal levels may be lower due to dry conditions. However, this potential impact would also be experienced under the present operational regime (i.e. IOP) and, therefore, potential impacts due to implementation of Alternative 9E1 on recreational fishing would be negligible LAND USE No significant impacts to land use are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives SOCIOECONOMICS No significant impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. Due to lowering of water levels with WCA-3A, there is a potential to reduce airboat access during extremely dry periods, particularly within northern WCA-3A. This could potentially impact local airboat concessionaires. However, SFWMM results reveal only slight changes in water levels within northern WCA-3A with implementation of the TSP (Alternative 9E1; Figure A-H-9) and, therefore, the likelihood of limited airboat access will largely be determined by climatic and meteorological conditions, rather than water management operations. Due to incorporation of the FWS MSTS into the ERTP TSP, minimum water levels in WCA-3A will try to be maintained, which will further aid to mitigate any potential impacts to airboat access AGRICULTURE No significant impacts to agriculture are anticipated with implementation of any of the ERTP alternatives. As described in Section 4.6, less water is passed to SDCS under Alternative 9E1, the TSP, as compared with IOP. In addition, no prime or unique farmland occurs within the project area (refer to Appendix D-5 for Farmland Conversion Impact Rating [Form AD-1006]), therefore none would be impacted by ERTP implementation. 4-71

232 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.18 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE No hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste (HTRW) issues are anticipated under any of the alternatives. No excavation is associated with the implementation of the Alternative 9E1, the TSP. The project area has a very low risk for HTRW sources. Operational changes are not normally expected to negatively impact HTRW concerns (i.e. increase mobilization of existing sources), unless new flow paths are introduced or significant changes to flow rates result. Those changes will not occur for any of the alternatives. Another operational regime change that could increase mobilization of existing HTRW sources would be significant changes in water levels within the project area. ERTP alternatives will not cause significant changes in water levels. These operational changes are also not expected to have any impact on any potential remaining (if any) ordnance within the WCAs CULTURAL RESOURCES Implementation of ERTP has the potential to adversely impact significant cultural resources due to changes in water depths and durations. However, there are a multiple factors or unknowns that, once known, may alter this statement. Currently, very little work has been done to understand how changes in hydrological patterns affect cultural resources in this area. Major studies have been limited to portions of the SRS Archaeological District but have never addressed impacts associated with fluctuating water levels. Previous investigations conducted by USACE in other regions have determined that changes in hydrologic patterns have an effect on archeological sites (Ware 1989; USACE 1990; MacDonald 1990; Dunn 1996, New South 2004). Thus, sites contained within the WCAs and SRS may be adversely impacted by changes in the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Historically though, the Everglades has been known to be subjected to seasonal fluctuation in water levels. At this time it is not understood what effect this natural fluctuation has already had on cultural resources that exist within the project area and if further fluctuations of the water will further impact resources. If such impacts associated with changes to the hydrologic pattern have already impacted resources in the project area, then current proposed changes would have no effect on historic properties. To understand the effects of hydrologic changes on cultural resources, USACE is developing a survey strategy to understand the effects on significant cultural resources. This effort will take multiple years to complete and, as such, USACE is proposing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) as specified under 36CFR800.14b(1)(ii). The PA will allow USACE to complete needed studies and postpone its determination while sufficient studies are taking place. Preliminary discussions for the development of this PA have occurred between USACE, SFWMD, ENP, the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and appropriate federally-recognized tribes. The PA will outline appropriate methodology for fieldwork and determine the needed types of analysis for a determination of effects. Once a determination of effects is made the result will be incorporated into COP and a new EIS. The Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, ENP, SFWMD and SHPO have been briefed on this PA. Both Tribes indicated that they understood the need for the PA. In addition, ENP, SHPO and SFWMD have verbally agreed to this approach. USACE has prepared formal letters to each 4-72

233 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Tribe and agency and responses will be incorporated into the final document. Refer to Appendix D-5 for further details describing coordination of the PA CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR as those impacts that result from:..the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative environmental effects for the proposed project were assessed in accordance with guidance provided by the President s CEQ. This guidance provides an 11-step process for identifying and evaluating cumulative effects in NEPA analyses, which may be further grouped into three general phases: scoping, describing the affected environment and determining environmental consequences (CEQ, 1997, p.v.) Conclusion Implementation of this project is an incremental component in the restoration of habitat within WCA-3A and a step toward multi-species management. This project would provide a means for reducing high water periods and prolonged flooding within WCA-3A, restoring vegetation within the area. Under ERTP, protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and the implementation of WCA-3A PSCs may enable real-time water management decisions to provide benefits to multiple species within WCA-3A. Therefore, ERTP is expected to contribute to a net beneficial cumulative impact on the regional ecosystem SCOPING: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The CEQ provides the following summary guidance for the scoping phase of the Cumulative Effects Analysis: In many ways, scoping is the key to analyzing cumulative effects; it provides the best opportunity for identifying important cumulative effects issues, setting appropriate boundaries for analysis, and identifying relevant past, present and future actions. Scoping allows the NEPA practioner to count what counts (CEQ, 1997, p.v.). All impacts on affected resources can be called cumulative; however, according to CEQ guidance, the role of the analyst is to narrow the focus of the cumulative effects analysis to important issues of national, regional or local significance (CEQ, 1997, p.12). Based upon public and agency scoping and review of previous documents for this project, the following resources have been identified as target resources for the cumulative effects analysis: protected species; water quality; levee safety; vegetated wetlands and tree islands; hydrology and hydro-patterns; and cultural resources. 4-73

234 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Affecting Resources within the Action Area Historically, the Everglades were a shallow wetland conveying water from Lake Okeechobee to the southern coast of Florida. The original construction of the Tamiami Trail, completed in 1928, involved the bridging of deep-water sloughs in the ridge and slough habitat through which the highway was built. Although modifications to the flow of water began in the 1880s, the greatest influence on the alteration of flow was the C&SF Flood Control Project, which was originally authorized by Congress in With the construction of WCA-3A, WCA-3B and the extension of the L-67 Levee, flows to ENP became subject to water supply deficits during the dry season and excesses during the wet season, resulting in a decline in ecological quality. During this period, reduced flows allowed the bridges along Tamiami Trail to be replaced with sets of culverts. Among the first Congressional actions to offset adverse impacts to ENP, by improving the supply and distribution of water, was the Flood Control Act of 1968, which provided for modifications to the C&SF Project through the implementation of the ENP SDCS. Additional Congressional actions ensued, including the ENP Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, which expanded ENP to incorporate NESRS and the East Everglades into the Park s boundary for protection and restoration of the natural hydrologic conditions within ENP. This Act also provided authorization for development of the MWD to ENP project. The Water Resources Delivery Act (WRDA) of 2000 established CERP to provide for the restoration, protection and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades and Florida Bay (USACE 1999). Table 4-7 lists past, current and projected USACE efforts that cumulatively affect the southeastern Florida/southern Everglades regional environment. In addition, there are efforts underway by other Federal, State and local agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, that are too numerous to mention, that are all working towards similar restoration goals. Collectively, all the actions listed in Table 4-7 are needed to achieve the greatest possible hydrologic restoration of the southern Everglades. Virtually all the actions were incorporated into the CERP analysis, which was designed to consider the entire Greater Everglades ecosystem. In doing so, the hydrologic conditions of the area were modeled on a broad scale (USACE 1999c). In the hydrologic modeling analysis for CERP, a set of PMs were applied to ecological targets to determine the restoration benefits of the hydrologic improvements. The CERP analysis also included some fundamental assumptions about the future status of other on-going and previously authorized projects (i.e. MWD, C-111, other pre-cerp projects) within the ecosystem prior to completing CERP modeling. No adverse environmental impacts were identified. However, as previously described, implementation of ISOP and IOP resulted in adverse impacts to the snail kite, tree islands and marsh vegetation within WCA-3A due to the ponding of water (stage and duration increases in southern WCA-3A) when the S-12 structures were closed. With full build-out of the C-111 Project, over 5,000 acres of short- 4-74

235 Section 4 Environmental Consequences hydroperiod wetlands would be impounded, but implementation would eventually provide benefit to over 1,000 square miles in the Everglades system Tamiami Trail Tamiami Trail Modifications, which are currently authorized and under construction as part of the MWD Project, consist of a one-mile bridge and raising 9.7 miles of roadway to mitigate for the higher water levels between S-333 and S-334, allowing water levels in the L-29 Canal to reach 8.5 feet, NGVD (currently 7.5 feet, NGVD). Detailed information on this project may be found in the 2008 Tamiami Trail Modifications Final Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment ( This project is designed to improve flow into NESRS. Tamiami Trail Next Steps, a related and ongoing effort led by ENP, also has the potential to restore more natural flows between WCA-3 and ENP if the project is authorized and appropriated. Both of these efforts would result in associated water quality changes Water Conservation Area-3A Regulation Schedule: Lowering of Zone A In July 2010, due to stakeholder concerns, the USACE Water Resources Engineering Branch (EN-W) conducted a review of the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 33 General Design Memorandum for Conservation Area No. 3 (June 1960) and the C&SF Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I Supplement 49: Agricultural and Conservation Areas General and Detailed Design Memorandum (August 1972). Based upon the results of their review, USACE concluded that a rigorous evaluation of the Standard Project Flood (SPF) conditions within WCA-3A should be conducted, with a proposed twophase analysis approach that included the identification and assessment of interim water management criteria for WCA-3A, including operational changes proposed under ERTP; and a WCA-3A flood routing hydraulic analysis. Phase 1 of the analysis identified the 1960 WCA-3A 9.5 to 10.5 feet, NGVD Regulation Schedule as a required component for the interim water management criteria for WCA-3A Zone A under ERTP, necessary to mitigate for the observed effects of discharge limitations of the S-12 spillways. Phase 1 of the analysis also recommended further consideration of additional opportunities to reduce the duration and frequency of WCA-3A high water events. Phase 1 of this analysis was incorporated into ERTP. The Phase 1 analysis of WCA-3A high water events indicates that, based on current system conditions as simulated in the water budget spreadsheet, the current peak SPF stage is greater than the peak stage specified in the design documentation for WCA-3A (Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Part I, Supplement 33). The analysis also illustrates, through the use of current USGS rating curves for the S-12 spillways, that the peak SPF stage is increased over the original design due to a reduction in outlet capacity from WCA-3A through the S-12s. Due to the simplistic nature (i.e., volumetric and not hydraulic routing) of the Phase 1 analysis, the level of flood protection afforded by WCA-3A was not completely addressed during this initial assessment; additional analyses, as identified for inclusion under Phase 2, are required to investigate and specify the 4-75

236 Section 4 Environmental Consequences level of protection afforded by the WCA-3A water management regime and levee configuration. The original C&SF design documents for WCA-3A specified a regulation schedule varying between 9.5 and 10.5 feet, NGVD to maintain optimum water levels for management of marsh vegetation within the conservation area, based on information available during the design efforts (1960). The intent was to maintain marsh vegetation that would mitigate against hurricane induced wave action within WCA-3A and thus allow for the bounding levees to be of reduced height. The analysis of marsh vegetative cover and its effects on hurricane induced wind tide and wave run-up will be fully addressed in Phase 2. The ability to contain flood flows during hurricane season will be improved with the lowering of Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule, as additional storage capacity will be available. The WCA-3A Regulation Schedule under IOP has a seasonally varying water level of between to 10 feet NGVD in Zone A, while the proposed schedule under ERTP has a seasonally varying water level of between 10.5 to 9.5 feet, NGVD in Zone A. Thus, the lowering of Zone A allows for an additional 0.25 to 0.50 feet of storage capacity within the conservation area, at all times of the year. Further study is necessary to address the public health and safety aspects associated with WCA-3A and its bounding levees. The Phase 1 analysis was limited to a simplified hydrology and hydraulics assessment, while Phase 2 will include a more robust hydrology and hydraulics assessment and additional engineering analysis of the structural and geotechnical design aspects for WCA-3A. The Phase 2 analysis, currently in the initial scoping phase, is projected to include a SPF flood routing for each of the WCAs that addresses system changes that have occurred since the original C&SF design. The Phase 2 analysis will incorporate current system regulation schedules for the WCAs and Lake Okeechobee, as well as changes in local flow regime due to additions of STAs and other features affecting C&SF project conditions. This assessment is expected to identify proposed water management operating criteria and potential infrastructure modifications to address identified concerns. Results from Phase 2 will be incorporated into future phases of ERTP and/or COP, as appropriate. Upon completion of SPF routing, additional engineering analysis, incorporating current USACE guidelines for risk analysis requirements will be performed to analyze levee stability and safety issues C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project The C-111 Spreader Canal (C-111 SC) Western Project is a CERP Project that is located within the ERTP Action Area. It is intended to improve the quantity, timing and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough; improve hydroperiods and hydropatterns in the Southern Glades and Model Lands to restore historic vegetation patterns; and to return coastal salinities to historical recorded conditions through the redistribution of water that is currently discharged to tide. These objectives will be realized through the creation of a hydrologic ridge between Taylor Slough and the C-111 Canal, to reduce seepage loss from Taylor Slough and its headwaters. Information gained from the C-111 SC 4-76

237 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Western Project will be used for the planning and design of a spreader canal system to replace the existing C-111 Canal (C-111 SC Eastern Project). Computer simulation modeling has indicated local hydrology in CSSS Critical Habitat Unit 2 (CSSS-C) and Critical Habitat Unit 3 (CSSS-D) may change as a result of structural and operational changes associated with the C-111 SC Western implementation (USACE 2009). Specifically, the C-111 SC Project has the potential to affect up to approximately 1,606 acres of habitat within Critical Habitat Unit 3 (CSSS-D). Based on modeling results, Unit 3 would experience extended hydroperiods across 1,606 acres in an average year and 1,421 acres in a wet year. Increased hydroperiods are anticipated to degrade CSSS habitat by potentially altering the vegetative density or diversity of preferred grasses used by CSSS. As a result of potential habitat alterations, project operations and monitoring plans have incorporated measures to monitor surface water levels during key periods of the CSSS life cycle and its habitat requirements and have incorporated safeguards to minimize potential habitat impacts. Habitat improvements will be designed to offset any potential impacts that may occur in existing CSSS habitat and may, potentially, provide suitable locations for expansion and movement of the species. However, the changes are not expected to be so severe as to eliminate the preferred grass species across this acreage in CSSS Critical Habitat Unit 3 (Figure 4-12). Therefore, the functions for which CSSS Critical Habitat Unit 3 was designated for the conservation of the species would not be appreciably altered. The overall C-111 SC Project benefits outweigh the potential impacts to CSSS Critical Habitat Unit Water Conservation Area-3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project Another CERP Project that will have cumulative effects within the ERTP Action Area and the southern Everglades regional environment is the WCA-3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project (Decomp). The main purpose of the Decomp Project, as described in the C&SF Comprehensive Review Study, Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, April 1999 (the Yellow Book ), is to remove sheetflow obstructions in order to reestablish the ecological and hydrological connection between WCA-3A and WCA-3B, ENP, and BCNP. The Decomp Project entails removing barriers to natural sheetflow, including modification or removal of levees, backfilling of canals and construction of water conveyance features. The C&SF Review Study can be viewed at In an effort to avoid continuing decline in the ecosystem and achieve restoration results more quickly, Decomp will utilize a multiple Project Implementation Report (PIR) approach. The Decomp PIR 1 focuses on options to remove the Miami Canal and the construction of a hydropattern restoration feature located along the northern boundary of WCA-3A to increase and improve the area of the marsh experiencing sheetflow. The Miami Canal traverses approximately 26 miles within WCA-3A, running in a southeasterly direction until it reaches the L-67A/C system at S-151; the Miami Canal and its adjacent spoil mounds has altered the natural flow of water though WCA

238 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Concurrent with the Decomp PIR 1 is the temporary Decomp Physical Model (DPM) field test, which consists of culverts in the L-67A Levee, a gap in the L-67C Levee and the complete or partial backfilling of segments of the L-67C Canal. These features will provide a controllable hydrologic connection between WCA-3A and WCA-3B that delivers pulsed flows over a period of days. Effects of these pulsed flows on hydrology, sediment transport, vegetation and wildlife will be assessed and used to guide planning, design and operational guidance for the Decomp PIR 2 and PIR 3 alternatives. As proposed in the CERP Restudy report, the Decomp PIR 2 and PIR 3 would aid in restoration of ecological and hydrological connectivity within WCA-3A and WCA-3B through implementation of the following components: backfilling a portion of the Miami Canal within WCA-3B and removal of the southern 7.5 miles of L-67A Borrow Canal and L-67A levee; removal of the L-68A, L-67C, L-29, L-28 and L-28 tieback levees and borrow canals; and elevating segments of Tamiami Trail. Eight passive weir structures to be located along the entire length of L-67A will also promote sheetflow from WCA-3A to WCA-3B during high flow conditions. Implementation of Decomp will greatly affect flow within WCA-3 and ENP. By filling or partially blocking the Miami Canal, canal flow will decrease and opportunities for sheet flow will increase. Additional conveyance structures and blockages in the L-67A and L-67C Canals will increase flow into WCA-3B. In summary, the additional conveyance features and levee and canal modifications envisioned under Decomp should increase sheet flows, decrease adverse high water level in WCA-3, and re-connect WCA-3 and ENP portions of Shark Slough Everglades National Park Seepage Management Project The ENP Seepage Management Project is another component of CERP that will have cumulative impacts on the southern Everglades regional environment. The purpose of the project is to improve water deliveries to NESRS and restore wetland hydro-patterns in ENP by reducing levee and groundwater seepage and increasing sheetflow. Project components include L-31N Levee improvements for seepage management, relocation of the S-356 structure and Bird Drive recharge. Through the reduction of seepage loss from ENP, increased flows into NESRS and restoration of wetland hydropatterns will enhance wetland habitat and provide restoration benefits to the southern Everglades regional environment Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project Another CERP component resulting in cumulative effects within the ERTP action area is the Broward County Water Preserve Areas (WPA) Project. Three impoundment areas will be constructed to reduce seepage, provide groundwater recharge, provide water supply to urban areas, and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Pollution load reduction targets necessary to protect water quality within the receiving waters are included in the design. The three project features consist of the WCA-3A/3B Levee Seepage Management system designed to reduce seepage by allowing higher water levels within the L-33 and L-37 borrow canals; the C-11 Impoundment in western Broward County, which will collect direct runoff from the western C-11 drainage basin, thereby reducing S-9 pumping into WCA-3A and the C-9 Impoundment, located in the western C-9 Basin, designed to store runoff from the C

239 Section 4 Environmental Consequences drainage basin and diverted water from the western C-11 Basin and aid to reduce seepage. Once constructed, the Broward WPA will reduce storm water deliveries to WCA-3, thereby increasing overall water quality available for delivery to ENP. 4-79

240 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-7: PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS AND PLANS AFFECTING THE ACTION AREA Current Actions and Operating Reasonably Foreseeable Past Actions/Authorized Plans Expected Impacts Plans Future Actions and Plans Construction of the Tamiami Trail (1928, Florida Department of Highways) C&SF Project, 1948 (Creation of L-28 and L-29 Levees and enclosure of WCAs). Completion of S-12 Gates with relocation of Tamiami Trail west of S-333 (1962) Modified Water Deliveries to ENP (USACE, ENP). Authorized Tamiami Trail Modifications LRR (2008 EA) GRR Authorization of Mod Waters, 8.5 SMA, Construction of 8.5 SMA levees, canals, and pump station (USACE). Complete MWD project; operate MWD and C-111 Project features under future operational plans. (USACE) LEC Regional Water Supply Plan South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan (SFWMD) Integrate 8.5 SMA into future operations of C&SF system. Pump Station S-357 south of 8.5 SMA will provide authorized level of flood mitigation to 8.5 SMA and reduce pumping at S-331; connection to C-111 Impoundment areas will aid in reducing seepage losses from eastern ENP and rehydrating Taylor Slough part of ENP. Water Control Operations: WCA-3A Water Management Plan. Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to ENP Test Iterations 1-7 (SRS) (USACE) IOP 2002 to Present USACE WCA-3 Phase 1 Analysis ERTP, this EIS USACE WCA-3 Phase 2 Analysis COP Lowering of WCA-3A water level, improved conditions for species within WCA-3A, including endangered snail kite and wood stork; maintenance of the 1999 FWS RPA for CSSS. CSSS 1999 BO ISOP ENP Protection and Expansion Act ENP GMP (ENP) Determination of real estate actions. General Management Plan ENP will document under NEPA. Decision on real estate still pending as of this EA. COP will be implemented once all MWD and C-111 components are completed. Impact on private tourist developments along the Trail in the acquisition area depends on conclusions of the ENP General Management Plan. 4-80

241 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Past Actions/Authorized Plans MWD to ENP Raising Tigertail Camp (USACE/ENP) Current Actions and Operating Plans Real Estate Acquisition and Osceola Camp raising (ENP) C-111 Project Build-out of C-111 under 1999, 2002, 2006 IOP BO. Changes to C-111were authorized in 1994 after USACE published a C-111 GRR. Changes are to make the C-111 Canal system, previously an agricultural flood control system, compatible with restoration of the lower Taylor Slough drainage sub-basin of ENP. New features in 1994 included seepage control impoundments to be built on the eastern edge of the former East Everglades Area (ENP acquisition area). SFWMD CERP Projects LEC Regional Water Supply Interim Plan (SFWMD) C-111 SC Western Project CERP-Broward County WPA (WPA; SFWMD) awaiting authorization. PIR approved by HQ in CERP WCA-3 Decomp PIR 1, study of Miami Canal and Hydropattern Restoration for WCA-3A (USACE/SFWMD) Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions and Plans Complete build-out of C-111 Impoundments and structural features with replacement of temporary structures by permanent. Revision to the 1994 GRR will be addressed in a future NEPA document. IOP is to be replaced by ERTP, and ERTP is to be replaced by future operational plan when C- 111 and MWD are complete. SFWMD periodically revises the LEC Regional Water Supply Interim Plan When authorized, the C-111 SC Western Project (PIR 1) will include a 590-acre Frog Pond detention area and a 225 cfs pump station; along with second 225 cfs pump station and modifications to increase the water level in the Aerojet Canal. The Eastern Project (PIR 2) will replace existing portion of the lower C- 111 Canal with a spreader canal to permit enhanced sheetflow of water into Florida Bay. Expected Impacts Tiger Tail Camp has been raised to expected CERP water levels (above 10 feet, NGVD). The ENP is in discussions with Osceolas; Osceola Camp will likewise be raised above the CERP flood levels. (Not part of this EIS). C-111 Project has been altered as authorized in the ENP Act of 1989 to facilitate restoration of the Taylor Slough region of ENP. A series of north to south linear impoundments receive seepage water from L-31 N and hold it to decrease the rate of seepage eastward from ENP and re-direct waters to Taylor Slough headwaters. This project is under construction; expected completion in SFWMD periodically revises the LEC Regional Water Supply Interim Plan The C-111 SC will improve the quantity, timing and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough; improve hydroperiods and hydropatterns in the Southern Glades and Model Lands to restore historic vegetation patterns; and to return coastal salinities to historical recorded conditions through the redistribution of water that is currently discharged to tide. C- 111 SC may result in increased 4-81

242 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Past Actions/Authorized Plans Current Actions and Operating Plans CERP ENP Seepage Management Project Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions and Plans When authorized, Broward County WPA will build large impoundments and a seepage management area east of WCA-3B to reduce seepage loss and reduce stormwater pumping into WCA- 3A Decomp of WCA-3 would further degrade L-29 Levee, partially fill Miami Canal and reduce canal based flow in favor of sheet flow. Additional bridging features through Tamiami Trail will be studied. Expected Impacts hydroperiods within CSSS-C and CSSS-D. Storm water deliveries to WCA-3 will decrease, increasing overall water quality available for delivery to ENP with implementation of the Broward County WPA. Filling or partially blocking Miami Canal under Decomp will reduce structure flow and increase sheet flow; additional conveyance structures and blockages in L-67 Canals will increase flow into WCA-3B. Additional conveyance features under WCA-3 Decomp should increase sheet flows, decrease adverse high water levels in WCA-3, and re-connect WCA- 3 and ENP portions of Shark Slough. By reducing levee and groundwater seepage and increasing sheetflow, ENP Seepage Management will result in improved water deliveries to NESRS and restored wetland hydropatterns in ENP. 4-82

243 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.22 MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The primary goal of cumulative effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions. One way to analyze this is to determine the separate effects of past actions, present actions, the proposed action, and other future actions. Once each group of effects is determined, the effects can be calculated, keeping in mind that the effects of two or more actions are sometimes complex and not always additive. According to CEQ (1997) guidance, once effects are identified (refer to Section 4.0), a table can be used to itemize effects into categories of past, present, proposed, and future actions. Table 4-8 shows the net cumulative effects of each resource. 4-83

244 Section 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-8 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Resource Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action Future Actions Cumulative Effect Everglade Snail Kite Drainage of Florida s ERTP proposed Future projects are Habitat improvement interior wetlands, modifications to IOP expected to improve the efforts through CERP are conversion of wetlands to regulations and the operation and anticipated to allow snail agriculture, and urban WCA-3A Regulation kite populations to be development has reduced maintained. the extent and quality of habitat for the snail kite and its prey, the apple snail. Schedule are designed to reduce water levels within WCA-3A, avoid extreme high and low water conditions and provide for a more gradual, and thus favorable, recession rate during the snail kite s breeding season. In addition, ERTP incorporates the FWS MSTS and thus includes specific water depths and recession rates designed to improve nesting and foraging conditions for the snail kite. Implementation of PSCs will allow USACE and its tribal and governmental partners to discuss ecological, hydrological, meteorological, and multiple species conditions to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels and releases for the protection of multiple species and their habitats. management of flows and improve habitat quality of many tens of thousands of acres of wetlands. The snail kite may also benefit from CERP, which attempts to create a more natural water cycle. 4-84

245 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Resource Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action Future Actions Cumulative Effect Wood Stork Changes in the Ongoing efforts have ERTP includes Hydrological restoration Improvement of hydrologic regime of the been made by federal and performance measures planned as part of CERP degraded wood stork Everglades have state agencies to specifically directed at would further improve populations is expected contributed to the decline implement projects to managing recession rates wood stork foraging to be facilitated by the in the wood stork improve the Everglades to provide suitable water habitat. restoration and population in south hydrology. One of the depths within the Core enhancement of suitable Florida. Water benefits of these Foraging Area of active habitat through efforts to management has restoration efforts is wood stork colonies. In restore more natural alternately drained or improvement in wood addition, implementation hydrologic conditions in flooded former wood stork foraging habitat, of Periodic Scientist the Everglades. stork feeding habitat for which would lead to Calls will l allow flood control and water USACE and its tribal and supply. This affected foraging habitat, food production nesting, and rearing. In 1984 wood storks were listed as endangered by FWS. greater nesting and rearing success. governmental partners to discuss ecological, hydrological, meteorological, and multiple species conditions to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels and releases for the protection of multiple species and their habitats. 4-85

246 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Resource Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action Future Actions Cumulative Effect CSSS The hurricane of 1935, Ongoing projects such as Hydrological changes It is possible that future Habitat improvement, sea level rise, reduced IOP and have been associated with operation and monitoring of freshwater flows to the implemented to maintain implementation of the management of flows populations and area resulting from CSSS populations. The action are expected to could enhance CSSS management through the upstream water FWS recovery plan is alter some of the physical habitats. However, recovery plan are management practices, used as a management and biological features CERP restoration targets anticipated to enable the and another hurricane in tool. essential to the nesting predict increased survival of the CSSS are believed to have success and overall hydroperiods and wetter However, the long-term altered succession of the conservation of the conditions within the sustainability of CSSS-A plant community on Cape subspecies. Although the western marl parries is uncertain. Sable from one action-related where CSSS-A, the focus dominated by freshwater hydrological changes are of ISOP, IOP and plants to one dominated expected to be minimal, included within ERTP, by salt tolerant plants. USACE has determined resides. The CERP The currently preferred the action may affect the Decomp project proposes nesting habitat of the CSSS. bridging of western CSSS appears to be a Tamiami Trail, including mixed marl prairie Implementation of PSC removal of the S-12 community that often will allow USACE and control structures which includes muhly grass. its tribal and are closed seasonally governmental partners to under IOP (S-12A, S- discuss ecological, 12B, S-12C) and hydrological, meteorological, and proposed ERTP (S-12A, S-12B). multiple species conditions to achieve the ERTP objective of managing water levels and releases for the protection of multiple species and their habitats. 4-86

247 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Resource Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action Future Actions Cumulative Effect Water Quality Water quality has been Efforts to improve water Implementation of the Aggressive actions by the While anthropogenic degraded from quality from agricultural recommend plan will State of Florida would effects on water quality development and areas are ongoing. State result in no additional decrease pollutant are unlikely to be agriculture. and federal projects in exceedances of the concentration and eliminated, water quality the Everglades would Everglades Settlement loadings to the is expected to slowly result in localized and Agreement as compared Everglades. improve over existing temporary elevated levels with the current and recent past of suspended solids and operational plan (IOP). conditions. Hydrology Flood and water control projects have greatly altered the natural hydrology of the Everglades. turbidity. However, because the flow rates through the Everglades are relatively low, there would be no effect on the sustainability of water through these actions. Federal and state agencies are coordinating on and implementing projects to improve Everglades hydrology. ERTP implementation would provide a potential for some hydrological restoration in WCA-3A and represents an incremental improvement within this area until authorized MWD and future CERP Projects are implemented. If authorized in the next WRDA, the Broward County WPA Project, (report approved in 2007) would reduce storm runoff deliveries to WCA-3 and improve water quality coming across into the Trail. Additional MWD actions and CERP propose to restore hydrology to more natural conditions Although it is unlikely that natural hydrologic conditions would be fully restored, improved hydrology would occur. 4-87

248 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Resource Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action Future Actions Cumulative Effect Vegetation Large reductions in Actions are underway to Vegetation within WCA- Future actions are acreage of wetlands due reclaim wetlands from 3A will be affected by expected to restore flows to development and the 8.5 SMA. Efforts are ERTP implementation to ENP to more natural alteration of hydrology. being taken by state and through reduced conditions, thereby federal regulatory hydroperiods and high improving the quality of agencies to reduce water level in WCA-3A. wetland habitats. wetland losses. Tamiami Trail Modifications offers the potential to improve wetland quality. Cultural Resources Little work has been done within the WCAs. Most work to date has focused with the boundaries of ENP and been incorporated into the identification of an Archeological District currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places Higher water levels and hydroperiods occurring during IOP, resulting in the conversion of wet prairies to sloughs within WCA-3A (Zweig 2008). Currently, USACE is in preliminary consultation with ENP, SHPO, SFWMD and appropriate federally recognized tribes. ERTP modeling has indicated a significant improvement to tree islands by reducing the number of days that the WCA-3A high water criterion is exceeded. ERTP may result in increased hydroperiods within CSSS habitat, particularly in the wettest years modeled. USACE will be implementing a PA as specified under ER Appendix C4 (5) (d) (2) and 36CFR800.14b (1) (ii). USACE will be implementing a cultural resource studies to determine the effects of fluctuating hydrologic patterns on archaeological sites within the project area. While the quantity of wetlands would not be restored to historic proportions, the quality of degraded wetlands would be improved. Cumulative effects are unknown at this time. 4-88

249 Section 4 Environmental Consequences 4.23 INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION The analysis provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Consequences, of this document are based upon current (October 2010) knowledge of the physical and biological conditions in the action area and on projections of the most probable future conditions, as indicated by hydrological models. It is recognized that new technical information or models may be developed as the selected plan is implemented and that the observed results may differ from predicted results. Considering this, it may be necessary to adjust operations to address the new information or observed results to achieve better performance for environmental restoration and protection to ensure the health, safety and well-being of the listed species, general public and affected individuals UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Until water quality is improved, there are few opportunities to move water within the greater Everglades system to achieve restoration goals. Unavoidable potentially adverse impacts on water quality could occur with implementation of Alternative 9E1. As discussed within Section 4.5, USACE conducted a detailed water quality analysis of the ERTP alternatives to determine the potential impacts of the proposed operational changes to SDCS on FWM TP concentrations and loads to SRS. Phosphorus is the primary nutrient of concern for the Everglades, which historically has been a phosphorus limited system. The analysis, provided in Appendix C, evaluated potential changes to phosphorus loading, shift of loading, and exceedances of the Settlement Agreement Consent Decree flow weighted annual mean long term target. The evaluation used output from the SFWMM for LORSS T3 9 (representing existing condition, IOP), Alternatives 7AB, 8D and 9E1. Data used included WCA-3A gauge stages and flows through WCA-3A outflow structures (S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S-12D, S-333, S-334 and S-334FC). USACE used five methods to calculate the average annual FWM TP concentrations for each year of the POR. All methods assume that changes to the distribution, source and timing of flows in WCA-3A are minimal for the considered alternatives, relative to the base condition, and that such changes will not materially alter water quality conditions within the compartment. Based upon the USACE water quality analysis, the TSP, Alternative 9E1, resulted in no additional long-term exceedances as compared with IOP, using the five different methods. However, the five methods used by USACE predict between one and seven percent TP Total Load increase to Shark River Slough (SRS). TP concentrations in WCA-3A are trending downwards (Walker 2010), so it is likely that net increase will be less. The change in the average FWM concentration ranged from a decrease of 0.4 ppb to an increase of 0.4 ppb. However, it is important to note that in order to decrease water levels in WCA-3A, water must be sent through the S-12s and S-333. This plan actually minimizes adverse impacts by sending more water through the S-12s with only a slight increase through S-333; generally, the S-12s have better water quality than S-333. The problem is that phosphorus concentrations in the system are high and despite how the water is delivered, phosphorus concentrations will remain high. Therefore, until the quality of water improves, and phosphorus concentrations are reduced, USACE has little flexibility in moving water and unavoidable potentially adverse impacts will continue to occur. Despite USACE attempts to 4-89

250 Section 4 Environmental Consequences minimize the impact, the potential increase in TP total load would represent an unavoidable potentially adverse impact to NESRS and associated wetlands and wildlife IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The proposed operations would be in effect until full MWD and C-111 Projects are completed. The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would occur with the potential beneficial conversion of native vegetation and habitat within WCA-3A due to the lowered stage and lessening of prolonged flood stages in WCA-3A ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL Energy use of the TSP would be minimal, and energy requirements for implementing any of the project alternatives would be similar. Conservation potential for any of the alternatives would be minimal ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS USACE will continue to operate the water control structures as authorized and approved. USACE will continue to consult with FWS, ENP, SFWMD, FWC, the Miccosukee and other federal, state, local, tribal and private interests to improve and modify the operations as circumstances dictate. USACE will incorporate any commitments required by the appropriate regulatory agencies indentified during the NEPA and ESA processes, including those outlined in the FWS 2010 ERTP Biological Opinion. USACE will reevaluate the operational parameters of the selected alternative as information becomes available and will coordinate with interested parties previously mentioned with any modifications COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL STATUTES COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT AND COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT ACT There are no designated coastal barrier resources in the project area that would be affected by this project. These acts are not applicable COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT A Federal Consistency determination has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of 15 CFR 930 and is located in Appendix G. USACE has considered the enforceable policies of the State of Florida s management program as requirements to be adhered to in addition to existing Federal agency statutory mandates. As the proposed activity is complying with the non-discretionary Terms and Conditions of FWS ERTP BO, as formulated by the Section 7 consultation process of ESA, USACE believes that the proposal complies with Florida Coastal Management Program Chapters

251 Section 4 Environmental Consequences and 376 to the Maximum Extent Practicable as provided by 15 CFR Part of the federal Coastal Management Act. In addition to the binding legal authority of ESA, the C&SF Project has fundamental objectives (water supply and flood protection) which must be maintained. All alternatives under consideration were required not only to be ESA compliant, but also were required in order to adhere with the C&SF Project fundamental objectives. As demonstrated by this EIS, these constraints limit USACE flexibility in compliance with enforceable policies beyond that which is proposed ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT USACE has remained in close coordination with FWS on ERTP and other projects closely related to IOP since Ecological monitoring for Everglade snail kite, wood stork and vegetative shifts affecting endangered species in the project area is ongoing, as required under the 2006 IOP BO. Informal consultation with FWS for the ERTP project was initiated on June, with a meeting between USACE and FWS. USACE and FWS, along with other project stakeholders, have participated in weekly ERTP meetings since July In a letter dated 21 January 2010 (see Appendix D), USACE requested FWS concurrence on the federally listed species and critical habitat that may be present in the project area; FWS provided partial concurrence, adding additional species to the list. See Section 4.10 for the complete list of federally listed species and critical habitat analyzed for this project. Formal consultation with FWS was initiated on October 15, 2010, and will continue with the review of this document. FWS provided a BO on November 17, 2010 (Appendix F), which concluded: After reviewing the current status of the CSSS and its designated critical habitat, Everglade snail kite and its designated critical habitat, and the wood stork; the environmental baseline for these species and their designated critical habitats within the action area; the effects of the proposed ERTP-1 and the cumulative effects, it is the Service s biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the CSSS, Everglade snail kite, or wood stork, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify CSSS or Everglade snail kite designated critical habitat. This Biological Opinion also transmits the Service s concurrence on the Corps determination that the ERTP-1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida panther (Puma concolori coryi), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corias couperi), deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea spp. deltoidea), Garber s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi), Small s milkpea (Galactia smallii), and tiny polygala (Polygala smallii). 4-91

252 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Please note that ERTP-1 as described in the FWS November 17, 2010 BO is ERTP Alternative 9E1 as described within the USACE October 15, 2010 Biological Assessment (Appendix E) and within this Draft EIS. Informal consultation was initiated with NMFS on March 4, 2010, and will continue with the review of this document by NMFS. This project was fully coordinated under ESA, and upon review of this document by FWS and NMFS, will be in full compliance with the Act ESTUARY PROTECTION ACT No designated estuary would be affected by project operations. This Act is not applicable FEDERAL WATER PROJECT RECREATION ACT; LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT The effects of the proposed action on outdoor recreation have been considered and are presented in Section The principles of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act do not apply to this project FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED Reports on previous iterations of these operations were prepared by DOI (FWS, NPS, and ENP) and FWC in compliance with this law. The DOI Coordination Act Report (CAR) and its Addendum, provided to USACE on August 2, 2001, were included in the 2002 Final EIS as Appendix C. CAR discussed ISOP operations as well as the alternatives proposed in the 2002 Final EIS for the IOP. CAR provided analyses that support the opinion of these DOI agencies that ISOP operations may not have fully met 2000 and 2001 RPA targets, and that overflow of the S-332B weir under ISOP and some IOP alternatives may have led or do lead, to introduction of unacceptably high levels of nutrients into ENP, or lead to changes in dominant vegetation. After development of Alternative 7R, the FWS BO was provided to USACE on April 19, Although modeling results for Alternative 7R were not available at that time, FWS stated that this alternative was likely to comply with existing water management requirements for CSSS and minimize adverse effects to other listed species and other natural resources, as compared to the draft IOP EIS alternatives. Pursuant to coordination with FWS during the EIS process, USACE continues to rely on the CAR included in the 2002 IOP EIS. In addition, ERTP has been fully coordinated with FWS and, as such, meets the intent of this Act FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT This Draft EIS addresses operational changes of an existing system of levees, canals, and structures. Therefore, re-coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service is not necessary. The tentatively selected plan is in compliance. 4-92

253 Section 4 Environmental Consequences MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT This project is inland and not expected to adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. Full compliance with this Act will occur upon review of this Draft EIS by NMFS MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT The only marine mammal known to enter waterways in the project area is the West Indian manatee. Manatees are not expected to be adversely affected by this project. Informal consultation with FWS has been initiated for the manatee, and a determination by USACE of no effect was made. This project will be in full compliance with this Act upon review of the Draft EIS by FWS MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED This Act is not applicable. Ocean disposal of dredged material is not proposed as a part of the TSP MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, project operations shall not destroy migratory birds, their active nests, their eggs, or their hatchlings. Many wading birds use the ERTP Project area for foraging and nesting. The proposed project is anticipated to improve conditions for wading birds and their habitat; however, during dry years there may potentially be some adverse impacts to wading bird foraging and nesting within northern WCA-3A associated with lowering of Zone A of the WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. This impact would be minimal and largely a result of climatic conditions. No migratory birds would be adversely affected by this project. This project will be in full compliance with these Acts upon review of this document by FWS NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT This act encourages public participation and comment on federal projects, and requires agencies to cooperate with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and to involve public stakeholders. Initial public coordination for this project began with the distribution of a scoping letter, dated December 7, 2009, announcing the preparation of the Draft EIS and inviting public and agency comment (Appendix D). On March 1, 2010, a NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register (FR Volume 75, Number 39). A NOA for this Draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register, and the Draft EIS will be circulated for 45 days. A public meeting is planned during the comment period for the Draft EIS. 4-93

254 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Informal consultation with FWS for the ERTP Project was initiated on June 30, 2009, with a meeting between USACE and FWS. USACE and FWS, along with other project stakeholders, participated in weekly ERTP meetings from July 2009 though the spring of Since that time, affected stakeholders have been briefed as information was available. All comments received to date are included in the Comment Matrix in Appendix D. In addition, ERTP has been briefed at several public meetings including the SFWMD Governing Board, Water Resources Advisory Council, and Technical Oversight Committee. Environmental information on this project has been compiled, and a Draft EIS has been prepared. Upon public and agency review and comment on this document and the subsequent Final EIS, and the signing of the ROD, this project will be in full compliance with this Act NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 (INTER ALIA) Archival research and consultation with SHPO, SFWMD, ENP and appropriate federally recognized tribes has been initiated in accordance with the PL , the Archeology and Historic Preservation Act (PL ), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (96-95), the Native American Graves Protection Act (PL ), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (PL ) and executive orders (11593, and 13352). USACE will propose a PA as specified under 36CFR800.14b (1) (ii). The PA will allow the USACE to complete needed studies and incorporate a final determination of effects into COP. Based upon the currently available information, this agreement and through ongoing consultation, USACE is in compliance with each of these federal laws. Refer to Appendix D-5 for further details describing coordination of the PA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED This section covers the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1996, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of No items regulated under these laws or other laws related to hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste substances have been discovered through previous Phase 1 HTRW assessments of the project area. This project is in compliance with these Acts RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT of 1899 The proposed project would not obstruct navigable waters of the United States. The proposed action has been subject to the public notice and other evaluations normally conducted for activities subject to the act. This project is in compliance with this Act SUBMERGED LANDS ACT This project would not occur on submerged lands in the State of Florida. This Act does not apply. 4-94

255 Section 4 Environmental Consequences WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 1968, AS AMENDED No designated wild and scenic river reaches would be affected by project related activities. This Act is not applicable EXECUTIVE ORDER 11514, PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Executive Order (E.O.) directs federal agencies to "initiate measures needed to direct their policies, plans and programs so as to meet national environmental goals." This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT E.O directs federal agencies to avoid siting projects in floodplains and to avoid inducing further development of flood-prone areas. All considered alternatives are in compliance with this E.O. The proposed operational changes would continue to reduce hazards and risks associated with floods; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial uses of the base floodplain. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS This E.O. directs federal agencies to avoid developing and locating projects in wetlands. The nature of this project is that it involves operations in wetlands, and no practicable alternative to locating this project in a wetland exists. The overall action objective of the project is to increase operational flexibilities in order to improve conditions for the Everglade snail kite, wood stork and other wading birds and their habitats in south Florida, while maintaining nesting season requirements for the CSSS, along with C&SF project purposes. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 12962, RECREATIONAL FISHERIES E.O requires the evaluation of federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries. This project does not affect recreational fisheries and therefore is in compliance with the goals of this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE E.O directs federal agencies to provide for full participation of minorities and lowincome populations in the federal decision-making process, and further directs agencies to fully disclose any adverse effects of plans and proposals on minority and low-income populations. ERTP is in full compliance and there will be no disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations. The operations of the structures discussed herein, in addition to providing acceptable protection to populations of CSSS, would benefit all population groups of southern Miami-Dade County by providing flood damage reduction, 4-95

256 Section 4 Environmental Consequences drinking water supply protection, and restoration of wetlands and other natural resources inside and outside ENP EXECUTIVE ORDER 13045, PROTECTION OF CHILDREN This E.O. requires each federal agency to identify and assess environmental risks and safety risks [that] may disproportionately affect children and ensure that its policies, programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. This project has no environmental or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This project is in compliance with this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 13089, CORAL REEF PROTECTION No coral reefs would be impacted by this project. This E.O. is not applicable EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES This project has a slight potential to allow expansion of exotic and/or invasive species, due to changes in the water management system, particularly in WCA-3A. In addition, potential increases in TP may encourage the growth of cattails, a native invasive species; however, any operating regime would have a similar potential. Ballast water organisms or terrestrial exotic wildlife species would not be affected. No construction is occurring which would have the potential to transport invasive species or disturb previously undisturbed areas. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186, RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES TO PROTECT MIGRATORY BIRDS This project is not anticipated to negatively affect migratory birds. The project is expected to benefit migratory birds by improving habitat and increasing availability of forage for wading birds. This project is in compliance with this E.O MEMORANDUM ON GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS This memorandum directs the federal government to operate within a government-togovernment relationship with federally recognized Native American tribes. The head of each executive department and agency shall be responsible for ensuring that the department or agency operates within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribal governments. Each executive department and agency shall apply the requirements of the E.O ("Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership") and E.O ("Regulatory Planning and Review") to design solutions and tailor federal programs, in appropriate circumstances, to address specific or unique needs of tribal communities. The USACE has consulted with the Miccosukee Indian Tribe during the ERTP process. Efforts have been made to coordinate with the Miccosukee Tribe with regards to water releases and 4-96

257 Section 4 Environmental Consequences closures of the S-12 structures as well as during this NEPA process. Coordination letters are included in Appendix D. TABLE 4-9: COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS: TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN Law, Regulation, or Policy Status Comments Anadramous Fish Conservation Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act In compliance with this Act upon review of this document by the NMFS. In compliance with this Act upon review of this document and the associated FWS BA. Clean Air Act This project is in full compliance with Sections 176 and 309 of the Clean Air Act. Clean Water Act USACE will not apply for a water quality permit under Section 401 of the CWA from the State of Florida. No adverse impacts. While small areas of foraging habitat utilized by the bald eagle may be affected during implementation of this action, impacts to these areas are not likely to adversely affect this protected species. No air quality permits are required, and no permanent sources of air emissions are part of the TSP. As this activity involves no excavation in wetlands or surface water, no placement of dredged or fill material in navigable waters, or construction of new structures, USACE will not request water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from the State of Florida. USACE will cooperate fully with the State of Florida in addressing any questions concerning water quality issues associated with the implementation of ERTP. Coastal Barrier Resource Act This Act is not applicable. There are no designated coastal barrier resources in the project area that would be affected by this project. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act This Act is not applicable. There are no designated coastal barrier resources in the project area that would be affected by this project. Coastal Zone Management Act A federal consistency determination has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of 15 CFR 930 and is located in Appendix G. Endangered Species Act This project was fully coordinated under ESA, and upon receipt of the FWS BO, and review of this USACE has complied to the maximum extent practicable given ESA constraints as well as remaining operational constraints on the C&SF system. FWS provided a BO on November 17, 2010 (Appendix F). FWS determined that implementation of Alternative 9E1 is not likely to 4-97

258 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Law, Regulation, or Policy Status Comments document by FWS and result in jeopardy to the CSSS, NMFS, will be in full Everglade snail kite, or wood stork, compliance with the Act. or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the CSSS and Everglade snail kite. Estuary Protection Act This Act is not applicable. No designated estuary would be Federal Water Project Recreation Act/Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended The principles of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act do not apply to this project. In compliance with this Act. affected by project operations. The effects of the proposed action on outdoor recreation have been considered and are presented in Section Pursuant to coordination with FWS during the EIS process, the USACE continues to rely on the CAR included in the 2002 IOP EIS. ERTP has been fully coordinated with FWS. Farmland Protection Act In compliance with this Act. This Draft EIS addresses operational changes of an existing system of levees, canals, and structures. Therefore, recoordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service is Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Marine Mammal Protection Act Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended National Environmental Policy Act Full compliance with this Act will occur upon review of this Draft EIS by NMFS. Full compliance with this Act will occur upon review of this Draft EIS by FWS. This Act is not applicable. Upon public and agency review and comment on this document and the subsequent Final EIS, and the signing of the ROD, this project will be in full not necessary. In addition, no prime or unique farmland occurs within the project area (refer to Appendix D-5 for Farmland Conversion Impact Rating [Form AD-1006]), therefore none will be impacted by ERTP implementation. This project is inland and not expected to adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. The only marine mammal known to enter waterways in the project area is the West Indian manatee. Manatees are not expected to be adversely affected by this project. Informal consultation with the FWS has been initiated for the manatee, and a determination by USACE of no effect was made. Ocean disposal of dredged material is not proposed as a part of the TSP. Initial public and coordination for this project began with the distribution of a scoping letter, dated December 7, 2009, announcing the preparation of the Draft EIS and inviting public and 4-98

259 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Law, Regulation, or Policy Status Comments National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Inter Alia) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solis Waste Amendments of 1984, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1996, Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 compliance with this Act. USACE will be implementing a PA as specified under 36CFR800.14b (1) (ii). The PA will allow the USACE to complete needed studies and incorporate its final determination of effects into COP. With this agreement and through ongoing consultation, the USACE will be in compliance with each of these Federal laws. This project is in compliance with these Acts. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 This project is in compliance with this Act. agency comment (Appendix D). On March 1, 2010 a NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register (FR Volume 75, Number 39). A NOA for this Draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register, and the Draft EIS will be circulated for 45 days. A public meeting is planned during the comment period for the Draft EIS. Archival research and consultation with SHPO, SFWMD, ENP and appropriate federally recognized tribes has been initiated. The Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, ENP, SFWMD and SHPO have been briefed on this PA. Both Tribes indicated that they understood the need for the PA. In addition, ENP, SHPO and SFWMD have verbally agreed to this approach. USACE has prepared formal letters to each Tribe and agency and responses will be incorporated into the final document. No items regulated under these laws or other laws related to hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste substances have been discovered through previous Phase 1 HTRW assessments of the project area. The proposed project would not obstruct navigable waters of the United States. The proposed action has been subject to the public notice and other evaluations normally conducted for activities subject to the act. Submerged Lands Act This Act is not applicable. This project would not occur on submerged lands in the State of Florida. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended Executive Order 11514, Protection of the Environment Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management This Act is not applicable. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals No designated wild and scenic river reaches would be affected by project related activities. The objectives of this project are focused on environmental protection. The proposed operational changes would continue to reduce hazards 4-99

260 Section 4 Environmental Consequences Law, Regulation, or Policy Status Comments Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This E.O. is not applicable. Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds Memorandum on Government-to- Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments This project is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. This project is in compliance with the goals of this Memorandum. and risks associated with floods; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial uses of the base floodplain. The objectives of this project are focused on environmental protection. This project does not affect recreational fisheries and therefore is in compliance with the goals of this E.O. The operations of the structures discussed herein, in addition to providing acceptable protection to populations of CSSS, would benefit all population groups of southern Miami-Dade County by providing flood damage reduction, drinking water supply protection, and restoration of wetlands and other natural resources inside and outside ENP. This project has no environmental or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. No coral reefs would be impacted by this project. No construction is occurring which would have the potential to transport invasive species or disturb previously undisturbed areas. This project is not anticipated to negatively affect migratory birds. The project is expected to benefit migratory birds by improving habitat and increasing availability of forage for wading birds. USACE has consulted with the Miccosukee Indian Tribe during the ERTP process 4-100

261 Section 5 List of Preparers SECTION 5 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-i

262 Section 5 List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank 5-ii

263 Section 5 List of Preparers 5 LIST OF PREPARERS Table 5-1 lists persons involved in the preparation of this document. Table 5-2 lists the persons involved in the review of this document. TABLE 5-1: LIST OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARERS Name Affiliation Role Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D. USACE Document Preparation Susan Conner USACE Document Preparation Anya Savage USACE Document Preparation Melissa Nasuti USACE Document Preparation Angela Dunn USACE Document Preparation John Zediak USACE Hydrologic Analyses Daniel Crawford USACE Hydrologic Analyses/SFWMM Richard Punnett, Ph.D. USACE Contractor Hydrologic Analyses/SFWMM Jessica Files USACE Hydrologic Analyses Anthony Rodino III USACE Hydrologic Analyses James Riley USACE Water Quality Analyses Mark Shafer USACE Water Quality Analyses Daniel Hughes USACE Archaeologist Devona Sherwood USACE Contractor Monitoring Report Patrice Morey USACE Graphics Alaina Ray USACE Contractor Graphics/Document Formatting Sue Byrd USACE Contractor Document Formatting 5-1

264 Section 5 List of Preparers TABLE 5-2: LIST OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEWERS Name Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D. Susan Conner John Zediak Donna George Daniel Crawford Richard Punnett, Ph.D. Anthony Rodino III James Riley Brooks Moore Donna George Rebecca Griffith, Ph.D. Eric Summa Sean Smith Patrice Morey Russell Weeks Alaina Ray Devona Sherwood Sue Byrd Affiliation USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE Contractor USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE Contractor USACE Contractor USACE Contractor 5-2

265 Section 6 Public Involvement SECTION 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6-i

266 Section 6 Public Involvement This page intentionally left blank 6-ii

267 Section 6 Public Involvement 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.1 SCOPING A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping letter was mailed on December 7, 2009 to the agencies, organizations, and private individuals listed in Appendix D-1. A letter dated February 2, 2010 was received from the Florida State Clearinghouse, which coordinated agency and stakeholder comments. A copy of the scoping letter and comments received are also included within Appendix D. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on March 1, A copy of the NOI is included within Appendix D AGENCY COORDINATION The various agencies, affected stakeholders, and interested members of the community were allowed opportunities to provide input during the NEPA process. Public participation was limited to comments received through the NEPA scoping process, and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Water Resources Advisory Council, Governing Board and Technical Oversight Committee meetings. Table 6-1 provides a list of announcements, interagency coordination, and public presentations conducted throughout this process. A workshop was held on December 10, 2010 for interested non-governmental agencies and environmental groups, including Audubon of Florida, National Parks Conservation Association, and The Everglades Foundation. A Public Workshop will be held in April 2010 during the NEPA comment period to elicit input from interested parties. A summary of the scoping process was included in the Executive Summary. 6-1

268 Section 6 Public Involvement TABLE 6-1: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY Action Location Date Stakeholder Outreach- ENP, SFWMD Teleconference 7 August 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- ENP, SFWMD Teleconference 17 August 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- ENP, SFWMD Teleconference 24 August 2009 Interagency Meeting Vero Beach, FL 18 September 2009 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 2 October 2009 Interagency Meeting Jacksonville, FL 19 October 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- SFWMD, Miccosukee Teleconference 26 October 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- ENP, SFWMD, Teleconference 2 November 2009 Miccosukee Interagency Meeting Teleconference 6 November 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- SFWMD Teleconference 9 November 2009 Stakeholder Outreach- SFWMD Teleconference 16 November 2009 Presentation to CISREP* Jacksonville, FL 3 December 2009 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 14 December 2009 Presentation to SFWMD Technical Oversight West Palm Beach, 15 December Committee* FL 2009 NEPA Scoping Letter Mailed NA 7 December 2009 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 11 January 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 15 January 2010 Interagency Meeting Vero Beach, FL 19 January 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 25 January 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 1 February 2010 Interagency Meeting Vero Beach, FL 22 February 2010 NOI Published in Federal Register NA 1 March 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- FDEP Teleconference 30 March 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- FDACS Teleconference 31 March 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- DERM Miami, FL 5 April 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- FWC West Palm Beach, 6 April 2010 FL Stakeholder Outreach- ENP Homestead, FL 7 April 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- SFWMD West Palm Beach, 7 April 2010 FL Presentation to SFWMD Water Resources West Palm Beach, 8 April 2010 Advisory Committee* FL Presentation to SFWMD Governing Board* West Palm Beach, 14 April 2010 FL Interagency Meeting Teleconference 19 April 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- DOI Homestead, FL 26 April

269 Section 6 Public Involvement Action Location Date Workshop (USACE/FWS) Jacksonville, FL April, 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 3 May 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- FDACS Miami, FL 5 May 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- Miccosukee Miami, FL 6 May 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 11 May 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 17 May 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 7 June 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 28 June 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- DOI Naples, FL 13 July 2010 Stakeholder Outreach- Miccosukee West Palm Beach, 18 August 2010 FL Stakeholder Outreach- SFWMD Teleconference 19 August 2010 Stakeholder Outreach-ENP Teleconference 23 August 2010 Presentation to SFWMD Technical Oversight West Palm Beach, 31 August 2010 Committee* FL Stakeholder Outreach- Miami-Dade DERM Teleconference 1 September 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 29 September 2010 Interagency Meeting Teleconference 6 October 2010 Presentation to SFWMD Water Resources West Palm Beach, 7 October 2010 Advisory Committee* FL Presentation to SFWMD Governing Board* West Palm Beach, 13 October 2010 FL Presentation to SFWMD Technical Oversight West Palm Beach, 19 October 2010 Committee* FL Workshop (Environmental Organizations) Hollywood, FL 10 December 2010 CISREP DERM DOI ENP FDACS FDEP FWC FWS Miccosukee USACE NA Comprehensive Independent Science Review of Everglades Restoration Plan Miami Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management Department of the Interior Everglades National Park Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Not Applicable Note: Items marked with an * indicate meetings open to the general public. 6-3

270 Section 6 Public Involvement 6.3 LIST OF STATEMENT RECIPIENTS This Draft EIS was filed in accordance with ER-FRL , Amended Environmental Impact Statement Filing System Guidance for Implementing 40 CFR and of the Council on Environmental Quality s Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Copies of the Draft EIS are available on the USACE Jacksonville District website: htm Copies of the document or notices of availability of the Draft EIS were mailed to the following parties: Native American Tribes Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma Poarch Band of Creek Indians Seminole Tribe of Florida Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Federal Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Maritime Commission National Center for Environmental Health US Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service US Forest Service US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary National Marine Fisheries Service US Department of Homeland Security US Coast Guard, 7 th District US Department of Housing and Urban Development US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs National Park Service Big Cypress National Preserve Biscayne National Park Everglades National Park US Fish and Wildlife Service US Geological Survey Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance US Department of Justice US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 6-4

271 Section 6 Public Involvement US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Government US Congressmen Florida Districts 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 US Senators, Florida State Agencies Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Agricultural Water Policy Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Department of Transportation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Florida State Clearinghouse South Dade Soil and Water Conservation District South Dade Government Center South Florida Regional Planning Council Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council South Florida Water Management District State Historic Preservation Office University of Florida Cooperative Extension Office, Homestead, Florida State Government Governor s Office State Representatives Districts 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 State Senators Districts 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, County Agencies Broward County Biological Resources Division Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Lee County Public Utilities Martin County Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning Miami-Dade County Park & Recreation Miami-Dade County Water & Sewer Miami-Dade Water Resources Monroe County Growth Management Department Palm Beach County Water Resources 6-5

272 Section 6 Public Involvement County Government Broward County Board of County Commissioners Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Municipalities City of Delray Beach City of Florida City City of Fort Lauderdale City of Hollywood City of Homestead City of Lighthouse Point City of Pembroke Pines City of Sanibel Lake Worth Drainage District Miami-Dade City Planning Department South Broward Drainage District Town of Medley Town of Southwest Ranches Libraries Collier County Public Library, Everglades City Branch Broward County Public Library, Ft. Lauderdale Branch Miami-Dade Public Library, Homestead Branch Miami-Dade Public Library, Main Branch Northwest Regional Library, Coral Springs Groups and Organizations 100 Friends of Florida Airboat Association of Florida Audubon of Florida Broward 298s Broward County Airboat Association Charleston Museum Clean Water Action Coopertown Airboat Dade County Farm Bureau Defenders of Wildlife Duke University Environmental & Land Use Law Center Everglades Coordinating Council Everglades Foundation Everglades Protection Society Florida Atlantic University Florida Gulf Coast University 6-6

273 Section 6 Public Involvement Florida Biodiversity Project Florida International University Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute Florida Wildlife Federation Friends of the Everglades Homestead/Florida City Chamber of Commerce Las Palmas Homeowners Association Naples Pathways Coalition National Parks Conservation Association Natural Resources Defense Council Northwestern University Nova University, Environmental and Land Use Law Center The Nature Conservancy Reef Relief Rutgers University Sierra Club Sierra Club, Miami Group South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force The Conservancy Trail Glades Bassmasters of Miami Tropical Audubon Society Trust for Public Land University of Chicago, Field Museum of National History University of Florida University of Miami, School of Law University of West Florida Wildlife Foundation of Florida World Wildlife Fund Businesses Alednam Development Applied Environmental Services Coopertown Airboat Florida Power and Light Everglades Research Group, Inc Everglades Safari Park Florida Citrus Mutual Florida Rock Industries Gator Park Greenacres Farm Lehtinen, Vargas and Riedi Lewis, Longman and Walker Lincoln Financial Lone Star Environmental Studies MacVicar, Frederico and Lamb 6-7

274 Section 6 Public Involvement Miami Engineering Company Milian-Swain and Associates Palm Beach Post Pentavista Corporation Radio One, Pepper Hamilton Rinkers Materials Corporation Salem Communications Corporation South Dade News Leader Tarmac America White Rock Quarries WVCG Radio Individuals A list of individuals who received notification of the release of the Draft EIS is on file in the USACE Jacksonville District. 6.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE A comments response matrix detailing comments received during the scoping and Endangered Species Act consultation process and USACE responses is included within Appendix D. 6-8

275 Section 7 References SECTION 7 REFERENCES 7-i

276 Section 7 References This page intentionally left blank 7-ii

277 Section 7 References 7 REFERENCES Abbott, G. and A. Nath Final Report. Hydrologic Restoration of Southern Golden Gate Estates Conceptual Plan. Big Cypress Basin Board. South Florida Water Management District, Naples, Florida, USA. Armentano, T.V., J.P. Sah, M.S. Ross, D.T. Jones, H.C. Cooley, and C.S. Smith Rapid responses of vegetation to hydrological changes in Taylor Sough, Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 569: Baiser, B., R.L. Boulton, and J.L. Lockwood The influence of water depths on nest success of the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow in the Florida Everglades. Animal Conservation 11: Bancroft, G.T Status and conservation of wading birds in the Everglades. American Birds 43: Bancroft, G.T., A.M. Strong, R.J. Sawicki, W. Hoffman, and S.D. Jewell Relationships among wading bird foraging patterns, colony locations, and hydrology in the Everglades. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Bass, O.L., Jr. and K.A. Kushlan Status of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Report T-672, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA. Beerens, J.M. and M.I. Cook Draft Wood Stork Management Guidelines for the Everglades Restoration Transition Plan. South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Division, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Boulton, R.L., J.L. Lockwood, and M.J. Davis Recovering small Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) subpopulations: breeding and dispersal of sparrows in the eastern Everglades, Unpublished report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida, USA) and the U.S. National Park Service (Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA). Browder, J.S A modeling study of water, wetlands, and wood storks. Pages , in Wading Birds, A. Sprunt, IV, J.C. Ogden, and S. Winckler (Eds.). National Audubon Society. Research Report Number 7. Browder, J.S Wood stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 12:

278 Section 7 References Browder, J.S., C. Littlejohn, and D. Young The Florida Study. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, and Bureau of Comprehensive Planning, Florida Department of Administration, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Browder, J.S., P.J. Gleason, and D.R. Swift Periphyton in the Everglades: spatial variation, environmental correlates, and ecological implications. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S.M. Davis and J.S. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Cassey, P., J.L. Lockwood, and K.H. Fenn Using long-term occupancy information to inform the management of Cape Sable seaside sparrows in the Everglades. Biological Conservation 139: Cattau, C., W. Kitchens, B. Reichert, A. Bowling, A. Hotaling, C. Zweig, J. Olbert, K. Pias, and J. Martin Demographic, movement and habitat studies of the endangered snail kite in response to operational plans in Water Conservation Area 3A. Annual Report, Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Cattau, C., W. Kitchens, B. Reichert, J. Olbert, K. Pias, J. Martin, and C. Zweig Demographic, movement and habitat studies of the endangered snail kite in response to operational plans in Water Conservation Area 3A. Annual Report, Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Chaing, C., C.B. Craft, D.W. Rogers, and C.J. Richardson Effect of 4 years of nitrogen and phosphorus additions on Everglades plant communities. Aquatic Botany 68: Cherkiss, M.C Status and Distribution of the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Southeastern Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 50 Parts 1 to 199; Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Everglades Mink. Cottam, C Food of the Limpkin. Wilson Bulletin 48(1): Coulter, M.C Foraging and breeding ecology of wood storks in East-Central Georgia. Pages 21-27, in Proceedings of the Third Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, R.R. Odom, K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier (Eds.). Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. 7-2

279 Section 7 References Coulter, M.C. and A.L. Bryan, Jr Foraging ecology of wood storks (Mycteria americana) in east central Georgia: Characteristics of foraging sites. Colonial Waterbirds 16: Coulter, M.C., J.A. Rodgers, J.C. Ogden, and F.C. Depkin Wood stork (Mycteria americana). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Craft, C.B., J. Vymazal, and C.J. Richardson Response of Everglades plant communities to nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15: Curnutt, J.L., A.L. Mayer, T.M. Brooks, L. Manne, O.L. Bass Jr., D.M. Fleming, M.P. Nott, and S.L. Pimm Population dynamics of the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Animal Conservation 1: Darby, P.C Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa Say) life history in the context of a hydrologically fluctuating environment. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Darby, P.C., J. D. Croop, R. E. Bennetts, P. L. Valentine-Darby, and W. M. Kitchens A comparison of sampling techniques for quantifying abundance of the Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa, SAY). Journal of Molluscan Studies 65: Darby, P.C., R.E. Bennetts, S. Miller, and H.F. Percival Movements of Florida apple snails in relation to water levels and drying events. Wetlands 22(3): Darby, P.C., R.E. Bennetts, and H.F. Percival Dry down impacts on apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) demography: implications for wetland water management. Wetlands 28(1): Davis, S.M., L.H. Gunderson, W.A. Park, J.R. Richardson, and J.E. Mattson Landscape dimension, composition, and functioning in a changing Everglades ecosystem. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden (Eds.), St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden Everglades: the Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Dean, T. F. and J.L. Morrison Non-breeding season ecology of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis): field season final report. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. Duellman, W.E. and A. Schwartz Amphibians and reptiles of southern Florida. Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Science 3:

280 Section 7 References Dumas, J Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Dunn, R Impacts to historic properties in drawdown zones at Corps of Engineers Reservoirs. U.S. Engineering Water Way Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. Everglades Settlement Agreement, 1992 (Case No CIV/Hoeveler). Unites States of America versus South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, USA. Ferrer, J.R., G. Perera, and M. Yong Life tables of Pomacea paludosa (Say) in natural conditions. Florida Scientist 53S:15. Fleming, D.M., W.F. Wolff, and D.L. DeAngelis Importance of landscape heterogeneity to wood storks in Florida Everglades. Environmental Management 18(5): Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Management Plan. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 2003a. Miami Blue Butterfly Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003b. Conservation Strategy for the Black Bear in Florida. Compiled and written by Thomas H. Eason, Ph. D. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003c. Florida s Breeding Bird Atlas: A Collaborative Study of Florida's Birdlife. Frederick, P. C Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Frederick, P Monitoring of wood stork and wading bird reproduction in WCAs 1, 2, and 3 of the Everglades. Annual Report, Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A. Frederick, P.C., D. G. Gawlik, J.C. Ogden, M. Cook and M. Lusk. 2009a. White Ibis and wood storks as indicators for restoration of Everglades ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 9S:S83-S95. Frederick, P., J. Simon, and R.A. Borkhataria. 2009b. Monitoring of wading bird reproduction in WCAs 1, 2 and 3 of the Everglades. Annual Report, Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Gawlik, D.E The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecological Monographs 72(3):

281 Section 7 References Gawlik, D.E. and G.E. Crozier A test of cues affecting habitat selection by wading birds. The Auk 124(3): Gawlik, D. E., G. Crozier, K. H. Tarboton Wading bird habitat suitability index. Pages , in Habitat suitability indices for evaluation of water management alternatives, K. C. Tarboton, M. M. Irizarry-Ortiz, D. P. Loucks, S. M. Davis, and J. T. Obeysekera (Eds.). Technical Report, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Griffin, J.W The Archaeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. M.S. Thesis on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Gunderson, L. H., C.S. Holling, G. Peterson, and L. Pritchard Resilience in ecosystems, institutions and societies. Beijer Discussion Paper Number 92, Beijer International Institute for Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden. Haig, S.M Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). In The Birds of North America, No. 2, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Hanning, G.W Aspects of reproduction in Pomacea paludosa (Mesogastropoda: Pilidae). M.S. Thesis. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Herring, G. and D. E. Gawlik Multiple nest-tending behavior in an adult female white ibis. Waterbirds 30: Hoffman, W., G.T. Bancroft, and R.J. Sawicki Foraging habitat of wading birds in Water Conservation Areas of the Everglades. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Holling, C. S., L. H. Gunderson, and C. J. Walters The structure and dynamics of the Everglades system: guidelines for ecosystem restoration. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Holyoak, D. and P.R. Colston Limpkin. Pages , in The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds, Christopher Perrins. Firefly Books. Humphrey, S.R. and T.L. Zinn Seasonal habitat use by river otters and Everglades mink in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: Jordan, A.R., D.M. Mills, G. Ewing, and J.M. Lyle Assessment of inshore habitats around Tasmania for life-history stages of commercial finfish species. Published by 7-5

282 Section 7 References Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. Kahl, M.P., Jr Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. Ecological Monographs 34: Karunaratne, L.B., P.C. Darby, and R.E. Bennetts The effects of wetland habitat structure on Florida apple snail density. Wetlands 26(4): Kushlan, J. and O. Bass, Jr Habitat use and distribution of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Pages , in The Seaside Sparrow: Its Biology and Management, T. Quay, J. Funderburg, Jr., D. Lee, E. Potter and C. Robbins (Eds.). Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey , Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Kushlan, J.A. and K.L. Bildstein White Ibis. In The Birds of North America, No. 2, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Kushlan, J.A. and P.C. Frohring The history of the southern Florida wood stork population. Wilson Bulletin 98(3): Kushlan, J.A. and F.J. Mazzotti Historic and present distribution of American crocodile in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 23(1):1-7. Kushlan, J.A., J.C. Ogden, and A.L. Higer Relation of water level and fish availability to wood stork reproduction in the southern Everglades, Florida. Report , U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. LaPuma, D.A., J.L. Lockwood, and M.D. Davis Endangered species management requires a new look at the benefit of fire: the Cape Sable seaside sparrow in the Everglades ecosystem. Biological Conservation 136: Lockwood, J.L., M.S. Ross, and J.P. Sah Smoke on the water: the interplay of fire and water flow on Everglades restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9): Lockwood, J.L., B. Baiser, R.L. Boulton, and M.J. Davis Detailed study of Cape Sable seaside sparrow nest success and causes of nest failure Annual Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. Loftus, W.F. and A. Eklund Long-term dynamics of an Everglades small-fish assemblage. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, S.M. Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden, (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. 7-6

283 Section 7 References Lorenz, J.J., B.L. Langan-Mulrooney, P.E. Frezza, R.G. Harvey, and Mazzotti, F.J Roseate spoonbill reproduction as an indicator for restoration of the Everglades and the Everglades Estuaries. Ecological Indicators 9S:S Lorenz, J.J., P.E. Frezza, M. Robinson, L. Canedo, and K. Dyer, Verification of the predator prey conceptual model for wading birds and aquatic fauna forage base using data from roseate spoonbill studies in Florida Bay. Annual Report: June 2008-May Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Audubon of Florida, Tavernier Science Center, Tavernier, Florida, USA. Lowther, P. E. and R. T. Paul Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. MacDonald, A Surface erosion and disturbance at archaeological sites. U.S. Army Engineering Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. Maehr, D.S. and J.B. Wooding Florida black bears Ursus americanus floridanus. In Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals, S.R. Humphrey, (Ed.). University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Martin, J Population Ecology and Conservation of the Snail Kite. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Martin, J., W. Kitchens, C. Cattau, A. Bowling, M. Conners, D. Huser, and E. Powers Demographic, movement and habitat studies of the endangered snail kite in response to operational plans in Water Conservation Area 3A. Annual Report, Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Martin, J., W.M. Kitchens, C. Cattau, A. Bowling, S. Stocco, E. Powers, C. Zweig, A. Hotaling, Z. Welch, H. Waddle, and A. Paredes Snail Kite Demography. Annual Progress Report, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and University of Florida, Gainesville. Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Martin J., W.M. Kitchens, C.E. Cattau, and M.K. Oli Relative importance of natural disturbances and habitat degradation on snail kite population dynamics. ESR (6): Mazzotti, F. J. and L. A. Brandt Ecology of the American alligator in a seasonally fluctuating environment. Pages , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Mazzotti, F.J., M.S. Cherkiss, G.S. Cook, and E. McKercher Status and conservation of the American crocodile in Florida: recovering and endangered species while restoring 7-7

284 Section 7 References an endangered ecosystem. Draft final report to Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA. McCormick, P.V., P.S. Rawlik, K. Lurding, E.P. Smith, and F.H. Sklar Periphytonwater quality relationships along a nutrient gradient in the northern Everglades. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: McKelvin, M.R, D.D. Hook, and A. Rozelle Adaptation of plants to flooding and soil waterlogging. In Southern Forested Wetlands, M.G. Messina and W.H. Conner (Eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Mooij, W.M., R.E. Bennetts, W.M. Kitchens and D.L. DeAngelis Exploring the effect of drought extent and interval on the Florida snail kite: interplay between spatial and temporal scales. Ecological Modeling 149: National Park Service An Assessment of the Interim Operational Plan. Final Report, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. National Resource Council, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress; National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA. National Resource Council, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress; National Research Council ISBN: , 348 pages, 6 x 9, (2010) Newman, S., J. Schuette, J. Grace, K. Rutchey, T. Fontaine, and K. Reddy Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Biology 60: Newman, S., P.V. McCormick, S.L. Miao, J.A. Laing, W.C. Kennedy, and M.B. O Dell The effect of phosphorus enrichment on the nutrient status of a northern Everglades slough. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12: New South Assessment of effects of inundation on the Platt and Elder Mound sites, Brevard, Florida. M.S. Thesis on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Nott, M.P., O.L. Bass, Jr., D.M. Fleming, S.E. Killefer, N. Fraley, L. Manne, J.L. Curnutt, T.M. Brooks, R. Powell, and S.L. Pimm Water levels, rapid vegetational change, and the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Animal Conservation 1: Ogden, J.C A comparison of wading bird nesting colony dynamics ( and ) as an indication of ecosystem conditions in the southern Everglades. Pages 7-8

285 Section 7 References , in Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration, S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA. Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilmant Prey selectivity by the wood stork. Condor 78(3): Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilmant The food habits and nesting success of wood storks in Everglades National Park in U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Report No. 16. Parsons, K. C. and T. L. Master Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Pimm, S.L., J.L. Lockwood, C.N. Jenkins, J.L. Curnutt, M.P. Nott, R.D. Powell, and O.L. Bass, Jr Sparrow in the grass: a report on the first ten years of research on the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis). Report to Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. USA. Rehage, J. S. and J. C. Trexler Assessing the net effect of anthropogenic disturbance on aquatic communities in wetlands: community structure relative to distance from canals. Hydrobiologia 569: Rich, E Observations of feeding by Pomacea paludosa. Florida Scientist 53S:13. Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and H.T. Smith Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and S.T. Schwikert Buffer zone differences to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by airboats in Florida. Waterbirds 26(4): Ross, M.S., J.P. Sah, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, D.T. Jones, H. Cooley, and R. Travieso Effect of hydrological restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Annual Report of Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Ross, M.S., J.P. Sah, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, D.T. Jones, H. Cooley, R. Travieso and S. Robinson Effect of hydrological restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Annual Report of Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. 7-9

286 Section 7 References Ross, M.S., J.P. Sah, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, D.T. Jones, H. Cooley, R. Travieso and D. Hagayari Effect of hydrology restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Annual Report of Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Rutchey, K. and L. Vilchek Development of an Everglades vegetation map using a SPOT image and global positioning system. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: Sah, J.P., M.S. Ross, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, D.T. Jones, R. Travieso, S. Stoffella, N. Timilsina, H.C. Cooley and B. Barrios Effect of hydrological restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Annual Report of Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Sah, J.P., M.S. Ross, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, S. Stoffella, M. Kline, B. Shamblin, E. Hanan, D. Ogurcak, and B. Barrios Effect of hydrological restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Annual Report of Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Sah, J.P., M.S. Ross, J.R. Snyder, P.L. Ruiz, S. Stoffella, M. Kline, B. Shamblin, E. Hanan, L. Lopez and T.J. Hilton Effect of hydrologic restoration on the habitat of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Final Report, Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. Schaefer, J. and J. Junkin The Eastern Indigo Snake: A Threatened Species. University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Publication SS-WIS-24, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Scott, C Endangered and Threatened Animals of Florida and their Habitats. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA. Sharfstein, B. and A. D. Steinman Growth and survival of the Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) fed 3 naturally occurring macrophyte assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20(1): Smith, A.T An environmental study of Everglades mink (Mustela vision). South Florida Research Technical Center Report T-555, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report Volume 8, D.E. Gawlik (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. 7-10

287 Section 7 References South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, G.E. Crozier and D.E. Gawlik (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, G.E. Crozier and M.I. Cook (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, M.I. Cook and E.M. Call (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District Documentation of the South Florida Water Management Model, Version 5.5. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, M.I. Cook and E.M. Call (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, M.I. Cook and H.K. Herring (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District South Florida Wading Bird Report, M.I. Cook and M. Kobza (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District. 2009a. South Florida Wading Bird Report, M.I. Cook and M. Kobza (Eds.). South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. South Florida Water Management District. 2009b. South Florida Environmental Report. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA report South Florida Water Management District Quality Assessment Report for Water Quality Monitoring April-June Everglades Technical Oversight Committee. Analytical Services Division. Restoration Sciences Department, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Sklar, F. H., C. McVoy, R. VanZee, G.E. Gawlik, K. Tarboton, D. Rudnick, S. Miao, and T. Armentano The effects of altered hydrology on the ecology of the Everglades. Pages 39-82, in The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An 7-11

288 Section 7 References Ecosystem Sourcebook, J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Smith, Andrew T An environmental study of the Everglades Mink Mustela vision. South Florida Research Center Report T-555. Steiner, T.M., O.L. Bass, Jr., and J.A. Kushlan Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern Florida national parks and vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC-83/01. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute Everglades Multi-Species Avian Ecology and Restoration Review. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. Swandron, M Archaeological Resources of the Everglades National Park National Register of Historic Places: Multiple Property Form. Sykes, P.W., J. A. Rodgers, and R. E. Bennetts Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch, and J. L. Atwood Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Trexler, J.C., W.F. Loftus, F. Jordan, J.H. Chick, K.L. Kandl, T.C. McElroy, and O.L. Bass Ecological scale and its implications for freshwater fishes in the Florida Everglades. Pages , in The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook, J. W. Porter and K. G. Porter (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Turner, A.W., J.C. Trexler, C.F. Jordan, S.J. Slack, P. Geddes, J.H. Chick, and W.F. Loftus Targeting ecosystem features for conservation: standing crops in the Everglades. Conservation Biology 13(4): Turner, R. L Use of stems of emergent vegetation for oviposition by the Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa), and implications for marsh management. Florida Scientist 59: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archaeological sites protection and preservation notebook. U.S. Army Engineering Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers C-111 General Reevaluation Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 7-12

289 Section 7 References U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Fact, Test Iteration 7, Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Report. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999a. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999b Emergency Deviation from Test 7 of the Environmental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park to Protect the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes. Final Environmental Assessment. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999c. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final Environmental Assessment, Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Interim Structural and Operational Plan (ISOP), Emergency Deviation from Test 7 of the Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park for Protection of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Dade County, Florida. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report. Jacksonville District; Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EN-W Position Statement on WCA-3A Regulation Schedule. Memorandum for SAJ Levee Safety Officer (Steve Duba). Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Biological Opinion on the Modified Waters Delivery to Everglades National Park, Experimental 7-13

290 Section 7 References Program to Everglades National Park and Canal-111 South Dade Projects. Prepared by the South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Interim Operational Plan. Prepared by the South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eco-recommendations for the multi-species schedule. Presentation to the Everglades Restoration Transition Plan Team. January 15, Vero Beach, Florida, USA. Van der Walk, A.G., L. Squires, and C.H. Welling Assessing the impacts of an increase in water levels on wetland vegetation. Ecological Applications 4: Virzi, T Recovering small Cape Sable seaside sparrow populations. Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Fire Symposium, December 8, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA. Virzi, T., J.L. Lockwood, R.L. Boulton, and M.J. Davis Recovering small Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) subpopulations: Breeding and dispersal of sparrows in the Everglades. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Vero Beach, Florida, USA) and U.S. National Park Service (Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA). Walker, W.W Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential Water Quality Impacts of Implementing a New Rainfall-Driven Formula for Guiding Flow Deliveries to Shark River Slough. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, May 17, Walters, C., L. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 2: Walters, J.R., S.R. Beissinger, J.W. Fitzpatrick, R. Greenberg, J.D. Nicholas, H.R. Pulliam, H.R., and D.W. Winkler The American Ornithological Union conservation committee review of the biology, status, and management of Cape Sable seaside sparrow: final report. The Auk 117(4): Warriner G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C., Warriner, and P.W.C. Paton Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Ware, J.A Archaeological inundation studies: manual for reservoir managers, Contract Report EL89-4, U.S. Army Engineering Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. 7-14

291 Section 7 References Wetzel, R.G. (Ed.) Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems. W. Junk Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Wood, J.M. and G.W. Tanner Graminoid community composition and structure within four everglades management areas. Wetlands 10(2): Wu, Y., K. Rutchey, W. Guan, L. Vilchek, and F. H. Sklar Spatial simulations of tree islands for Everglades restoration. In Tree Islands of the Everglades, F.H. Sklar and A. Van der Valk (Eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Germany. Zweig, C.L Effects of landscape gradients on wetland vegetation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Zweig, C.L. and W.M. Kitchens Effects of landscape gradients on wetland vegetation communities: information for large-scale restoration. Wetlands 28(4):

292 Section 7 References This page intentionally left blank 7-16

293 Section 8 Index SECTION 8 INDEX 8-i

294 Section 8 Index This page intentionally left blank 8-ii

295 Section 8 Index 8 INDEX 8.5 SMA, Square Mile Area, vi, xx, xxxvii, 1-1, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 2-25, 2-26, 3-8, 4-4, 4-20, 4-24, 4-28, 4-79 A Administrative Procedures Act, xxxvii, 1-23 Agricultural, x, xxxviii, 1-19, 2-3, 4-75 Agriculture, xxxviii, 1-24 Alligator American, 3-19, 3-20, 3-46, 4-63, 7-7 Alternative, i, v, vi, x, xi, xii, xv, xl, 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 2-3, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-17, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 3-21, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-88, 4-91 Alternative 5b1, 2-13, 2-14 Alternative 7, vi, x, 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 1-23, 1-24, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-26, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-70, 4-91 Alternative 7AB, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-26, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-70 No Action, 2-24 Aquifer, 3-1, 3-2, 3-12 Biscayne, 3-2, 3-12 Floridan, 3-2, 3-12 B Bay Biscayne, 2-25, 3-1, 3-8, 3-13, 3-37, 4-5, 4-21, 4-24, 4-28, 4-38, 4-47, 4-70 Florida, 1-5, 3-8, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 4-5, 4-20, 4-24, 4-27, 4-38, 4-47, 4-64, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-76, 4-80, 7-7, 7-11, 7-12 Big Cypress National Preserve, xxxvii, 1-5, 3-50 Biological Assessment, x, xxxvii, 1-23, 3-21, 4-40, 4-42, 4-44, 4-46, 4-48, 4-96 Biological Opinion, v, xxxvii, 1-2, 1-11, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-26, 3-30, 4-13, 4-40, 4-43, 4-48, 4-63, 4-79, 4-80, 4-90, 4-91, 4-96, 4-97 Biscayne Bay, 3-1, 3-8, 3-13 Broward, 3-6, 3-13, 3-50 C C&SF Project, ix, 1-1, 1-5, 1-11, 1-23, 1-24, 2-27, 3-11, 4-16, 4-17, 4-34, 4-48, 4-74, 4-79, 7-13 C-111, 3-7, 3-8 C-111 Project, xiv, 1-5, 1-11, 1-22, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-89 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, i, v, vi, ix, xi, xii, xiii, xvi, xvii, xxxvii, 1-2, 1-11, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-22, 2-23, 2-26, 3-20, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-46, 4-9, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-27, 4-39, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-62, 4-63, 4-68, 4-73, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-85, 4-87, 4-91, 4-94, 4-99, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-6, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-14 Subpopulation A, v, xiii, xvi, xvii, xxxvii, 2-7, 2-8, 2-13, 3-34, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-27, 4-48, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-85 Subpopulation B, xxxvii, 3-34,

296 Section 8 Index Subpopulation C, v, xxxvii, 1-11, 2-10, 3-35, 4-48, 4-57, 4-58, 4-62, 4-77, 4-81 Subpopulation D, xxxvii, 3-35, 4-77, 4-81 Subpopulation E, v, vi, xxxvii, 1-11, 3-35, 4-48, 4-57 Clean Water Act of 1972, xii, xxxvii, 4-96 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 4-37, 4-54, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 7-13 Construction, vii, 1-21, 4-79 Consultation, 1-22, 1-23 Crocodile American, 1-21, 3-20, 3-37, 3-46, 4-63, 4-64, 7-6, 7-7 Cultural Resources, 4-87 D Data Collection Platform, xxxvii Decisions to be Made, 1-25 Decompartmentalization, xxxvii, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81 Department of the Interior, xxxvii, 2-3, 2-18, 2-26, 2-28, 4-19, 4-23, 4-27, 4-33, 4-48, 4-91, 6-2, 6-3, 7-9, 7-14 Drinking Water, 3-12 E EAA, 3-13, 3-16 Economics, 7-5 Endangered Species, v, xxxviii, 3-48, 4-65, 4-96 Endangered Species Act, v, xxxviii, 1-2, 1-23, 3-21, 3-48, 4-65, 4-89, 4-91, 4-96, 6-8 ENP, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-19, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50 Environmental Assessment, xxxviii, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 4-75, 4-79, 7-13 Environmental Effects, 4-2 Environmental Impact Statement, i, vii, xxiv, xxxviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-23, 2-24, 4-1, 4-34, 4-42, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-72, 4-77, 4-79, 4-80, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-96, 4-97, 5-2, 6-1, 7-12, 7-13 Environmental Justice, 4-99 Environmental Resources, 1-24 Everglades, 3-1, 3-8, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19 Everglades National Park, v, vi, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxxviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-11, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-1, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-19, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-40, 3-41, 3-44, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 4-10, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 4-37, 4-47, 4-48, 4-54, 4-57, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-87, 4-89, 4-91, 4-93, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 6-2, 6-3, 7-1, 7-5, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14 Everglades Restoration Transition Plan, i, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, xxxviii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-19, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 2-1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, 2-13, 2-15, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 3-4, 3-21, 3-31, 3-48, 3-50, 4-1, 4-7, 4-8, 4-13, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-99, 7-14 F Fish and Wildlife, v, xiii, xxxviii, xl, 1-2, 4-97, 7-1, 7-3, 7-6, 7-7, 7-13, 7-14 Fish and Wildlife Service, v, x, xiii, xvi, xvii, xxi, xxiv, xxxviii, xl, 1-2, 1-11, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-1, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-27, 2-29, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-21, 3-28, 8-2

297 Section 8 Index 3-30, 4-7, 4-8, 4-34, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-53, 4-57, 4-58, 4-63, 4-65, 4-69, 4-71, 4-79, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-96, 4-97, 6-3, 7-1, 7-3, 7-6, 7-13, 7-14 Flood Control, 4-74, 7-13 Florida Bay, 3-8, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, x, xii, xxxviii, 1-24, 3-48, 6-2, 7-4 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, x, xxxviii, 1-24, 2-1, 2-28, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 4-67, 4-68, 4-89, 4-91, 6-2 Florida Panther, 3-20, 4-63 G General Design Memorandum, xxxviii, 1-1, 1-5, 1-19, 1-22, 2-3, 2-26, 4-75 General Reevaluation Report, xix, xxi, xxxviii, 1-1, 1-22, 4-80, 7-12 H Habitat, 1-22, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 3-35, 3-36, 3-41, 3-47, 4-43, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-77, 4-83, 4-85, 4-92, 4-97, 7-5 Units, 3-35, 4-62 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste, xxxviii, 4-72, 4-93, 4-98 I J K L L-31 North, v, xxxix, 4-79, 4-80 L-31N Canal, 3-4, 3-8 Lake Okeechobee, xi, xxxix, 2-15, 2-19, 2-27, 3-5, 3-13, 3-14, 3-27, 3-40, 4-4, 4-18, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-29, 4-74, 7-13 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule, xi, xii, xxxix, 2-15, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 7-13 Lake Okeechobee Service Area, xxxix, 4-22, 4-25, 4-29 Lower East Coast, 3-5, 3-7 M Manatee Florida, 3-20, 3-46 Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management, v, x, xxxvii, 1-24, 2-1, 3-1, 3-6, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 4-4, 4-5, 4-21, 4-24, 4-28, 4-65, 4-66, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-94, 4-99, 6-2, 6-3, 7-4 Miccosukee, ix, x, xii, xxiv, 1-23, 1-24, 2-1, 3-52, 4-89, 4-95, 4-99 Modified Water Deliveries, i, v, vi, vii, xiv, xxxix, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-11, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 4-74, 4-75, 4-79, 4-80, 4-86, 4-89 Monitoring, 1-22, 3-31, 3-48, 5-1, 7-4, 7-11 N National Environmental Policy Act, vi, xxxix, 1-23, 2-24, 4-73, 4-79, 4-89, 4-96, 4-97, 6-1, 6-2 National Park Service, xxxix, 1-1, 1-21, 4-69, 4-91, 7-1, 7-5, 7-8, 7-9, 7-14 Natural Resources, xiv, xxxix, 4-91, 4-97, 7-2, 7-9 Noise, 3-49 Northeast Shark River Slough, vii, xviii, xxxix, 1-21, 2-15, 2-19, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 3-4, 3-5, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 4-2, 4-6, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-47, 4-75, 4-78, 4-81,

298 Section 8 Index O P Palm Beach, 3-2, 3-5, 3-13, 3-50 Panther Florida, 3-20, 3-46, 4-63 Performance Measures, i, xxxix, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-49, 4-67 Public Involvement, 6-2 Q R Real Estate, 4-80 Recommended Plan, i, 4-92, 4-96, 4-97 Record of Decision, xiv, xl, 1-2, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 4-93, 4-97 Recreation, 4-91, 4-97 Rocky Glades, 3-7 S S-12, 3-5 Scoping, 1-24, 4-73, 6-1, 6-2 Shark River Slough, xii, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxxix, xl, 1-1, 1-5, 2-9, 2-19, 3-1, 3-4, 3-8, 3-16, 3-29, 3-45, 3-52, 4-2, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-49, 4-70, 4-79, 4-88, 7-14 Snail Kite, 3-46 Soils, 3-51 South Dade Conveyance System, vi, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xl, 1-12, 1-24, 2-8, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-26, 3-13, 3-45, 4-5, 4-11, 4-20, 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-33, 4-41, 4-56, 4-71, 4-74, 4-88 South Florida, x, xl, 1-1, 3-2, 3-31, 4-49, 4-79, 7-1, 7-4, 7-5, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12, 7-14 South Florida Water Management District, vi, ix, x, xii, xxiv, xl, 1-1, 1-11, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 2-1, 2-15, 3-31, 4-29, 4-32, 4-37, 4-45, 4-58, 4-72, 4-79, 4-80, 4-87, 4-89, 4-93, 4-98, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-1, 7-4, 7-5, 7-10, 7-11 South Florida Water Management Model, i, x, xi, xii, xl, 2-3, 2-15, 2-22, 2-23, 2-29, 4-2, 4-13, 4-17, 4-30, 4-33, 4-37, 4-43, 4-45, 4-48, 4-49, 4-53, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-71, 4-88, 5-1, 7-11 Species Federally Listed, 3-20, 4-40 State Listed, 3-38, 3-43, 4-65, 4-67 Threatened, 4-66, 7-10 Standard Project Flood, xl, 1-19, 4-75 Stormwater Treatment Area, xx, xl, 1-21 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, xl T Taylor Slough, 3-7, 3-8 Tree Islands, 3-16, 7-15 U US Army Corps of Engineers, v, vii, x, xi, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxxviii, xl, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 1-19, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 2-3, 2-15, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 3-5, 3-13, 3-14, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-30, 3-50, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-20, 4-23, 4-27, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-54, 4-57, 4-59, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-79, 4-80, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 5-1, 5-2, 6-3, 6-8, 7-8 US Environmental Protection Agency, xl V Vegetation, xl, 4-37, 4-59, 4-87 W Wading Birds, 3-18, 3-19 Water Management, xl, 4-79, 7-11 Quality, xii, 4-86, 4-88, 5-1, 7-11, 7-14 Water Conservation Area, i, v, vi, vii, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xl, 1-5, 1-12, 1-19, 1-24, 2-3, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 8-4

299

300