Environmental Flow Policy Development in Florida. Douglas T. Shaw Director, Conservation Science Florida Chapter

Transcription

1 Environmental Flow Policy Development in Florida Douglas T. Shaw Director, Conservation Science Florida Chapter

2 History of Water Policy in Florida Water Resources Act (1972) Created Water Management Districts with taxing & regulatory authority Established water use permits for reasonable-beneficial uses and no adverse impacts to wetlands or others lands Required regional water resources planning & development of water shortage plans Authorized adoption of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) and water reservations 1992 lawsuit and 1993 legislation compelled WMDs to set MFLs

3 History of Water Policy in Florida 1996 lawsuit and legislation required FDEP and the WMDs to develop a priority list for MFLs and created a process for voluntary peer review Water Act (1997) Natural systems achieved legal parity with reasonablebeneficial uses Identified Water Resource Values that must be considered in setting MFLs Stronger linkage between MFLs and water use permits Added process for MFL prevention and recovery Prioritized funding for water resource projects to those aimed at MFL recovery & prevention Subsequent legislation provided better guidance on setting MFL priorities & clarified peer review process

4 Minimum Flows and Levels F.S. Minimum flows and levels (1) Within each section, or the water management district as a whole, the department or the governing board shall establish the following: (a) Minimum flow for all surface watercourses in the area. The minimum flow for a given watercourse shall be the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area. (b) Minimum water level. The minimum water level shall be the level of groundwater in an aquifer and the level of surface water at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources of the area.

5 Water Resource Values to be Considered When Setting MFLs 1) Recreation in and on the water; 2) Fish and wildlife habitats and the passage of fish; 3) Estuarine resources; 4) Transfer of detrital material; 5) Maintenance of freshwater storage and supply; 6) Aesthetic and scenic attributes; 7) Filtration and absorption of nutrients and other pollutants; 8) Sediment loads; 9) Water quality; 10) Navigation

6 Water Reservations (4) F.S. Conditions for a permit The Governing Board or the Department, by regulation, may reserve from use by permit applicants, water in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations will be subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest.

7 Minimum Flows & Levels Concept Withdrawals & Diversions Natural Flows & Levels Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels Reservation Recovery Plan Significant Harm Minimum Flows & Levels C. 1996

8 Minimum Flows & Levels Concept Withdrawals & Diversions Natural Flows & Levels Reservation Significant Harm Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels Minimum Flows & Levels Recovery Plan

9 Minimum Flows & Levels Concept Withdrawals & Diversions Prevention Plan Significant Harm Natural Flows & Levels Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels Minimum Flows & Levels Recovery Plan Reservation C. 2007

10 MFL Status MFLs for 237 separate water bodies set since 1992, including 17 priority river segments, 13 springs, the Everglades & Florida Bay. Another 114 listed for adoption in the next two years, with 39 more currently prioritized for , including 31 priority river segments, 89 large springs & 4 estuaries NWFWMD to date has set no MFLs MFL re-evaluation underway for older MFLs (22 lakes, 3 springs, 1 river segment) in SJRWMD, SWFWMD & SRWMD Loxahatchee and upper Peace Rivers in recovery status

11 MFL Status

12 Water Reservations Status Only one reservation set to date, for Paynes Prairie State Park (1989) SFWMD developing reservations to implement MFLs in four rivers, Biscayne Bay, Everglades NP/WCAs. WRDA (2000) and President and Governor Agreement (2002) required reservations for natural system prior to completion of CERP projects or permits granted for consumptive use of water made available through CERP NWFWMD potentially working on reservations, in lieu of MFLs, for two springs and the Yellow River Failed legislation in 2002 & 2003 to require reservations for all Outstanding Florida Waters

13 MFL Process and Opportunities for Engagement State Policy Development: Legislative Changes WMD Listing TNC Lobbying Petition for Listing Priority Date State Oversight Research & Development Peer Review Rule Adoption Implementation Legislative changes ESWM concepts, tools, technical assistance a) Petition substantially affected b) Formal peer review panel Consulting role to FDEP Workshops & Public Comment Permits, Reservations, Adaptive Management, Prevention & Recovery

14 TNC Engagement in MFLs Ponce DeLeon Springs Gemini Springs Green Springs St. Johns Monroe Rock Springs & Run St. Johns SR-50 St. Johns River nr Deland Wekiva Springs & River Volusia Blue Springs Madison Blue Spring Santa Fe River & Springs Lower Suwannee River Fanning & Manatee Springs Crystal Springs Lithia Spring Weeki Wachee Springs & River Buckhorn Spring & Creek Rainbow Springs & River Alafia River Myakka River Middle Peace River Upper Hillsborough River Loxahatchee River Florida Bay Lake Istokpoga SWFWMD AMO methodology SJRWMD MFL methods manual

15 Southwest Florida WMD Seasonal blocks to preserve natural hydrograph Middle Peace River Two benchmark periods based on regional river pattern & multi-decadal climate phase (AMO) Flow (cfs) / Watershed Area (sq mi) Peace River at Arcadia Comparison of 1940 to 1969 (blue) and 1970 to 1999 (green) Standardized Median Daily Flows

16 Southwest Florida WMD Middle Peace River Low-flow threshold applicable year around fish passage, wetted perimeter Multiple instream flow methodologies for each block PHABSIM for target fish and invertebrates, days of inundation of exposed roots, snags, floodplain features Significant harm 15% temporal or spatial reduction in habitat availability PREFERENCE FLOW DEPTH Wetted Perimeter HABITAT SUITABILITY SAND MUD ROCK

17 Southwest Florida WMD Middle Peace River MFL implemented as percent of flow reduction that varies by seasonal block % Flow (cfs) % 10% 18% LFT = 67 cfs

18 St. Johns River WMD St. Johns SR-50 Define multiple MFLs low, avg & high flows to preserve traits of natural hydrologic regime MFLs based on protecting the depths, duration and frequency of inundation needed to maintain natural wetland communities & hydric soils in the floodplain

19 St. Johns River WMD St. Johns SR-50 Range of variability for wetlands and soils based on literature & field data collection at multiple transects Minimum levels determined at each transect and converted to minimum flow over river reach Proposed MFLs are evaluated with respect to other water resource values (WRVs): fish & wildlife habitat, fish passage, estuary inflows & salinity, recreation, water quality

20 St. Johns River WMD Volusia Blue Spring Identified winter manatee aggregation as most important resource value Based on relationship between spring and river flow and length of warm water plume in spring run Utilizes unique 20-yr data set of daily manatee counts & positions relative to intrusion of cold river water Hydrologic model estimates space available for manatees and accounts for population growth rates identified in species recovery plan

21 Suwannee River WMD Lower Suwannee, Santa Fe & Waccasassa Rivers Madison Blue Spring Employed consultants to develop these MFLs Utilizes best elements of SWFWMD and SJRWMD approaches, with explicit focus on flow and salinity needs of TNC s freshwater ecoregional targets, including prey and larval host species Like SWFWMD, a 15% loss benchmark is used, but significant harm interpreted as a 15% increase in the frequency of a critical condition

22 Summary SWFWMD, SJRWMD & SRWMD All three Districts embrace natural flow paradigm and utilize an approach based on sound science and protecting key ecosystem functions & services Significant harm interpreted conservatively Growing realization of reservations as a key tool for implementing the MFL in water use permitting. All are now committed to peer review and periodic reevaluation Framework for adaptive management still a huge challenge

23 NWFWMD

24 NWFWMD

25 NWFWMD

26 Challenges & Lessons Learned Lack of definition for significant harm, once thought to be a serious challenge, has actually allowed interpretation to evolve in a positive direction Peer review has been a strong factor in facilitating this evolution Minimum flow policy language needs to be modernized difficult to be prescriptive Priority for setting MFLs is based on urgency of threat need a better way of prioritizing less threatened rivers MFLs carry no authority across state boundaries Need strategy for getting MFLs implemented in NWFWMD Need greater motivation for implementing water reservations Need investment and commitment to monitoring and evaluation.