Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Central Everglades Planning Project
Pages 35-70

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 35...
... To address these concerns and expedite restoration of the central Everglades, key federal and state officials launched the Central Everglades Planning Project in October 2011. The primary purpose of the Central Everglades Planning Project is restoration of more natural patterns of water flows in the central part of the Everglades 35
From page 36...
... The Central Everglades Planning Project represented an extreme test of the expedited process, considering the complex nature of the project, the extensive stakeholder involvement, and the diverse objectives of various interest groups.
From page 37...
... of 2014, which was signed into law on June 10, 2014, authorizing 34 projects for which USACE Chief's Reports were complete. This section summarizes the development of the Central Everglades Planning Project plan and key unresolved issues.
From page 38...
... . Some of the variation in proposed seepage management measures (Yellow Line)
From page 39...
... Central Everglades Planning Project 39 FIGURE 3-1  Subregions of the Central Everglades Planning Project Study Area. SOURCE: Adapted from USACE and SFWMD (2013b)
From page 40...
... ~1.5 mi east of G-206 (400 cfs) Backfill Backfill Miami Canal Backfill Miami Canal from S-8 to I-75 from 1.5 mi south of S-8 to I-75 Blue/Green L-67A Structures One 750-cfs gated One 750-cfs and two Four 500-cfs gated Three 500-cfs gated Line structure 500-cfs gated structures structures structures Blue Shanty Levee with No No No Yes degrade of L-29 and L-67C in flowway 6000-ft gaps in L-67C 1 3 4 1 Pumps and gravity NA One 500-cfs gravity Two 500-cfs pumps out NA structures structure out of WCA-3B of WCA-3B Yellow Line S-356 pump increase to 1,000 cfs Seepage barriers S-335 NA Full depth Full depth NA to S-334 Seepage barriers south NA 2-mile partial-depth 5-mile partial-depth seepage barrier of Tamiami Trail, along seepage barrier L-31N L-31N pumps Two 250-cfs pumps One 250-cfs pump NA NA
From page 41...
... The study region was divided into 17 spatially distinct zones -- two for the northern estuaries, six in the WCAs, three in Everglades National Park, and six in Florida Bay -- each with specified performance measures that would be assessed relative to specific restoration objectives.2 Some of the performance measures, such as statistics of high and low flows in the northern estuaries and salinity in Florida Bay, were unique to particular zones, while other performance measures (e.g., ridge and slough inundation duration and sheet flow, drought intensity [a hydrologic surrogate for soil oxidation]
From page 42...
... Alt-4 produced higher numbers of habitat units than any of the alternatives at a unit cost only $3 higher than Alt-1. When Alt-2, -3, and -4 were modified to include only the Alt-1 conveyance features south of the Red Line, Alt-1 and Alt-4M were judged to be cost-effective.
From page 43...
... . dependencies of the Central Everglades Planning Project on other CERP and non-CERP projects (discussed in more detail later in this chapter)
From page 44...
... Most of that loss was attributable to Savings Clause modifications from Alt-4M to Alt-4R, with the larg est decreases in southern Everglades National Park, western Florida Bay, and east central Florida Bay. In further modifications from Alt-4R to Alt-4R2, it is unclear how the increase in water supply (not included in the original statement of pur pose for the project; 76 Federal Register [December 2, 2011]
From page 45...
... Some of these issues were resolved and others were deferred to more detailed post-authorization planning, engineering, and design. Among the most significant issues are • Effects of water levels on threatened and endangered species; and • Water quality, including effects of increased flows once the Central Everglades Planning Project is implemented.
From page 46...
... issued a Biological Opinion for the Central Everglades Planning Project in December 2013 (revised in April 2014) in which it came to the preliminary conclusion that "the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, snail kite, and wood stork and "is not likely to adversely modify criti cal habitat, where designated" (FWS, 2014)
From page 47...
... . Also, there is uncertainty about how implementation of the Central Everglades Planning Project will affect compliance with water quality criteria downstream in Everglades National Park.
From page 48...
... The committee also assesses the adaptive management plan, the expedited process, and stakeholder engagement. The Plan If implemented in a timely manner, the Tentatively Selected Plan for the C ­ entral Everglades Planning Project would make substantial improvements toward 6   The 2014 South Florida Environmental Report (Leeds, 2014)
From page 49...
... The Central Everglades Planning Project will also shift the distribution of water in the southern part of the system toward historical patterns, increasing flows into Northeast Shark River Slough and reducing flows into Western Shark River Slough. Excessively wet conditions in southwestern WCA-3A and adja FIGURE 3-4  Central Everglades Planning Project existing and future flows.
From page 50...
... Lucie Canal were not primary objectives of the Central Everglades Planning Project, water quality in those estuaries would be enhanced to some degree by diversion of flows to the Everglades. Damaging high-flow events (>2,800 cfs)
From page 51...
... Critics have argued that application of habitat suitability analysis to multiple species is inappropriate, and in the context of the Central Everglades Planning Project, it was applied to very different physical and biological processes that not only impact multiple species but also a vast array of other environmental benefits. Indeed Alt-4R2 is projected to have negative impacts on endangered bird species in some locations (FWS, 2014)
From page 52...
... Implementation Plan The strategy for implementing the Tentatively Selected Plan received con siderable attention in the planning process. Initial development of an imple mentation plan focused on recognizing constraints and dependencies, basic 8   The Central Everglades Planning Project attempted an evaluation of ecosystem services, but data were lacking to support a comprehensive analysis (K.
From page 53...
... . PPA South alone provided about 21 percent of the total benefits at 22 percent of the total cost, with Everglades National Park followed by Florida Bay as the greatest beneficiaries.
From page 54...
... and of water from Lake Okeechobee south to meet connection to C-23 environmental performance Canal Modification of the Changes to the 2008 LORS needed prior to full utilization X Lake Okeechobee of the A-2 FEB in order to achieve the complete regulation schedule ecological benefits Outlet capacity of Additional outlet capacity from WCA-3A must X WCA-3A be provided before new project water from Lake Okeechobee is released into the system continued
From page 55...
... . The initiation of construction of the Central Everglades Planning Project will be contingent upon numerous project dependencies (see Table 3-4)
From page 56...
... However, it does not necessarily follow that construction of most ­ entral Everglades Planning Project components must be deferred until all C components of the Restoration Strategies are implemented. For example, construc tion of the A-2 FEB and improved seepage management would only improve water quality and could provide a means to expedite overall construction in the face of other constraints.
From page 57...
... At three decades into the future, realized benefits could still only be 38 percent or less of the full Central Everglades Planning Project. Different funding streams could produce different scenarios, and more recent updates to the cost engineering appendix of the PIR present even longer possible time frames.9   Since the August draft PIR was released, the Cost Engineering Appendix B has been revised 9 u ­ sing a project duration of 329 months with a contingency of 89 months, for a total of 34.8 years at an 80 percent confidence level.
From page 58...
... , the agencies should investigate design, implementation, and permitting alternatives that would enable the Central Ever ­ glades Planning Project to move forward as quickly as possible with WQBEL ­ compliant discharges, This will require a thorough evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits of such actions to the entire South Florida ecosystem and collabo ration among multiple agencies and stakeholders. Additionally, an increased and consistent funding profile would have a major impact on achieving Central Everglades restoration goals sooner.
From page 59...
... It is intended to serve as a guide on the use of monitoring data to maximize restoration benefits while reducing costs and to inform project design and implementation to improve performance. Hence, the adaptive management plan represents a highly ambitious balancing act, given the multiple objectives and the scope of the Central Everglades Planning Project.
From page 60...
... Management options are proposed that could then be chosen based on monitoring results. The adaptive management plan relies on data from hydrometeorological, ecological, water quality, and nuisance and exotic vegetation monitoring and, as such, is tightly connected to monitoring activities associated with project implementation within and beyond the Central Everglades Planning Project.
From page 61...
... . The Central Everglades Planning Project team has developed the most structured, complex, and comprehensive adaptive management plan within the CERP to date.
From page 62...
... For the Central Everglades Planning Project, and indeed much of the CERP, sea-level rise, climate change, and the introduction of new invasive species are perhaps the most prominent threats on the horizon that could impede the ability to measure restoration relative to starting condi tions. These are also highly uncertain in their timing and projected effects on the system.
From page 63...
... Central Everglades Planning Project 63 worked with the FACA-exempt Task Force to facilitate enhanced stakeholder engagement for the Central Everglades Planning Project. Building on experiences gained through previous stakeholder processes, such as the state's non-CERP River of Grass planning effort, the Task Force's Working Group, the Science Coordination Group, and the SFWMD's Water Resources Advisory Commission, moderated a total of 16 public workshops -- many that were day-long or longer -- that emphasized enhanced public and stakeholder engagement (Figure 3-7)
From page 64...
... It was the view of one stakeholder that most of the attention and discussion arising during workshops focused on the northern portions of the central Everglades because that is where most stakeholder and public interest lay; however, this led to incomplete or superficial consideration of the southern areas of the central Everglades and seepage issues. Criticism has also been raised about the time frame of the Central Everglades Planning Project.
From page 65...
... Although the expedited time frame was likely too fast to ensure rigorous consideration of all components of such a complex project, this committee commends the efforts to structure stakeholder and public engagement to allow more active participation than in previous planning processes. The limitations incurred by an expedited planning time frame aside, the efforts to educate stakeholders and the public and to elicit comments, criticisms, and modifications to the Central Everglades Planning Project have been exemplary and should serve as a model for future planning processes.
From page 66...
... Whether this delay proves to be significant to restoration progress remains to be seen. If the Central Everglades Planning Project can be authorized through a future Water Resources Development Act (or some other mechanism)
From page 67...
... Explicit consideration of how the performance measures are affected by increased temperature, changes in precipitation (and increased variability in temperature 10   Since the August draft PIR was released, the Cost Engineering Appendix has been revised to include an even-longer total project duration of 329 months with a contingency of 89 months, for a total of 34.8 years at an 80 percent confidence level. This updated estimate reflects a scenario of $100 million/year, not adjusted for inflation (Amro Habib, USACE, personal communication, 2014)
From page 68...
... Completion of the Chief's Report for the Central Everglades Planning Project, congressional authori zation, and construction of project dependencies are key near-term steps neces sary to move forward. Project funding and water quality permitting constraints currently appear to be the largest barriers to timely project implementation.
From page 69...
... However, the existing Corps process for evaluating restoration benefits makes it difficult to be transparent about tradeoffs in planning decisions. The enhanced stakeholder and public engagement process was well executed and should serve as a model for future planning processes.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.