r. 'c..c~,-" - EVER GLAD ES- 2000: A Time to Act An Agenda of Action I'. -. -, : II The Everglades Coalition January i, 2000 15th Annual Conference Naples, Florida
- - INTRODUCTION As the Everglades Coalition convenes its 15th annual conference, we view this as the most important year in our history and in the history of Everglades restoration. Actions taken to restore the Everglades in the next year will set the course for the next several decades. The complex process of restoration requires thousands of individual actions and the process of prioritizing each important decision is difficult. The Coalition believes that such a prioritization process coupled with a commitmento action is critical, particularly in the beginning, to the overall success of Everglades restoration. The battle to restore the Everglades is a national issue that will be won or lost on the early commitment of Congress, the Administration, and Florida's elected officials and on the appropriate implementation of specific projects and the resolution of specific issues. The ten issues outlined in the following document represent the most critical decisions facing the Clinton Administration, Congress, the Bush Administration, the Legislature, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Florida Water Management District, and local governments throughout southern and central Florida over the next year. Our diverse Coalition of forty-two organizations is united in its belief that the restoration commitment of our elected and appointed officials can be gauged by whether and when they achieve the objectives outlined here. In short, this Action Agenda represents a singularity of purpose that must be shared by decision-makers at all levels of government. Each objective described in this Agenda has a substantive record of prior decisions and commitments and is supported by such important laws as the Clean Water Act, the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986, 1992, 1996, and 1999, federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 and the 1994 amendment to that Act (along with its 1984 precursor), a series of congressional appropriations bills, the Everglades Forever Act, Florida's Growth Management Act, and Amendments to the Florida Constitution. Experience has shown that special interests will strive to limit or slow Everglades restoration for the purpose of protecting their own economic interests. Experience has also shown that public officials will represent minor steps as major accomplishments while agreeing to "compromises" that retard true restoration progress. Therefore, there is a simple logic inherent in this Action Agenda: true restoration progress must be measured by our ability to do what is necessary to restore and protect the ecosystem, not by our ability to do only what is politically easy or least expensive. The year 2000 is the beginning of the restoration implementation phase, a time for action. To be committed to Everglades restoration means to be prepared to act, and to act now. I. I i
l I t - ENACTMENT The US Army Corps of Engineers and its partners recently developed a comprehensive conceptual plan to restore the Everglades. We must now focus our attention on enactment of the legislation designed to implement and further develop this plan to assure the plan expeditiously achieves its intended restoration goals. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the Restudy will be implemented over a 25-year period. Because the health of the Everglades continues to decline at an alarming rate, it is critically important that significant restoration benefits be realized in the first decade of this implementation period.. Congress must take action in the year 2000 to authorize the Everglades Restoration Project.. Congressional authorization must include language that provides assurances that the restoration goals of the Restudy will be met not only by the design and implementation of specific projects, but also by the way in which they are operated during and after the implementation period.. Congress must authorize the entire list of eleven restoration projects that the Corps has determined must move forward immediately. Congress should also require that design of the buffer/seepage barriers along WCA 3B and east of Everglades National Park, conveyance projects in these areas, and structures to increase connectivity in the central Everglades be integrated into this initial implementation phase and that construction of these projects be expedited to the greatest extent possible.. In the face of rapid urban sprawl and increasing real estate costs, Congress, the Florida Legislature, and local governments should expedite the process by which land necessary for restoration is acquired.. Congress should stipulate that the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE) be reviewed and considered throughout the restoration authorization and implementation period as part of the adaptive management process. FUNDING The benefits of Everglades restoration easily justify the costs. We support immediate authorization of federal and state funds necessary to carry out all project components. The total for Everglades Restoration efforts from the State of Florida must be $200 million per year or more for the duration of the restoration construction period, at least $ 100 million of which must e state funds appropriated by the Florida Legislature. Appropriations must reflect the cost of projects needed to "fast-track" restoration.. The Congress should appropriate in FY 2000 the funds necessary to move existing and pre-authorized projects forward efficiently, and should establish a funding mechanism to meet the federal share of restoration across the implementation period and in accordance with subsequent congressional authorizations.. The Florida Legislature should establish a funding mechanism that will meet the state's fiscal responsibilities for restoration across the implementation period.
-~ ~ TALISMAN The Coalition has long held that Everglades restoration may ultimately require the acquisition of at least 150,000 acres in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EM). The Coalition believes that these lands are necessary to increase the spatial extent of wetlands, reduce contaminated water in the Everglades, reduce the loss of fresh water to the ocean, increase water storage capacity, protect estuaries and Lake Okeechobee, improve hydropatterns and reduce and reverse soil subsidence. To date American taxpayers have purchased approximately 60,000 acres in the EM, at a cost of $130 million dollars, for the purpose of storing water in the EM as part of the restoration plan. The construction of surface water storage facilities on these lands, known as the "Talisman tract and trade lands", is of utmost importance to Everglades restoration. This component will bring urgently needed water quality, quantity and timing benefits and additional habitat. The public has every reason to expect that current agricultural leases on these lands will terminate and reservoir construction will begin by 2005. To prepare for efficient and maximum use of the Talisman lands as a surface water reservoir, public officials must implement an aggressive program of planning, approval, design and engineering so construction can commence concurrent with final harvests. After the significant investment of public funds to secure this vital land for the purposes of Everglades restoration, the Coalition opposes delays related to cost-share, agency agreements, and political interference by lessors.. The Talisman storage facilities as proposed by the Restudy must remain on the initial list of projects to be authorized by Congress in the year 2000 and its storage capacity be dedicated to restoration purposes.. The South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers must agree to aped (Preconstruction Engineering and Design) for the Talisman project. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION I' halt We seek to ecological the rapid implementation damage in the of Water improved Conservation water deliveries Areas due to Everglades to high stage National levels. Park Moreover, and Florida although Bay and we a - recognize the Corps' commitment to implementation of an interim plan to meet legal requirements for the year 2000 ;' intended to ensure the survival of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, the Corps and District must move forward immediately with a commitment to improved water deliveries to Everglades National Park required to meet legal requirements concerning the sparrow in subsequent years. In addition to expedient implementation of the Restoration Plan, the immediate implementation of the previously authorized "Modified Water Delivery" project (MWD) is essential to realizing these goals. The primary reason for delay in implementing the MWD project, which was originally authorized by Congress in 1989, has been the debate over the final disposition of a sparsely developed 8.5 square mile area (8.5 SMA) located west of the protective levee system and immediately adjacent to '.-" the Everglades Park Expansion Area. The Coalition strongly opposes the construction of levees, canals, and water 'r control structures, which would sever undeveloped transit}o.n.al wetlands and uplands in the 8.5 S~A from the I Everglades. We believe that government has a responsibility to promptly resolve the long running 8.5 SMA controversy so that the MWD project can be implemented by 2003. This conclusion must treat landowners with ~ fairness and certainty, and guarantee restor~ti?n of the E~er.glades. We supp~rt the expedited purc~ase. of all privately held lands and land interests from willing sellers within the 8.5 SMA using federal, state and MIamI-Dade County land acquisition funds. We also recommend creative solutions which assure that Everglades restoration goals are fully attained without the need to construct levees, canals, or other flood structures in the 8.5 SMA.
I I! - ~-- - ---. The Supplementa~ Environmental Impact Statement on alternatives for resolving 8.5 SMA issues currently being prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers must be completed no later than August of 2000.. The South Florida Water Management District Governing Board must vote on a Locally Preferred Option for the 8.5 SMA no later than September of 2000 that includes the policy recommendations described above. A TT AIN EVERGLADES WATER QUALITY GOALS BY SETTING STRICT POLLUTION STANDARDS The Everglades Forever Act approved by the Florida Legislature in 1994 requires that final pollution abatement be achieved in the "Everglades Protection Area" (Everglades National Park, Water Conservation Areas, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge) by December 31, 2006. After implementation of the first phase requirements of the Everglades Forever Act, including "Best Management Practices", and the partial construction of two of the "Stormwater Treatment Areas" called for by the act, water continues to flow from the Everglades Agricultural Area into the Everglades with phosphorus concentrations greater than I 00 parts per billion. The best science indicates that phosphorus concentrations must be reduced to I 0 parts per billion or less in order to stop unacceptable changes to flora and fauna. If the December 2006 pollution abatement deadline is to be achieved, the timeline for reaching key decisions on water quality standards and treatment project construction must be substantially advanced.. We seek an immediate decision, which commits the State of Florida to a 10 ppb phosphorus water quality standard for the Everglades Protection Area. This commitment should take the form of either noticing a proposed rule for adoption of a standard of 10 ppb or less for the entire Everglades Protection Area, or a decision to rely upon the legislative default phosphorus standard of 10 ppb. These standards must apply throughout the entire Everglades Protection Area, without "mixing zones" or other concessions that sacrifice Everglades resources.. The Florida Legislature should implement the "Polluter Pay" requirement of the Florida Constitution. LAKE OKEECHOBEE The ecological health of Lake Okeechobee has declined dramatically in the last two decades as a result of thousands of tons of phosphorus discharged to the lake from surrounding agricultural operations and from water levels being consistently held too high. After almost 20 years of inadequate regulatory approaches to slowing or reverse ecological damage in the lake, Lake Okeechobee still receives phosphorus loading in concentrations that exceed 180 ppb. Sediments in the shallow lake currently contain an estimated 30,000 tons of accumulated phosphorus. Scientists fear that these sediments could be stirred by a hurricane or large storm, resulting in massive algae blooms that would kill off many of the species, particularly fish, living in the lake. In addition, water levels continue to be r managed in ways that result significant and sustained damage to its littoral zone. " The solutions to nutrient contamination the lake are relatively straight forward: the allowable concentration of :' f external phosphorus loading must be drastically reduced, and the accumulated phosphorus in lake sediments must be removed. Implementation of these solutions, however, is politically complex. Effective reduction of phosphorus
- --- inflow to the lake can only be achieved by significantly reducing the phosphorus discharged from individual agricultural operations. The political difficulties of saving the lake do not erase or minimize the importance of doing ~o before it is ecologically too late. The Coalition is convinced that the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department.of Environmental ProtectiQn currently have all the regulatory tools at their disposal to save Lake Okeechobee, but- these agencies require the support of the Florida Legislature and the cooperation of the Army Corps of Engineers to implement a combination of regulatory and effective voluntary programs to do so.. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection must renew the stormwater discharge permit which was applied for 11 years ago, that allows the SFWMD to discharge water into Lake Okeechobee, and must require in this renewed permit a maximum default inflow phosphorus concentration of 40 ppb. The permit must also outline a definite implementation schedule for compliance with this standard.. The District must move forward expeditiously to begin the Lake Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study.. The Florida Legislature must appropriate the necessary funds to equip the SFWMD and FDEP to help agricultural operations upstream expeditiously reduce their contributions of phosphorus to levels which allow the District to comply with the 40 ppb standard in accordance with the implementation schedule outlined in the permit.. The US Army Corps of Engineers must complete the EIS currently under development, to change the water management regime in the lake, and must begin implementation of a schedule that protects the health of the lake's littoral zone. HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE The Coalition is strongly opposed to the proposed redevelopment of South Florida's Homestead Air Reserve Base ("HARB") as a large commercial airport. Such an airport would be located in unprecedented proximity to two national parks, Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park, in addition to other protected natural resource areas. The U.S. Air Force draft environmental study just released shows that the proposed airport would result in, among other things, constant intrusion on natural quiet in the parks (a flight overhead every few minutes), tons of toxic air emissions daily, tremendous increases in pollutant loading into Biscayne Bay, and the loss of thousands of acres of important wetlands and wildlife habitat. On the other hand, proposed alternative redevelopment of HARB, including for mixed industrial and residential use, promise significant economic development with less egregious and more easily mitigable environmental impacts.. The Coalition believes that the final HARB Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) must include an unbiased and comprehensive examination of the environmental impacts of the airport proposal and alternative proposals, including the monetary costs of such impacts.. The SEIS must fully address and resolve the objections raised by the Department of Interior to the draft SEIS.. The SEIS must include an unbiased and comprehensive analysis of the mitigation necessary to fully ameliorate predicted environmental impacts, including the cost of such mitigation, the real-world efficacy of such mitigation, and concurrent potential mitigation of baseline environmental impacts.. Based upon such information, the federal government should proceed with the transfer of HARB for a mixed use development in a manner that would allow tor tull protection of current natural resource values and restoration of historic natural resource values in the adjacent national parks. The transfer should specifically include all necessary mitigation as conditions binding upon the parties.
-- -- CONTINUED WETLAND LOSS: ROCK MINING IN THE EVERGLADES ~grq!!!!q. The Everglades Coalition opposes addiiional rock mining as described by the draft Lakebelt Programmatic EIS prepared by the Corps. We believe that this mining will result in the loss of21,000 acres of additional Everglades wetlands and that the spatial extent and ecological function have been inadequately defined and the mitigation of which has not been quantified by the EIS. Permitting the removal of rock from the aquifer will remove viable habitat and replace it with sterile 60 to 90 foot deep holes in the ground, which will significantly increase seepage from the Pennsuco wetlands, Water Conservation Area 3B and Everglades National Park. The loss of surface wetlands will also result in the loss of the critical water filtration function they provide, exposing drinking water supplies to increased contamination. In addition, the Draft Programmatic EIS provides no means of preventing or controlling the predictable future urban development of the areas adjacent to these deep quarry pits nor does it attempt to quantify the secondary and cumulative environmental impacts of such development. Once lost, the rock in the aquifer and the wetlands above it are irretrievable. ACfION. The Army Corps of Engineers must revise the draft Lakebelt Programmatic EIS. The EIS must address the loss of all quality habitat within the Lakebelt planning area, and discuss the need for a habitat management plan. The EIS must contain an alternative that includes the public acquisition of previously mined lands.. A thorough economic analysis must be provided that accurately identifies other sources of rock and provides an accurate cost benefit analysis of these alternative sources.. A preferred alternative cannot be selected until all alternatives, including their secondary and cumulative impacts are defined. Until the EIS is finalized the Army Corps must not issue new mining permits in the Lakebelt Planning Area, nor must it renew existing permits. (The Everglades Coalition and its members expect to have access to the planning process and the unrestricted ability to comment on both the Phase II master plan and the continued preparation of the programmatic EIS.). The Programmatic EIS should include as an alternative, a study of the public acquisition of all or most of the unmined lands in the study area and their subsequent use for the purposes of Everglades restoration. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BackJ1.round The Corps began the EIS process in 1998 and released their Draft EIS in July, 1999. The Draft EIS is a good start but falls far short of providing additional protection for endangered species, does not adequately address the cumulative impacts or water quality issues, and lacks a preferred alternative and criteria that the Corps can use to enhance their permitting decisions. The development community feels the DEIS goes too far and steps on the authority of local governments to control growth. They want the EIS delayed until more studies are done. This r" delay, if granted, will allow the continued loss of wetlands, loss of endangered species habitat (especially panthers, r wood storks and red-cockaded woodpeckers), and lead to further degradation of officially recognized impaired " water bodies.
- ~. The Corps must not delay completion of the EIS and must issue a Record of Deci.sion in 2000.. The Corps must include language in the EIS that offers a preferred alternative and clearly defined criteria for evaluating permit request that takes into account the cumulative and secondary impacts of habitat loss onendangered species. The Corps should cease issuing permits that further degrade water quality in water bodies listed on the state's 303( d) list.. Once the Record of Decision is issued the Corps must begin a supplemental EIS to address the data gaps in the EIS immediately.. The Corps must not issue nationwide or regional general permits in the EIS study area.. The Corps must commit the resources necessary to adequately fulfill their permitting responsibilities in Southwest Florida, including monitoring and enforcement. I' j FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO FLORIDA LAW I. Growth Management Act Back~ound We are gravely concerned about the possibility that the state will modify the 1985 Comprehensive Growth Management Act in such a way that reduces the state's oversight role in land use decisions. Some of the worst damage inflicted upon the Greater Everglades Ecosystem has been due to the urban sprawl approved by the dozens of local governments whose jurisdictions include portions of the Everglades. The inability of local governments, in general, to take responsibility for managing growth in a manner that prevents destruction and promotes restoration of the Everglades is among the chief reasons the Act was adopted in 1985. Over the past decade and a half, population growth and unwise land use decisions have onjy increased the need for a consistent, state policy - driven approach to growth management decisions affecting the Everglades. The reasonable and sound set of checks and balances of the Growth Management Act provides local governments with substantial latitude for home rule while ensuring that they fulfill their responsibilities to protect the state's natural resources.. The Florida Legislature must not make nor should the Bush administration seek changes to Florida's Growth Management Act that allow local governments to avoid the responsibility to meet the state and regional goals to maximize protection and restoration of the Everglades, local native habitats and endangered species. II. Florida Water Law The Coalition is deeply concerned about current proposals by private interests to privatize Florida's water resources as a possible means of revenue generation for the state. Water is the most precious commodity in the world and the basis of all life. It is no different than air in its importance to human survival. It goes against the basic tenets of human rights, as well as over a century of Florida law, to give any person or entity control or ownership of this fundamental necessity for life. A switch from current Florida water law to a body of law similar to what exists in the American west would allow existing users to tie up the resource, making access by new uses, more difficult. The Edward's Aquifer in Texas, the Colorado River diversions, and of course, the Columbia River. ~ typify the serious downsides of western water law.
- - - - Natural systems and specie should not have to justify their need for water through a competitive permitting and/or market system. Such a system cannot work unless based on a comple~e and accurate understanding of the environmental, social, economic and other values served by the use of water by the natural system. Our current knowledge of these issues comes nowhere close to such an understanding; it completely fails to account for all components of the system, cumulative impacts, stochastic events and climatological cycles. A competitive system could be expected, at best, to serve only minimum resource needs without any understanding of the dynamics of sustainability.. The Florida Legislature must not make changes to Florida water law to allow the possibility of private ownership of state water resources.