Hi
Juanita, EAA Strategic Plan Team, et al;
Wayne
Nelson asked me to forward to Juanita a hard copy of the Okeechobee
News reporting the SFWMD recommendation that an EAA flow-way
evaluation not be considered. That is below, with
annotations in [brackets].
The
good news is that the Corps appears to be moving forward anyway, in a
manner TBD per Dennis Duke presentation. It seems inappropriate
that the Corps would be pursuing this, especially after the request
from Senator Nelson for a cost-benefit study of Plan 6 by COE, and to
have SFWMD recommending against it.
Hence
the forwarded message.
The
bad news is that Tommy Strowd reported the Okeechobee 10 County
Coalition event to the Governing Board Yesterday indicating that
the 10 County Coalition had adopted the SFWMD position. Well not
exactly. Am also forwarding a copy of the 10
WHEREAS,
the
Lake Okeechobee Committee of the South Florida Water Management
District’s Water Resources Advisory Commission has recommended, in its
draft recommendations of April 25, 2007, that the need for and
feasibility for additional conveyance capacity, flow ways, and
reservoirs to send Lake Okeechobee water to the south be evaluated.
Also
interesting that in briefing the Gov Board, Strowd mentioned the
Corps/SFWMD brief, but did not mentioned the Audubon Brief (Paul Gray)
or the Marshall Foundation Brief (JAM). So much for public
comment standing and public outreach on a level playing field.
We
may have another shot at this. Rick Smith, SFWMD WRAC facilitator,
informs us that Mike Collins wants to have the WRAC hear the 10
A
major project for our Summer Interns (last 4 entries on the CC list)
this year as last, is taking a hard look at the EAA situation and
reporting findings to our elected and appointed officials.
This will make for an interesting summer.
Reminder:
This is again consistent with our Essentials and 2007 action plan.
For those that feel that an EAA flow-way is a major issue, it is time
for action prior to and during the WRAC meeting.
Thanks
for feedback, especially from EvCo members who are also WRAC members.
Out interns may be contacting you. If anyone wants to be
more involved in the Summer Project, we can arrange a conference call or
a meeting in our WPB office.
More
on this as it develops.
John
Arthur Marshall, Member
EvCo
EAA Strategic Plan Team
----------------------------------------------------Forwarded
Message-----------------------------------------
June
13, 2007
The
Honorable Bill Nelson
Dear
Senator Nelson;
The
ArtMarshall.org folks appreciate very much the initiative to take
another look at a Plan 6 type flow-way which appeared in the Corps of
Engineers 1994 Reconnaissance Study, the precursor of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). This flow-way was
also a major segment of the Marshall Plan of the 1980's, developed by my
late Uncle, Arthur R. Marshall. It also appeared in the 1993
Science Subgroup report, and the concept has been recommended as a
primary consideration by scientists, including the National Academy
of Sciences peer review panel, 2004 - 2006.
A recent
Presentation by the South Florida Water Management District (SFSMD) -
the Local Sponsor, recommended that a plan 6 type flow-way not
be considered. This recommendation was based on statements
that are contrary to CERP Table 5-1 goals and objectives, pronouncements
unsubstantiated by data-based analysis, and failure to consider costs of
a highly engineered fossil-fuel approach, as well as failure to consider
the ecologic and economic value of restoring sheet flow, per CERP
Section 2.3.1 "Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow", and CERP
Section 7.5.3, Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Analysis of
Alternatives, respectively.
It
does not appear a good thing to have the CERP Local Sponsor in such
discord with the Federal Sponsor, and contrary to the CERP baseline
sections, and restoration science. The purpose of this e-mail is to
report the proceedings in detail, as follows.
Last
Thursday, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) provided a
recommendation to the 10 County Coalition that a flow-way south
through the EAA had no merit, and was not appropriate to consider.
This
is somewhat a setback in CERP implementation, as the recommendation is
contrary to previous findings and what the Federal sponsor is currently
considering. The attached presentation amplifies.
Result:
The
The
SFWMD position presented needs further consideration.
Most
of the story, fairly well reported by the Okeechobee News, is
attached below with a few salient[annotations].
Salient Points
that Senator Nelson and his Staff might want to consider:
A
major message, impromptu, to the audience, e-attached, was that the
SFWMD consultant was proposing a water supply plan that had little
to do with
Board
Members Bubba Wade and Charles Dauray were present. At his
request, Board Member Dauray was provided a copy of the
presentation, with written material backup on the spot.
Hopefully
this will continue to get more rational consideration by the
Corps of Engineers, as requested by Senator Nelson.
Meanwhile
a major project of our Summer Intern Program is to examine the need for
flow in the EAA, and report their findings to elected and appointed
officials. Save the Date: A final report will be given at a
graduation luncheon,
We
hold that in lieu of no other science-based plan coming forward, a Plan
6 flow-way remains a good conceptual starting point for a data-based
evaluation, just like the approach of CERP conceptual ecological models.
Respectfully
submitted,
John
Arthur Marshall
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group
divided on flow way
By
Pete Gawda, Okeechobee News,
[JAMInfo
notes in [brackets]]
Proponents
of a southern flow way did not get the support they hoped for from an
environmental group. [the 10 County Coalition]
The
Coalition for Responsible Management of Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie and
Caloosahatchee Estuaries and Lake Worth Lagoon meeting in Okeehcobee on
Thursday, June 7, failed to endorse Plan 6. This controversial plan
would provide for excess water from Lake Okeechobee to be channeled
through a flow way at the southern end of the lake where it would be
cleaned up and sent on to the Everglades.
A
southern flow way would lessen the amount of water that would have to be
sent to estuaries during times of high water.
The
coalition is made up of commissioners representing Okeechobee, St.
Lucie, Martin, Lee,
Plan
6 calls for a flow way starting two miles north of the
After
hearing several hours of expert presentations and being bombarded with
technical data, commissioners adopted a resolution supporting "all
means of routing excess water from
The
resolution, as originally written, had stated support of "further
investigation of routing water from
While
the original resolution specifically endorsed a southern flow way, the
amendment offered by commissioner Kevin McCarthy of Hendry County and
approved by an 8-2 vote, voiced support for a wide range of projects and
did not specifically mention a southern flow way.
Lee
County Commissioners Ray Judah and Martin County Commissioner Sarah
Heard voted against the resolution.
Dr.
Paul Gray of the Audubon Society advocated water storage north of the
lake. He noted that the conflicting information being presented on the
flow shows how complicated the situation is.
Even
though
He
also suggested what might be called a modified Plan 6 that called for
widening the
He
said that there is either too much or too little water.
Under the current water management system, high lake levels often
trigger large releases to the estuaries and upset the salinity balance.
Dr. Gray noted that there is no infrastructure to move water
south.
"I
have backed the flow way for a long time," offered Wayne Nelson,
executive director of Fisherman Against Destruction of the Environment.
"We must clean up
While
emphases in the past were on
"
He
mentioned artifacts recently found on the dry lake bed to back up his
claim that the lake has historically been at a lower level than it is
being maintained now.
"I
support sending the water south," asserted Tina Richards, an intern
with the Arthur Marshall Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to
preserving the
"Conceptually,
it is very nice," said Dr. Richard Punnett who did research in the
1990s on Plan 6 for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. "The
disagreement lies in technical details."
[info
note: In November, 1998, during modeling result
deliberations, an e-mail was sent to Punnett requesting
consideration of a flow-way in the EAA. However Punnett, now a
consultant to SFWMD, would not allow it, despite numerous project
implementation team member requests to do so.]
He
contended that a flow way would not flow at the correct times without
proper management. He said the flow way was not the most
efficient plan proposed and that a flow way does not act as a wetland.
[info
note: This is in
direct conflict with what the 1994 restudy shows; it also conflicts with
National Academy of Science peer review recommendations.]
A
1999 feasibility study concluded a flow way creates a water supply
burden on the system without clear hydrological benefits.
[Info
note: From the standpoint
of an eye witness, there was never visible modeling or a cost analysis
of alternatives as required by CERP Section 7.5.3, to support this; the
statement was made without visible analytic justification]
Soil
subsistence and evaporation would be determents to a southern flow way,
according to Dr. Punnett.
[Info
note: Subsidence is a
problem to be solved; evaporation is a solution, not a problem.]
He
contended that delivery of water to a flow way would be a problem.
By storing excess water in the lake, Dr. Punnett said "you can meet
more of the needs of users."He stated that at times when it would
be desirable to discharge water south from the lake, the water
conservation areas would be full and could not take any more water.
Dr. Punnett presented charts to show that when the lake level was high,
the water level in the water control areas was also high.
"It
isn't a simple matter of redirecting the water," he said.
He claimed that today the extremes of water level fluctuations are
greater than they were before the lake was managed for flood control and
water supplies. Because of that he feels more storage is needed.
"Managed
storage is what we really need," he said. "A flow way will not
provide storage."
[Info
note: BIG push was for ASR and Reservoirs; this is about a water
supply plan, not CERP. This
is contrary to the CERP "baseline" described in CERP Section
2.3.1 - Dynamic
Storage and Sheet Flow. Sheet flow as
dynamic storage has been acknowledged as the primary characteristic of
the
The
southern flow way cause was advocated by John Marshall of the Arthur
Marshall Foundation.
He
claimed that earlier models used by Dr. Punnett were based on faulty
topological data.
[Question
that needs to be answered: Just how accurate were/are the
models in 1994, 1998, 2007 regarding flow, and related ecological value
called for in CERP Table 5-1 "enhance ecological values"
objectives?]
To
counter claims that there is not enough water for a flow way, Mr.
Marshall stated that over 50 percent of the
He
claimed that a flow way is a better functional alternative than deep
reservoirs with low or no water treatment value.
Mr.
Marshall claimed a flow way would mimic the historic lake spill-over
through the original pond apple forest and saw grass plains.
As
to the assertion that evaporation would negate any benefits of a flow
way, Mr. Marshall claims that rainfall always exceeds evaporation. If
that were not true,
As
for water quality, Mr. Marshall contended that a flow way would more
than double the treatment area provided by current storm water treatment
areas. He claims Plan 6 provides the most ecological benefit and
reconnects the entire
"Plan
6 looked to be a good fix back in 1981, and earlier, and still looks
that way," Mr. Marshall said.
"If
we have a flow way to take water from the lake we would have something
meaningful," said Mr.
"The
system today is not what it was and it would be very difficult to get it
that way," offered SFWMD's Tommy Strowd. He claimed
that evaporation in a flow way would be a problem. He mentioned the
man-made structures that would have to be removed to accommodate a flow
way. He claimed that storm water treatment areas are more effective than
shallow flow ways. "Commitment of additional resources to
further investigate a southern flow way are not warranted at this
time," he said.
Commissioner
Joe Smith of St. Lucie County suggested a full cost analysis of Plan 6.
At least one commissioner was sold on Plan 6.
"This
is a good time to reconsider Plan 6 as a method to get clean water to
the park," was the opinion of Mrs. Heard.
An
opposing view was expressed by Mr. McCarthy. "This is the answer to
the estuaries," he said. But he went on to say that it is not
the whole answer. He advocated looking at all means of routing excess
water south and not limiting the study to Plan 6.
"We
have heard a lot of evidence that says a flow-ways will not work,"
he said. He suggested multiple flow ways or perhaps a small flow
way and lot more reservoirs.
Mr.