FINAL INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ENVIRON~NTALRESTORATION KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA
US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District South Atlantic Division
DECEMBER 1991
CESAD-PD-P (CESAJ/Dec 91) (10-1-7a) 1st En:l SUBJECI': EnvirormIentaJ. Restoration, Kissinlnee Rivet", Florida
0Jr, sa.rt:h Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, Rocm 313, 77 Forsyth street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30335-6801 1 6 DEC 1391
FOR EQARD" OF ENiINErnS FOR RIVmS AND Hl\RElORS, I<INQWi BUIIDING, FORI' BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-5576
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION of the
u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT SOUTH ATLANTIC DMSION
------- DSCEMBi:l( '991
OF THE KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA
FINAL INTEGRATED
FEASffiILITY REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Responsible Agencies: The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. The responsible cooperating agencies are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Abstract: The Kissimmee River is located in central Florida. The river;s ecosystem and its environmental values have degraded as the cumulative result of local and Federal modifications for water resources development. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of restoring the river's ecological integrity. Using the tiering concept established by the Council on Environmental Quality, this document addresses restoration of both the Upper Basin, through the "Headwaters Revitalization Project", and the Lower Basin, through the "Level II Backfilling Plan"; however, the document focuses on the Lower Basin alternatives and recommendations as the action ready for decision making. Four Lower Basin restoration alternatives, which had been previously developed by the South Florida Water Management DistriCt, were evaluated by the Corps of Engineers (Corps). As a result, the Level II Backfllling Plan, as recommended by the South Florida Water Management District, was found to be the best alternative for restoration of the Lower Basin. A modification of the Level II Backfilling Plan was subsequently developed and evaluated by the Corps, and is the Recommended Plan for restoration of the ecological integrity of the Lower Kissimmee River Basin.
THE OFFICIAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE RECEIPT OF COMMENTS IS 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WInCH THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF TmS FINAL EIS APPEARS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
If you require further information on this document, contact:
Mr. Russell V. Reed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232·0019 Telephone: (904) 791·35Ce
NOTE: This report includes an integrated environment": impact statemen~ eelS) with,., :he report text; paragraphs required for compliance witb t,:e N<.tlc'lal Environmem..'l ?')licy Act (NEPA) are noted by an asterisk in the Table of Conte.~l:S.
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
OF THE KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA
SYLLABUS
SUMMARY
The Kissimmee River Basin is located in central Florida. Local water resource development of the Kissimmee River began in the late 1800's. A Federal channel for river navigation between the town of Kissimmee and Fort Basinger was authorized in 1902. In 1954, basin improvements for flood damage reduction were authorized as a part of the comprehensive Central and Southern Florida Project. The completed basin project includes the Upper Basin lakes improvements in the Orlando area south to and including Lake Kissimmee, and the Lower Basin improvements from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee. Upper Basin works consist of channels and structures that control water flows through eighteen natural lakes into Lake Kissimmee. Lower Basin works consist of a flood control canal, called C-38, and six water control structures, called S-65 structures, which step water down over the canal's 56 miles from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee.
Although the project has provided continuing navigation and effective flood control, it also resulted in long-term degradation of the natural ecosystem. The 103 mile river that historically meandered across and inundated about 35,000 acres of wetlands over abroad flood plain was reduced to a 56 mile canal that has successfully contained almost all flows since its completion. This· channelization of flow, coupled with modifications of Lower Basin tributary watersheds and efficient control of flood waters and regulation of inflows from the Upper Basin, significantly altered hydrologic characteristics of the ecosystem. Natural flood plain inundation patterns and slow recession of flood waters were eliminated, and the flowing river/flood plain ecosystem was replaced by a series of impounded reservoirs. Alteration of the physical form and natural hydrologic characteristics had negative impacts on the fishery, waterfowl, wading birds and other natural resources. Wetlands were eliminated or degraded, and water quality declmed.
Degradation of the Kissimmee River's water quality, wetlands, and ecosystem has been the subject of numerous Federal, State and local studies over the past twenty years. Major studies include the Corps' ;,rst Federal feasibility study from 1978 to 1985, the Suuth Florida Water 1\1!ti~agement
District's (SFWMD) restoration study from 1384 t~ 1990, and tiJe second Federal feasibility study, which was authori<.:>d in \'~e Water Re:ou'ces
Development Act of 1990 and is documented in this feasibility report and environmental impact statement.
As a result of these and other studies, two restoration plans were developed which, when implemented together, will restore environmental values throughout the Kissimmee River Basin. These plans are the Headwaters Revitalization Project in the Upper Basin, and the Modified Level II Backfilling Plan in the Lower Basin; the Modified Level II BackfIlling Plan is dependent upon the Headwaters Project being in place to function successfully. Both the Headwaters and Level II proposals were initially developed and evaluated at a general programmatic level. The Headwaters Revitalization Project and alternatives for the Upper Basin will be further analyzed and addressed in detail in later studies and documents, including appropriate environmental documents. Alternatives for the Lower Basin, including the Level II Backfilling Plan, are ready for decision making, and therefore were developed and evaluated in detail during this study. For the purpose of this study, the Headwaters Revitalization Project was assumed to be in place in the "without project" condition (which is the same as the "no action" alternative). This integrated feasibility report and environmental impact statement addresses the Lower Basin in site-specific detail, and the· Upper Basin programmatically in general, based on the studies conducted to date and in accordance with the tiering approach established by the Council on Environmental Quality.
In accordance with the specific direction of this study's authorization, the purpose of this feasibility study is to determine the extent of Federal participation in the Level II Backfilling Plan for restoration ofthe Kissimmee River that was developed and recommended for implementation by the SFWMD. This study purpose was accomplished through a series of analyses. First, individual project components of the Level II Backfilling Plan were analyzed and modified to improve the effectiveness of the overall plan. Second, the Modified Level II Backfilling Plan and the other river restoration alternatives considered by the SFWMD were evaluated in accordance with traditionally required Federal evaluation procedures. The other plans were the Level II BackfIlling Plan, Weir Plan, including both fixed and gated weir options, the Plugging Plan, and the Level I Backfilling Plan. This evaluation concluded that the Modified Level II Backfilling Plan is the best plan to accomplish restoration of the Kissimmee River's ecological integrity. Third, several analyses of the resulting Modified Level II Backfilling Plan were conducted to determine the extent of Federal participation in plan implementation, including a fish and wildlife restoration analysis, an incremental cost analysis, and a traditional evaluation of effects. These analyses affIrmed l.b'! SFWMD's conclusic.ti.' and led to a determination that a Modified Level II ":a(,')d'jJJ.j,:c.~ Plan, is the ~e'-:'lmmenJdPlan..
The Recommended Plan consists of backfilling about 29 miles of C-38; excavating about 11.6 miles of new river channel; constructing a bypass weir and channel at S-65; shallowing and construction of weirs in the Lake Kissimmee outlet channel reach; modifications of the PoolB weirs, and S-65A and S-65E structures; construction of containment levees, bridge crossings at U.S. Highway 98 and the CSX Transportation Railroad, and new structures in Pool E; removing the existing S-65B, S-65C and S-65D structures, and local levees; and installation of navigation channel markers. About 67,843 acres of land will be acquired in fee or easement to meet restoration needs and preserve flood control in the Lower Basin. Numerous residences, businesses, and farms will be effected and, boat launching ramps, and utilities will be relocated. The estimated total cost of the Recommended Plan is $422,667,000; average annual costs are estimated to be $43,936,000 (July 1991 price levels). The estimated Federal share of this cost is $127,147,500; the estimated non-Federal share is $295,519,500.
The Recommended Plan will restore the essential physical and hydrologic characteristics of the Lower Kissimmee River Basin, including a more natural river channel and flood plain, with flows, depths, and hydroperiods like that of the historic condition. Restoration of these physical and hydrologic characteristics will provide the conditions necessary for natural reestablishment of an ecosystem similar to that which existed and functioned prior to construction of the basin's flood control project. The restored ecosystem will include 56 miles of restored river, about 29,000 acres of restored wetlands, improved water quality, and restored conditions for over 300 fish and wildlife species, including waterfowl, wading birds, alligators, and three endangered species. 5l,';':\",~ 31... "'~ ~'\,600""'" ~ \1,,ij, l,.; II'S It",}.
Although this document meets the requirements of Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended), as addressed in Annex B, the Corps will request a Section 401 StateWater quality certificate during the later preconstruction engineering and design phase.
This integrated feasibility report and environmental impact statement is being transmitted through the Division Engineer for the Washington-level Federal report review process, which will include reviews by the Washington Level Review Center, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of Engineers, and the Secretary of the Army. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, representing the Secretary of the Army, will coordinate the documents with the Office of Management and Budget, and send them to Congress. The study authority states that the Secretary shall transmit the final report of the Chief of Engineers to Congress not later than April 1, 1992.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
The Level II Backfilling Plan was analyzed to ensure that its design, construction, and operational components are the most effective means to accomplish the project's objectives. Based on this analysis, the plan was modified to include features that are more technically sound, lesser cost, or more environmentally beneficial. The resulting Modified Level II Backfilling Plan would produce the same environmental outputs as the plan recommended by the SFWMD.
The final array of alternatives formulated by the SFWMD, including the Level II Backfilling Plan recommended by the SFWMD for implementation, has been evaluated in accordance with traditionally required Federal evaluation procedures, including applicable procedures from the' "Principles and Guidelines ", the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other Federal environmental review and consultation requirements. The evaluation indicated that the Level II Backfilling Plan is the best plan of those considered to accomplish restoration of the Lower Kissimmee River Basin.
An analysis was undertaken to determine the extent to which fish and wildlife restoration, a subset of ecosystem restoration, could be accomplished. The analysis has shown that, given the range of fish and wildlife resources in the Lower Kissimmee River Basin, the Level II Backfilling Plan, as developed by the SFWMD and modified by the Corps, is the most effective comprehensive plan for restoration of the Kissimmee River's fish and wildlife values.
An ·incremental analysis considered both separable elements and incremental lengths of backfill. All separable elements were dropped from further consideration due to constraints related to each individual element. The Recommended Plan was found to have the lowest unit cost (financial cost per unit ofenvironmental output) over the range of backfilling considered, and is the most cost effective increment for producing fish and wildlife outputs in tlle Lower Kissimmee River Basin.
The Recommended Plan also was evaluated in accordance with traditionally required Federal evaluation procedures, and was found to be in compliance with applicable Federal requirements. .
The Headwaters Revitalization Project, which is expected to be approved and implemented pursuant to the standing continuing authority ofSection 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, is critical to achieving the Recommended Plan's fish and wildlife restoration outputs as described in this report. Implementation of the Headwc:i",,.s Project prior to implementation of the Recommended Plan warrants the hig~.e.,t attt."\tion and priority to ensure the successful restoration of the Lower K;.:;:s;mmC't. River Basin. .o\n appropriate environmental document for tbe Heady.'c.+ers
Revitalization Project will be subsequently prepared in accordance with the tiering concept established by the Council on Environmental Quality.
Consideration has been given to all significant aspects in the overall public interest, including engineering feasibility and economic, social, and environmental effects. The Recommended Plan 'described in this report provides the best solution for environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Two general interest groups are concerned about effects of restoration of the Kissimmee River. First, owners of affected lands, as well as residents and businesses located on those lands, are concerned about how restoration would affect their property interests, homes and places of business. The Recommended Plan will require acquisition of about 67,842 acres of land. Without implementation of flood proofing (such as the use of ring levees or. modifications to site and structure elevations will be utilized whenever feasible) acquisition and relocation of 356 homes, 5 farms and 24 miscellaneous out buildings would be required. Approximately 900 people would be displaced if relocation is required. The adverse effects will be mitigated by providing appropriate financial compensation to owners of the .affected lands, and relocation assistance to residents and farms in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
The second group with a concern about" the effects of restoration is recreational boaters, who believe that backfilling would reduce the number and quality of boating opportunities on the Kissimmee River. The Recommended Plan will result in a change in the river navigation experience - from navigation on a virtually straight 29 mile section of the C-38 canal to navigation on a 56 mile stretch of continuous, meandering, more natural river. In addition, channel depths in the restored river will depend on the availability of flowing water; thus, wet and dry seasons will have an effect on navigation. Larger craft, such as houseboats, which represent about two percent of the boats using the waterway, will not always be able to navigate the shallow, meandering turns of the restored river. Boating advocates have been opposed to these changes in the past.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
Headwaters Revitalization Project
Final planning and evaluation for the Headwaters Revitalization Project in the Upper Basin has not been completed; therefore, the likely envirom:aental effects of the plan have been only generally estimated and described at this time. An appropriate Corps report and environmental document will be completed as the basis for final approval of an Upper Basin project. This approval will occur prior to the start of construction ofthe Lower Basin project recommended in this document. A more complete description of the Headwaters Project is presented in later chapters of this document.
Cultural Resources
The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer has indicated that at least seventeen sites of historic and archeological significance were recorded for the Kissimmee River Basin, and up to an additional fifty unrecorded sites are likely to be present. The Florida Master Sites File includes at least fifty archeological sites recorded for the Basin, and about 3,000 properties are recorded for the four counties in the study area. Although no sites currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located in the immediate project area, significant prehistoric and historic period archeological sites are expected to be located in proximity to the river and affected by the project. The time available for this study precluded adequate cultural. resources investigations at the level of detail normally undertaken for Corps feasibility studies. However, the Corps recognizes its historic preservation responsibilities and is preparing an expanded discussion of cultural resources, a detailed study and coordination plan, and specific costs, by task, for future studies and coordination. Additional investigations will be undertaken during later preconstruction engineering and design, to identify sites and assess their eligibility for the National Register, evaluate affects from construction and restoration, and develop any necessary mitigation measures.
Avon Park Air Force Bombing Range
The Department of the Air Force has noted several concerns about potential project effects on operations at Avon Park Bombing Range, including bird-aircraft strike hazards, security, and public' safety. Additional investigations will be required to determine possible alternative solutions to these concerns.
Possible hazards to low-flying aircraft presented by iW"·'lased numbers of waterfowl and wading birds as a result of the Recommendeci. t'~.'lIl h,~~ been expressed by the Air Force. They requested investigation ofmean&'v '1lin:h;ize the hazard:;;, including bird frightening techniques. Although the re:torat~'lL'
project is not expected to increase the incidents of bird strikes over the Avon Park Bombing Range, conditions will be monitored and close liaison with the Air Force will be maintained for purposes of detecting any problems that may arise, so that corrective actiOlis can be taken. Puring phased construction, monitoring would be expected to reveal any problems, should they arise. Corrective actions may require water level management in the vicinity of the range. Bird frightening techniques commonly cause birds to take flight or remain in the air near the place that holds an attraction such as food or roosting places. Usual techniques include explosive noises (compressed air or gun powder) and scarecrows. Unusual techniques include falcon releases. These techniques do not appear feasible on the scale required in the Avon Park Bombing Range area, nor are they likely to have the desired effect of causing waterfowl to leave an area.
The mound of dredged material along the bank of the canal at the Avon Park Bombing Range provides a secure boundary for the Range that would be lost with removal of the material for backfill. The mound delineates the boundary of a buffer zone and, with the canal. is a feature visible to pilots that indicates the zone where they may arm their weapon systems. Alternatives will be considered during preconstruction planning and design provide security and public safety at the Avon Park facility.
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
OF THE KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA
FINAL INTEGRATED
"SYLLABUS Summary Major Conclusions Areas of Controversy Unresolved Issues
1 .INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Authority 1 1.2 Study Partners 2 1.3 Study Purpose and Scope 2
1.3.1 Study Purpose 2 1.3.2 Study Area 2
1.4 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements 3 1.5 Kissimmee River Basin 5
2 mSTORIC CONDITION 7 2.1 Natural Environment _ 7 2.2 Navigation , 11 2.3 Flood Control 13
3 "EXISTING CONDITION/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT " 19 3.1 Geology and Soils 19 3.2 Water Management .................•......................... 20 3.3 Water Supply 24 3.4 Water Quality , : 25 3.5 Environmental Resources 26 3.6 Population 29 3.7 Land Use 30 3.8 Recreation....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.9 Cultural Resources 34 3.10 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .. . . . . . . . . . 35 3.11 Air Quality ; 36 3.12 Save Our Rivers Programs 36
4 "FUTURE 'WITHOUT PROJECT" CONDITION 39 4.1 Kissimmee River Project…