|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Review of the St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study:
Final Report
Committee to Review the St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study
Water Science and Technology Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
Support for this study was provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District under grant
SLOC-25123. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or
agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-22567-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-22567-1
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 5th Street,
N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington
metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that
requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J.
Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National
Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National
Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs,
encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr.
Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to
secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy
matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to
the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal
government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and
education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of
furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with
general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating
agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering
communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE ST. JOHNS RIVER
WATER SUPPLY IMPACT STUDY
PATRICK L. BREZONIK, Chair, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
M. SIOBHAN FENNESSY, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio
BEN R. HODGES, University of Texas, Austin
JAMES R. KARR, University of Washington, Seattle
MARK S. PETERSON, University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs
JAMES L. PINCKNEY, University of South Carolina, Columbia
JORGE I. RESTREPO, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
ROLAND C. STEINER, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Laurel, Maryland
J. COURT STEVENSON, University of Maryland, Cambridge
NRC STAFF
LAURA J. EHLERS, Study Director
STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Interim Study Director (February to July 2009)
MICHAEL J. STOEVER, Research Associate
SARAH E. BRENNAN, Senior Program Assistant
v
OCR for page R6
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
DONALD I. SIEGEL, Chair, Syracuse University, New York
LISA ALVAREZ-COHEN, University of California, Berkeley
EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
YU-PING CHIN, Ohio State University, Columbus
OTTO C. DOERING, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
M. SIOBHAN FENNESSY, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio
BEN GRUMBLES, Clean Water America Alliance, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE R. HALLBERG, The Cadmus Group, Watertown, Massachusetts
KENNETH R. HERD, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
KIMBERLY L. JONES, Howard University, Washington, D.C.
LARRY LARSON, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Madison, Wisconsin
DAVID H. MOREAU, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
DENNIS D. MURPHY, University of Nevada, Reno
MARYLYNN V. YATES, University of California, Riverside
STAFF
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Scholar
LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Program Officer
STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Senior Program Officer
LAURA E. HELSABECK, Program Officer
M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Financial and Administrative Associate
ANITA A. HALL, Senior Program Associate
MICHAEL J. STOEVER, Research Associate
SARAH E. BRENNAN, Senior Program Assistant
vi
OCR for page R7
Preface
The tremendous population growth experienced by Florida over the past half century has
imposed correspondingly large stresses on and costs to the state’s natural resources, including its
abundant but ecologically fragile water resources. As a whole, the state’s population almost
quadrupled over the past 50 years—from 4.95 million in 1960 to 18.8 million in 2010. Although
much of the growth has been focused along or near Florida’s very long coastline, the interior
parts of the state also have shared in the boom. For example, metropolitan Orlando, which lies in
the southwest part of the St. Johns River basin that is the focus of the study reviewed in this
report, has grown from fewer than 340,000 people in 1960 to an urban/suburban conglomerate of
more than 2.1 million people spread over several counties and many hundreds of square miles.
Population growth has stressed drinking water supplies in many parts of Florida. In
2008, for example, the Tampa Bay area opened a 25 MGD (million gallons per day) desalination
plant, the largest seawater desalination plant in the United States. In the St. Johns River basin, a
2005-2006 water supply planning study conducted by the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD, hereafter referred to as the District) showed that increasing water
withdrawals from the Upper Floridan Aquifer—the principal groundwater supply of the basin
and most of peninsular Florida—beyond those projected to occur by 2013 would lead to
undesirable declines in the aquifer’s piezometric surface. The planning study was conducted as
part of the District’s dual responsibility to provide water supplies for human uses in the basin and
to protect its water resources. The District concluded that the predicted decline in the aquifer’s
piezometric surface would lead to unacceptable levels of harm to native vegetation in large areas
of the drainage basin. As a consequence, the District began to consider alternative sources of
supply for the population growth that was expected in the region. These sources included
recycling and reuse of wastewater and a variety of water conservation measures, but the District
concluded that these would not be sufficient and thus began to consider surface water
withdrawals from the St. Johns River and its major tributary, the Ocklawaha River.
A major two-phase study on the potential environmental impacts of such water
withdrawals was initiated by the District in 2008 and is scheduled for completion in early 2012.
Involving more than 80 technical staff and consultants, the study, which became known in 2009
as the Water Supply Impact Study, or WSIS, has been an unusually comprehensive examination
of the hydrologic and hydrodynamic changes that would occur as a result of water withdrawals
from the rivers and a wide range of environmental and ecological consequences that could ensue.
In late 2008, just as the WSIS was transitioning from the Phase 1 review of existing information
to the full-scale assessment activities in Phase 2, the District requested that the National
Research Council (NRC) form a committee to provide independent review and ongoing advice
vii
OCR for page R8
viii Preface
regarding the impact study. Typical of NRC committees, the composition of the “Committee to
Review the St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study” was designed to be highly
multidisciplinary. Its nine members were selected for their expertise across the range of
scientific and engineering disciplines involved in the WSIS, and each of them brought along a
broader perspective as environmental scientists and engineers that was invaluable to the
Committee’s work. I have been privileged to serve as the Committee’s chair since its first
meeting in Jacksonville in January 2009.
The Committee thus has followed the WSIS process since the end of the first phase of the
study. From the outset, the Committee viewed its primary role as advisory to an ongoing study
rather than merely critiquing some completed body of work. The Committee conducted its
responsibilities with vigor, producing four formal reports (including this one) over the course of
its nearly three years of operation, and also providing oral advice at six formal meetings with the
District’s staff and through roughly twice the number of conference calls devoted to the progress
and issues of specific workgroups. Members of the Committee thus devoted a large amount of
their time over the past three years to reviewing the WSIS study, and I want to thank them for
their efforts and for the collegiality exhibited in the closed session discussions and in questions
to District scientists. I especially want to thank the following committee members: Ben Hodges
for his ability to digest and explain to the rest of the Committee the huge work products and
detailed reports of the Hydrology and Hydrodynamics workgroup, which were critical to
understanding the potential environmental impacts of water withdrawals; Siobhan Fennessy for
her willingness to do “double duty” in reviewing the work of both the wetlands workgroup and
the wetlands wildlife workgroup; and Mark Peterson for leading the estuarine benthos review in
addition to the considerable workload understanding impacts to fish.
On behalf of the Committee, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the members
of the District who participated in the Committee’s review of the WSIS. We especially thank the
leadership team: Tom Bartol, Director, Bureau of Water Supply, Ed Lowe, Senior Scientist and
Director, Bureau of Environmental Services, and Mike Cullum, Director, Bureau of Engineering.
We appreciate their hospitality and their efforts to ensure that the formal meetings were useful
and informative to the Committee. We also appreciate the efforts of the eight workgroup leaders
to provide instructive briefings on their groups’ progress: Mike Coveney, plankton; Donna
Curtis, wetland wildlife; Dean Dobberfuhl, littoral zone, submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV);
Larry Keenan, biogeochemistry; Palmer Kinser, wetlands; Rob Mattson, benthos; Steve Miller,
fish; and Pete Sucsy, hydrodynamics and hydrology. Their responsiveness in answering
questions and their openness and willingness to accept suggestions from the Committee is much
appreciated. In conjunction with formal meetings, the Committee participated in four
enlightening and enjoyable field trips on different sections of the St. Johns River. Workgroup
leaders and other WSIS technical staff participated in these trips and were helpful in describing
the system to the Committee. We appreciate the efforts made by the following people in
planning and guiding these field trips: Tom Bartol, Ima Bujak, Robert Burks, Dean Dobberfuhl,
Dina Hutchens, and Michelle Lacasse. We also thank Tom Bartol, Dean Campbell, Michael
Coveney, Michael Cullum, Dean Dobberfuhl, Sonny Hall, John Hendrickson, Jane Mace, Erich
Marzolf, and Peter Sucsy for technical presentations during the trips.
Completion of the Committee’s work would not have been possible without the stellar
efforts of the project’s study director, Laura Ehlers. Her powers to organize, ask relevant and
probing questions, synthesize, and keep the committee on track with completing its tasks are
truly remarkable, and they were invaluable for the successful completion of the Committee’s
OCR for page R9
Preface ix
tasks. We also thank Stephanie Johnson for keeping the Committee in fine operating mettle
while Laura was on maternity leave. Meeting and travel logistics were ably arranged by Michael
Stoever and, for one meeting, Sarah Brennan.
This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s
Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent review is to provide candid and
critical comments to assist the NRC in making its published reports as sound as possible and to
ensure that they meet institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the
study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the
integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following persons for their review of
this report: Emily Bernhardt, Duke University; Matthew Cohen, University of Florida; Wendy
Graham, University of Florida; Michael Kavanaugh, Geosyntec Consultants; Judy Meyer,
University of Georgia (retired); Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District;
and Ernst Peebles (University of South Florida). These reviewers provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, which we gratefully acknowledge. They were not asked to endorse
the conclusions and recommendations, however, and they did not see the final draft of the report
before its release. The review process for this report was overseen by Jerome Gilbert, NAE, who
was appointed by the NRC to verify that the independent review was carried out in accordance
with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of the report, however, rests with the Committee and the
National Research Council.
Patrick Brezonik, Committee Chair
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 11
Origin of the Water Supply Impact Study, 11
Conclusions of Previous NRC Reports, 14
The St. Johns River Basin, 17
Report Roadmap, 18
References, 18
2 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRODYNAMICS 19
Withdrawal Scenarios, 19
Groundwater Models, 22
Hydrologic Modeling, 24
Hydrodynamic Model Calibration and Confirmation, 25
Hydrodynamic Model Results, 34
Conclusions and Recommendations, 35
References, 35
3 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL WORKGROUP REPORTS 37
Introduction, 37
Wetlands, 41
Biogeochemistry, 48
Plankton, 56
Littoral Zone: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation, 62
Benthos, 69
Fish, 80
Wetlands Wildlife, 88
References, 93
4 OVERARCHING THEMES AND CONCLUSIONS 96
Summary of Results and General Conclusions, 96
Study Scope and Constraints, 101
Lessons for Future Studies of a Similar Nature, 103
References, 105
xi
OCR for page R12
