Environmental Flow Policy Development in

Douglas T. Shaw Director, Conservation Science Florida Chapter History of Water Policy in Florida

 Water Resources Act (1972)  Created Water Management Districts with taxing & regulatory authority  Established water use permits for reasonable-beneficial uses and no adverse impacts to wetlands or others’ lands  Required regional water resources planning & development of water shortage plans  Authorized adoption of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) and water reservations  1992 lawsuit and 1993 legislation compelled WMDs to set MFLs History of Water Policy in Florida

 1996 lawsuit and legislation required FDEP and the WMDs to develop a priority list for MFLs and created a process for voluntary peer review  Water Act (1997)  Natural systems achieved legal parity with “reasonable- beneficial uses”  Identified Water Resource Values that must be considered in setting MFLs  Stronger linkage between MFLs and water use permits  Added process for MFL prevention and recovery  Prioritized funding for water resource projects to those aimed at MFL recovery & prevention  Subsequent legislation provided better guidance on setting MFL priorities & clarified peer review process Minimum Flows and Levels

 373.042 F.S. Minimum flows and levels  (1) Within each section, or the water management district as a whole, the department or the governing board shall establish the following:  (a) Minimum flow for all surface watercourses in the area. The minimum flow for a given watercourse shall be the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.  (b) Minimum water level. The minimum water level shall be the level of groundwater in an aquifer and the level of surface water at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources of the area. Water Resource Values to be Considered When Setting MFLs  1) Recreation in and on the water;  2) Fish and wildlife habitats and the passage of fish;  3) Estuarine resources;  4) Transfer of detrital material;  5) Maintenance of freshwater storage and supply;  6) Aesthetic and scenic attributes;  7) Filtration and absorption of nutrients and other pollutants;  8) Sediment loads;  9) Water quality;  10) Navigation Water Reservations

 373.223(4) F.S. Conditions for a permit  The Governing Board or the Department, by regulation, may reserve from use by permit applicants, water in such locations and quantities, and for such seasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations will be subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed conditions. However, all presently existing legal uses of water shall be protected so long as such use is not contrary to the public interest. Minimum Flows & Levels Concept

Withdrawals & Diversions

Natural Flows & Levels

Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels

Reservation

Significant Harm Minimum Flows & Levels Recovery Plan

C. 1996 Minimum Flows & Levels Concept

Withdrawals & Diversions

Natural Flows & Levels

Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels Reservation Significant Harm Minimum Flows & Levels

Recovery Plan Minimum Flows & Levels Concept

Withdrawals & Diversions

Natural Flows & Levels Prevention Plan Ecologically sustainable Flows & Levels Significant Harm Minimum Flows & Levels

Reservation Recovery Plan

C. 2007 MFL Status

 MFLs for 237 separate water bodies set since 1992, including 17 priority river segments, 13 springs, the & Florida Bay.  Another 114 listed for adoption in the next two years, with 39 more currently prioritized for 2009-2015, including 31 priority river segments, 89 large springs & 4 estuaries  NWFWMD to date has set no MFLs  MFL re-evaluation underway for older MFLs (22 lakes, 3 springs, 1 river segment) in SJRWMD, SWFWMD & SRWMD  Loxahatchee and upper Peace Rivers in recovery status MFL Status Water Reservations Status

 Only one reservation set to date, for Paynes Prairie State Park (1989)  SFWMD developing reservations to implement MFLs in four rivers, Biscayne Bay, Everglades NP/WCAs.  WRDA (2000) and “President and Governor Agreement” (2002) required reservations for natural system prior to completion of CERP projects or permits granted for consumptive use of water made available through CERP  NWFWMD potentially working on reservations, in lieu of MFLs, for two springs and the Yellow River  Failed legislation in 2002 & 2003 to require reservations for all Outstanding Florida Waters MFL Process and Opportunities for Engagement State WMD TNC Policy Development: Lobbying Legislative Changes

Listing Petition for Listing

Priority Date Legislative changes

Research & ESWM concepts, tools, technical Development assistance

Peer Review a) Petition – “substantially affected” b) Formal peer review panel State Oversight Consulting role to FDEP

Rule Adoption Workshops & Public Comment

Implementation Permits, Reservations, Adaptive Management, Prevention & Recovery TNC Engagement in MFLs

 Ponce DeLeon Springs  Lithia Spring  Gemini Springs  & River  Green Springs  Buckhorn Spring & Creek  St. Johns River @  Rainbow Springs & River  Rock Springs & Run   St. Johns River @ SR-50   St. Johns River nr Deland  Middle  Wekiva Springs & River  Upper Hillsborough River  Volusia Blue Springs   Madison Blue Spring  Florida Bay  & Springs   Lower  SWFWMD AMO methodology  Fanning & Manatee Springs  SJRWMD MFL methods manual  Crystal Springs Southwest Florida WMD Middle Peace River  Seasonal blocks to preserve natural hydrograph

Peace River at Arcadia Comparison of 1940 to 1969 (blue) and 1970 to 1999 (green) Standardized Median Daily Flows 2.0  Two benchmark periods 1.8 1.6 1.4 based on regional river 1.2 1.0 0.8 pattern & multi-decadal 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 climate phase (AMO) Flow (cfs) / Watershed Area (sq mi) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Southwest Florida WMD Middle Peace River  Low-flow threshold applicable year around – fish passage, wetted perimeter  Multiple instream flow

methodologies for each block Wetted Perimeter – PHABSIM for target fish and invertebrates, days of inundation of exposed roots, snags, floodplain features FLOW HABITAT  Significant harm – 15% SUITABILITY temporal or spatial reduction

in habitat availability PREFERENCE DEPTH

SAND MUD ROCK Southwest Florida WMD Middle Peace River  MFL implemented as “percent of flow” reduction that varies by seasonal block

2000 8% 1600

1200 13%

Flow (cfs) 800 10% 18% 400 LFT = 67 cfs 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 St. Johns River WMD St. Johns River @ SR-50  Define multiple MFLs – low, avg & high flows – to preserve traits of natural hydrologic regime

 MFLs based on protecting the depths, duration and frequency of inundation needed to maintain natural wetland communities & hydric soils in the floodplain St. Johns River WMD St. Johns River @ SR-50  Range of variability for wetlands and soils based on literature & field data collection at multiple transects  Minimum levels determined at each transect and converted to minimum flow over river reach  Proposed MFLs are evaluated with respect to other water resource values (WRVs): fish & wildlife habitat, fish passage, estuary inflows & salinity, recreation, water quality St. Johns River WMD Volusia Blue Spring  Identified winter manatee aggregation as most important resource value  Based on relationship between spring and river flow and length of warm water plume in spring run  Utilizes unique 20-yr data set of daily manatee counts & positions relative to intrusion of cold river water  Hydrologic model estimates space available for manatees and accounts for population growth rates identified in species recovery plan Suwannee River WMD Lower Suwannee, Santa Fe & Waccasassa Rivers Madison Blue Spring  Employed consultants to develop these MFLs  Utilizes best elements of SWFWMD and SJRWMD approaches, with explicit focus on flow and salinity needs of TNC’s freshwater ecoregional targets, including prey and larval host species  Like SWFWMD, a 15% loss benchmark is used, but significant harm interpreted as a 15% increase in the frequency of a critical condition Summary – SWFWMD, SJRWMD & SRWMD  All three Districts embrace natural flow paradigm and utilize an approach based on sound science and protecting key ecosystem functions & services  “Significant harm” interpreted conservatively  Growing realization of reservations as a key tool for implementing the MFL in water use permitting.  All are now committed to peer review and “periodic re- evaluation”  Framework for adaptive management still a huge challenge NWFWMD NWFWMD NWFWMD Challenges & Lessons Learned

 Lack of definition for “significant harm,” once thought to be a serious challenge, has actually allowed interpretation to evolve in a positive direction  Peer review has been a strong factor in facilitating this evolution  Minimum flow policy language needs to be modernized – difficult to be prescriptive  Priority for setting MFLs is based on urgency of threat – need a better way of prioritizing less threatened rivers  MFLs carry no authority across state boundaries  Need strategy for getting MFLs implemented in NWFWMD  Need greater motivation for implementing water reservations  Need investment and commitment to monitoring and evaluation.