63

3. Surface Water Discharge Effects on the Receiving Waterbody

The Service has concerns regarding the quality of the recovered water (and its subsequent reintroduction into the surface water system). Constituents of recovered water may include acutely toxic and/or chronic stressors and bioaccumulative pollutants. This has serious implications for the conservation of fish and wildlife and associated habitat. If concentrations are high enough, chloramines (persisting from potential use in the disinfection or well biofouling remediation process), metals (from either source water or leached from the geologic matrix), mercury, radionuclides, dissolved solids, and chlorides could all have deleterious effects on downstream aquatic resources or water users. Similar effects could result from changes in physical water quality conditions. Dissolved oxygen concentrations that are too low in the discharge, or water temperature differences that would cause thermal stress to, or alter reproductive cycles of, aquatic organisms are of concern.

There is also the possibility that ASR discharges may act as attractive nuisances. If recovered water is more aerated than the receiving stream, or if the temperature is preferable over upstream conditions to aquatic organisms, then those species may be attracted to discharge areas. If aquatic resources are congregated at the outflow locations when the discharges are stopped, there could be an adverse effect on those animals.

These concerns need to be addressed at the pilot project level. Volumes of water pumped under full-scale implementation could increase from 30 mgd to a maximum of 1.665 bgd. It is likely that this discharge would have a measurable effect on receiving waterbodies. The dilution afforded to the pilot ASR wells would be reduced under full-scale operation exacerbating potential effects of physical and chemical water quality changes on aquatic species. Some amelioration of this risk could occur if recovered waters are temporarily stored and/or treated prior to discharge. Storage and treatment of recovered waters could resolve thermal, dissolved oxygen, and many contaminant concerns. Project plans call for construction of a cascade aeration system at the outfall to increase the dissolved oxygen of recovered waters prior to discharge. It will be important to monitor the effectiveness of this treatment system.

The analysis of impact discharge in the draft EIS assumes complete mixing of the discharge water with the average base flow conditions at each site and can be misleading. Many sites occur on highly controlled systems and flow may vary greatly. It would be appropriate to also include “worst case” scenarios of ASR discharge during low or zero flow intervals. An appropriate, site-specific scenario should be selected for each site based on an analysis using daily aggregated low site flows over a long period of record. For example, our analysis of hydrologic data over a31 year period of record for the Kissimmee site reveals that there are extended periods of no flow (zero discharge) in the record and 30 percent of the record of daily flows is less than 100 cfs (Figure 7). At these times, ASR discharge may be the primary flow in this stretch of river. Dilution and impact potential using these numbers would be significantly different than the current draft EIS analysis using the average monthly base flows which range from approximately

64

700 cfs in June to approximately 2,600 cfs in August. This issue will become more critical in the context of eventual normal (not cycle testing) ASR operations since daily aggregated low flow extent is higher during annual dry periods when ASR recovery and discharge will likely occur.

Figure 7. Flow Exceedence Curve for Kissimmee River in Vicinity of Pilot ASR Site (Gage S-65E) Over a 31 Year Period of Record.

4. Cycle Testing Concerns

The storage phase between recharge and recovery may be a number of days, weeks, or months, or only the amount of time necessary to switch from recharge to recovery. The duration of storage time tested will depend on the specific goal of each cycle. The duration of storage time is expected to have an effect on the chemical composition of the recharged water. The mechanisms involved include mixing with native water and possible chemical or biological reactions. The structure of the test cycles will incorporate storage time to test for these effects. Of particular significance will be the effect of storage time on microbiological parameters (present either in the source water or the aquifer), nutrients, metals, radionuclides and mercury species in the stored water. Currently, the cycle testing schedule calls for a single LOASR pilot well to store recharged water for a 6-month period as a long-term storage test. Operationally, ASR may store water for up to 2 years; however, the limitations of 2-year pilot cycle testing preclude expanding the proposed 6-month storage test. The Service recommends that the water quality monitoring plan be appropriately scheduled to determine the effects of differing storage times on the quality of recovered water. Caution should be taken to control for the effects of differing disinfection techniques (i.e., UV and chloramination) that may be applied at the same pilot site and may produce confounding effects.

65

An additional cycle testing concern relates to the initial recovery and discharge cycle. The draft EIS indicates that during the first recovery cycle, recovery will last until the quality of the recovered water matches the native (pre-ASR) groundwater quality. This indicates that water will be discharged to the receiving body that has levels of TDS, chlorides, sulfate, and other minerals that exceed the surface water concentrations and surface water standards. This could occur for up to 15 days and equal up to approximately 75 million gallons of water for each well. The Service understands that it is necessary to determine the percent recoverability of recharged surface water to determine the economic feasibility of ASR operations in south Florida. However, we are greatly concerned that a multiple-day discharge of high-solute, FAS water could have negative downstream impacts to surface water biota if dilution rates are not high enough. We have made recommendations in Section X.C.2 of this report to address this potential problem

5. Effects on Wildlife-Related Recreation

The Service has concerns about the potential perceived and actual effects of pilot ASR intakes and discharges on wildlife-related recreation including subsistence fishing. Of all the pilot sites, the lower Kissimmee River has the highest fishing usage. The Moore Haven site is likely to be second in importance for recreational and subsistence fishing. The local community along the Hillsboro Canal harvests native and exotic (Tilapia spp., and oscar [Asronotus ocellatus]) fish species. We do not have a good indication of the recreational use of the C-44 near the Port Mayaca site, and we do not believe that there is much recreational activity at the Berry Groves site. Angler usage data should be gathered from the FWC to further explore the effects of ASR on recreation.

There is the possibility that high fishing usage at these sites could result in a negative public perception towards ASR technology should fishing resources decline. An active public outreach program in those areas of high usage may alleviate adverse effects of misinformation. We do not anticipate ASR pilot activities to have a significant impact upon other recreational activities.

D. Summary of Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act

On July 24, 2001, the Corps requested concurrence on the installation of monitoring and exploratory wells at the Hillsboro Canal site for the HASR pilot project. On July 27, 2001, the Corps requested concurrence on the installation of monitoring and exploratory wells at three sites around Lake Okeechobee for the LOASR pilot project. On August 8, 2001, the Service concurred with the Corps’ determination that those activities were not likely to adversely affect listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The species evaluated were the West Indian manatee, Everglade snail kite, and Audubon’s crested caracara.

Additional coordination under the ESA has occurred and the Service has provided our concurrence in a letter dated July 14, 2004, under section 7 of the ESA, that the potential effects of the ASR pilot projects on listed species is not likely to adversely affect any of the listed species identified in the EIS or our FWCA report. If modifications are made to the project, if

66

additional information involving potential effects to listed species becomes available, if a new species is listed, or if designated critical habitat may be adversely affected by the project, reinitiation of consultation may be necessary.

IX. EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

As stated in Sections I.B and VIII.A, there are significant potential water storage benefits from ASR technology that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the CERP. There are also significant potential adverse water quality and ecological effects that may result from the construction and operation of ASR facilities. ASR technology can be supported by the Service if conducted in an environmentally sound manner whereby the quality and integrity of aquatic ecosystems are maintained or improved.

The level of uncertainty for success of ASR is high due primarily to geotechnical unknowns and related chemical, physical, and microbial reactions that may occur in the FAS. The construction, operation, and monitoring of these pilot projects should answer many questions if conducted in a thorough, timely and effective manner. The Service is committed to supporting and advising the study team throughout the pilot and regional ASR studies so that this technology can be incorporated into the CERP. We believe that oversight groups, such as RECOVER (Restoration, Coordination and Verification) and the National Academy of Science should continue to evaluate the ASR pilot projects and the links to full-scale ASR operations in south Florida. We are convinced that ASR lends itself well to the principles of adaptive management. Utilizing the pilot projects to resolve uncertainties in geotechnical, geochemical, biological, and ecological impacts and adjusting operations and design accordingly to reduce and minimize such impacts is fundamental to the adaptive management process.

X. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSERVATION MEASURES

Objectives identified by the Service in providing recommendations on this project are to protect and conserve fish and wildlife resources in the project area consistent with the basic project purpose. This includes developing recommendations to make this project more environmentally compatible and to further enhance the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife resources in the study area. Due to the nature of this study as a pilot project, we stress the need to accurately monitor effects. The ability to detect and accurately assess the effects on fish and wildlife resources including federally listed species is of great importance to the Service and the future success of ASR as it will allow future modifications to structures or operations that would eliminate or minimize impacts. These recommendations are provided in accordance with the FWCA and should receive equal consideration with other project features. Such consideration should be documented item by item in the final EIS.

With appropriate intake design, monitoring of effects, and adaptive management, we believe that it will be possible to minimize adverse impacts of pilot ASR operations while maximimizing the knowledge gained during operation to reduce uncertainty of ASR. However, to effectively do so requires timely, thorough, and effective monitoring of related water quality and ecological

67

changes, evaluation of these changes, and implementation of appropriate adaptive changes in operation or design. It also requires incorporation of intake screening design and suitable monitoring and assessment plans which provide: (1) an ecological baseline of adequate temporal length to enable assessment of natural variability in measured characteristics; (2) post-project monitoring of ASR operations to discern positive or negative changes to the baseline; and (3) an assessment and analysis of those changes to enable incorporation of adaptive management strategies.

Many concerns have already been fully or partially addressed in the draft EIS through adoption of Service recommendations made in earlier PALs and the draft FWCA report. These include:

Adoption of standard protection measures for listed species;

Installation of intake bar screens for manatee exclusion;

A commitment to screen intakes and minimize intake velocities;

Installation of a metered shunt pipe for sampling entrained organisms at the Kissimmee site;

Monitoring and adaptive management of temperature and dissolved oxygen in receiving waters;

A commitment to adopt “stop” conditions for cessation of recovered water discharge;

Consultation with FWC and NOAA Fisheries on State-listed and fishery resources, respectively; and

The Service has reviewed a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment for the Hillsboro Site 1 Impoundment project and HASR site and has determined that the past sampling and commitments for clean-up of point sources, debris piles, and abandonment of wells and above-ground storage tanks is sufficient to reduce risk of contaminant-related effects to fish and wildlife resources present at this site. No additional sampling or ecological risk assessment activities will be recommended.

A. Threatened and Endangered Species Recommendations

1. Some construction and operation-related details are not available at this time, but will be forthcoming in detailed design phases and operations manuals. Features such as intake pumps and/or discharge structures are only generally sited and designed at this time; therefore, the Service will make additional recommendations regarding the potential effects of these components on listed species at later and final detailed design phases.

2. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the ASR pilot project has the potential to adversely affect the following federally listed species that are under the jurisdiction of the Service: West indian manatee, eastern indigo snake, Audubon’s crested caracara, bald eagle, wood stork, Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, and Okeechobee gourd. The Service recommends that standard protection measures, construction precautions, conservation measures, and/or habitat management guidelines be implemented for these species during the

construction, operation, and maintenance phases for all components of the pilot projects to

68

avoid any adverse effects on such species. A commitment to incorporate these measures appears in the draft EIS.

3. In accordance with draft criteria (Service 2003), and previous guidance on water control structures for the protection of manatees, the Service recommends that any project-related structures include anti-impingement and/or anti-entrainment features for the prevention of take of the West Indian manatee. This would require, in part:

a. Consulting with the Service on the design and installation of trash racks and any associated cleaning rakes;

b. An 8-inch maximum spacing for grates covering any intakes including those with screening for fish entrainment reduction or culverts; and

c. The maintenance of low intake velocities (i.e., less than 4 fps) at the manatee exclusion grates for any pipe or culvert opening that presents a threat to manatee calves (i.e., where an impinged manatee calf could drown, or an entrained calf would be harmed within or on the downstream side of the pipe or culvert).

4. New surface water intakes or canals that are constructed or widened as part of these projects that are hydraulically connected to any other water bodies inhabited by, or capable of being inhabited by, manatees, must have barriers to prohibit manatee movement into newly constructed or widened canal reaches. If properly designed, such barriers will ensure that project facilities will pose no additional threat of structure-caused mortality or injury, entrapment in culverts or canals, or any other form of take, as defined in the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.).

5. It is possible that ASR discharges could affect manatees if the recovered water quality was poor; for example, any discharge of recovered water that decreases ambient temperature to less than 68° F in areas used by manatees in winter could adversely affect manatees. Therefore, we will recommend to the DEP that wildlife-protective water quality criteria, including water temperature, be incorporated into NPDES and/or CERPRA permits for discharged water.

6. The Service has concerns about the potential for the exposure of federally listed species, as well as other fish and wildlife, to contaminants either when former agricultural lands are flooded, or as reservoirs are operated and potentially become filled with sediment. If the ecological risk from contaminants to listed species becomes evident, the Corps and Service will determine if reinitiation of consultation in accordance with section 7 of the ESA is necessary.

7. The potential effects of the pilot projects on snail kites should be addressed in the final EIS.

69

For example, the management of water treatment ponds could create an attractive nuisance for snail kites depending on water management practices. Water levels that encourage emergent vegetation or apple snail colonization could also result in exposure to snail kite copper at the CRASR pilot project site.

8. We support the commitment in the draft EIS that if new electrical lines will be constructed near open water to service new pumps, the publication Suggested Practices for Raptor

Protection on Powerlines: The State of the Art in 1996 would be consulted for recommended measures to protect eagles from electrocution.

9. We support the commitment in the draft EIS that preconstruction surveys for the Okeechobee gourd will be performed and construction crews will be made aware of the potential for the presence of the Okeechobee gourd at the Moore Haven site. If the gourd is found at any of the pilot project sites, the Service will be notified and the Corps will determine if reinitiation of consultation is necessary.

10. There are three federally listed fish species which may occur in downstream reaches for which the NOAA Fisheries has consultation responsibility. These include the endangered smalltooth sawfish, threatened gulf sturgeon, and candidate opossum pipefish. The Corps should continue consultation with NOAA Fisheries on these species and any other marine resource under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction. This will be particularly critical as ASR expands to influence downstream reaches associated with essential fish habitat.

11. For additional species listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern by the State of Florida, the Corps should continue consultation with the FWC regarding those species’ habitat needs and additional recommendations to conserve them.

B. Entrainment and Impingement Reduction Recommendations

1. The Service has worked interactively with the PDT and project designers to develop appropriate screening mechanisms to avoid and minimize entrainment of aquatic organisms at pilot project intakes. The following recommendations are made on a site-specific basis dependent on the perceived fish community characteristics at each site.

a. Adult and Juvenile Fish

1. Kissimmee River, Moore Haven Sites. Protect for entrainment and impingement of a 1 inch fish by employing an intake screening mechanism with an intake velocity of 0.3 fps at the screen face and a mesh size of 0.1 inches;

2. Port Mayaca, Hillsboro Sites. Protect for entrainment and impingement of a

70

inch fish by employing an intake screening mechanism with an intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the screen face and a mesh size of 0.25 inches; and

3. Caloosahatchee Site. No screening necessary at the ASR/reservoir intake in the Header Canal. However, consideration should be given to exploring opportunities for entrainment protection at the lift pump at Townsend Canal.

b. Fish Eggs and Larvae

There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the cost associated with entrainment protection for fish eggs and larvae (e.g., a Gunderboom® total exclusion type system) is justified. The most likely site for a problem to occur is the Kissimmee River site where there is documented spawning of black crappie, locally referred to as “specks,” and other sunfish. We commend the decision to install a small shunt pipe which can be metered between the intake structure and the water treatment facility to allow for periodic sampling of entrained fish eggs and larvae at all Lake Okeechobee pilot sites. A sampling plan for monitoring such entrainment should be developed and implemented, at a minimum, at the Kissimmee River site in association with sampling in-river ichthyoplankton. This element should be part of the operational ecological monitoring plan to be developed by a subteam of the ASRRS PDT.

C. Water Quality Recommendations

1. The analysis of water quality impacts from ASR pilot project recovered water discharges presented in the draft EIS assumes complete mixing of the discharge water with the average base flow conditions at each site. This can be misleading. Many sites occur on highly controlled systems and flow may vary greatly. We recommend that the analysis include “worst case” scenarios of ASR discharges during low and zero flow intervals. An appropriate, site-specific scenario should be selected for each location based on an analysis of site flows over a long period of record.

2. The draft EIS includes an initial recovered water discharge scenario which would potentially exceed surface water quality standards for certain parameters for up to 15 days (see Section IV.B.1 of this report). Therefore, we recommend that the Corps and District model the dilution rates and resulting concentrations of ASR-introduced pollutants at each site using the most conservative flow from the long-term record during that time of the year that the recovery cycle is anticipated to occur. This may include a scenario with zero dilution flow from upstream. We recommend consideration of the following alternatives to minimize effects: (1) arranging for temporary storage of high TDS water, with subsequent surface water discharge at a lower, more ecologically appropriate flow rate; or (2) arranging for released flows of sufficient diluting potential from upstream sources during the discharge period. The Service also recommends that the DEP evaluate these concerns in their review and issuance of the NPDES and/or CERPRA permits for these facilities.

3. We recommend the full and immediate implementation of baseline water quality sampling

71

associated with the ASRRS Project Baseline Monitoring Plan. Moreover, development of the operational water quality and ecological sampling plan should commence immediately to be in place when operations begin. The design and implementation of a water quality monitoring plan are necessary as an adaptive assessment tool for all ASR projects. Water quality should be monitored and evaluated before, during, and after construction in the receiving waterbody and at all recharge, recovery, and discharge sites.

4. The water quality monitoring plan should be appropriately scheduled to determine the effects of differing storage times on the quality of recovered water. This also includes the effects of differing disinfection techniques (i.e., UV and chloramination) that may be applied at the same pilot site and may produce confounding effects.

5. Water quality criteria for the protection of fish and other aquatic life, if more stringent than drinking water standards, should guide the selection of available laboratory analytical methods to allow for accurate comparisons of recharged and recovered water quality data and the subsequent determination of potential effects on downstream plants and animals.

6. The effects of ASR discharges on dissolved oxygen concentrations in the receiving waterbody, especially in the Kissimmee River, should be carefully monitored. Stormwater-driven dissolved oxygen sags have been documented in the C-38/Kissimmee River system and have caused fish kills between May and October. Under these conditions ASR discharges may act as attractive nuisances. At first glance, it may seem appropriate to use ASR well discharges as fish refugia if they are properly aerated; however, the establishment of a highly oxygenated refuge would probably need to be maintained permanently in the discharge plume so that fish do not experience low dissolved oxygen conditions when the discharge stops. This may be an unsatisfactory operational constraint for the project. The Service also anticipates that the DEP will require a NPDES discharge limit for dissolved oxygen of 5 mg/l. If the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Kissimmee River are routinely below 5 mg/l, then any discharge of highly oxygenated water could still cause the same problem when the discharge is shut off. A potential solution would be to only aerate the discharge to background conditions present in the Kissimmee River. It is evident that the operational rules for ASR well discharges need to be further explored by the PDT to eliminate or minimize the threat of harm to the aquatic resource as a result of fluctuating discharge volumes and the effects of dissolved oxygen (a dataset need that would assist in this determination would be weekly dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the year at proposed ASR well discharge sites).

7. The Description of the Alternatives Section (Section VII) indicates that the selected method for reintroduction of recovered well water back into the surface water system is “cascade aeration.” This is desirable over the other types evaluated because it potentially limits erosion and sedimentation, and allows for temperature equilibration and increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations. At this time, the Service does not have enough information to evaluate whether or not this type of outfall would meet the necessary water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature change. Therefore, we recommend that the

72

Corps contact the DEP to determine if their requirements would indicate a need for pre-aeration and/or temperature equilibration of recovered well water prior to discharge to the surface water system. We recommend careful monitoring and adaptive adjustments or incorporation of other technology to ensure dissolved oxygen and temperature targets for discharged water are being met.

8. Due to the highly toxic nature of chloramines, the DEP is urged to include this parameter in the NPDES permits that are issued for those ASR facilities that use chloramines. We do not know the ramifications of losses or shifts in the native FAS microorganism community that may result from chloramine usage, and therefore, recommend that the final EIS document discuss the possible realm of effects based on the extent of current scientific knowledge.

9. We recommend against the use of sulfate-bearing compounds such as flocculants with subsequent discharge to surface waters. The sulfate content can exacerbate the problems associated with the methylation of mercury and subsequent mercury bioaccumulation in fish and wildlife.

10. We recommend that the ongoing USGS study for the effects of recharged surface waters on the native microbial ecology and biogeochemistry of the Upper Floridan Aquifer continue to be funded to address potential effects of chloramines and other physical/chemical induced changes. The findings should be included in the final EIS and used in future decision-making.

11. Changes in underground bacterially-mediated reactions or altered groundwater conditions (e.g., pH decreases) can result in higher than normal dissolved metal concentrations in ground water. As this water is recovered and discharged, the exposure to oxygen and more neutral pH conditions can result in the formation of precipitates on the receiving stream bed. These precipitates can be acutely toxic or impair benthic aquatic organisms through habitat loss, smothering, and gill abrasion. We therefore recommend that the surface water monitoring plan include a regular inspection of the outfall and receiving waterbody for the accumulation of precipitates.

D. Ecological Sampling Plan Recommendations

1. We recommend the full and immediate implementation of the ecological baseline sampling plan associated with the ASRRS. This will assist the determination of the effects on biological communities in the receiving water bodies. Reports generated by this effort should be made available to the Service for review. In the spirit of adaptive management, there should be an opportunity for comment and consideration of necessary sampling protocol modifications.

2. The current ecological sampling plan calls for the collection of three years of baseline data.

73

It appears with the abbreviated project schedule that there may only be one or two years worth of baseline data with the exception of the Moore Haven site should baseline sampling at this site continue. The final EIS should discuss the resulting limitations in discerning effects from natural background variation and how the lack of ecological baseline data will be addressed.

3. A pilot-specific, operational ecological sampling plan using the baseline sampling locations should be developed by an interagency sub-team of the PDT. This plan should be ready for implementation at the time that the pilots begin operation.

4. Following the issuance of the Service’s draft FWCA report, the study team decided to eliminate activities associated with the Moore Haven site due to budgetary concerns. Depending on the likelihood that Moore Haven will be authorized within a three to 5 year window, the Service recommends that the ecological and water quality monitoring at this site continue. It is our understanding that the previous commitment to do so has been reversed by a decision to delete all but the fish baseline sampling at the Moore Haven site and to eliminate fish baseline sampling at the Hillsboro site. We recommend that these decisions be reconsidered. In light of the fact that a contract has not been let for invertebrate baseline sampling to date, the 3 year baseline data set from which to differentiate between changes due to pilot ASR operation and natural variability has been severely compromised. The postponement of the Moore Haven site construction and operation gives us the opportunity to include a longer baseline sampling period at that site.

5. The ASRRS study team has agreed to conduct bioassay and bioaccumulation studies on the rock matrix and recovered water. We recommend that these studies be implemented and not be considered an “as funding allows” component of the project. The ASR pilot projects, alone or in conjunction with the proposed ASRRS, need to evaluate the potential for bioaccumulation of contaminants in aquatic life. Contaminants to be evaluated should include radionuclides, mercury, and other metals. We recommend that the initial analysis for the contaminants of concern be tiered with subsequent bioassay and bioaccumulation studies for detected contaminants.

6. An important element of biomonitoring in the ASRRS PMP is the establishment of in situ

mesocosms. Because of the accelerated schedule and the stabilization and baseline variation timeframes needed to establish the mesocosms, we recommend that this work commence as soon as possible.

E. Contaminants Recommendations

1. Either the local sponsor or the Corps should coordinate sampling plans, specifications, and techniques with the Contaminants Division of the Service’s SFESO prior to additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment sampling. This recommendation refers to, but should not be limited to, any construction activity related to reservoirs, wells, new canals, pump installation, or other excavation.

74

2. Land for the LOASR pilot project sites was purchased prior to the initiation of the CERP. Therefore, the standard contaminant sampling procedures that are in place now were not conducted at those sites. For those lands already owned by the District, where no previous contaminants sampling has been done, we recommend that Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments be conducted.

3. We recommend the use of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines, or more recently developed similar guidelines for contaminants in order to facilitate the evaluation of environmental risk that will accompany any land acquisition for this project. If a Phase II analysis indicates the presence of contaminants at levels of concern to fish and wildlife, an environmental risk assessment should be conducted and may include remediation to environmentally acceptable levels based on ecological risk to receptor organisms.

4. We recommend that the results of any environmental risk assessments that may have been conducted as a result of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, including any necessary remediation planning and alternatives, be discussed in the final EIS.

5. We recommend that the potential impacts to fish and wildlife (including bioavailability of contaminants) as a result of flooding the impoundments at both the CRASR and HASR sites be monitored. The levels at which contaminant-related adverse effects could be manifest have been derived through predictive modeling, field verification should occur to validate the results of the predictive modeling as these models contain various degrees of uncertainty. Appropriate environmental monitoring should be conducted on the project site prior to flooding to assess the potential for mobilizing contaminants including metals, pesticides, and petroleum by-products.

F. Uncertainty Recommendations

1. Recommendations contained in the water quality and ecological monitoring sections above should be implemented to reduce uncertainties associated with these issues. Protocols for reviewing monitoring results and making appropriate adaptive adjustments in operation and/or design if necessary, should be developed and put in place prior to operation of the facilities.

2. Post-pilot ASR implementation based on pilot project results should be conducted incrementally to reduce uncertainties associated with scaling up from the five pilot projects to over 300 wells. We recommend reasonable incremental steps in ASR expansion (e.g., step up to 20 wells) to increase knowledge of aquifer and surface water effects.

3. Implementation of contingency planning for alternative storage systems in the event of ASR limitations should begin. Alternatives including surface reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas in hydrologically appropriate and biologically-limited locations and use of

75

natural area wetland restoration projects should be explored. Clear conversion of ASR storage rates (mgd or bgd) to storage volumes (e.g., acre-feet) would allow for easier comparison of alternatives.

4. The Corps has asked the Service for a list of “stop conditions,” i.e., those conditions that would require the immediate cessation of recovered water discharge. We recommend the following preliminary stop conditions:

a. Dead or stressed fish in the vicinity of the outfall; b. Large entrainment events (this can probably be eliminated if the Service’s screening

recommendations are incorporated); or c. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, or pH extremes.

Further stop condition development and refinement should be undertaken and completed by an interagency study team before the final EIS is released. An example of a stop condition that needs further refinement is the formation of precipitates in the discharge vicinity. The study team will need to determine the significance of this potential problem and if it is important enough to result in cessation of discharge. Many elements of such conditions will require additional and continuous monitoring during ASR operation to detect triggering events. Specific, implementable limits should be developed to aid in decision making for discharge cessation(i.e., how many dead or stressed fish; what level of entrainment; what deviation in water temperature, dissolved oxygen, or pH from ambient receiving water conditions?) The implementation of specific stop conditions would serve to reduce the Service’s concerns over a continuous serious impact scenario, especially considering the high ecological-based uncertainties of ASR operations. The Service would be available to work with the Corps, the District, and the DEP to develop such criteria for inclusion in the final EIS.

G. Coordination with Other CERP Programs and Governmental Agencies

1. We recommend that oversight groups, such as RECOVER and the National Academy of Science, be solicited for their assistance in the evaluation of effects of the ASR pilot projects and the links to full-scale ASR operations in south Florida.

2. Corps project managers should solicit comments and recommendations from the FWC on this project in accordance with the FWCA. Angler usage data should be gathered from the FWC to further explore the potential effects of ASR operations on recreational and subsistence fishing.

3. As ASR expands and/or positive or negative effects extend into downstream reaches, Corps project managers should coordinate with the NOAA Fisheries under the FWCA, the ESA, and the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) for essential fish habitat.

H. Other Recommendations

76

1. We do not anticipate impacts to wetlands from this project. However, if wetlands are encountered, impacts to those habitats should be avoided or minimized. If such impacts are unavoidable, an accounting of those wetland losses should be included in the EIS along with any offsetting wetland benefits that would be achieved by ASR implementation. This could include the potential habitat restoration benefits of CERP projects that are adjacent to ASR pilot footprints (e.g., loss of small wetland community functions at the HASR site could be replaced by construction and rehydration of natural wetlands on unused property to the north of the HASR site and west of the Hillsboro Site 1 Impoundment project).

2. Construction, operation, and maintenance of ASR facilities offers some opportunity for unwanted increase in the spatial extent of exotic plant species. We recommend that exotic plants be controlled or eradicated at all ASR sites.

3. There is the possibility that high fishing usage at these sites could result in a negative public perception towards ASR technology should fishing resources decline. We recommend an active public outreach program (e.g., intrepretive signage) in those areas of high usage to alleviate adverse effects of misinformation.

4. We recommend that these pilot studies be conducted in a manner consistent with adaptive management principles. Incorporation of good science through careful monitoring and experimentation should drive operational and/or other changes in ASR design or operations to reduce impacts on aquifer and surface water systems.

Table 10. Table of Recommendations, Responsible Agencies, and Current Status.

Recommendation Detailed

Recc. #

(above)

Responsible

Agency

Status

Additional recommendations on T&E species at final design phase. A.1 Service, Corps

Implement standard protection/conservation measures for T&E

species.

A.2 Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS

Manatee protection measures at intakes/culverts, barriers for new

canals.

A.3

A.4

Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS

Wildlife protective water quality criteria for discharges. A.5

C.5

DEP Service commented

on CERPRA permit.

Reinitiate T&E species consultation if ecological risk from

contaminants becomes evident.

A.6 Service, Corps

Address potential effects of pilot projects on snail kite in final EIS A.7 Corps

Incorporate measures eagle protection from any new powerlines. A.8 Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS

Preconstruction surveys for Okeechobee gourd. A.9 Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS

Continue consultation with NOAA fisheries on T&E fish under

their purview.

A.10 Corps Agreed to in draft

EIS

Recommendation Detailed

Recc. #

Responsible

Agency

Status

77

(above)

Continue consultation with FWC on state listed species. A.11 Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS

Incorporate Service recommendation for intake screening and

velocity to reduce entrainment.

B.1 Corps, District Partially agreed to

in EIS, appears in

Port Mayaca 30

percent design

plans.

Incorporate Service recommendation for a metered shunt pipe to

sample ichthyoplankton at LOASR sites

B.1 Corps, District Agreed to in draft

EIS, needs to be in

final design plans.

Include worst case discharge scenarios instead of just average base

flow scenarios.

C.1 Corps, District Need to include

analysis in final EIS.

Include appropriate analysis and impact minimization measures for

initial recovered water discharge.

C.2 Corps, District,

DEP

Service commented

on CERPRA permit.

Implement baseline water quality sampling. C.3 Corps, District Ongoing

Begin development of operational water quality and ecological

monitoring plan. Schedule operational water quality monitoring to

determine effects of differing storage times.

C.3

C.4

D.3

Service, Corps,

District (PDT

subteam)

Monitor D.O. at Kissimmee site carefully. Incorporate adaptive

measures (e.g., aerate discharge to background condition) to avoid

an “attractive nuisance” situation.

C.6 Service, Corps,

District, DEP

Careful monitoring and adaptive adjustments to ensure D.O. and

temperature targets for discharges are being met.

C.7 Corps, District,

DEP

Agreed to in draft

EIS.

Avoid chloramines disinfection, if used, include in discharge

permits, discuss possible effects in final EIS

C.8 Corps, District,

DEP

Chloramine

disinfection dropped

from sites currently.

Avoid use of sulfate-bearing compounds such as flocculants. C.9 Corps, District,

DEP

Flocculants deleted

from alternative

treatments at

present.

Continue funding for USGS study on effects of surface waters on

native microbial ecology.

C.10 Corps, District Ongoing.

Monitor precipitates at outfalls C.11 Corps, District,

DEP

Service commented

on CERPRA permit.

Implement ecological baseline sampling, report results, and offer

opportunity for Service comment.

D.1 Service, Corps,

District

Partially ongoing.

Contract for benthic

inverts lagging.

Discuss the limitations of a reduced temporal baseline monitoring

program in final EIS

D.2 Corps, District

Reconsider dropping the Moore Haven site from baseline sampling

if authorization will occur in 3 to 5 year window.

D.4 Corps, District

Implement tiered bioassay and bioaccumulation studies on the rock

matrix and recovered water.

D.5 Corps, District Agreed to in

ASRRS.

Implement in situ mesocosm studies as soon as possible. D.6 Corps, District Agreed to in

ASRRS.

Coordinate Phase II contaminant studies with Service. Phase I and

II analysis for those lands owned by District where no

contamininats sampling has been done. Conduct an environmental

risk assessment (ERA) if Phase II indicates problems. Discuss any

ERA’s conducted in final EIS

E.1

E.2

E.3

E.4

Service, Corps, District

Completed for some

sites.

78

Recommendation Detailed

Recc. #

(above)

Responsible

Agency

Status

Conduct appropriate monitoring for potential mobilized

contaminants prior to flooding the CRASR and HASR site

impoundments.

E.5 Corps, District,

Service

Develop protocols for review of monitoring results and making

appropriate adaptive adjustments.

F.1 Corps, District,

DEP (PDT

subteam)

Scale up ASR expansion in reasonable incremental steps. F.2 Corps, District

Conduct contingency planning for ASR alternatives. F.3 Corps, District,

Service

Ongoing.

Further develop and refine “stop conditions” to avoid serious

impacts from ASR operations.

F.4 Service, Corps,

District, DEP,

FWC

Commitment to

“stop conditions” in

draft EIS.

Solicit oversight groups (e.g., RECOVER, National Academy of

Science) to evaluate pilot effects and links to full-scale operations.

G.1 Corps, District

Solicit comments and recommendations from the FWC under the

FWCA and for effects of ASR operations on recreational and

subsistence fishing.

G.2 Corps, District Ongoing. FWC

prepared

independent FWCA

Report.

Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries under the FWCA, ESA, and

Magnuson Acts

G.3 Corps Ongoing.

Avoid, minimize and attempt to compensate onsite for any wetland

impacts.

H.1 Corps, District No significant

wetland impacts

currently

anticipated.

Control or eradicate exotic plant species at ASR sites. H.2 Corps, District

Consider active outreach program for ASR in high usage fishing

areas at ASR sites.

H.3 Corps, District,

FWC

Conduct pilot studies consistent with adaptive management

principles.

H.4 Corps, District,

Service

XI. SUMMARY OF POSITION

Based upon onsite review of individual pilot project sites, the majority of upland areas for the ASR pilots have been selected in ecologically degraded habitats which will minimize the direct impacts of facility construction on fish and wildlife resources. While previous concerns over cumulative entrainment or impingement of fish and aquatic organisms would be reduced by adoption of Service recommendations for intake structures, impacts related to cumulative effects of recovered discharge water characteristics on fish and wildlife resources downstream of the discharge remain a concern. Even if pilot project impacts on fish and wildlife resources are forecasted and prove to be benign due to good site selection and small scale/dilution effects, the concern is that any detected impacts (even if minor), are likely to be magnified by full-scale ASR operation. We view the pilots as an opportunity to attempt to discern individually minor, but potentially cumulatively significant, impacts to fish and wildlife resources and as an opportunity to explore and test remedies to such impacts.

Therefore, it is critical to implement a timely and inclusive monitoring and adaptive management

79

plan to deal with uncertainty. Significant levels of monitoring and experimentation associated with potential physical, chemical, biological, and ecological effects are contained in the PMP for the ASRRS project (See ASRRS PMP Appendix L). Timely scheduling and continuous review and adjustment of these tasks are necessary for the ASR projects to fulfill their function.

80

XII. LITERATURE CITED

Bargar, T., R. Frakes, and J. Boggs. 2003. Uptake of Copper by Apple Snails from Contaminated Sediments in South Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Research Proposal. 4 pp.

Bell, F.W. 1987. The economic impact and valuation of the recreational and commercial fishing industries of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Department of Economics, Florida State University; Tallahassee, Florida. Prepared for the former Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; Tallahassee, Florida. 102 pp.

Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria

Third edition (Final). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. North Pacific Division. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. Portland, Oregon. pp 6.1-6.9.

Bull, L.A., D.D. Fox, D.W. Brown, L.J. Davis, S.J. Miller, and J.G. Wullschleger. 1995. Fish distribution in limnetic areas of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 45: 333-342.

Bottrell, S.H., S.J. Moncaster, J.H. Tellam, and J.W. Lloyd. 1997. Controls on bacterial sulfate reduction in a dual porosity aquifer. In Seventh Annual Goldschmidt Conference, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas. 34 pp.

Buckley, J.A. 1976. Acute toxicity of residual chlorine in wastewater to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and some resultant hematological changes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2854–2856.

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1995. Freshwater intake end-of-pipe fish screen guideline. Minister of Supply and Services. Ontario, Canada. 27 pp.

Capuzzo, J.M. 1977. The effects of free chorine and chloramine on growth and respiration rates of larval lobsters (Homarus americanus). Water Res. 11: 1021–1024.

Capuzzo, J.M. 1979. The effects of halogen toxicants on survival, feeding and egg production of the rotifer Bronchionus plicatilis. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 8(4): 307–316.

Capuzzo, J.M., J.C. Goldman, J.A. Davidson and S.A. Lawrence. 1977. Chlorinated cooling waters in the marine environment: development of effluent guidelines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8(7): 161–164.

Capuzzo, J.M., S.A. Lawrence, and J.A. Davidson. 1976. Combined toxicity of free chlorine, chloramine and temperature to stage 1 larvae of the American lobster (Homarus

americanus). Water Res. 10: 1093–1099.

81

CH2M Hill. 2003. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot Project Surface Facilities Design for Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Canal Sites. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville, Florida.

Coile, N.C. 2000. Notes on Florida’s endangered and threatened plants. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Division of Plant Industry; Gainesville, Florida.

Decker-Walters, D.S. 2002. Status assessment, threats, and genetics of the Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis). Final Report to Tylan Dean, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Cucurbit Network; Miami, Florida.

Deustch, C.J., J.P. Reid, R.K. Bonde, D.E. Easton, H.I. Kochman, and T.J. O’Shea. 2003. Seasonal movements, migratory behavior, and site fidelity of West Indian Manatees along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Wildlife Monographs. No. 151, 77 pp.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. An assessment of invasive nonindigenous species in Florida’s public lands. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.

Gilbert, C.R, ed. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.

Gilmore, R.G. 1977. Notes on the opossum pipefish (Oostethus lineatus), from the Indian River lagoon and vicinity, Florida. Copeia (4):781-783.

Gilmore, R.G. and P.A. Hastings. 1983. Observations on the ecology and distribution of certain tropical peripheral fishes in Florida. Florida Scientist 46(1):31-51.

Gilmore, R.G. and C.R. Gilbert. 1992. Opossum pipefish, Microphis brachyurus lineatus,Family Syngnathidae, Order Syngnathiformes, pp 73-78 in C.R.Gilbert (ed.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume II. Fishes. Univ. Presses of Fla., Gainesville.

Health Canada. 2000. Assessment Report - Inorganic Chloramine. Existing Substances Division. Environmental Contaminants Bureau. Safe Environments Programme. Ontario, Canada.

Jacangelo, J.G., V.P. Olivieri, and K. Kazuyoshi. 1991. Investigating the mechanism of inactivation of Escherichia coli B by monochloramine. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 83(5):80–87.

Kahl Jr., M.P. 1964. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. Ecological Monographs 34:97-117.

82

Lythgoe, J. and G. Lythgoe. 1991. Fishes of the sea. The North Atlantic and Mediterranean. Blandford, London. 256 pp.

Martin, J., Z. Welch, S. Musgrave, D. Piotrowicz, and W. Kitchens. 2002. Snail kite demography annual report 2002. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida. 23 pp.

McBride, R. 2001. Current panther distribution, population, trends, and habitat use. Report of field work: Fall 2000 – Winter 2001. Unpublished report for the Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT. November 2001.

Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, M.B. Berg, J.A. Novak, M.J. Higgins, K.J. Wessell, and J. A. Lessard. 2002. Development and application of a macroinvertebrate functional-group approach in the bioassessment of remnant river oxbows in southwest Florida. Journal North American Benthological Society. 21(2):290-310.

Milne, G. 1991. Chlorine decay in a large river. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 190 pp.

Motamedi, M. and K. Pedersen. 1998. Desulfovibrio aespoeensis sp. nov., a mesophilic sulfate-reducing bacterium from deep groundwater at Aspo hard rock laboratory, Sweden. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 48:311-315.

Reese, R.S. 2002. Inventory and review of aquifer storage and recovery in southern Florida. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4036, DOI, 56pp.

Small, J.K. 1922. Wild pumpkins. Journal New York Botanical Garden 23:19-23.

URS Corporation. 2002. Phase I and II environmental assessment and prospective ecological risk assessment - Berry Groves. Prepared for the South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1999. Central and South Florida project comprehensive review study. Final integrated feasibility report and programmatic environmental impact statement. Jacksonville District Office; Jacksonville, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2002. Final Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) Engineering Alternatives Analyses: A Design Narrative. In cooperation with the South Florida Water Management District in West Palm Beach, Florida. Department of the Army. District, Jacksonville. Jacksonville, Florida. January 28.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 9 pp.

83

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Draft culvert criteria for manatees. Email to author from Dave Ferrell. South Florida Field Office, Vero Beach Florida. June 19.

Vikesland P.J., K. Ozekin, and R.L. Valentine. 1998. Effect of natural organic matter on monochloramine decomposition: Pathway elucidation through the use of mass and redox balances. Environmental Science & Technology; 32 (10):1409-1416.

A-1

Appendix A

The Ecology of Important Freshwater Fish Species

Likely to Be Present in the Project Areas

This information provides physical and chemical habitat preferences, life cycle information (especially for spawning), and recreational and/or commercial value for higher trophic levels.

A-2

Florida Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)

Habitat: Florida largemouth bass prefer clear, nonflowing waters with aquatic vegetation where food and cover are available. In Lake Okeechobee, fish less than 4 inches in total length typically inhabit clear water areas, where larger fish inhabit more turbid waters (25-150 NTU’s) (Steve Gornak, FWC, personal communication, 2003). They may be found in brackish to freshwater habitats, including upper estuaries, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and

ponds. They prefer water temperatures between 18.3 and 29.4 C.

Spawning habits: Spawning occurs from December through May, but usually begins in

February and March when temperatures reach 14.4 to 18.3 C and continues as temperatures rise into the 20s (Table 5). They build nests in hard-bottom areas along shallow shorelines (usually 1 to 4 feet near shoreline) or in protected areas such as canals and coves. After spawning is complete, usually 5 to 10 days, the male guards the eggs and young. Females average about 4,000 eggs per pound of body weight. After hatching (2 to 4 days in the southern United States), the fry swim in tight schools and disband when the young fish reach a length of about 1 inch.

Importance: Sportfishing and human consumption. In addition to being a top predator in the aquatic community, the largemouth bass is Florida’s most popular freshwater game fish. Prior to the 1985 to1986 season, the largemouth bass fishery was 90 percent consumption, which changed to catch and release tournaments in the late 1980s (Steve Gornak, FWC, Personal communication, 2003). During the 1985 to 1986 fishing season, fishermen spent an estimated $3,723,132 fishing for largemouth bass in Lake Okeechobee alone (Bell 1987). Annually, the FWC permits over 500 tournaments per year, which produce an annual revenue of over $5 million for local economies (Steve Gornak, FWC, personal communication, 2003).

Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)

Habitat: Black crappie typically prefer clear, natural lakes and reservoirs with moderate vegetation but are often found in turbid areas of Lake Okeechobee. They are also found in slow moving, less turbid rivers, provided the water is not too murky. They prefer water

temperatures from 21.1 to 23.9 C, but will tolerate waters over 26.7 C. They are gregarious and often travel in schools.

Spawning habits: Spawning occurs from January to May, with the peak spawning time occurring in April and May (FWC sampling data). Spawning temperatures range from

16.7 to 18.3 C. They are colonial nesters over gravel or soft muddy bottoms frequently around vegetation in waters 3 to 8 feet deep. Females produce 11,000 to 188,000 eggs and the males guard the eggs and fry. In the Kissimmee River, a few days after hatching, post-larvae disperse from the nest area and eventually move to deeper water near the middle of the

A-3

channel. Fry move vertically throughout the water column primarily foraging for zooplankton and secondarily to avoid predation. They follow the currents downstream into Lake Okeechobee.

Importance: Sportfishing and human consumption. They are important to the recreational fisheries in the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. According to Bell (1987), fishermen spent an estimated $3,396,153 in Lake Okeechobee during the 1985 to 1986 fishing season.

Bluegill or Bream (Lepomis macrochirus)

Habitat: Bluegill prefer quiet, weedy waters where they can hide and feed. They inhabit lakes and ponds, slow flowing rivers and streams with sand, mud, or gravel bottoms near aquatic vegetation.

Spawning habits: Spawning occurs from April through October with peaks in May and June

when water temperatures reach 25.6 to 26.7 C. They are known for “bedding” in large groups, with circular beds touching one another. Nests occur in water 2 to 6 feet deep on sand, shell or gravel, and often among plant roots when the bottom is soft. Females may lay 2,000 to 63,000 eggs. Hatching takes place approximately 30 to 35 hours after fertilization.

Importance: In addition to being an important food source for top predators, bluegill is one of the more important species to recreational fishing in Florida. An estimated $952,354 was spent on bluegill fishing in Lake Okeechobee during the 1985 to1986 fishing season (Bell 1987).

Redear sunfish or shell cracker (Lepomis microlophus)

Habitat: The redear sunfish is found in almost every freshwater aquatic system in Florida, typically on sandy or shell-covered areas of ponds and lakes, and often located near grasses.They spend a great deal of time offshore in open water, particularly during the winter months. They are commonly found in slow moving waters and have a tendency to congregate around stumps, roots, and logs.

Spawning habits: Spawning may occur between February and October but usually occurs

between May and July when waters reach 21.1 C. They prefer water 3 to 4 feet deep and a firm, shelly bottom, often near a dropoff. Nesting usually occurs near vegetation such as water lily, cattail, lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), and maidencane (Amphicarpum

muhlenbergianum). Breeding behavior is similar to other sunfish, with the males doing the nest building and guarding the young. A female will lay between 15,000 to 30,000 eggs during a spawn.

A-4

Importance: Food prey, sportfishing, and human consumption. They are a desired species to both commercial and recreational anglers due to their palatability. Approximately 90 percent of the total 336,873 pounds of redear sunfish landings were sold out of State for the 1985 to 1986 fishing season (Bell 1987), producing a revenue to the fishermen of $269,498 and $437,935 to the dealers (organizations that purchased the fish from the fishermen), for a total revenue of $707,433.

White Catfish (Ameiurus catus)

Habitat: White catfish are usually found in slow moving streams, river backwaters, reservoirs, and ponds. They will tolerate a siltier bottom and higher salinity than most other

catfish and prefer water temperatures between 26.7 to 29.4 C.

Spawning habits: Spawning occurs when temperatures reach about 20.0 to 22.2 C. They are nest builders, usually on sand or gravel bottom near the shore, sometimes under the protection of logs or debris. Approximately 1,000 to 4,000 adhesive eggs are laid. Males guard and aerate the eggs and care for the young until the fry stop schooling and disperse.

Importance: Human consumption. They are a highly utilized species in the commercial fisheries of Lake Okeechobee. Commercial fishermen caught 2,819,655 pounds of white catfish during the 1985 to 1986 fishing season that equated to a revenue of $1,127,862 to the fishermen and a revenue of $1,718,580 to the dealers who purchased the fishermen’s product and sold it to the public. White catfish account for 57.1 percent of the total commercial fisheries (Bell 1987) of Lake Okeechobee.

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)

Habitat: Channel catfish are found in moderate to swiftly flowing streams, but are also found in reservoirs, lakes, ponds, and some sluggish streams. They usually occur where there are bottoms of sand, gravel, or rubble, but most often on muddy bottoms. They prefer clear water streams but are common and do well in muddy waters. They are also common in deep holes wherever the protection of logs and rocks can be found and are seldom found in dense aquatic vegetation. Channel catfish are a freshwater fish but can thrive in brackish water. Lethal oxygen levels are 1.0 part per million (ppm). Reduced growth occurs at oxygen concentrations below 4 ppm.

Spawning habits: Spawning occurs when the water temperature is between 23.9 and 29.4 C,

with 26.7 C being optimum. Spawns can occur as early as late February but typically before the end of May. Channel catfish are cavity spawners and will spawn only in secluded, semi-dark areas. The male will defend the nest and fry until they leave the nest, which is usually

2 to 5 days after hatching. Eggs require approximately 8 days at 25.6 C to hatch.

A-5

Importance: Human consumption. Channel catfish are highly prized by both commercial and recreational anglers due to their agreeable palatability. Channel catfish are considered one of the best eating freshwater fish.

Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)

Habitat: Brown bullhead generally inhabit still or slow-flowing warm waters in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, large rivers and sluggish streams. They prefer water temperatures of 25.6

to 27.8 C, but can survive in warmer waters. They inhabit areas with mud or deep muck as well as sand or gravel bottoms.

Spawning habits: These are nest builders that often select a site next to some underwater object such as a rock or log. Females deposit 2,000 to 10,000 eggs and incubation lasts from 5 to 8 days. Both parents often care for the eggs and guard the nest until the young reach approximately 1 inch in length. Spawning begins in late April or early May.

Importance: Human consumption. They are commercially caught throughout Lake Okeechobee due to their agreeable taste to consumers. During the 1985 to 1986 fishing season there were 107,199 pounds of brown bullhead caught in Lake Okeechobee and sold for a total value of $96,479 (Bell 1987).

Yellow Bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)

Habitat: Yellow bullhead habitat is variable and includes vegetated areas of clear, shallow lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and slow-moving streams. Although bullheads are more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels and polluted environments than most other members of the catfish family, yellow bullhead prefer smaller, weedier, cleaner bodies of water than their

cousins. They prefer water temperatures between 23.9 to 26.7 C.

Spawning habits: Spawning generally occurs in May and June, with eggs deposited in a nest usually adjacent to a submerged object. One or both parents take part in building the nest and take turns caring for the eggs, which may number 2,000 to 4,000 and hatch in 5 to10 days.

Importance: Human consumption. During the 1985 to1986 fishing season 2,306 pounds of yellow bullhead were caught in Lake Okeechobee and sold on the market for a value of $2,075 (Bell 1987).

B-1

Appendix B

Cycle Testing Schedule and Objectives

B-3

CYCLE TESTING OBJECTIVES

Purpose/Objective Cycle Testing Implications

1. Startup operation of the ASR system. Test the well and treatment system to avoid shut downs during the official cycle testing.

Perform a short (< a few days), pre-cycle testing startup test following construction of surface facilities. Apply on every ASR well. Try to make the startup operation as uniform as possible for every ASR well to minimize the effects of antecedent conditions and for comparison purposes.

2. Build up the Target Storage Volume to increase "recoverability"

Provide a longer recharge period (>2 months) to build up the "bubble" and increase recoverability.

3. Evaluate the effect of storage time on recoverability and water quality

Include shorter and longer storage intervals between cycles to estimate the difference in recoverability and water quality with storage time.

4. Evaluate water quality changes in the initial recovered water

On first full cycle, recover water back to native water quality (or as native as possible)

5. Evaluate pressure buildup at/around the ASR well

Include longer recharge period on at least one cycle to estimate "steady-state" pressures. If applicable, operate all ASR wells at a site simultaneously during at least one cycle.

6. Estimate a "standard" relative recovery efficiency for each ASR well, and conduct baseline geochemical testing.

Include a "standard" cycle (same recharge and recovery duration, etc.) for every ASR well. This should be conducted at the start of cycle testing to minimize antecedent changes to subsurface water quality from previous cycles.

7. Provide time for post-cycle-test logging Provide down time at the end of cycle testing to perform the logging in the ASR well, as specified in the ASR Regional Study PMP

8. Tracer tests - tracer placed in monitor well During at least one of the cycles, include adequate recovery time for tracer tests planned for the ASR Regional Study.

9. Evaluate geochemical changes as the freshwater front moves through the aquifer

Recharge for a long enough period to observe the "bubble" at all/most monitor wells.

10. Survival studies, bioassays, and mesocosms

Include adequate recovery volumes for survival studies, bioassays, and mesocosms outlined in the ASR Regional Study PMP.

11. Mimic the projected operation of the full-scale system

More frequent cycles at Hillsboro; longer storage times at Lake Okeechobee, etc.

B-4

Purpose/Objective Cycle Testing Implications

12. Estimate the characteristics of the storage "bubble" (shape, thickness, expansion rate, etc.)

Best performed at a site with the most monitoring locations surrounding the injection point. Recharge for long enough for the "bubble" to arrive at the monitor wells.

13. Estimate the effect of buoyancy Longer recharge/storage periods increase the effect of buoyancy.

14. Determine if there is any upward movement of stored water into the surficial aquifer

Longer recharge/storage periods may increase the chance for upward movement.

15. Evaluate the effect of decreased recovery rates on recovery efficiency

Vary (decrease) the recovery rate in successive cycles.

16. Tracer test - tracer placed in the ASR well Provide adequate recharge time to allow a tracer placed in an ASR well to be detected in the designated monitor well(s).

17. Microspheres tracer test Provide adequate recharge time to allow the microspheres placed in an ASR well to be detected in the designated monitor wells.

18. Microphage tracer test Provide adequate recharge time to allow the microphage placed in an ASR well to be detected in the designated monitor wells.

19. Evaluate operation and maintenance routines and requirements.

Evaluate the O&M requirements and the implications for continued operation and expansion of ASR systems.

20. Entrainment and impingement of larval fish

Provide suitable recharge period with site-specific intake method (Kissimmee site only)

21. Evaluate upconing Longer recovery periods at full rates would provide more stress and chance of upconing

Assumptions:

" Cycle testing, and the evaluation of these objectives, can be conducted beyond the two-year duration of the pilot projects. It is assumed that cycle testing will continue beyond the two-years allotted for the pilot projects, specifically to continue answering these questions.

" Background conditions (water levels, water quality, etc.) will be recorded before cycle testing begins.

" It is assumed that the necessary water quality criteria will be met as specified in the permits. Water quality testing will be performed during cycle testing in accordance with this requirement.

" Several of the above objectives are inter-related.

" All objectives cannot be met at each ASR site, but most objectives can be met by designating certain sites to meet individual objectives.