The Kissimmee River Save Our Rivers Project undertaken by the State of Florida's South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is one of the State's most important water resource restoration projects. The SFWMD "Save our Rivers program" and the "Preservation 2000 program" will restore approximately 25 miles of the original Kissimmee River channel and over 25 square miles of associated floodplain wetlands.A primary goal for both the Save Our Rivers and Preservation 2000 programs is to have the Kissimmee River and associated land be used for public recreation without causing the degradation of the natural resources of the river corridor. As landscape architects and lead consultants for the project, E D S A worked with various professionals to develop a methodology for the inventory and analysis of what the post-restoration conditions is projected to be for the Kissimmee River Ecosystem. Utilizing Environmental Systems Research, Inc. (Esri) ArcInfo software and polygon overlay, the consultants developed a methodology to rate the site's vulnerability to resource-based recreation. From this analysis, the consultants developed a process and guideline for land use and public recreation.
The purpose of this paper and presentation is: 1) to introduce and describe the project's scope and goals, 2) describe the methodology utilized for the analysis process; 3) illustrate and describe the maps generated by Esri's ArcInfo software during the analysis process and; 4) present the resulting Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resources Guideline for public recreation.
INTRODUCTION
Undertaken by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as part of the Save
Our Rivers and Preservation 2000 programs, the Kissimmee River Project will restore
approximately 25 miles of the original river channel of the Kissimmee River and over 25
square miles of floodplain wetlands. The total project area encompasses approximately
60,000 acres.
Located in central Florida, the Kissimmee River originates at the south end of Lake
Kissimmee and flows southward to Lake Okeechobee. Originally the river system
meandered south with an original route of over 100 miles. During the 1970's the Army
Corps of Engineers channelized the river for flood control. The result, a 56 mile canal
(C-38) that has been widely criticized. Due to the channelization, the Kissimmee River
has been the target of much study and has been slated for restoration. Currently, the
South Florida Water Management District has begun the restoration using a Level II
Backfill plan. Essentially, the Level II Backfill will fill as much of the Canal as possible
without affecting flood control in the River's Upper Basin and at the outlet of the River's
Lower Basin.
This paper will present a brief overview of the goals of the restoration, the analysis process
developed and the resulting Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resources Management
Report.
GOALS OF THE RESTORATION
In the Kissimmee River Restoration Act, the Florida Legislature described its goals for the
River's restoration as follows:
1. The restoration should use the natural and free energies of the River system (not an
impounded or a highly managed system).
2. The restoration should restore the natural ecological functions of the River system.
3. The restoration should restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of the water and restore lost environmental values such as vegetation and wildlife
habitat.
Every definition of the restoration goals for the Kissimmee River supports restoration of the
Kissimmee River "as it once was." Although the restoration process is not an attempt to
force the river into a pre-channelized state, in a general sense, the pre-channelized state,
may closely resemble the results of the restoration.
In order for this restoration to occur, ecological integrity must be achieved. Ecological
integrity is defined as "an ecosystem's capability to support and maintain biological
communities with species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable
to that of the natural habitat of the region." (Kissimmee River Inventory and Analysis
Report, February 1995,
E D S A , et al)
Determinants of ecological integrity include primarily the hydrologic and physiographic
features of the pre-channelized Kissimmee River. All activities in the river floodplain
corridor and, to some extent, the basin as a whole, should conform with the
pre-channelization conditions.
The project was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team (the Team) of consultants. The
Team included landscape architects, experts in hydrology, vegetation, wildlife and market
analysis. The Team's ultimate goal was to develop a Conceptual Land Use and Natural
Resources Management Plan for those lands controlled by the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) adjacent to the Kissimmee River. The emphasis of the
plan was to provide for public recreational activities that would not degrade what will be
the restored Kissimmee River ecosystem.
PROJECT GOALS
The goals for the Kissimmee River "Save Our Rivers" Project are:
1. To evaluate the ecological systems of the Kissimmee River and its surroundings,
and to determine the carrying capacity, or suitabilities for recreational development.
2. To develop a recreation and management plan that enhances the natural and
ecological integrity of the restored Kissimmee River system, using the determined
suitabilities. The management plan strategy is:
a) To provide the public with sustained use and enjoyment of the restored
Kissimmee River project area in a manner that ensures the public use does not degrade
the man-made and natural systems of the region.
b) To manage the Restored Kissimmee River Ecosystem as one interactive
biological system as compared to the current practice of management by individual
parcels.
c) To ensure that proposed land uses are consistent, and not in conflict with each
other (i.e. high intensity land uses are not in close proximity to natural, native or more
primitive land uses).
To address these goals and to assess the physical capabilities of the project area, several
project assumptions and determinations were made and an analysis process was devised.
The following section describes the methodology utilized for the project.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS: THE COMPOSITE MAPPING PROCESS
Once the background material was reviewed and the inventory maps of the resources was
produced, the methodological approach necessary to understand the river corridor 's
physical capabilities began. This consisted of the following steps:
1. Develop an understanding of the physical boundaries and parameters of the
restoration project.
2. Develop an understanding of the project area ownership which will modify any
land use decisions.
3. Divide the components of the Kissimmee River Ecosystem into manageable parts
for analysis and study.
4. Develop a working definition of vulnerability or tolerance and a process by which
to rate the vulnerabilities associated with the resource systems.
5. Map the vulnerability associated with each resource system.
6. Develop a composite vulnerability map for the project area by overlaying the
resource system vulnerability maps using the developed Rules of Combination. From this
composite analysis map, the project area's physical capabilities are depicted. This
process is illustrated in Figure 1, Overall Composite Map Overlay Process.
RESOURCE COMPONENTS
The Kissimmee River ecosystem represents a dynamic equilibrium of nature. To determine
the project site's carrying capacity, its natural and man-made systems were evaluated separately and combined in an overlay mapping process. The systems which were evaluated included:
1. Vegetation/Soils
2. Wildlife Habitat
3. Hydrology/Physiography
4. Visual Resources
5. Historical/Archaeological
Resources
6. Land Ownerhsip Opportunities / Recreation Development Potential
Each system was evaluated for its vulnerability or tolerance to resource-based recreation.
For Visual Resources, Hydrology / Physiography Resources and Wildlife Habitat
Resources, quality was also evaluated as a component of vulnerability. Evaluation of
resource quality is important in determining vulnerability because the highest quality
areas have the most to lose if impacted. For example, in planning for recreational uses,
the highest quality visual areas rank as the most desirable; but if such areas are targeted
for use without examining their resource vulnerability, the likely result is the resources of
these high quality areas will suffer and the quality of the resource will diminish.
Therefore, quality areas that can also withstand resource impact should be targeted for
use, while high quality areas that cannot withstand impact should be avoided.
Resource vulnerability was determined by developing a methodology that identified the
resources' "critical factors", ie., physical or biological attributes that are vital to the
inherent quality and vulnerability of a resource. Once the "critical factors" were
identified, a process by which to evaluate composite vulnerability was developed.
To study and evaluate each of the resource components, it was essential to develop
resource units or typical homogenous groups. The following section describes the
development of the project's Evaluation Groups.
DEVELOPMENT OF HOMOGENOUS MAPPING UNITS - EVALUATION GROUPS
The components of the ecosystem were subdivided into homogenous units for analysis
and mapping. These units were also referred to as evaluation groups, representing the
different micro-ecosystems that are included in the overall Kissimmee River ecosystem.
These groups assist in identifying the different, yet interrelated parts of the Kissimmee
River Ecosystem.
The project area was divided into eighteen (18) Evaluation Groups. When examining the
project area's typical cross section, the Team was able to determine specific
micro-ecosystems based on the type of existing and pre-channelized vegetation and
existing land cover. Using the South Florida Water Management District's Land Use and
Classification System the evaluation groups were identified. Please refer to Figure 2; Post
Restoration Vegetation Evaluation Units Map.
These groups were utilized when analyzing the following resources:
1) Vegetation / Soils Vulnerability
2) Hydrology / Physiography Quality
3) Wildlife Habitat Vulnerability (sensitivity)
4) Visual Resource Quality and Absorption Capability (composite visual
vulnerability).
For the purpose of studying the hydrology and physiography of the site, evaluation groups
were determined as a function of the Kissimmee River landform. Specifically, these
evaluation groups consisted of:
1) Channel
2) Flood Plains
3) Transitional Zones
4) Tributary and Watercourses
5) Uplands.
To evaluate the vulnerability of the historical / archaeological sites, the analysis was
completed using the specific site locations of the resources.
WORKING DEFINITION OF VULNERABILITY
For the purpose of the study, vulnerability was defined as the ability of an area to
withstand impact without degrading its natural and ecological integrity. The more
resilient or tolerant a resource is to degradation due to human impact, the less vulnerable.
Conversely, the more susceptible or less tolerant a resource is to human impact, the more
vulnerable the resource.
The study examined the vulnerability of the evaluation groups for each resource. The
levels of vulnerability were designated as follows:
High Vulnerability - Any impact will have the potential to degrade the ecological
integrity.
Moderate Vulnerability - Able to withstand limited impact without the potential of
degrading the ecological integrity.
Limited Vulnerability - Able to withstand moderate impact without the potential of
degradation to the ecological integrity.
Minimal Vulnerability - Able to withstand high levels of impact without the
potential of degradation to the ecological integrity.
The following section briefly reviews the specific resource methodologies utilized in
determining resource vulnerability.
SPECIFIC RESOURCE METHODOLOGIES
A specific resource methodology was developed for each of the resources. This included
defining the components of the resource system, discussing the importance of the natural
system and evaluation groups as part of the overall Kissimmee River ecosystem, and
identifying and selecting "critical factors" for evaluation. The "critical factors" can be
defined as the physical and biological factors which are responsible for controlling and
maintaining the natural condition of a resource. For example, the four factors or "critical
factors" common to all natural plant communities within the Kissimmee River Area are:
Hydroperiod-Groundwater, Soils, Fire and Physical Disturbance. Each one of the "critical
factors" was evaluated numerically for each of the specific resource evaluation groups and
assigned a rating for resource vulnerability. To further define the evaluation process, a
graphic diagram depicting the procedure was developed. See Figure 3 for an example of
the Vegetation / Soils Process Diagram.
The following is a brief overview of each of the specific resource methodologies that the
study addressed.
VEGETATION / SOILS RESOURCES
The vegetation is the assemblage of plant species, both native and introduced, which
define characteristics and recognizable plant communities and/or land types. One of the
goals of the project is "to restore and protect the natural state and condition of the River
ecosystem". Therefore, maintenance and enhancement of the condition of these natural
plant communities within the project area became a priority.
The various evaluation groups for Vegetation / Soils were examined and rated for
vulnerability or tolerance based on Hydroperiod / Groundwater, Soils, Fire and Physical
Disturbances. See Figure 3, Vegetation / Soils Vulnerability Process Diagram.
HYDROLOGIC / PHYSIOGRAPHIC RESOURCES
The Hydrological/Physiographic Composite Vulnerability was determined by the
combination of the vulnerability and quality for the Hydrology / Physiography of the
project area. Vulnerability was examined using the five evaluation groups that were
based on land form. Quality was examined using the evaluation groups based on land
cover. In essence, the composite vulnerability, or the combination of the vulnerability
map and the quality map, state that areas having natural drainage patterns and are
vulnerable based on the landform evaluation groups stand to lose the most ecological
integrity if impacted.
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESOURCES
The Wildlife Habitat was evaluated using a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
as developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Habitat types that supported eleven
different typical wildlife species were identified, and a map was generated for each
wildlife species type. Each map outlined areas of high vulnerability, which require high
levels of planning sensitivities, and areas of poor vulnerability, which require less
sensitivity.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Visual Resources of the project were evaluated for Visual Quality and Visual
Absorption Capability (or the ability of an area to withstand impact without changing the
visual character).
A Visual Quality rating was then determined using a modified version of the Bureau of
Land Management's Visual Resource Management Process. The visual quality and visual
absorption capability evaluation were combined to generate Visual Resources
Vulnerability.
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Historical / Archaeological site locations were identified and their vulnerabilities
determined. For each of these areas, the specific site was considered to be the most
vulnerable while areas radiating from the site were considered to be decreasing in
vulnerability.
The Historical / Archaeological areas were used as modifiers to the composite
vulnerability map.
LAND OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES / RECREATION DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The various types of land ownership within the study area have different degrees of
development that may be allowed. The ownership types varied from sole ownership to
other governmental ownerships. As with the Historical/Archaeological resources, the land
ownership opportunities map was overlaid as a modifier to the Composite Vulnerability
Map.
Esri's PC ARC/INFO software was utilized for the computer application during the entire
analysis process. Using traditional polygon overlay, the Team was able to generate not
only the inventory maps, but more importantly the quality and vulnerability maps for the
resources. The team was then able to combine the different levels of information and
generate the array of analysis maps needed to complete the project. After each of the
resources were evaluated for vulnerability, or tolerance to resource based recreation, the
maps were combined to create the Post Restoration Composite Site Analysis /
Development Suitability Map.
The following section describes the composite mapping process.
OVERALL COMPOSITE MAPPING PROCESS
Synthesis of all the resource rating information into generation of the Post-Restoration
Composite Site Analysis/Development Suitability Map involved the following steps:
1. Vulnerability mapping for each resource based on application each specific resource
methodology. These maps included:
a. Post Restoration Vegetation / Soils Vulnerability Map
b. Post Restoration Hydrology / Physiography Composite Vulnerability Analysis Map
c. Post Restoration Composite Habitat Suitability Map
d. Post Restoration Composite Visual Resources Vulnerability Map
e. Historic/Archaeological Vulnerability Map
f. Ownership / Recreation Development Opportunity Map
2. Team review of each resource vulnerability map. Four of the maps were subsequently
overlaid with a 1:1 relationship to create a range of vulnerability ratings that are displayed
throughout the project site. These four maps included:
a. Post Restoration Vegetation/ Soils Vulnerability Map
b. Post Restoration Hydrology / Physiography Composite Vulnerability Analysis Map
c. Post Restoration Composite Habitat Suitability Map
d. Post Restoration Composite Visual Resources Vulnerability Map
The overlaid vulnerability values were examined by the Team and grouped into four
(4) vulnerability or development suitability classes. This information formed the basis for
the final Post-Restoration Composite Site Analysis/Development Suitability mapping.
3. Once the Post-Restoration Composite Site Analysis / Development Suitability Map was
finalized, the Historic/Archaeological Resources and the Recreation Development
Potential maps were overlaid as modifiers. These two modifiers represent the restrictions
of land ownership and the legislation that protects historic sites.
The Composite Mapping Process generated the Post-Restoration Composite Site Analysis /
Development Suitability Map. See Figure 4 for the Post-Restoration Composite Site
Analysis Map.
The Post-Restoration Composite Site Analysis/Development Suitability Map ratings are
divided into the following four (4) categories:
Low Suitability/High Vulnerability - This category is graphically represented on the
Composite Analysis Map by the color red. These areas have the highest resource
vulnerability, thus the lowest recreational development suitability. The natural resources
of these areas stand to lose the most if improperly used or managed. These areas should
be conserved and used for passive types of resource-based recreation.
Limited Suitability/Moderate Vulnerability - This category is graphically represented on
the map by the color yellow. These areas have the second highest vulnerability, thus the
second lowest suitability. They can withstand more impact than the low suitability/high
vulnerability areas, yet should still be managed and planned for limited use, as this area's
natural resources would still suffer if impacted by development. These areas should be
used for passive types of resource-based recreation.
Moderate Suitability/Limited Vulnerability - This category is represented on the map by
the color green. Having only limited resource vulnerability, these areas can withstand a
moderate amount of resource-based recreational impacts without degradation to the
natural resources. More active types of recreational uses are appropriate in these areas.
High Suitability/Minimal Vulnerability - This last category is represented by the color
blue on the Composite Analysis Map. The natural resources of these areas have the least
amount of vulnerability or the highest development suitability and they can withstand the
highest level of resource-based recreation impacts without degradation. Active types of
resource-based recreation would be most appropriately sited in these areas.
To further summarize the results of the ratings displayed on the Post Restoration
Composite Site Analysis / Development Suitability Map, two general ratings categories
exist, each accounting for approximately 45% of the total project site. These two ratings
are either Low Suitability/High Vulnerability or Moderate Suitability/Limited
Vulnerability.
Interpretation of these results indicates that the site represents a sensitive ecosystem. The
Team has assumed that this project is not a preservation study where vulnerable resource
areas are to be identified and targeted for no impact, but that these areas are to be treated
conservatively and sensitively. They are to be used and maintained so that they may be
enjoyed by the public in the future. Vulnerable resource areas are most suited for passive, non-intrusive types of recreational uses. As the vulnerability decreases, or the suitability increases, the level of activity and impacts can increase without degradation to the resources. Highly and moderately
suitable areas can withstand impacts of recreational development. These areas are more
suited for active and moderately intrusive resource-based recreational uses. Such uses as
boating, camping, hunting and air-boating.
The Post-Restoration Composite Site Analysis/Development Suitability Map (See Figure 4)
provides the framework for future planning decisions to be made with the conservation of
the project area's resources in mind. This effort will allow for the sustained use of the
land without degradation of the natural resources and their inherent beauty, while still
achieving the goals for the restored Kissimmee River as set forth by the SFWMD and the
State of Florida.
The following section is an overview of the resulting plan and guideline developed using
the Post Restoration Composite Site Analysis / Development Suitability Map.
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REPORT
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Resource Management Strategy
for the Kissimmee River project area can be stated as follows:
1. To provide the public with sustained use and enjoyment of the restored Kissimmee
River project area in a manner that ensures the public use does not degrade the
man-made and natural systems of the region.
2. To manage the Restored Kissimmee River Ecosystem as one interactive biological
system as compared to the current practice of management by individual parcels.
3. To ensure that proposed land uses are consistent, and not in conflict with each
other (i.e. high intensity land uses are not in close proximity to natural, native or more
primitive land uses).
It is important to understand that the purpose of the Kissimmee River Restoration and all
of the completed and on-going land acquisition is to restore the land's lost environmental
values that occurred after the Army Corps of Engineer's channelization of the river. Public
use and enjoyment is an important but secondary goal of the restoration.
As stated previously, the two most important goals for the restored Kissimmee River
ecosystem are: 1) to maintain the ecological integrity of the restored condition; and 2) to
maintain the project area for the types of public uses that do not degrade the natural
resources of the project area. The management of the land must provide for the
ecological integrity first, and secondly for sustained public recreational use and access.
Additionally a balance must be struck between the short term and the long term goals and
objectives.
LONG TERM GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific long term management goals for public use and the maintenance of ecological
integrity of the site were defined as follows:
1. Maintain and promote the ecological relationship between the wetland and upland
areas of the Kissimmee River project area whenever possible. Generally, to maintain the
Restored Kissimmee River Ecosystem as a healthy integrated biological system.
2. Provide for the types of sustained recreational uses of the project lands which do not
degrade the natural resources of the Restored Kissimmee River Ecosystem.
3. Restore the natural ecological form, function, and environmental values of the river system.
4. When possible maintain and protect all high vulnerable / low suitability areas as identified in the Post Restoration Composite Site Analysis / Development Suitability Map from the Kissimmee River Inventory and Analysis Report, February, 1995.
5. Prior to initiation of detailed planning or design of recreational facilities or improvements, all sites must adhere to applicable Federal, State or local laws governing the protection of historic or archeological resources.
6. All use and management of the project area lands must comply with local comprehensive plans, codes, legislation, easements, and other current or related management plans (Avon Park Bombing Range or other State owned lands).
SHORT TERM GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A significant long term goal of the Kissimmee River project is to implement the types of
public recreational use that will not degrade the natural resources of the site, all of the
land which is currently not maintained for recreational purposes will need to eventually
be transferred over to that use. Some of these typical current land uses include
agricultural (crops and groves), pasture, and improved pasture (or "human manipulated"
land cover). Currently, many of the parcels the SFWMD has purchased are being leasing
back to the original land owners. The SFWMD imposes restrictions on the land owners
regarding the use of land in all cases. These restrictions relate to the restoration goals
themselves. For example, land owners using the land for agricultural uses cannot use
fertilizers. These types of restrictions assist in the process of shaping the land back into its
native, or pre-channelized condition. Therefore, the short term goals and
recommendations need to be extensions of the long term Kissimmee River Restoration
Goals, especially with regard to water quality, native flora and fauna, and public use.
1. Land should not be used to impound water, or to manage water flow. When possible, the lands should be used to promote the natural and free energies of the river system.
2. Land uses should, whenever possible, serve in restoring the natural ecological functions of the river system. Therefore, highly managed or manipulated land uses, such as agricultural lands and groves, should be kept to a minimum.
3. When completed, the restoration project should restore and maintain a natural physical, chemical, and biological integrity of all associated water resources. In addition, a restoration of other lost environmental values such as vegetation and wildlife habitat should also occur. For example, improved pasture or agriculture land uses should be changed to, at a minimum, unimproved pasture. These types of land use changes will begin to reduce human's past impacts to the Kissimmee River ecosystem. To that end, all land within the project area should be allowed to transform back to a native or pre-channelized state.
Once restoration has been achieved and the SFWMD has the gained the ability to manage
the Kissimmee River Project area as one integrated biological system, it is the Team's
intent that the specific Long and Short Term Goals and Recommendations continue to be
followed.
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCE GUIDELINES
Based on the results of the resource analysis study, a Conceptual Land Use and Natural
Resources Guideline has been prepared. (For a more detailed description of the
Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resource Guideline, please refer to Figure 5.) The
results of the analysis were used as the framework for guidelines. It is important to note
that as the South Florida Water Management District adds land to the project, the analysis
methodology that has been developed for the project should be applied to those new
lands. Additionally, the specific land uses and locations should be responsive to the
land's inherent vulnerability or its ability to withstand the impacts of resource based
recreation.
Based on the development suitability of the Kissimmee River project area, as defined in
the analysis study, the Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resource Guideline was divided
into three parts or activity zones. These zones are defined from North to South:
1) High Intensity (from Lake Kissimmee to the northern terminus of the
restoration)
2) Low Intensity (the restoration area)
3) High Intensity (from the southern terminus of the restoration to Lake Okeechobee)
NORTHERN HIGH INTENSITY ACTIVITY ZONE
HIGH INTENSITY
Boating / water activities to be incorporated with structured boat launches and paved parking
Picnicking
Hiking
Camping
Hunting / east and west sides on designated dates
Potential for expanded paved and unpaved access for parking and boat
launches
Equestrian trails (West side only)
Frogging
MIDDLE LOW INTENSITY ACTIVITY ZONE
HICKORY HAMMOCK (UPLAND)
Visitors / Interpretive Center - opportunity for cooperative venture
Security / Maintenance / Emergency Central services
Registration / Special permit issuance
Camping
Picnic shelters
Restroom / Showers
Fire pits
Horse trails
Bird blinds
Hiking / Seasonal trail loop for guided or self guided tours from the Hickory Hammock Upland through the wetlands to River - connection from Interpretive Center to River
Other acceptable uses that are included in the middle low intensity activity zone are as
follows:
LOW INTENSITY
Canoeing and power boating
Hiking
Camping
Fishing - from boat and canoe
Bird watching
Waterfowl hunting
SOUTHERN HIGH INTENSITY ACTIVITY ZONE
HIGH INTENSITY
Boating / water activities to be incorporated with structured boat launches and paved parking
Sports / Resort Lodge / Joint Development opportunity with sports associations to manage and maintain
proposed facilities
Picnicking with facilities / north of State Road 70
Camping / east side, north of State Road 70
Bird watching
Mountain bikes and equestrian trails
Water fowl hunting
All proposed uses should be monitored for potential degradation to the site's natural and man-made resources. Once degradation occurs, it is imperative that the level or intensity of the land uses be adjusted , so that irreparable damage does not occur. Additionally, as proposed land uses are managed on the project areas and corresponding levels of intensity are found not to cause degradation or decrease the quality of the user's experience, proposed land use intensities may be allowed to increase. The result is a project area that has a strict, but flexible, management plan.
CONCLUSION
The Kissimmee River Save Our Rivers Project is one of the many important water
resource-restoration projects in the State of Florida. The analysis process developed by the Team represents a methodological approach to rating resource vulnerability or tolerance to resource based recreation. Through the extensive use of Esri's ArcInfo software and polygon overlay, the Team was able to apply a vulnerability rating processes for each of the resource components. The resulting maps generated by computer were used in developing the overall Post Restoration Composite Site Analysis / Development Suitability Map.
Once the Composite Map was generated, the Team was able to make prudent land use and management decisions regarding the public use of the project's lands. As with every Land Use and Management plan, flexibility is vital. The Kissimmee River ecosystem represents a dynamic equilibrium of nature, therefore the resulting Land Use and Management plan allows the flexibility to increase or reduce the potential intensities of use.
The Team's efforts in developing the analysis methodology, applying the methodology and creating the Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resource Guideline was an effort in resource conservation. It was critical for the Team to understand that the land was first and foremost purchased for the river's restoration, and secondly for public use. The SFWMD directed the Team to understand the site's vulnerabilities or tolerances, and then plan for public use. The Team was able to do this only after the resources were understood, the methodological approach was developed and applied, and the resulting
Post Restoration Composite Site Analysis/ Development Suitability Map was created. Understanding the natural resources of the site was vital to the project. Without understanding the site's resources and their carrying capacity, wise land use decisions could not be made.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper would not have been possible without the perseverance, diligence and hard work of the Kissimmee River Save Our River's Project Team. Without everyone's effort, the project would not have been completed. and this paper not possible. I would like to sincerely thank the following individuals for their efforts and contributions:
Susan Lounsbury-Ludovico
Asheville, North Carolina
C. Douglas Coolman
E D S A
Rick Eggleston
Miami Lakes, Florida
Kent Loftin,
Howard L. Searcy Consulting Engineers
(a division of Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Helsrom,Inc.)
Jim Milleson
Milleson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Dr. Jay Exum
Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc.
Greg Cory
Economics Research Associates
Robin Rogger
E D S A
REFERENCES
E D S A, et. al., Kissimmee River Inventory and Analysis Report, as prepared for the South
Florida Water Management District, February, 1995.
E D S A, et. al., Kissimmee River Conceptual Land Use and Natural Resources
Management Report as prepared for the South Florida Water Management District, April,
1995.
E D S A, et. al., Kissimmee River Analysis Appendices, as prepared for the South Florida
Water Management District, February, 1995
E D S A, et. al., Geographic Information System Development, as prepared for the South
Florida Water Management District, February, 1995.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Keane, Dr. Timothy. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 913-532-5961.
Lounsbury, Susan. Asheville, North Carolina
Paul D. Kissinger, ASLA, Associate, E D S A , 1512 East Broward Boulevard, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, (954)524-3330, (954) 524-0177, PDKISS@AOL.COM