Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades

The First Biennial Review – 2006

Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP)

Water Science and Technology Board

Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades The First Biennial Review – 2006 Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) Water Science and Technology Board Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report was produced under assistance of Cooperative Agreement No. W912EP-04-2-0001 with the Department of the Army. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10335-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10335-5 Cover credit: Cover images courtesy of the South Florida Water Management District. From top to bottom: development along the eastern edge of the Everglades in western Miami-Dade County; satellite image of Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B, taken April 1994; and inflow water control structure G337A at Stormwater Treatment Area 2. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 5th Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROGRESS* WAYNE C. HUBER, Chair, Oregon State University, Corvallis BARBARA L. BEDFORD, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York LINDA K. BLUM, University of Virginia, Charlottesville DONALD F. BOESCH, University of Maryland, Cambridge F. DOMINIC DOTTAVIO, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio WILLIAM L. GRAF, University of South Carolina, Columbia CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania JIANGUO LIU, Michigan State University, East Lansing GORDON H. ORIANS, University of Washington (emeritus), Seattle P. SURESH C. RAO, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana LEONARD A. SHABMAN, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C. JEFFREY R. WALTERS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg NRC Staff STEPHEN D. PARKER, Study Director, Water Science and Technology Board DAVID J. POLICANSKY, Scholar, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Senior Program Officer, Water Science and Technology Board DOROTHY K. WEIR, Research Associate, Water Science and Technology Board * The activities of this committee were overseen and supported by the National Research Council’s Water Science and Technology Board and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (see Appendix D for listing). Biographical information on committee members and staff is contained in Appendix E.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Acknowledgments Many individuals assisted the committee and the National Research Council staff in their task to create this report. We would like to express our appreciation to the following people who have provided presentations to the committee, served as guides during the field trips, and provided comments to the committee: Presentations Shabbir Ahmed, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stuart Applebaum, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nick Aumen, National Park Service Ronnie Best, U.S. Geological Survey Steve Davis, South Florida Water Management District Larry Gerry, South Florida Water Management District Steve Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gary Goforth, Gary Goforth, Inc. David Hallac, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Matt Harwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delia Ivanoff, South Florida Water Management District Robert Johnson, National Park Service David Krabbenhoft, U.S. Geological Survey Elmar Kurzbach, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Steve Light, CAMNet Jerry Lorenz, National Audubon Society Greg May, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Frank Mazzotti, University of Florida Stefani Melvin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brenda Mills, South Florida Water Management District John Ogden, South Florida Water Management District

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Peter Ortner, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Gary Rand, Florida International University Garth Redfield, South Florida Water Management District Russell Reed, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Barry Rosen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pam Sievers, South Florida Water Management District Patti Sime, South Florida Water Management District Fred Sklar, South Florida Water Management District Jay Slack, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kimberley Taplin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tom Teets, South Florida Water Management District Tom Van Lent, Everglades Foundation Paul Warner, South Florida Water Management District Russell Weeks, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field Trip Guides Nick Aumen, National Park Service Laura Brandt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eric Cline, South Florida Water Management District Sandy Dayhoff, National Park Service Robert Johnson, National Park Service Dan Kimball, National Park Service Carol Mitchell, National Park Service Rolf Olson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Larry Perez, National Park Service Bill Perry, National Park Service Bob Sobczak, National Park Service Kimberley Taplin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Comment Sydney Bacchus, Hydroecologist John Marshall, Arthur R. Marshall Foundation Tom Poulson, Arthur R. Marshall Foundation Brian Scherf, Sierra Club Rod Tirrell, Sierra Club Jon Ullman, Sierra Club Tom Warnke, Surfrider Foundation

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Preface The Everglades are unique in the world in its assemblage of geographic and ecological wonders, ranging from tree islands to exotic reptiles and wading birds. With a landscape that slopes as little as an inch per mile, the water in the “River of Grass” historically moved slowly but inexorably from the region of Lake Okeechobee southward toward the current Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, sustaining its unique ecological riches. However, nearly 130 years of drainage, channelization, encroachment, and development for the beneficial uses of agriculture, industry, and cities have reduced the original 3 million acres of natural landscape by about half. Water destined for Everglades National Park must now run a gauntlet of canals, levees, pump stations, and hydraulic controls. Pollution of pristine natural waters by phosphorus and mercury and invasion by exotic species further compromise the ability of the Everglades to support its ecological functions. In response to these issues, the state of Florida and the nation have formed a partnership to restore the remaining Everglades ecosystem as nearly as possible to pre-drainage hydrologic conditions, under the reasonable assumption that if we “get the water right” a positive ecological response will follow. The nearly 11 billion dollar (2004 estimate) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP, is the realization of this partnership, as jointly managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, or WRDA 2000, the Plan includes provision for independent scientific oversight as to progress in restoring the natural system. The National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress, or CISRERP, was formed for this purpose in 2004; this report is the first of a series of biennial evaluations that are scheduled to last the 30-year lifetime of the CERP.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Our committee met seven times, including five times in Florida, for the purposes of gathering information, receiving input from professionals and the public, and formulating and reaching consensus on this first report. We heard from state and federal personnel, environmental groups, academicians, and citizens. The committee relied on scientific literature, agency reports, online resources, presentations, field trips, and other information relevant to our charge. Evaluating this information and synthesizing our report has easily filled up the approximately 2-year span of our activities. Restoration activities are highly dynamic; of necessity, we were unable to review in detail any material developed past about December 1, 2005. Although the CERP has been active for 5 years, little if any in-ground construction has occurred while detailed design efforts are under way. Nonetheless, there are more than enough topics on which to report, including project management, financing, sequencing, the role of science, monitoring and assessment, non-CERP restoration projects, and the importance of land acquisition. In particular, we highlight the opportunities for active adaptive management on the part of the USACE and the SFWMD to reduce scientific uncertainties while simultaneously initiating projects at a scale that will positively affect the natural system. Needless to say, our committee could not address all scientific and technical issues that affect restoration progress in this first report. The timing of the release of key restoration documents by the CERP and the emergence of particular issues of concern influenced the topics addressed in this report. Thus, many topics await evaluation by succeeding incarnations of the CISRERP. For example, future topics might include the output of models that attempt to simulate the pre-drainage hydrology of the Everglades, the appropriate spatial scales for understanding and managing hydrology, better understanding of how the CERP is affected by changes in the timing or design of individual projects, and the potential influence of climate change on restoration success. By delivery of the next report in 2008, construction will have been completed on some pilot and other CERP projects, and more effort will also have been expended by the committee in analyzing such accomplishments. Our committee is indebted to many individuals for their contributions of information and resources. Specifically, we appreciate the guidance of our committee’s technical liaisons: Elmar Kurzbach (USACE), Garth Redfield (SFWMD), Tom Van Lent (formerly of the National Park Service), Barry Rosen (formerly of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), and Todd Hopkins (USFWS). Numerous others helped educate our committee on the complexities of the Everglades restoration through their presentations, field

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 trips, and public comments (see Acknowledgments). The 12 members of the committee worked in full partnership with senior project officer Stephanie Johnson, who directed the study for the NRC, and NRC scholar David Policansky. Stephanie’s particular dexterity in simultaneously running a meeting, contributing to the discussion, taking notes, and synthesizing the results is truly amazing. The committee enjoyed thoughtful oversight by director of the Water Science and Technology Board Stephen Parker and expert logistical and editorial support from Dorothy Weir. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the NRC in making its published report as sound as possible and will ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John J. Boland, Johns Hopkins University; Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland; Dara Entekhabi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Elsa M. Garmire, Dartmouth College; Louis J. Gross, University of Tennessee; Lt. Gen. Elvin R. Heiberg III, Heiberg Associates, Inc.; Charles D. D. Howard, CddHoward Consulting Ltd; Thomas K. MacVicar, MacVicar, Federico and Lamb, Inc.; Judith L. Meyer, University of Georgia; Robert R. Twilley, Louisiana State University; and Thomas Van Lent, The Everglades Foundation. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Leo M. Eisel, Brown and Caldwell, appointed by the NRC’s Division on Earth and Life Studies, and Frank H. Stillinger of Princeton University, appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. They were responsible for ensuring that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with NRC institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. Wayne C. Huber, Chair

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 Contents     SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   15      The National Research Council and Everglades Restoration,   17      Report Organization,   22 2   THE RESTORATION PLAN IN CONTEXT   23      The South Florida Ecosystem’s Environmental Decline,   23      South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Goals,   29      Restoration Activities,   32      Recent Changes in the Natural and Human Context,   38      Conclusions and Recommendations,   59 3   PROGRAM PLANNING, FINANCING, AND COORDINATION   61      CERP Master Implementation Sequencing Plan,   61      Project Planning,   71      Financing the CERP,   76      Maintaining Partnerships,   81      Conclusions and Recommendations,   84 4   THE USE OF SCIENCE IN DECISION MAKING   86      The Monitoring and Assessment Plan,   88      Science Coordination and Synthesis,   104      Adaptive Management,   106      Modeling in Support of Adaptive Management,   115      Conclusions and Recommendations,   127

OCR for page R1
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review – 2006 5   PROGRESS TOWARD NATURAL SYSTEM RESTORATION   130      CERP Components,   130      Non-CERP Projects,   145      Protecting Land for the Restoration,   156      Assessment of Progress in Restoring the Natural System,   158      Conclusions and Recommendations,   160 6   AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ADVANCING NATURAL SYSTEM RESTORATION   163      Incremental Adaptive Restoration,   165      Characterizing the Benefits of IAR,   166      Applying the IAR Framework,   170      Authorization and Budgeting to Support an IAR Approach,   176      Conclusions and Recommendations,   178     REFERENCES   180     ACRONYMS   191     GLOSSARY   195     APPENDIXES          A  2005 Report to Congress Past and Future Accomplishments Tables   209      B  Master Implementation Sequencing Plan   216      C  Status of Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP) Components   221      D  Water Science and Technology Board and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology   227      E  Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff   230