Click for next page ( R2


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
Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress Water Science and Technology Board Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS   500 Fifth Street, NW   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. Support for this study was provided by the Department of the Army under Cooperative Agreement No. W912EP-04-2-0001. Support for this project was also 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: 978-0-309-30576-1 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30576-4 Cover credit: Cover image courtesy of David J. Policansky. Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/. Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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. C. D. Mote, Jr., 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 examina- tion 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. Victor J. Dzau 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROGRESS1 JEFFREY R. WALTERS, Chair, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg MARY JANE ANGELO, University of Florida, Gainesville DAVID B. ASHLEY, University of Nevada, Las Vegas LORETTA L. BATTAGLIA, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale WILLIAM G. BOGGESS, Oregon State University, Corvallis CHARLES T. DRISCOLL, Syracuse University, New York PAUL H. GLASER, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis WILLIAM L. GRAF, University of South Carolina, Columbia STEPHEN G. MONISMITH, Stanford University, Stanford, California DAVID H. MOREAU, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill K. RAMESH REDDY, University of Florida, Gainesville HELEN REGAN, University of California, Riverside JAMES E. SAIERS, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, University of Tennessee, Knoxville NRC Staff STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Study Director, Water Science and Technology Board DAVID J. POLICANSKY, Scholar, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology MICHAEL J. STOEVER, Research Associate, Water Science and Technology Board SARAH E. BRENNAN, Program Assistant, Water Science and Technology Board The activities of this committee were overseen and supported by the National Research Council’s 1 Water Science and Technology Board and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (see Appendix C for listing). Biographical information on committee members and staff is contained in Appendix D. v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
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 and served as guides during the field trips: Nick Aumen, U.S. Geological Survey Ernie Barnett, South Florida Water Management District Drew Bartlett, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Terrie Bates, South Florida Water Management District Laura Brandt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eric Bush, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Eric Cline, South Florida Water Management District Allen Dray, U.S. Department of Agriculture Jenny Eckles-Ketterlin, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission James Erskine, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Shannon Estenoz, U.S. Department of the Interior Rory Feeney, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Jeremiah Foley, U.S. Department of Agriculture Manley Fuller III, Florida Wildlife Federation Rebekah Gibble, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Howie Gonzales, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Susan Gray, South Florida Water Management District David Hobbie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Don Jodrey, U.S. Department of the Interior Bob Johnson, U.S. National Park Service Dan Kimball, U.S. National Park Service Steve Kopecky, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ellen Lake, U.S. Department of Agriculture Glenn Landers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers vii

OCR for page R1
viii Acknowledgments Jon Lane, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers François Laroche, South Florida Water Management District Tom MacVicar, MacVicar Consulting Cherise Maples, Seminole Tribe of Indians Susan Markley, Miami Dade County Ernie Marks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Melissa Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Christen Mason, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Frank Mazzotti, University of Florida Agnes McLean, U.S. National Park Service Melissa Meeker, South Florida Water Management District (formerly) Gail Mitchell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Temperince Morgan, South Florida Water Management District Matt Morrison, South Florida Water Management District Melissa Nasuti, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District Bob Pace, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tony Pernas, Everglades National Park Ellen Pokorny, U.S. Department of Agriculture Paul Pratt, U.S. Department of Agriculture Bob Progulske, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gina Ralph, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LeRoy Rodgers, South Florida Water Management District David Rudnick, U.S. National Park Service Larry Schwartz, South Florida Water Management District Mark Shafer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lauren Sher, Office of U.S. Senator Bill Nelson Dawn Shirreffs, Everglades Coalition Fred Sklar, South Florida Water Management District Melissa Smith, U.S. Department of Agriculture Eric Summa, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kim Taplin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tom Teets, South Florida Water Management District Philip Tipping, U.S. Department of Agriculture Tom Van Lent, Everglades Foundation Robert Verrastro, South Florida Water Management District Greg Wheeler, U.S. Department of Agriculture David Wegner, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Walter Wilcox, South Florida Water Management District Kevin Wittmann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

OCR for page R1
Preface To much of the public, the Everglades is Marjory Stoneman Douglas’s River of Grass—an immense, unique marsh teeming with life, represented and protected in the form of Everglades National Park. As usual, reality is less rosy, and more complicated and interesting, than the ideal. The South Florida ecosystem is vast, stretching more than 200 miles from Orlando to Florida Bay, and ­ verglades National Park is but a part located at the southern end. It is a E diverse and distinctive ecosystem that includes not only marshes, but also the meandering Kissimmee River and associated floodplain and chain of small lakes, the much larger Lake Okeechobee, sawgrass plains, ridge-and-slough wetlands, tree islands, marl prairies, bays, and estuaries. During the 19th and 20th cen- turies the ecosystem changed as the nation changed. The historical Everglades has been reduced to half of its original size, and what remains is not the pristine ecosystem many imagine it to be, but one that has been highly engineered and otherwise heavily influenced, and is intensely managed by humans. Today the Everglades is not only an iconic natural system, but also the source of water for industry and the millions of residents of South Florida. To address the floods that have occasionally devastated the region, water now moves through a maze of canals, levees, pump stations, and hydraulic control structures, rather than slowly flowing southward in a broad river of grass, and a substantial fraction is diverted from the natural system (see NRC, 2010). The water that remains is polluted by phosphorus and other contaminants originating from agriculture and other human activities. Many components of the natural system are highly degraded, and continue to degrade (see NRC, 2012a). Recognizing the degradation of the South Florida ecosystem, and the depen- dence of humans upon a functioning ecosystem, in 1999 the State of Florida and the federal government agreed to a multidecadal, multi-billion-dollar Compre- hensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) to protect and restore the remaining Everglades while addressing demands for water supply and flood control. In authorizing the CERP, the U.S. Congress mandated periodic independent reviews ix

OCR for page R1
x Preface of progress toward restoration of the Everglades 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, which is the fifth in a series of biennial evaluations that are expected to continue for the duration of the CERP, reflects the concerted efforts of 14 committee members and 4 NRC staff representing a wide range of scien- tific and engineering expertise. Our committee met five times over a period of 16 months including three times in Florida and once in Washington, D.C. We reviewed a large volume of written material and heard oral presentations from state, federal, and tribal government personnel, academic researchers, interest groups, and members of the public. The CERP is a complex, multi-billion-dollar project managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) that was projected to require 40 years for completion. With 68 separate project components requiring sophisticated scientific knowledge of the ecosystem and creation of new technologies for water management, the CERP represents a research, planning, implementation, and construction challenge unlike any other. At this writing, the CERP is nearly halfway through its second decade, and in that time the ecosystem has continued to change as the nation and indeed the planet changes. This report presents the committee’s consensus view of restoration accomplishments and emerging challenges primarily during the past 2 years but also over the 14 years since the CERP was authorized. In discussing accomplishments, we focus on the progress made on the ground on several CERP projects and supporting non-CERP projects that are producing the first increments of restoration and learning progress to improve the restoration plan through pilot projects and adaptive management. The emerging challenges on which we focus are those posed by the ways in which the ecosystem is changing. The Central Everglades Planning Project is an exciting accomplish- ment that provides the means to accelerate the pace of restoration in the central Everglades and thus address the ongoing degradation of that part of the eco- system that was a focus of our last report (NRC, 2012a). However, this critical project can only fulfill its potential if implemented in a timely way and to do so will require finding creative solutions to overcome current constraints related to authorization, funding, and water quality permitting. Climate change and sea- level rise pose enormous challenges to a rainfall-driven system characterized by a low elevational gradient, challenges that could perhaps be set aside for later consideration in 1999, but not in 2014. Rather than compromising restoration, climate change and sea-level rise provide even more incentive for restoring the Everglades ecosystem. Indeed, in this context the CERP can be viewed as a water sustainability plan for both the natural and human environments. Finally, South Florida is now home to a plethora of species that were not present in the pre-

OCR for page R1
Preface xi drainage ecosystem of the 19th century, and more are arriving every year. These nonnative invasive species pose another important challenge to restoration. It has been my privilege to serve on this committee with some of the nation’s leading experts in biological, hydrologic, and geographic sciences, hydrologic and systems engineering, project administration, law, and policy. I greatly appre- ciate the time, attention, and thought each committee member invested in under- standing the complexity of the Everglades ecosystem and corresponding scope of the CERP. I also appreciate their careful, rigorous analyses, expert judgment, constructive comments and reviews, and the professionalism, collegiality, and good humor with which they conducted their business. The committee is indebted to many individuals for their contributions of information and resources. Specifically, we appreciate the efforts of the com- mittee’s technical liaisons—David Tipple (USACE), Glenn Landers (USACE), Larry Gerry (SFWMD), and Robert Johnson (Department of the Interior)—who responded to numerous information requests and helped the committee utilize the vast resources of agency expertise when needed. Many others educated the committee on the complexities of Everglades restoration through their presenta- tions, field trips, and public comments (see Acknowledgments). The committee had the good fortune to be assisted by four dedicated and talented NRC staff: Stephanie Johnson, David Policansky, Michael Stoever, and Sarah Brennan. Stephanie Johnson has served as senior project officer for all five CISRERP panels and is a true Everglades expert. Her encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of the science, engineering, and administrative aspects of the CERP, ability to identify and synthesize the complex interrelation- ships among these aspects, deft management skills, and contacts were critical to the committee’s success. NRC scholar David Policansky is also a veteran of all five CISRERP panels and his experience, knowledge, understanding, sage observations, and illuminating questions were instrumental to the committee’s deliberations and understanding of the Everglades ecosystem and the CERP. Michael Stoever attended to the complex logistical needs of the committee, provided superb support during and between meetings, and, with assistance from Sarah Brennan, was instrumental in producing the final report. I know I speak for the entire committee in expressing our profound respect and apprecia- tion for the NRC staff’s exceptional support and good humor. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their breadth of perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with the proce- dures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review was to provide candid and critical com- ments to assist the institution in ensuring that its published report is scientifically credible and that it meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The reviewer comments and draft manuscript

OCR for page R1
xii Preface remain confidential to protect the deliberative process. We thank the following reviewers for their helpful suggestions, all of which were considered and many of which were wholly or partly incorporated in the final report: G. Ronnie Best, U.S. Geological Survey (retired); John R. White, Louisiana State University; M. Siobhan Fennessy, Kenyon College; Evelyn Gaiser, Florida International University; Julie Lockwood, Rutgers University; John C. Volin, University of Connecticut; Wendy Graham, University of Florida; Ben Kirtman, University of Miami; and W. Allen Marr, Jr., Geocomp Corporation. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and sug- gestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Kenneth W. Potter, University of Wisconsin, Madison,­ and Bonnie McCay, Rutgers University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments received full consideration. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. The CERP is a bold, challenging, and complex plan with great potential to provide benefits to the ecosystem and the public, and the small increments of restoration that have been achieved suggest that that potential can be realized. But the time has come for equally bold action in implementing the CERP. Delays in implementation make project costs higher, and the ecosystem degradation that must be addressed larger. The challenges to implementation that exist can be overcome, and in the case of climate change, make implementation more urgent. We offer this report in support of that endeavor. Jeffrey R. Walters, Chair Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP)

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 13 2 THE RESTORATION PLAN IN CONTEXT 21 3 CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT 35 4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS 71 5 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA-LEVEL RISE: IMPLICATIONS FOR EVERGLADES RESTORATION 131 6 BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS AND EVERGLADES RESTORATION 169 7 USE OF SCIENCE IN DECISION MAKING 213 REFERENCES 229 ACRONYMS 257 APPENDICES A National Research Council Everglades Reports 261 B Additional Major Nonnative Plant and Animal Species in the Everglades 269 C Water Science and Technology Board; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology 279 D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 281 xiii

OCR for page R1