National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration in Context." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 70

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 The Restoration in Context This chapter sets the stage for the second of this committee’s biennial assessments of restoration progress in the South Florida ecosystem. Background is provided for understanding the restoration project by defining the ecosystem decline, restoration goals, the needs of a restored ecosystem, and the specific activities of the restoration project. The Everglades and its restoration are also discussed in the larger context of human activities in South Florida and climate change. Finally, the chapter provides a view of important recent changes in the ecosystem, including tree islands, invasive species, and endangered bird populations. BACKGROUND The Everglades once encompassed about 3 million acres of slow-­moving water and associated biota that stretched from Lake Okeechobee in the north to Florida Bay in the south (Figures 1-1a and 2-1a). The conversion of the u ­ ninhabited Everglades wilderness into an area of high agricultural productivity and cities was a dream of 19th-century investors, and projects begun between 1881 and 1894 affected the flow of water in the watershed north of Lake Okeechobee. By the late 1800s, more than 50,000 acres north and west of the lake had been drained and cleared for agriculture (Grunwald, 2006). These early projects included straightening the channel of the Kissimmee River and connecting Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River and, ultimately, the Gulf of Mexico. In 1907 Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward created the Everglades Drainage District to construct a vast array of ditches, canals, dikes, and “improved” channels. By the 1930s, Lake Okeechobee had a second outlet, through the St. Lucie Canal, leading to the Atlantic Ocean, and 440 miles of other canals altered the hydrology of the Everglades (Blake, 1980). After hurricanes in 1926 and 1928 resulted in disastrous flooding from Lake Okeechobee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) replaced the small berm that bordered 23

24 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades FIGURE 2-1  Water flow in the Everglades under (a) historical conditions, (b) current conditions, and (c) conditions envisioned upon completion ofFigure 2-1.eps Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). the Comprehensive bitmap SOURCE: Graphics provided by USACE, Jacksonville District. the southern edge of the lake with the massive Herbert Hoover Dike that now encircles the lake. The hydrologic end product of these drainage activities was the drastic reduction of water storage within the system and an increased sus- ceptibility to drought and desiccation in the southern reaches of the Everglades (NRC, 2005). After further flooding in 1947 and increasing demands for improved agri- cultural production and flood control for the expanding population ­ centers on the southeast Florida coast, the U.S. Congress authorized the ­ Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. This USACE project provided flood control with the construction of a levee along the eastern boundary of the Everglades to prevent flows into the southeastern urban areas, established the 700,000-acre Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) south of Lake Okeechobee (see Box 2-1), and created a series of water conservation areas (WCAs) in the remain- ing space between the lake and Everglades National Park (Light and Dineen, 1994). The eastern levee isolated about 100,000 acres of Everglades ecosys-

The Restoration in Context 25 BOX 2-1 The Everglades Agricultural Area Making the land in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) (see Figure 1-3) suitable for agriculture was one of the original primary objectives of the C&SF Project (Lodge, 2005). Preliminary assessments in the late 1940s identified the peat soils just south of the southern rim of Lake Okeechobee as ideal for agriculture (Jones, 1948). Between 1950 and 1973, the USACE constructed a major dike on the east side of the agricultural area, established water delivery and drainage canals, and added pumps and control gates to manage water for agriculture. They also created the water conservation areas (WCAs) as temporary holding ponds that could accept surplus water during wet periods and provide additional water for agriculture during dry periods. Lake Okeechobee could also be managed to supply water in dry periods and accept excess water in wet ­periods. All of the EAA was designed for agricultural production, except for two fairly small wildlife management areas (WMAs): Rotenberger WMA and Holey Land WMA (Lodge, 2005). When the EAA was complete in the early 1970s, it subsumed 27 percent of the pre- drainage Everglades; for comparison, the WCAs occupy 37 percent, and Everglades National Park covers about 20 percent (Lodge, 2005; Secretary of Interior, 1994). By the 1990s, the EAA agricultural landscape had evolved into its present general form: about 85 percent of its area is devoted to sugar production, and 4 percent or less each is used for sod, vegetables, pasture, and non-specific general agriculture cultivation.a The peat soils (Histosols) of the EAA accumulated under marshy conditions, but drainage by the C&SF Project caused the soils to shrink, while oxidation further ­reduced their volume. These processes continue today, and the surface of the EAA subsides about 1 inch (2.5 cm) per year. Peak agricultural production in the EAA probably ­occurred in the 1980s, before subsidence of the soils began to take its toll on productivity (Snyder and Davidson, 1994). Sugar, the most important crop in the EAA, requires soil depths that are at least 3 feet (Jurenas, 1992). Preliminary soil surveys in the EAA showed that most of the soils were at least 5 feet deep in 1912, but by 2003 most soil depths had declined to depths less than 3 feet. In some cases, sugar cane was being grown on soils as thin as 1 foot, an unsustainable practice (Snyder, 2004). http://www.florida-agriculture.com/agfacts.htm. a tem, making it available for development (Lord, 1993). Urban and agricultural development has reduced the Everglades to about one-half its pre-drainage size (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Figure 1-1b) and has contaminated its waters with phosphorus, nitrogen, mercury, and pesticides. Associated drainage and flood- control structures, including the C&SF Project, have diverted large quantities of water to the coastal areas, thereby reducing the freshwater inflows and natural water storage that defined the ecosystem (see Box 2-2; Figure 2-1b). The profound hydrologic alterations were accompanied by many changes in the biotic communities in the ecosystem, including reductions and changes

26 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 2-2 Everglades Time Line: Significant Events in South Florida Ecosystem Management 1934 Everglades National Park is authorized. 1948 Congress authorized the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project to control the water flow in the Everglades. From 1949 to 1969, USACE and the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District built and operated the project works. 1968 Biscayne National Park is established as a national monument; expanded to a national park in 1980. 1972 Florida Water Resources Act establishes fundamental water policy for Florida, attempting to meet h ­ uman needs and sustain natural systems; puts in place a comprehensive strategic program to pre- serve and restore the Everglades Ecosystem. 1974 Big Cypress National Preserve is created. 1983 Florida Governor’s Save Our Everglades Program outlines a six-point plan for restoring and protecting the South Florida Ecosystem so that it functions more like it did in the early 1900s. 1987 Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management Act requires the five ­Florida water management districts to develop plans to clean up and preserve Florida lakes, bays, estuaries, and rivers. 1989 Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project was authorized. 1990 Florida Preservation 2000 Act establishes a coordinated land acquisition program at $300 million per year for 10 years to protect the integrity of ecological systems and to provide multiple benefits, including the preservation of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation space, and water recharge areas. 1992 Federal and state parties enter into a consent decree on Everglades water quality issues in ­federal court. Under the agreement, all parties committed themselves to achieving both the water quality and quantity necessary to protect and restore the unique ecological characteristics of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park. Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 authorizes the Kissimmee ­ River Restoration Project and the C&SF Project Restudy, a comprehensive ­review study for restoring the hydrology of South Florida. 1994 Florida Everglades Forever Act enacted into state law the settlement provisions of federal-state water quality litigation and provided a financing mechanism for the state to advance water quality improve- ments in the Everglades by constructing over 44,000 acres of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) for water entering the Everglades Protection Area. The act also requires the South Florida Water Manage- ment District to ensure that best management practices (BMPs) are being used to reduce phosphorus in waters discharged into the STAs from the EAA and other areas. The rulemaking process by which the numeric total phosphorus criterion of 10 parts per billion (ppb) was proposed for the Everglades Protection Area also was established by this act.

The Restoration in Context 27 1996 WRDA 1996 formally establishes the intergovernmental South Florida Eco­system Restoration Task Force to coordinate the restoration effort among the state, ­ federal, tribal, and local agencies. It authorizes the USACE to implement the critical restoration projects (see Box 2-3). Section 390 of the Farm Bill grants $200 million to conduct restoration activities in the South Florida Ecosystem. 1999 WRDA 1999 extends Critical Restoration Project authority until 2003; authorizes two pilot infra­ structure projects proposed in the Comprehensive Everglades Resto­ration Plan (CERP). Florida Forever Act improves and continues the coordinated land acquisition program initiated by the Florida Preservation 2000 Act of 1990; commits $300 million per year for 10 years. 2000 WRDA 2000 authorized the CERP as a framework for modifying the Central and Southern Florida Project to increase future water supplies, with the appropriate timing and distribution, for environ- mental purposes so as to achieve a restored Everglades ecosystem, while at the same time meeting other water-related needs of the ecosystem. WRDA 2000 includes $1.4 billion in authorizations for 10 initial Everglades infrastructure projects, four pilot projects, and an adaptive management and monitoring program; also grants programmatic authority for projects with immediate and substantial restoration benefits at a total cost of $206 million; establishes a 50 percent federal cost share for implementation of the CERP and for operation and maintenance. Florida legislature passes the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act, a phased, comprehensive program designed to restore and protect the lake. 2003 Programmatic Regulations are issued which establish a procedural framework and set specific requirements that guide implementation of the CERP to ensure that the goals and purposes of the CERP are achieved. 2004 State of Florida unveils plan to expedite restoration of America’s Everglades (Acceler8). 2005 State of Florida announces the Lake Okeechobee Estuary Recovery Plan to help restore the eco- logical health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. 2007 The Florida state legislature authorized the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program which expanded the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to strengthen protection for the Northern Everglades by restoring and preserving the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee, and St. Lucie watersheds, including the estuaries. WRDA 2007 authorizes three projects under the CERP: the Indian River Lagoon-South Project, Picayune Strand Restoration, and the Site 1 Impoundment Project. WRDA 2007 also increases funding limits for WRDA 1996 critical projects and for three WRDA 1999 authorized pilot projects. 2008 State of Florida announces that it will begin negotiations to acquire 187,000 acres of farmland in the EAA from U.S. Sugar Corporation for $1.75 billion for the purpose of restoration. SOURCES: SFERTF (2006); http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/timeline/index.htm; http://www.­washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401140.html.

28 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades in the composition, distribution, and abundance of the populations of wading birds. Today, the federal government has listed 67 plant and animal species in South Florida as threatened or endangered, with many more included on state lists. Some distinctive Everglades habitats, such as custard-apple forests and ­ peripheral wet prairie, have disappeared altogether, while other habitats are severely reduced in area (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Marshall et al., 2004). Approximately 1 million acres are contaminated with mercury (McPherson and Halley, 1996). Phosphorus from agricultural runoff has impaired water quality in large portions of the Everglades and has been particularly problematic in Lake Okeechobee (Flaig and Reddy, 1995). The Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, including parts of the Indian River Lagoon, have been greatly altered by high and extremely variable freshwater discharges that bring nutrients and contaminants (Doering, 1996; Doering and Chamberlain, 1999). At least as early as the 1920s, private citizens were calling attention to the degradation of the Florida Everglades (Blake, 1980). However, by the time Marjory Stoneman Douglas’s classic book The Everglades: River of Grass was published in 1947 (the same year that Everglades National Park was dedicated), the South Florida ecosystem had already been altered extensively. Prompted by concerns about deteriorating conditions in Everglades National Park and other parts of the South Florida ecosystem, the public, as well as the federal and state governments, directed increasing attention to the adverse ecological effects of the flood-control and irrigation projects beginning in the 1970s (Kiker et al., 2001; Perry, 2004). By the late 1980s it was clear that various minor corrective measures undertaken to remedy the situation were insufficient. As a result, a powerful political consensus developed among federal agencies, state agencies and commissions, Native American tribes, county governments, and conserva- tion organizations that a large restoration effort was needed in the Everglades (Kiker et al., 2001). This recognition culminated in the CERP, which builds on other ongoing restoration activities of the state and federal governments to cre- ate one of the most ambitious and extensive restoration efforts in the nation’s history. Ecosystem Restoration Goals for the Everglades Several goals have been articulated for the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, reflecting the various restoration programs. The South Florida Eco- system Restoration Task Force (hereafter, simply the Task Force), an intergovern- mental body established to facilitate coordination in the restoration effort, has three broad strategic goals: (1) “get the water right,” (2) “restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species,” and (3) “foster compatibility of the built

The Restoration in Context 29 and natural systems” (SFERTF, 2000). These goals encompass, but are not limited to, the CERP. The Task Force works to coordinate and build consensus among the many non-CERP restoration initiatives that support these broad goals. The goal of the CERP, as stated in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), is “restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection.” The Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR 385.3; see Box 2-2) that guide implementation of the CERP further clarify this goal by defining restoration as “the recovery and protection of the South Florida ecosystem so that it once again achieves and sustains the essential hydrological and biological characteristics that defined the undisturbed South Florida ecosystem.” These defining characteristics include a large-areal extent of interconnected wetlands, extremely low concentrations of nutrients in freshwater wetlands, sheet flow, healthy and productive estuaries, resilient plant commu- nities, and an abundance of native wetland animals (DOI and USACE, 2005). Although development has permanently reduced the areal extent of the Ever- glades ecosystem, the CERP hopes to recover many of the Everglades’ original characteristics and natural ecosystem processes. At the same time, the CERP is charged to maintain current levels of flood protection (as of 2000) and provide for other water-related needs, including water supply, for a rapidly growing human population in South Florida (DOI and USACE, 2005). Although the CERP contributes to each of the Task Force’s three goals, it focuses primarily on restoring the hydrologic features of the undeveloped wet- lands remaining in the South Florida ecosystem, on the assumption that improve- ments in ecological conditions will follow. Originally, “getting the water right” had four components—quality, quantity, timing, and distribution. However, the hydrologic properties of flow, encompassing the concepts of direction, ­velocity, and discharge, have been recognized as an important component of getting the water right that had previously been overlooked (NRC, 2003c; SCT, 2003). Numerous studies have supported the general approach to restoration of getting the water right (Davis and Ogden, 1994; NRC, 2005; SSG, 1993), although it is widely recognized that recovery of the native habitats and species in South Florida may require restoration efforts in addition to getting the water right, such as controlling exotic species and reversing the decline in the spatial extent and compartmentalization of the natural landscape (SFERTF, 2000; SSG, 1993). The goal of ecosystem restoration can seldom be the exact re-creation of some historical or preexisting state because physical conditions, driving forces, and boundary conditions usually have changed and are not fully recoverable. Rather, restoration is better viewed as the process of assisting the recovery of a degraded ecosystem to the point where it contains sufficient biotic and abiotic

30 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades resources to continue its functions without further assistance in the form of energy or other resources from humans (NRC, 1996; Society for Ecological Res- toration International Science & Policy Working Group, 2004). In addition, in this report the committee sometimes uses the term ecosystem rehabilitation when the objective is to improve conditions in a part of the South Florida ecosystem to at least some minimally acceptable level to allow the restoration of the larger eco- system to advance. This is particularly a focus in Chapter 5, “Lake Okeechobee and Its Place in the Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem.” Implicit in the understanding of ecosystem restoration is the recognition that natural systems are self-designing and dynamic and, therefore, it is not possible to know in advance exactly what can or will be achieved. Thus, ecosystem restoration is an enterprise with some scientific uncertainty in methods or outcomes that requires continual testing of assumptions and monitoring of progress. Additional challenges in defining and implementing restoration goals are discussed in the initial National Research Council (NRC) biennial review (NRC, 2007). What Natural System Restoration Requires Restoring the South Florida ecosystem to a desired ecological landscape requires reestablishment of the critical processes that sustained its historical functions. Although getting the water right is the oft-stated and immediate goal, the restoration will be recognized as successful if it restores the distinctive characteristics of the historical ecosystem to the remnant Everglades (DOI and USACE, 2005). Getting the water right is a means to an end, not the end in itself. The hydrologic and ecological characteristics of the historical Everglades serve as restoration goals for a functional (albeit reduced in size) Everglades ecosystem. The first Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restora- tion Progress (CISRERP) review identified five critical components of Everglades restoration: 1. Enough water storage capacity combined with operations that allow for appropriate volumes of water to support healthy estuaries and the return of sheet flow through the Everglades ecosystem while meeting other demands for water; 2. Mechanisms for delivering and distributing the water to the natural system in a way that resembles historical flow patterns, affecting volume, depth, ­velocity, direction, distribution, and timing of flows; 3. Barriers to eastward seepage of water so that higher water levels can be maintained in parts of the Everglades ecosystem without compromising the cur- rent levels of flood protection of developed areas as required by the CERP;

The Restoration in Context 31 4. Methods for securing water quality conditions compatible with restora- tion goals for a natural system that was inherently extremely nutrient poor, particularly with respect to phosphorus; and 5. Retention, improvement, and expansion of the full range of habitats by preventing further losses of critical wetland and estuarine habitats and by pro- tecting lands that could usefully be part of the restored ecosystem. If these five critical components of restoration are achieved and the difficult problem of invasive species can be managed, then the basic physical, chemi- cal, and biological processes that created the historical Everglades can once again work to create a functional mosaic of biotic communities that resemble what was distinctive about the historical Everglades. Even if the restored system does not exactly replicate the historical system, or reach all of the biological, chemical, and physical targets, the reestablishment of natural processes and d ­ ynamics should result in a viable and valuable Everglades ecosystem. The cen- tral principle of ecosystem management is to provide for the natural processes that historically shaped an ecosystem, because ecosystems are characterized by the processes that regulate them. If the conditions necessary for those processes to operate are met, recovery of species and communities is far more likely than if humans attempt to specify every constituent and element of the ecological system (NRC, 2007). Restoration Activities Several restoration programs, including the largest of the initiatives, the CERP, are now ongoing. The CERP often builds upon non-CERP activities (also called “foundation projects”), many of which are essential to the effectiveness of the CERP. The following section provides a brief overview of the CERP and some of the major non-CERP activities. Details of the progress in implementing the CERP projects are described in Chapter 3, and a few projects are discussed in more detail in Chapters 4–5. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan WRDA 2000 authorized the CERP as the framework for modifying the C&SF Project. Considered a blueprint for the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the CERP is led by two organizations with considerable expertise managing the water resources of South Florida—the USACE, which built most of the canals and levees throughout the region, and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the state agency with primary responsibility

32 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades for operating and maintaining this complicated water collection and distribu- tion system. The CERP conceptual plan (USACE and SFWMD, 1999; also called the Yellow Book) proposes major alterations to the C&SF Project in an effort to reverse decades of ecosystem decline. The Yellow Book includes roughly 50 major projects consisting of 68 project components to be constructed at a cost of approximately $10.9 billion (estimated in 2004 dollars; DOI and USACE, 2005; Figure 2-2). Major components of the restoration plan focus on restoring the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water for the natural system. These major CERP components include the following: • Conventional surface-water storage reservoirs, which will be located north of Lake Okeechobee, in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee basins, in the EAA, and in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties, will provide s ­ torage of approximately 1.5 million acre-feet. • Aquifer storage and recovery is a highly engineered approach that pro- poses to use a large number of wells built around Lake Okeechobee, in Palm Beach County, and in the Caloosahatchee basin to store water approximately 1,000 feet below ground; the approach has not yet been tested at the scale proposed. • In-ground reservoirs will store water in quarries created by rock mining. • Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) are constructed wetlands that will treat agricultural and urban runoff water before it enters natural wetlands. • Seepage management approaches will prevent unwanted loss of water from the natural system through levees and groundwater flow; the approaches include adding impermeable barriers to the levees, installing pumps near levees to redirect lost water back into the Everglades, and holding water levels higher in undeveloped areas between the Everglades and the developed lands to the east.  Although some STAs are included among CERP projects, the USACE has recently clarified its policy on federal cost sharing for water quality features. A memo from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (USACE, 2007d) states: “Before there can be a Federal interest to cost share a WQ [water quality] improvement feature, the State must be in compliance with WQ standards for the current use of the water to be affected and the work proposed must be deemed essential to the Everglades restoration effort…This determination must be based on some finding other than the project is a part of CERP and generally will aid the restoration effort.” The memo goes on to state, “the Yellow Book specifically envisioned that the State would be responsible for meeting water quality standards.” Therefore, it appears that until the water flowing into the project features meets existing water quality requirements or unless a special exemption is granted for projects deemed “essential to Everglades restoration,” the state is responsible for 100 percent of the costs of CERP water quality project features.

The Restoration in Context 33 FIGURE 2-2  Major project components of the CERP. Figure 2-2.eps bitmap SOURCE: Courtesy of Laura Mahoney, USACE.

34 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades • Removing barriers to sheet flow, including 240 miles of levees and canals, will reestablish shallow sheet flow of water through the Everglades ecosystem. • Rainfall-driven water management will be created through operational changes in the water delivery schedules to the WCAs and Everglades National Park to mimic more natural patterns of water delivery and flow through the system. • Water reuse and conservation strategies will build additional water s ­ upply in the region; two advanced wastewater treatment plants are proposed for Miami-Dade County in order to clean wastewater to a standard which would allow it to be discharged to wetlands along Biscayne Bay or to recharge the Biscayne aquifer. The largest portion of the budget is devoted to storage and water conservation projects and to acquiring the lands needed for them (see NRC, 2005). The modifications to the C&SF Project embodied in the CERP are expected to take more than three decades to complete, and to be effective, they require a clear strategy for managing and coordinating restoration efforts. The Everglades Programmatic Regulations specifically require coordination with other agencies at all levels of government, although final responsibility ultimately rests with the USACE and SFWMD. WRDA 2000 endorses the use of an adaptive manage- ment framework for the restoration process, and the Programmatic Regulations formally establish an adaptive management program that will “assess responses of the South Florida ecosystem to implementation of the Plan; . . . [and] seek continuous improvement of the Plan based upon new information resulting from changed or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific and technical informa- tion, new or updated modeling; information developed through the assessment principles contained in the Plan; and future authorized changes to the Plan.” An interagency body called Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (RECOVER) has been established to ensure that sound science is used in the restoration. The RECOVER leadership group oversees the monitoring and assessment program that will evaluate the progress of the CERP toward restoring the natural system and will assess the need for changes to the plan through the adaptive manage- ment process. Progress in developing these essential programmatic aspects of the CERP is discussed in Chapter 6. In 2004, Florida launched Acceler8, a plan to hasten the pace of project implementation, and committed $1.5 billion of its portion of the state-federal cost share for the CERP by 2011 for this initiative. The objectives of Acceler8 are to provide immediate environmental and water supply benefits and to serve as a foundation for subsequent restoration efforts. Florida’s Acceler8 comprises

The Restoration in Context 35 11 project components identified in the CERP and some non-CERP components (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 for a listing of state-accelerated projects; for further discussion of Acceler8, see NRC, 2007). Non-CERP Restoration Activities When Congress authorized the CERP in WRDA 2000, the SFWMD, the USACE, the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were already implementing several activities intended to restore key aspects of the Everglades ecosystem. These non-CERP initiatives are critical to the overall restoration progress. In fact, the effectiveness of the CERP was predicated upon the completion of many of these projects. These projects include Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters), C-111 (South Dade), and the Critical Projects (see Box 2-3). Several additional projects are also either under way or in planning stages to meet the broad restoration goals for the South Florida ecosystem and associated legislative mandates. They include extensive water quality initiatives, such as the Everglades Construction Project, and pro- grams to establish best management practices to reduce nutrient loading. BOX 2-3 Non-CERP Restoration Activities in South Florida The following represent the major non-CERP initiatives currently under way in s ­ upport of the South ­ Florida ecosystem restoration (Figure 2-3). Progress on these non-CERP projects is discussed in Appendix C. Kissimmee River Restoration Project This project, authorized by Congress in 1992, aims to reestablish the historical river- floodplain system at the headwaters of the Everglades watershed and, thereby, restore biological diversity and functionality. The project plans to backfill 22 miles of the 56-mile C-38 canal and restore 43 miles of meandering river ­channel in the Kissimmee River. The project includes a comprehensive evaluation program to track ecological responses to restoration. Completion is expected by 2012 (SFWMD and FDEP, 2005). Everglades Construction Project The Everglades Forever Act (see Box 2-2) required the state of Florida to construct 45,000 acres of STAs to reduce the loading of phosphorus into the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the WCAs, and Everglades National Park. These STAs are part of the state’s long-term plan for achieving water quality goals, including the total phosphorus criterion of 10 parts per billion (ppb).a continued

36 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 2-3 Continued FIGURE 2-3  Locations of major non-CERP initiatives. © International Mapping A ­ ssociates New 2-3 Modifications to the C&SF: C-111 (South Dade) Project This project is designed to improve hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough and the Rocky Glades of the eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park and increase freshwater flows to northeast Florida Bay, while maintaining flood protection for urban and agricultural development in south Miami-Dade County. The project plan includes a tieback levee with pumps to capture groundwater seepage to the east, detention areas to increase groundwater levels and thereby enhance flow into Everglades National

The Restoration in Context 37 Park, and backfilling or ­ plugging several canals in the area. A Combined Structural and Operational Plan that will integrate the goals of the Mod Waters and C-111 (South Dade) projects and protect the quality of water entering Everglades National Park (DOI and USACE, 2005). Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project (Mod Waters) This federally funded project, authorized in 1989, is designed to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in Everglades National Park (see also Chapter 4). The project includes levee modifications and installation of a seepage control pump to increase water flow into WCA 3B and northeastern portions of Everglades National Park. It also includes providing flood mitigation to about 60 percent of the 8.5-square-mile area (a low-lying but partially developed area on the northeast corner of Everglades National Park) and raising portions of Tamiami Trail. Mod Waters is a prerequisite for the first phase of “decompartmentalization” (i.e., removing some barriers to sheet flow), which is part of the CERPb (DOI and USACE, 2005). Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program In 2007, the Florida legislature expanded the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (LOPA) to include protection and restoration of the Lake Okeechobee watershed and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The legislation, being implemented as the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, will focus resources on restora- tion efforts for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The new laws include $54 million for Lake Okeechobee and an additional $40 million for the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers. The Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan, ­issued in February 2008 in accordance with LOPA, con- solidated the numerous initiatives already underway through Florida’s Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan. Critical Projects Congress gave programmatic authority for the Everglades and South Florida Eco- system Restoration Critical Projects in WRDA 1996, with modification in WRDA 1999 and WRDA 2007. These were small projects that could be quickly implemented to provide immediate and substantial restoration benefits such as improved quality of water discharged into WCA 3A and Lake Okeechobee and more natural water flows to estuaries. Examples of the Critical Projects include the Florida Keys Carrying ­Capacity Study, Lake Okeechobee Water Retention and Phosphorus Removal, Seminole Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation Plan, Tamiami Trail Culverts, Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area, and the Lake Trafford Restoration (DOI and USACE, 2005)c. See also Appendix C. a http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/erd/longtermplan/index.shtml. b See http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/dp/mwdenp-c111/index.htm for more information on Mod Waters and the C-111 (South Dade) project. c See http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/projects for more information on and the status of the ­Critical Projects.

38 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades LARGE-SCALE INFLUENCES ON THE CERP The South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts take place within a multi­ dimensional context that includes the influence of large-scale human and environmental processes. From an ecological perspective, many of these pro- cesses appear as threats to the integrity of the South Florida ecosystem. These threatening processes, reviewed in the following sections, include expansion of the human population accompanied by land use changes, climate change, and sea-level rise that will broadly affect the South Florida ecosystem. The sec- tion ends with a discussion of how CERP planners are attempting to address these issues. Human Population Growth, Land-use, and Water Demand A primary objective of the CERP is the restoration and maintenance of an Everglades ecosystem that functions substantially more like the pre-drainage system than the present disrupted system. This restoration effort takes place in a changing human context as Florida’s population continues to grow. The implications to restoration of expanded urban landscapes, increased demands for water supply, and higher land values that accompany population growth are discussed. Population Growth and Land Use Changes One of the primary drivers of ecosystem change in its largest sense for South Florida is the growth of its human population. During the 19th century, population increases in Florida were small, and it was not until the late 1960s that Floridians numbered more than 5 million (Figure 2-4). The present (2007) population is 18 million; over the past 10 years, on average, there has been a net daily gain of nearly 1,000 people. Estimates of the overall rate of growth in the state mask local rates that may temporarily be much higher. Three of the 10 fastest-growing cities in the country (with populations greater than 100,000) are in Florida: Miramar in Broward County, growing at 39.5 percent per year; Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County, growing at 33.4 percent; and Cape Coral in Lee County, growing at 25.1 percent. All three cities are in areas adjacent to rem- nants of the pre-drainage Everglades. This population growth, along with other factors, has had a strong effect on property values: between 2000 and 2006, housing prices doubled (Durrenburger et al., 2007). In addition to permanent residents, each year Florida hosts more than 80 million temporary tourists and  See http://edr.state.fl.us/conferences/population/FDEC0807_pop_change.pdf.

The Restoration in Context 39 FIGURE 2-4  Florida population by decade, actual data 1830–2000; projection 2010–2060. SOURCES: 1830–1970, U.S. Census Bureau (1975); 1980–2000, Florida Office of Economic and Demographic New 2-4 Research (2007) online at http://Edr.state.fl.us/population/FLPopChange.pdf; 2010–2030, U.S. Census Bureau (2005); 2040 and 2060, Zwick and Carr (2006); 2050, NPG (2002). There is some minor variability among Bitmapped v ­ arious census counts and projections, but the overall trends are the same regardless of data source. 1 million “snowbirds” who take up temporary winter residence (Gurnett, 2001; NPG, 2002). By 2040, the approximate original ending date for construction of CERP projects, Zwick and Carr (2006) have projected that the state’s population will be more than 29 million, and by 2060, nearly 36 million—twice the present population. These projections are based on long-term population growth pat- terns, and they represent educated best guesses about what the future will be like. Projections of population growth are difficult because the many influences on migration, birth, and death rates cannot be fully foreseen. However, the trend of substantial growth of the state’s population is well established and has been relatively consistent at the decade scale of analysis for more than 170 years. The growth has slowed at times and accelerated at others, but the overall trend has remained in spite of numerous boom and bust cycles and real estate epi- sodes. The population growth in South Florida over the past decade exceeded

40 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades SFWMD’s estimates determined during the development of the CERP (L. Gerry, SFWMD, personal communication, 2008), and data released by the state of Florida in November 2007 indicate continued population growth despite recent economic reversals, albeit below the decadal average (Florida Association of Realtors, 2007). Land Use and Development Density Changes. Population growth in Florida is usually associated with increasing urbanization of the landscape. Presently, development converts 860 acres (1.34 sq mi, or 3.5 sq km) per day from undeveloped forest, wetland, or agricultural uses to urban landscapes (NPG, 2002). If urbanization continues at this pace, all the undeveloped land in the state would be developed in just 60 years. By some general measures, half the original ­Everglades has disappeared through conversion to agriculture and urban uses (Davis and Ogden, 1994). Projections of the geographic distribution of the urbanized area of Florida shows that South Florida in particular is likely to be transformed by 2060 (Figures 2-5 and 2-6). Significant components of this urbanization have been projected to be in areas closely associated with the southward flows of water that will be needed to nourish the remnant Everglades ecosystem (Figure 2-7). In particular, potential land use changes in the EAA (see Box 2-1) have direct bearing on the prospects for restoration of the Everglades because the EAA influences the movement of water, sediment, and nutrients for the rest of the remnant Everglades ecosystem. Land use change appears to be inevitable for the EAA. As subsidence makes the land less productive for sugar cane (see Box 2-1), other types of agricul- tural and nonagricultural land uses are being considered, including suburban development, rock mining, and ecosystem restoration. Water management in the EAA has a substantial effect on the overall water budget and water quality of South Florida (which includes stormwater runoff), thus land use changes in the area will have far-reaching effects (Alvarez et al., 1994). Development could alter water flows, introduce new sources of pollution, and alter the landscape of South-Central Florida to create an ecosystem even less like the predrainage conditions than with agriculture in place. Although considerable attention has been paid to agricultural sources of water pollution, urban areas are likely to become increasingly important nutrient sources in the coming decades because of population growth and sprawl.  Estimated time to total urbanization of Florida at the present rate is the result of a conversion rate of 860 ac per day = 1.34 sq mi per day = 490.47 sq mi per year. Florida includes 65,755 sq mi, 59,772 sq mi of which are land surface; at present 48.8 percent of the land surface is in crops, range, or wild lands such as forest, a total of 29,169 sq mi. That area divided by 490.47 sq mi per year yields an estimate of 59.5 years.

The Restoration in Context 41 Figure 2-5.eps FIGURE 2-5  Distribution of urbanized areas of Florida in 2006. bitmap SOURCE: Courtesy of 1000 Friends of Florida (2006). A sweeping change in land ownership in the EAA may be in the offing. On June 24, 2008, the state of Florida announced that it will begin negotiations with U.S. Sugar Corporation to purchase 187,000 acres (292 square miles) of land in the EAA for $1.75 billion (Achenbach, 2008). Although the company will retain use of the land for 6 years following the purchase, eventual public ownership of this substantial area would open many unforeseen possibilities for Everglades restoration. The acquisition might protect large areas from urban and commercial development, and if certain exchanges were made, a development-free corridor might connect Lake Okeechobee with valuable undeveloped lands to the south.

42 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Figure 2-6.eps FIGURE 2-6  Projected distribution of urbanized areas of Florida in 2060, a time period after the anticipated completion of CERP. bitmap SOURCE: Courtesy of 1000 Friends of Florida (2006). The acquisition might also allow for enlarged STAs to reduce phosphorus loads into the Everglades ecosystem and to expand the overall treatment and/or water storage capacity. The size and location of the U.S Sugar land, combined with the potential to swap the land for other strategically located parcels, may lead to some rethinking of the strategies in the original CERP plan (Stokstad, 2008). Given that the state will not take ownership for six years and that many land trades may be required after that time, the effects of the purchase may not be seen for a decade or more. The urban projections in Figures 2-6 and 2-7 assume that urban densities

The Restoration in Context 43 Figure 2-7.eps FIGURE 2-7  Projections of urban growth (in red) expected between 2006 and 2060 in areas likely to directly affect CERP projects. bitmap SOURCE: Zwick and Carr (2006). Courtesy of 1000 Friends of Florida. (people/urban acre) will remain constant through 2060, whereas actual pat- terns could be quite different depending on how counties respond to the threat of continuing urban sprawl. Many innovative approaches to managing sprawl and smart development strategies can work to protect the Everglades restora- tion efforts from negative outside influences (see Regional and CERP Planning in Response to Large Scale Influences, later in this chapter). For this reason, the committee endorses efforts by CERP planners to estimate and account for increasing population and attendant land use changes and urban sprawl, and the committee recommends that these efforts be done in close consultation with state and county planning agencies.

44 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Population Growth and Water Demand Projections by the SFWMD show that urban expansion, even if accompanied by conservation measures, will result in increased demands for water from the regional hydrologic system (Gulf Engineers and Consultants and Taylor Engineer- ing, 2003). In the year 2000, users in the SFWMD service area received slightly more than 1,070 million gallons per day (MGD). Over the course of a year, this amount is about 1.2 million acre-feet, an amount 22 percent greater than the amount of the surface water presently flowing into Everglades National Park (based on the 1995 base, USACE and SFWMD, 1999). The SFWMD’s projec- tions indicate that under the conditions of the most likely scenario for population growth and water conservation, by 2050 water use in the district will top 1,600 MGD, an amount that is 60 percent more than at present, and almost twice the amount of the present surface water flow into Everglades National Park (Gulf Engineers and Consultants and Taylor Engineering, 2003). The water protected by the “Savings Clause” of the original CERP agreements will not be adequate for the needs of a growing human population, and whether the limited avail- able fresh water supplies will be sufficient for both developed and conserved lands remains an unanswered question. The SFWMD and the state of Florida are committed to addressing potential water shortage problems by implement- ing increasingly strict conservation rules and management, reuse of water where possible, and promul­gating consumption rules. The state also has in place a per- mitting system to manage applications of new users for existing water supplies (see Regional and CERP Planning in Response to Large Scale Influences, later in this chapter). Large cities may increasingly need to turn to conservation, water reuse, or desalination to expand their water supplies (NRC, 2008). Additional Implications of Population Growth If Florida’s population growth trends of the past 170 years continue, as many planners and researchers anticipate, large population increases will change the context within which the CERP will evolve during the anticipated construction  Includes Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties; the Florida Keys portion of Monroe County; and portions of Martin, Okeechobee, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties.  The calculations comparing water demand with surface flows into Everglades National Park are based on the following data: 1,070 MGD = 1,070,000,000 = 3,284 ac ft/d, or 1,198,550 ac ft/yr. Surface water inflows to Everglades National Park, according to the 1995 Base Primary Water Budget Components, are 915,000 ac ft, including flood-control discharges and environmental water supply flows from the WCAs and environmental water supply flows from the lower east coast.  Enabling legislation for CERP mandated a “Savings Clause” that stipulated restoration must be conducted in such a way that water supply to urban and agricultural users being used at the time of the authorization (1999) would not be reduced.

The Restoration in Context 45 time for the project. Urban growth, or sprawl, reduces the area of more natural surfaces and often consumes buffer areas around conserved lands. With con- tinued urban sprawl, the Everglades is in danger of becoming an undeveloped area surrounded on all its land sides by high-density urban areas constructed directly up to the boundaries of conserved lands, a phenomenon already occur- ring in some areas. The replacement of ecotones, zones of gradual change from one ecosystem to another, by these sharp boundaries would adversely affect management of the remaining natural areas and could further endanger listed species. Thus, even if the CERP were to be completed as planned, the outcomes may be different from anticipated. Increasingly large urban areas would also affect South Florida’s natural areas indirectly because of increasing demands for power and transportation infrastructure. Population growth drives the construction of new generating facilities. Coal burning power plants are a primary source of mercury in the atmosphere over the Everglades, and atmospheric deposition is a major source of mercury contamination of the landscape and waters of the conserved areas and associated terrestrial and aquatic biota. The search for new clean energy sources will therefore have direct implications on water quality in the Everglades. Energy use, the generation of greenhouse gases, and climate change will also have important implications for the CERP. The movement and storage of water in South Florida demands considerable energy for pumping, and if some aspects of the CERP are constructed as envisioned, the demand for energy to be used in water management will increase, which will expand the state’s carbon footprint unless specific methods are designed to reduce power demands. The state of Florida has dedicated itself to an ambitious plan of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2025 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; to achieve this goal, the governor has pledged wide-ranging plans to increase energy efficiency and pursue more renewable and alternative energy sources (State of Florida, 2007). Consequently, energy conservation measures will likely be an increasingly important part of the design of CERP projects. Aggressive road and highway construction accompanies population growth and urban sprawl, and such construction is highly likely to affect Everglades restora­tion in an adverse way. The demand for building materials, particularly road aggregate and cement, is already acute, driving up construction costs for CERP projects. Continued and increasing pressure on finite construction m ­ aterials would mean that funds appropriated for the CERP projects would not provide as much construction in the future as they have in the past. The implications of an increasing human population for the completion of the CERP include the need for a continuing community commitment to the project. As more people move into the state, in many cases for a perceived

46 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades q ­ uality of life that includes conserved natural areas, it is not clear whether they will be willing to pay for the restoration and preservation of such lands or will- ing to undertake other sacrifices, such as more expensive water, extensive water conservation measures, and geographical limits to sprawl. The influx of new Floridians will introduce new dynamics into the state’s economy and politics, testing the durability of agreements hammered out by past decision makers and political leaders. In the end, the fate of the CERP is likely to rest in the hands of people who are not even in Florida yet, and who have no affinity for either the project or the ecosystem it is designed to restore and preserve. Many of the implications of the increasing human population in South Florida result in increasing difficulties in accomplishing the goals of the CERP, but these population processes are not completely out of society’s control. Communities can seek to find ways to manage the growth in a manner that is responsible for both the natural and the human environment. Use of “smart growth” principles and similar innovative approaches can lessen the negative impacts of popula- tion growth. Well-managed planning that integrates the needs of environmental restoration and human demographic changes can be effective if it engages cities, counties, the state, and CERP planners. Regardless of the effectiveness of such integrated planning efforts, the natural values of the Everglades ecosystem are much likely to fare better with a completed CERP in place. Climate Change Both the Everglades ecosystem restoration and the growing human popula- tion of Florida, with its demands for increasing amounts of water, will take place in an uncertain hydro-climate. In the following section, the implications for the CERP of short-term variability and long-term climate change and sea-level rise are considered. Natural Climate Variability Variations in rainfall occur from year to year and decade to decade. The experience of the 20th century clearly demonstrates the high variability in rainfall that creates alternating wet and dry periods (Figure 2-8), and such short-term vari- ability (over a few years) can be expected to continue. Because of the variability, CERP planning does not depend on a constant set of moisture conditions; rather, it considers a 36-year precipitation record with extended periods of drought and is working to incorporate an even longer precipitation record to accommodate more natural hydrologic variability in the planning process. Some of this variability is due to random events, regional-scale climatology,

The Restoration in Context 47 Figure 2-8.eps FIGURE 2-8  Fluctuations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for Florida for the 20th cen- tury show that variability is common, with extreme variation. The Palmer Drought ­Severity bitmap Index measures meteorological conditions over a relatively short period (in this case, years) and compares them with long-term (in this case a century) averages. Thus, the index com- pares any given year with its long-term context. The graph shows the variability of moisture available in the Florida ecosystem; droughts are common on a century-long time scale. SOURCE: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2000/dec/fl0000pdi_pg.gif. or hurricanes passing over or near Florida, but an understanding of the impor- tance of climate variations occurring on frequencies of several years or decades and caused by basin-scale ocean-atmosphere dynamics is slowly emerging. The most familiar cyclic event is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which has a relatively short cycle of 3 to 7 years. During its La Niña phase, it brings warmer and drier fall and winter seasons to Florida, often resulting in an increase in the number of forest and glades fires, such as in 1999, 2000, 2006, late 2007, and 2008. Because they operate over longer cycles, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscil- lation (AMO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation exert interacting effects that are pervasive over North America (McCabe et al. 2004) but are difficult to resolve in the instrumental record. During the AMO “warm phase,” for example, annual

48 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades rainfall in South Florida may be greater but more variable than at other times (RECOVER, 2007c). In addition to these short-term and cyclic variations in climate that affect the timing and amounts of precipitation and evapotranspiration, and thus the water budget, water resource planners and managers will have to take into account that major changes in Earth’s climate systems are already taking place as a result of global warming (IPCC, 2007). These changes have led a prominent group of hydrologists to proclaim that stationarity, the notion that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability that can be defined by past obser- vations, is “dead” (Milly et al., 2008). Climate change is undermining a basic assumption that historically has been the basis of planning for water supplies, demands, and risks and must henceforth be taken into account. Human-induced Climate Change The growing evidence of human-induced climate change, brought to a head in the more definitive fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on C ­ limate Change (IPCC) in 2007, has shaped public perception of the immediacy and inevitability of global warming and the urgency of action to mitigate the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Many states, including Florida, have taken steps to mitigate emissions and develop strategies to adapt to the changing climate (State of Florida, 2007). In short order, taking into account the effects of 21st-century climate change in environmental management and ecosystem restoration has gone from an exercise that was too uncertain or too politically sensitive to an expectation for credible planning. The IPCC reports present projections for climate change on global and continental scales, and the outputs of the supporting model runs from multiple modeling centers are available in archives. These model results are available as maps that have been statistically “downscaled” to a finer spatial resolution that are being used in regional and U.S. climate impact assessments (e.g., Union of Concerned Scientists, 2006). The downscaled models project air temperatures in South Florida warming by about 2°F throughout the year by mid-century and by 3 to 5°F, depending on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. Although the climate models produce much more variable projections for precipitation, model averages indicate decreases in precipitation in all seasons except the fall. The projected decreases are modest (generally 10 percent or less) but are greater toward the tip of the peninsula, approaching 30 percent toward the end of the century under higher-emissions scenarios.  See http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections/#Datapercent3Apercent20Complete percent20Archives.

The Restoration in Context 49 Although projections of precipitation have much more uncertainty than those for temperature, the fact that most models project decreases in precipitation, consistent with the general expectation for drier subtropics, and the more cer- tain increase in evapotranspiration suggest that stationarity—assuming that past observations define future probabilities—is not a good assumption for water resource planning in South Florida. Hurricane frequency and intensity are important to Everglades hydrology and water supply because hurricanes deliver large quantities of water over short time periods, affecting water levels in the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee and increasing the risk of urban flooding. Although there is much interannual variability in hurricane frequency related to a variety of complex factors, there has been an increase in the number of hurricanes since the 1980s that may be attributable to favorable atmospheric circulation patterns related to the AMO (Figure 2-9). The relationship of hurricanes to global warming, however, has been hotly debated in the scientific community (Mooney, 2007). A recent synthesis report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a con- sensus that the destructive potential of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes increased since 1970 in association with warming of sea surface temperatures (Figure 2-10), but a similar relationship with the frequency of hurricanes could not be drawn (Karl et al., 2008). The consensus concluded that it is likely that hurricane winds and rainfall will increase in response to the expected continued warming of sea surface temperatures, but changes in hurricane frequency can- not be predicted with any confidence. Even more recent modeling studies have projected a reduction in hurricane and tropical storm frequencies under warm- ing scenarios but, at the same time, increased storm intensity (Emanuel et al., 2008) or near-storm rainfall rates (Knutson et al., 2008). It is clear that episodic incursions of hurricanes will continue to be a feature of Everglades hydrology and likely that hurricanes will intensify even if they are not more frequent. Thus, CERP components will need to be resilient enough to accommodate such radical short-term changes in water quantity in the system. Sea-Level Rise Changes in sea level will also have significant effects on restoration options and requirements for the Everglades. The entire watershed of the Everglades has a land surface of very low relief: the highest elevation in the basin is only 65 feet above mean sea level, and elevations in the area south of Lake Okeechobee are 12 feet or less. Gradients for water flows are as little as an inch per mile. Under these topographic conditions, even small changes in mean sea level are likely to have far-reaching effects that will alter the general character of the physical

50 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades FIGURE 2-9  Number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin, 1945–2005, showing a general decline from about Figure 2-9.eps 1950 to about 1994, but somewhat larger numbers since 1994. bitmap SOURCE: NOAA (2006). environmental context of the Everglades and even the general shape of the lower Florida peninsula. In fact, the specter of three feet or more of sea-level rise has prompted some to question the wisdom of restoring the Everglades at all if it is consigned to be inundated in the near future (Dean, 2008). Over most of the last 2,500 years of this interglacial period, relative sea-level rise in South Florida averaged about 1.6 inch/century (Wanless et al., 1994). However, relative sea-level rise of approximately 9 inches/century was observed during the 20th century based on tide gauges at Key West and Miami Beach. The IPCC’s fourth assessment (IPCC, 2007) projected a rise in global sea level of  See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml.

The Restoration in Context 51 FIGURE 2-10  Sea surface temperature anomalies in global oceans and in the part of the Figure 2-10.eps Atlantic Ocean where hurricanes originate, which may influence hurricane climatology and, ultimately, Everglades hydrology. bitmap SOURCE: NOAA (2006). 7 to 15 inches over the present century under its lowest greenhouse gas emis- sions scenario (B1) and 9 to 20 inches under a high-emissions scenario (A2). When adjusted for differences between South Florida gauge estimates and global mean sea-level rise during the 20th century (reflecting vertical land movement and other local factors), the IPCC projections suggest a 4- to 9-inch rise in South Florida by mid-century and a 9- to 17- (lower emissions) or 11- to 22-inch (higher emissions) rise toward the end of this century. However, the IPCC projections specifically excluded estimation of additional sea-level rise that might be due to further acceleration in the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. Extrapolation of the recently observed acceleration of loss of ice volume (Meier et al., 2007), as well as statistical extrapolation based on the relationship of sea sur- face temperature and sea level (Rahmstorf, 2007), both suggest that under a high- emissions scenario (continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions throughout the

52 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades century), sea level could rise by another 14 inches or so beyond the IPCC projec- tions. Considering these high-side risk projections collectively, sea level in South Florida could possibly rise as much as 14 inches by mid-century and 36 inches (3 feet) by the end of the century, if the growth of emissions is not reversed. CERP Guidance Memorandum 016.00 (USACE and SFWMD, 2004a) pro- vides probability distributions for sea-level rise in South Florida to be used in project planning. It indicates a most-probable scenario of sea-level rise of 0.8 feet (about 10 inches) for 2050 and 1.7 feet (20 inches) by 2100. The 14- and 36-inch projections developed represent an approximation of how high sea level could conceivably rise with accelerated melting based on current scientific understand- ing. Of course, the uncertainty in these projections increases with time into the future. The CERP Guidance Memorandum projected sea-level rise with the probability of 10 percent exceedance at 14 and 32 inches, for 2050 and 2100, respectively (Table 2-1), and these are very similar to the reasonable upper-end projections. However, to plan based only on the most-probable (mean) sea-level rise of 0.8 feet in 2050, as the Guidance Memorandum suggests, disregards the skewed nature of the probability distribution and the risks of greater accelera- tion of sea-level rise. The Science and Technology Committee of the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Task Force (hereafter, simply the Science and Technology Committee) (2007) suggested that sea-level rise of up to 5 feet could occur by the end of the century. While there are considerable uncertainties about the rate of melting of polar ice sheets (the reason that the IPCC declined to project this contribu- tion), the most-recent results of glaciologists’ research suggest that sea-level rise of much more than 3 feet this century is not very likely (Meier et al., 2007). Nonetheless, the Science and Technology Committee (2007) correctly pointed out the substantial impacts of even a 2- to 3-foot rise in sea level in low-lying and geologically porous Miami-Dade County, particularly when spring high tides and storm surges are added to the changes in mean sea level. Moreover, if relative sea level does rise by 3 feet during this century, it will very likely reflect accelerating and unstoppable melting of polar ice that portends even higher rates of sea-level rise during the next century. Sea-level rise has significant consequences for Everglades ecosystem restora- tion. Salt-tolerant mangroves will expand at the expense of freshwater wetlands (Figure 2-11). The degree to which wetlands will survive inundation depends on the rate at which sediments and soils are accumulated. Higher sea levels also affect the flow gradients in the lower Everglades and hydraulic head differences that affect seepage and operations of control structures. These were evaluated during the development of the CERP by simulating the effects of a sea-level rise of 0.5 feet (15 cm) (Trimble et al., 1998). Few effects were seen on the interior

The Restoration in Context 53 TABLE 2-1  Probability Distribution of Sea-Level Rise for Miami Beach for Years 2025, 2050, 2075, and 2100 2025 2050 2075 2100 Percent chance exceedence cm ft cm ft cm ft cm ft 90  7 0.2 13 0.4 20 0.7   27 0.9 80  9 0.3 17 0.6 26 0.9   36 1.2 70 11 0.4 20 0.7 30 1.0   42 1.4 60 12 0.4 22 0.7 34 1.1   46 1.5 50 13 0.4 24 0.8 37 1.2   51 1.7 40 14 0.5 27 0.9 41 1.4   56 1.8 30 16 0.5 29 1.0 44 1.5   62 2.0 20 17 0.6 32 1.1 49 1.6   70 2.3 10 20 0.7 37 1.2 57 1.9   81 2.7  5 22 0.7 41 1.4 63 2.1   92 3.0  1 27 0.9 49 1.6 77 2.5 118 3.9 Mean 13 0.4 25 0.8 38 1.3   53 1.7 SOURCE: USACE and SFWMD (2004a). hydrology of South Florida, but lower east coast water supply cutbacks and peak- stage flooding in some areas increased significantly. The above considerations require new analysis of impacts based on higher sea-level rise assumptions, and the CERP Guidance Memorandum should be amended accordingly. Adaptation to Climate Change The range of possibilities of climate and sea level change during the 21st century do not indicate that Everglades restoration is either infeasible or futile, only that the changing conditions will have to be taken into account and adapted to. Rising sea level is likely to change the character of the lower Everglades. Plant communities will have different distributions from those at present, and water flows are likely to change, but dynamic aquatic and ter- restrial habitats are likely to continue to be part of the remaining undeveloped South Florida ecosystem. Moreover, impending climate change should not be an excuse for delay or inaction but, rather, as motivation to avoid irreversible losses and restore the resilience of the ecosystem. The impacts of the long-term climatic fluctuations and changes in tempera- ture, precipitation, and sea level, however, are significant to the CERP in many ways. Among those possible changes that should be assessed and factored into planning and implementation are the following:

54 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades FIGURE 2-11  Projections of the expansion of2-11.eps Figure mangrove habitat in the lower Everglades under various sea-level scenarios based on elevation gradients and plant succession models. bitmap SOURCE: Doyle (2003). • Changes in the water budget and its variability, including the amount of precipitation and its temporal distribution (changing seasonality and fre- quency of intense precipitation events and droughts) and the effects of increased evapotranspiration under the warmer conditions expected. CERP managers are beginning to build into their hydrologic models the capability to accommodate climate changes on time scales of about 50 years, and particularly to account for AMO influences (RECOVER, 2007c); the inclusion of longer-scale adjustments is possible. Because of increasing demands for water for a growing urbanized population, even small changes in the amount of available water may pose man- agement challenges. Potential changes in water availability should be factored into targets for water levels and flows and ecosystem restoration, considerations of the greater frequency of fires, and plans for preservation of endangered species at particular risk, such as the snail kite. The effects of climate change on human demands for water should also be considered, as should setting time limits of 20–25 years on water allocation permits so that the next generation can reevalu- ate apportionment of the potentially changing water supplies.

The Restoration in Context 55 • Changes in the return frequency and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms. While it is not possible at this time to project the frequency of land-­falling hurricanes in Florida, the evolving research in this area could better inform risk analyses. • Effects of temperature changes on the distribution of plants and animals in the Everglades ecosystem, including implications for invasive species. • Consequences of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide on plant growth, biodeposition of carbonate sediments, and soil building processes. Manage­ment approaches to enhance sediment accretion in the lower Everglades to keep pace with sea-level rise should be evaluated. • Impacts of projected sea-level rise on the hydro-geomorphology of northern and southern estuaries, saltwater intrusion, and transgressions of the m ­ angrove zone. Regional and CERP Planning in Response to Large-scale Influences CERP planners are cognizant of major large-scale influences on the restora- tion, including population growth, water demand, land use change, short- and long-term climate variability, and sea-level rise. Local, state, and federal officials at the planning stage are attempting to prepare for the consequences of these influences. The SFWMD consistently updates its population growth projections and fac- tors them into their water plans. Their objective is to identify future needs now so that adequate supplies are in place when they are needed (Balbin, 2008). In anticipation of higher demands for water, South Florida governments have initiated efforts to protect water for the environment while making the most- efficient use of existing water supplies. The SFWMD’s Regional Water Supply Availability Rule limits consumptive use withdrawal of water from Everglades water bodies and requires consumptive users to develop alternative water sup- plies for increased allocation. Southeastern coastal areas may opt to develop deeper aquifers, for example, and most areas will need to institute stringent conservation measures and water reuse strategies. The SFWMD established an alternative water supply grant program that provides funding to local municipali- ties developing desalination or water reuse facilities. Land use management is largely in the hands of counties in Florida. Counties create plans for acceptable use and try to accommodate the urban sprawl that results from population growth (e.g., Miami-Dade County, 2008). The SFWMD reviews the plans of each county from the standpoint of water supply and assists counties in defining potential needs for water. Each county in the Everglades watershed anticipates some growth management, but because the authority for

56 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades land use planning is fragmented among the counties, there is no central clearing- house for coordination. However, the state of Florida established the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) program in 2001 to provide a mechanism for counties to designate such areas to prevent urban sprawl, protect natural resources, and promote rural economic activity (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2007). Under the RLSA program, some counties such as Collier and St. Lucie Counties have tried applying growth management tools such as Transfer of Development Rights to steer development away from agriculturally important or environmentally sensitive areas and concentrate it in or near existing urban areas. If implemented appropriately, such efforts could significantly reduce South Florida’s urban footprint and its environmental impact. It appears that current and proposed RLSAs, which already total over 900,000 acres in the CERP region, are not being designed or implemented in consultation with restoration efforts, although the RLSA process would seem to be a good forum for aligning county growth management planning with restoration objectives and activities. As described in the previous section on climate change, the USACE and SFWMD are working to accommodate short- and long-term climate change, and a guidance memorandum (USACE and SFWMD, 2004a) was issued to provide advice about climate change for CERP project planning. CERP assessments, evalu- ations, and management recommendations all are taking short- and long-term climate change into account. RECOVER has stated that the physical characteris- tics of CERP facilities will need flexibility to accommodate anticipated changes, and their operational plans will include a built-in resilience to deal with climate changes and sea-level rise (RECOVER, 2006f). SFWMD modelers responsible for predicting the behavior of a restored Everglades hydrologic system are analyz- ing the implications of intrusions of salt water and fluctuations in water supply that result from short-term climate changes. They are also working to downscale global circulation models to anticipate the long-term climate changes at regional scales that are useful for Central and South Florida (L. Gerry, SFWMD, personal communication, 2008). State and local officials are also anticipating the possible effects of sea-level rise, particularly along Florida’s southeast coast (e.g., Science and Technology Committee, 2007). Many of these efforts, however, are in their infancy, and it is too early to evaluate how effective these planning strategies will be to mitigate these large- scale influences on the CERP. RECENT CHANGES IN THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM NRC (2007) described some recent trends in the ecology and hydrology of the South Florida ecosystem, demonstrating that the natural system will con-

The Restoration in Context 57 tinue to move away from conditions that support natural ecosystem processes until greater progress is made in implementing CERP and non-CERP projects. More recent trends suggest that the ecosystem is at risk and that some impor- tant components are showing continued declines. In this section, the status and trends for tree islands, several bird species, Lake Okeechobee, and exotic and invasive species are reviewed as examples of recent changes to the eco­ system that compromise its resiliency. These examples are critical components of the South Florida ecosystem, and because each involves numerous aspects of water quantity, quality, flow, and biology, they serve as indicators of the status of functional components of the system. Finally, the concept of regime shift is discussed, based on the committee’s concerns that continued declines may lead to ecosystem conditions that may be very difficult to restore. Tree Islands Tree islands are visually striking and ecologically critical habitats in the Everglades landscape (Figure 2-12). These small and relatively dry patches of Figure 2-12.eps FIGURE 2-12  Aerial view of tree island landscape in Shark River Slough. bitmap SOURCE: Courtesy of Ross and Jones (2004).

58 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades trees and woody shrubs set amidst the grasses, sedges, and aquatic plants of the large expanses of flooded land provide unique and vital resources for wildlife foraging and nesting. They are found over a large area, from the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge through the WCAs and in the Shark River Slough of Everglades National Park (Ross and Jones, 2004). They are refugia during high waters, and they are biodiversity “hotspots” for both plants and animals (Armentano et al., 2002; Gawlik and Rocque, 1998; van der Valk and Sklar, 2002). Over the past decade, several studies have documented decreases in the extent of tree island habitats. Hofmockel (1999) reported that between 1953 and 1995, WCA-2A lost 87 percent of its tree islands. The most recent analysis of tree island change (Sklar and van der Valk, 2002; Van der Valk and Sklar, 2002) used aerial images to document changes in WCA-3 from the 1940s to 1995 (Figure 2-13). The primary period of tree island area loss occurred between 1950–1970, with lower rates of loss before and after. This analysis suggested a decrease in total tree island area of 67 percent and a decline of 54 percent in the number of islands in WCA-3. This loss is generally attributed to changes in both water levels and fire frequencies (Brandt et al., 2002). Sklar (2007a) predicted that tree island numbers and areal extent will continue to decline due to muck FIGURE 2-13  Area and number of tree islands in WCA-3A between the 1940s and the 1990s. Figure 2-13.eps SOURCE: Courtesy of Sklar (2007a). bitmap

The Restoration in Context 59 fires if restoration is further delayed. With further delays, resilience to hydrologic variability may also decline, creating lethal flooding stress when historic water levels are ultimately restored. Endangered Everglades Birds Population trends over the past 5 to 10 years are quite variable among the Everglades’ most-high-profile and threatened bird species, but several downward population trends are quite clear and appear to be related to water levels and their management within the southern Everglades project area. Snail Kites The snail kite (Rostrahamus sociabilis), a specialized hawk that feeds almost solely on freshwater snails of the genus Pomacea, has been listed under the Endangered Species Act since 1967 (Beissinger, 1990; Snyder and Snyder, 1969; Stieglitz and Thompson, 1967; Sykes et al., 1995). This high degree of diet specialization makes the snail kite dependent on flooded wetlands to feed and nest and vulnerable to population declines if it is unable to find snails, such as during regional droughts (Beissinger, 1995). Destruction of Everglades wetlands and the drying of marshes caused a population decline to approximately 50–75 individuals in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Stieglitz and Thompson, 1967; Sykes, 1979), but kite populations in Florida made a remarkable recovery to over 3,500 individuals in 1999 (Martin et al., 2007a) following a decade of relatively high water levels. Snail kite numbers over the past 5 years, however, have not recovered from the major drought of 2000–2001 (Martin et al., 2007a; Figure 2-14). In 2007, when water levels were very low in many areas in Florida, kites declined by 27 percent to about 1,200 individuals (J. Martin, University of Florida, personal communication, 2008). Kite reproduction in WCA-3A, the largest and most consistently used area of snail kite critical habitat, has declined precipitously during the past 5 years. No young were known to fledge from WCA-3A in 2005 and 2007, and only 9 of 81 (11 percent) nests successfully produced young in 2006 (Martin et al., 2007b). Declines of the kite in WCA-3A may be partially attributable to the manner in which water is managed. According to the current Interim Operational Plan (IOP), water is held behind the S-12 structures from November to March (see Figure 2-15). When water is shifted rapidly to the south into Everglades National Park from April through June, it results in rapid recession rates that can leave kite nests vulnerable to terrestrial predators, further reducing the rate of survival of juveniles after they fledge (Martin et al., 2007b). Water management and climate

60 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades FIGURE 2-14  Estimates of the mean and 95 percent confidence interval for snail kite popula- Figure 2-14.eps tion size in Florida between 1997 and 2007. SOURCE: USFWS (2007) based on databitmap by W. Kitchens, University of Florida. supplied factors (e.g., the AMO) have also led to deeper levels of inundation during the wet season in WCA-3A over the past decade compared to that which occurred between the mid-1960s and the early 1990s. These deeper water depths are also having negative effects on snail populations and are changing wetland plant species composition to less-favorable communities for kites and snails (Darby et al. 2008; Karunaratne et al., 2006). Apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) abundance appears to have declined substantially within WCA-3A (Darby et al., 2005). Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow The Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis; here­ after, simply CSSS), which was listed as an endangered species in 1968, is a morphologically, genetically, and ecologically unique subspecies of seaside For more information, see water depth data from 1966 to the present at http://www.fgcu.edu/bcw/  wca3a/wca3a.htm (sites 62, 64, and 65).

The Restoration in Context 61 Figure 2-15.eps FIGURE 2-15  Locations of Cape Sable seaside sparrow subpopulations. Cape Sable is the bitmap landmass on the lower left (southwest) edge of the Florida peninsula. SOURCE: Courtesy of Pimm et al. (2002) . sparrow that is restricted to the Everglades ecosystem (Kushlan et al., 1982; McDonald, 1988). The CSSS is now distributed in what has been termed 6 sub- populations within the marl prairies (Figure 2-15), although presently only two of these areas support populations with more than 100 individuals (Hallac et al., 2007; Pimm et al., 2002; Walters et al., 2000). Large declines in the proportion

62 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades of area occupied by CSSSs within its range have been demonstrated across all the subpopulations between 1981 and 1992 (Cassey et al., 2007). During the past 5 to 10 years, the total number of CSSSs appears to have remained relatively stable (Figure 2-16), numbering around 3,000 individuals, but the number of subpopulations has declined from 6 to 4. Most individuals are in 2 subpopulations (B and E) that support 80–90 percent of the remaining individuals (SEI, 2007). Subpopulations B and E appear to have remained stable in recent years, but other subpopulations have declined. Most notable has been the precipitous decline of subpopulation A on the northwest side of Shark River Slough, which was estimated to have supported several thousand individuals in 1992 (Walters et al., 2000), 128 birds in 2003, and only 64 sparrows in 2007 (D. Hallac, NPS, personal communication, 2008). This decline occurred despite the attempts to reduce water flows across the S-12 structures from November 4,000 Subpopulation A Subpopulation B 3,500 Subpopulation C Subpopulation D Subpopulation E Subpopulation F 3,000 Estimated Number of Sparrows 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year FIGURE 2-16  Estimated number of Cape Sable seaside sparrows by subpopulation. SOURCE: Based on data received from D. New 2-16 Hallac, NPS, personal communication (2008).

The Restoration in Context 63 through April to increase nesting success of sparrows in subpopulation A. Several of the other subpopulations have also exhibited recent population declines, and subpopulations D and F had no birds detected in 2007 (Figure 2-16). Water management is integrally linked to the survival of the CSSS (Nott et al., 1998). Nests of these sparrows are susceptible to inundation if water levels rise quickly (Nott et al., 1998), and recent work suggests that nest predation may also be linked to water levels, as rates appear to increase under both high and low conditions (Baiser and Lockwood, 2006; Lockwood et al., 2006). Moreover, water level conditions that permit multiple brooding appear to be very important if CSSS populations are to increase (Walters et al., 2000). A change in habitat suitability as a result of shifts in hydrologic characteristics may have resulted in the drastic decline of subpopulations A and D (Pimm et al., 2002; SEI, 2007). Wood Storks and Other Wading Birds Although most wading birds are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, with the exception of the wood stork (Mycteria americana), they are considered important indicators of Everglades ecosystem functioning. The total number of wading birds using Everglades National Park and WCA-3A has increased over the past 5 years from about 330,000 to 500,000, although their distribution has changed. Four of seven species of wading birds (great egrets, great blue h ­ erons, wood storks, and white ibis) have shown an annual increase over the past 5 years, and a larger number of wood storks were identified in 2006 and 2007 than had been documented in the previous 40 years in the United States (Cook and ­ Herring, 2007). However, large colonies of wading birds are now found in more northern areas, particularly northeastern WCA-3A, rather than in the southern Everglades where they historically occurred (Crozier and Cook, 2004). Only one species—the great white heron, which primarily resides in Florida Bay—has shown a decline (Alvarado and Bass, 2007). Restoration Delays Further Endanger Everglades Birds While wading birds responded favorably to environmental conditions in the Everglades over the past 5 years, endangered Everglades birds have not recovered. Recovering endangered species requires identifying and ameliorat- ing the causes of population decline. Declines in endangered Everglades bird populations often are not gradual; instead, they occur after some catastrophic event (e.g., drought or flooding, hurricanes, fires). All populations are subject to these effects, but when populations decline to a few hundred or a few ­thousand individuals, their resiliency to recover from natural perturbations is greatly

64 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades reduced, further increasing their risk of extinction due to natural climate and environmental variations. A panel of independent experts (SEI, 2007) who reviewed the current situ- ation of endangered birds in the Everglades recently concluded that the status quo of flow conditions and water schedules in the WCAs and Everglades National Park “is not an option if the goal is to restore the ecosystem and prevent the extinction of critically endangered species. Incomplete implementation of emergency measures and failure to complete more major plans in a timely way increases the risks to endangered species. Moreover it makes it more difficult and more expensive to recover them.” Ongoing delays in the Mod Waters project (see Chapter 4) not only have postponed improvements to the hydrologic conditions but has allowed ecological decline to continue. As discussed previously, recent water management strategies (i.e., the IOP) have not produced conditions that are conducive to restoring the sparrow and appear to be negatively impacting the kite (SEI, 2007). The recent Sustainable Ecosystems Institute’s (SEI’s) avian ecology panel (SEI, 2007) stated that “continuing degradation of the ecosystem has reached the point that there is immediate concern about both of these species (CSSS and Snail Kite) rather than just the former.” That same SEI panel also stated that completing Mod Waters is critical to maintaining healthy avian populations in the Everglades. Fortunately, none of the endangered bird species exists in such small ­numbers that they are in immediate danger of extinction. There is still time to rectify the situation through restoration activities, even if some populations are impacted as a necessary consequence of the early transitions of restoration. Nevertheless, positive ecosystem changes may take years or decades to occur once restora- tion activities are enacted. Further loss of numbers and habitat deterioration due to delays in completing Mod Waters reduces the opportunity for adaptive management, may preclude allowing some incidental take, and increases the chance that an extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane or drought) could imperil the existing populations. Lake Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee has been profoundly altered by the combination of diking and connection to the coastal estuaries (St. Lucie to the east and Caloosahatchee to the west). The changes have affected not only the amounts and flows of water but also water quality, especially the overload of phosphorus. As a result, the biotic communities in the lake and in the estuaries also have undergone sig- nificant changes (SFWMD and FDEP, 2005, 2008a) (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion). For example, the goal for shoreline water clarity in Lake

The Restoration in Context 65 Okeechobee (100 percent visibility to the lake bed from May through September) was met less than 10 percent of the time during the past 5 years (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a). Submerged aquatic vegetation declined substantially, and other components of the vegetation experienced large changes (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a). The zooplankton and fish also experienced changes in recent years, particu- larly in response to four hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. In general, ­piscivorous fishes declined, while omnivores and planktivores increased, with marked declines in the fish species of greatest recreational and commercial interest, particularly largemouth bass and various species of sunfish (Johnson et al., 2007). The changes in water quantity and quality in Lake Okeechobee have been accompanied by declines in most of the water bird populations, although the cause-effect mechanisms are not well understood for all the species (e.g., Beissinger and Snyder, 2002; Rodgers, 2007). Exotic and Invasive Species Invasive, nonindigenous (nonnative) species are a large and expanding threat to the South Florida ecosystem. There are at least 32 invasive non­indigenous plant species and over 150 nonindigenous animals found in the South Florida ecosystem. Although many invasive species are widespread and occupy large areas (e.g., Brazilian pepper [Schinus terebinthifolius]), some of the most dam- aging invasive plants have been brought under control through a combination of vigorous control efforts and introduction of biocontrol agents (Ferriter et al., 2008). The most striking success is for Melaleuca; only 7,000 acres are currently heavily infested—down from nearly 500,000 acres in 1993 (TAME Melaleuca, 2004)—although approximately 270,000 acres remain under maintenance con- trol (Ferriter et al., 2008; Morgan and Allen, 2007). Despite effective control mechanisms for some invasive, nonindigenous plant species and $21 million per year spent on exotics control, both the number and the abundance of invasive species continue to increase (e.g., Figure 2-17). However, few quantitative data are available to adequately track changes in the number, abundance, and distribution of invasive species, especially ­ invasive animals. None of the eight physiographic regions within the South Florida ecosystem is currently free of exotic species invasion, and three are predicted to decline in quality over the next 1–2 years due to the expansion of invasive nonindigenous plant species (Table 2-2; Ferriter et al., 2008). Recent proposals to develop biofuel plantations growing giant reed (Arundo donax), a known invasive species near the Everglades, have sparked concern that a new source of problematic species is developing in the region (Rosenthal, 2008). Even if Ever-

66 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades 300 250 Pythons Removed 200 150 100 50 0 1979 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 2-17.eps FIGURE 2-17  Number of Burmese pythons removed from the Greater Everglades region between 1979 and 2007. Increase largely reflects the result of reproduction, dispersal, and establishment in the park and on adjacent lands, with some increase in reporting effort. SOURCE: S. Snow, NPS, personal communication (2008). glades hydrology is effectively restored, the continuing introduction and spread of damaging species could threaten the restoration of ecological integrity. Current Trends and Regime Shifts The observed patterns of species and habitat decline and increasing threats from invasive nonindigenous species need to be understood within the context of regime shifts (also called alternate stable states). The ability of an ecosystem to resist change in its configuration, given a disturbance or change in environmental conditions, is referred to as ecological resilience (Gunderson, 2000; van Nes and Scheffer, 2004). However, given sufficient environmental changes, the ecosystem can undergo a relatively rapid transition to a new configuration of species and processes, which in turn remains stable over a wide range of environmental conditions (Beisner et al., 2003; Carpenter and Gunderson, 2001; Gunderson, 2000; Mayer and Rietkerk, 2004; Scheffer and Carpenter, 2003; Scheffer et al., 2001). Both model analysis and observational studies show that as the threshold condition for regime shift is approached, it may require only a small additional change to precipitate a large change in the system configuration, as it assumes

The Restoration in Context 67 TABLE 2-2  Invasive Nonindigenous Plant Indicator Status for Components of the South Florida Ecosystem Northern Northern Lake Florida Southern Greater Big Estuaries Estuaries Okee- Kissimmee Keys Estuaries Everglades Cypress West East chobee River 2006 Overall Status 2007 Overall Status 1-2 Year Prognosis Number of Plant Species 3 3 3 5 12 6 2 7 Rated “Yellow- Red” Or “Red” Number of Serious 5 3 8 5 4 3 7 8 Animal Species NOTE: A stoplight indicator system (see below) integrates these components of invasive species impact, considering: (1) number of exotic plant species present; (2) number, abundance, and frequency of new exotic species; (3) abundance of established invasive Table 2-2new locations; (4) location and density species in of invasive exotic plants; (5) rate of spread; and (6) effectiveness of control actions/programs, measured as reduction in spatial extent. Red (R)= Severe negative condition, or one is expected in near future. Red/Yellow (R | Y) = Currently a negative condition but there are reasonable control efforts under way. However, without continued efforts this species may revert to a severe situation. Yellow/Red (Y | R) = Problem was previously localized or not too severe but appears to be progressing. Condition generally due to inaction. Without attention and resources, the situation may develop or become red. Yellow (Y) = Situation is improving and either is stable or moving toward stabilizing, or the species is still very localized. Yellow/Green (Y | G) = Significant progress is being made and situation is moving toward good mainte- nance control and is expected to continue improving as long as resources are maintained. SOURCE: Ferriter et al. (2008).

68 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades an alternate state which is stabilized by a new set of feedback relationships (van de Koppel et al., 2004). Furthermore, there can be a pronounced hysteresis, in which reestablishment of the initial environmental conditions fails to move the system back to its original state due to the stabilizing feedbacks present in the alternate state (Beisner et al., 2003). The response of each ecosystem regime to environmental change is highly nonlinear (Mayer and Rietkerk, 2004) and can show time lags and unexpected, even surprising, patterns of change (Groffman et al., 2006). There are important implications of a system of multiple dynamic regimes for the Everglades restoration effort. Theory and observation suggest that even a small environmental change could create an alternate ecosystem configuration that could prove very difficult to reverse even if managers “get the water right,” and such changes could occur very rapidly. With the current system showing declines and losses of resilience in many components, together with increasing threats from invasive species—as described in this section—there is concern that further environmental changes could result in a degraded system that could be very difficult to restore. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Everglades ecosystem is one of the world’s greatest ecological treasures, but for more than a century it has been subject to widespread changes resulting from the installation of an extensive water control infrastructure. Culminating in the C&SF Project completed in the 1970s, canals, dikes, and gates to control flows have changed the geography of South Florida and have facilitated extensive agricultural and urban development. These changes have had profound ancillary effects on regional hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife populations, resulting in an extensive decline in the vitality of all components of the ecosystem, including not only the central “River of Grass” but also Lake Okeechobee and the coastal estuaries. The CERP, a joint effort led by the state and federal governments and authorized in 2000, seeks to reverse the general decline of the ecosystem in the midst of a changing human and environmental context. Population growth and associated development will make restoration more difficult. Increasing water demands from an expanding, more densely settled population in Florida could create competition with ecosystem restoration when supplies are limited. Agriculture and other undeveloped lands face an uncertain future in South Florida. The EAA in particular intervenes directly in the flow of water between Lake Okeechobee and Everglades National Park and influences the movement of water, sediment, and nutrients for the rest of the system. The use of “smart growth” principles that integrate the needs of environmental restoration

The Restoration in Context 69 with human demographic changes can lessen the negative impacts of population growth, if cities, counties, the state, and CERP planners are all involved. Human-induced climate change is likely to impact the effectiveness of CERP projects, and CERP planners should assess and factor into planning and implementation the most recent projections of the impacts of climate change in South Florida. Precipitation, evapotranspiration, and the intensity of rainfall events in South Florida are expected to change during the current century due to climate change. Impending climate change should not be an excuse for delay or inaction in the restoration, but instead provides further motivation to restore the resilience of the ecosystem. The CERP Guidance Memorandum on climate change recommends consideration of sea-level rise and changes in precipitation quantity, distribution, and evapotranspiration in all CERP planning, but new anal- ysis of impacts based on higher sea-level rise assumptions are needed. Among those possible changes that should be assessed and factored into planning and implementation are: changes in the water budget, including increasing human demands for water; changes in the return frequency and intensity of hurricanes; the effects of climate change on the distribution of biota in the Everglades eco- system; and impacts of projected sea-level rise on the hydro-geomorphology of the estuaries and the mangrove zone. Ongoing delay in South Florida ecosystem restoration has not only post- poned improvements to the hydrologic condition but also has allowed ecologi- cal decline to continue. Recent water management strategies have not produced conditions that are conducive to restoring the Cape Sable seaside sparrow and appear to be negatively impacting the snail kite. Tree islands have undergone a multidecadal decline in both number and surface area—a trend that appears likely to continue until significant CERP and non-CERP restoration progress has been made. In the past decade, Lake Okeechobee has experienced continued water quality and habitat degradation. Meanwhile, the number and area of influence of invasive species are increasing and represent very real challenges to restoration efforts. In the face of these numerous challenges, Everglades restoration efforts are even more essential to improve the condition of the South Florida eco­ system and strengthen its resiliency as it faces additional stresses in the future. If ecological resilience is not restored, the possibility exists that environmental changes could precipitate rapid and deleterious state changes that might be very difficult or impossible to reverse. Unless near-term progress is achieved on major restoration initiatives, including CERP and non-CERP efforts, opportuni- ties for restoration may close with further loss of species numbers and habitat deterioration, and the Everglades ecosystem may experience irreversible losses to its character and function.

Next: 3 Project Planning and Implementation »
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $70.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book is the second biennial evaluation of progress being made in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a multibillion-dollar effort to restore historical water flows to the Everglades and return the ecosystem closer to its natural state. Launched in 2000 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, CERP is a multiorganization planning process that includes approximately 50 major projects to be completed over the next several decades.

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review 2008 concludes that budgeting, planning, and procedural matters are hindering a federal and state effort to restore the Florida Everglades ecosystem, which is making only scant progress toward achieving its goals. Good science has been developed to support restoration efforts, but future progress is likely to be limited by the availability of funding and current authorization mechanisms. Despite the accomplishments that lay the foundation for CERP construction, no CERP projects have been completed to date. To begin reversing decades of decline, managers should address complex planning issues and move forward with projects that have the most potential to restore the natural ecosystem.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!