National Academies Press: OpenBook

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008 (2008)

Chapter: 3 Project Planning and Implementation

« Previous: 2 The Restoration in Context
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 74
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 75
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 76
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 77
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 78
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 79
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 80
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 81
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 82
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 83
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 84
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 85
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 86
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 87
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 88
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 89
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 90
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 91
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 92
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 93
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 94
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 95
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 96
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 97
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 98
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 99
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 100
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 101
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 102
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 103
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 104
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 105
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 106
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 107
Suggested Citation:"3 Project Planning and Implementation." 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 108

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.

3 Project Planning and Implementation This committee is charged with the task of discussing significant accom- plishments of the restoration and to assess “the progress toward achieving the natural system restoration goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)” (see Chapter 1). The first National Research Council (NRC) review of restoration progress noted that in the first 6 years after the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) was authorized, actual construction progress was limited. Instead, most of the CERP accomplishments were program- matic (e.g., land acquisition, project implementation reports [PIRs; see Box 3-1]) to lay the foundation for later project construction (NRC, 2007). In 2008, the beginning of construction for some CERP projects is encouraging, but many CERP and non-CERP restoration projects have been delayed and are far behind their planned completions, and for a variety of reasons, most CERP accomplish- ments remain programmatic. In this chapter, an update to the NRC’s previous assessment of CERP and related non-CERP project planning and implementation progress is provided (NRC, 2007). The chapter includes discussions of important issues related to CERP progress, such as funding and sequencing. Important challenges are addressed for restoration planning, including incremental adaptive restoration, endangered species, and current project planning impediments. In Chapter 6, details are provided on additional programmatic progress, including the moni- toring and assessment plan, development of modeling tools, and other ways in which the foundations of adaptive management are being built in support of the restoration. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Actual progress restoring the natural system in the South Florida ecosys- tem will come about only through implementation of restoration projects. The analysis of implementation progress that follows is focused on the CERP, but 71

72 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 3-1 CERP Project Planning: Project Implementation Reports Project implementation reports (PIRs) are decision documents that bridge the gap between the conceptual design contained in the Yellow Book (USACE and SFWMD, 1999) and the detailed design necessary to proceed to construction. PIRs for most CERP projects are sent to the U.S. Congress for approval as part of the project planning and authorization process (Figure 3-1). No federal funding in support of mid- to large-sized CERP project construction can be appropriated before PIR approval and project authorization. However, the Secretary of the Army can approve PIRs and proceed with construction for small CERP projects (projects under $25M, with a total not to exceed $206M) under program authority. The final draft Guidance Memoranda (USACE and SFWMD, 2007a) describe the expected contents and supporting analyses required in the PIRs. The PIR includes an evaluation of alternative designs and operations for their environmental benefits in relation to costs, as well as engineering feasibility. Each PIR also includes detailed analyses that support the justification for a project being next in the queue for CERP implementation as opposed to being delayed to a later time. Each PIR must show conformance with the Savings Clause in WRDA 2000, including a statement of the water reservation for the natural system and for other uses. The Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (RECOVER) program reviews the draft PIR, evaluates the benefits of project alternatives, and assesses the contri- bution of the project to meeting the overall goals of the CERP. RECOVER also evaluates the project’s contributions toward meeting the interim goals and interim targets. Project Congressional Cooperation Authorization Agreement Project Project Plans Implementation Detailed & Construct Operate Mgmt Report Design Plan Specs (including NEPA) Real Estate Acquisition Monitoring and Assessment FIGURE 3-1  CERP project development process. SOURCE: Adapted from Appelbaum (2004). Figure 3-1.eps

Project Planning and Implementation 73 implementation progress for related non-CERP projects is summarized, with more details provided in Appendix C. A detailed analysis of progress in one criti- cal non-CERP foundation project, the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project (Mod Waters), is provided in Chapter 4. Additional detail on implementation progress can be found in the CERP Annual Report (Williams, 2008), Tracking Success (SFERTF, 2007a), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the South Florida ecosystem restoration (GAO, 2007). CERP Project Implementation The original Yellow Book plan (USACE and SFWMD, 1999) defined 68 projects and identified a schedule for implementation. An updated implementation schedule called the Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP) (USACE and SFWMD, 2005a) was released that organized CERP projects into seven 5-year bands, according to their estimated completion dates. The status of the earliest planned CERP projects—those that were expected, as of 2005, to be completed between 2005 and 2010—are summarized in Table 3-1 (also called Band 1 projects; see Figure 3-2). MISP Band 1 includes those CERP ­projects expedited by the state of Florida through its Acceler8 program, launched in 2004. Band 1 includes projects with the primary purposes of habitat restoration, water storage, seepage manage- ment, and improved future project design (see Appendix D). As of July 2008, at least four CERP restoration projects are under construc- tion, and four CERP pilot projects are in an installation and testing phase. Many more projects are in planning and design phases (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). However, not a single CERP project has been completed as of the production of this report. Many of the early projects are already well behind schedule, and the 2005 MISP is already outdated (see Figure 3-3). The GAO notes that some CERP projects are behind schedule by up to 6 years (GAO, 2007). Reasons for these delays are discussed later in this chapter. A few project components expedited by the state of Florida through the Acceler8 program or through other initiatives are proceeding on or ahead of the original Yellow Book schedule: C-51 and L-8 Basin Reservoir, Phase 1 (projected completion 2008 versus 2011 in the Yellow Book) and Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Phase 1 (projected completion 2011 versus 2018 in the Yellow Book) (Table 3-1). The remaining Acceler8 projects show delays similar to the other MISP Band 1 CERP projects (Figure 3-3). The Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration (CISRERP) has found it difficult, however, to obtain reliable projected ­completion  For more information, see http://www.evergladesnow.org.

74 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades TABLE 3-1  Updated CERP Band 1 Project Status Yellow Book MISP 1.0 Current (1999) (2005) (2008) Estimated Estimated Estimated Completion Completion Completion Project or Component Name Date Date Date Caloosahatchee River (C-43) ASR Pilot (Fig. 3-2, No. 1) 2002 2006 2012 Hillsboro ASR Pilot 2002 2006 2009 (Fig. 3-2, No. 2) Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilot 2001 2007 2012 (Fig. 3-2, No. 5) L-31 (L-30) Seepage Management Pilot 2002 2008 2010 (Fig. 3-2, No. 4) Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants 2011 2007 2026 Winsberg Farms Wetlands Restoration (Fig. 3-2, No. 3) 2005 2008 2010 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (Phase 1) 2018 2008 2011 (Fig. 3-2, No. 6) Picayune Strand Restoration (Formerly called Southern 2005 2009 2015 Golden Gate Estates) (Fig. 3-2, No. 7) Indian River Lagoon - South 2023 (Fig. 3-2, No. 8) - C-44 Reservoir* 2007 2009 2014 - Natural Areas Real Estate Acquisition (Phase 1) Not specified 2009 Not specified Broward County WPAs 2017 - C-9 Impoundment* 2007 2009 2014 (Fig. 3-2, No. 9) - Western C-11 Diversion Impoundment* 2008 2009 2014 (Fig. 3-2, No. 10) - WCA 3A-3B Levee Seepage Management* 2008 2008 2017 (Fig. 3-2, No. 9,10) Acme Basin B Discharge 2006 2007 2009 (Fig. 3-2, No. 11) Site 1 Impoundment* 2007 2009 2013 (Phase 1) (Fig. 3-2, No. 2) C-111 Spreader Canal* 2008 2008 PIR#1: 2011 (Fig. 3-2, No. 12) PIR #2: TBD

Project Planning and Implementation 75 Construction Status Project Implementation (or Installation and Original Cost Estimated Cost Report (PIR) and Testing Status for (in millions of (in millionsa) Authorization Status Planning/Design Pilots) 1999 dollars) from 2007 IFP NA Ongoing Ongoing 6 8.3 NA ¸ Ongoing 9 9.3 NA ¸ Ongoing 19 27.4 NA ¸ Ongoing 10 12.0 In development Ongoing NA 5.8 8.3 In development Ongoing Phase 1: ¸ 14.1 18.1 Phase 2: Not begun In development Phase 1: ¸ Not Begun 300 438 (Phases 1 & 2) Submitted to Congress in ¸ Ongoing 46 393 Sept. 2005; Authorized in WRDA 2007 Submitted to Congress in 823 1,497 Aug. 2004; Authorized in WRDA 2007 ¸ Ongoing Unknown NA Final April 2007 314 691 Ongoing Not Begun Ongoing Not Begun Ongoing Not Begun Discontinuedb ¸ Ongoing 20 28 Submitted to Congress in Ongoing Not Begun 39 84 Dec. 2006; Authorized in WRDA 2007 PIR #1: In development Ongoing Not Begun 94 370 continued

76 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades TABLE 3-1  Continued Yellow Book MISP 1.0 Current (1999) (2005) (2008) Estimated Estimated Estimated Completion Completion Completion Project or Component Name Date Date Date North Palm Beach County – Part 1 - C-51 and L-8 Basin Reservoir, Phase 1 (PBA) 2011 2008 2008c (Fig. 3-2, No. 13) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir (Fig. 3-2, No. 14) - Part 1, Phase 1* 2009 2009 2010d Lake Okeechobee Watershed 2015 - Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule* 2001 2008 Not specified (Fig. 3-2, No. 15) Modify Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area Not specified 2009 2009 Operation Plan (Fig. 3-2, No. 16) Lakes Park Restoration 2004 2009 TBD (Fig. 3-2, No. 17) C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir 2012 2010 2013 (Fig. 3-2, No. 1) NOTES: Gray shading reflects projects being expedited and/or carried out entirely with state funding as of 2007. In most cases, construction of these projects was moving forward prior to the finalization of the PIR. Some of these projects are still considered CERP components, while others are now considered outside of the CERP. Recently, several state-expedited projects have reverted back to the USACE for ­remaining design and construction (e.g., Site 1 Impoundment, Broward County WPAs, Picayune Strand). * Projects that were conditionally authorized in WRDA 2000, subject to approval of the PIR. a Project costs in the Integrated Financial Plan (IFP) (SFERTF, 2007a) were reported as constant 2006 dollars, with the e ­ xception of the Acceler8 projects, which were reported as the present day value at the time the estimate was performed (~2007). b The SFWMD has decided to work with local interests to complete the design and construction of the Acme Basin B Discharge project and the Lakes Park Restoration project outside of the CERP. Cost ­sharing under the CERP is not antici- pated, thus work on these two PIRs has been discontinued, and CERP ­Planning/Design efforts have been ended. c Although the IFP indicates that the C-51 and L-8 basin reservoir, Phase 1 (PBA), is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008 with the use of temporary pumps, full capacity will not be available until construction of the final pump station, likely in fiscal year 2010. Construction of the permanent pump station was recently moved into Phase 2 of the project.

Project Planning and Implementation 77 Construction Status Project Implementation (or Installation and Original Cost Estimated Cost Report (PIR) and Testing Status for (in millions of (in millionsa) Authorization Status Planning/Design Pilots) 1999 dollars) from 2007 IFP In development 437 608 ¸ Ongoing 437 594 Revised Draft in ¸ Ongoing (but development temporarily halted)c In development 456 643 Ongoing NA NA Ongoing NA 0 0 Discontinuedb Ongoing Not Begun 5.2 6.6 Final Sept. 2007 ¸ Not Begun 440 531 (Reservoir and (Reservoir and ASR) ASR) d The EAA Storage Reservoir project is on hold, pending the resolution of two lawsuits underway (USA, et al. v. SFWMD, et al. 1:88-cv-01886-FAM; NRDC, et al. v. USACE, 9:07-cv-80444-DIV-Middlebrooks). If the state of Florida acquires large land holdings in the EAA from the U.S. Sugar Corporation, opportunities made available by this acquisition could affect future plans for completing the EAA Storage Reservoir. SOURCES: DOI and USACE (2005); L. Gerry, SFWMD, personal communication (2008); G. Landers, USACE, personal communication (2008); Project Status Reports from www.evergladesplan.org; SFERTF (2007a); USACE and SFWMD (1999). ¸=Complete NA= not applicable TBD = to be determined

78 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Figure 3-2.eps FIGURE 3-2  Locations of Band 1 CERP project components. © International Mapping Associates bitmap

Project Planning and Implementation 79 TABLE 3-2  Status of 88 CERP and CERP-Related Restoration Projects Not Yet Implemented Planning/ Not Yet Completed In Implementation Design Started Total CERP  0  7 21 32 60 Related non-CERP projects 15 10  3  0 28 NOTE: Related non-CERP projects “when completed, will serve as the foundation for many of the CERP projects and are intended to restore a more natural water flow to Everglades National Park and improve water quality in the ecosystem” (GAO, 2007). See Appendix E for the names and status of the 88 projects. GAO (2007) also includes an assessment of 134 South Florida restoration projects that are not related to CERP and that do not serve as a foundation for the CERP. SOURCE: GAO (2007). 2026 Melaleuca Eradication State-expedited projects (through 2007) 2024 CERP Band 1 (non-Acceler8) 2022 Current Estimated Completion Date 2020 Increasing delays 2018 WCA Seepage Mgmt (9, 10) 2016 C-9 Impoundment (9) Picayune Strand (7) C-11 Impoundment (10) IRL South: C-44 Reservoir (8) 2014 Lake Okeechobee Site 1 ASR Pilot (5) Impoundment (2) C-43 Reservoir (1) 2012 C-43 ASR Pilot (1) Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (6) Winsburg Farm (3) EAA Res, Phase 1 (14) 2010 L-31 Seepage Mgmt Pilot (4) Hillsboro Rotenberger Operation Plan (16) ASR Pilot (2) Acme Basin B 2008 (11) C-51 and L-8 Reservoir (13) Increasingly accelerated 2006 implementation schedule 2004 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 MISP Projected Completion Date FIGURE 3-3  Project delays for CERP Band 1 projects, including state-expedited projects (e.g., Acceler8), based on projections from the Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP) (USACE and SFWMD, 2005a) compared with estimated completion dates shown in Table 3-1. New 3-3 NOTE: Some Acceler8 projects in 2008 are being returned to the USACE for completion as part of the federal government’s share of the CERP, but the circles in this figure reflect those projects expedited by the state of Florida as of 2007. Numbers in parentheses reference project location on Figure 3-2.

80 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades dates from the CERP Web site and other information, probably in large part because the agencies themselves cannot overcome uncertainties in availability of funds. Available information on estimated completion dates in various docu- ments is often contradictory. A more effective public communication mechanism is needed. The challenge for the CERP agencies is how to develop a realistic schedule in the face of these daunting financial uncertainties. Natural System Benefits Derived from CERP Implementation According to the MISP (USACE and SFWMD, 2005a), eight projects and four pilot projects were scheduled for completion by 2008, within the time-­reporting range of this current NRC review. Installation for some pilot projects have been completed by 2008, but none have completed testing and analysis. No restoration projects are anticipated to be fully constructed by the end of 2008, although a few project subcomponents are nearing completion that will deliver some restoration benefits. These early benefits are described in the paragraphs that follow. One project nearing completion is the L-8 Basin Reservoir (also called the C-51 and L-8 Basin Reservoir; see Figure 3-2 [No. 13] and Figure 3-4), a state- expedited project that includes an in-ground reservoir at the location of existing rock-mining pits with a storage capacity of about 48,000 acre-feet. The purpose of this project is to provide additional water storage that will increase water supply and reduce damaging high discharges to the Lake Worth Lagoon. Lake Worth Lagoon was historically a freshwater lake that was made estuarine by the creation of permanent inlets. Discharges from drainage canals result in occa- sional excessive releases of fresh water into the estuary. The L-8 Basin Reservoir project will also enhance hydroperiods in the Loxahatchee Slough and increase base flows to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which flows into the Loxahatchee Estuary (USACE and SFWMD, 2005b). The Loxahatchee Estuary has been heavily altered by inlet stabilization, channelization, and basin drainage. Drainage canals and disruption of natural flow patterns have resulted in salt water intrusion and loss of cypress swamp in the Northwest Fork and increased stormwater flows into the Southwest Fork. A future flow way project will direct excess water into the Grassy Waters Preserve (Figure 3-4). Construction of the permanent pumping infrastructure has been delayed until 2010, but the L-8 Basin Reservoir is scheduled to begin operating with a temporary pump by the end of 2008. Water reservations for this project have not yet been determined, as the PIR has not been completed for this state accelerated project. Sediment dredg- ing from the C-51 canal is also under way in the vicinity of Lake Worth Lagoon (as part of the North Palm Beach County Phase 1 project) to reduce sediment discharged to the lagoon.

Project Planning and Implementation 81 FIGURE 3-4  Location of the C-51 and L-8 Reservoir project. Figure 3-4.eps SOURCE: USACE and SFWMD (2005b). bitmap A number of other projects currently under construction are showing some phased benefits. For example, a new pump station constructed as part of the Acme Basin B project (Figure 3-2, No. 11) pumps stormwater into the C-51 canal and to STA-1E where it is treated before entering Water Conservation Area (WCA) 1. This state-expedited initiative eliminates the direct discharge of high- phosphorus stormwater from the urban area into WCA-1 (L. Gerry, SFWMD, personal communication, 2008). The Picayune Strand project (Figure 3-2, No. 7), currently under way, aims to restore and enhance over 55,000 acres of public lands by plugging and filling canals and returning sheet flow to the project site and adjacent natural areas, including the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Ten Thousand Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Collier Seminole State Park. Through this state-expedited project, 65 miles of roads were removed, and more than 160 structures and numerous

82 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades trash sites have been demolished and removed in 2007. Cleanup of 25-plus acres of pesticide-contaminated soils (out of approximately 65 acres) has been completed. Seven miles of Prairie Canal adjacent to the road removal area have been plugged and filled, and native plants are becoming reestablished, thereby improving the habitat for native wildlife. Control of exotics within the construc- tion footprints is also under way (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a). CERP Planning, Authorization, and Funding Prior to appropriation of federal funding for CERP project construction, a PIR (see Box 3-1) must first be approved and for most mid- to large-sized projects, the U.S. Congress must authorize the project. Ten CERP projects were conditionally authorized in WRDA 2000, subject to congressional approval of the PIR (those marked with asterisks in Table 3-1). PIR completion thus represents a major hurdle in the implementation process for all CERP projects. The Acceler8 pro- gram has expedited construction of some projects with state funding by moving forward with design and construction concurrent with development of the PIR. The state of Florida, through its Acceler8 program, however, takes the risk that the constructed projects may not actually meet final requirements, according to the final, approved PIR. As noted in Table 3-1, of the 14 projects estimated (as of 2005) to be com- pleted between 2005 and 2010, only 5 have PIRs that are considered final. Only 3 PIRs have been transmitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to Congress for authorization: Indian River Lagoon-South (IRL-S), Picayune Strand, and Site 1 Impoundment (Figure 3-2, No. 8, 7, and 2; see Box 3-2). All three of these CERP projects were congressionally authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007). These projects provide sig- nificant restora­tion benefits, but they are expected to have only a minor effect on Everglades National Park. All three projects were originally among the earli- est scheduled projects in both the Yellow Book and the MISP 1.0, although IRL project components were scheduled for MISP Bands 1–4, so restoration activities in that region were anticipated to continue for decades. Original plans for the CERP rested on the assumption that key projects would be steadily and consistently authorized in Water Resources Development acts passed every 2 years and that congressional appropriations for approved proj- ects would follow in due course. After the passage of WRDA 2000, however,  Under program authority, the Secretary of the Army can approve PIRs and proceed with con- struction for CERP projects under $25M total cost ($12.5M federal cost), with a total not to exceed $206M. Congressional action is not required for nonconstruction projects, such as operational changes.

Project Planning and Implementation 83 BOX 3-2 Summary of Congressionally Authorized Projects with Approved PIRs As of April 2008, three CERP projects with approved PIRs have been congres- sionally authorized—Indian River Lagoon-South (IRL-S), Picayune Strand Restoration, and Site 1 Impoundment. Not surprisingly, project plans for the three projects included substantial changes from the framework plans laid out in the Yellow Book. Indian River Lagoon-South The IRL-S project (Figure 3-2, No. 8), an approximately $1.2 billion component of the CERP (in 2004 dollars), is located northeast of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 3-2). The C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir is subsumed within the overall IRL-S project, to which are added the C-25 and C-23/C-24 North and South Storage Reservoirs. The original Yellow Book plan (USACE and SFWMD, 1999) was limited to these four storage reservoirs, but the project plans have since been significantly altered. The four storage basins are now proposed to provide 130,000 acre-feet of water storage, a substantial decrease in storage from the 389,000 acre-feet of storage proposed in the Yellow Book. An additional 65,000 acre-feet of storage are proposed through wetland restoration and utilization of three natural storage areas on 92,000 acres of land and in four new stormwater treat- ment areas (STAs). Finally, 7,900,000 cubic yards of muck will be dredged from the St. Lucie River and Estuary to provide 2,650 acres of clean substrate within the estuary for recolonization of marine organisms. The original Yellow Book plan aimed to reduce damaging flows to the St. Lucie Estuary and the IRL-S while also providing water supply for agriculture, thereby reducing demands on the Floridan aquifer. However, the PIR included added benefits for enhanced phosphorus and nitrogen reduction, improved estuarine water quality, restored upland habitats, increased spatial extent of wetlands and natural areas, and more natural flow patterns (USACE and SFWMD, 2004b). The 2004 cost estimates for this project have increased by $440 million (or 54 percent) above those in the 1999 Yellow Book, reflecting both inflationary increases and $240 million in project scope changes (DOI and USACE, 2005). Picayune Strand Restoration Located in western Collier County (Figure 3-2), the Picayune Strand Restoration project (Figure 3-2, No. 7) will restore and enhance more than 50,000 acres of wetlands in Southern Golden Gate Estates, an area once drained for development. The project will also improve the quality and timing of freshwater flows entering the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, while maintaining flood protection for neighboring com- munities. The project includes a combination of spreader channels, canal plugs, road removal, pump stations, and flood protection levees. The project scope changes (e.g., additional road removal, larger pumps to provide additional flood protection), inflationary increases, and the failure to account for land acquisition costs in the original project cost estimates led to an increase in costs from $15.5 million in the original Yellow Book to $349 million (DOI and USACE, 2005; USACE and SFWMD, 2005c). This project is one of the most significant for increasing the spatial extent of natural wetlands. continued

84 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 3-2 Continued Site 1 Impoundment Located in Palm Beach county south of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (LNWR), the Site 1 Impoundment Project (Figure 3-2, No. 2; also called the Fran Reich Preserve) includes an aboveground reservoir adjacent to the Hillsboro Canal with a storage capacity of 13,280 acre-feet, an inflow pump station, spillways, and seepage management structures. The purpose of the project is to capture and store local runoff during wet periods and then use that water to supplement water deliveries to the Hillsboro Canal during dry periods, thus reducing demands for releases from Lake Okeechobee and the LNWR. According to the PIR, constructing and operating the impoundment will reduce the need for releases from LNWR during the dry season to meet local water demands and will facilitate the maintenance of more natural, desir- able, and consistent water levels within the LNWR. The impoundment will also reduce groundwater seepage from LNWR. In addition there will be benefits to the downstream estuaries as a result of reducing peak freshwater flows from local stormwater runoff and pulsed releases from Lake Okeechobee. The cost of the recommended plan (October 2006 price levels) is $80.8 million, more than double the cost of $39 million estimated in the Yellow Book (USACE and SFWMD, 1999, 2006). no such acts were passed until 2007, thus delaying project authorizations by up to 3 years after transmission to Congress (Table 3-1). Federal funding has not yet been appropriated to support these authorized projects, and on-the-ground restoration activity for these three projects has been deferred. The original vision of the CERP was that it would be an equal partnership between the state and the federal governments, but this partnership has turned out to be distinctly unequal from a funding perspective. For the fiscal years (FY) 1999 through 2006, GAO (2007) reported that the federal government contributed $0.34 billion (in 2006 dollars) to the CERP compared to Florida’s $2.0 billion. When the complete range of restoration-related initiatives in South Florida is con- sidered, the federal government contributed $2.3 billion, while the state of Florida contributed $4.8 billion (Table 3-3). By 2006, total CERP funding had fallen short of original projected costs by about $1.2 billion. The overall shortfall between 1999 and 2006 was reduced to $1.2 billion only because Florida increased its contribution for CERP projects by $250 million during this period (GAO, 2007) as part of its expedited restoration initiatives, which advanced design and con- struction ahead of the CERP project planning and authorization process. Much of Florida’s investment has been in the acquisition of land (see next section). Most of the shortfall in investment has been in the area of project construction.

Project Planning and Implementation 85 TABLE 3-3  Project Purpose and Funding (in millions of 2006 dollars) Allocated Among CERP and All South Florida Restoration Projects and Activities, Fiscal Years 1999–2006 CERP Projects Total Type of Project Federal State Federal State Total Land acquisition 0 $1,788.6 $283.4 $2,274.1 $2,557.5 Project construction 0 25.7 835.7 1,123.1 $1,958.7 Support activitiesa 341.4 191.7 1,137.0 1,421.9 $2,558.9 Total $341.4 $2,006.0 $2,256.1 $4,819.0 $7,075.1 a Support activities included RECOVER efforts, adaptive assessment and monitoring, the Interagency Modeling Center, program coordination, and science- and mission-related activities that indirectly benefit the restoration, such as invasive species control. In addition, for the USACE and SFWMD, support activities include some funding for project design, pilot project design, and feasibility studies. SOURCE: GAO (2007). The original CERP plan was developed based on estimated state and federal CERP funding of about $200 million each per year (in 1999 dollars) (USACE and SFWMD, 1999). In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the USACE received only $64 million for the CERP, largely to support programmatic functions, such as monitoring and assessment, program planning and design, and interagency coordination (Trulock, 2007). Some of this funding was also directed toward previously authorized pilot projects (Table 3-1). In FY 2008, the USACE received $131 million for Kissimmee River restoration, the Mod Waters project, and the CERP combined. The comparable budget request for FY 2009 is $185 million (Department of the Army, 2008). Federal funding has thus fallen far short of that originally envisioned. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has accepted a proposal by the USACE to complete the design and construction of two Acceler8 restoration projects—the Broward County Water Preserve areas (consisting of C- 11 and C-9 impoundments, and WCA-3A/3B Seepage Management Area; Figure 3-2, No. 9 and 10) and the Site 1 Impoundment (also called the Fran Reich Preserve; Figure 3-2, No. 2)—as a part of the federal government’s share of the CERP. The USACE has also accepted an SFWMD request for the federal govern- ment to construct the remaining components of the Picayune Strand Restoration project and anticipates a similar request for the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Storage Reservoir project in order to better balance overall CERP cost sharing. Considering the lengthy CERP project planning and authorization process which Acceler8 handled parallel to construction, and the slow pace of federal funding

86 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades to date, this transfer of Acceler8 projects to the USACE will likely further delay the construction of these projects. While the planning process and subsequent delivery of funding for projects have lagged, the anticipated total costs have continued to increase (NRC, 2007). CERP costs have increased from $8.2 billion (in 1999 dollars) to $10.9 billion (in 2004 dollars) as a result of inflationary increases and scope changes (DOI and USACE, 2005). In general, restoration cost increases have been driven by inflation (not unexpected), changes in project scope, a tangled and complex federal design and planning process, increases in land costs, and unexpected rises in building costs. Land costs, the result of intense development pressure driven by population growth and redistribution, increased 50 to 88 percent in a single year between 2004 and 2005 (Reynolds, 2006). Building costs in Florida rose rapidly in the wake of several hurricanes in the state during 2003–2005, putting a strain on building supplies and skilled labor. Current CERP estimates do not include the costs for remaining land acquisitions and final project design cost estimates, which are not yet known. Therefore, GAO (2007) concludes that restoration costs are likely to continue to increase in the years ahead. Land Acquisition Land management for an effective CERP depends on acquiring particular sites within the project area and protecting more general areas within the South Florida ecosystem that could help meet the broad restoration goals. Nearly 56 percent of the land for the CERP has been acquired as of September 2007 (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a), up from the approximately 51 percent reported by the last committee review (NRC, 2007). Approximately 99 percent of the land needed for the Acceler8 projects has been acquired (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a). As of September 2007, 217,584 acres had been acquired for the CERP, up from 207,000 acres reported in 2005 (DOI and USACE, 2005). Meanwhile, current estimates for land needed to meet specific project plans has been reduced to 387,154 acres (down from 406,000 acres reported in DOI and USACE, 2005). Thus, the increase in the percentage of CERP project land acquired represents both continued rigorous land acquisition efforts by CERP partners—primarily the state of Florida—and a reduction in the estimated acreage needed for CERP projects. The land acquisition to date is ahead of schedule when compared to the MISP land acquisition strategy (SFERTF, 2007b; USACE and SFWMD, 2005a). The committee is impressed with the very effective efforts by the state of Florida to acquire the land needed to complete CERP. The state has shown leadership in dealing with the expensive and often difficult process of land

Project Planning and Implementation 87 acquisition. The result is an emerging foundation for success for many CERP components. Restoration partners have invested at least $1.3 billion in land acquisition for CERP projects: the federal government provided $276 million; the state of Florida provided $1 billion; and local governments provided $72 million. An estimated $1.65 billion is needed to complete acquisition for the CERP (SFERTF, 2007b). The state anticipated spending more than $100 million per year over the next 5 years on land acquisition needed to implement the CERP (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008b), but the current state budget provided only $50 million toward Everglades restoration in FY 2009 (Kam, 2008). The recent real estate down- turn, however, may provide some opportunities for cost savings in CERP land acquisition in the near term. The committee considers land acquisition a wise up-front investment which ensures that required project lands are purchased before development forecloses certain restoration alternatives and before land costs rise even further. Despite the state’s budget pressures, in June 2008 the governor of Florida announced a plan for the state to purchase 187,000 acres of land in the Ever- glades Agricultural Area (EAA), the complete land holdings of the U.S. Sugar Corporation, at a cost of $1.75 billion. If the proposed acquisition occurs, the land would continue to be farmed for the next 6 years, after which time the land would be turned over to the state for restoration purposes. This land acquisition was not part of the original CERP plan, but it could be extremely important to help meet the broad restoration goals by providing large land tracts for future but as-yet-unidentified CERP and non-CERP restoration needs (e.g., additional sur- face storage, STAs) and by preventing land use conversions that might negatively impact the restoration. As the state finalizes the acquisition and identifies the funding mechanism to support the purchase, restoration planners are expected to develop plans for how best to utilize this land for the benefit of South Florida ecosystem restoration. Non-CERP Foundation Projects Some of the largest accomplishments and some of the greatest challenges in South Florida restoration are associated with non-CERP projects that are directly related to the success of the CERP in achieving its restoration goals (Table 3-2). Progress in some of the major non-CERP foundation projects, including docu- mented natural system restoration benefits (where feasible), is summarized in  Unlike Table 3-3, these cost data have not been corrected for inflation. The figures cited here also include land acquisitions prior to 1999. As a result, these land acquisition totals differ from those reported in Table 3-3.

88 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Appendix C (see Box 2-2 for descriptions of the major projects and Appendix E for a complete listing of all related non-CERP projects). Completed non-CERP projects are of the form of habitat acquisition and improvement, construction of STAs, drafting of water supply plans, and some exotic species control projects. The Kissimmee River Restoration continues to be the restoration activity with the most documented natural system benefits (NRC, 2007; SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a). STAs in the EAA continue to remove large quantities of phosphorus from surface waters, although they are suffering from damages from 2006 Hurricane Wilma and from the 2007 drought conditions (SFWMD and FDEP, 2008a) and removal efficiency may be declining (see also Chapter 5). Additional state funds for Lake Okeechobee have sparked plans for water quality improvements (e.g., STAs, improved land management practices) and enhanced water storage north of the lake (see Chapter 5). Nevertheless, non-CERP projects, like CERP projects, are experiencing delays and escalating costs (see Appendix C). While the non-CERP foundation projects themselves are intended to pro- vide restoration benefits, they are also important as necessary precursors for many CERP projects. Effective STAs are critical for improving the quality of water delivered to natural areas. The Mod Waters project, including Tamiami Trail modification, is essential for decompartmentalization and the restoration of flows in Everglades National Park. WRDA 2000 recognized this precedence relationship and required completion of Mod Waters before appropriations are made for other restoration projects in the east Everglades, including the WCA-3A Decompartmentalization and Sheet Flow Project (Decomp) (§601[b][2][D]). Delays and funding concerns for the Mod Waters project are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Assessment of Restoration Delays The delays afflicting CERP and foundational non-CERP projects are creating increased concern that the Everglades ecosystem may suffer irreparable losses before major restoration actions are taken to reverse the ecosystem decline. A variety of reasons can be cited for CERP and non-CERP project delays. • A complex project planning and approval process is required for CERP projects and other federal restoration projects. WRDA 2000 added unforeseen requirements and complexity, such as the Programmatic Regulations, the Savings Clause, water reservations, and assurances. • Resolutions to major concerns or agency disagreements must be negoti- ated in the planning process. • Unresolved engineering and ecological uncertainties can stall the ­project

Project Planning and Implementation 89 planning and authorization process, especially for complex or contentious projects. • Legal challenges (e.g., land acquisition, endangered species, water ­quality) and resulting litigation have delayed projects such as Mod Waters. • New environmental issues and restoration risks (e.g., instability of Hoover Dike at high lake levels) have been recognized that need to be included in the planning. • Personnel turnover and general staffing limitations can delay planning and development of modeling tools (see Chapter 6). • Project authorization has caused a lag in submission to Congress by up to 3 years, because the Water Resources Development Acts have not been passed every 2 years as anticipated. • Escalating costs due to changes in project scope, inflation, land cost, and construction costs have increased the overall cost of CERP, leading to funding challenges and schedule extensions. Among these various reasons for delay, the inadequacy of the project planning, authorization, and funding process is noteworthy for the CERP, as previously discussed. It has been 8 years since the signing of WRDA 2000, yet only three projects have been submitted to Congress for authorization. This fact highlights the challenges faced in the project planning process. Meanwhile, the state has moved forward with the construction of some projects with its own funding, while the draft PIRs are contested among agencies and stakeholders. The committee judges that the lack of federal funding in the first 8 years of the CERP is more of a symptom of the problems caused by the complex and lengthy CERP planning and authorization process, rather than the sole, or even the most serious, cause of the pervasive CERP delays. However, federal funding limitations have caused notable delays in non-CERP projects (see Chapter 4) and in some CERP pilot studies (NRC, 2007). And now that three CERP projects have both congressional authorization and approved PIRs, fund- ing limitations will certainly create additional constraints to CERP progress in the years ahead, as non-CERP and CERP projects compete for limited state and federal resources. Anecdotal information provided to this committee suggests that morale of dedicated agency personnel is also suffering from delays in CERP implementa- tion. Hundreds of scientists, engineers, and other professionals have devoted a significant portion of their professional careers to the CERP. When implementa- tion continues to be delayed, it becomes more difficult for these public servants to maintain their enthusiasm, and creativity in support of the overall effort suffers. The ultimate success of the CERP depends upon the considerable skills, knowl-

90 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades edge, dedication, and ingenuity of the agencies’ staff. If experienced staff increas- ingly become fatigued with the CERP process and choose to work elsewhere, the restoration will suffer a tremendous loss of knowledge and continuity. Loss of morale will also impact the recruitment of talented young scientists, engineers, and planners to replace them. When CERP projects that lead to documented ecosystem restoration are well under way, however, it should provide a needed boost to staff morale. The delays and lack of predictability of funding that have hampered CERP progress are also stressing the CERP partnership in addition to driving up costs. The committee suggests that senior management work to develop approaches to reduce administrative roadblocks, which will benefit not only the CERP but also other major federal ecosystem restoration efforts as well. An alternative to normal project-by-project review, authorization, and yearly funding is needed to allow a more scientifically, managerially, and economically efficacious approach to fund comprehensive restoration programs that assures funding over a multiple-year period. This problem is not unique to CERP; indeed, it affects other multicomponent ecosystem restoration projects (NRC, 2004). For example, a Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast (2006) recommended an authorization and financing process separated from the WRDA that provided project flexibility and a reliable appropriations stream within a programmatic authorization. PROJECT PLANNING ISSUES Even with adequate funding, the CERP still lacks good mechanisms to pri- oritize and expeditiously plan and design projects. In this section, major project planning issues that affect the rate of CERP progress are discussed, including restoration scheduling, incremental adaptive restoration, creative approaches to minimize endangered species conflicts, and problems created by the USACE project benefits analysis process termed the “next added increment” (NAI). Identifying Restoration Priorities Developing a realistic schedule and project prioritization sequence is a critical need for the restoration effort. CERP planners have recognized that their target project implementation schedules were inconsistent with the realities of the planning process and the federal funding stream. Meanwhile, stakeholder frustration, budget constraints, and cost escalation highlight the need to focus on projects that deliver meaningful restoration benefits to the natural system in the near term.

Project Planning and Implementation 91 Proper sequencing of projects is critical to meet hydrologic constraints. For example, restoring sheet flow through the Decomp project requires greater flow of water into the northeast area of Everglades National Park and the comple- tion of some form of the long-delayed Mod Waters project. At the same time, additional seepage controls are needed to minimize flooding in the eastern urbanized areas, and Tamiami Trail modifications are needed to protect the road base and to prevent flooding of this hurricane evacuation route. However, GAO (2007) noted that there were no overarching sequencing criteria used for decision making, that implementation decisions were mostly driven by avail- able funds, and that the MISP is not consistent with project-sequencing criteria established by the USACE. The cumbersome planning process also advances projects with large stake- holder support or minimal contention over large and complex projects with vast stakeholder disagreements, regardless of their potential benefits. The three Everglades restoration projects authorized in WRDA 2007—Indian River Lagoon, Picayune Strand, and the Site 1 Impoundment—represent projects with strong local stakeholder support (or minimal stakeholder opposition), even though they may not represent the highest-priority projects with the greatest potential for achieving system-wide restoration benefits, assuming that limited federal funds are available. Without clear priorities for project planning and funding, projects with large potential restoration benefits may see lengthy restoration delays while other, less-contentious projects that address only isolated portions of the eco- system may tie up available funding. Unless CERP planners exercise leadership while confronting the difficult budgetary decisions, these tough decisions will effectively be made for us by future budget constraints. In response to advice from GAO (2007) and NRC (2007), CERP planners are now developing a revised project implementation schedule, termed the “integrated delivery schedule” (IDS), for the South Florida ecosystem restoration that would reprioritize the timing and funding of future restoration activities. The goals of an integrated schedule are to: • Update existing project schedules to provide current status and practical time lines for implementation; • Focus on delivering meaningful restoration benefits as early as possible; • Phase large projects as necessary to provide early benefits and learning; • Include related non-CERP projects as well as CERP projects in program sequencing; and • Include new programs such as Northern Everglades restoration ­(Appelbaum, 2008a).

92 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Including non-CERP foundation projects in an integrated schedule is advanta- geous to highlight the precedence relationships among these projects. As of May 2008, this project scheduling and prioritization effort was still under development. CERP planners evaluated how various projects addressed the following five objectives of Everglades restoration: • Reestablishing sheet flow to the central Everglades, • Optimizing water storage, • Improving water quality, • Restoring the northern estuaries and Lake Okeechobee, and • Restoring/enhancing wetlands and natural areas. Planners are currently working to develop various draft project implementa- tion schedules, with expected progress dependent upon different federal funding scenarios. Preliminary drafts show a large number of CERP projects being pushed back beyond the 2020 time frame. However, Appelbaum (2008a) noted that “no CERP projects are being taken off the table” (see Box 3-3). The planning efforts to date recognize the sizable existing restoration commitments, and there appears to be a strong emphasis on “finishing what’s on our plate,” including authorized but unfunded projects (Appelbaum, 2008a). This approach would continue to advance those projects with the strongest stakeholder support and least oppo- sition, possibly above projects with greater potential system-wide restoration benefits. CERP planners should certainly prioritize critical non-CERP foundation projects that are necessary for the CERP to achieve its restoration goals, but the sequencing of all CERP projects (including already authorized ­projects) should be carefully reevaluated to advance those projects that can obtain the greatest restoration benefits given the anticipated budget constraints. In response to these challenges, the Quality Review Board asked an ad hoc group of senior Everglades scientists to provide advice on restoration priorities. The Quality Review Board specifically asked, where are “…the places in the natural system where we can get the strongest ecosystem restoration response (i.e., where should we direct our water and resources to achieve the maximum level of Everglades restoration)?” The committee commends the Quality Review Board for asking these important questions and beginning a dialogue on this issue. Based on a September 2007 workshop, the ad hoc group of scientists recommended that a fully successful Decomp project would “provide the stron-  The Quality Review Board (QRB) is a group of senior CERP agency managers that was formed by USACE and SFWMD leadership as a means to resolve issues across agencies, improve collaboration, and provide common direction to CERP staff. The QRB is not a decision-making body, although QRB participants include most senior CERP decision makers.

Project Planning and Implementation 93 BOX 3-3 Guiding Principles for Development of the Integrated Delivery Schedule The following list summarizes the guiding principles for a new integrated delivery schedule (IDS) that were developed at a South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force workshop held in February 2008: 1. No CERP projects are being taken off the table; this reevaluation is merely to update the project sequencing and develop a more realistic implementation schedule for the initial set of CERP projects to be constructed. 2. The IDS acknowledges the federal and state agencies’ commitment to complete the implementation of key ongoing projects. The term commitment refers to projects currently authorized, under construction, or both. It includes the “Foundation Projects” (i.e., Modified Water Deliveries, Kissimmee River Restoration, C-111 South Dade, C- 51/STA - 1East, etc.) and other projects for which the federal and state agencies have committed to accelerate implementation. 3. The IDS should include all projects related to the restoration of the Everglades. These projects include both state and federal initiatives such as Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation, the Northern Everglades Plan, and the Long-Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area. 4. The IDS federal funding scenarios will include only those projects under the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Program (SFEER). The SFEER p ­ rojects include: MWD, Kissimmee, Central & South Florida (includes C-111 South Dade, C-51, and CERP), and Everglades & South Florida. 5. Projects should be implemented in a sequence that achieves restoration objec- tives at the earliest practicable time, consistent with funding constraints. 6. As appropriate, projects should be broken into multiple project implementation reports to facilitate the incremental adaptive restoration (IAR) approach recommended by the National Research Council. Each separable element will conform to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance, as well as other federal and state laws. 7. The IDS will provide the basis for the MISP update for the CERP, as currently required by the Programmatic Regulations. The updated MISP, in turn, will be a major component of the wider-ranging IDS. 8. Project and component interdependencies will drive the sequencing order for constructing projects (e.g., pilot projects must be completed prior to a full-scale p ­ roject). 9. As appropriate, the interim goals and targets should be used to measure restora- tion progress 10. Key points in implementation will be defined by new system operating manuals. SOURCE: Appelbaum (2008a).

94 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades gest and most desirable ecosystem restoration responses in the system of South Florida wetlands, and should be the highest priority for achieving maximum ecosystem restoration benefits.” The group came to this conclusion because of the prospective project benefits for the southern estuaries and mangrove transi- tion zones and for restoring historic landscape patterns of production and bio- diversity in the Everglades ecosystem. The ad hoc group concluded that moving large quantities of water from the northern basin would benefit the system as a whole, but it may result in sustained degradation of some plant communities due to existing levels of nutrients. The senior scientists acknowledged this “trade-off” but noted the greater good that comes from fully restoring flows through the Everglades and southern estuaries (Ad Hoc Senior Scientists, 2007). As the ambitious program for restoring the Everglades has advanced, CERP planners have been hindered by deficiencies in the framework for making dif- ficult decisions. Difficult restoration decisions include advancing projects in the face of conflicts, adjusting the sequences of projects under constraints of authorization and funding, and deciding among priorities when confronted with limited resources. Although the incremental adaptive restoration (IAR) approach described in NRC (2007) promises a means for making decisions in the face of both scientific uncertainty and resource limitations, even within an IAR approach, challenging decisions must be made in project scoping and sequencing and in implementing projects where there are stakeholder conflicts. How effective the new IDS process will be in making difficult decisions remains to be seen, particularly because the expectations for the program seem to be increasing. By prioritizing a smaller number of projects given current fiscal constraints, CERP planners risk diminishing support from some stakeholders. If important steps are to be made in the next decade toward the CERP’s system- wide restoration goals, given the probable fiscal constraints, CERP planners will need to consider alternate mechanisms for decision making and evaluating trade- offs rather than relying upon mechanisms that favor projects with uncontested stakeholder support. Adoption of Incremental Adaptive Restoration A key recommendation from the committee’s first biennial review (NRC, 2007) was the call for an alternative framework for advancing natural resource restoration in the Everglades, which it termed incremental adaptive restora- tion (IAR). The aim of IAR is to resolve decision-critical scientific uncertainties and to address project-sequencing constraints to improve the pace of restora- tion. As conceived, an IAR approach makes investments in restoration project increments that are large enough to secure significant environmental benefits,

Project Planning and Implementation 95 while simultaneously testing hypotheses selected to resolve important scientific uncertainties about the response of the system to management interventions. Such steps would likely be smaller than the CERP projects because the purpose of the IAR is to take actions that promote learning that can guide the ­remainder of project design, although an IAR approach might combine increments of several projects. NRC (2007) noted that IAR is likely to be of particular value in devising management strategies for dealing with complex and contentious ecosystem restoration projects in which probable ecosystem benefits are dif- ficult to predict. This approach would also help address current constraints on restoration progress, including Savings Clause requirements for water supply and flood-control obligations. As an application of adaptive management, IAR would require rigorous monitoring and assessment to test hypotheses, yielding valuable information that could expedite future decision making and improve future project design. Existing authorization and budgeting processes may need to be modified to accommodate the IAR process. The recommendation of the first biennial review (NRC, 2007) to apply IAR has been widely embraced by CERP staff at all levels of organization (e.g., Grosskruger, 2007) as well as by various stakeholders, but the concept has not yet been fully applied. The concept of IAR appeals to many who want to realize more restoration benefits; who are attracted by a more achievable, incremental approach; or who seek to resolve scientific, engineering, and policy uncertainties that are obstacles to progress. CERP agencies have set about applying this approach to a number of CERP projects. Planning efforts are under way that consider application of IAR for the C-43 Water Storage Basin, projects in the EAA, the C-111 Spreader Canal, and the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. And an IAR approach was also considered for an interdependent array of southern Everglades projects (see Box 3-4). The committee is gratified to witness such earnest efforts to apply IAR in CERP projects. The committee discussed these IAR efforts with senior agency managers, technical managers, scientists, and stakeholders. All of these individuals felt that IAR offered opportunities for significantly advancing CERP restoration and had already succeeded in bringing CERP participants together in an attempt to break through logjams in multiproject planning. Some, however, cautioned that it is still unclear whether or not IAR will be successful. Nevertheless, it was clear that those from different agencies or with different roles had disparate views about the primary benefits and requirements for IAR. Some emphasized the need to achieve tangible ecosystem restoration benefits as soon as possible, either because of fear of loss of public and political support or of risks of further degradation of the ecosystem. Others stressed the practical requirements to

96 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 3-4 Preliminary Draft IAR Plan for the Southern Everglades Restoration Projects The initial IAR concept for the southern Everglades restoration projects (USACE and SFWMD, 2008a) pursued an integrated, comprehensive, and watershed-based approach to plan and implement restoration, incorporating four projects: Modified Water D ­ eliveries (Mod Waters), WCA-3A Decompartmentalization and Sheet Flow (Decomp), C-111 Spreader Canal (C-111 SC), and Everglades National Park Seepage Manage- ment (ENPSM). The southern Everglades area was selected as an area that histori- cally supported the diverse and abundant biota characteristics of the Everglades and adjacent estuaries, where restoration efforts could potentially return the most benefits with limited expenditures. The proposal considered the four projects as interdependent and their integration as yielding a CERP regional plan formulation. It sought “to ad- vance early ecosystem restoration while addressing high-risk uncertainties” and thus to alleviate the time-delaying effects these uncertainties have on project design and implementation. A risk-assessment ranking was applied to identify the highest-ranking ecological and hydrological uncertainties: • The rates and patterns of marsh sheet flow needed to achieve the desired topo- graphical and ecological responses, • The interaction of flow and depth on ridge and slough communities, including tree islands, • The relationship between soil and water nutrient loads and ecological responses as volumes and rates of flow increase, • The volumes and rates of flow into the southern estuaries needed to achieve desired levels of production in the estuaries, • The interaction of depth and duration of marsh flooding on lower east coast groundwater and seepage patterns, and • The operational, storage, and structural plans that will best meet the water q ­ uality, flow, and volume targets for Everglades restoration. Reducing these uncertainties would affect important decisions about the design, location, and capacity of upstream water storage and design and operation of projects to meet flow rate and volume requirements of the system. The southern Everglades IAR team posited that these uncertainties can be reduced by learning based on care- ful observation of the outcomes of the integrated implementation of components of the four projects (Mod Waters, Decomp, C-111 SC, and ENPSM), while achieving the early restoration benefits for the Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough basins. It was further argued that collective implementation of the four projects would be at a spatial scale large enough to provide measureable restoration benefits for both the freshwater Everglades Basin and the northern Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries, as well as significant learning benefits. The proposal also identified the various policy constraints and implications that need to be addressed, including impacts to existing projects, implications for USACE planning policy, and cost implications. However, after consideration of this proposal, the Chief of the Everglades Division of the USACE Jacksonville District directed that the Draft Incremental Adaptive Restoration (IAR) Proposal for Southern Everglades Restoration Projects would not be used in the potential IAR application efforts.

Project Planning and Implementation 97 implement affordable restoration by breaking large projects into effective, but less-expensive components, even reasoning that significant half-measures might be all that can be accomplished. Scientists tended to emphasize the importance of the experimental approach to adaptive management (active adaptive man- agement) to advance learning about natural system response that would benefit the larger project, other projects, or the CERP as a whole. Still others stressed the opportunity to overcome planning and procedural conflicts, such as flood- ing risks, that have been obstacles to restoration projects. Most fundamentally, there seemed to be inherent tension between applying IAR as a means to finally achieve restoration benefits versus as a means to narrow uncertainties and advance learning. Some managers observed that, despite the official adoption of adaptive management as the guiding process for the CERP, convincing agency and political leadership and the public to invest in learning is a hard sell, while the prospect of significant restoration is appealing. In the committee’s earlier report (NRC, 2007), IAR was developed more as a concept than a prescriptive methodology; therefore, there are no established criteria to judge whether the various potential applications comport with IAR. While the CERP participants will define what IAR becomes in practice, it is appropriate to evaluate whether the IAR applications being considered are likely to be successful in advancing measureable restoration while promoting decision-critical learning. The proposed integration of components from four projects to achieve early and significant ecosystem restoration in what is the defining portion of the Ever- glades ecosystem was a laudable goal, and the committee does not know what led to the decision not to use the southern Everglades IAR proposal (see Box 3-4). Nevertheless, there are lessons that can be learned from this bold concept. Each of the four projects brought its own set of obstacles and costs that have already stymied planning, implementation, and funding. Collectively, the proposed effort was more substantial than incremental. This meant that it might not have been practically, politically, or fiscally achievable in the short term. As recognized in the proposal, the integrated approach posed major challenges with regard to USACE planning policies and project sequencing, even though it offered oppor- tunities to overcome some of the serious limitations of the next added increment analysis through collective consideration of the benefits of interdependent com- ponents (see the following section). Further, the collective approach reduced the opportunity to take risks in pursuit of active adaptive management experiments compared to more incremental and less costly approaches to IAR. The size and complexity of the IAR Proposal for Southern Everglades Restora- tion Projects also posed dilemmas for resolving uncertainties through adaptive learning. On one hand, it was argued that such a substantial and integrated

98 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades implementation is required to elicit measureable results, particularly for scale- dependent hydrologic and ecological responses. On the other hand, the more factors that are affected through large-scale modifications, the more difficult it is to sort out cause-and-effect relationships. Also, many topographical and ecosystem responses develop over decades, making it difficult to incorporate knowledge into adaptive learning on the shorter time frames required to improve operations and subsequent project design. Finally, the project components considered are themselves very large projects, and there may be a reluctance to fully admit the uncertainties embedded in them or to commit the necessary resources to resolve the uncertainties as they progress. While the committee recognizes that the dual attraction of early restora- tion benefits and learning has stimulated creative approaches for more-effective integration of projects in the southern Everglades as well as incremental imple- mentation of other CERP projects, it suggests that the most-effective applications of the IAR concept will probably be in the incremental execution of project components that produce significant outcomes but are of a scope and scale that can be feasibly implemented and assessed. It is in such more-limited applications of IAR where the opportunities for testing hypotheses to resolve uncertainties are greatest. In addition to the continued efforts to apply adaptive management in the Decomp project there might be an IAR focus on design and outcome assessment for the C-111 Spreader Canal, or as it is now being conceived, the Taylor Slough Enhancement, within the broader integrated planning of southern Everglades restoration projects. Furthermore, because many desired ecological changes are likely to take many years or decades to respond to IAR actions, emphasis should be placed on assessing variables, such as sediment flow and water quality, that are leading indicators of likely long-term ecological responses. Endangered Species Act Impacts on Restoration The original vision of the CERP was that, through a combination of land acquisition and ecosystem restoration, the project would increase the extent, quality, and connectedness of habitats for multiple threatened and endan- gered species, thereby reducing the need for intensive single-species recovery efforts and avoiding the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) conflicts and litiga- tion. In practice, conflicts over endangered species have delayed CERP and related foundation projects such as Mod Waters (Rizzardi, 2001). In this section, alternative management approaches are discussed to minimize legal conflicts over endangered species management that threaten to further delay Everglades restoration. More than 65 species of plants and animals in Central and South Florida

Project Planning and Implementation 99 are listed under the ESA as either endangered or threatened. Lawsuits have been filed over water management or construction impacts on the Cape Sable seaside s ­ parrow, snail kites, and wood storks (Rizzardi, 2007). The potential for conflicts only grows with continued delays in ecological restoration because of the sen- sitivity of many of the listed species to water management regimes. Much of the recent ESA-related litigation has been over water management in the WCAs and associated hydrologic regimes in Everglades National Park. Emergency water management for Cape Sable seaside sparrows under the interim operational plan (IOP) illustrates the failure of species-by-species management. The resulting water regimes have led to unwanted flooding of tribal lands and probably have contributed to declines of snail kites and tree islands in WCA-3A. Benefits to the sparrows under IOP have been mixed at best (SEI, 2007). Until flow is partially restored through Mod Waters and Decomp, water managers will continue to debate trade-offs “over which species will be allowed to suffer the most from ongoing ecosystem degradation” (SEI, 2007). The single-species focus of the ESA, coupled with CERP planning deficien- cies, is creating substantial problems in a multispecies environment. The CERP currently lacks scientifically credible, conceptual, and operational bases for managing multiple species at risk (SEI, 2007). The South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan considers 68 listed species and 23 plant communities, but it addresses each individually and provides practically no guidance on how to manage trade-offs among species, to set priorities, or to deal with regulatory requirements and conflicts. Effective multispecies management will require three main initiatives: a higher level of interaction among species specialists; contin- ued development and application of ecological models, like the Across Trophic Level System Simulation (ATLSS), that can be used to examine potential species trade-offs in space and time (e.g., Curnutt et al., 2000); and formulation of a robust decision framework for managing multiple species under uncertainty (e.g., Nicholson and Possingham, 2007). At the same time, the ESA should be applied less reactively and without such extensive procedural delays (Bean, 2006). The ESA provides various mechanisms to avoid litigation and facilitate the management of multiple-listed species during the transition period of CERP implementation. These include incidental-take permits for multiple species, multispecies habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for incidental take of species on nonfederal lands, and safe-harbor agreements for those restoration activi- ties that might provide ephemeral local benefits to species where subsequent activities might result in indirect take of those same species (Rizzardi, 2007). As a last resort, the Endangered Species Committee can approve an exemption to the ESA. Given the advanced stage of CERP planning and the large amount of federal

100 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades land, pursuing a multispecies HCP for the Everglades is probably ill advised. Successful multispecies HCPs at the scale of CERP have been established in California, Arizona, and elsewhere, but not without considerable time, cost, and controversy (Scott et al., 2006). However, there may be opportunities for programmatic permitting that could reduce single-species ESA-driven conflict. Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can authorize permits to “enhance the propagation or survival” of listed species. This provision has been used in restoration activities elsewhere to obtain incidental-take permits covering multiple species. Bean (2006) described the example of the Peninsula Open Space Land Trust near San Francisco, which obtained a programmatic permit allowing incidental take of listed species during prescribed burns as part of a large-scale, long-term grassland restoration program. The Archbold Biological Station in the upper Kissimmee River basin has a similar agreement with the FWS permitting incidental take from a controlled burning program designed to mimic the historical fire regime, to enhance bio- logical diversity, to promote threatened and endangered species, and to reduce fire hazards (H. Swain, Archbold Biological Station, personal communication, 2007). Obtaining such permits is not simple: The Peninsular Open Space Trust required 2 years to obtain their permit and had to endure a number of setbacks by the local FWS office (Bean, 2006). The Department of the Interior (DOI) should take a leadership role by convening a high-level group of science and policy experts to explore the available approaches and produce a multispecies adaptive management strategy to accompany the existing South Florida Multi- species Recovery Plan. As pointed out by Goble (2006), the ESA has evolved since 1973 from a prohibitive statute into a somewhat more flexible permitting system. ESA con- flicts of a scale comparable to CERP have been resolved through scientifically based conservation planning and private and public cooperation, particularly at local and state levels. The CERP benefits from a depth of biological data and scientific understanding that far exceed these other efforts. In principle, a scien- tifically strong and administratively streamlined multispecies management plan for endangered (and nonendangered) species is possible. Programmatic permits could facilitate CERP adaptive management and restoration but would require flexibility by staff in the FWS regional office and a high level of trust and cooperation among the relevant CERP agencies (Bean, 2006; Burnham et al., 2006; Swain, 2006). Meaningful stakeholder engagement will also be essential, as difficult choices and compromises will inevitably have to be negotiated. The recent revised critical habitat designation for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (USFWS, 2007) shows that the FWS and other parties can and are willing to make such difficult decisions, in this case trading off possible

Project Planning and Implementation 101 increased risk for sparrow subpopulation A (see Figure 2-15) to improve restora- tion prospects for several other species including wood storks and snail kites. Problems Created by the Next Added Increment Requirement Elements of the complex CERP project planning process are contributing to delays in restoration progress. Presentations to this committee identified key pro- cedural problems, some characterized as “self-inflicted wounds,” contributing to this protracted process. One particular concern is the absence of a systematic approach to analyze the costs and benefits across multiple projects in support of project planning. Fundamentally, the CERP is designed as a system of related projects (i.e., components) that work together in the aggregate to produce overall restoration benefits. Without a system-wide planning process, it is not clear how system benefits can be optimized for any one project without any systematic con- sideration of other projects. The next added increment (NAI) is a notable example of the lack of system-wide considerations in the CERP planning process. In the Programmatic Regulations (see 33 CFR 385.1; 385.26(b)(3)), the NAI is defined as the evaluation of an alternative as the next project to be added to a system of projects already implemented. For the purposes of this part, this means analyz- ing an alternative as the next project to be added to a system of projects that includes only those projects that have been approved according to general pro- vision of law or specific authorization of Congress and are likely to have been implemented by the time the project being evaluated is completed. The primary objective of the NAI evaluation criteria is to ascertain whether suf- ficient ecosystem restoration benefits could be attributable to a specific project to justify the cost, if no additional CERP projects (other than those already exist- ing or authorized) were built. The NAI analysis also illuminates the dependence of other CERP projects on the project under evaluation (USACE and SFWMD, 2007a). The NAI analysis does meet these objectives, but as currently imple- mented, it undermines system-wide CERP planning, including the capacity to implement a project-sequencing plan. Difficulties arise with the NAI because the CERP consists of roughly 50 inter- related projects, and some sequencing constraints require the implementation of particular projects prior to other projects (e.g., increased water storage needs to be in place to support removal of barriers to flow). Analyzing these projects individually, based on the NAI, appears to minimize the benefits predicted to arise from these early CERP projects, because the benefits that derive from link- ages between the proposed project and future, as yet unauthorized projects are

102 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades not considered in the benefits analysis. Additionally, this benefits quantification approach requires the effects of a single project to be calculated on a system- wide basis, although the Everglades system covers in excess of 16,000 square miles, an area nearly twice the size of New Jersey. In Guidance Memorandum #2 (USACE and SFWMD, 2007a), project teams are advised to avoid this problem by “combining the tentatively selected plan with other CERP components to identify an alternative that can be justified on a NAI basis or to consider delaying the implementation of the tentatively selected plan…” However, project teams have avoided combining interrelated CERP components into a single PIR because there is a perception that Congress and/or the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is unwilling to authorize PIRs that include more than a billion dollars in projects. As a result, the reduced benefits predicted for individual projects by NAI methodology hinder specific project approval by the USACE and submission to Congress for authorization and subsequent funding. For multicomponent large-scale restoration programs authorized on a project-by-project basis, the NAI methodology appears designed to fail unless Congress and OMB express willingness to approve larger, inter- related suites of projects. The EAA storage reservoir project, Phase 1 (A-1), provides an example of the difficulties created by the NAI. There is wide recognition that additional water storage can make contributions to Everglades restoration and to the reduction of adverse impacts of lake water releases into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. Nevertheless, the project is entangled in evaluation methodology and project approval procedures that are contributing to delays in the project’s approval and authorization. Not surprisingly, consideration of Phase 1 (A-1) of the EAA reservoir project (190,000 acre-feet of storage) in isolation, consistent with the NAI approach, is making it difficult to demonstrate sufficient benefits for it to go forward. Downstream benefits of the EAA reservoir to the WCAs and Everglades National Park contingent upon the Decomp project cannot be considered because that project is not yet authorized. Also, the EAA reservoir itself only adds 3 percent to Everglades-wide storage capacity; thus, it is difficult to demonstrate that—on its own—it makes an appreciable beneficial contribu- tion to restoration on an Everglades system scale. Meanwhile, benefits analyses are hindered by limitations in the models themselves. For instance, the South Florida Water Management Model has embedded within it operational rules that distribute water between the environment and agricultural purposes in ways that cannot easily be adjusted, and the model output appears to emphasize water supply and flood control rather than restoration, even though decisions have not been made regarding formal water allocations for the natural system. This mix of procedural requirements, operational considerations, and statu-

Project Planning and Implementation 103 tory directives, when applied to the EAA storage reservoir project, yields evalua- tions predicting less-than-expected and relatively small benefits to the Everglades ecosystem. These results are at odds with the conclusions of an array of experts and observers that are persuaded that additional water storage is a necessary and critical component of the restoration effort. The CERP project planning and approval process, especially NAI, fails to recognize that CERP’s purpose is to restore an ecosystem rather than build a particular project. The CERP is designed as a suite of interacting projects or components to provide an aggregated set of ecological benefits, and there appears to be a fundamental tension between this objective and the isolated nature of the project approval and authoriza- tion process, of which the NAI methodology is just one component. As CERP planners embrace the concept of IAR, more CERP projects may be constructed incrementally, which may lead to additional project approval problems if the issue of NAI is not addressed. Furthermore, NAI is symptomatic of difficulties arising from trying to retrofit traditional USACE project- and engineering-oriented processes on a large-scale ecological restoration program. An opportunity does exist to correct this problem. The Programmatic Regu- lations, promulgated in 2003, are slated to undergo a 5-year review in 2008. Follow­ing review, USACE may propose revisions to the Programmatic Regula- tions that facilitate improved project planning and evaluation as part of an overall integrated ecological restoration program. In Chapter 2, the committee concluded that ongoing restoration delays have contributed to ecological decline in the Everglades and that major restoration efforts are needed to strengthen the resiliency of its ecosystems to help avoid irreversible losses. Yet, the current planning mechanisms, including NAI, do not help resolve the central questions that affect system-wide prioritization and the delivery of restoration benefits. Given the limited funding environment and the lack of certainty that the CERP will be fully constructed, what are the best opportunities for restoration that will produce the most near-term ecological benefits? Effective mechanisms for alternatives evaluation and project prioritiza- tion and sequencing are essential to CERP planning, and CERP planners should develop mechanisms to improve system-wide planning and decision making for the CERP. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The CERP is one of the most ambitious, detailed, and comprehensive blue- prints for managing an integrated built and natural environment ever planned, and the attempt to restore an ecosystem as large and complex as the Everglades is an unprecedented challenge. Despite programmatic accomplishments and the

104 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades beginning of construction for some projects identified in the CERP, natural system restoration has been delayed. The South Florida ecosystem continues to suffer as a result of a complex and sometimes contentious planning process, funding uncertainties, lack of clear restoration priorities that are central to restoration, and statutory and regulatory impediments such as the Endangered Species Act and next added increment rules. It is too early to evaluate the response of the ecosystem to CERP projects because none have been completed. Construction completion for the first CERP components has not been achieved through mid-2008, and key foundational pre-CERP projects, such as Mod Waters, remain far behind schedule. Further- more, the natural system in South Florida continues to decline. If limited natural system restoration progress continues, frustration will further increase among stakeholders and agency staff, and public support for restoration is likely to diminish. Actual construction and implementation of key non-CERP and CERP projects are the only means to arrest the degradation and assure that natural system restoration begins. State efforts to construct projects in spite of funding limitations and other serious obstacles to progress are commendable. Some partial benefits have been produced from phased construction in the Picayune Strand Restoration (wetland restoration) and Acme Basin B (stormwater treat- ment) projects. Additionally, several non-CERP activities are positive ­harbingers of future CERP programs and indicate that when project implementation does occur, bona fide ecological restoration benefits will be demonstrated. For exam- ple, the success of the Kissimmee River Restoration effort continues to be the most important piece of evidence that restoration of a natural system is possible in the Everglades region. The state of Florida should continue its active land acquisition efforts, accompanied by monitoring of and regular reporting on land conversion pat- terns in the South Florida ecosystem. Land management for a successful CERP depends on purchasing particular sites within the project area and protecting more general areas within the South Florida ecosystem that could help meet the broad restoration goals. The committee commends the state of Florida for its aggressive and effective financial support for acquiring important parcels, including the announcement to enter into negotiations for the potential purchase of 187,000 acres of land in the EAA for $1.75 billion. The acquisition of this large amount of land has the potential to alter basic CERP plans, but because of the structure of the purchase and the possibility of ­numerous land exchanges made after the purchase, direct effects of the deal may not be seen for a decade or more. The complex project planning and approval process has been a major cause of delays for CERP projects to date. The greatest challenge in the project

Project Planning and Implementation 105 planning process has been developing technically sound project plans that are acceptable to the many agencies and stakeholders involved. The process of resolving disagreements among agencies and stakeholders has led to lengthy delays in the development of some PIRs that can be submitted to Congress for authorization. The infrequent and unpredictable federal authorization mecha- nism for CERP projects has caused some additional problems and attendant delays. The committee judges that the lack of federal funding in the first 8 years of the CERP is not the most serious cause of the CERP delays. Instead the slow pace of federal funding has largely been a symptom of the problems caused by the complex and lengthy CERP planning and authorization process for each project. However, now that three CERP projects have been approved for their PIRs and congressional authorization, funding limitations will certainly create additional constraints to CERP progress in the years ahead. Non-CERP and CERP projects will increasingly compete for limited state and federal funding, while project costs increase due to inflationary pressures and scope changes. Both state and federal partners are facing budget constraints, and dramatic state budget cuts in FY 2009 will affect the speed of restoration progress. Deficiencies in CERP system-wide planning are affecting future natural system restoration benefits. The CERP lacks a systematic approach to analyze the costs and benefits across multiple projects in support of project planning. Fundamentally, the CERP is designed as a system of related projects (i.e., compo- nents) that work together in the aggregate to produce overall restoration benefits. Without a system-wide planning process, it is not clear how system benefits can be optimized for any one project without any systematic consideration of other projects. The next added increment is a benefits evaluation method that considers benefits only from the proposed and previously authorized projects, and as currently implemented in the Everglades, it undermines system-wide resto­ ration planning and sequencing. The current planning process also appears to reward the least-contentious projects, regardless of their potential contribution to ecosystem restoration. Without clear priorities for project planning and fund- ing, projects with large potential restoration benefits may see lengthy restoration delays while other, less-contentious projects that address only isolated portions of the ecosystem may tie up available funding. During the 5-year review of the Programmatic Regulations, the USACE should address deficiencies and impedi- ments in the CERP planning process that are affecting restoration progress. CERP planners should also develop mechanisms to improve system-wide planning and decision making for the CERP. Developing a realistic schedule and sound project sequence is a critical need for the restoration effort. In this time of increasing fiscal pressures, it is critical that CERP planners find a means to prioritize and properly sequence

106 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades restoration projects so that public funds are allocated by the degree to which the projects are essential to restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, rather than by local stakeholder support or the order of authorization. Public Web-based reporting on project progress, delays, and anticipated completion dates should be more transparent than is currently the case. The executive and legislative branches of the federal government should consider departing from traditional project-by-project review, authorization, and yearly funding to benefit both the CERP and other multicomponent eco- system restoration projects across the nation. It may be far more ­efficacious— scientifically, managerially, and economically—to design a different approach for comprehensive restoration programs that provides assured funding over a multiple-year period. The incremental adaptive restoration (IAR) concept proposed in NRC (2007) has stimulated creative restoration approaches to Everglades restoration but has not yet been fully applied. The prior committee’s recommendation to apply IAR has been widely embraced by implementing agencies at all levels of organization as well as by various stakeholders, but an effort to apply IAR to an integrated group of Southern Everglades restoration projects was discontinued. CERP planners, however, are using the IAR concept in planning the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands and C-111 Spreader Canal projects. The most-effective applications of the IAR concept will probably be in the incremental execution of project components that produce significant outcomes but are of a scope and scale that can be feasibly implemented and assessed. Because most desired eco- logical changes are likely to take years or decades to respond to IAR actions, in developing IAR strategies, the emphasis should be placed on assessing variables, such as sediment transport and water quality, that are leading indicators of likely long-term ecological responses. To reduce restoration delays, CERP planners should develop a stronger conceptual basis for multispecies recovery planning and management. Although implementation of the ESA has become focused increasingly on single species management, the statute does provide various mechanisms that can reduce the threat of legitimate litigation and facilitate the recovery and management of multiple-listed species. However, effective multispecies management under the ESA requires a high level of integration of scientific knowledge about indi- vidual species and species interactions to understand risks and trade-offs during construction and under alternative water management regimes. It also requires strong federal leadership and a high level of trust and cooperation among the regulatory and management agencies and other stakeholders to allow for learn- ing, compromise, and decision making under uncertainty. In addition, jeopardy determinations for endangered species and associated

Project Planning and Implementation 107 litigation are a significant, unresolved challenge for adaptive management and IAR. There currently is no scientifically credible operational plan for managing multiple species at risk in South Florida. To expedite multispecies restoration under the ESA, DOI should immediately initiate and lead the development of a South Florida multispecies adaptive management strategy, including both science and policy dimensions, to accompany the existing South Florida Multi- species Recovery Plan.

Next: 4 Mod Waters »
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!