National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25198.
×
Page R18

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.

ADVANCE COPY PREPUBLICATION COPY Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018 Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress Water Science and Technology Board Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies This prepublication version of Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018 has been provided to the public to facilitate timely access to the report. Although the substance of the report is final, editorial changes may be made throughout the text and citations will be checked prior to publication. The final report will be available through the National Academies Press later this year, 2018. A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Support for this study was provided by the Department of the Army under Cooperative Agreement No. W912EP-04-2-0001. Support for this project was also provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: X-XXX-XXX-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: X-XXX-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25198 Cover credit: David Policansky Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/. Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25198. P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo. P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROGRESS WILLIAM G. BOGGESS, Chair, Oregon State University, Corvallis MARY JANE ANGELO, University of Florida, Gainesville CHARLES T. DRISCOLL, Syracuse University, New York M. SIOBHAN FENNESSY, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio WENDY D. GRAHAM, University of Florida, Gainesville KARL E. HAVENS, University of Florida, Gainesville FERNANDO R. MIRALLES-WILHELM, University of Maryland, College Park DAVID H. MOREAU, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill GORDON H. ORIANS, University of Washington, Seattle DENISE J. REED, University of New Orleans, Louisiana JAMES E. SAIERS, Yale University, Connecticut ERIC P. SMITH, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg DENICE H. WARDROP, Pennsylvania State University, University Park GREG D. WOODSIDE, Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley, California Staff STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Study Director, Water Science and Technology Board BRENDAN R. MCGOVERN, Research Assistant, Water Science and Technology Board DAVID J. POLICANSKY, Scholar, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y v

P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Acknowledgments Many individuals assisted the committee and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff in their task to create this report. We would like to express our appreciation to the following people who provided presentations or public comment to the committee or served as field trip guides. Nick Aumen, U.S. Geological Survey James Beerens, U.S. Geological Survey Laura Brandt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tim Breen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Trisston Brown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rich Budell, Budell Water Group Cara Capp, National Parks Conservation Association Dean Carpenter, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership Bill Causey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Bahram Charkhian, South Florida Water Management District Cris Costello, Sierra Club Dan Crawford, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Steve Culberson, Delta Stewardship Council Steve Davis, Everglades Foundation Celeste De Palma, Audubon Florida Michael Drog, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dennis Duke, U.S. Geological Survey Gretchen Ehlinger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shannon Estenoz, Department of Interior Michelle Ferree, South Florida Water Management District Brad Foster, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jim Fourqurean, Florida International University Tom Frankovich, Florida International University Evelyn Gaiser, Florida International University Donna George, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alex Gillen, Bull Sugar David Gillings, Palm Beach County Howie Gonzales, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Patti Gorman, South Florida Water Management District Susan Gray, South Florida Water Management District Paul Gray, Audubon Florida Tim Gysan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y vii

viii Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Chuck Hanlon, South Florida Water Management District Rainer Hoenicke, Delta Stewardship Council Bud Howard, Loxahatchee River District Tom James, South Florida Water Management District LTC Jennifer Reynolds, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kang-Ren Jin, South Florida Water Management District Bob Johnson, U.S. National Park Service Paul Julian, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Kelly Keefe, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chris Kelble, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration William “Chad” Kennedy, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Kevin Kotun, U.S. National Park Service Glenn Landers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jennifer Leeds, South Florida Water Management District Andy LoSchiavo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ernie Marks, South Florida Water Management District Jenna May, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agnes McLean, U.S. National Park Service Miles Meyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brenda Mills, South Florida Water Management District June Mirecki, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Robert Mooney Matt Morrison, South Florida Water Management District Melissa Nasuti, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mark Nelson, Jonathan Dickinson State Park Mindy Parrott, South Florida Water Management District April Patterson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mark Perry, Everglades Coalition Patrick Pitts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rene Price, Florida International University Bob Progulske, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jed Redwine, U.S. National Park Service Gregg Reynolds, U.S. National Park Service Stephanie Romanach, U.S. Geological Survey Barry Rosen, U.S. Geological Survey Rob Rossmanith, Jonathan Dickinson State Park David Rudnick, U.S. National Park Service Steve Schubert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dawn Shirreffs, Everglades Foundation Fred Sklar, South Florida Water Management District Janet Starnes, South Florida Water Management District Eric Summa, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Donatto Surratt, U.S. National Park Service Peter Tango, U.S. Geological Survey Kim Taplin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brett Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Acknowledgments ix Joel Trexler, Florida International University Tiffany Troxler, Florida International University Diana Umpierre, Sierra Club Stuart Van Horn, South Florida Water Management District Craig van der Heiden, Miccosukee Tribe Eva Velez, South Florida Water Management District Bob Verrastro, South Florida Water Management District Zach Welch, South Florida Water Management District Walter Wilcox, South Florida Water Management District Mike Yustin, Martin County P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Preface South Florida is blessed with a unique, wonderfully diverse, and geographically extensive, wetland ecosystem reaching from just south of Orlando to the Florida Keys. After nearly 150 years of drainage, channelization, and flood control actions, this extraordinary natural resource has been dramatically altered and continues to decline. Where water once traveled slowly south toward the Everglades National Park through ridge and slough wetlands, marl prairies, and sawgrass plains, it is now often diverted to the ocean or to other uses—less than half reaches its historic destination. The quality of the water remaining in the system is compromised by the phosphorus, nitrogen, mercury, and other contaminants introduced by urban development, agriculture, and industry. The combination of reduced water flow and degraded water quality impacts has adversely changed land formation and vegetation patterns. Experts recognized more than 20 years ago that significant action was needed to rescue and preserve this national treasure. The U.S. Congress authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in 2000 as the multi-decadal, multi-billion-dollar response. The CERP is focused on restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region. This massive restoration program, the largest in U.S. history, is jointly administered by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and is equally funded by federal and Florida monies. As part of the initial authorization, Congress mandated periodic independent reviews of progress toward restoration of the Everglades natural system. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress, or CISRERP, was formed for this purpose in 2004. This report represents the seventh biennial review of CERP progress by this committee. This seventh iteration of CISRERP includes a mix of science and engineering specialists brought together for their combined expertise in environmental, biological, hydrologic, and geographic sciences; systems engineering; project and program administration; law; economics; and public policy. These experts were selected for their eminence in their fields, as well as their experience with complex, natural systems similar to the Everglades. The committee met five times over a 14-month period, including four times in Florida. We reviewed a large volume of written material and heard oral presentations from state and federal agency personnel, academic researchers, interest groups, and members of the public. The committee’s task is a daunting one, given the size and complexity of the Everglades ecosystem and corresponding scope of the CERP. I greatly appreciate the time, attention, and thought each committee member invested in understanding this complex system. I also appreciate the careful, rigorous analyses, expert judgment, constructive comments and reviews, and good humor with which they conducted their work. The report presents our consensus view of restoration accomplishments and challenges P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y xi

xii Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades that have emerged during not only the past 2 years but also the nearly two decades since the project was authorized. The committee thanks many individuals for the information and resources they provided. Specifically, we appreciate the efforts of the committee’s technical liaisons—David Tipple (USACE), Donna George (USACE), Glenn Landers (USACE), Rod Braun (SFWMD), Megan Jacoby (SFWMD), and Robert Johnson (Department of Interior)—who responded to numerous information requests and facilitated the committee’s access to agency resources and expertise when needed. The committee is also grateful to the numerous individuals who shared their insights and knowledge of Everglades restoration through presentations, field trips, and public comments (see Acknowledgments). The committee had the good fortune to be assisted by three dedicated and very talented National Academies’ staff: Stephanie Johnson, David Policansky, and Brendan McGovern. Serving as senior project officer for all seven CISRERP panels, Stephanie Johnson orchestrated the study for the National Academies. Her comprehensive understanding of CERP and its component parts, the complex physical system, agency interrelationships, diverse constituencies, and the surrounding political landscape, gave her an unparalleled vantage point in supporting the committee’s activities. Stephanie’s stewardship of the final report creation process, initial drafting through completion, was exceptional. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine scholar David Policansky is also a veteran of all seven CISRERP panels, and his experience, insightful observations, and illuminating questions were fundamental to the committee’s deliberations. Brendan McGovern most ably supported the logistical needs of the committee. Brendan was also a valued contributor in completing the final report. Simply put, this report would not have been possible without the National Academies staff’s exceptional support and good humor. I know I speak for the entire committee in expressing our profound respect and appreciation. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Mary Christman, MCC Statistical Consulting LLC, Gainesville, FL Peter Goodwin, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge Matthew Harwell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL Carl Hershner, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point Rainer Hoenicke, Delta Stewardship Council, Sacramento, CA John Kominoski, Florida International University, Miami Dorothy Merritts, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA Jayantha Obeysekera, Florida International University, Miami William Schlesinger (NAS), Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (retired), Millbrook, NY Alan Steinman, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI Kirsten Work, Stetson University, DeLand, FL P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Preface xiii Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Bonnie McCay, Rutgers University; and Kenneth Potter, University of Wisconsin-Madison. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. In this seventh CISRERP review cycle, our committee has the pleasure of reporting on the early ecosystem benefits from CERP investments. The past 2 years have also been marked by impressive progress in meeting water quality targets, construction, and project planning. Another portion of our charge is to evaluate the effectiveness of the monitoring and assessment program in supporting restoration efforts. In this report, we provide a detailed review of CERP project- level monitoring and assessment with an eye toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the CERP monitoring program within existing resource constraints. A third part of our charge is to illuminate issues that may impede or diminish the overall success of CERP. In the past, we have highlighted the slow rate of program implementation, the focus on the periphery rather than the center, adverse trajectories for natural system components, potential impacts of climate change, implications of invasive species, and the need for a CERP update. We believe our independent reviews have brought an important and timely focus on these critical concerns. In this review we turn our attention to the future. During the past 30 years of Everglades restoration, the past has been prologue. Understanding the past tells us what made this ecosystem unique and special, including the processes that created and sustained it, informing the restoration efforts. The original CERP plan was formulated based on a pre- drainage or early-twentieth century vision of the historical Everglades and past sea levels and rainfall and temperature distributions. But the past is not prologue for the future environment of South Florida. There is now ample evidence that rainfall and temperature distributions in South Florida are changing and compelling recent evidence that sea-level rise in South Florida is accelerating. It is clear that the Greater Everglades of 2050 and beyond will be much different from what was envisioned at the time of the CERP conceptual plan, known as the Yellow Book. These changes have profound implications for the interrelated challenges of restoring the natural system, providing flood protection, and meeting the water demands of a growing population. Everglades restoration has always been an ambitious and complex endeavor; our current review emphasizes how it is also dynamic and the importance of focusing restoration on the future Everglades, rather than on the past Everglades. We offer this report with an eye to that future and in support of that grand endeavor. William Boggess, Chair Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Contents ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. xvii SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................11 2 THE RESTORATION PLAN IN CONTEXT ..............................................................17 3 RESTORATION PROGRESS .......................................................................................29 4 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................85 5 LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION ....................................................................113 6 A CERP MID-COURSE ASSESSMENT: SUPPORTING SOUND DECISION MAKING FOR THE FUTURE EVERGLADES .......................................................133 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................157 APPENDIXES A The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Everglades Reports ..........................................................................................................177 B Water Science and Technology Board and the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology ................................................................................................................185 C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff ...............................................187 P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y xv

P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y

Acronyms AF acre-feet ASR aquifer storage and recovery BACI before-after control-impact BBCW Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands BMP best management practice CEPP Central Everglades Planning Project CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CESI Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative CISRERP Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress CROGEE Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem C&SF Central and Southern Florida DMDU decision making under deep uncertainty DOI U.S. Department of the Interior DPM Decomp(artmentalization) Physical Model EAA Everglades Agricultural Area EDRR early detection and rapid response EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERTP Everglades Restoration Transition Plan FEB flow equalization basin FISK Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit FY fiscal year GCM general circulation model HHD Herbert Hoover Dike IDS Integrated Delivery Schedule IRL-S Indian River Lagoon-South LNWR Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge LOEM Lake Okeechobee Environment Model LORS Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule LTER Long-term Ecological Research MAP monitoring and assessment plan P R E P U B L I C A T I O N C O P Y xvii

xviii Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades NASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRC National Research Council PPA project partnership agreement ppb parts per billion RCP representative concentration pathway RDM robust decision making RECOVER REstoration, COordination, and VERification RPA reasonable and prudent alternative RSM Regional Simulation Model SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SFERTF South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SFWMM South Florida Water Management Model SSR System Status Report STA stormwater treatment area TMDL total maximum daily load USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WAI wetland affinity index WCA Water Conservation Area WERP Western Everglades Restoration Project WQBEL water quality-based effluent limit WRDA Water Resources Development Act WSE Water Supply and Environment WY water year (May1 to April 30)

Next: Summary »
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Seventh Biennial Review - 2018 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

During the past century, the Everglades, one of the world’s treasured ecosystems, has been dramatically altered by drainage and water management infrastructure that was intended to improve flood management, urban water supply, and agricultural production. The remnants of the original Everglades now compete for water with urban and agricultural interests and are impaired by contaminated runoff from these two sectors. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a joint effort launched by the state and the federal government in 2000, seeks to reverse the decline of the ecosystem. The multibillion-dollar project was originally envisioned as a 30- to 40-year effort to achieve ecological restoration by reestablishing the natural hydrologic characteristics of the Everglades, where feasible, and to create a water system that serves the needs of both the natural and the human systems of South Florida.

Over the past two years, impressive progress has been made in planning new CERP projects, and the vision for CERP water storage is now becoming clear. Construction and completion of authorized CERP projects will likely take several decades, and at this pace of restoration, it is even more imperative that agencies anticipate and design for the Everglades of the future.

This seventh biennial review assesses the progress made in meeting the goals of the CERP and provides an in-depth review of CERP monitoring, with particular emphasis on project-level monitoring and assessment. It reviews developments in research and assessment that inform restoration decision making, and identifies issues for in-depth evaluation considering new CERP program developments, policy initiatives, or improvements in scientific knowledge that have implications for restoration progress.

  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!