National Academies Press: OpenBook

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010 (2010)

Chapter: 2 The Restoration Plan in Context

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

2
The Restoration Plan in Context

In this chapter, the stage is set for the committee’s third biennial assessment of restoration progress in the South Florida ecosystem. Background is provided on the ecosystem decline, restoration goals, the needs of a restored ecosystem, and the specific activities of the restoration project. Important changes in the context for restoration, now 10 years after the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was launched, are discussed with a specific focus on endangered species trends, water quality, and the human system. The watershed context is also discussed in considerable detail, because the system cannot be understood without that context. Canals, levees, and other water management structures have profoundly altered the hydrology, geomorphology, and connectivity of the system, and restoration of the ecosystem will require consideration of the ecosystem services (e.g., natural water storage, water quality treatment) once provided throughout the entire watershed.

THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM’S ENVIRONMENTAL DECLINE

The Everglades once encompassed about 3 million acres of slow-moving water and associated biota that stretched from Lake Okeechobee in the north to Florida Bay in the south (Figures 1-1a and 2-1a). The nature of the water flow has characteristics that provide the functional basis of the Everglades, and as the flows have changed (Figure 2-1), the physical, chemical, and biological components of the Everglades ecosystems also have changed. In the following section the changes in the hydrologic and geomorphologic characteristics of water flows are explored in the watersheds of Central and South Florida.

Changes to the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades Watershed

From the hydrologic perspective, the map of Central and South Florida is dominated by the 9,000 square mile Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades water-

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-1 Water flow in the Everglades under (a) historical conditions, (b) current conditions, and (c) conditions envisioned upon completion of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).

FIGURE 2-1 Water flow in the Everglades under (a) historical conditions, (b) current conditions, and (c) conditions envisioned upon completion of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).

SOURCE: Graphics provided by USACE, Jacksonville District.

shed (Figure 2-2), a connected drainage basin that extends from the Orlando area 250 miles southward to Florida Bay (McPherson and Halley, 1996). The watershed includes three primary sub-basins: the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee and its tributaries, and the Everglades. Prior to economic development and the creation of artificial drainage systems, water flowed from a series of small lakes at the northern end of this system through the Kissimmee River into Lake Okeechobee. During rainy periods, the lake spilled water southward over its low perimeter and into the Everglades, moving as a broad shallow sheet of water until it became more concentrated and flowed to tidewater through Shark River, Taylor, and Loxahatchee sloughs as well as through coastal rivers. Rainfall onto the 4,500 square mile Everglades augmented this overland flow and sustained it during dry periods.

The conversion of the uninhabited Everglades wilderness into an area of high agricultural productivity and cities was a dream of 19th-century investors, and, beginning in the early 1880s, water-control projects were built to drain the wetlands. By the end of the 20th century, the extensive water-control system to supply water to agricultural and urban areas and to provide flood protection to

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-2 Pre-drainage water flows in the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades watershed.

FIGURE 2-2 Pre-drainage water flows in the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades watershed.

SOURCE: McPherson and Halley (1996).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

developed areas included more than 2,600 miles of canals and levees, 64 major pumping stations, and about 1,300 control structures.1 These installations, along with highway construction and urbanization, have dismembered the original flow paths of the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades watershed (Figure 2-1).

Changes in the Kissimmee River Sub-Basin

Before the advent of drainage, canal, and levee projects that accompanied economic development, the far northern portion of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades drainage basin was characterized by poorly connected lakes near the present location of Orlando. The Kissimmee River flowed southward from this lake district and emptied into Lake Okeechobee. In this pre-drainage period, the river was a highly sinuous, single-thread channel 90 miles long, with a flood plain 2 or more miles wide, and flanked by generally flat landscapes (McPherson and Halley, 1996). Under these geomorphic and hydrologic conditions, seasonal high flows and occasional large floods caused the river to overflow its banks, and periodically produced new channel locations. During these overbank flow events, the flood plains stored considerable amounts of water, and they were directly connected in a hydrologic sense to the channel. Eventually, flows from the Kissimmee River Basin passed downstream into Lake Okeechobee and thence to the Everglades, so that even though the river was distant from the Everglades, it was an integral part of Everglades hydrology.

Early drainage projects begun between 1881 and 1894 affected the flow of water in the watershed north of Lake Okeechobee. By the late 1800s, more than 50,000 acres north and west of Lake Okeechobee had been drained and cleared for agriculture (Grunwald, 2006). As a flood control measure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began construction of the Kissimmee River Canal (C-38 Canal) in 1961, completing it 10 years later. What was once a 90-mile-long winding river was converted into a 52-mile-long, channelized conduit with a more direct route to Lake Okeechobee. The canal also included six locks and dams, a structural arrangement that introduced considerable hydrologic adjustments to the system. Over-bank flooding became very rare, and 40,000 to 50,000 acres of the flood plain were converted from wetlands to terrestrial habitats that became agricultural lands and pastures (McPherson and Halley, 1996).

These projects affected water quantity and water quality in Kissimmee River discharges. The loss of flood-plain space meant that the basin stored less water internally during high flows, the groundwater recharge was less, and the annual

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

total water yield of the river to Lake Okeechobee probably increased by about 20 percent or more (based on USACE and SFWMD, 1999). Because the naturally winding course of the river along with its associated oxbow lakes and wetlands were disconnected from the active river regime of the Kissimmee, their nutrient-filtering capabilities were lost. The loss of these filters and the increased nutrient loading that resulted from agricultural activities resulted in elevated deliveries of nutrients to Lake Okeechobee (Federico, 1982).

Changes in the Lake Okeechobee Sub-Basin

Prior to drainage and development, Lake Okeechobee was a primary connector and regulator in the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades hydrologic system (Steinman et al., 2002). The lake, bounded by low rises on all sides, probably had an average depth of about 20 feet during wet periods and extended to a surface area of more than 730 square miles (McPherson and Halley, 1996). The lake expanded laterally during rainy periods (sometimes as much as several miles) across gently sloping margins, particularly in the northwestern sector of the lake’s edge. During dry periods the lake shrank into its basin, abandoning the low-gradient, marshy areas on its northwest perimeter; its general depth probably declined to about 16 feet. When the lake inflows exceeded its capacity, water overflowed the perimeter of the lake westward into marshlands of the Caloosahatchee River Basin and southward to the Everglades (see also Chapter 4 for a discussion of pre-drainage water budgets) (USACE and SFWMD, 1999).

In the late 1800s and early 1900s agricultural development slowly expanded farming areas around Lake Okeechobee and on lands south of the water body. Farmers found that during drought periods the lack of water crippled production, and in wet years floods were a major hazard. In response to major floods in 1903, the state created four canals to conduct excess water from Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean, allowing managers to control water levels in the lake. The local drainage district constructed a sand and muck levee along 47 miles of the lake’s perimeter. Devastating hurricanes in 1926 and 1928 stimulated construction of an additional canal (C-44) eastward to connect the lake to the St. Lucie Basin and enlargement of the connection (C-43) between the lake and the Caloosahatchee River to carry more lake water westward to the Gulf of Mexico. Today, large amounts of water are diverted from the original southward flow into the estuaries, altering salinity and nutrient loadings. During the 1930s the USACE raised the levee along the lake margin, cutting off the gently sloping terrain that once had been an overflow area. In the 1960s the USACE increased the height of the levee (now known as the Herbert Hoover Dike) to 30 feet. The total effect of the engineering works associated with Lake Okeechobee has been the fundamental alteration of the role of the lake in the Kissimmee-

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Okeechobee-Everglades watershed (Lodge, 2005). The quantitative impacts of these changes are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 (see also Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Understanding the flow of water in the Lake Okeechobee sub-basin is essential to understanding the movement and storage of nutrients in the subbasin and the tremendous water quality challenges in Lake Okeechobee, as explored more fully in Chapter 5 and in NRC (2008).

Changes in the Everglades Sub-Basin

Prior to drainage and development projects, the Everglades portion of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades drainage basin was a broadly defined zone of flowing water starting at Lake Okeechobee and ending in Florida Bay, bounded on the west by higher terrain in the Big Cypress Swamp and on the east by the sandy rises of the Atlantic Ridge (McPherson and Halley, 1996). The topographic gradient through the Everglades is only about 2 inches per mile, so that the flow of water was only 100 feet per day. The form of the flow was in broad sheets a few inches to a few feet deep. In 1848 Buckingham Smith (quoted in Fling et al., 2009) observed: “The water is pure and limpid and almost imperceptibly moves, not in partial currents, but, as it seems, in a mass, silently and slowly to the southward.” Well-defined sloughs, where water flowed during all but the driest years, provided important habitat and foraging sites for wading birds. The “river of grass” shaped the characteristic features of the landscape in a delicate balance between form and process. Field maps of the elongated tree islands that rise above the sawgrass suggest that the orientation of sloughs, ridges, and tree islands are all connected to the dominant flow direction (Parker et al., 1955; Sklar and van der Valk, 2002).

The construction of canals, levees, and dikes beginning in the early 20th century partitioned the Everglades portion of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades watershed into discrete, poorly integrated units (Figure 2-1b). In 1907 Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward created the Everglades Drainage District to construct a vast array of ditches, canals, dikes, and “improved” channels. By the 1930s, 440 miles of other canals altered the hydrology of the Everglades (Blake, 1980). After extensive flooding in 1947 and increasing demands for improved agricultural production and flood control for the expanding population centers on the southeast Florida coast, the U.S. Congress authorized the Central and South Florida (C&SF) Project, an extensive, extremely sophisticated water management system. The C&SF Project provided flood control with the construction of a levee along the eastern boundary of the Everglades to prevent flows into the southeastern urban areas, established the 700,000 acre Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) south of Lake Okeechobee (see Box 2-1), and created a series of water conservation areas (WCAs) to regulate water levels in devel-

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

BOX 2-1

The Everglades Agricultural Area

Making the land in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) (see Figure 1-3) suitable for agriculture was one of the original primary objectives of the Central and South Florida (C&SF) Project (Lodge, 2005). Preliminary assessments in the late 1940s identified the peat soils just south of the southern rim of Lake Okeechobee as ideal for agriculture (Jones, 1948). Between 1950 and 1973, the USACE constructed a major dike on the east side of the agricultural area, established water delivery and drainage canals, and added pumps and control gates to manage water for agriculture. It also created the water conservation areas (WCAs) as temporary holding ponds that could accept surplus water during wet periods and provide additional water for agriculture during dry periods. Lake Okeechobee could also be managed to supply water in dry periods and accept excess water in wet periods. All of the EAA was designed for agricultural production, except for two fairly small wildlife management areas (WMAs): Rotenberger WMA and Holey Land WMA (Lodge, 2005). When the EAA was complete in the early 1970s, it subsumed 27 percent of the pre-drainage Everglades. In comparison, the WCAs occupy 37 percent, and Everglades National Park covers about 20 percent (Lodge, 2005; Secretary of Interior, 1994). As of the mid-2000s, the overwhelmingly dominant land use in the EAA is sugar production, with less than 1 percent used for pasture (R. Budell, Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services, personal communication, 2010).

oped areas in the remaining space between the lake and Everglades National Park (Light and Dineen, 1994). By protecting urban and agricultural lands in South Florida from floods and droughts (see Box 2-2), the project facilitated the prosperous economic development in the region, but it dramatically altered the Everglades ecosystem.

Ecological Implications of Watershed Changes

The profound hydrologic alterations were accompanied by many changes in the biotic communities in the ecosystem, including reductions and changes in the composition, distribution, and abundance of the populations of wading birds, the most visible component of the Everglades biota and symbolic to many stakeholders of the status of the entire ecosystem. Urban and agricultural development have reduced the Everglades to about one-half its pre-drainage size (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Figure 1-1b) and have contaminated its waters with phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfate, mercury, and pesticides. Today, the federal government has listed 67 plant and animal species in South Florida as threatened or endangered, with many more included on state lists. Some distinctive Everglades habitats, such as custard-apple forests and peripheral wet prairie, have

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

BOX 2-2

Climate Conditions in South Florida

Water management for both human and natural systems occurs within a context of high variation and frequent extremes in climate conditions. South Florida has a humid subtropical to tropical climate, and high annual precipitation (47 to 62 inches on average for Everglades weather stations). Rainfall occurs on 70 to 80 days per year, but often with high intensity. About 60-65 percent of the rainfall occurs during the summer wet season and is associated with thunderstorms. The central portion of the state experiences about 85 thunderstorms per year. Another notable feature of the precipitation regime in Florida is the frequency of torrential rain (over 3 inches within 24 hours). Precipitation variability between years is also very high; total rainfall amounts have ranged from 34 to 88 inches, with ranges of less than 40 to approximately 80 inches within most decades since 1890. Another characteristic of South Florida’s climate is the frequency of tropical storms and hurricanes. In most years, at least one tropical storm or hurricane affects the region, with the maximum on record being 21 such storms in one year (1933).

Although the total amounts of rainfall inputs are large, the high temperature regime results in high evapotranspiration, so that possibility of drought is always present. Droughts generally follow low precipitation inputs during the wet season, but, as with other components of the South Florida climate system, there is great variability in the location, frequency, and duration of droughts. These characteristics imply that the high variability in precipitation inputs coupled with constant high evaporative demand result in both frequent excesses of water that must be managed to prevent urban and agricultural flooding and also deficits of water that require drought management, with a high potential for years of high precipitation to alternate with drought stresses (Duever et al., 1994). See also http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html for additional information on the climate of Florida.

disappeared altogether, while other habitats are severely reduced in area (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Marshall et al., 2004). Mercury contamination led the state of Florida to restrict consumption of nine species of fish in roughly 2 million acres of the Everglades (Scheidt and Kalla, 2007). Phosphorus from agricultural runoff has impaired water quality in large portions of the Everglades and has been particularly problematic in Lake Okeechobee (Flaig and Reddy, 1995). The Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, including parts of the Indian River Lagoon, have been greatly altered by high and extremely variable freshwater discharges that bring nitrogen, phosphorus, and contaminants into the estuaries and alter the salinities that control the abundance of estuarine organisms (Doering, 1996; Doering and Chamberlain, 1999).

At least as early as the 1920s, private citizens were calling attention to the degradation of the Florida Everglades (Blake, 1980). However, by the time Marjory Stoneman Douglas’s classic book The Everglades: River of Grass was published in 1947 (the same year that Everglades National Park was dedicated),

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

the South Florida ecosystem had already been altered extensively. Prompted by concerns about deteriorating conditions in Everglades National Park and other parts of the South Florida ecosystem, the public, as well as the federal and state governments, directed increasing attention to the adverse ecological effects of the flood-control and irrigation projects beginning in the 1970s (Kiker et al., 2001; Perry, 2004). By the late 1980s it was clear that various minor corrective measures undertaken to remedy the situation were insufficient. As a result, a powerful political consensus developed among federal agencies, state agencies and commissions, Native American tribes, county governments, and conservation organizations that a large restoration effort was needed in the Everglades (Kiker et al., 2001). This recognition culminated in the CERP, which builds on other ongoing restoration activities of the state and federal governments to create one of the most ambitious and extensive restoration efforts in the nation’s history (see Appendix B for a timeline of significant events in South Florida ecosystem management).

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION GOALS

Several goals have been articulated for the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, reflecting the various restoration programs. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force), an intergovernmental body established to facilitate coordination in the restoration effort, has three broad strategic goals: (1) “get the water right,” (2) “restore, preserve, and protect natural habitats and species,” and (3) “foster compatibility of the built and natural systems” (SFERTF, 2000). These goals encompass, but are not limited to, the CERP. The Task Force works to coordinate and build consensus among the many non-CERP restoration initiatives that support these broad goals.

The goal of the CERP, as stated in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), is “restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection.” The Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR 385.3) that guide implementation of the CERP further clarify this goal by defining restoration as “the recovery and protection of the South Florida ecosystem so that it once again achieves and sustains the essential hydrological and biologic characteristics that defined the undisturbed South Florida ecosystem.” These defining characteristics include a large-areal extent of interconnected wetlands, extremely low concentrations of nutrients in freshwater wetlands, sheet flow, healthy and productive estuaries, resilient plant communities, and an abundance of native wetland animals (DOI and USACE, 2005). Although development has permanently reduced the areal extent of the Everglades ecosystem, the CERP hopes to recover many of the Everglades’ original characteristics and

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

natural ecosystem processes. At the same time, the CERP is charged to maintain current levels of flood protection (as of 2000) and provide for other water-related needs, including water supply, for a rapidly growing human population in South Florida (DOI and USACE, 2005).

Although the CERP contributes to each of the Task Force’s three goals, it focuses primarily on restoring the hydrologic features of the undeveloped wetlands remaining in the South Florida ecosystem, on the assumption that improvements in ecological conditions will follow. Originally, “getting the water right” had four components—quality, quantity, timing, and distribution. However, the hydrologic properties of flow, encompassing the concepts of direction, velocity, and discharge, have been recognized as an important component of getting the water right that had previously been overlooked (NRC, 2003c; SCT, 2003). Understanding of the CERP hydrologic goals is derived from paleoecology research (e.g., Willard et al., 2001; Saunders et al., 2006; Bernhardt and Willard, 2009) and hydrologic models that simulate the pre-drainage hydrology, such as the Natural System Model (NSM; see Chapter 4 and Box 4-1). The water quality goals are outlined by the existing legal and regulatory framework (described in more detail in Chapter 5). Numerous studies have supported the general approach of hydrologic restoration to achieve ecological restoration (Davis and Ogden, 1994; NRC, 2005; SSG, 1993), although it is widely recognized that recovery of the native habitats and species in South Florida may require restoration efforts, such as controlling exotic species and reversing the decline in the spatial extent and compartmentalization of the natural landscape (SFERTF, 2000; SSG, 1993).

The goal of ecosystem restoration can seldom be the exact re-creation of some historical or preexisting state because physical conditions, driving forces, and boundary conditions usually have changed and are not fully recoverable. Rather, restoration occurs along a continuum from intensive deconstruction and ecosystem reconstruction efforts in heavily impacted areas to improving conditions in less modified ones (Hobbs and Norton, 1996). Implicit in the understanding of ecosystem restoration is the recognition that natural systems are self-designing and dynamic and, therefore, it is not possible to know in advance exactly what can or will be achieved. Thus, ecosystem restoration is an enterprise with some scientific uncertainty in methods or outcomes that requires continual testing of goals and assumptions and monitoring of progress (NRC, 2007). Moreover, large-scale restoration inevitably involves economic and ecological tradeoffs depending on which sites in the landscape and which attributes of the ecosystem are emphasized (e.g., remediation to reduce levels of hazardous substances, productivity, recovery of rare species). The issue of tradeoffs is a theme that runs through much of Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

What Natural System Restoration Requires

Restoring the South Florida ecosystem to a desired ecological landscape requires reestablishment of the critical processes that sustained its historical functions. Although getting the water right is the oft-stated and immediate goal, the restoration will be recognized as successful if it restores the distinctive characteristics of the historical ecosystem to the remnant Everglades (DOI and USACE, 2005). Getting the water right is a means to an end, not the end in itself. The hydrologic and ecological characteristics of the historical Everglades serve as restoration goals for a functional (albeit reduced in size) Everglades ecosystem. The first Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (CISRERP) review identified five critical components of Everglades restoration:

  1. Enough water storage capacity combined with operations that allow for appropriate volumes of water to support healthy estuaries and the return of sheet flow through the Everglades ecosystem while meeting other demands for water;

  2. Mechanisms for delivering and distributing the water to the natural system in a way that resembles historical flow patterns, affecting volume, depth, velocity, direction, distribution, and timing of flows;

  3. Barriers to eastward seepage of water so that higher water levels can be maintained in parts of the Everglades ecosystem without compromising the current levels of flood protection of developed areas as required by the CERP;

  4. Methods for securing water quality conditions compatible with restoration goals for a natural system that was inherently extremely nutrient poor, particularly with respect to phosphorus; and

  5. Retention, improvement, and expansion of the full range of habitats by preventing further losses of critical wetland and estuarine habitats and by protecting lands that could usefully be part of the restored ecosystem.

If these five critical components of restoration are achieved and the difficult problems associated with other major ecosystem changes, such as invasive species and altered fire regimes, can be managed, then the basic physical, chemical, and biological processes that created the historical Everglades can once again work to create a functional mosaic of biotic communities that resemble the distinctive characteristics of the historical Everglades. Even if the restored ecosystem does not exactly replicate the historical ecosystem, or reach all of the biological, chemical, and physical targets, the reestablishment of natural processes and dynamics should result in a viable and valuable Everglades ecosystem. The central principle of ecosystem management is to provide for the natural processes that historically shaped an ecosystem, because ecosystems are

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

characterized by the processes that regulate them. If the conditions necessary for those processes to operate are met, recovery of species and communities is far more likely than if humans attempt to specify every constituent and element of the ecological system (NRC, 2007).

RESTORATION ACTIVITIES

Several restoration programs, including the largest of the initiatives, the CERP, are now ongoing. The CERP often builds upon non-CERP activities (also called “foundation projects”), many of which are essential to the effectiveness of the CERP. In the following section, a brief overview of the CERP and some of the major non-CERP activities are provided.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

WRDA 2000 authorized the CERP as the framework for modifying the C&SF Project. Considered a blueprint for the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the CERP is led by two organizations with considerable expertise managing the water resources of South Florida—the USACE, which built most of the canals and levees throughout the region, and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the state agency with primary responsibility for operating and maintaining this complex water collection and distribution system.

In the CERP conceptual plan (USACE and SFWMD, 1999; also called the Yellow Book), major alterations to the C&SF Project are proposed in an effort to reverse decades of ecosystem decline. The Yellow Book includes roughly 50 major projects consisting of 68 project components to be constructed at a cost of approximately $12.8 billion (estimated in 2008 dollars; SFERTF, 2009). Major components of the restoration plan focus on restoring the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water for the natural system (Figure 2-3). These major CERP components include the following:

  • Conventional surface-water storage reservoirs, which will be located north of Lake Okeechobee, in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee basins, in the EAA, and in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties, will provide storage of approximately 1.5 million acre-feet.

  • Aquifer storage and recovery is proposed as an approach to store water approximately 1,000 feet below ground using a large number of wells built around Lake Okeechobee, in Palm Beach County, and in the Caloosahatchee basin; the approach has not yet been tested at the scale proposed.

  • In-ground reservoirs will store water in quarries created by rock mining.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-3 Major project components of the CERP.

FIGURE 2-3 Major project components of the CERP.

SOURCE: Courtesy of Laura Mahoney, USACE.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
  • Stormwater treatment areas (STAs) are constructed wetlands that will treat agricultural and urban runoff water before it enters natural wetlands.2

  • Seepage management approaches will prevent unwanted loss of water from the natural system through levees and groundwater flow; the approaches include adding impermeable barriers to the levees, installing pumps near levees to redirect lost water back into the Everglades, and holding water levels higher in undeveloped areas between the Everglades and the developed lands to the east.

  • Removing barriers to sheet flow, including 240 miles of levees and canals, will reestablish shallow sheet flow of water through the Everglades ecosystem.

  • Rainfall-driven water management will be created through operational changes in the water delivery schedules to the WCAs and Everglades National Park to mimic more natural patterns of water delivery and flow through the system.

  • Water reuse and conservation strategies will build additional water supply in the region; two advanced wastewater treatment plants are proposed for Miami-Dade County in order to clean wastewater to a standard that would allow it to be discharged to wetlands along Biscayne Bay or to recharge the Biscayne aquifer.

The largest portion of the budget is devoted to storage and water conservation projects and to acquiring the lands needed for them (see NRC, 2005). Progress on the implementation of Everglades restoration projects is described in Chapter 3.

2

Although some STAs are included among CERP projects, the USACE has recently clarified its policy on federal cost sharing for water quality features, indicating that cost-share for water quality features will be determined on a project-by-project basis. A memo from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (USACE, 2007) states: “Before there can be a Federal interest to cost share a water quality improvement feature, the water must be in compliance with water quality standards for the current use of the affected water and the work proposed must be deemed essential to the Everglades restoration effort.” The memo goes on to state, “The CERP Plan described in the 1999 Restudy reiterates these requirements and for plan formulation purposes assumes that programs, projects, and activities to achieve water quality standards would be in place and the standards met. Since the passage of the WRDA 1996 cost sharing provisions which were incorporated by reference in WRDA 2000, it has been explicitly stated and understood that any programs, projects, or activities required to achieve applicable water quality standards would be accomplished at 100 percent non-Federal cost.” However, the memo goes on to state: “for CERP projects where inflows do not meet water quality standards the Corps will evaluate the benefits of any water quality features in Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) and if the benefits are determined to be essential to Everglades restoration, then the Corps may recommend to Congress in a PIR that it be given specific statutory authority to build and cost-share the subject water quality features to both help to achieve existing water quality requirements and provide additional restoration benefits critical to the successful implementation of CERP… If Congress chooses to provide this authority such water quality features would be cost-shared accordingly as part of the Federal Project.”

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

The modifications to the C&SF Project embodied in the CERP were originally expected to take more than three decades to complete, requiring a clear strategy for managing and coordinating restoration efforts. The Everglades Programmatic Regulations specifically require coordination with other agencies at all levels of government, although final responsibility ultimately rests with the USACE and SFWMD. WRDA 2000 endorses the use of an adaptive management framework for the restoration process, and the Programmatic Regulations formally establish an adaptive management program that will “assess responses of the South Florida ecosystem to implementation of the Plan; … [and] seek continuous improvement of the Plan based upon new information resulting from changed or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific and technical information, new or updated modeling; information developed through the assessment principles contained in the Plan; and future authorized changes to the Plan.” An interagency body called Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (RECOVER) has been established to ensure that sound science is used in the restoration (see Box 2-3). The RECOVER leadership group oversees the monitoring and assessment program that will evaluate the progress of the CERP toward restoring the natural system and will assess the need for changes to the plan through the adaptive management process.

In 2004, Florida launched Acceler8, a plan to hasten the pace of project implementation, and committed $1.5 billion of its portion of the state-federal cost share for the CERP by 2010 for this initiative. The objectives of Acceler8 were to provide immediate environmental and water supply benefits and to serve as a foundation for subsequent restoration efforts by expediting 11 CERP project components and some non-CERP components. Although state budget pressures impacted the pace of the Acceler8 effort, numerous restoration projects continue to be expedited by the state of Florida. These projects are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Non-CERP Restoration Activities

When Congress authorized the CERP in WRDA 2000, the SFWMD, the USACE, the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were already implementing several activities intended to restore key aspects of the Everglades ecosystem. These non-CERP initiatives are critical to the overall restoration progress. In fact, the effectiveness of the CERP was predicated upon the completion of many of these projects. These projects include Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters), C-111 South Dade, and the Critical Projects (see Box 2-4). Several additional projects are also either under way or in planning stages to meet the broad restoration goals for the South Florida ecosystem and associated legislative mandates. They include extensive water quality initiatives, such as the Everglades Construction

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

BOX 2-3

RECOVER

RECOVER (Restoration, Coordination, and Verification) is a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team of scientists, modelers, planners, and resource specialists whose role is to organize, analyze, and apply scientific and technical information in support of the systemwide goals of the CERP.

Authorized in the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR 385.20), RECOVER provides essential support to the CERP toward meeting its goals and purposes while utilizing adaptive management principles. RECOVER’s mission is accomplished through three kinds of activities:

  • Evaluation—working with project development teams to evaluate and maximize the contribution made by each project to the systemwide performance of CERP;

  • Assessment—measuring and interpreting actual responses in the natural and human systems as CERP projects are brought on line; and

  • Planning and Integration—identifying potential improvements in the design and operation of the CERP, consistent with plan objectives, and striving for consensus among agencies regarding scientific and technical aspects of the restoration plan.

Specific tasks to be carried out by RECOVER include recommendation of interim goals and targets for the plan, development of performance measures, evaluations of systemwide impacts attributable to specific projects, evaluation and integration of new scientific information, and development and implementation of a monitoring plan.

The RECOVER Leadership Group (RLG) is constituted in 33 CFR Section 385.20(d) (2) to “assist the program managers in coordinating and managing the activities of RECOVER, including the establishment of sub-teams and other entities, and in reporting the activities of RECOVER.” The RLG is composed of 12 agency representatives, as specified in the Programmatic Regulations, including the USACE (co-chair), SFWMD (co-chair), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service (NPS), Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC).


SOURCE: USACE and SFWMD (2007d).

Project, and programs to establish best management practices (BMPs) to decrease nutrient loading.

10 YEARS LATER: THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT FOR THE CERP

In this section the trends in selected environmental, socioeconomic, and biological factors in South Florida are briefly summarized for the past decade since

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

BOX 2-4

Non-CERP Restoration Activities in South Florida

The following represent the major non-CERP initiatives currently under way in support of the South Florida ecosystem restoration (Figure 2-4). Progress on these non-CERP projects is discussed in Appendix C.


Kissimmee River Restoration Project


This project, authorized by Congress in 1992, aims to reestablish the historical river-floodplain system at the headwaters of the Everglades watershed and, thereby, restore biological diversity and functionality. The project plans to backfill 22 miles of the 56-mile C-38 Canal and restore 43 miles of meandering river channel in the Kissimmee River. The project includes a comprehensive evaluation program to track ecological responses to restoration. Completion is expected by 2013 (Jones et al., 2010).


Everglades Construction Project


The Everglades Forever Act (F.S. 373.4592; see Appendix B) required the state of Florida to construct stormwater treatment areas (STAs) to reduce the loading of phosphorus into the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), and Everglades National Park. These STAs are part of the state’s long-term plan for achieving water quality goals, including the total phosphorus criterion for the Everglades Protection Area of 10 parts per billion (ppb).a See also Chapter 5.


Modifications to the C&SF: C-111 (South Dade) Project


This project is designed to improve hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough and the Rocky Glades of the eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park and to increase freshwater flows to northeast Florida Bay, while maintaining flood protection for urban and agricultural development in south Miami-Dade County. The project plan includes a tieback levee with pumps to capture groundwater seepage to the east, detention areas to increase groundwater levels and thereby enhance flow into Everglades National Park, and backfilling or plugging several canals in the area. A Combined Structural and Operational Plan (CSOP) will integrate the goals of the Mod Waters and C-111 projects and protect the quality of water entering Everglades National Park (DOI and USACE, 2005).


Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project (Mod Waters)


This federally funded project, authorized in 1989, is designed to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in Everglades National Park. The project includes levee modifications and installation of a seepage control pump to increase water flow into WCA-3B and northeastern portions of Everglades National Park. It also includes providing flood mitigation to about 60 percent of the 8.5 square mile area (a low-lying but partially developed area on the northeast corner of Everglades National Park) and raising portions of Tamiami Trail. Mod Waters is a prerequisite for the first phase of “decompartmentalization” (i.e., removing some barriers to sheet flow), which is part of the CERPb (DOI and USACE, 2005; NRC, 2008).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program


In 2007, the Florida legislature expanded the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (LOPA) to include protection and restoration of the Lake Okeechobee watershed and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The legislation, being implemented as the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, will focus resources on restoration efforts for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan, issued in February 2008 in accordance with LOPA, consolidated the numerous initiatives already under way through Florida’s Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery (LOER) Plan.


Critical Projects


Congress gave programmatic authority for the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Critical Projects in Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1996, with modification in WRDA 1999 and WRDA 2007. These were small projects that could be quickly implemented to provide immediate and substantial restoration benefits such as improved quality of water discharged into WCA-3A and Lake Okeechobee and more natural water flows to estuaries. Examples of the Critical Projects include the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Lake Okeechobee Water Retention and Phosphorus Removal, Seminole Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation Plan, Tamiami Trail Culverts, Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area, and the Lake Trafford Restoration (DOI and USACE, 2005).c See also Appendix C.

  

aSee http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/erd/longtermplan/index.shtml.

  

bSee http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/dp/mwdenp-c111/index.htm for more information on Mod Waters and the C-111 Project.

  

cSee http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/projects for more information on and the status of the Critical Projects.

the CERP was launched in WRDA 2000 to provide readers a better understanding of the changing context for the CERP. The level of environmental monitoring in South Florida is as high as or higher than anywhere in the United States, making it is possible to gain a synoptic view of some key physical and biological features of the ecosystem. The record since 2000 documents South Florida’s high inter-annual and multi-year environmental and socioeconomic variability, and underscores the looming challenge of identifying systematic trends in conditions related to restoration efforts. The record also highlights the species-specific nature of responses to environmental fluctuations and the persistent challenge posed by invasive nonindigenous species.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-4 Locations of major non-CERP initiatives. © International Mapping Associates

FIGURE 2-4 Locations of major non-CERP initiatives. © International Mapping Associates

Socioeconomic Setting

South Florida’s growing human population places ever greater demands on both water management systems and ecosystems (NRC, 2008). Between 2000 and 2010 the human population in the five-county region of Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties increased by more than 356,000 people, or 6.6 percent (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2005, 2009). However, the population in 2010 is substantially lower (by 467,000 people) than the estimate used by CERP planners to project future water demand in these counties (SFWMD, 2000, 2006b).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Water demand in the Lower East Coast Planning area increased from 889 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2000 to 904 MGD in 2005, and decreased to less than 800 MGD under the drought-related water restrictions in 2008. The Restudy projections of 2010 water demand in the Lower East Coast Service area ranged from 1,166 to 1,285 MGD and thus appear to be considerably higher than actual demand based on current population and water demand trends.

The socioeconomic impacts of the recent economic recession have been especially hard felt in Florida, where state population growth from April 2008 to April 2009 was negative (−1,845) for the first time in the states history. Population decline was particularly marked in populous southeastern counties such as Broward (−13,904), alm Beach (−8,033), and Miami-Dade (−5,485 With unemployment above 10 percent and construction of new homes stalled (12 percent of existing homes are in foreclosure), property values and prices of construction materials have decreased. The lower price of construction has reduced some restoration project costs. For example, the 2008 estimated cost of the 1-mile bridge was $200 million, compared to the actual $81 million contract awarded in 2009. Restoration efforts also benefited from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which directed $62 million toward South Florida ecosystem restoration projects. On the other hand, state revenues have been reduced for land acquisition and restoration. A prolonged economic recession could also potentially erode public support for environmental projects.

Despite the economic downturn, recreational use of the Everglades continues to be high and is apparently outpacing regional population growth. The number of visitors entering Everglades National Park through visitor gates has hovered around 1 million annually, but recreational boater use in the park has increased 2.5 times since the mid-1970s (Ault et al., 2008). Statewide levels of recreational fishing and wildlife watching increased significantly between 1996 and 2006 (Table 2-1), a trend that can be assumed to apply to the remnant Everglades ecosystem as well.

Hardly a week goes by without an article on Everglades restoration appearing in one of the major Florida newspapers. Nevertheless, there is mixed evidence for the level of public awareness and support of the CERP. A 2003 phone survey of 1,906 residents in southeast Florida estimated that 54 percent of the population was unaware of the CERP. On the other hand, nearly 90 percent of those who were aware of the CERP supported the project (Bransford et al., 2006). A 2009 poll of 600 Florida voters that was commissioned by the Everglades Foundation reported that 82 percent “strongly” or “somewhat strongly” supported restoration of the Everglades, mainly for water supply and flood control

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

TABLE 2-1 Summary of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Watching Activities and Related Expenditures (in 2010 dollars) in Florida since 1996

Activities

 

1996

2001

2006

Fishing

Anglers

2,900,000

3,100,000

3,700,000

 

Fishing days

45,500,000

48,400,000

51,100,000

 

Fishing expenditures

$4,573,300,000

$5,030,500,000

$5,777,400,000

Hunting

Hunters

180,000

230,000

260,000

 

Hunting days

4,400,000

4,700,000

3,800,000

 

Expenditures

$474,600,000

$485,600,000

$438,500,000

Wildlife watching

Participants

3,600,000

3,200,000

5,000,000

 

Expenditures

$2,332,200,000

$1,940,900,000

$4,041,900,000

NOTE: Expenditures adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars. Numbers rounded to hundred thousands or two significant digits.

SOURCE: USFWS (1996, 2001, 2006).

benefits.3 Neither poll measured citizen willingness to pay for restoration, so it is hard to gauge the depth of public commitment.

Hydrologic Trends

In the past decade the Everglades experienced two severe droughts and associated large wildfires as well as 12 powerful tropical storms. These extremes in climate and weather played out against a steady rise in the sea level of nearly an inch.4

The region experienced severe droughts in 2000-2001 and 2006-2009. In terms of rainfall, more extreme droughts were recorded in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1980s, but the most recent droughts were accompanied by the worst water shortages in the region’s history, as evidenced by record low water levels in Lake Okeechobee (Figure 2-5). Dry conditions in 2000-2001 and 2007-2008 promoted large wildfires, notably in the desiccated wetlands of northeast Shark River Slough (Figure 2-6). The 2006-2009 drought forced the SFWMD to impose new agricultural and urban water use restrictions that reduced potable water consumption by 105 million gallons between April 2007 and March 2008.

Since 1871 South Florida has experienced an average of three tropical systems (tropical storms or hurricanes) every four years. These systems exact a heavy toll on South Florida in terms of human lives and property losses. In the past decade the region experienced 12 tropical systems, notably Hurricanes Wilma, the third costliest hurricane in U.S. history (2005, $20.6 billion), and

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-5 Number of days Lake Okeechobee water level was below 11 feet above sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, NGVD) (ending date, April 30, 2008).

FIGURE 2-5 Number of days Lake Okeechobee water level was below 11 feet above sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, NGVD) (ending date, April 30, 2008).

SOURCE: Abtew et al. (2009).

Frances (2004, $8.9 billion), as well as Tropical Storm Fay (2008) (Blake et al., 2007; Abtew et al., 2010). Although destructive, these tropical systems figured importantly in the region’s water supply. For example, Hurricane Gabrielle was pivotal in relieving the 2000–2001 drought, as was Tropical Storm Fay in relieving the 2006–2009 drought. The double-edged role of tropical storms in South Florida illustrates the complexity of managing water risks here and the multiple social benefits of added storage capacity in the system.

Trends in Exotic Species

South Florida ecosystems have been extensively invaded by exotic (non-native) plants and animals that pose a significant challenge and add costs and uncertainty to Everglades restoration. New species continue to be inadvertently or deliberately introduced, often as byproducts of the horticultural and pet trade

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-6 Number of acres burned per water year (WY, October to September) in the SFWMD area from wildfires that were 10 acres or larger (WY 1982-2009).

FIGURE 2-6 Number of acres burned per water year (WY, October to September) in the SFWMD area from wildfires that were 10 acres or larger (WY 1982-2009).

SOURCE: Abtew et al. (2010).

industries. RECOVER scientists list 50 exotic reptile and amphibian species, 13 birds, 17 mammals, 34 fish, and 69 invertebrates in the Greater Everglades (Rodgers et al., 2010). The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council lists 61 invasive plants (from a total of 1,389 nonnative species) that are known to cause significant ecological impacts in South Florida.5 Some of these species have increased in extent to conditions that threaten native wetland species and communities, alter fire regimes, and impair infrastructure such as stormwater treatment areas and water conveyance systems.

Since 1980 state and federal agencies have spent more than $300 million to control invasive plants in Florida, especially South Florida (Schmitz, 2007; Rodgers et al., 2010). Looking back over the past decade, the 2010 South Florida

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Environmental Report (Rodgers et al., 2010) details not only an expanded effort to cope with exotic species threats to restoration, but also a greatly improved network of organizations and coordinated efforts to detect, monitor, and control these species. Efforts to control particular species and to improve the capacity to develop and release biological control agents for the most damaging species have in some cases met with dramatic success (Figure 2-7). Maintenance-level control of melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) has been achieved over large areas (albeit at a total cost of about $40 million) and has resulted in initial recovery of native plant species in previously infested areas (Rayamajhi et al., 2009; Rodgers et al., 2010). Several other species, including both newly emerging threats (e.g., feathered waterfern [Azolla pinnata]) and long-established species (e.g., hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata], torpedograss [Panicum repens]) are yielding to improved control efforts. On the other hand, 15 plant species are reported to be out of control and posing serious threats in at least some regions, and 7 species have been identified as emerging threats (Rodgers et al., 2010). Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) still occupies 700,000 acres of the region (Rodgers et al., 2010). Old World climbing fern (Lygodium macrophyllum, Figure 2-7) has expanded from 43,000 acres in 1999 to 160,000 acres in 2009 (Ferriter et al., 2002; Rodgers et al., 2010). Other species continue to emerge as potentially serious pests, for example, crested floatingheart (Nymphoides cristata), an aquatic plant from Asia, and downy rose Myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), a fast-growing ornamental Asian shrub that is now widespread in South Florida.

Control of exotic invasive animals has long lagged behind the control of invasive plants (Ferriter et al., 2004) and still receives less effort than plant control. Since the Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (E-CISMA)6 was established by the USACE, SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), FWS, and NPS in 2003, it has coordinated the management of invasive species. Its publications describe the development of biological controls of various invasive plant species as well as descriptions of invasive animals. A few animal species, such as the African sacred ibis (Threskiornis aethiopicus), have been successfully eliminated, while reporting and rapid-response programs have been developed for species such as the African python (Python sebae) and the black and white tegu lizard (Tupinambis merianae), among others. However, exotic invasive animals, especially the many fish species, some of which are very abundant, are difficult to control. The prevention of invasion and the control of species that already have invaded are on the E-CISMA’s agenda, but it is not clear that significant progress in controlling them is likely in the near future.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-7 (a) Old World climbing fern invasion and (b) defoliation at a release site for the brown lygodium moth.

FIGURE 2-7 (a) Old World climbing fern invasion and (b) defoliation at a release site for the brown lygodium moth.

SOURCE: Photos courtesy of P. Greb, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services (http://www.invasive.org/weedcd/species/3046.htm); SFWMD.

Threatened and Endangered Species

In 1998 the FWS published a programmatic biological opinion covering 18 federally listed species that could potentially be impacted by the CERP. Of the 12 animal species discussed there, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has recovered and been de-listed. In the most recent FWS five-year reviews published between 2007 and 2009, the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) was classified as increasing (USFWS, 2007a), and the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) was characterized as stable in the short term but facing continuing threats (USFWS, 2009c). Five animal species were assessed as declining, including three species that primarily inhabit upland areas—the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus), and Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

coerulescens)—and two wetland species—the Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) and wood stork (Mycteria americana) (USFWS, 2007b,c,d, 2008a,b), although the wood stork population increased dramatically in South Florida during the 2008-2009 breeding season (Figure 2-8). Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus), an upland hawk, was considered too poorly surveyed to assess trends (USFWS, 2009b). The Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) appears stable (see below). In 2003 the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), which occurs in tropical marine and estuarine areas in Florida from Charlotte Harbor to Florida Bay, was added to the Endangered Species list. Of the six plant species named in the 1998 biological opinion, only the status of two is known. The crenulated lead plant (Amorpha crenulatais), a perennial, deciduous shrub that inhabits marl prairies and wet pine rocklands in a small area of Miami-Dade County, was considered stable (although only a few hundred individuals exist in the wild) (USFWS, 2007e). The Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis), a vine that once was common in the flooded pond apple (Annona glabra) stands around Lake Okeechobee, is declining (USFWS, 2009d).

FIGURE 2-8 Trends in wood stork and tricolored heron nests in the Everglades since 1997.

FIGURE 2-8 Trends in wood stork and tricolored heron nests in the Everglades since 1997.

SOURCE: Sklar et al. (2010).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Conflicts over endangered species have delayed CERP and related foundation projects such as Mod Waters (NRC, 2008; Rizzardi, 2001). Commencement of actual construction on projects such as the 1-mile bridge on the Tamiami Trail and the C-111 Spreader Canal (discussed in Chapter 3) will test the ability of various parties to cooperate in addressing multi-species recovery during CERP implementation. The issue of restoration planning for multiple endangered species is addressed further in Chapter 4.

Analysis of Trends of Endangered Birds

There are both hopeful signs of population recovery and ominous signs of extinction for the Florida Everglades’ most threatened animals. The Everglades provides important nesting and foraging habitat for the endangered wood stork and other wading birds, the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and the endangered snail kite. In this section, the committee examines the trends and the drivers affecting these trends for these three endangered species.

Wood stork and wading bird numbers have generally increased throughout South Florida (Cook and Herring, 2007; Cook and Kobza, 2009) over the past decade, and 2009 was a record-setting year for nesting. More than 73,000 nests of wading birds were recorded in the Everglades, which represents the largest nesting effort in South Florida since the 1940s and an 83 percent increase over the average of the previous nine seasons. More than 60 percent of the nests were in WCA-3, and a large number of birds foraged there (Cook and Kobza, 2009). The wood stork produced more than 4,000 nests in 2009, double the average of the past decade. Such recovery was previously thought only to be possible with the implementation of CERP projects. Wading bird recovery was promoted by hydrologic conditions that increased food abundance and concentrated prey, including drought conditions (2006-2007) that reduced aquatic competitors and faster water-level recession rates without reversals (as described in Frederick and Ogden, 2001).

Cape Sable seaside sparrows appear to have stabilized in South Florida over the past decade after major water management changes starting in 2000 (for more discussion see Chapter 4 and Box 4-2), but there is little indication of recovery. Population size has been stable, fluctuating between 3,000 and 4,000 birds in Everglades National Park (J. Lockwood, Rutgers University, personal communication, 2010; D. Hallac, NPS, personal communication, 2009). Most individuals are in two subpopulations (B and E), which have remained stable and support 80-90 percent of the remaining individuals (SEI, 2007). Large declines in the proportion of area occupied by sparrows within their range that occurred across all the subpopulations between 1981 and 1992 also appear to have stabilized over the past decade (Cassey et al., 2007). Flooding and fire, which are

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

often considered the main threats to the survival of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow along with nest predation (Curnutt et al., 1998; Nott et al., 1998; Lockwood et al., 2006; Baiser and Lockwood, 2006), were less frequent over the past decade in sparrow habitats due in part to changes in the management in WCA-3A directly upstream from where sparrows nest in Everglades National Park.

In contrast, the snail kite population in Florida has plummeted over the past decade (Figure 2-9), and water levels in WCA-3A have been an important contributor (Cattau et al., 2008, 2009). The number of kites in Florida declined to 662 birds in 2009 from more than 3,500 individuals a decade earlier (Martin et al., 2007), making it once again one of the most endangered vertebrates in the continental United States. Kite numbers in Florida have not been so low since 1988 (Beissinger, 1995). Snail kites feed almost solely on snails of the genus Pomacea (Snyder and Snyder, 1969; Beissinger, 1990; Sykes et al., 1995). This high degree of diet specialization makes them dependent on flooded wetlands to feed and nest, and vulnerable to population declines if they are unable to find snails, such as during regional droughts (Beissinger, 1995). Although regional droughts contributed to the decrease in kite numbers in some recent years, lack of reproduction by kites primarily in WCA-3A and secondarily in Lake Okeechobee has played a major role (Cattau et al., 2008, 2009; Martin et al.,

FIGURE 2-9 Annual estimates of snail kite population size in Florida and 95 percent confidence intervals.

FIGURE 2-9 Annual estimates of snail kite population size in Florida and 95 percent confidence intervals.

SOURCE: Cattau et al. (2008, 2009).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

2008). In 2009, 185 nests were recorded statewide but only 11 were in WCA-3A, producing only two young, which follows the trend of low reproduction from kites in WCA-3A since 2001. Southern WCA-3A had been the most important wetland for kite reproduction since the mid-1960s (Snyder et al., 1989; Cattau et al., 2009). The decline in kite use and nesting success in WCA-3A during the past decade coincides with changes in the regulation schedule in this wetland that were made to improve conditions in Everglades National Park for Cape Sable seaside sparrows (see Chapter 4).

In summary, there appear to be conflicting hydrologic habitat requirements for several of the most endangered species in the Everglades that are manifested by the current management of water in WCA-3. Water management changes over the past 10 years have stopped further declines in the sparrow population, but they have not been effective in producing the desired hydrologic conditions to recover this species. Meanwhile, the water management changes have contributed to decline of the snail kite reproduction in WCA-3A and to its statewide population crash. Yet, the same set of environmental conditions has resulted in wading bird recovery. These water management challenges are considered in more detail in Chapter 4.

Ridge and Slough Landscape Trends

The development of a water-control infrastructure for South Florida has resulted in widespread changes in ridge and slough landscapes. These distinctive landscapes consist of parallel ridges of peat and intervening water bodies (or sloughs) 100 to 500 feet wide with local relief of only about 1 foot and are broadly oriented along the local direction of water flow. These landscapes originally occupied nearly 4,000 square miles of South Florida, but they now cover only about half of their former extent. The landscapes degrade when canals and levees disrupt sheet flow, resulting in flattening of the landscape, loss of aquatic communities, and disorientation of the features (Figures 2-10 and 2-11). The ridge and slough system is also degraded by increased frequency of fires in areas with frequent drawdowns. In an early evaluation, the Science Coordination Team (SCT, 2003) concluded that “1) The Everglades ridge and slough landscape has changed and is continuing to change significantly, and 2) the landscape changes are having detrimental ecological effects on Everglades plants and animals.”

Recent changes in ridge and slough landscapes show a variety of trends, with increases in coverage of such landscapes in some places, declines in others, and substantial variability in trends in some places (Figure 2-12; Sklar et al., 2009b). The diagrams in Figure 2-12 represent historical trends in a metric of landscape patterning in three places in WCA-3A. The metric consists of a series of categories ranging from 1 (a landscape that is mostly similar throughout

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-10 Well-preserved ridge and slough landscape in the northern part of WCA-3, with sawgrass ridges appearing as dark green and lighter colored, water-filled sloughs.

FIGURE 2-10 Well-preserved ridge and slough landscape in the northern part of WCA-3, with sawgrass ridges appearing as dark green and lighter colored, water-filled sloughs.

SOURCE: Photo courtesy of C. McVoy, SFWMD.

its extent and that shows no directionality in its forms) to 6 (a landscape that has highly differentiated parts with strongly linear features). High values of this metric indicate a landscape that strongly exhibits the general characteristics of ridge and slough landscapes. Data for evaluating the metric are from areal photographic interpretation.

Example N5 in Figure 2-12 from the central part of WCA-3A has shown variable trends of change, first becoming more organized, then less organized, and finally more organized again. Example G3 from the southern WCA-3A has a different history, becoming more organized like typical ridge and slough landscapes, and then remaining unchanged for more than 30 years. Example I1 from the northern WCA-3A shows a steady decline in the landscape metric and has become progressively disorganized and less like a ridge and slough landscape. These representative examples show that recent trends in ridge and

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-11 Degraded ridge and slough landscape in the northern portion of WCA-3A, showing sawgrass areas in dark green, with lighter water-filled basins. The landscape lacks a coherent directional pattern.

FIGURE 2-11 Degraded ridge and slough landscape in the northern portion of WCA-3A, showing sawgrass areas in dark green, with lighter water-filled basins. The landscape lacks a coherent directional pattern.

SOURCE: Photo courtesy of C. McVoy, SFWMD.

slough landscapes are variable according to location and can undergo significant degradation or enhancement on decadal timescales (Sklar et al., 2009b).

As outlined in NRC (2008), there have been drastic declines in the number of tree islands and the area of their coverage in the Everglades generally since the 1940s. The trends in tree island changes are best known for WCA-3A, where repetitive mapping using areal photography has revealed the changes. Specifically, tree island numbers and areal coverage in WCA-3A declined by about two-thirds between 1940 and 1970. Thereafter, the decline to 1995 was more gradual (see also Figure 4-10). Tree island declines in northern WCA-3A have generally been associated with lowered water levels, peat subsidence, and fires, while declines in southern WCA-3A have been more associated with persistent high water levels (see also Chapter 4).

Newly released data reveal that between 1995 and 2004 tree island numbers declined by about 18 percent and tree island areas by about 8 percent

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-12 The historical changes in ridge and slough patterning are displayed for the years 1940, 1953, 1972, 1984, and 2004 for three study plots (labeled N5, G3, and I1) located in WCA-3A. The highest value (6) on the y-axis represents strong and linear landscape patterns. High values indicate a landscape that strongly exhibits the general characteristics of ridge and slough landscapes. Plot N5 is in central WCA-3B, adjacent to the L-67 levees; G3, lies in the southern portion of WCA-3; and I1 is located in the north central part of WCA-3A, north of Alligator Alley.

FIGURE 2-12 The historical changes in ridge and slough patterning are displayed for the years 1940, 1953, 1972, 1984, and 2004 for three study plots (labeled N5, G3, and I1) located in WCA-3A. The highest value (6) on the y-axis represents strong and linear landscape patterns. High values indicate a landscape that strongly exhibits the general characteristics of ridge and slough landscapes. Plot N5 is in central WCA-3B, adjacent to the L-67 levees; G3, lies in the southern portion of WCA-3; and I1 is located in the north central part of WCA-3A, north of Alligator Alley.

SOURCE: Sklar et al. (2009b).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

(Figure 2-13). The largest areal declines occurred in southern WCA-3A near the L-67 levees followed by northwest WCA-3A. Tree islands in WCA-3B appear to have remained somewhat stable over this time period. The recent data show that the gradual decline of tree islands observed in the prior data has continued through 2004 (F. Sklar, SFWMD, personal communication, 2010).

Water Quality Trends

The CERP, as laid out in the Yellow Book (USACE and SFWMD, 1999), reflected an expectation that water quality concerns in the South Florida ecosystem could be adequately addressed by state efforts launched in the 1990s. Ten years later, water quality has emerged as a serious challenge that remains unresolved. Despite tremendous efforts by the state of Florida to control phosphorus through best management practices and STAs over the past 15 years (see Chapter 5 for more details), water quality trends show mixed responses. This section highlights data from two areas as examples of water quality trends over the past decade: Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades Protection Area (see Box 1-1).

In 2000, Florida enacted the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (Chapter 00-103, Laws of Florida), which mandated a comprehensive plan to reduce phosphorus loading in the watershed to meet the total maximum daily load (TMDL) of 105 metric tons (mt) per year of surface-water inputs by 2015. Yet, 10 years later, the data show little if any evidence of improvement. Phosphorus loads, representing phosphorus concentration times volumetric discharge rate, fluctuate widely between wet and dry years, but despite implementation of best management practices north of the lake, the loads continue to be well above the goal except in the most severe drought years (Figure 2-14). Additionally, the average inflow phosphorus concentrations have generally remained unchanged (Figure 2-15). Meanwhile, phosphorus concentrations within Lake Okeechobee have risen steadily since the 1970s. A series of hurricanes that suspended phosphorus-laden sediments in the lake caused a sharp increase starting in 2005, and phosphorus concentrations have not yet returned to pre-hurricane levels (Figure 2-14; McCormick et al., 2010).

Water quality trends in the Everglades Protection Area over the last decade are mixed. Flow-weighted mean phosphorus concentrations in inflows to the WCAs have declined substantially from the baseline period 1979-1993 to the four-year period 2005-2009 (Payne et al., 2010b; Figure 2-16). Flow weighting serves to normalize the data to account for natural variations in wet and dry years so that trends become more apparent. The declining trends in the WCAs in Figure 2-16 can be assumed to reflect the role of the best management practices and STAs in dramatically decreasing overall phosphorus loads. However, Figure 2-16 also shows that the flow-weighted mean phosphorus concentrations

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-13 Changes in the areal extent of tree islands between 1995 and 2004. Yellow areas show where the islands have expanded, red areas show where they have lost their vegetation, and green areas are unchanged.

FIGURE 2-13 Changes in the areal extent of tree islands between 1995 and 2004. Yellow areas show where the islands have expanded, red areas show where they have lost their vegetation, and green areas are unchanged.

SOURCE: F. Sklar, SFWMD, personal communication, 2010.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-14 Calculated total phosphorus annual loads and annual water inflow volumes to Lake Okeechobee.

FIGURE 2-14 Calculated total phosphorus annual loads and annual water inflow volumes to Lake Okeechobee.

SOURCE: McCormick et al. (2010).

FIGURE 2-15 Inflow and average Lake Okeechobee total phosphorus concentrations, calculated from the Lake Okeechobee phosphorus budget, with five-year moving average trend lines.

FIGURE 2-15 Inflow and average Lake Okeechobee total phosphorus concentrations, calculated from the Lake Okeechobee phosphorus budget, with five-year moving average trend lines.

SOURCE: Adapted from McCormick et al. (2010).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

entering Everglades National Park have increased slightly in recent years. Geometric mean total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from the interior of all four regions of the Everglades Protection Area also show mixed trends (Figure 2-17), with increases in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (LNWR) and Everglades National Park in recent years (Payne et al., 2010b). Additionally, a phosphorus “exceedance” as defined as a violation of the Consent Decree has been reported in LNWR (SFWMD, 2009c; see also STAs in Chapter 3).

These data highlight the continuing water quality challenges facing the restoration program and the magnitude of the effort required to address it. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new numeric nutrient criteria for the state of Florida (EPA, 2010) that could broaden the area within the South Florida ecosystem where water quality is under scrutiny. Water quality challenges are discussed in depth in Chapter 5.

FIGURE 2-16 Annual average flow-weighted mean total phosphorus concentrations (in ppb) for inflow to the water conservation areas and Everglades National Park.

FIGURE 2-16 Annual average flow-weighted mean total phosphorus concentrations (in ppb) for inflow to the water conservation areas and Everglades National Park.

SOURCE: Data from Payne et al. (2010a).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
FIGURE 2-17 Annual geometric mean TP concentrations (µg/L [or ppb]) for interior areas of the LNWR (WCA-1 or Refuge), WCA-2, WCA-3, and Everglades National Park (ENP) fromWY1978-WY2009. The horizontal lines indicate the average geometric mean TP concentrations for theWY1979-WY1993, WY1994-WY2004, andWY2005-WY2009 periods. Note that unlike Figure 2-16, these data are not flow weighted.

FIGURE 2-17 Annual geometric mean TP concentrations (µg/L [or ppb]) for interior areas of the LNWR (WCA-1 or Refuge), WCA-2, WCA-3, and Everglades National Park (ENP) fromWY1978-WY2009. The horizontal lines indicate the average geometric mean TP concentrations for theWY1979-WY1993, WY1994-WY2004, andWY2005-WY2009 periods. Note that unlike Figure 2-16, these data are not flow weighted.

SOURCE: Payne et al. (2010b).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

Changes in CERP Since Its Authorization

When President Clinton signed the WRDA 2000 he authorized 68 projects extending over 30 years to restore the Everglades. The scope and ambition of the largest restoration plan in U.S. history was testimony to general public and political agreement that the Everglades system was in trouble and that it warranted federal (i.e., national) resources to effect its restoration. Disparate interest groups aligned to support the effort, convinced that the ecological and societal benefits of overhauling the Central and South Florida Project outweighed the high cost and large uncertainties.

As described in the most recent report of this committee (NRC, 2008), the first eight years after CERP authorization did not come close to expectations. At the federal level there was a sharp loss of political momentum and erosion of congressional support for Everglades restoration; the state of Florida assumed a disproportionate role in funding and moving preferred projects forward. At the same time, the translation of broad restoration goals into specific objectives and projects exposed the differences in priorities among interest groups, and projects grew increasingly susceptible to costly litigation. The cumbersome federal project planning and approval processes required to receive federal funding became painfully obvious. In short, restoration progress has been far slower than hoped for. Unfortunately, the ecosystem has continued to degrade, the estimated cost of restoration has increased to more than $13 billion, and water supply and flood control challenges have only increased (NRC, 2008; SFERTF, 2009).

Nevertheless, many of the individuals who were important in launching the CERP in the late 1990s have continued to dedicate their careers to Everglades restoration. The pool of knowledgeable and experienced personnel has grown both deeper and broader. This expertise is critical in moving projects forward through complex state and federal political and procedural processes. The scientific and administrative capacity for implementing the CERP has grown stronger through time, and has benefited from truly excellent scientists in all aspects of Everglades science, both within CERP partner agencies and the scientific community at large. These scientists are continually working to advance the understanding of the condition and functioning of the South Florida ecosystem to further improve the restoration plan as it moves forward (see also Chapter 6). The strength of CERP planners, engineers, scientists, and managers is evident in the CERP progress described in the remainder of this report (particularly the implementation progress in Chapter 3).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This review of the restoration plan and its context 10 years after the CERP was authorized reveals positive as well as negative trends. The South Florida

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×

ecosystem has been fundamentally altered by human modifications of it and by population growth over the past 130 years, and achieving the goals of the ambitious restoration plan remains challenging. The scientific attention that has been brought to bear on the system is impressive and has produced powerful results. Some species, particularly wading birds, Cape Sable seaside sparrows, and panthers appear to be increasing or stable, while others, such as the snail kite, have declined perilously close to extinction. Invasive species continue to present major challenges, even as some of them are being well controlled. Managing water quality and providing the required storage for the restoration continue to be challenging.

This committee reaffirms its predecessor’s conclusions (NRC, 2008) that the limited progress made to date, coupled with environmental and societal changes and continued declines of some aspects of the ecosystem, make accelerated progress in Everglades restoration even more important. Delays will continue to jeopardize the success of the restoration enterprise. The commitment to long-term scientific activities, including monitoring and assessment, remains essential. The following chapters address these matters in more detail.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"2 The Restoration Plan in Context." National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12988.
×
Page 61
Next: 3 Implementation Progress »
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review - 2010 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $90.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Although the progress of environmental restoration projects in the Florida Everglades remains slow overall, there have been improvements in the pace of restoration and in the relationship between the federal and state partners during the last two years. However, the importance of several challenges related to water quantity and quality have become clear, highlighting the difficulty in achieving restoration goals for all ecosystem components in all portions of the Everglades.

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades explores these challenges. The book stresses that rigorous scientific analyses of the tradeoffs between water quality and quantity and between the hydrologic requirements of Everglades features and species are needed to inform future prioritization and funding decisions.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!