Progress Toward
Restoring the Everglades

The Ninth Biennial Review—2022

_____

Committee on Independent Scientific Review of
Everglades Restoration Progress

Water Science and Technology Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Army under Cooperative Agreement No. W912EP-15-2-0002 and by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69343-1
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69343-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26706

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Cover Photo: Stormwater Treatment Area 2. The 15,500-acre STA-2 in southwestern Palm Beach County treats water before it is released to Everglades Water Conservation Area 2. SOURCE: South Florida Water Management District. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-ND 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Ninth Biennial Review—2022. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https//doi.org/10.17226/26706.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROGRESS

DENICE H. WARDROP, Chair, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

WILLIAM G. BOGGESS, Oregon State University, Corvallis

CASEY BROWN, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE (NAE), Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd., Chicago, IL

PHILIP M. DIXON, Iowa State University, Ames

CHARLES T. DRISCOLL, JR. (NAE), Syracuse University, NY

K. RAMESH REDDY, University of Florida, Gainesville

DENISE J. REED, University of New Orleans, LA

JAMES E. SAIERS, Yale University, New Haven, CT

ALAN D. STEINMAN, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI

MARTHA A. SUTULA, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa

JEFFREY R. WALTERS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg

Staff

STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Study Director

JONATHAN M. TUCKER, Associate Program Officer

SARAH HAEDRICH (until May 2022), Senior Program Assistant

PADRAIGH HARDIN (starting May 2022), Program Assistant

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

CATHERINE L. KLING (NAS), Chair, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

NEWSHA AJAMI, Stanford University, CA

PEDRO J. ALVAREZ (NAE), Rice University, Houston, TX

JONATHAN D. ARTHUR, American Geosciences Institute, Washington, DC

RUTH L. BERKELMAN (NAM), Emory University, Atlanta, GA

JORDAN R. FISCHBACH, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA

ELLEN GILINSKY, Ellen Gilinsky, LLC, Richmond, VA

ROBERT M. HIRSCH, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

VENKATARAMAN LAKSHMI, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

MARK W. Le CHEVALLIER, Dr. Water Consulting, LLC, Morrison, CO

CAMILLE PANNU, Columbia University, New York, NY

DAVID L. SEDLAK (NAE), University of California, Berkeley

JENNIFER TANK, University of Notre Dame, IN

DAVID L. WEGNER, Jacobs Engineering, Tucson, AZ

Staff

DEBORAH GLICKSON, Director

LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Program Officer

STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Senior Program Officer

M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Financial Business Partner

CHARLES BURGIS, Associate Program Officer

MARGO REGIER, Associate Program Officer

JONATHAN M. TUCKER, Associate Program Officer

EMILY BERMUDEZ, Program Assistant

PADRAIGH HARDIN, Program Assistant

MILES LANSING, Program Assistant

OSHANE ORR, Program Assistant

Reviewer Acknowledgment

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this

report was overseen by George Hornberger (NAE), Vanderbilt University, and Holly Greening, CoastWise Partners. Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments received full consideration. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Acknowledgments

Many individuals assisted the committee and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff in their task to create this report. We would like to express our appreciation to Robert Johnson, DOI; Gina Ralph, USACE; and Nafeeza Hooseinny, SFWMD, who served as agency liaisons to the committee. We would also like to thank the following people who gave presentations, participated in panel discussions, provided public comment to the committee, or served as field trip guides.

Lisa Aley, USACE

Cassondra Armstrong, SFWMD

Andrea Atkinson, NPS

Nick Aumen, USGS

Christian Avila, SFWMD

Ernie Barnett, Florida Land Council

Ken Bradshaw, USACE

Laura Brandt, FWS

Lehar Brion, SFWMD

Joan Browder, NOAA

Kathleen A. Burchett, FWS

Elizabeth Caneja, SFWMD

Marisa Carrozzo, Everglades Coalition

Bahram Charkhian, SFWMD

Phoebe Clark, USACE

Michael Collis, USACE

Drew Coman, USACE

Carlos Coronado, SFWMD

Dan Crawford, USACE

Stephen Davis, Everglades Foundation

Jay Diedzic, University of South Carolina

Michael Duever, SFWMD

Gene Duncan, Miccosukee Tribe

Angie Dunn, USACE

Morgan Elmer, NPS

James Erskine, FWC

Julie Espy, FDEP

Adam Gelber, DOI

Lawrence Glenn, SFWMD

Danette Goss, USACE

Jamie Graulau-Santiago, USACE

Timothy E. Gysan, USACE

Troy Hill, NPS

Nafeeza Hooseinny, SFWMD

Marie Huber, USACE

Robert Johnson, DOI

Robert Kadlec, Wetland Management Services

Fahmida Khatun, NPS/IMC

Jill King, SFWMD

Robert Kirby, USACE

Phyllis Klarmann, SFWMD

Chris Madden, SFWMD

Jessica Mallett, USACE

Carolina Maran, SFWMD

Ramon Martin, FWS

Jenna May, USACE

Brenda Mills, SFWMD

Melodie Naja, NPS

Melissa Nasuti, USACE

Nicole Niemeyer, SFWMD

Raul Novoa, SFWMD

Jayantha Obeysekera, FIU

Patrick O’Brien, USACE CPR CoP

Jose Otero, SFWMD

Mindy Parrott, SFWMD

April Patterson, USACE

Mark Perry, Everglades Coalition

Tracey Piccone, SFWMD

Bob Progulske, FWS/Ecological Services

Mark Rains, Florida’s Chief Science Officer

Gina Ralph, USACE

Jed Redwine, NPS

Jennifer Reynolds, SFWMD

James Riley, USACE

Stephanie Romañach, USGS

Mike Ross, FIU

Savanna Royals, USACE

Dan Scheidt, EPA

Joe Serafy, U Miami

Robert Shuford, SFWMD

Joe Sicbaldi, Florida Power and Light

Fred H. Sklar, SFWMD

Edward Smith, FDEP

Erik Stabenau, NPS

Donatto Surratt, NPS

Lauren Talbert, NOAA

Kim Taplin, USACE

Tiffany Troxler, FIU

Will Veatch, USACE CPR COP

Zulamet Vega-Liriano, USACE

Eva Velez, USACE

Bob Verrastro, SFWMD

Anna Wachnicka, SFWMD

Bill Walker, independent consultant

Leslye Waugh, SFWMD

Joanna Weaver, SFWMD

Walter Wilcox, SFWMD

Lynn G. Wingard, USGS

Capt. Chris Wittman, Captains for Clean Water

This page intentionally left blank.

Preface

There are four remarkable things about the effort that this report describes. First, there are the innumerable and varied visions of the Everglades as an extraordinary ecosystem, from the vastness of a “River of Grass” to the incredible diversity of life that can be found in the smallest pocket of a hummock or beneath the seagrass blades in Florida Bay. There are the practical visions, too—its role in the very health and well-being of those who live near and those who visit from afar, to its powering of an economy and a way of life. Whatever vision we individually and/or collectively hold, we sense when it is at risk of being changed or lost. When many of us sense that loss, we do the second remarkable thing—we come together and willingly wrestle with the difficult question that asks what we are trying to restore and to what end. That leads us to the third remarkable thing, the sheer magnitude of the human endeavor to move large amounts of water, the very basis of life, across this vast and varied landscape that occupies most of the state of Florida, to restore it.

The use of the word “restore” dates back to the 14th century, defined as “a means of healing or restoring health, a cure; renewing of something lost.” The word originated as a term applied to efforts directed to an individual or a single object. Now we find ourselves applying it to renewing a diverse and distinctive ecosystem that stretches from the meandering Kissimmee River and associated floodplain and chain of small lakes to the much larger Lake Okeechobee, and on to sawgrass plains, ridge-and-slough wetlands, tree islands, marl prairies, bays, and estuaries. To restore something lost means something far different in the 21st century than it might have in the 14th century because the context in which we restore—a changing climate, and changing human needs—requires a diverse and unique set of skills, approaches, and philosophies to deal with both the pace of change and its consequences. The enormous passion, commitment, and collective intelligence of the people engaged in this effort to renew and restore

the Everglades is the fourth remarkable thing, and it is an honor and privilege to be given the vantage point to review their efforts.

This document reports on the progress toward restoration of the Everglades natural system. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress, or CISRERP, was formed for this purpose in 2004. This report, which is the ninth in a series of biennial evaluations that are expected to continue for the duration of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), reflects the concerted efforts of 12 committee members and 4 National Academies staff representing a wide range of scientific and engineering expertise. A fifth remarkable thing might be the circumstances under which the entire community of scientists, engineers, and stakeholders of the restoration effort helped the committee navigate the new landscape of remote meetings to provide a comprehensive picture of a work in progress unlike any other.

It has been my privilege to serve on this committee with some of the nation’s leading experts in biological, hydrologic, and geographic sciences; hydrologic and systems engineering; project administration; law; and policy. I greatly appreciate the time, attention, and thought each committee member invested in understanding the complexity of the Everglades ecosystem and the corresponding scope of the CERP. I also appreciate the members’ careful, rigorous analyses; expert judgment; constructive comments and reviews; and the professionalism, collegiality, and good humor with which they conducted their business, most notably over many hours on Zoom.

The committee is indebted to many individuals for their contributions of information and resources. Specifically, we appreciate the efforts of the committee’s technical liaisons—Nafeeza Hooseinny (South Florida Water Management District), Robert Johnson (Department of the Interior), and Gina Ralph (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)—who responded to numerous information requests and helped the committee utilize the vast resources of agency expertise when needed. Many others educated the committee on the complexities of Everglades restoration through their presentations, field trips, and public comments (see Acknowledgments).

The committee had the good fortune to be assisted by dedicated and talented National Academies staff: Stephanie Johnson, Sarah Haedrich, Jonathan Tucker, and Padraigh Hardin. Stephanie Johnson has served as study director for all nine CISRERP panels and is a true Everglades expert. Her encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of the science, engineering, and administrative aspects of the CERP; ability to identify and synthesize the complex interrelationships among these aspects; deft management skills; and contacts were critical to the committee’s success. She is intellectual shepherd, spiritual director, and choral

master, blending voices and modulating rhythms as only she can. We literally can’t thank her enough.

The CERP is a bold, challenging, and complex plan with great potential to provide benefits to the ecosystem and the public, and the progressively larger increments of restoration that have been achieved suggest that that potential can be realized. We offer this report in support of that endeavor.

This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms

Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

The National Academies and Everglades Restoration

Report Organization

2 THE RESTORATION PLAN IN CONTEXT

Background

Restoration Goals for the Everglades

Restoration Activities

Summary

3 RESTORATION PROGRESS

Programmatic Progress

Natural System Restoration Progress

Recommendations and Conclusions

4 STA WATER QUALITY AND CERP PROGRESS

Everglades Water Quality Objectives and Criteria

Implications of STA Discharge Quality on CERP Progress

Overview of STAs

Evaluation of Current Conditions and Strategies of Individual STAs Toward the WQBEL

External and Internal Drivers Regulating STA Performance

Adaptive Management Opportunities

Recommendations and Conclusions

5 RESTORATION IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate Change in South Florida

USACE Approach to Climate Change

Restoration Planning in Coastal Systems: The BBSEER Project

Managing Operations

Program Management

Recommendations and Conclusions

6 SCIENCE PLAN TO SUPPORT RESTORATION OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM

The Need for a Science Plan

Engaging the South Florida Restoration Science Enterprise

Recommendations and Conclusions

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

A The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Everglades Reports

B STA Performance Summary

C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff