Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades

Home , Everglades

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades The Third Biennial Review, 2010 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 over the last two years. However, the importance of several challenges related to water quantity and quality have become clear, highlighting the difﬁ culty in achieving restoration goals for all ecosystem components in all portions of the Everglades. Rigorous scientiﬁ c 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.

haped by the slow As part of fl ow of water Congress’s mandate Sfrom Lake in the Water Resources Okeechobee to Florida Development Act of Bay, the Everglades was 2000, and with support once a large and diverse from the U.S. Army aquatic ecosystem with Corps of Engineers, millions of acres of the Department of the wetlands, sawgrass Interior, and the state plains, ridges, sloughs, of Florida, the National and tree islands that Research Council provided sanctuary to convened a committee a rich array of plant and Figure 1. Canals and levees have radically altered the fl ow of water in the Everglades, and to conduct a series animal life. However, development has reduced the area of the of biennial evaluations over the past century, ecosystem by half. Source: David Policansky, NRC of progress toward the construction of an achieving the natural extensive network of system restoration canals and levees for fl ood control, water supply, goals of the Restoration Plan. The last review of agriculture, and urban development has dramati- the restoration, in 2008, found that only scant cally altered the region’s landscapes and progress towards restoration goals had been diminished natural resources, reducing the area made, and that the project was mired in of the Everglades by roughly 50 percent. The budgeting, planning, and procedural matters. remnants of the Everglades now compete for In this third biennial review, the committee vital water with urban and agricultural interests reaffi rms its predecessor’s conclusions that and are impaired by contaminated runoff from continued declines of some aspects of the these two activities. ecosystem make accelerated progress in the Concerns about declines in the environ- Everglades even more important. mental quality of the Everglades led to the initiation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Progress Restoration Plan (hereafter the Restoration Plan) The Restoration Plan has made tangible in 2000. The goal of this multi-decadal effort is progress over the last two years. Federal funding to reestablish the hydrologic characteristics of has increased, which has allowed continued the Everglades with a water system that simulta- progress as state funding has declined. Four neously meets the needs of both the natural and Restoration Plan projects are now under human systems of South Florida. construction, and pilot projects are addressing Figure 2. Water fl ow in the Kissimmee Valley Everglades under (a) historical conditions, (b) current

Everglades conditions, and

Big (c) conditions Cypress envisioned upon completion of the Restoration Plan.

Source: South Florida Water Management District Pre-Drainage FlowCurrent Flow Restored Flow important design uncertainties. Also, several proj- before fl owing slowly south. Over the last century, ects that serve as foundations to the Restoration Plan water management projects have cut off the connec- are under construction, notably a 1-mile Tamiami tion between Lake Okeechobee and the areas to the Trail bridge to improve fl ow under the trail. After south and greatly altered the natural fl ow of water years of delay, it is now critically important to through the system. Urban and agricultural develop- maintain this momentum to minimize further ment and peat subsidence have further diminished degradation of the system. the water storage capacity of the ecosystem. Increasing the amount of water stored in the Challenges to Restoration Progress Everglades is a major near-term priority for the At the heart of Everglades restoration is the Restoration Plan. However, the reduced area and goal of “getting the water right” by re-establishing water storage capacity of the ecosystem mean that the quality, quantity, timing, fl ow, and distribution restoration benefi ts will be distributed unevenly of water to support the biological characteristics across the Everglades landscape. Hydrologic condi- that defi ned the Florida Everglades before the tions may even worsen in some areas in order to construction of canals and levees. These defi ning achieve the desired outcomes in other areas. characteristics include interconnected wetlands, Nearly all Everglades restoration projects carry extremely low concentrations of nutrients in the tradeoffs. Understanding the tradeoffs from a whole water, productive estuaries, resilient plant life, and ecosystem perspective is critical to decision-making. thriving populations of native wildlife. Improved models and decision tools are needed to In practice, “getting the water right” means help policy makers weigh the effects of restoration re-engineering the canals and levees of Central projects on multiple ecosystem components, such as and South Florida to more closely mimic historic habitat conditions, species, and critical ecosystem freshwater fl ows in the South Florida ecosystem. processes and features such as tree islands, and this Restoration at this large scale involves many information should be clearly communicated to uncertainties, constraints, and tradeoffs, such as planners and stakeholders. restoring hydrologic conditions with suffi cient Challenges in Restoring Water Quality water fl ow while meeting water-quality goals. Improving water quantity and fl ow in the Improving Water Flow Throughout the Everglades Everglades is closely linked to the challenge of The construction of canals and levees to drain restoring water quality. Restoration planners cannot the Florida Everglades radically altered the way that design projects to move large quantities of water water fl ows through the region (see Figure 1 for an into the Everglades without fi rst ensuring that the example). Historically, the primary sources of water water will meet established water quality criteria. in the Everglades were rainfall and occasional Meanwhile, getting the water quality right has overfl ows of Lake Okeechobee. Surface water spread proven to be more diffi cult than originally imag- out and soaked into the peat covered landscape, ined. Historically, the nutrient content of the water in the Everglades ecosystem was low, but agricul- controls (also called best management practices). tural operations and runoff have increased the These practices include sediment and erosion amount of phosphorus that enters the Everglades. control measures and improved irrigation As a result, attaining water quality goals and has management. become a central technical, legal, and policy challenge that is affecting Restoration Plan prog- Balancing Two Goals ress. Improving water quality throughout the Given that the restoration originally envisioned ecosystem is likely to be very costly and take by the Restoration Plan remains decades away, several decades of commitment to system-wide rigorous scientifi c analyses are needed to examine integrated planning and design efforts that simulta- the consequences of tradeoffs between water quality neously address nutrient source controls, storage, and quantity in the Everglades ecosystem. These and treatment over a range of time scales. tradeoffs can be produced deliberately or as unin- Stormwater treatment areas— constructed tended consequences of project sequencing. wetlands that remove nutrients and other contami- Although the committee is not endorsing any nants from the water— are the primary means of particular tradeoffs, research is needed to understand treating water entering the Everglades. However, the repercussions of water management decisions in the current acreage of stormwater treatment areas is order to inform future water management strategies, not suffi cient to treat existing water fl ows and such as the prioritization of projects. Understanding phosphorus loads into the ecosystem. With the and communicating these challenges will be critical increased water fl ows envisioned as part of the to maintaining political and public support for the Restoration Plan, it’s been estimated that an addi- Restoration Plan – support that is essential to sustain tional 54,000 acres of stormwater treatment area this lengthy and costly process. In particular, anal- would be needed. Construction alone would cost ysis is needed to answer the following questions: approximately $1.1 billion, and an additional • What are the short- and $27 million per year would long-term consequences of be required to operate the providing reduced water treatment areas. A further quantities but maintaining $1.1 billion could also be suffi cient water quality? needed to refurbish the • What are the short- and treatment areas every 20 to long-term consequences of 25 years. providing reduced water Other options include quality to the ecosystem but increasing pollution control maintaining suffi cient fl ows? practices on agricultural lands to reduce the amount • Are the negative consequences of land needed for storm- reversible, and if so, on what water treatment areas, but time frames? such actions might also Science and Adaptive compromise the revenue of Management agricultural operations. A Linking science to management comprehensive cost effec- decisions is critically important to tiveness analysis should be achieve restoration goals, but the conducted to inform decision effectiveness of current mecha- making and optimize resto- nisms has come under question by ration outcomes given fi scal some in the restoration community. constraints. Research and analysis The committee encourages is needed to address the Restoration Plan leadership to sustainability and examine this issue and consider performance of the mechanisms to improve the Figure 3. Major components of the stormwater treatment areas communication of relevant scien- Restoration Project. tifi c fi ndings to decision makers. and to improve the effi cacy Source: Courtesy of Laura Mahoney, USACE of phosphorus source Box 1. Advances in Science to Support Decision Making: The Importance of Flow to the Ridge and Slough The physical surface of the Everglades is a mosaic of sawgrass ridges separated by deeper water sloughs, together known as ridge and slough topography. Tear-drop shaped tree islands are roughly aligned with the ridges and sloughs, and are scattered throughout the landscape. Only in the last few years have researchers begun to generate a clear understanding of how the distinctive FPO Everglades landscape formed and is maintained. This research has fundamentally changed the conceptualiza- tion of the Everglades system from a set of separate plant Figure 4. Ridge and slough landscape in its communities to an interlinked peat-based system in pre-drainage condition. Note sharp, distinct which fl ow, the very low nutrient content of surface edges on most sawgrass ridges, and the open water, and the interaction of different plant communities water of sloughs. Photograph taken by explorer shaped the characteristic forms of the landscape. As John King in March 1917. restoration planners now consider the potential benefi ts and costs of different designs for increasing water fl ows to the south, this is an illustration of the application of scientifi c understanding to inform restoration goals and management decisions.

Read or purchase this report and locate information on related reports at http://dels.nas.edu/wtsb

Committee on Independent Scientiﬁ c Review of Everglades Restoration Progress: Frank W. Davis (Chair), University of California, Santa Barbara; Steven R. Beissinger, University of California, Berkeley; William G. Boggess, Oregon State University; Charles T. Driscoll, Syracuse University; Joan G. Ehrenfeld, Rutgers University; William L. Graf, University of South Carolina; Wendy D. Graham, University of Florida, Gainesville; Chris T. Hendrickson, Carnegie Mellon University; William P. Horn, Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Cherot, Washington, D.C.; David H. Moreau, University of North Carolina; K. Ramesh Reddy, University of Florida, Gainesville; R. Wayne Skaggs, North Carolina State University; Robert R. Twilley, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; Stephanie E. Johnson (Study Director), David J. Policansky (Scholar), Michael J. Stoever (Research Associate), National Research Council.

The National Academies appointed the above committee of experts to address the speciﬁ c task requested by Congress. The members volunteered their time for this activity; their report is peer-reviewed and the ﬁ nal product signed off by both the committee members and the National Academies. This report brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the committee’s report.

For more information, contact the Water Science and Technology Board at (202) 334-3422 or visit http://dels.nas.edu/wstb. Copies of Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third Biennial Review, 2010 are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; (800) 624-6242; www.nap.edu.

Permission granted to reproduce this brief in its entirety with no additions or alterations. Permission for images/ﬁ gures must be obtained from their original source.