Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council

www.national-academies.org.

This report is a product of the Panel to Review the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative—a panel organized by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to congressional concerns that the restoration of the greater Everglades ecosystem be supported by the best possible science. The Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) has been the primary investment by the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide scientific information to advise restoration decision-making and to guide its own land management responsibilities for South Florida ecosystem restoration. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the CESI program investments represent only a small fraction of total South Florida restoration science funding. Even in the years of greatest CESI funding (fiscal years 1998–1999), the program represented just 17 percent of federal and state investments in restoration-related science and monitoring, according to the interagency cross cut budgets (SFERTF, 2002). This study focused on the science components of the CESI program and did not attempt to provide a comprehensive evaluation of all restoration science. Nevertheless, the review was undertaken in the context of the range of ongoing science efforts of the various entities involved in the South Florida restoration program. See the Executive Summary or Chapter 1 for the study's Statement of Task.

To accomplish its review of the CESI program, the panel chose to distinguish between the products of CESI science (knowledge or data generated by CESI-funded research) and the approach used by the CESI to meet the needs of restoration decision-makers, and we focused primarily on the broader of these. The panel did not systematically evaluate the methods or results of individual CESI-funded projects, as this level of detailed analysis was beyond the scope of the panel 's charge and the time available. Instead, we concentrated on the processes used by the CESI program to support restoration, such as priority-setting, identifying science gaps, and communicating research results. Examples of CESI-funded research, however, and their contributions to the restoration efforts were examined through several case studies. The fascinating nature of the scientific issues associated with the design of the greater Everglades restoration plan made it a challenge for the panel to stick to its charge and not delve into the topic of the

restoration itself. A separate National Research Council committee —the Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem or the CRO-GEE—is charged with providing overviews and technical assessments to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force concerning Everglades restoration activities. The panel is grateful to the CROGEE for assisting with the formation of our panel and in providing guidance to our panel. It is noted that CESI panelist, Stephen Humphrey, and I are both CROGEE members.

The findings of the panel are based on discussions with Everglades scientists, managers, and engineers who freely shared their insights into the complex issues surrounding restoration of the greater Everglades ecosystem during three information-gathering meetings. This report is also based on analysis of documents supplied by the CESI program managers, and the report is supplemented by review of pertinent peer-reviewed literature. The CESI panel is grateful to the many individuals who provided assistance in the completion of this study (See Acknowledgements). A special note of thanks is owed to Robert Johnson and William Perry of Everglades National Park. They contributed great time and effort for our meetings and fieldtrips, and they showed remarkable patience with our endless queries. They were forthright with information and provided candid comments on the CESI program, while emphasizing the important products and results. Their input, especially to those not intimately familiar with South Florida restoration, was critical to the development of this report.

The greater Everglades restoration is unprecedented in its scope and complexity, and the challenges faced by restoration scientists will require innovative solutions and long-term commitments. Our panel was struck by the sincere dedication toward restoring the greater Everglades ecosystem by all of the scientists, engineers, and planners who met with us. Their commitment to making the restoration a reality is the common thread among them that has kept the restoration process moving ahead. That same dedication will be required to see the restoration through the next 40 years of planning, design, and construction.

Leading this study was a gratifying experience for me, and I wish to thank the panel members for their enthusiastic participation in this study and their lively debate on many issues relevant to the report. These individuals provided a diverse expertise and a wealth of experience in the many disciplines and topics relevant to this study. Each of them brought a creative and fresh perspective to the study, and each participated in the crafting of the conclusions and recommendations and in the drafting of the report. We were ably supported and guided in our work by the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) and the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Several WSTB staff members played important roles. WSTB director Stephen Parker got us on our way and continued to offer guidance throughout the study. WSTB senior staff officer Will Logan's experience and insight into the greater Everglades ecosystem restoration activities helped to provide clarity to the report. Stephanie Johnson, the study director, helped develop and organize the information-gathering meetings, maintained liaison contacts with DOI and other scientists, and assured compliance with NRC policies. We particularly wish to recognize her extensive editorial efforts and intellectual contributions to this report. Jon Sanders, the project assistant, handled meeting logistics, research, and editorial tasks for the panel. Finally, we

appreciate the work of Rhonda Bitterli, who copy-edited our report prior to publication.

The report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with the procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure the report meets institutional standards for 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 wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Cairns, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Robert Goldstein, Electric Power Research Institute; Lance Gunderson, Emory University; Thomas MacVicar, MacVicar, Federico and Lamb, Inc.; Robert Perciasepe, Audubon; and Rutherford Platt; University of Massachusetts.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by David Moreau, University of North Carolina, and Frank Stillinger, Princeton University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carefully carried out in accordance with the institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.

Linda K.Blum, Chair

Panel to Review the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative

Many individuals assisted the committee and the National Research Council staff in their task to create this report. We would like to express our appreciation to the following people who have provided presentations to the panel, assisted with information gathering for the report preparation, and served as guides during the field trips:

Presentations:

Tom Armentano (NPS)

Nick Aumen (NPS)

John Benjamin (NPS)

Ronnie Best (USGS)

Laura Brandt (FWS)

Bradford Brown (NOAA)

David Buker (NPS)

James Burch (Big Cypress National Park)

Kevin Burger (SFERTF)

Linda Canzanelli (NPS)

Dan Childers (Florida International University and FCE-LTER)

Michael Choate (USACE)

Don DeAngelis (USGS)

Dennis Duke (USACE)

Dennis Fenn (USGS)

Carl Goodwin (USGS)

Thomas Grahl (FWS)

Louis Gross (University of Tennessee)

Richard Harvey (EPA)

John Hunt (Florida Marine Research Institute)

Susan Iott (GAO)

Donald Jodrey (DOI)

Robert Johnson (NPS)

Elmar Kurzbach (USACE)

Robert Lamb (DOI)

Analee Mayes (Consensus Builders, Inc.)

Mark Musaus (FWS)

John Ogden (SFWMD)

William Perry (NPS)

Stuart Pimm (Columbia University)

Mary Ann Poole (FWS)

Terrance “Rock” Salt (SFERTF)

Ray Schaffranek (USGS)

Patricia Strayer (SFWMD)

Mike Soukup (NPS)

James Tate (DOI)

Thomas Van Lent (NPS)

Deborah Weatherly (US House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Staff Director)

Dewey Worth (SFWMD)

Contributors:

Martin Gonzales (USAGE)

David Jones (USGS)

Christopher McVoy (SFWMD)

Jayantha Obeysekera (SFWMD)

Winifred Park (SFWMD)

Fred Sklar (SFWMD)

Kimberly Taplin (USAGE)

Field trip guides:

William Perry (NPS)

Robert Johnson (NPS)

Tom Armentano (NPS)

Elizabeth Crisfield (NPS)

Sherry Mitchell (NPS)

Susan Perry (NPS)