South Florida Environmental Report 2015, Volume 1, Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation (original) (raw)
Related papers
South Florida Environmental Report 2014, Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter are presented within four main fields: (1) wildlife ecology, (2) plant ecology, (3) ecosystem ecology, and (4) landscape patterns and ecology. Programs of study are based on the short-term operational needs and long-term restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District, including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, Everglades Forever Act (Section 373.4592, Florida Statutes) mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This chapter summarizes Water Year 2013 (WY2013) (May 1, 2012–April 30, 2013) hydrology in the Everglades Protection Area (EPA), followed by an overview of key Everglades studies on wildlife, plants, the ecosystem, and landscapes (Table 6-1).
South Florida Environmental Report, 2011, Chapter 6: Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter of the 2011 South Florida Environmental Report (SFER) – Volume I are presented within five conceptual groupings: (1) hydrologic and climate trends, (2) wildlife ecology, (3) plant ecology, (4) ecosystem ecology, and (5) landscape processes. Programs of study were based on the short-term operational needs and long-term restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District), including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, the Everglades Forever Act [Section 373.4592, 11 Florida Statutes (F.S.)] mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). An overview of projects and results, along with related mandates, is presented in Table 6-1.
South Florida Environmental Report, 2008, Chapter 6: Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area
2008
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter of the 2008 South Florida Environmental Report -Volume I are presented within four main fields: (1) wildlife ecology, (2) plant ecology, (3) ecosystem ecology, and (4) landscape ecology. Programs of study were based on the shortterm operational needs and long-term Everglades restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, Everglades Forever Act mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Table 6-1 summarizes elements of major Everglades research findings during Water Two new large-scale experimental manipulations of the cattail impacted area of WCA-2A were introduced in calendar year 2006
South Florida Environmental Report, 2013, Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter of the 2013 South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I are presented within five main fields: (1) hydrology (2) wildlife ecology, (3) plant ecology, (4) ecosystem ecology, and (5) landscape. Programs of study were based on the short-term operational needs and long-term restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District (District or SFWMD), including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, the Everglades Forever Act (Section 373.4592, Florida Statutes) mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). In this year's SFER, Florida Bay science is covered in this Everglades chapter (instead of the coastal ecosystems chapter) to develop a more regional understanding of upstream impacts on Florida Bay and facilitate a more watershed overview and synthesis. Key findings of Everglades research and evaluation during Water Year 2012 (WY2012) (May 1, 2011...
South Florida Environmental Report, 2009, Chapter 6: Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter are presented within four main fields: (1) wildlife ecology, (2) plant ecology, (3) ecosystem ecology, and (4) landscape. Programs of study were based on the short-term operational needs and long-term restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, the Everglades Forever Act (EFA) [Section 373.4592, Florida Statutes (F.S.)] mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Table 6-1 summarizes elements of the major Everglades research findings during Water Year 2008 (WY2008) (May 1, 2007-April 30, 2008) and highlights these findings in relation to the statutory mandates that drive the research and the WY2008 hydrologic pattern. The hydrologic pattern is immediate and foremost an influence on the restoration of the Everglades wading bird populations, but is also critical to long-term ecological trends. This year, the amount of rainfall received was average, but the pattern of rainfall was far from normal. The onset of the wet season was delayed, water levels were low during the wet season, and the dry season was abnormally wet. As a result of these rainfall deviations, and in combination with WY2007's pattern, only an estimated 18,418 wading bird nests were initiated in WY2008. This was a 51 percent decline from WY2007 and a 74 percent decline from WY2002's banner nesting achievements. At the Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment facility (LILA), where the hydrologic patterns were controlled to study the habitat selection process of wading birds, foraging was most active at sites with no or moderate levels of slough vegetation. In these LILA experiments, birds avoided deep sloughs with no emergent vegetation, and foraging success was mostly a function of prey densities. In addition to wading birds, a study of exotic fish was conducted at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Florida Integrated Science Center, LILA, and Everglades National Park. Two trophic disrupters, jewelfish (Hemichromis letourneuxi) and Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus), of the Everglades food web were found to have a minimum water temperature tolerance of only 10ºC. Thus, marsh specimens of these two exotic fish species were found to die when exposed to natural cold fronts, but canal specimens did not.
South Florida Environmental Report, 2010, Chapter 6: Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area
2010
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter of the 2010 South Florida Environmental Report (SFER)-Volume I are presented within four main fields: (1) wildlife ecology, (2) plant ecology, (3) ecosystem ecology, and (4) landscape processes. Programs of study were based on the short-term operational needs and long-term restoration goals of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District), including large-scale and regional hydrologic needs in relation to regulation schedules, permitting, the Everglades Forever Act [Section 373.4592, Florida Statutes (F.S.)] mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Table 6-1 summarizes elements of the major Everglades research findings during Water Year 2009 (WY2009) (May 1, 2008-April 30, 2009) and highlights these findings in relation to the WY2009 hydrologic pattern and statutory mandates that drive the research. The hydrologic pattern is immediate and foremost an influence on the restoration of Everglades wading bird populations, but is also critical to long-term ecological trends. In WY2009, the amount of rainfall received was below average, while the pattern of rainfall was close to normal. Water levels rose during the wet season as they have for the last 15 years and October peaks produced water depths ranging from a low of 1.5 feet (ft) in Northeast Shark River Slough to a high of 3.0 ft in the southern region of Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A). Rainfall almost ceased between November and May, but high water levels buffered the system from complete drydown in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs). Dry season recession rates were optimum for wading bird foraging. There were no reversals anywhere in the system until May 2009 (WY2010), which became the second wettest May in the history of the SFWMD. WILDLIFE As a result of the WY2009 recession rates and the previous two years of drought, the 2009 wading bird nesting season was outstanding. The estimated number of wading bird nests in South Florida in 2009 was approximately 80,000. This is the largest nesting effort recorded in the region since the 1940s and represents (1) a 335 percent increase relative to last year's breeding season, (2) a 90 percent increase over the average of the last 10 seasons, and (3) surpasses the previous record year, 2002, by approximately 11,000 nests. The white ibis (Eudocimus albus) and the federally endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) (which has generally exhibited very low nesting effort over the past decade), both produced numbers of nests that have not been observed
Chapter 6: Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area
2006
The studies and findings discussed in this chapter of the 2006 South Florida Environmental Report -Volume I are presented within four main fields: (1) wildlife ecology, (2) plant ecology, (3) ecosystem ecology, and (4) landscape ecology. Programs of study were based on the short-term and long-term needs of the South Florida Water Management District (District or SFWMD) including operations, regulations, permitting, environmental monitoring, Everglades Forever Act mandates, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
1994
The South Florida Ecosystem encompasses an area of approximately 28,000 km 2 comprising at least 11 major physiographic provinces, including the Kissimmee River Valley, Lake Okeechobee, the Immokalee Rise, the Big Cypress, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, Biscayne Bay, the Florida Keys, the Florida Reef Tract, and nearshore coastal waters. South Florida is a heterogeneous system of wetlands, uplands, coastal areas, and marine areas, dominated by the watersheds of the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades. Prior to drainage, wetlands dominated the ecosystem, covering most of central and southern Florida. The landscapes included swamp forests; sawgrass plains; mosaics of sawgrass, tree islands, and ponds; marl-forming prairies dominated by periphyton; wet prairies dominated by Eleocharis and Nymphaea; freshwater marshes; saltwater marshes; cypress strands; and a vast lake-river system draining into Lake Okeechobee. Elevated areas that did not flood supported pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, scrub, tropical hardwood hammocks, and xeric hammocks dominated by oaks. The natural seascapes of South Florida consisted of riverine and fringe mangrove forests; beaches and dunes; seagrass beds; intertidal flats; mud banks; hardbottom communities; coral reefs; and open, inshore shallows. All these habitats were interconnected on an extremely low topographic gradient (2.8 cmlkm) with elevations ranging from about 6 m at Lake Okeechobee to below sea level at Florida Bay. The large numbers of diverse biota that these habitats once supported were maintained by the complex annual and long-term hydrologic patterns of the-natural system, as expressed in wet-dry cycles, drying and flooding rates, surface water and water depth patterns, annual hydroperiods, flow volumes, and, at the coast, salinity and mixing patterns. Superimposed over the periodic changes were sporadic events such as storms, fires, and freezes, which helped to establish and maintain habitat heterogeneity. Productivity of the predrainage wetlands of South Florida was dependent on: 6 BACKGROUND Water is life for South Florida's human and natural systems. Clean, abundant water was a fundamental characteristic of the original South Florida System. The increased human population and human activity in South Florida have brought with them not only an increased need for water but also deterioration in water quality and a decrease in water supply. The latter was caused by the loss of dynamic, or short-term, water storage capacity that Flexible and sustained resources are essential to an effective, comprehensive restoration effort. The various involved agencies have unique and complex funding strategies. There is no specific South FlOrida Ecosystem Restoration funding source. Thus, there are critical activities needed at early stages in the restoration process that are being neglected for lack of directed resources. Many who live in South Florida do not realize the benefits they receive continuously from a functioning natural ecosystem and what ecosystem collapse would mean to them. Both tangible and intangible connections between natural and human systems need to be quantified and widely communicated while reinstatement of a sustainable system is still possible. Some obvious examples are the decline of Florida Bay fisheries, the elevated mercury concentrations in fish and alligators in the Everglades, and the drinking water quality problems in South Florida water treatment plants. Issues of agency authority are at times a barrier to focusing efforts at problem sources. Control of harmful non-indigenous plant species is an arena where there are jurisdictional gaps. The many aggressive upland species invading publicly owned natural areas are not included in major control and research initiatives, which appear confined primarily to control of aquatic weeds, Melaleuca, and agricultural pests. Soil subsidence is another arena where there may be jurisdictional gaps. Decision makers and the general public appear not to understand the potential consequences of developing in wetlands. A scientifically based analysis is needed to demonstrate alternative futures under various land and water configurations. Information exchange is a problem, because there is so much information in the hands of myriad sources, including local governments. Potential opportunities need to be explored for configurations of land and water that lead to ecosystem restoration and enhanced quality of life and economic sustainability in human communities. Use of models as technical tools in the restoration effort requires buy-in by all the parties. An objective process is needed for evaluating existing models within the context they are being used and ensuring that necessary improvements are made, while at the same time protecting useful models against possibly one. sided attacks on their credibility. The fact that useful, credible models are available should not preclude the development of new models that can address problems of resolution, scope, and flexibility. Certain key species or communities that might be suitable ecological indicators because of their important roles in the ecosystem or their sensitivity to anthropogenic changes are so poorly studied that they Cannot be used as indicators. Furthermore, lack of knowledge about the response of these species or communities to hydrologic variables may seriously handicap the restoration effort. Critical linkages between subregions are not being adequately addressed within agencies. For instance, Florida Bay is perceived as being in a crisis state, demanding immediate attention, and alteration in freshwater flow is thought to be a major contributor to the decline in this system. Yet the models and supporting measurements and special studies to estimate freshwater inflow to Florida Bay are not being given high priority relative to other issues.
Environmental Management, 2015
Florida's Everglades stretch from the headwaters of the Kissimmee River near Orlando to Florida Bay. Under natural conditions in this flat landscape, water flowed slowly downstream as broad, shallow sheet flow. The ecosystem is markedly different now, altered by nutrient pollution and construction of canals, levees, and water control structures designed for flood control and water supply. These alterations have resulted in a 50 % reduction of the ecosystem's spatial extent and significant changes in ecological function in the remaining portion. One of the world's largest restoration programs is underway to restore some of the historic hydrologic and ecological functions of the Everglades, via a multi-billion dollar Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This plan, finalized in 2000, did not explicitly consider climate change effects, yet today we realize that sea level rise and future changes in rainfall (RF), temperature, and evapotranspiration (ET) may have system-wide impacts. This series of papers describes results of a workshop where a regional hydrologic model was used to simulate the hydrology expected in 2060 with climate changes including increased temperature, ET, and sea level, and either an increase or decrease in RF. Ecologists with expertise in various areas of the ecosystem evaluated the hydrologic outputs, drew conclusions about potential ecosystem responses, and identified research needs where projections of response had high uncertainty. Resource managers participated in the workshop, and they present lessons learned regarding how the new information might be used to guide Everglades restoration in the context of climate change.
Chapter 6: Hydrologic Needs - Effects of Hydrology on the Everglades Protection Area (EPA)
2002
SUMMARY This chapter discusses the multidisciplinary approaches currently in place to manage the hydrologic patterns of the Everglades Protection Area (EPA). The primary focus of this chapter is on the hydrologic trends and ecological assessments in the EPA in relation to the 2001 drought. Much attention has been given to the lowest-recorded Lake Okeechobee water levels in Florida history. Low