Restoring a River of Grass: Everglades policy 

recommendations for a climate change alternative 

by 

Jennifer Anne Krajewski 

Dr. Jeffrey R. Vincent, Advisor 

May 2008 

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in 

the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences of 

Duke University 

2008 
ABSTRACT

One of the largest and most extensive wetland systems in the United States is contained 

within the Florida Everglades National Park. Like most of the world’s wetlands it has 

been reduced to half of its size and heavily altered by human pressures. The Everglades 

were heavily drained during the first half of the 1800’s for agriculture and development. 

Further changes occurred after Congress authorized the Central and South Florida Project 

in 1948. The goal of this project was to provide water and flood protection to the citizens 

of south Florida however the project has had severe unintended negative impacts on the 

Everglades’ environment. 

Historically, the watershed of the Everglades began with the Kissimmee River, which 

flows into Lake Okeechobee. The water would then naturally overflow the lake’s 

southern edge into the northern Everglades, which in the past was a vast sawgrass plain. 

From here the water would flow south through a ridge and slough landscape, past 

mangroves, and finally into the Gulf of Mexico. Regrettably, the network of canals, 

levees, and roads created by the Central and South Florida Project greatly altered the 

water regime, starved the Everglades of its natural water flow, and compartmentalized the 

landscape. In an effort to reverse the impacts of earlier projects and to restore the natural 

hydropattern, Congress authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

(CERP) in 2000. However, future potential climate change impacts were not taken into 

consideration during the CERP planning process. 

The Everglades are extremely vulnerable to global climate change including: rising sea 

levels and sea surface temperatures, increased erosion, hurricane intensity and duration, 

saltwater intrusion and changes in precipitation. Therefore, it is important to consider 

Everglades’ restoration plans in light of global climate change. None of the restoration 

alternatives evaluated by CERP would be successful as a climate change alternative 

because global climate change predictions were not considered during the modeling and 

evaluation process. Failure to include future potential changes undermines any plan’s 

ability to restore the Everglades. 

This project investigates the potential climate change impacts for the Everglades National 

Park and provides policy recommendations regarding the inclusion of climate change 

predictions in the planning and implementation process. The three recommendations 

proposed include: the incorporation of current climate change predictions in the 

hydrologic and ecologic computer-based models, the monitoring and mapping of salinity 

levels within the Everglades National Park, and the use of the coastal vulnerability index 

to assess the vulnerability of the coastline of south Florida to future changes in sea level 

rise. The application of these recommendations will ensure the use of more appropriate 

models and techniques that will be better able to predict the success of planned 

restoration efforts. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: A River of Grass 

1.1. Introduction 1

 History of the Everglades 1

1.2. Problem Definition 3

 Explanation of Hydrology and Geologic History 3

 Impacts of Historical Draining and the C&SF Project 5

 Role of Freshwater Inflow 7

 Policy Problem Definition 10

1.3. Stakeholders and the Process 11

1.4. Alternatives 13

 Status Quo 14

 Alternatives 1-6 15

 Alternatives A-D 16

 

1.5. Alternative D13R: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 18

1.6. Choosing the Final Alternative 19

Part II: Global Climate Change and South Florida 23

2.1. Predictions and Impacts of Global Climate Change 23

2.2. A Climate Change Alternative 27

 

Part III: Policy Recommendations 28

3.1. Methods 28

3.2. Criteria 30

3.3. Explanation of Recommendations 31

3.4. Policy Memorandums 

 Policy Memorandum: House Appropriations Committee 34 

 Policy Memorandum: USACE and SFWMD 36

3.5. Conclusions 38

Literature Cited 39

Appendix 44
PART I: A River of Grass 

1.1 Introduction

Seen by early settlers as bleak, unpleasant areas only suitable for drainage, 

wetlands are now recognized as some of the most productive and species diverse habitats 

in the world. Humans depend on wetlands for spiritual, cultural, and economic wellbeing. These unique ecosystems help store and filter pollutants, recharge ground water 

supplies, buffer coasts from storms, and provide flood and drought protection. Wetlands 

offer habitat and nursery grounds for many commercial and recreational fish species as 

well as wintering grounds for migrating birds. 

Mangroves, marshes (salt, brackish, and fresh), swamps, bogs, wet prairies, 

prairie potholes, and vernal pools are all different types of wetlands found in the United 

States. Unfortunately, half of the wetlands in the lower 48 states have been lost since 

colonial times due to pollution, drainage for mosquito control and agriculture, and filling 

for development (USGS, 2007). Humans have also reduced the amount of water flowing 

into wetland systems by damming rivers and diverting water for agriculture. Louisiana, 

for example, possesses roughly 40 percent of the lower 48 states’ coastal wetlands but it 

is losing 25-35 square miles a year due to erosion and subsidence (USGS, 2007). 

History of the Everglades 

One of the largest and most extensive wetland systems in the United States is 

contained within the Florida Everglades National Park. The Park includes roughly 

1,398,893 acres of land and is recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, a World 

Heritage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance (NPS, 2007e). Some of the 

wetlands found within the Everglades National Park include: sawgrass prairies, 
 2 

freshwater marl prairies, cypress swamps, coastal marshes, and mangrove stands. 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas described the uniqueness of the Everglades in her book, The 

Everglades: River of Grass, as: “There are no other Everglades in the world...The 

miracle of light pours over the green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, 

shining and slow moving below, the grass and water that is the meaning and the central 

fact of the Everglades of Florida. It is a river of grass.” 

Like many other wetlands, the Everglades was once seen as a worthless swamp 

that could be reclaimed by draining and thus, half of south Florida’s original wetland 

areas were drained and destroyed for agriculture and development. Draining began 

during the first half of the 1800’s and rapidly intensified from 1905 to 1910 (NPS, 

2007c). The new abundance of agricultural land as well as the construction of railroads 

enticed visitors and prospective residents to Florida. Developers continued to build 

drainage canals and roads, destroying vast amounts of native habitat (NPS, 2007c). 

In the late 1920’s the degradation of the Everglades became apparent to a local 

architect, Ernest Coe. Mr. Coe formed the Tropical Everglades Park Association and 

lobbied Congress to consider designating the Everglades as a national park. The Tropical 

Everglades Park Association was successful and in 1934 the Everglades National Park 

Project was authorized by Congress (NPS, 2007b). The state of Florida was then left to 

the task of acquiring land through public and private donations and purchases (Florida 

International University Libraries, 2007). It was not until 1947 when the Everglades 

National Park officially opened to the public (NPS, 2007b). 

Unfortunately the Everglades’ problems did not end when the park was 

designated. In order to protect the park’s surrounding communities from floods and 
 3 

drought Congress authorized the Central and South Florida Project in 1948 (NPS, 2007c). 

The goal of the project was “to provide water and flood protection for urban and 

agricultural lands, a water supply for Everglades National Park, the preservation of fish 

and wildlife habitat, facilitate navigation and recreation, and the prevention of salt water 

intrusion” (NPS, 2007c). Run by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida 

Water Management District, the Central and South Florida Project modified the flow of 

water through the Everglades by constructing a network of canals, levees, roads, and 

water-control structures (NPS, 2007c). Regrettably, this system of hard structures greatly 

altered the water regime and starved the Everglades of its natural water flow, altering the 

ecosystem and compartmentalizing the landscape. 

Increasing population pressures and changing land uses still continue to degrade 

the natural system of the Everglades and decrease its water supply. The number of 

wading birds found in the everglades has been reduced by 90% and many species native 

to the everglades, such as the manatee and the Florida panther, are at risk of extinction 

(NPS, 2007c). Other indicators of reduced ecosystem health include: massive reductions 

in seagrass bed area, declining populations of important commercial and recreational fish 

species, invasive species such as the Burmese Python, increased nutrient runoff, and 

mercury contamination. The Everglades wetlands landscape once encompassed over 

10,000 km2

 (Maltby & Dugan, 1994). Now due to agriculture, development, and 

drainage the Everglades National Park contains 5,633 km2

 with only a fraction of the 

original wetland system (Maltby & Dugan, 1994). 

1.2 Problem Definition

Explanation of Hydrology and Geologic History 
 4 

The movement of water through a wetland ecosystem is vital to its structure and 

function. Unlike a river or a stream, the flow of water through a wetland tends to be much 

slower. The typical flow of water through a river of grass or a slough in the Everglades is 

less than one inch per second (SCT, 2003). The flow of water through a wetland is 

important to the overall ecology of the area. Water flow not only transports, mixes, and 

dilutes nutrients and particulate matter but it also can influence the location and type of 

organisms in the system (SCT, 2003). 

During the Everglades geologic history, it has been submerged and exposed 

several times due to changes in sea-level. When the land was submerged by the ocean, 

sediments deposited and when the land was exposed sediments eroded (Robertson, 1959). 

Thus, the limestone beds now seen throughout much of the Everglades were formed 

during the third interglacial sea, 100,000 to 75,000 years ago. Since the limestone and 

above peat deposits are very porous, the Everglades lacks a distinct boundary between its 

surface water and ground water flows (SCT, 2003). The limestone aquifer under the 

everglades is the principal surface water recharge system for all of south Florida (NPS, 

2007c). 

Historically, the watershed of the Everglades began with the Kissimmee River 

which feeds into Lake Okeechobee. From Lake Okeechobee, the water would often 

overflow at its southern edge into the northern Everglades, at that time a vast sawgrass 

plain (SCT, 2003). As the sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis) died each season it added to 

the layer of peat soil, building and maintaining the elevation of the area (Zeiller, 2005). 

The water would then flow south through the ridge and slough landscapes into the Shark 

River Slough, through the mangroves, and finally into the Gulf of Mexico (SCT, 2003) 
 5 

(Figure 1). The shallow marsh covered river from Lake Okeechobee to the sea was 120 

miles long and was called “Pa-hay-o-kee” by the Seminole Indians, which means grassy 

waters (Robertson, 1959). 

The elevation of the landscape, even though it is less than 10 feet above sea level 

in the Everglades, can greatly alter the vegetation and habitat type of a wetland. 

Deposition can cause a mangrove to eventually transform into a buttonwood hammock 

and erosion can reverse the situation (Zeiller, 2005). For example, prior to drainage the 

ridge and slough landscape provided three different habitat types based on elevation and 

water exposure. A slough is a low-elevation area that acts as a water channel and is 

usually filled with water all year round, even during the dry season (NPS, 2007d). Two 

to three feet higher than the relatively open sloughs are sawgrass ridges, which maintain 

elevation through peat accumulation (SCT, 2003). Rising slightly above the sawgrass 

ridges are tree islands which remain relatively dry throughout the year. The ridges, 

sloughs, and tree islands form a distinct pattern with the ridges and tree islands oriented 

parallel to the direction of water flow (Figure 2). There are two distinct sloughs in the 

Everglades National Park, Shark River Slough and its eastern tributary, Taylor Slough. 

Impacts of Historical Draining and the Central and South Florida Project 

 From 1905 to 1928, the Federal Government and the state of Florida made 

aggressive efforts to drain the Everglades. In 1905, Florida created the Everglades 

Drainage District, which was authorized to build canals, establish drainage districts, and 

levy taxes (Florida International University Libraries, 2007). One businessman, Hamilton 

Disston drained over 50,000 acres of wetlands excavated the Kissimmee River so that it 

was navigable, connected the Caloosahatchee River to Lake Okeechobee and began 
 6 

digging a canal from Lake Okeechobee south towards Miami (SCT, 2003). Over the next 

several years, canals were established from Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean 

greatly reducing the amount of water that reached the Everglades. 

 As the population surrounding Lake Okeechobee grew, so did demands for flood 

protection. In 1930, Congress authorized the construction of a levee (67.8 miles long) 

along the south shore of Lake Okeechobee and a second levee (15.7 miles long) along the 

north shore (Florida International University Libraries, 2007). Now all surface water 

flows from the lake are controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South 

Florida Water Management District via dikes, canals, and water control structures 

(USGS, 2007b). Lake Okeechobee has a surface area of 1,750 km2

 or roughly 675 square 

miles making it the second largest freshwater lake in the continental United States (SCT, 

2003). 

 A second structure also blocks the natural flow of water from Lake Okeechobee 

to the Gulf of Mexico, the Tamiami Trail (Figures 3 and 4). Completed in 1928, the 

Tamiami Trail is the southern end of U.S. Route 41 and runs for 273 miles. The road was 

intended to connect the cities of Tampa and Miami (Collier County Museums, 2001). 

Undesirably, the trail has acted as a dam and has created two distinct landscapes to the 

north and south, where once the landscape had been contiguous. 

 The third impediment to the flow of water from Lake Okeechobee to the 

Everglades is the compartmentalization of the ridge and slough landscape that once 

spread south from Lake Okeechobee. Beginning in 1954, a system of levees was 

established to the south of Lake Okeechobee in order to create three Water Conservation 

Areas (WCAs) (SCT, 2003) (Figure 5). Managed as surface water reservoirs, the goals 
 7 

of the WCAs include: to store and convey water to agricultural lands, to convey water to 

the Everglades, to receive and store runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area, to 

prevent flooding on urban and agricultural lands, to receive regulates releases from Lake 

Okeechobee, and to enhance recreation (Light & Dineen, 1994). The creation of Water 

Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3 as well as other Central and South Florida Project (C&SF 

Project) structures have greatly impacted the ridge and slough landscape. Instead of a 

ridge and slough wetland mosaic, the water conservation areas now contain more uniform 

stands of sawgrass (SCT, 2003) (Figure 6). Scientists believe that sawgrass stands, 

compared to the historic ridge and slough ecosystem, support fewer types and numbers of 

organisms (SCT, 2003). 

 Unfortunately, the construction of the levees around Lake Okeechobee, the 

Tamiami Trail, and the Water Conservation Areas have had unintended negative 

environmental impacts. A description of the containment of Lake Okeechobee and the 

resulting effects on the Everglades can be found below. 

“The lake water, which for so many centuries had flowed southward in the 

great arc of the saw-grass river, was now impounded. Only the rains could 

flood the Everglades now. But drainage, some people said around the lake, 

seeing the great sugar developments, the trainloads of winter vegetables, 

was a success at last...The Everglades were dying. The endless acres of 

saw grass, brown as an enormous shadow where rain and lake water has 

once flowed, rustled dry. The birds flew high above them, the ibis, the 

egret, the heron beating steadily southward along drying watercourses to 

the last brackish pools.” – Marjory Stoneman Douglas, The Everglades: 

River of Grass

Role of Freshwater Inflow 

 The Everglades and the Florida Bay (the lagoonal estuary between the Florida 

mainland and the Florida Keys) are not only connected ecologically but also through the 
 8 

flow of freshwater. Before the Everglades were drained and canals were built, freshwater 

flowed across the marl prairies of the Everglades as sheet flow and into the Taylor and 

Shark River Sloughs. Historically, Taylor Slough was the major contributor of fresh 

water to Florida Bay while the Shark River Slough supplied Whitewater Bay (McIvor et 

al., 1994). Changes to the Everglades and the Shark River and Taylor Sloughs have 

greatly reduced the amount of freshwater that reaches the two Bays and as a result has 

altered the salinity profiles of each Bay. 

Evidence of reductions in freshwater inflow can be seen in the fluorescent 

banding of hard corals in the Florida Bay (McIvor et al., 1994). The fluorescent bands 

are highly correlated with freshwater runoff. Scientists believe that the fluorescent bands 

are formed when corals incorporate fluvic acids (found in freshwater runoff) into their 

limestone skeleton (McIvor et al., 1994). Smith et al. conducted a study in 1989 using 

brain coral from the western part of Florida Bay. The study found fluorescence to be 

greatest during earlier years with a persistent decrease after 1932 (McIvor et al., 1994). 

Based on their data set, Smith et al. estimate that the flow of freshwater from the Shark 

River Slough has been reduced by 59% since the management of the Everglades began 

(McIvor et al., 1994). 

 Freshwater flow is important for the biotic community of the Everglades and the 

Florida Bay because it delivers nutrients from upland primary producers and regulates 

salinity. Flora and fauna are thus located in zones based on salinity. For example, 

Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) or marl prairies once covered nearly 2 million acres 

(800,000 ha) of the Everglades (Uchytil, 1992). Today, only 29% of the original 

sawgrass prairie remains; the Everglades National Park currently contains 572, 200 acres 
 9 

(231,500 ha) of sawgrass prairie (NPS, 2006). The reduction in sawgrass prairie is a 

result of the reduced freshwater flow through the Everglades and increased salinity. 

Sawgrass prefers freshwater sites that are shallowly flooded for most parts of the year. 

When water levels increase, sawgrass is replaced by cattails and when water levels 

decrease or the hydroperiod shortens, sawgrass is replaced by dry climate tolerant species 

such as the wax myrtle and the buttonwood (Uchytil, 1992). The replacement of 

sawgrass with the Dominican cattail can be seen near canal inflow gates. In the southern 

portion of the Everglades National Park, sawgrass prairies have been replaced by 

saltmarsh species as brackish waters move further inland as a result of reduced freshwater 

inflows (Uchytil, 1992). 

Different mangrove species can withstand differing soil salinity levels. Red 

mangroves usually do best in soils whose salinities do not exceed 22 parts per thousand 

(ppt) while black and white mangroves prefer soil salinities near 26 ppt and can tolerate 

salinities up to 80-90 ppt (McIvor et al., 1994). The seagrass beds within the Florida Bay 

also depend on freshwater flow. Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), for example, grows 

best in waters that are 20-40 ppt (McIvor et al., 1994). The Manatee (Trichechus 

manatus), is a federal endangered species that is highly dependent on seagrass beds for 

food and habitat. The American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) is another species 

dependent on the freshwater flow through the Everglades. The optimum growth for 

young crocodiles occurs at 9 ppt and their survival is greatly reduced when salinities are 

greater than 18 ppt (McIvor et al., 1994). Crocodile monitoring research suggests that 

crocodile nesting within the Everglades National Park has shifted from the eastern to the 
 10 

western parts of the Park (McIvor et al., 1994). This shift may be a result of increasing 

salinity levels in the northeastern part of the Park due to drought. 

The quality of incoming freshwater is another important issue that must be 

considered when planning to restore a wetland area. The Everglades for example, is 

naturally oligotrophic or nutrient poor (Clarke & Dalrymple, 2003). Most of the nutrients 

contained within the ecosystems of the Everglades are held within the vegetation. 

Unfortunately, runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area contains high levels of 

nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, from the fertilizers used on the crops. 

Evidence of the impact of runoff can be seen with the replacement of sawgrass (Cladium 

jamaicense) with cattail (Typha latifolia, Typha domingensis), a more phosphorus 

tolerant plant species (Clarke & Dalrymple, 2003). 

 The availability and quality of freshwater flow not only determines where each 

habitat type is located but also the quality of those habitats and the abundance of species 

dependent on those habitats. The management of water in the Everglades and 

surrounding area including the creation of the Water Conservation Areas, the diversion of 

water away from the Shark River and Taylor Sloughs, and the construction of canals and 

levees has greatly altered the salinity regime and water quality of the Everglades and 

Florida Bay and thus has made the ecosystem on average more saline and more nutrient 

rich. 

Policy Problem Definition 

The Central and South Florida Project has failed to provide an adequate water 

supply to the Everglades National Park and thus has had unintended environmental 

impacts. The federal government as well at the state of Florida would like to restore the 
 11 

natural water flow system of the Everglades National Park to its pre-drained condition 

through changes in the current hydrology. This must be achieved without disrupting the 

economic and social needs of the South Florida region. In addition, for any alternative to 

be successful it will have to allow for the right amount of water to be delivered to the 

Everglades National Park, the water must get to the places that need it most, be of good 

quality, be delivered at the right time to mimic natural flow patterns, and be distributed to 

the wetland ecosystem as well as urban and agricultural users (CERP, 2008b). 

The alternative that has been chosen to accomplish these goals is the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The aim of the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan is to reverse the impacts of the Central and South Florida Project and to 

restore the natural hydropattern of the Everglades. Hydropattern can be described as the 

height, timing, duration, and distribution of water levels (SCT, 2003). 

1.3 Stakeholders and the Process

 The Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project was first built by the federal 

Army Corps of Engineers and later managed by the South Florida Water Management 

District. The C&SF Project provides water to over six million people and roughly one 

million acres of agricultural lands, prevents salt water intrusion into the fresh 

groundwater supplies, and facilitates navigation (Orth & McLean, 1999). Unfortunately, 

the C&SF Project has altered the natural flow of water to the Everglades and has greatly 

degraded the ecosystem. It has thus become apparent that the health of the Everglades 

ecosystem will continue to deteriorate unless actions are taken to modify the amount of 

water allotted to the Everglades. 
 12 

 In 1992 and 1996, Congress instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to review the 

C&SF Project and to recommend changes to the Project as needed (Orth & McLean, 

1999). Since the C&SF Project affected such a large area and such a large number of 

stakeholders, the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study or Restudy was carried out 

by several federal agencies, local governments, tribal governments, and citizen groups. 

The Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District were 

the two main agencies responsible for the Restudy. Other federal agencies involved in 

the Restudy include: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. 

Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey 

(Orth & McLean, 1999). State agencies involved in the process include: the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida Department of 

Community Affairs, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida 

Department of Transportation, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and 

the Florida Legislature (Orth & McLean, 1999). Other groups include: the City of Fort 

Myers, the City of Homestead, the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South 

Florida, the Miami-Dade County Commission, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida, the National Audubon Society, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, the United States Sugar Corporation, and the 

World Wildlife Fund (Orth & McLean, 1999). 

 The agencies and groups listed above as well as several others formed internal 

teams, external teams, and sub-teams (See Figure 7). The internal team was made up of 
 13 

federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and tribal governments. The external 

team consisted of policymakers, political representatives, and local citizen groups. From 

September 1997 to June 1998 the Restudy team created several alternative plans to 

restore the Everglades ecosystem. The team began with the first alternative, evaluated 

this alternative, collected public comments, and then improved the alternative and 

addressed its faults. The improved alternative then became alternative two. Thus 

alternatives one through six are iterations of the first alternative with additions and 

improvements. The Restudy team then used alternatives 3-6 to create four 

comprehensive plans, alternatives A-D. The Restudy team finally chose alternative 

D13R or the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Since the collaboration was 

successful, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is managed and implemented 

by the local, state, and federal agencies that created it. 

1.4 Alternatives

As mentioned previously, Congress gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the 

authority to re-evaluate the performance of the C&SF Project and to provide 

recommendations in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1992 and 1996 (USACE 

& SFWMD, 1999). The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 calls for the 

submission of a comprehensive plan, feasibility report, and a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement to Congress by July 1, 1999. In addition, the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to implement 

“Critical Projects” that are seen as necessary for the restoration of the south Florida 

ecosystem (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Since the Restudy of the C&SF Project, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has established two main goals for South Florida and the 
 14 

Everglades; to enhance the ecological values and to enhance economic and social well 

being of the region. 

Under the goal of enhanced ecological values are three objectives. The first is to 

increase the total spatial extent of natural areas, second to improve habitat and functional 

quality, and third to improve native plant and animal species abundance and diversity 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Under the goal of enhanced economic and social well 

being are four objectives: to increase the availability of fresh water, to reduce flood 

damages, to provide recreational and navigation opportunities, and to protect cultural and 

archeological resources and values (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Overall, the alternative 

chosen should improve ecosystem health, improve water quality, improve wading bird 

habitat, maintain a stable water level for Lake Okeechobee, and create a more natural 

freshwater flow pattern to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, the Everglades, 

and the Florida and Biscayne bays (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). From a management 

point of view, several of these objectives are conflicting and thus their resolution will 

require creative and innovative solutions. A description of the possible alternatives and 

the alternative which was finally chosen, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, follows. 

The Alternatives: 

• Status Quo 

• Alternatives 1-6 

• Alternative A-D 

• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (D-13R) 

Status Quo 

Without a Comprehensive Plan to restore the Everglades, it is projected that 

current projects outside of the Restudy plan would ultimately prove to be insufficient and 
 15 

the health of the Everglades ecosystem would further deteriorate (USACE & SFWMD, 

1999). The future population of the study area is expected to grow from 6.3 million in 

1990 to 11 million by 2050 (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). This increase in population will 

presumably put further pressure on freshwater supplies and Lake Okeechobee. This in 

turn would further reduce freshwater discharges to the Caloosahatchee estuary, the St. 

Lucie estuary, and the Everglades National Park. Reduced flows to the Shark River 

Slough within the Everglades National Park will not only endanger this ecosystem but 

also those of the Florida and Biscayne bays. Water demands may become so high that 

they exceed the available water supply and thus water restrictions could be instated every 

other year in Palm Beach, Miami, and the Florida Keys (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

(See Figure 8)

Alternatives 1-6 

Each of the following six alternatives is a variation of the previous alternative. 

The restudy team began with alternative 1 and then built upon this alternative with 

improvements and modifications. Alternatives 1 and 2 improved surface water seepage 

management while alternative 3 included aquifer storage and recovery components 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Alternative 4 improved sheet-flow and connectivity by 

removing some of the man made physical barriers such as canals and levees. One 

problem that arose in the model once the team began removing canals and levees was 

increased water levels in Water Conservation Area 3B and portions of 3A. Alternative 5 

was then created to address the problems resulting from alternative 4, increased burden 

on Lake Okeechobee and decreased water supply to portions of the Water Conservation 

Areas (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Alternative 6 improved upon the problems of 
 16 

alternative 5 and also included wastewater reuse. For a more detailed overview of 

Alternatives 1-6 please see Figure 9. 

Alternatives A-D 

 Using alternatives 3 through 6, the Restudy team then created four comprehensive 

plans, Alternatives A – D, which included operational changes and model improvements 

to the previous alternatives. There are several components common to all four of the 

alternatives such as levee seepage management in Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B 

and Dade Broward levee improvement. The following describes the main differences 

between the four alternatives. (See Figure 10) 

Alternative A 

The first alternative, Alternative A, proposes the establishment of storage 

reservoirs at the north, south, and west boundaries of Lake Okeechobee as well as plans 

for a 20,000 acre aquifer storage reservoir (10 ft max depth) north of Lake Okeechobee 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). This alternative calls for a 10,000 acre storage reservoir (4 

ft. max depth) in the St. Lucie basin, a 20,000 acre storage reservoir (8 ft. max depth) in 

the Caloosahatchee basin, a storage reservoir in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), 

and 44 aquifer storage and recovery wells (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Along with 

increased conveyance between Water Conservation Area 3B and the Everglades National 

Park, Alternative A also demands increased conveyance from Lake Okeechobee. 

Alternative B 
 17 

 Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B entails breaking the levees and filling in the 

canals within Water Conservation Area 3. Not only would this de-compartmentalize the 

area but it would also restore some of the historic ecological and hydrological 

connections between the Water Conservation Area and the Northeast Shark River Slough. 

This would also require the Miami canal to be re-routed through the to North New River 

canal instead of Water Conservation 3 (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Alternative B also 

calls for the inclusion of the Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve Reservoir in the 

proposed Water Preserve Area in order to increase regional water supply. 

Alternative C 

 In Alternative C slight changes were made to the compartments of the Everglades 

Agricultural Area and the de-compartmentalization of Water Conservation Area 3. This 

alternative calls for the diversion of excess water from Water Conservation Areas 3A and 

3B to the Central Lake Belt In-ground Storage Area (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

Alternative B also includes further lower east coast water conservation, increased reuse 

of water in South Miami-Dade County with the creation of the South District Reclaimed 

Water Treatment Plant, increased flow to the eastern Water Conservation area 3B from 

the Central Lake Belt Storage Area, and the creation of Biscayne Bay coastal canals 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

Alternative D 

The last alternative, Alternative D further de-compartmentalized Water 

Conservation Area 3 and further increased the capacities of the Central Lake Belt Storage 

Area and the Palm Beach County Agricultural Reserve Reservoir. The capacity of the C-
 18 

51 Regional Groundwater Aquifer was reduced while the Southern L-8 Reservoir’s 

capacity was increased (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

1.5 Alternative D13R: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is fundamentally an 

update of the Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF Project), authorized in 1948. 

The C&SF Project was meant to provide water supply, flood protection, and water 

management to South Florida through a system of canals, levees, and other water control 

structures (approximately 1,000 miles of canals and levees and 150 water control 

structures) (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). However the project has had several adverse 

side effects on the Everglades as mentioned previously. CERP is the federal 

government’s plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem through structural or 

operational modifications to the C&SF Project. 

CERP was approved in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (CERP, 

2008a). Completion of the Plan is expected to take 30 years and cost $7.8 billion (CERP, 

2008a). The CERP admits that the restored Everglades of the future will not be the predrained Everglades of the past since irreversible changes have been made to the system. 

Components of the CERP (USACE & SFWMD, 1999) (Also see Figure 11): 

• Additional surface water storage reservoirs north of Lake Okeechobee, in the 

Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie basins, in the Everglades Agricultural Area and in the 

Water Preserve Areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties 

» 181,300 acres in total and ability to store 1.5 million acre-feet of water 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999) 

• Creation of Water Preserve Areas: 

» Used to treat urban runoff, store water, reduce seepage, and improve 

existing wetland areas 

• Management of Lake Okeechobee: 

» Efforts to maintain a steady lake level and avoid extreme high and low 

water levels 
 19 

» Improve water quality of the lake 

• Surface water storage areas 

» Conveyed to estuaries in times of drought 

• Underground water storage wells around Lake Okeechobee, in the Water Preserve 

Areas, and in the Caloosahatchee Basin 

• Creation of 35,600 acres of man-made treatment wetlands 

» Used to filter urban and agricultural runoff before it is discharged into the 

natural system (the Everglades) 

• Conveyance of 26% more water to the Northeast Shark River Slough (half a million 

acre-feet of additional water) 

• The removal of 240 miles of canals and levees within the Everglades 

» Removal of most of the Miami Canal in Water Conservation Area 3 

» 20 miles of the Tamiami Trail will be rebuilt with bridges and culverts to 

allow water to flow more naturally from Water Conservation Area 3 to the 

Everglades (Figure 12) 

• Reuse Water: Proposal to build two wastewater treatment plants that will make 

Miami-Dade County’s treated wastewater clean enough to discharge into wetlands 

along Biscayne Bay 

• Project Implementation Reports (submitted to Congress) will be created to 

supplement the CERP and to give more in depth details of the projects that will be 

undertaken 

» Pilot projects used to test out new technologies 

1.6 Choosing the Final Alternative

 Each alternative was evaluated using several tools. Four of the tools, the South 

Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM), the Across-Trophic-Level System 

Simulation (ATLSS) model, the Everglades Water Quality Model, and the Rivers of 

Grass Evaluation Method, are described below. 

The South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) is an integrated surfacegroundwater computer model of the water system from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Elements of the hydrological cycle that have been 

incorporated into this model include rainfall, evapotranspiration, infiltration, overland 

and groundwater flow, canal flow, canal-groundwater seepage, levee seepage, and 

groundwater pumping (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). The model is based on historic 
 20 

climatic data from 1965 to 1995 and allows managers to assess changes made to the 

water management system because it incorporates current or proposed water control 

structures and operational rules. For example, if changes were to be made at Lake 

Okeechobee the SFWMM could provide estimates of how this would impact the water 

levels in the Water Conservation Areas and the Everglades National Park (USACE & 

SFWMD, 1999). The model breaks up the 7,600 square mile water management area 

into 2 mile by 2 mile cells (South Florida Water Management District, 2008) (See Figure 

14). 

The second tool, the Everglades Water Quality Model, uses information from the 

SFWMM to simulate water column phosphorus concentrations and transport within the 

Everglades National Park. This model uses an equation which includes total phosphorus 

load, rate of flow, volume and net settling rate to determine total phosphorus 

concentration (Raghunathan, 2001). The model is also based on data from January 1979 

to September 1989 from the SFWMM (Raghunathan, 2001). Using the Everglades Water 

Quality Model, Alternatives B and D-13R proved to be the best alternatives for water 

quality purposes. Results from this model also suggest that maximizing surface water 

sheetflow reduces the net nutrient load within the Everglades National Park (USACE & 

SFWMD, 1999). 

The third tool used to evaluate the restoration alternatives was the AcrossTrophic-Level System Simulation (ATLSS) model. The ATLSS model uses the outputs 

of physical systems models, such as the SFWMM, in a variety of other models that 

attempt to analyze the impacts of the alternative hydrologic scenarios on the biotic 

community of the Everglades (University of Tennessee, 1996). In essence, ATLSS is a 
 21 

set of computer models coupled with Geographic Information System maps that predict 

the effects of each restoration alternative on trophic structure. The models used in the 

ATLSS include process models for lower trophic levels (benthic insects and 

zooplankton), structured population models for fish and macroinvertebrates, and 

individual based models for large consumers (University of Tennessee, 1996). Examples 

of the individual based models include: the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Breeding 

Potential Index, the Wading Bird Foraging Condition Index, the White-tailed Deer 

Breeding Potential Index, the Landscape Fish Model, the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow 

Individual Based Model, and the Snail Kite Breeding Potential Index (USACE & 

SFWMD, 1999). 

 The final tool used to assess the restoration alternatives was the River of Grass 

Evaluation Methodology (ROGEM). During the final evaluation of Alternatives A-D, 

this method was used to describe the potential habitat quality of different subregions that 

would result from each of the alternatives. This method is based on the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedure, which uses community models and 

suitability indices to assess fish and wildlife responses to changes in habitat quality 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). Thus ROGEM used suitability indices, mathematical 

equations, and professional expertise to describe the relative habitat quality of each 

alternative (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). The numerical output from the equations ranged 

from 0 to 1. A score of zero meant the habitat was of low quality and a score of one 

meant the plan would result in optimum habitat quality (CERP, 2008a). The subregions 

analyzed using the River of Grass Evaluation Methodology include: Lake Okeechobee, 

St. Lucie Estuary, Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, freshwater 
 22 

wetlands within the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Water Conservation Areas 2 

and 3, Everglades National Park, and Model Lands (CERP, 2008a). 

 After each alternative was evaluated and analyzed using the four tools mentioned 

above, the alternatives were ranked and graded according to how each plan achieved the 

ecological, water supply, and water quality objectives set out at the beginning of the 

Restudy. The results of the grading evaluation can be seen in Figure 13. An A grade 

means the alternative successfully met all of the performance measure targets for that 

sub-region (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). A letter grade of F means the alternative failed 

to meet the performance measure targets for that sub-region (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

Alternative D for example received a D for Water Conservation Areas 2 & 3, a D for the 

Shark River Slough, a B+ for sheet flow, and a C for Water Quality (USACE & 

SFWMD, 1999). The Alternative Evaluation Team chose Alternative D as the best plan, 

with the provision that the weaknesses in the plan would be corrected before finalized 

(USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 

Alternative D was inadequate at meeting performance targets for Water 

Conservation Areas 2 & 3, the Shark River Slough, and overall water quality. Thus in 

1998, the Restudy team set out to improve the weaknesses of Alternative D (USACE & 

SFWMD, 1999). The final iteration that resolved Alternative D’s performance 

inadequacies was Alternative D-13R. This final alternative removed additional levees 

and canals between Water Conservation Area 3A and the Everglades National Park. 

Alternative D-13R also left levee L-67 between Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B, 

but created a conveyance canals between the two Conservation Areas to promote high 

flows and to control the flow during dry seasons (USACE & SFWMD, 1999). 
 23 

PART II: Global Climate Change and South Florida 

 

2.1 Predictions and Impacts of Global Climate Change 

Due to its low elevation and flat landscape, the Everglades National Park will be 

exceptionally vulnerable to inundation from rapid rises in sea level and other possible 

future climate change impacts. Therefore, it is important to consider potential climate 

change impacts when assessing alternatives to restore the Florida Everglades. 

Unfortunately, climate change was not taken into consideration during the alternative 

formulation process and therefore none of the alternatives described in the Final 

Integrated Feasibility Report for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan would 

be sufficient as a climate change alternative, an alternative that would be successful even 

if extreme predictions become reality. 

Over the next few decades the United States will experience changes in 

temperature, precipitation and extreme weather effects due to global climate change 

(Field et al., 2007). Wetlands are especially vulnerable to climate change because of their 

dependence on surface and ground water availability as well as the effects of modern 

man-made stresses, such as drainage and levees (Burkett & Kusler, 2000). The greatest 

threats faced by the Florida Everglades that pertain to climate change include: increasing 

rates of sea level rise, increasing sea surface temperatures, increased hurricane intensity 

and duration, greater storm surges and flooding, increased erosion, salt water intrusion, 

and changes in precipitation. (See Figure 15) 

According to predictions made by the most recent United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sea-level has been rising along most 

of North America’s coasts and the rate of change will continue to increase in the future 
 24 

(Field et al., 2007). In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) estimates a 48cm (~19 in) or 5mm/year rise in global sea level 

by 2100 (Nicholls et al., 2007). Evidence from satellite observations and tide gauges 

suggests that sea level is currently rising at an increased rate (Bindoff et al., 2007). The 

IPCC believes that the two main causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion (the 

ocean expands as it gets warmer) and the melting of land based ice such as glaciers and 

polar ice caps (Bindoff et al., 2007). It is important to note that the rate of sea level rise 

will not be uniform around the world; some areas may experience a greater increase than 

others. 

Naturally, sea level rises and falls as the earth comes in and out of ice ages. Thus, 

the fact that sea level may rise is not the issue. The real concern is the rate of sea level 

rise. If the rate of sea level rise accelerates, the morphology of the world’ coasts may be 

unable to keep up (Nicholls et al., 2007). South Florida’s sea level has risen 9 inches in 

the past one hundred years, which is 6 times faster than the per-century rate for the past 

2,400 years (NPS, 2008). If sea level rises at the rate that is projected, 10% to 50% of the 

Everglades freshwater marshes could be lost to salt water inundation because 60% of the 

Everglades National Park is less than 3 feet above mean sea level (Kimball, 2007). 

Wetlands are extremely vulnerable to increasing rates of sea level rise because 

wetlands naturally accrete sediment as sea levels rise slowly. If the rate of sea level rise 

exceeds the rate of sedimentation, a wetland may not be able to accrete sediment fast 

enough and would thus ‘drown.’ Mangroves, for example, may be unable to accumulate 

soil at a rate fast enough to keep up with rising sea levels. In addition, mangrove 

communities may be forced to move inland if the increase in sea level rise also results in 
 25 

an increase in salinity. Since Mangroves are haylophytes they can tolerate waterlogging 

and higher salinity conditions than most other wetland tree species but even mangroves 

have a salinity range (USGS, 2003). Mangroves require a balance between freshwater 

inflows and sea level to maintain an appropriate salinity gradient. As mentioned 

previously, the salinity range preferred by Mangroves varies by species but most 

mangroves prefer salinities ranging from 22 to 26 parts per thousand (McIvor et al., 

1994). Current research suggests that the mangrove communities along the southwest 

coast of the Everglades National Park will shift inland and change in species composition 

due to sea level rise (USGS, 2003). This shift inland will only occur if the rate of change 

does not exceed the mangrove communities’ ability to adapt and migrate. 

Along with an increased rate of sea level rise, climate change may also cause sea 

surface temperatures to rise. Out of all of the earth’s climate system components, the 

oceans have had the greatest change in heat content from 1961 to 2003; more than that of 

the lithosphere and the atmosphere (Bindoff et al., 2007). The energy associated with the 

oceans is also responsible for 90% of the earth’s heat budget, whereas the energy 

associated with ice melt only contributes 1% to the earth’s heat budget (Bindoff et al., 

2007). For tropical environments, an increase in sea surface temperature of only 1 to 3°C 

could result in increased coral bleaching events and increased coral mortality (Nicholls et 

al., 2007). 

Tropical cyclones or hurricanes typically form over warm tropical oceans. The 

warm water heats up the air above it and also moistens the air. This hot air then rises and 

forms an area of low pressure. As air moves toward this area of low pressure, it flows 

across the warm ocean waters and also warms and moistens, providing fuel to the low 
 26 

pressure system. Once this hot moist air rises and condenses it releases energy. 

Therefore, tropical storms and hurricanes are one way the earth releases energy into the 

atmosphere and balances the earth’s energy budget. 

Projected increases in sea surface temperatures and increases in water vapor could 

provide more fuel for tropical storms and hurricanes. Since Hurricanes typically form 

when sea surface temperatures exceed 26°C, an increase in sea surface temperatures will 

expand the area where tropical storms could form (Trenberth et al., 2007). Current 

evidence suggests that the incidence of category 4 and 5 storms has increased globally 

since the 1970’s, as well as storm duration and intensity (Trenberth et al., 2007). In 

2005, for example, the North Atlantic hurricane season had the greatest amount of named 

storms and was the only season with four category 5 hurricanes (Trenberth et al., 2007). 

Thus, continued increases in green house gas emissions and rising sea surface 

temperatures may cause the intensity and duration of tropical storms to further escalate. 

Landscape simulation models suggest that increased storm intensity and duration 

could play a role in the structural composition of mangrove forests. For south Florida 

and the Everglades National Park, these models predict mangrove forests will become 

shorter and will be dominated by the red mangrove species (Rhizophora mangle) (USGS, 

1997). Combination of increasing rates of sea level rise and increased storm intensity 

and duration could result in greater storm surges, flooding, increased erosion, and salt 

water intrusion. Low lying areas such as the Everglades will be especially vulnerable to 

these impacts. If the sea level within the Everglades National Park increases by 23 inches 

tidal flats, freshwater marshes, and pineland forests could be submerged permanently 

(Kimball, 2007). Greater storm surges and flooding could lead to erosion events and 
 27 

rising sea levels could result in saltwater intrusion. Increasing salinity levels within the 

Everglades may lead to the loss of many of the freshwater marsh species and the 

complete loss of the sawgrass prairie. If salt water intrudes the aquifer that lies beneath 

the Everglades, this will also threaten the fresh water supply of Miami and Dade counties. 

 Currently, south Florida receives 60 inches of rain a year on average but the 

annual rate of evaporation often exceeds this amount (OTA, 1993). Rainfall is also 

highly variable and thus the region faces droughts and floods. For example, in 1981 

south Florida experienced an extreme drought that led to mandatory water restrictions 

and water rationing in the Everglades Agricultural Area (OTA, 1993). Precipitation 

predictions, according to the general circulation models for south Florida are not in 

agreement but there is a possibility for the area to become even hotter and drier (OTA, 

1993). 

2.2 A Climate Change Alternative

Unfortunately, none of the restoration alternatives described above would be 

successful as a climate change alternative because global climate change predictions were 

not considered during the planning process. The National Park Service recognizes the 

potential impacts of climate change on the Everglades’ ecosystems but it did not include 

climate change in the development of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

(NPS, 2007a). Failing to include future potential changes such as an increased rate of sea 

level rise or salt water intrusion undermines any plan’s ability to restore the Everglades. 

For example, if the rate of sea level increases and causes salinity levels within the 

Everglades National Park to increase, the planned amount of freshwater released into the 

park may not be enough to save freshwater prairies from saltwater intrusion. 
 28 

Therefore, if climate change had been considered, the Restudy team would have 

most likely created a plan that took into consideration the potential impacts of global 

climate change. Specifically, the Restudy team might investigate how climate change 

would impact the hydrology of the south Florida, water quality, habitat and species range, 

habitat quality, and how climate change would impact each alternative’s proposed 

changes to the hydrologic system. For example, will new water storage wells be 

compromised by salt water intrusion if the rate of sea level rise increases? 

Recommendations on how the Everglades restoration planning team can incorporate 

global climate change into the planning and implementation process are described within 

two policy memorandums in the following part of this paper. 

PART III: Policy Recommendations 

3.1 Methods

Before formulating the two policy memorandums found below, extensive research 

was conducted on the environmental, geological, and hydrological history of south 

Florida and the Everglades. The development and management history of the area was 

also investigated. The focus of this project, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, originated from a visit to the Everglades National Park and two in person interviews 

with employees of the National Park Service, Linda Friar and David Hallac. 

Subsequently, the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

was extensively examined and analyzed. The result of this investigation can be found in 

Part I of this paper. After reading the Final Integrated Feasibility Report it became 

apparent that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan did not take global climate 
 29 

change into consideration when formulating the restoration alternatives. Therefore, 

further research was conducted in order to investigate the potential climate change 

impacts and current predictions for south Florida and the Everglades (Part II of this 

paper). 

 When it became apparent that none of the previous alternatives proposed in the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan would be successful as a climate change 

alternative, ways to incorporate climate change into the restoration planning and 

implementation process were conceived by the author. Criteria for these 

recommendations can be found in the following section. 

 Finally, two policy memorandums were created to formally propose the 

recommendations to Congress and to the CERP planning and implementation team. The 

first memorandum is addressed to the House Appropriations Committee concerning 

climate change and lands administered by the Department of the Interior. This committee 

has the authority to appropriate funding for the changes recommended in the 

memorandum into current legislation to be further approved by Congress. Since the 

audience of this memorandum will not be experts on issues pertaining to south Florida, 

this memorandum must explain the history of the Everglades and South Florida and 

potential climate change impacts for the area. It must also contain a short explanation of 

CERP in case some of the committee members are unaware of the project. A broad 

overview of the recommendations was provided instead of a more detailed explanation 

since the committee will most likely not need the technical aspects of the 

recommendations to make their decision. 
 30 

The second policy memo is addressed to the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, South Florida Restoration Office and the South Florida Water Management 

District because these two agencies are the main groups responsible for the planning and 

implementation of CERP. Unlike the House Appropriations Committee, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District are well aware of 

the history of South Florida and CERP and therefore background information was left out 

of this memorandum. A more detailed explanation of the recommendations was provided 

in the second memorandum because the audience would be the ones to carry out these 

changes and therefore must decide whether the recommendations are feasible or not. 

3.2 Criteria

The following describes the criteria that were used to formulate and evaluate the 

recommendations created regarding the incorporation of climate change in the CERP 

restoration planning and implementation process. 

Recommendations must: 

1) Facilitate the incorporation of potential climate change impacts that will have an 

effect on the goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. In other 

words the impact must be relevant to CERP and the proposed changes to the 

hydrology of the Everglades. 

2) Incorporate climate change impacts without compromising the goals of CERP. 

The recommendation must allow for the continued protection of urban 

populations from flooding, provision of sufficient water to all users, improvement 

of habitat function and quality, and protection of recreational opportunities and 

cultural values. 

3) Be feasible physically, politically, and monetarily. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District must be able to 

implement the recommendation with current funds, tools, and technologies. The 

recommendation must also be politically feasible or acceptable by policymakers. 

One suggestion that was not included was a recommendation to expand the park’s 

boundaries. This would give species the opportunity to shift their ranges 

northwards in response to changes in climate if necessary. Unfortunately, this 
 31 

recommendation is not politically feasible because it would require relocating 

urban populations and the Everglades Agricultural Area. 

4) Be fair and just for all stakeholders involved. The recommendation must treat all 

stakeholders equally and affect all stakeholders in similar ways. If one group of 

stakeholders bears a disproportional burden of the costs of the recommendation, 

this alternative will not be deemed fair and just. 

3.3 Explanation of Recommendations

The three recommendations proposed in the following policy memorandums 

include: the incorporation of current climate change predictions in the hydrologic and 

ecologic computer-based models, the monitoring and mapping of salinity levels within 

the Everglades National Park, and the use of the coastal vulnerability index to assess the 

vulnerability of the coastline of south Florida to future changes in sea level rise. 

 The first recommendation, to incorporate current climate change predictions into 

the models used to assess the restoration plans, will allow managers to evaluate how 

climate change will affect the success of restoration efforts and how restoration efforts 

can be further improved. Currently, several models are used to reproduce the hydrologic 

cycle of south Florida and how each alternative will affect water quality, trophic 

structure, and habitat quality. Regrettably, these models are based on current hydrologic 

conditions and do not take into account possible changes to the hydrologic cycle. Thus, 

if the rate of sea level rise continues to increase and if precipitation patterns change in 

south Florida, these models will be inadequate to predict the success of planned 

restoration efforts. Since the results of the South Florida Water Management Model 

(SFWMM) are used as input for the other models, only the SFWMM may need to be 

altered. One way in which this model can incorporate climate change is for the model to 

be run with three climate change scenarios (a low, moderate, and extreme scenario). For 

example, the low scenario could include a sea level rise rate of 7 inches by 2100 and 
 32 

slight reductions in rainfall. The moderate scenario might include a sea level rise rate of 

19 inches by 2100 (which is the current prediction of the IPCC), a greater reduction in 

rainfall, and increased rates of evapotranspiration (the combined loss of water from 

evaporation and transpiration). Finally, the extreme scenario may include a sea level rise 

rate of 31 inches by 2100, extreme drought conditions, and increased rates of 

evapotranspiration. 

 The second recommendation is to monitor and map the salinity levels within the 

Everglades National Park. Given that salt water intrusion is currently jeopardizing the 

existence of the freshwater marsh habitats within the Everglades, the extent and location 

of salt water intrusion should be monitored. Using the current location of the salinity line 

as a marker, freshwater can then be released in greater amounts into the Everglades on a 

need be basis in order to keep the salinity line within a one to two mile boundary. The 

South Florida Restoration Science Forum has already created a circulation and salinity 

model for Florida Bay. If feasible, this model should be used as a basis for creating a 

salinity model for the entire Everglades system. 

 The third and final recommendation provided by this paper is for the use of the 

coastal vulnerability index to assess the relative vulnerability of the coastline of south 

Florida to future sea level rise. If one of the main objectives of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan is to improve the ecological values of the Everglades, it is 

then necessary to identify areas that are in need of restoration and improvement as well as 

areas that will be vulnerable in the future. The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) was 

created in 2001 by the United States Geological Survey and the National Park Service, 

Geologic Resourced Division in order to assess the vulnerability of coastal areas within 
 33 

the United States to future changes in sea-level (USGS and NPS, 2007). The CVI ranks 

input variables such as geomorphology, slope, wave height, and mean tidal range in terms 

of their contribution to coastal changes associated with sea level rise. Using these ranks 

it then identifies the regions or sections where change is predicted to be the greatest. The 

CVI has already been used successfully to assess the vulnerability of the Dry Tortugas 

National Park and should be conducted for the shoreline of the Everglades National Park. 

Such an assessment would give managers a better idea of which habitats and parts of the 

shoreline will be most susceptible to change. 

The three recommendations meet the four policy criteria previously described. 

All incorporate relevant climate change impacts, all are physically, politically, and 

monetarily feasible, are fair and just for all stakeholders involved and none compromise 

the goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 

3.4 Policy Memorandums

Please see pages 34 and 36. 
 34 

POLICY MEMORANDUM 

TO: House Appropriations Committee concerning climate change and lands 

administered by the Department of the Interior 

FROM: Jennifer Krajewski, Analyst 

DATE: March 23, 2008 

RE: Climate change alternative for the Everglades National Park 

Introduction 

According to predictions made by the most recent United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, global sea level is estimated to rise 48cm (~19 in) by 2100. If 

sea level rises at this projected rate, 10% to 50% of the Everglades freshwater marshes 

could be lost to salt water inundation. Potential future impacts of global climate change 

threaten the success of current efforts to restore and enhance the Everglades National 

Park. This memo will propose three ways in which current efforts, the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, can integrate climate change predictions into the restoration 

planning and implementation process. First, current climate change predictions should be 

included in the models used to assess restoration plans. Second, salinity levels within the 

Everglades National Park should be monitored and mapped. Third, the relative 

vulnerability of the coastline of south Florida to future sea level rise should be assessed 

using the coastal vulnerability index (CVI). 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Historically, the watershed of the Everglades began with Lake Okeechobee from which 

freshwater flowed into a vast sawgrass plain, then through a ridge and slough landscape 

into what is now known as the Everglades National Park and finally into the Gulf of 

Mexico. The current flow is drastically different than the historical flow due to the 

Central & South Florida (C&SF) Project which constructed levees, canals, and water 

control structures to protect communities on the east coast of Florida from floods and 

droughts. Thus, the C&SF Project has had unintended negative impacts on the 

Everglades ecosystem, including reductions in wading bird communities and freshwater 

marshes. With the aim of reversing the damages of the C&SF Project, the Department of 

the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida, and several Native 

American Indian tribes created the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). 

The plan aims to enhance the ecological values as well as the economic and social well 

being of the region by restoring the natural hydropattern of the Everglades. 

Current climate change predictions for south Florida 

Due to its low elevation and flat landscape, south Florida will be exceptionally vulnerable 

to inundation from rapid rises in sea level and other possible future climate change 

impacts. The greatest threats faced by the Florida Everglades that pertain to climate 

change include: increasing rates of sea level rise, increasing sea surface temperatures, 

increased hurricane intensity and duration, greater storm surges and flooding, increased 

erosion, salt water intrusion, and changes in precipitation. If, for example, the rate of sea 

level rise exceeds the rate of sedimentation, wetlands within the Everglades National 
 35 

Park may be unable to accrete sediment at a rate that equals or exceeds sea level rise and 

would thus be lost. Rising sea levels in addition to greater storm surges and flooding 

could also result in increased salinity levels which could lead to the complete loss of the 

sawgrass prairie from one of the few areas where it remains. If salt water intrudes the 

aquifer that lies beneath the Everglades, this will also threaten the fresh water supply of 

Miami and Dade counties. 

Incorporating climate change into CERP 

Since climate change was not taken into consideration during the formulation of the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the plan will be unsuccessful if current 

climate change predictions become a reality. Below are four ways in which climate 

change predictions can be incorporated into the restoration planning and implementation 

process. 

Improving water and ecosystem models 

The models used to assess each of the restoration alternatives examined how each 

alternative would affect the hydrologic cycle, water quality, trophic structure, and habitat 

quality of south Florida. The models used to assess the restoration alternatives are 

commendable and successfully reproduce the hydrologic cycle. However, the hydrology 

of these models is based on current conditions (current sea levels, precipitation records 

from the last 30 years, etc.), which cannot be assumed for the future. For example, if the 

rate of sea level rise continues to increase and if precipitation patterns change in south 

Florida, then the models will be inadequate to predict the success of restoration efforts. 

Global climate change should be incorporated into the models by adding future 

predictions of sea level rise, rainfall, and evapotranspiration. 

Monitoring salinity levels 

As sea level rises, salt water will push further and further inland increasing salinity levels 

within estuaries and wetland systems. The consequences of saltwater intrusion are 

already being felt within the Everglades National Park, as sawgrass prairies are being 

replaced by more salt tolerant marsh species. In order to protect the remaining freshwater 

marsh habitats from saltwater intrusion, plans to monitor salinity levels within the 

Everglades National Park should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. Using the current location of the salinity line as a marker, freshwater 

can then be released into the Everglades on a need be basis in order to keep the salinity 

line within a one to two mile boundary. 

Creating Coastal Vulnerability Index Maps

If one of the main objectives of CERP is to improve the ecological values of the 

Everglades, it is then necessary to identify areas that need restoration and improvement as 

well as areas that will be vulnerable in the future. The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) 

should therefore be used to map the relative vulnerability of the south Florida coast to 

future increased rates of sea level rise. The CVI ranks input variables such as 

geomorphology, slope, wave height, and mean tidal range in terms of their contribution to 

coastal changes associated with sea level rise. Using these ranks it then identifies the 

regions or sections where change is predicted to be the greatest. 
 36 

POLICY MEMORANDUM 

TO: United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Restoration Office 

and the South Florida Water Management District 

FROM: Jennifer Krajewski, Analyst 

DATE: March 23, 2008 

RE: Climate change alternative for the Everglades National Park 

Introduction 

According to predictions made by the most recent United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, global sea level is estimated to rise 48cm (~19 in) by 2100. If 

sea level rises at this projected rate, 10% to 50% of the Everglades freshwater marshes 

could be lost to salt water inundation. Potential future impacts of global climate change 

threaten the success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Pan (CERP) and 

therefore, it is crucial for these impacts to be considered when assessing alternatives to 

restore the Florida Everglades. This memo will propose three ways in which CERP can 

integrate climate change predictions into the restoration planning and implementation 

process. First, current predictions of the future rate of sea level rise, salt water intrusion, 

precipitation, and evapotranspiration should be included in the models used to assess 

restoration alternatives. Second, salinity levels within the Everglades National Park 

should be monitored and mapped. Third, the relative vulnerability of the coastline of 

south Florida to future sea level rise should be assessed using the coastal vulnerability 

index (CVI) created by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service 

Geologic Resources Division. 

Current climate change predictions for south Florida 

Due to its low elevation and flat landscape, south Florida will be exceptionally vulnerable 

to inundation from rapid rises in sea level and other possible future climate change 

impacts. The greatest threats faced by the Florida Everglades that pertain to climate 

change include: increasing rates of sea level rise, increasing sea surface temperatures, 

increased hurricane intensity and duration, greater storm surges and flooding, increased 

erosion, salt water intrusion, and changes in precipitation. If, for example, the rate of sea 

level rise exceeds the rate of sedimentation, wetlands within the Everglades National 

Park may be unable to accrete sediment at a rate that equals or exceeds sea level rise and 

would thus be lost. Rising sea levels in addition to greater storm surges and flooding 

could also result in increased salinity levels which could lead to the complete loss of the 

sawgrass prairie from one of the few areas where it remains. If salt water intrudes the 

aquifer that lies beneath the Everglades, this will also threaten the fresh water supply of 

Miami and Dade counties. 

Incorporating climate change into CERP 

Since climate change was not taken into consideration during the alternative formulation 

process, none of the alternatives described in the Final Integrated Feasibility Report for 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan would be successful if current climate 

change predictions become a reality. Below are three ways in which the Comprehensive 
 37 

Everglades Restoration Plan can incorporate climate change predictions into the 

restoration planning and implementation process. 

Improving water and ecosystem models 

The models used to assess the restoration alternatives are commendable and successfully 

reproduce the hydrologic cycle and how each alternative will impact water quality, 

trophic structure, and habitat quality. However, the hydrology of these models is based 

on current conditions, which cannot be assumed for the future. For example, if the rate of 

sea level rise continues to increase and if precipitation patterns change in south Florida, 

then the models will be inadequate to predict the success of restoration efforts. Future 

climate change predictions should be incorporated into the South Florida Water 

Management Model (SFWMM), the Across-Trophic-Level System Simulation model, the 

Everglades Water Quality Model, and the Rivers of Grass Evaluation Method. 

Since the SFWMM is used as input for the other three models, only the SFWMM may 

need to be altered. Three climate change scenarios should be run through the SFWMM, 

low, moderate, and extreme climate change scenarios. The low scenario for example 

could include a sea level rise rate of 7 inches by 2100 and slight reductions in rainfall. 

The moderate scenario could include a sea level rise rate of 19 inches by 2100 (current 

predictions), even less rainfall, and increased rates of evapotranspiration. Lastly, the 

extreme scenario may include a sea level rise rate of 31 inches by 2100, extreme 

droughts, and increased rates of evapotranspiration. 

Monitoring salinity levels 

The consequences of saltwater intrusion are already being felt within the Everglades 

National Park, as sawgrass prairies are being replaced by more salt tolerant marsh 

species. In order to protect the remaining freshwater marsh habitats from saltwater 

intrusion, plans to monitor salinity levels within the Everglades National Park should be 

incorporated into the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Using the current 

location of the salinity line as a marker, freshwater can then be released into the 

Everglades on a need be basis in order to keep the salinity line within a one to two mile 

boundary. The South Florida Restoration Science Forum has already created a 

circulation and salinity model for Florida Bay. If feasible, this model could be used as a 

basis for creating a salinity model for the entire Everglades system. 

Creating Coastal Vulnerability Index Maps 

If one of the main objectives of CERP is to improve the ecological values of the 

Everglades, it is then necessary to identify areas that need restoration and improvement as 

well as areas that will be vulnerable in the future. The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) 

should therefore be used to map the relative vulnerability of the south Florida coast to 

future increased rates of sea level rise. The CVI ranks input variables such as 

geomorphology, slope, wave height, and mean tidal range in terms of their contribution to 

coastal changes associated with sea level rise. Using these ranks it then identifies the 

regions or sections where change is predicted to be the greatest. 
 38 

3.5 Conclusions

The Everglades National Park contains some of the most unique ecosystems of the 

United States. However, these ecosystems are highly vulnerable to the impacts of global 

climate change. If one of the goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is 

to restore the hydrology and ecological values of the Everglades, it will be unsuccessful 

unless climate change predictions are taken into consideration in the planning and 

implementation process. Three ways in which this can be achieved are, by incorporating 

current climate change predictions in the models, monitoring and mapping the salinity 

levels within the Everglades National Park, and using the coastal vulnerability index to 

assess the vulnerability of the coastline of south Florida to future changes in sea level 

rise. These recommendations are physically, politically, and monetarily feasible. 

Whether they are implemented will depend on the opinions of Congress and the 

stakeholders involved. 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jeffrey Vincent, my master’s project advisor for helping me narrow 

down my topic and helping me through the process. I would also like to thank Linda 

Friar and David Hallac at the National Park Service for introducing me to the Everglades 

and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 
 39 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, 

C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley & A. Unnikrishnan. 

(2007). Chapter 5, Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Burkett, V. and Kusler, J. (2000). Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in 

wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 36(2), 313-320. 

Clarke, Alice L. & George H. Dalrympe. (2003). $7.8 Billion for Everglades Restoration: 

Why do environmentalists look so worried? Population and Environment, 24(6), 

541-569. 

Collier County Museums. (2001). Tamiami Trail: History and Photos. Retrieved 

February 24, 2008, from 

http://www.colliermuseum.com/history/tamiami_pic3.htm. 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). (2008a). CERP: The Plan in 

Depth – Part 1. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/about/rest_plan_pt_01.aspx. 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). (2008b). Why Restore the 

Everglades – Part 1: Understanding the Everglades Ecosystem – Past and 

Present. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/about/why_restore_pt_01.aspx. 

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. (1947). The Everglades: River of Grass. New York: 

Rinehart & Company, Inc. 

Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. 

Running and M.J. Scott. (2007). North America. In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, 

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, (Eds.), Climate Change 

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (pp. 617-652). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Florida International University Libraries. (2007). Reclaiming the Everglades: South 
 40 

Florida’s Natural History, 1884 to 1934: Everglades Timeline: Depression, the 

New Deal, & the War Years in the Everglades. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from 

http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/timeline/timeline8.htm. 

Kimball, Dan. (2007, April 26). Statement of Dan Kimball, Superintendent, Everglades 

National Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, before the 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and related agencies of the House 

Appropriations Committee concerning climate change and lands administered by 

the Department of the Interior. Climate Change Testimony to Congress 

Subcommittee. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from 

http://www.nps.gov/ever/parknews/everclimatechangetestimony.htm. 

Light, S.S. & J.W. Dineen. (1994). Water Control in the Everglades: A Historical 

Perspective. In S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden (Eds.), Everglades: The Ecosystem 

and its Restoration (pp. 47-84). Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press. 

Maltby, E. & P.J. Dugan. (1994). Wetland Ecosystem Protection, Management, and 

Restoration: An International Perspective. In S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogen (Eds.), 

Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration (pp. 29-46). Delray Beach, 

Florida: St. Lucie Press. 

McIvor, Carole C., Ley, Janet A., & Robin D. Bjork. (1994). Changes in Freshwater 

Inflow from the Everglades to Florida Bay Including Effects on Biota and Biotic 

Processes: A Review. In S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogen (Eds.), Everglades: The 

Ecosystem and its Restoration (pp. 117-146). Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie 

Press. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2006, July 24). Park 

Resources. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from 

http://www.nps.gov/ever/parknews/parkresources.htm. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior, and South Florida 

Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park. (2007a). Climate Change 

and South Florida’s National Parks. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from 

http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/upload/Final%20Climate%20Change%20

807%20hi%20res.pdf. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2007b). Everglades 

National Park: Conservation Efforts. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from 

http://www.nps.gov/ever/historyculture/consefforts.htm. 

 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2007c). Everglades 

National Park: Development in the Everglades. Retrieved February 22, 2008, 

from http://www.nps.gov/ever/historyculture/developeverglades.htm. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2007d). Everglades 
 41 

National Park: Ecosystems: Freshwater Slough. Retrieved February 23, 2008, 

from http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/freshwaterslough.htm. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior, Land Resources Division. 

(2007e). National Park Service: Listing of Acreage as of 12/31/2007. Retrieved 

February 22, 2008, from http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/Acreage/acrebypark07 

cy.pdf?CFID=55936&CFTOKEN=33257212. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008). Climate Friendly 

Parks: Everglades National Park. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from 

http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/parks/everglades.html. 

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. 

Ragoonaden & C.D. Woodroffe. (2007). Chapter 6, Coastal systems and lowlying areas. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. 

Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Orth, Kenneth D. & Agnes R. McLean. (1999). Restoring the Everglades: Lessons in 

Team Planning. Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management 

District. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/orth_nwc_restudy_paper.pdf. 

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress. (1993, October). Preparing for 

an Uncertain Climate—Volume I, OTA–O–567. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Raghunathan, R., Slawecki, T., Fontaine, T. D., Chen, Z., Dilks, D. W., Bierman, V. J., & 

S. Wade. (2001). Exploring the dynamics and fate of total phosphorus in the 

Florida Everglades using a calibrated mass balance model. Ecological Modeling, 

142(3), 247-259. 

Robertson, William B., Jr. (1959). Everglades – The Park Story. Coral Gables, FL: 

University of Miami Press. 

Science Coordination Team (SCT), South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working 

Group. (2003). The Role of Flow in the Everglades Ridge and Slough Landscape. 

Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://www.sfrestore.org/sct/docs/SCT%20 

Flow%20Paper%20-%20Final.pdf. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2008). South Florida Water Management 

Model (SFWMM). Retrieved March 18, 2008, from 

https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_HESM/PORTL

ET_POSITIONANALYSIS/OPLN/ADP/FRAME1/SFWMM.HTM. 
 42 

Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. 

Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden & P. Zhai. (2007). 

Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor 

and H.L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Uchytil, Ronald J. (1992). Index of Species Information: Cladium jamaicense. United 

States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 

February 23, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/clajam/all.html. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District 

(USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project 

Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final Integrated 

Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (1997, June). 

Coastal Wetlands and Global Change: Overview. USGS FS-089-97. Retrieved 

March 18, 2008, from http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/climate/fs89_97.pdf. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior. (2003, 

March). Predicting Future Mangrove Forest Migration in the Everglades Under 

Rising Sea Level. USGS Fact Sheet FS-030-03. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/factshts/030-03.pdf. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Wetlands Research Center. (2007). About Wetlands. Retrieved September 12, 

2007, from http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wetlands.htm. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior, Center for 

Coastal Geology. (2007b). Lake Okeechobee. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/virtual_tour/lakeokee/index.html. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service (NPS). (2007). 

Relative Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of National Park Units to Sea-Level 

Rise. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/projectpages/nps-cvi/. 

University of Tennessee. (1996). ATLSS: Across Trophic Level System Simulation for the 

Freshwater Wetlands of the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. Retrieved 

March 18, 2008, from http://atlss.org/. 
 43 

Zeiller, Warren. (2005). A Prehistory of South Florida. Jefferson, North Carolina: 

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. 
 44 

APPENDIX 

Figure 1. A depiction of the historic major landscape types and range of the Everglades prior to human 

settlement and intervention. This image also illustrates the historic flow of water from the Kissimmee 

River, to Lake Okeechobee, to the Everglades, and finally to Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. 

Retrieved February 23, 2008, from Science Coordination Team (SCT), South Florida Ecosystem 
 45 

Restoration Working Group. (2003). The Role of Flow in the Everglades Ridge and Slough Landscape. 

http://www.sfrestore.org/sct/docs/SCT%20 Flow%20Paper%20-%20Final.pdf. 

Figure 2. A satellite photo of the Everglades showing the Shark River Slough and the tree islands that 

are contained within the river of grass. The shape of the tree islands illustrates the direction of flow 

through the slough. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from Schwadron, Margo. (2006). Everglades Tree Islands 

Prehistory: Archaeological Evidence for Regional Holocene Variability and Early Human Settlement. 

Antiquity, 80(310), http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/schwadron/index.html. 
 46 

Figure 3. A map of the Everglades’ watershed starting with the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, the 

Everglades, and finally Florida Bay. This image also illustrates the system of hard structures established by 

the Central and South Florida Project in 1948, including the Everglades Agricultural Area, the three Water 

Conservation Areas, and the Tamiami Trail or U.S. 41. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from Davis, S.M. and 

J.C. Ogen, Eds. (1994). Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie 

Press. 
 47 

Figure 4. A Bay-City dredge, circa 1927, excavates sand and limestone to create the Tamiami Trail. 

Retrieved February 24, 2007 from Collier County Museums. (2001). Tamiami Trail: History and Photos. 

http://www.colliermuseum.com/history/tamiami_pic3.htm. 
 48 

Figure 5. A depiction of the Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the Everglades National 

Park. Retrieved February 24, 2008 from U.S. Geological Survey (2008, February 22). Ground Water 

Conditions in South Florida: Background information on South Florida Data collection, Introduction and 

Summary of Hydrologic Conditions. http://www.sflorida.er.usgs.gov/edl_data/text/back_intro.html. 
 49 

Figure 6. Photographs comparing a well preserved ridge and slough landscape to one that is degraded. 

The photograph on the left represents a well preserved ridge and slough mosaic landscape. The ridges 

appear to be in alignment with water flow. The photograph to the right represents a degraded ridge and 

slough landscape where the sawgrass appears more patch-like and the sloughs less open. Both photographs 

were taken in June of 2001 at Water Conservation Area 3A. Photographs retrieved from: Science 

Coordination Team (SCT), South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group. (2003). The Role of Flow 

in the Everglades Ridge and Slough Landscape. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from 

http://www.sfrestore.org/sct/docs/SCT%20Flow%20Paper%20-%20Final.pdf.

 Internal Restudy Team External Restudy Team 

Figure 7. The two flow-charts seen above represent the Internal and External Restudy Teams for the 

C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study or Restudy that was carried out in the late 1990’s. The Army 

Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District were the main groups responsible for 

the Restudy but overall 62 groups participated. Members of each group formed teams, the external restudy 

team and the internal restudy team. The internal team was made up of federal agencies, state agencies, 

local governments, and tribal governments. The external team consisted of policymakers, political 

representatives, and local citizen groups. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from Orth, Kenneth D. & Agnes R. 

McLean. (1999). Restoring the Everglades: Lessons in Team Planning. Army Corps of Engineers & South 

Florida Water Management District. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/orth_nwc_restudy_paper.pdf.
 50 

Figure 8. The table above compares the future of the south Florida ecosystem without a comprehensive 

restoration plan and with a comprehensive restoration plan. Without a comprehensive restoration plan, the 

future of south Florida and the Everglades National Park does not appear sustainable. Increased population 

and water demand pressures will reduce the amount of water discharged into the Everglades National Park 

thus endangering its ecosystem and the ecosystems of the Florida and Biscayne bays. Retrieved February 

22, 2008 from, United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District 

(USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: 

Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final 

Integrated Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM. 
 51 

Figure 9. The table above describes the major differences between Alternatives 1-6 of the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Each new alternative modifies the previous alternative or 

adds to it. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from, United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida 

Water Management District (USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project 

Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM. 
 52 

Figure 10. The table above describes the major differences between Alternatives A-D of the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida 

Water Management District (USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project 

Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM. 
 53 

Figure 11. The image above illustrates several of the components of the final Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management 

District (USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review 

Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Disc 1. 

Final Integrated Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM. 
 54 

Figure 12. A depiction of one component of Alternative D13R, the rebuilding of the Tamiami Trail. The 

final Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan calls for 20 miles of the Tamiami Trail to be rebuilt with 

bridges and culverts to allow water to flow more naturally from Water Conservation Area 3 to the 

Everglades. United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District (USACE 

& SFWMD). (1999, April). Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final 

Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final Integrated 

Feasibility Report and PEIS CD-ROM.
 55 

Figure 13. The table above lists the results of the grading evaluation of the without plan, A, B, C, and D 

alternatives. Each alternative and the without plan alternative was evaluated and analyzed using the South 

Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM), the Across-Trophic-Level System Simulation (ATLSS) 

model, the Everglades Water Quality Model, and the Rivers of Grass Evaluation Method. Each alternative 

was then graded based on water supply, water quality, and ecological objectives. United States Army Corps 

of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District (USACE & SFWMD). (1999, April). Central 

and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Disc 1. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and PEIS CDROM. 
 56 

Figure 14. This image illustrates output from the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM). 

The SFWMM is an integrated surface-groundwater model which can be used to evaluate the hydrologic 

cycle of South Florida. In this image, the water management area of the Everglades is broken up into 2 

mile by 2 mile cells. South Florida Water Management District. (2008). South Florida Water Management 

Model (SFWMM). Retrieved March 18, 2008, from https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_ 

SFWMD_HESM/PORTLET_POSITIONANALYSIS/OPLN/ADP/FRAME1/SFWMM.HTM. 
 57 

Figure 15. This diagram describes the currently observed changes in ocean temperature, salinity, sea 

level, sea ice, and biogeochemical cycles. From this diagram it appears the waters surrounding the 

Everglades National Park have become warmer, the amount of freshwater and pH has decreased, the 

amount of CO2 absorption has increased, as well as the salinity level and sea level. Retrieved March 2, 

2008 from Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le 

Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley & A. Unnikrishnan. (2007). Chapter 5, Observations: 

Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and 

H.L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.