Guest Blogger--Jim Wally

To keep you all updated on the Summer Intern Program, we have asked the interns to serve as guest bloggers from time to time. Here is a re-cap of the first week courtesy of Jim Wally:

The summer interns just finished our first full week of work!
We’ve been getting “fire hosed” as John calls it, trying to wrap our minds around all of the scientific background we need to understand the Everglades. It’s been a little challenging absorbing it all, but it helps that it is what we all love to study anyway. Dr. Tom has been a great teacher, and he certainly has some interesting methods. John, Eric and all of the rest of the mentors have clearly a great deal of thought and energy into setting up this program.
We’ve already got a heavy dose of government meetings that will be a part of our summer. We’ve been studying up on acronyms like WCA, ASR, and CERP just so we can follow some of the dialog. I know I already feel way more informed about how local government works. On Tuesday, we got to meet Christopher McVoy, one of the leading experts on what the Everglades looked like before we started to change it. We were all impressed how much knowledge he’s managed to accumulate about this controversial topic.
Thursday, Dr. Tom and Eric took us to the Wakodahatchee wetlands. It was easily the most wildlife-packed place I’ve ever seen. A few species like Anhinga and Blue Heron were still nesting, and the pond apple tree islands were chock full of nests. This wetland was all built to further process treated wastewater from the nearby treatment plant. It’s probably the best example I’ve seen of turning something society needs into something that can benefit wildlife.
Friday we got to visit the meeting of the Science and Technology committee for the Foundation. It was great to meet them and get some wisdom they’ve accumulated from all of their collective years of working on everglades restoration.
This week has been really informative and a lot of fun. We’re looking forward to spending most of next week out at the Refuge.

Keep checking back for more updates as the interns get deeper and deeper into the Everglades ecosystem.

Dr. Stuart Pimm, Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement Laureate

Congratulations to our friend and Science and Technology committee member Stuart Pimm, for winning the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievent.



To learn more about the Tyler Prize click http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/tylerprize/

Cypress Harvest photos

A report on the Economics of the Everglades Watershed

For ArtMarshall.org S&T Committee and interested parties;

It looks like the Everglades Foundation has put some resources to seriously good use, by engaging FAU to do a study on the "Economics of the Everglades Watershed and Estuaries", available on the link listed below.
HERE

There is also a salient report at OVER HERE
AND HERE
Eric Draper has used this reference in a recent paper.

All this confirms that our suggestion today to EvCo that ESV be considered as a breakout panel is a good one, and that the ESV approach does hold the potential of a paradigm shift for establishing the economic value of wetlands and estuaries, in dollars Congress and the public can understand.

Although we made the suggestion for a 2010 EvCo Conference breakout session on the ESV approach, TBD, we did leave open the possibility that this should be covered in a plenary.

Kudos for the Everglades Foundation for going in this direction. Valuing ecosystem services for better environmental decision-making needs wide-based support.

The Governor's River of Grass Revival--benefits by the numbers

April 18 was the Springtime Annual Meeting for the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and our Board members. The following is a response to questions raised at that event.........

Several of you asked for more background regarding the calculations of the worth of Restoring the River of Grass flow path, per the Governor's initiative to restore the missing link and revitalize the ROG, following the S&T Report and vigorous discussion on the $70 billion dollar benefit.

Per all the newspaper reporting, the present partial purchase of land to make this happen is reduced to $500,000 and change, and even this is in question, pending a Governing Board Vote.

Compare that to the benefit of $70 billion over the 40 year CERP life cycle, which likely is an underestimate.

This is a summary and you are welcome to stop reading here.

Attached below is a letter to the editor which never got printed (Randy?).

Owing to feedback or the lack of it, it is easy to conclude that society in general does not deal well with numbers on complicated subjects outside the S&T Community, however at the very least, ecosystem services benefits of $70 billion, relative to costs 1/10 of that, ought to be easily understandable, and acted upon.

This also reflects the lack of strategic thinking, which ought to lead to strategic calculations, in terms of the benefit:cost ratio long-term. This remains not yet visible, except here, and the other places the attached has been posted.

Getting the govt to go in this direction is a tough job, but somebody has to take it on. And it has to be somebody that likes number crunching, and is trained to do it.

Thanks for your support.

John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.

To see the Power Point presented as a poster paper at "A Conference on Ecosystem Services" - ACES - in Naples, Dec 8, 2008, and at the Everglades Coalition Conference, January 8, 2009 send your request to plantcypress@aol.com. Attention:Eric.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: JamInfoTo: letters@PBPost.comSent: 3/19/2009 3:48:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight TimeSubj: Letter to Editor, Palm Beach Post

Governor’s River of Grass initiative: Big Costs, but much Bigger return to the South Florida Economy

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) implementers working on the River of Grass project initiated by Governor Charlie Crist, owe Congress and the people of Florida another dollar estimate: How much is the project worth to the economy of south Florida, long-term, relative to cost?

Restoration opponents have suggested that ecological benefits gained by purchasing US Sugar land are too far off to justify delaying current restoration. They have not done the return on investment calculations, are not into long-term strategic thinking, and are short-sighted not to recognize we are in a different paradigm requiring a new vision.

The National Research Council and most federal agencies having CERP oversight (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior) advocate such an economic valuation approach and benefit to cost analysis per a study published in 2005: Valuing Ecosystem Services - Toward better environmental decision making.

The vision here is that applying the NRC, et al, approach to the River of Grass project is a great idea whose time has come.

Calculations traceable to references in the literature indicate that the worth of restoring the river of grass down a flow path previous proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers is worth $69.159 billion. Cost is estimated as $7.6 billion, about half way between $5 billion and $9 billion appearing in the news. (Palm Beach post, 3/18)

This yields a Benefit:Cost ratio of 9.1 (benefit divided by cost). The Corps of engineers uses Benefit:Cost ratio = 1.5 as the threshold for go-no-go decisions. The River of Grass project is a go!

The above calculations are a first order estimate, based on a “back-of-the-envelope” approach. The results were given at a conference on ecosystem services, Naples, FL, Dec 8, 2008, attended by many of the CERP implementers.

A primary recommendation was that CERP implementers should move out on using this approach for decision support, as demonstrated. A primary conclusion was that no matter how calculations are formulated, benefits of restoring the river of grass will always be significantly greater than the cost; further the decision support calculations would eliminate much debate, law suits, unnecessary expense and delay. This is likely true for most other restoration projects as well.

The benefits are not that far off, if the body politic could just get past non-science arguments, and focus on the Three R’s of Restoration: Restore sheet-flow; Re-vegetate; and Restore peat, to revitalize the river of grass. Senior scientists are also pushing these three R’s, as a means to mitigate sea level rise and salt water intrusion into our drinking water. There is no time to lose here in protecting our life support system.

Many need to be connecting the dots here, if nothing else as an exercise of the precautionary principle. Running the project benefit numbers, relative to cost, and return on investment, would result in a call to action understandable by Congress and the public. Restoration results remain the primary objective.

Respectfully submitted,

John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board; Co-Chair, Science Committee: JAMinfo@aol.com
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.; www.ArtMarshall.org
2806 South Dixie Highway, WPB, FL 33405; 805-8733

A 'Vision' for the Everglades --The Marshall Foundation responds

For the Future of Florida, Repair the Everglades -

1981 – The Marshall Plan Revisited!
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation Science & Technology Team Must Have Agency Action Report
January 8, 2008

Subject: Dept. of Interior Vision and Plan for Successful Everglades Restoration as an outline for an Everglades Agricultural Area Plan

ABSTRACT: This report addresses two urgencies: (1) Major disconnects between the Dept. of Interior Vision & Plan/National Research Council (NRC) recommendations, and terms of the US Sugar Corporation (USSC) land buy; (2) actions needed to overcome the major disconnects, given DOI/NRC stated urgency.

BACKGROUND. DOI has issued Version 2, of the DOI Vision and Plan, i.e. The Plan (Scarlett, Duke, et al, 2008). The Plan is being used as briefing document for the Obama transition team. The Plan is based on National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) Recommendations. (National Research Council, 2008) Briefings at the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) have indicated it will take at least two years to develop a plan for restoration efforts in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), after the USSC land purchase is complete, and land swaps can begin. Land swaps may be delayed owing to US Sugar having a seven year lease on the land, and other circumstances not yet foreseen.

THE MARSHALL PLAN, 1981, postulated that: (1) Sheet flow be restored to the greatest possible extent [feasible under current conditions] from the Kissimmee Lakes to Florida Bay; (2) the purpose was to recover an array of vital natural resources now disappearing from the region, of extreme importance to present and future Floridians and to the nation at large. (3) The status quo…continues to diminish or degrade: - water supplies – soils - freshwater fisheries - marine fisheries & estuaries – wetlands – Everglades National Park. This remains our call to restore the Everglades and its historic river of grass, per the Governor’s mandate.

IMPACT OF NOT TAKING ACTIONS SUGGESTED: Less than full action will preclude timely restor-ation with potentially unrecoverable ecosystem services and severe economic impacts (Marshall, 1981, 2008)

THREE MAJOR DISCONNECTS
· The seven year lease terms of the USSC land undermine the urgency of taking near term action to prevent further, possibly non-restorable degradation of the Everglades ecosystem, as reported by NRC (2008) and outlined in the DOI Plan.
· The seven year lease terms of the USSC insufficiently address the urgency of taking near term action on Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - CERP implementation as a carbon sequestration mecha-nism to mitigate sea level rise and climate change as reported by NRC (2008)/outlined in the DOI Plan.
· Both the DOI Plan and the USSC land purchase are not financially executable under the current federal – state financial structure; there is an immediate urgent need of financial restructuring, to provide the means for urgent actions aforementioned.

THE MARSHALL PLAN BENEFICIAL SUGGESTIONS FOR MUST HAVE AGENCY ACTION – 2009:

FEDERAL BENEFICIAL SUGGESTIONS:
· Presidential allocation of funds to CERP to make up for CERP 50/50 nine year federal deficit
· Presidential allocation of funds as a jobs/conservation corps/carbon reduction mechanism to support CERP implementation
· Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) or expanded federal legislation for back payment, and continue federal share of CERP 50/50 cost share.
· Federal establishment of cap and trade system with potential for ecosystem services economic value to partially fund CERP.
· DOI/Task Force facilitation of DOI Vision & Plan per WRDA 96, section 528, under an all-stakeholder Commission/Council Co-Chaired by Secretary, FDEP (Per DOI Vision and Plan recommendation)
o Continue science coordination team work to support stakeholder Commission
· Re-designation of the Everglades as an endangered ecosystem

STATE BENEFICIAL SUGGESTIONS:
· Provide funding to supplement the US Sugar Corporation (USSC) land purchase by SFWMD
· Appoint a Glades representative to the vacant SFWMD Governing Board position ASAP.
· Press USSC and other land owners for minimal land acreage immediately to implement full DECOMP and restoration of sheet flow per DOI Vision and Plan.
· Ensure the minimal amount of acreage (150,000 acres?) to make the USSC plant at Clewiston productive (cost-effective) for seven years.
· Take actions that provide non-ag economic transition under State Regional Economic Development Initiatives (REDI) before the Clewiston sugar mill becomes less than cost effective (next generation?).
· Note that failure to provide a modicum of land to restore the missing link results in equivalent adverse economic consequences to those who depend on the estuaries or near-shore fisheries for livelihood.
o Recognize that the ~43,000 acres needed to restore the missing link flow path will provide ecosystem service benefits of great economic value to all (Marshall, 1981; Marshall, 2008)
· Press for a lower total price, a higher lease price, and support, for financial sustainability of SFWMD mission, or out, per SFWMD counter-offer; the status quo amounts to an unfunded mandate.
· Use DOI Vision and Plan as integrated strategic guidance for an EAA plan
· Use Florida Dept of Community Affairs (DCA)/Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)/SFWMD oversight to ensure county plans do not interfere with CERP implementation.
· Provide a Co-Chair for facilitation of the DOI Plan per WRDA 96, section 528, under a standing stakeholder Commission; Include county govt and Florida stakeholder representation.

LOCAL BENEFICIAL SUGGESTIONS (Counties):
· Ensure land use provisions that do not inhibit CERP implementation
· Participate in implementing DOI Vision and Plan.
· Take Action in the 10 County Coalition

US SUGAR CORP: Cure the Mine Problem; Keep the corporate word that the sale is for the greater good.

AG COMMUNITY: Negotiate Land Trades; Help the local economy: Donate a Nature Center!

EVERGLADES COALITION: (DISCLAIMER: This Report does not constitute endorsement by EvCo)
· Exercise leadership in advocating for beneficial suggestions herein; Base advocacy on science
· Note that the DOI Vision and Plan is the closest thing to the 1981 Marshall Plan
· Note that the DOI Plan is the closest thing to the Everglades Coalition May, 2006, resolution taken to the Task Force asking for a strategic plan for the EAA; Same for the 10 County Coalition resolution in 2006.
· Note that all this is an extension of the homework given to EvCo by Senator Bob Graham (2008)

GENERAL BENEFICIAL SUGGESTIONS:
· Base all the above on full cost consideration of ecosystem services economic benefits as well as costs;
· Make CERP implementation a case study on getting to a proper Benefit:Cost ratio for decision support; (NRC 2000; Marshall, 2008); See NRC Summary at: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/valuing_services_final.pdf
· Be optimistic; Optimism is a force multiplier; Colin Powell.

REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY (Some familiarity of the references are a prerequisite for full understanding of this report, and the basis for action per beneficial suggestions noted:
1. Almeida, Danielle, et al; Top 10 Science Needs and Gaps; A poster paper; Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) Conference; July 21 – August 1, 2008; Naples, FL.
2. Marshall, Arthur R. Jr: For the Future of Florida, Repair the Everglades; Friends of the Everglades newsletter and Petition; Spring 1981; Also known as the Marshall Plan
3. Marshall, John Arthur; Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Restoring Gravity-Driven Flow to the Everglades; A Conference on Ecosystem Services (ACES); Dec 8 – 11; Naples, FL
4. National Research Council; Valuing Ecosystem Services; National Academy Press; 2000
5. National Research Council; Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review, 2008; National Academies Press Advance Copy; September 29, 2008
6. Scarlett, Lynn; Duke, Dennis, et al; Department of Interior Vision and Plan for Successful Everglades Restoration; Dec 4, 2008 Version (ARMF S&T Supporting comments to SFWMD Governing Board, WRAC et al, Jan 6, 2008)