ESV: Why the Controversy? Everglades Case Studies

Transcription

1 ESV: Why the Controversy? Everglades Case Studies ACES 2012 Workshop John Marshall, Angelique Giraud, James O Connell, Dr. Laila Recevskis, Dr. Leslie Richardson, et al;

2 Workshop Agenda Acronums List Synthesis = summing over details? Purpose: Paradigm Shift to save the Planet Controversy Q&A: Audience Participation Controversy Q&A in the Literature/observations Two Everglades Case Studies by Summer Interns Assessment of ESV for the Central Everglades Conclusions References Panel Discussion Q&A

3 ACRYNUM$ ACES = A Conference on Ecosystem Services ESV = Ecosystem Services Valuation CERP = Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CEPP = Central Everglades Planning Project Geographic Misnomer AKA Northern Everglades TSP = Tentatively Selected Plan for CEPP NRC = National Research Council CISRERP = NRC CERP/CEPP Peer Review Panel ROI = Return on Investment<=>Benefit:Cost; The Bottom Line is $B:$C

4 Numbers Challenge?? Reduce Environmental Decision-Support to a one number synthesis? B:C = ROI?

5 This ACES Workshop Purpose Shift from ESV = Zero (0) to an ESV Paradigm Use CERP/CEPP as case study to follow Overcome the absurdity of controversy that leaves ecosystems services to be valued at zero by a market that is unsustainable ESV Education to Restore and Protect planetary well-being in a sustainable manner

6 Audience Participation Ecosystem Services Valuation Q&A: Audience Fills in the blanks Controversy? Results/Solution

7 Major Controversy Hard for economists to put a value on goods that are not valued by the Market Result: Tragedy of the Commons Solution: Cap & Trade example Ozone Fix! Carbon Fix?

8 Major Controversy, Continued Economist K. Smith on Costanza Synthesis Should not be used in any form as measures of natural resources to human welfare or yardsticks or roadmap for future research (no, and hell no) Alternative: None visible! Kuhn: Structure for a Scientific Resolution: To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself.

9 Positions impeding progress? NRC Peer Review in 2012 Biennial Report: It is also notable that the Ecosystem Services summary paints a more optimistic picture of the usefulness of this (ESV) tool than does the NRC 2010 Biennial report. In summary, there is no established formula for the most effective approach to developing ESV synthesis documents. Where is help in getting to the magic formula?

10 NRC Dichotomy? NRC CERP Peer Review 2012 Biennial Report: We are not optimistic ESV can be done for CERP/CEPP 2005 NRC ESV Study Major Point: If the Ecosystem is not given a value, the default value is ZERO (0) More Tragedy of Commons: Agriculture and Development benefits out-compete ESV benefits by treating ESV as zero $$$ value

11 NRC CISRERP Proclamation CERP lacks a systematic approach to analyze the costs and benefits across multiple projects it is not clear how benefits can be optimized. What is NRC CISRERP Calling for? A word search for benefits results in 68 hits A work search for synthesis results in 53 hits REF: Everglades Restoration Progress; NRC Fourth Biennial Review, 2012 (see page 34)

12 ESV: Why shift the paradigm? Planet is in Peril Top Level Predator is in Danger ESV needs to render ecosystems competitive V. Development and Agriculture value White House recommends Feds go in this direction: Sustaining Environmental Capital Protecting Society & the Economy. If we Save the Everglades, we get to keep the Planet (Marjory Stoneman Douglas ~ 1981)

13 Synthesis Simplified CERP (Marshall Plan): Restore sheet flow to max extent feasible from Kissimmee Basin to FL Bay, i.e., Full Decompartmenalization. CEPP: Restore sheet flow from Lake O to rest of Everglades and FL Bay via WCA-3, Everglades National Park, concurrent with meeting water quality standards/seepage mgt SYNTHESIS? What is projected increase of ESV v. costs resulting from these DECOMP actions?

14 Pre-CERP/CEPP Geography Marshall Plan Flow 1981 USACE Plan 6 Flow

15 Plan 6 provides greatest eco-benefits; but the benefits were not monitized!

16 Missing Link River of Grass Workshop ESV of restoring ROG by 2010 Summer Interns

17 17

18 Central Everglades Planning Project Study Area Storage, Treatment, and Conveyance in the EAA Caloosahatchee Estuary Gulf of Mexico LAKE OKEECHOBEE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE EAA WCA 3A EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK 3B Florida Bay WCA 1 WCA 2 St. Lucie Estuary Biscayne Bay Atlantic Ocean Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Seepage Management Operational Changes CERP COMPONENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT 18 RESTORING THE HEART OF THE EVERGLADES CENTRAL EVERGLADES

19 CEPP: Events going on real time Five Final Alternatives going viral after Extensive Screening based on Modeling and Discussion USACE Taking the Five Alternatives to Public Meetings beginning Dec 10. Next (January?): Habitat Unit Assessment (HUA) will be used in downsizing 5 alternatives to Tenatively Selected Plan (TSP) Next #2, Date TBD: ESV of TSP For latest info, see:

20 L-30 L-33 L-28 S-8 WCA 2 WCA 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 STORAGE AND TREATMENT A-2 FEB integrated with State Remedies FEB on A-1 DISTRIBUTION/CONVEYANCE HRF: Spreader canal ~ 3 miles east & west of S-8 Backfill Miami Canal from S-8 to I-75 L-28 Triangle gap levee WCA 3A I-75 DISTRIBUTION/CONVEYANCE Increase S-333 capacity to 3000 cfs One 750 cfs gated structure in L-67 A One 6000-ft gaps in L-67C levee Tamiami Trail western 2.6 mile and eastern 1 mile bridge L-29 canal max stage at 9.7 WCA 3B SEEPAGE MANAGEMENT Increase S-356 to 1000 cfs Two 250 cfs pumps on L-31N to return seepage G-211 flood control operations, if needed Utilize coastal canals to convey seepage RESTORING THE HEART OF THE EVERGLADES FEB Pump Gated Structure Canal Operational Backfill Levee Removal 20 CENTRAL EVERGLADES

21 Everglades Case Studies Workshop Introduction (30 minutes) 2010 ESV of a Restored River of Grass (30) Angelique Giraud, UCF, 2010 ARM Summer Intern 2012 ESV of a Restored Everglades (30) James O Connell, UF, 2012 ARM Summer Intern Assessment of ESV for Central Everglades (45) Dr. Laila Racevskis,UF; Dr. Leslie Richardson, USGS Brief Q&A After Each Presentation Panel Discussion/Q&A (45)

22 A Few Good Conclusions Costanza Synthesis: sums over details Is a useable demonstration of a synthesis Use of the Costanza Synthesis provides quicker, better, cheaper approach to ESV Can be done better by detailed approach to local ecosystem; forget quicker & cheaper! In analysis of alternatives, relative ESV of alternatives is better than other approaches.

23 More Conclusions Ecosystem services value of the planetary biomes are not zero. ESV benefits tend to be large, relative to cost of restoring or replacing natural functions. Think Benefits:Costs >> 6:1 It is our job to calculate the benefits as well as the costs, to provide ROI for decision support If we calculate the benefits of CERP/CEPP we may yet get to keep the planet!

24 PRIMARY REFERENCES Costanza, et al, Report on value of the planet s 18 biomes; Google Nature 387; see Valuing Ecosystem Services Towards Better Environmental Decision-making, NRC 2005; See PCAST Report: Sustaining Environmental Capital, Protecting Society and the Economy; See sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Fourth Biennial Review, 2012; See

25 More References The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; T.S. Kuhn; 1970 Perspectives on Biodiversity Valuing its Role in an Everchanging World; NRC 1999 See Education of Public Example at: For additional info, Contact

26 QUESTIONS?

27 ARM SIP 2013 ADVERTISEMENT Arthur R. Marshall Summer Intern Program: Looking for a few hot-shot college students majoring in the environmental sciences, engineering or law to take up ESV approach. REQUIREMENTS: Juniors/Seniors/Grad Students GPA >> 3.0; visible verbal and written comm skills Multiple courses in earth sciences, math, physics. Career vision is in eco-sciences and related fields DETAILS: JAMinfo@aol.com