October 17, 2002

South Florida Water Management District
http://www.sfwmd.gov

2003 DRAFT Everglades Consolidated Report
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/everglades/index.html

Topic: Final Report of the Peer Review Panel
From: Jeff Jordan jjordan@griffin.peachnet.edy
http://webboard.sfwmd.gov:8080/~ECR/read?704,39

FINAL REPORT [Text file, 32 pages] of the
Peer Review Panel Concerning the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report

Review Panel:
        Jeffrey L. Jordan, Chair, University of Georgia
        Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
        Yuch Ping Hsieh, Florida A&M University
        Richard Meganck, Organization of American States
        E. Joe Middlebrooks, Environmental Engineering Consultant
        Rebecca Sharitz,  Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
        Robert Ward, Colorado State University

Submitted October 17, 2002

INTRODUCTION

The responsibility of this panel was to review and prepare questions on the draft of the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report (the Report), dated September 2002.  In addition, the panel's responsibilities include the consideration and inclusion of input from the public workshop conducted September 24-26, 2002, where relevant.  All comments noted on the web board by October 3, 2002, have been considered in writing this final report.  This Report summarizes the panel's findings regarding the key facts presented during the workshop and conclusions and recommendations on the subjects raised by the report authors and public participants. The Report and this peer review are part of an open panel review and public hearing to ensure that all involved are given an opportunity to be part of an open deliberation before a panel of objective experts. Constructive criticism of the Everglades programs and projects were sought from the panel.  However, this review by its very nature and constraints is not designed to evaluate detailed aspects of research and monitoring.  The panel's task was to determine if the appropriate scientific models and applications were employed, if all relevant data were used, and if the Report's findings were a logical consequence of the science and the data.

In reviewing the Draft Report, the general questions that the panel addressed included:

  1. Does the draft document present a defensible scientific account of data and findings for the areas being addressed?  Is the synthesis of this information presented in a logical and complete manner?

  2. Are the findings and conclusions supported by "best available information" or are there gaps or flaws in the information presented in the main body of the document?  What additions, deletions or changes are recommended by the panel to enhance the validity and utility of the document?

  3. Are there other interpretations of the data and findings that should be considered and presented to decision-makers?  Is there available information that has not been considered by the authors?

  4. Are there data summaries and analyses that should be included in future, annual peer reviewed reports to the Governor and Legislature?

The draft 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report is generally well written and well considered.  It is clear that the panel's review of the 2002 Report was considered and incorporated into this year's work.  The responses of authors to review comments during the public workshop were generally direct and sufficient.  The panel found the presentation at this year's workshop to be the best of the past few years.  The public comments were also helpful in the review process.

Summary of Major Recommendations

  1. Methods to obtain data follow strict controls.  The review panel strongly recommends that statistical methods used to analyze water quality data should be documented in protocols similar to those in the SFWMD Quality Assurance Manual and Monitoring Operating Procedures (chapter 2A).  This also applies to issues of phosphorus monitoring (chapter 5).

  2. Work should continue on the sources of mercury into the Everglades, including further understanding of the relationship between local, regional, and global sources of atmospheric mercury (chapter 2B).

  3. A future report would be well served to present a detailed model for the relationship between mercury, sulfur, phosphorus, biodilution and other factors, with some indication of the magnitude of the effect of each on methylmercury (chapter 2B).

  4. Variances and standard deviations should be reported when presenting statistical data, particularly with regard to the impact of BMP programs (chapter 3).

  5. The Review Panel believes that the  a body of scientific evidence supports the view that meeting the 10 µg/L P level will be protective of the natural flora and fauna of the Everglades.  However, scientific evidence does not support the view that this is the only level of P what would be protective of the Everglades biota, nor is there scientific evidence that the 10 µg/L standard is appropriate throughout the entire EPA (chapter 5).

  6. Although a 10 µg/L P criterion has been proposed, based upon extensive field transect data, the realistic application of a fixed criterion within a large and heterogeneous wetland ecosystem must be very  carefully considered.  In  particular, the question of the likelihood that existing and near-term future technology can achieve the proposed P criterion of 10 µg/L must be answered. The application of a uniform P criterion across the entire Everglades may not promote patterns of variability that are naturally characteristic of this system (chapter 5).

  7. The panel supports the concept that the District begin a long-term study to evaluate the role of trees historically and as a BMP south of the STAs both as a means of P removal and as a means of controlling contaminant movement.  This could be undertaken on a pilot basis with a relatively small investment.  Trees could be considered as a stand alone BMP or could be applied in combination with other BMPs.

CHAPTER 1:  Introduction to the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report

Given the increasing level of public interest and scrutiny regarding the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), this chapter takes on more importance than in previous years. Overall, the Review Panel found this chapter to be concise and very well written. The eight-chapter format continues to be logical. This year's draft report is better organized than the 2002 version. Chapter 1 will serve as a "stand alone" document for many readers interested in gaining an overview of the area and its principal management issues without having to wade through the technical chapters of the report.  The other chapter that may be read by the general public is chapter 7, which presents the CERP. The geographic description, progressing to a more detailed summary of each chapter is logical.

Since first included in the 1999 report, the section describing the District and other  governmental agencies has been improved. It is it critical to understanding chapters 7 (CERP) and 8 (Other Everglades Programs).  The organization of the sub-sections is also logical. Table 1.1 helps clarify a number of issues related to understanding the current status of research and pilot project investments and should be updated annually. It also helps tie the entire report together with references to specific chapters and their content.

The Panel notes efforts of the District in considering comments made at the 2002 public hearing on the consolidated report and presented in the "Environmental Alteration and Restoration of the EPA" section of the 2003 report. We are particularly encouraged by the inclusion of the sections discussing the "Environmental Challenges to the Everglades" as well as the "The Everglades Restoration Strategy" in the introductory chapter. These two sections in particular will help build both understanding and confidence by the public. Chapter 2A:  Status of Water Quality in the Everglades Protection Area

(Continued)

http://webboard.sfwmd.gov:8080/~ECR/upload/2003%20EVERGLADES%20CONSOLIDATED%20REPORT.txt

click here to return to 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report