about dam operation. Scientific information is currently guiding a series of experimental releases designed to better understand the impact of flows on the ecosystem and improve conditions for endangered fish species (CREDA, 2002). In the greater Everglades case, construction and operational management decisions have often come before completion of the scientific process or with little scientific guidance.

Scientists do not make the management decisions in either the Grand Canyon or the Everglades case. In both examples, scientists do research and provide scientifically based advice in a general way, while operations managers make the decisions on how to operate the facilities. This arrangement, which is logical and is a legal necessity, implies that there is effective communication between researchers and decision makers so that managers can frame questions that are important to them while scientists can communicate their results in useful forms.

Communication of science results is effective in the Grand Canyon case, less so in the greater Everglades case. The early GCES was specifically under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, the agency also responsible for the management and operation of the facility. The GCMRC is now under direction of the USGS and the Adaptive Management Program in general. While researchers from many agencies accomplished the research in the Grand Canyon, the results were funneled to managers through a single “portal.” This connection allowed for the development of a clear line of communication within a single agency, and it provided a single group of science interpreters who (in theory at least) coordinated results. In the greater Everglades example, several agencies conduct research and report results, but heretofore there has been no centralized process whereby connective lines to managers can be clearly established, and the integrative function is difficult to accomplish.

In summary, the Glen Canyon Dam and the Everglades restoration cases have a number of important and revealing parallels. Although there are regional differences, the CESI program can benefit from lessons learned from the two decades of experience in the Grand Canyon. The importance of stable, adequate funding, the establishment of a science center led by a senior scientist, and an emphasis on integration of results are the most important transferable examples.