National Academies Press: OpenBook

Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (2003)

Chapter: Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan

« Previous: Appendix D: Acronym List
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Appendix E
Monitoring and Assessment Plan

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

MARCH 29, 2001

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PLAN

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADE RESTORATION PLAN

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District

South Florida Water Management District

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
I. Introduction and Background

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) monitoring and assessment plan is a product of an interagency, interdisciplinary team known as Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER). The Adaptive Assessment Team (AAT) of RECOVER has the lead responsibility for creating the monitoring and assessment plan, and for conducting an on-going review of how well it is working. In addition, the AAT has the responsibility to use the information that is provided by the monitoring program to assess system responses, as a basis for recommending improvements in the restoration plan where needed. Overall, the RECOVER Leadership Group holds accountability for the CERP monitoring and assessment program within RECOVER.

(1) Purpose of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan

The primary purpose of this monitoring and assessment plan is to identify and describe the performance measures and parameters of the natural and human systems in south Florida that should be measured in order to determine the success of the CERP. The goal is to create a single, integrated, system-wide monitoring and assessment program that will be used and supported by all participating agencies as the means for tracking and measuring the success of the Comprehensive Plan. This document identifies the specific set of physical and biological performance measures that should be monitored, the geographic regions where these measures should be monitored, and the improvements in these measures that should occur during and following the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Collectively these measures will serve as indicators of the overall health of natural and human systems in south Florida, relative to the objectives of CERP. This monitoring and assessment program is required as a basis for determining whether CERP achieves these objectives (i.e., the recovery of healthy and sustainable ecosystems throughout south Florida and an improved environment for people), and to support an adaptive assessment process for refining and improving the design and operation of CERP throughout its implementation.

This is a system-wide monitoring and assessment program, designed solely for assessing how well CERP meets the system-wide objectives of ecosystem restoration and water supply. Each CERP project will develop a separate, local monitoring plan to assess the success of the individual project. To ensure that measures and targets selected by the project teams are consistent with system-wide measures, each project team should review this system-wide plan.

As a prerequisite to the implementation of the CERP monitoring and assessment plan, RECOVER is preparing four additional planning documents that will substantially expand upon the summaries provided below. These are:

  1. an integrated and standardized system-wide sampling design and data management protocol for the monitoring plan (subsection 4);

  2. an adaptive assessment strategy explaining how the AAT will use the monitoring data to conduct annual assessments of system-wide responses (subsection 6);

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
  1. a detailed monitoring plan implementation strategy (subsection 7); and

  2. a research needs document in support of the monitoring and assessment plan (Section IV).

In addition to these four planning documents, RECOVER prepares (and revises annually) a Program Management Plan. This management plan describes the tasks and responsibilities for all South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers activities pertaining to RECOVER for a three-year planning period. The RECOVER management plan includes a budget for all monitoring and assessment tasks.

The CERP monitoring and assessment plan is organized into five sections. Section I, the Introduction and Background, provides a broad overview of the purpose of the monitoring plan, how it was created, and how it should be applied. Section II contains the narrative descriptions and flow diagrams for the set of nine conceptual ecological models that provide the technical foundation for most of the natural system performance measures that have been incorporated into the monitoring plan. Section III contains the technical documentation sheets for each of the CERP performance measures that make up the monitoring plan. This section includes a description of the process used to develop and screen the biologic, hydrologic, and water quality performance measures comprising the CERP monitoring and assessment plan. These documentation sheets identify the specific parameters of the natural and human systems that are to be monitored, the geographic region where each is to be monitored, and the restoration targets for each. Section IV is a summary of the uncertainties associated with the hypotheses in the ecological conceptual models and a recommendation for research needs in support of CERP. The research listing identifies studies needed to reduce uncertainties in the model hypotheses in order to improve the ability of RECOVER teams to predict and interpret system responses. Section V is a set of spreadsheets, to be revised annually, for purposes of tracking the status of each element in the monitoring plan.1 Additional information on the content of each section is provided in the introductory paragraphs for each of the subsequent sections. Specific monitoring protocols, i.e., how the elements should be monitored individually and collectively, will be determined through consultation with the agency(s) or organizations responsible for implementing the data management program and the elements of the monitoring plan as well as outside consultants.

The content and adequacy of the CERP monitoring and assessment plan will be regularly reviewed by the AAT and the full RECOVER team, by all participating agencies, and by independent reviewers. Changes in the monitoring and assessment plan will be approved by the AAT. During the initial reviews of the monitoring plan the number and focus of the performance measures may be revised, due to on-going efforts to maximize the efficiency and coverage of the monitoring effort, while at the same time attempting to settle on the smallest number of measures necessary to track system-wide responses to CERP. As part of this initial review, the AAT will continue to examine the biological performance measures that are contained in this draft. The objective of this continuing review is to insure that the biological measures have been carefully selected and designed to effectively track responses by the components of the key restoration hypotheses

1  

Note that this section is not included in this review draft of the monitoring and assessment plan.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

contained in the conceptual ecological models. However, once the initial monitoring and assessment plan is reviewed and approved, it is not expected that large-scale changes will occur or would be desirable.

(2) What are Monitoring and Assessment?

Monitoring and assessment are critical components in the CERP adaptive assessment protocol and as such, merit clear definitions. Monitoring is the systematic process of collecting and storing data related to particular natural and human systems at some specified locations and times. Assessment is the process whereby monitoring data are interpreted in the context of particular questions and issues, such as tracking progress towards certain restoration objectives. Assessment also includes the development of statistical relationships from the monitoring data, other model development and application, and cause-effect research linked directly to the objectives of the restoration program. Monitoring can be used to document the status and trends of elements within the ecosystem over a range of temporal and spatial scales, and provide feedback that can be used to assess whether the predicted results are being achieved. It also provides information that can be used to help refine or modify actions to ensure that the targets for the project are being met.

When applied to natural ecosystems where maintenance in their current condition is desired, monitoring can be used to evaluate whether there are aspects of the ecosystem that are varying beyond what would be expected under the influence of natural processes. When monitoring is applied to disturbed ecosystems that are being restored, monitoring can be used to evaluate whether the ecosystem is moving in the desired direction. Monitoring can also determine when the ecosystem has moved within the bounds of what is defined as the restored condition.

It is important to be aware that rates of change, and thus the time required to document them, are often very different depending on the element being measured. Site history, landscape setting, the kind, degree, and direction of change, the potential rates of change for each parameter, and the level of applied effort in restoration projects can all affect rates of change. Restoration of some disturbed ecosystems can only be considered in geologic time frames because of the degree of disturbance that has occurred on these sites. In addition, other aspects of the South Florida ecosystem, including both restoration and development activities, will inevitably be changing at the same time, further complicating the ability to assess the success of the individual restoration components. It is essential that these differences in rates of change be factored into the assessments of environmental responses.

In the context of RECOVER, monitoring has been defined in an adaptive assessment strategy (An Adaptive Assessment Strategy for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; AAT, 2000) as having four objectives:

  1. Establish base-line variability for each of the performance measures;

  2. Determine the status and trends among the performance measures;

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
  1. Detect unexpected responses for components or measures of the ecosystem that have not been specifically identified as CERP performance measures; and

  2. Cause-and-effect scientific investigations designed to increase ecosystem understanding, particularly if restoration implementation yields unanticipated results.

Addressing these objectives will allow the determination of how CERP is affecting the physical, biological, and chemical components of the system, and to increase scientific understanding of how the system works. Knowledge of how the system is changing in response to CERP restoration actions combined with investigations of cause-and-effect relationships will contribute to the refinement of CERP projects to ensure that targets are being met. It is recognized that this monitoring plan does not include all of the measures necessary to document the long-term “restoration” of all systems in south Florida (e.g., some upland systems in undeveloped and developed landscapes), but it will provide a minimal set of measures for those systems directly affected by CERP.

(3) What Should Be Monitored?
In General

The main point of environmental monitoring is to detect change or lack of change over time, and to provide information sufficient to understand the causes of these patterns so that appropriate actions can be taken to manage the ecosystem for a desired condition. Part of the challenge in designing and sustaining a successful monitoring program is to select a limited set of parameters that adequately convey whether the ecosystem is or is not changing, in what direction it is changing, whether these changes are natural or a result of human actions, and if the latter, whether the changes improve or adversely affect the ecosystem in some significant way.

Prior to determining whether a change in condition or state has occurred, it is necessary to establish the initial or baseline conditions. Baseline information provides the benchmark against which the progress of the restoration plan can be measured, and to understand the ranges of natural variability necessary to confirm when change has actually occurred. While some regions of the Everglades ecosystem have well established monitoring programs, other areas have little or no baseline data. Plugging the gaps in baseline conditions is one of the critical components of the monitoring and assessment plan.

There are different approaches that can be used for selecting the best suite of monitoring parameters. One can select parameters that are considered to be the major stressors or processes that control the context within which an ecosystem operates. With this approach it is assumed that as long as the major processes are operating appropriately, the ecosystem is functioning appropriately.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Alternately, parameters such as individual species or groups of species that are considered to be indicators of the processes operating within the ecosystem can be selected. This approach assumes that unless all of the significant processes are operating appropriately, these indicators could not exist in this ecosystem at normal population levels.

This mix of constraints on the ability to detect either desirable change resulting from restoration or undesirable change in an ecosystem argues for monitoring a mix of both basic processes and integrators. This and the ever-present possibility of unanticipated ecosystem changes also argue for the use of as many monitoring parameters as are “feasible” from as broad a spectrum of ecosystem parameters as possible. In practical terms, “feasible” means that there are good assurances that the parameters can be measured and understood over sufficient time periods to determine the long-term affects of management or a restoration program.

The performance measures in this monitoring plan are planning and assessment tools that were approved (and in most cases also developed) by the CERP planning teams to identify the objectives for the restoration plan. Each performance measure identifies one or more components of the natural and human systems in south Florida that CERP has been designed to improve. The performance measures may be used in evaluation of proposed changes (primarily where simulation models exist) and as field indicators that the appropriate change has occurred.

These performance measures have, for the most part, been selected through two CERP planning processes; 1) the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study’s (Restudy) Alternative Evaluation Team (AET) and 2) the RECOVER Regional Evaluation, Adaptive Assessment, and Water Quality teams.

Restudy/AET process

Between 1996 – 1999, during the Restudy feasibility phase of CERP, an interdisciplinary, interagency team of biologists, ecologists, and other resource specialists (AET) developed a set of performance measures as the basis for designing and evaluating alternative restoration plans. Each performance measure was implicitly linked to one or more planning objectives, and consisted of a measurable indicator and target. Because a key tenet of south Florida ecosystem restoration is that hydrologic restoration is a necessary starting point for ecological restoration, the performance measures created by the AET were largely indicators of hydrologic characteristics, consistent with what is known or hypothesized about the optimum hydrologic patterns for a number of characteristic plant and animal communities in the historic Everglades.

These performance measures described hydrological parameters, data format and hydrological targets originally used by the AET to evaluate hydrologic simulation of alternative plans. Refined versions of these hydrologic performance measures are included in this monitoring plan for their value in setting hydrological targets for CERP,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

and for evaluating how well CERP implementation corrects the hydrological problems in the natural and human systems.

Conceptual Model process

The Restudy included an Applied Science Strategy that will now be used to link science and management during all phases of CERP. An essential step in this strategy has been the creation and refinement of a set of nine conceptual ecological models, each for a different physiographic region of south Florida. The models link stressors on the ecosystem to ecological attributes that are considered to be indicators of ecosystem health. Each of these linkages represents a working hypothesis based upon current knowledge of the ecosystem.

The overall Restudy strategy was to use the conceptual models as a basis for reducing the total number of performance measures from an almost infinite number of potential measures in the natural and human systems of south Florida to a manageable number of major key indicators of environmental conditions. The models allowed for the selection of a parsimonious set of performance measures directly based on the stressors and attributes in each model. These measures collectively describe the physical and biological conditions that will be used to define a successfully restored natural system.

The rationale for having performance measures and targets for each stressor is that the stressors are known or hypothesized to be the immediate sources of the ecological problems in each landscape. A successful restoration program must eliminate the unnatural stresssors acting on the natural systems. A performance measure describes the stressor and how that stressor should be measured, and how that stressor must change in order to neutralize its adverse effects. The hydrological performance measures for the natural system that were developed by the AET were for the most part derived from the hydrological stressors in these models.

Performance measures have also been developed for each attribute in the conceptual models. The attributes have been identified as the biological or ecological elements that are the best indicators of responses in the natural systems to the adverse effects of the stressors. The hypotheses used to construct the conceptual models link each attribute to the stressor(s) that are most responsible for change in that attribute. If the hypotheses are correct, neutralizing the adverse affects of the stressor will result in a predictable positive response by the attribute. The performance measure developed for each attribute identifies the element(s) of that attribute that should respond, how the element(s) should be measured, and how the element(s) should change once the effects of the stressor are removed.

The conceptual models also were used to identify uncertainties in knowledge in the linkages among the stressors and attributes. These uncertainties identify where additional research is needed to ensure the success of CERP and is discussed in Section IV.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Development of Water Quality Performance Measures

A number of the performance measures developed during the Restudy/AET process specifically focused on water quality. Water quality is identified as a stressor in several of the conceptual models. The linkages between water quality, hydrology and biology are complex and led to the decision to create a team that focuses on water quality as part of the RECOVER process. Refinement of water quality performance measures for RECOVER were conducted through the application of water quality and landscape models, empirical analyses, and results of on-going research.

Selection of performance measures for this plan

Over 900 performance measures and indicators resulted from the above processes. The monitoring and assessment plan must be sustainable for perhaps five decades or longer if it is to be successful in guiding CERP throughout its implementation and subsequent operation. The high cost of monitoring a large number of parameters over a large area and a long period of time is a major reason that many monitoring plans in support of adaptive assessment and management have failed to be sustainable. Therefore, it is crucial to identify a minimum set of performance measures that will indicate whether CERP is achieving ecological recovery of the greater Everglades ecosystem and is meeting its water supply and flood protection objectives.

Determining this minimum set of parameters from the many performance measures that were proposed was one of the tasks of the AAT’s Editorial Team. This task was accomplished by organizing the submitted performance measures into broad categories, and reviewing the performance measures in each category to determine where overlapping measures could be combined. Measures were combined when two or more had similar locations, parameters or targets (see Section III for details). The result is a list of ~150 performance measures (~60 biological and soils, ~20 hydrological and ~70 water quality) with identification of the information they provide to assess system-wide CERP performance.

The refinement of the performance measures is an on-going process. It is essential that the monitoring and assessment plan address the key restoration hypotheses, and that it focus on a sustainable number of performance measures. Long-term monitoring and assessment efforts fail if they are too large, too complicated, too expensive, or if the results can not be interpreted within the context of the key hypotheses. The next steps in the evolution of this monitoring and assessment plan is for the Adaptive Assessment team to re-exam the current set of recommended measures in the context of their linkages as outlined in the conceptual models. As part of this review, the measures will be grouped into logical, hypothesis-based packages as a basis for designing a more efficient system-wide monitoring protocol. The selection of these key hypotheses provides the focus for the monitoring and assessment program and for setting hypothesis-driven priorities in on-going and future natural systems research. The ultimate success of the CERP adaptive assessment program will depend on the acquisition of new information from an integrated program of modeling, monitoring and hypothesis-driven research. The general

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

framework for this approach is further outlined in Section III of this monitoring and assessment plan.

(4) Monitoring Plan Design Strategy: Monitoring design considerations

Along with the identification of essential parameters to monitor, a monitoring network must be logistically economical, provide quantitative data, apply a standardized monitoring and data management protocol, and ensure that data analysis is done in ways insure that trends can be correctly recognized and tracked over time with confidence. There are a number of different approaches that can be taken in the design of a monitoring network that meets these design objectives. Although decisions regarding the details of the design protocol have yet to be determined, certain guiding considerations are provided here.

Field monitoring and laboratory methods must be standardized. All participating investigators in the monitoring and assessment program must use agreed-upon methods for collecting and managing monitoring data. Any changes in methods during the implementation of the monitoring and assessment plan will be documented.

A spatial framework for the monitoring network and its component performance measures needs to be defined. Selection of performance measures can best be done within this framework because: 1) the spatial scale of sampling will financially constrain the number of parameters that can be measured; 2) consideration of spatial domains that are consistent with the conceptual models will promote consideration of the interactions of performance measures and the need for grouping measures, rather than assessing measures independently; and 3) consideration of gradients will add realism to the conceptual model approach – the habitats included in the conceptual models are not isolated entities, but rather exist as part of a continuum across the landscape. Common performance measures of several habitats and how they change temporally across habitat ecotones needs to be assessed.

RECOVER should consider documenting changes across three important gradients that will be changed during the restoration: hydrologic, nutrient, and salinity gradients.

  • Hydrologic gradients – restoration will change the spatial distribution of hydropatterns and associated plant and animal communities. Gradients from uplands through deeply inundated wetlands may shift over substantial distances.

  • Nutrient gradients – must be able to detect effectiveness of water quality improvements in and near impacted zones, which generally are gradients oriented by discharge sources. Indirect hydrological effects on natural nutrient gradients must also be assessed (e.g. within mangrove zone).

  • Salinity gradients – changing water quantity, distribution, and timing will cause changes in the location of salinity gradients and the salinity patterns along those gradients. This will yield biological responses that can best be assessed by sampling along these gradients.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Several monitoring design options are available. These options are not mutually exclusive, but each should be carefully assessed as to their advantages and disadvantages prior to selecting a design. Transects are an excellent approach toward assessing changes along gradients. These gradients are the most likely locations where ecological change will occur; transects maximize the ability to detect this change. A randomized design (like the EPA EMAP) or stratified randomized design is capable of spatially integrating broad-scale changes for the entire landscape area . This design is desirable if a broad spatial integration is the highest priority. A network of fixed stations that are based on existing monitoring networks can provide a larger data time series for comparison with post-restoration conditions (e.g. hydrological and water quality). Sites of special interest will provide information relative to unique species or communities and how they are affected by restoration (e.g. within selected reference or indicator areas).

If a transect design is chosen, sampling along gradients can either be completely randomized or stratified random sampling (depending on steepness of gradient or on habitat type); sample sites can be fixed for some parameters (with randomized initial selection) such as for ground water wells or individual trees. Likewise, if the focus is on indicator regions, sampling within these regions can be randomized or transect based (assuming these regions span recognizable gradients). See Appendix A for Indicator region maps.

Existing monitoring networks or sites (especially hydrologic and water quality sites) may be incorporated into the CERP monitoring program, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the purposes of the existing programs. While there is a need to utilize historical data to assess long-term change, the CERP network should not be based on the existing network if this design is not appropriate for future needs.

A network of “indicator regions” created by the AET, and refined by the RECOVER Regional Evaluation Team, should be considered in the spatial design of the monitoring plan. Indicator regions are select groupings of cells (2-mile x 2-mile grid) within the Natural System Model and the South Florida Water Management Model. Each of the indicator regions was chosen on the basis of having relatively uniform hydrologic and vegetation characteristics. The indicator regions were used in simulation modeling to average model output over multiple similar cells as a way of reducing analytical uncertainties associated with single cell comparisons. The current set of indicator regions may provide preferred locations for a network of monitoring stations throughout the CERP restoration area. See Appendix A for indicator region maps.

Monitoring and research spatial design should be integrated. It is not efficient to have separate designs for hydrologic, water quality, and biological networks – these should be part of an integrated monitoring system to the extent possible. Because of the importance of this integration, it may be necessary to change the existing hydrologic and water quality network or the indicator region selections. Large-scale integration should be explored using aerial photography and remote sensing.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(5) How are monitoring data managed and analyzed?

The scientific and technical information generated from the system-wide monitoring and assessment program must be organized and analyzed in such a fashion to allow RECOVER to effectively evaluate CERP performance and system responses and to produce an annual assessment report describing and interpreting the responses. Development of appropriate database systems, data analysis protocols and outputs, and a data driven web interface are key to the successful implementation of the adaptive assessment process.

The design of the CERP monitoring data management and analysis system will be based on knowledge gained from the successful data management systems currently being used in several on-going regional monitoring programs in south Florida, including the Kissimmee River restoration program and the Lake Okeechobee ecological data-bases.

The data management and analysis system used to organize and archive data and reports generated from the system-wide monitoring program will be part of a centralized CERP shared data and information network infrastructure. This system will be designed and developed so that it integrates with other database components of the infrastructure. With guidance and direction from the AAT, the monitoring data management system will be evaluated, designed, developed, tested and implemented within the CERP Data Management Program. Additionally, appropriate user web-based interface tools to display and analyze the monitoring data will be designed and developed.

A separate program-level management and analysis plan for all CERP-related data will include the information technology necessary to collect, store and retrieve and analyze the data. The data management plan will describe the scope, schedule and costs associated with design, procurement, installation and configuration of the hardware, software, network, security and data communication lines that comprise the shared data and information network. The appropriate protocol and procedures for tracking and storing all documents, data and records needs to be established in the plan as well.

The data management and analysis system will be designed to facilitate electronic storage and retrieval of environmental data and reports as well as provide access to other information (modeling, socio-economic, costs and schedules, etc.) that may be needed to assess CERP performance. The system will be equally accessible to the SFWMD, the USACE and other participating agencies, and will consist of database servers and a web site that will allow a multitude of data types and relevant documents to be easily accessed and shared. The infrastructure and software will be designed to eliminate the potential for security and firewall breaches that could threaten the integrity of the system and the information it contains. The web site will also be used to post information and data for review by other agencies, stakeholder groups and the public.

The monitoring program database will contain all environmental (hydrologic, water quality, and biological) monitoring spatial and time series data tables that will be used to assess the effects of implementing CERP. The database will store documents, imagery

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

and other tables (such as those that describe methods, conceptual models, performance measures, costs, etc.) that are needed to interpret or enhance understanding of the environmental data. Development of the database hinges on continued evolution of the conceptual models and listing of associated performance measures and monitoring needs to guide the process.

System development will also require acquisition/capture from multiple sources (CERP projects, external agencies, SFWMD, etc.) and inventory of all existing (and future) data that may be relevant to the performance measures. Types of data to be captured and archived in the system include: metadata, geospatial, time series, operations, engineering/construction designs, and technical reports/relevant research. Geospatial data includes, but is not limited to, surveys, maps, aerial photography, aerial imagery, and modeling coverages (biological, water quality and hydrological). There is a considerable amount of time series data generated from a number of on-going monitoring and research programs that will also need to be incorporated into the system.

To effectively manage these data and ensure that they can be easily stored, accessed and retrieved, and transferred by all authorized users, a set of standards, processes, procedures and tools will be established. The standards and procedures will address such topics as geospatial metadata, data projections, horizontal/vertical datums, file formats, compression techniques, file coding and file naming conventions for all data to be stored on the shared data and information network. A document management and control system/process will be developed and implemented to assist with organizing and tracking program documents and reports.

A quality assessment/quality control (QA/QC) process will be established to ensure that data generated from the monitoring program are checked for the proper integrity before being archived into the shared database.

The database system will be maintained, updated, quality assured and expanded to meet the needs of the adaptive assessment process, as necessary, and to accommodate continuous acquisition, storage, analysis and publishing of data. The system will require periodic hardware and software upgrades, along with possible purchase of additional disk space and memory.

A key component in a successful data management system is data analysis. The management system must produce data reports that present the monitoring data in formats that clearly support the Adaptive Assessment team in its task of interpreting system responses in the context of restoration targets. For this to happen, the raw monitoring data for each of the performance measures must be analyzed according to a protocol that is consistent with the guiding hypotheses and the restoration targets. The Adaptive Assessment team will have a lead role in determining the requirements for the design for data analysis for each of the performance measures, and for determining the required formats for the data reports.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(6) How are monitoring data used to assess CERP performance?

The monitoring data will be analyzed, and used to support an adaptive assessment protocol that has been established in CERP as a means for tracking the results of CERP, and for improving its design and operation whenever unexpected and/or undesirable responses occur. The assessment will follow the protocol developed by the AAT (AAT 2000; Figure X). The actual responses that occur in the natural and human systems during and following the implementation of CERP will be compared to the trends and targets that have been established for each performance measure. These comparisons will serve as a basis for determining how successfully the CERP projects, individually and collectively, are moving these systems towards the plan’s overall goals. It will be the combined responses from the full set of performance measures that will determine the overall success of CERP.

The CERP monitoring program is designed to track the responses by each of the restoration plan’s performance measures. Empirical data from the monitoring program is fed into the CERP data management system. This data management system will convert the field data into formats that can be used by the RECOVER teams to interpret system responses to the CERP projects. Data management will include synthesis and analysis of the monitoring data, in order to create the data reports that will best support the assessment process.

Data analysis is an essential prerequisite to the task of interpreting system responses. Raw monitoring data must be converted into formats and reports that reveal the status and trends, patterns of variability, and probable responses to the effects of CERP, for each of the performance measures.

The AAT has the lead responsibility for reviewing and interpreting the analyzed outputs from the monitoring data, and for integrating new knowledge of the natural systems into the assessment process, as a basis for tracking the success of CERP. A protocol will be developed that not only examines monitoring data for each of the individual performance measures, but also integrates these into an overall assessment of system health/integrity. The AAT will issue annually a report on the performance of CERP. These reports will identify where ecosystem responses to CERP are on track to meet the goals of the plan, and/or where undesirable responses are being detected. Where undesirable responses occur, or may be anticipated based on initial interpretations of monitoring and research data, the annual reports will suggest whether the causes of these responses are due to some structural or operational component of the restoration plan or are external to the plan. The Comprehensive Plan Refinement Team of RECOVER will use these AAT reports as a basis for coordinating efforts to recommend solutions to any problems in CERP’s performance.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(7) Implementation of the Plan

The CERP Monitoring and Assessment Plan will be the tool by which the RECOVER team will assess the performance of CERP. By necessity, the development of such an important plan is an iterative process. This is to ensure the technical soundness of the plan, the concurrence of the SFWMD and USACE, and the full participation of the other state, federal, and local partners, as well as the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are critical to the success of CERP.

The primary consideration of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan is the selection of key indicators that will describe the response of the ecosystem, as well as water supply and flood control, as CERP is implemented. The ecosystem performance measures were derived from a number of sources, including numeric hydrological and landscape models, and ecological conceptual models. Concerted efforts were made, and continue to be made, to include the best scientific and technical expertise in the development of the plan.

Another factor to consider in the development of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan is to ensure that it is sustainable over the life of CERP. This takes into consideration the complexity of the ecosystem, as well as the resource and funding needs, to carry forward a program over the next 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the Adaptive Assessment Team will continue to refine the plan during the first few years of implementation.

The March 20th draft Monitoring and Assessment Plan includes the revised ecological conceptual models, the proposed suite of performance measures, a preliminary outline of critical research areas, and the performance measure documentation sheets. Additional supporting documents are required to complete this plan. These include the implementation strategy, the monitoring network and sampling design, the adaptive assessment process, and the supporting research requirements. In addition, the AAT is conducting a review of current and baseline monitoring efforts as they pertain to the performance measures, and a review of other large-scale ecological restoration programs

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

to learn how they developed and implemented their own monitoring and assessment process.

Over the next six months, the supporting documents will be developed and incorporated into the Plan (Fig 1). During this time, the Plan is also being distributed to a number of groups and agencies to solicit review comments. A technical workshop will also be held to present the final Plan and address any remaining issues. It is anticipated that the final Monitoring and Assessment Plan will be available by September 2000, with initial implementation of the plan occurring immediately thereafter.

Implementation of the monitoring and assessment activities is envisioned to be a phased effort, with the initial focus on filling the gaps in essential baseline data. The first year will also focus on optimizing the monitoring network and sampling design with the goal of incorporating those existing monitoring efforts that are consistent with the intent of the Plan. The final schedule will consider the time necessary for equipment purchase and installation, database development and set up, and quality assurance/quality control procedures. Initiation of monitoring at specific sites or regions will be coordinated with implementation of the various CERP components.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Figure 1: Monitoring and Assessment Plan Implementation Process

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

The CERP monitoring program consists of approximately 150 different biological, hydrological and water quality parameters. No single agency can or should have responsibility for conducting the full suite of monitoring tasks. Although lead responsibility for funding and implementing this monitoring program is held by the USACE and the SFWMD, the success of this program will depend on a long-term participation by a number of different south Florida resource agencies. Following are suggested guidelines for some of the tactical steps required to implement the CERP monitoring program. Some of these steps are, by necessity, sequential but many may be conducted simultaneously.

Selection of Performance Measures

  • Determine the parameters of the natural and human systems in south Florida to be monitored, those which will best measure the success of CERP.

Peer Review of Plan

  • Conduct an internal review of the monitoring plan within the SFWMD and USACE.

  • Provide for external peer review of the monitoring plan (SCT, CROGEE).

  • Introduce the monitoring plan to the south Florida agencies through the agency representatives on RECOVER, and through the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group.

  • Facilitate agency reviews of the monitoring plan.

Monitoring Network Spatial and Temporal Design

  • Review and evaluate regional monitoring programs for other large restoration efforts for their extent, operational protocols, data management processes, and funding basis relative to long-term needs of CERP (LTR program, EMAP, Kissimmee River, etc.).

  • Bring in experts on monitoring network development and design methods, as well as on evaluating and determining monitoring methods and protocols for each performance measure.

  • Identify the elements of the CERP monitoring program that are currently being monitored by one or more agencies, and incorporate, to the extent practical, these existing monitoring networks and infrastructure to achieve the objectives of adaptive assessment, while still meeting individual agency needs.

  • Lay out and optimize the network at spatial scales and over time periods that are consistent with the scales of the implementation schedule for CERP and the expected system responses.

Monitoring Network Implementation Flexibility

  • Design and implement the monitoring program with monitoring stations being phased in over the next one to three years.

  • Where appropriate, refine and redirect existing environmental monitoring to better focus on needs of CERP.

  • Identify monitoring gaps.

  • Create a monitoring schedule, based on a prioritization process that focuses first on integrating existing monitoring programs and on new baselines (where none exist) that need to be established prior to implementation of the restoration program.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Capture and Inventory Historical Data for Performance Measures

  • Conduct an inventory/analysis of existing historical performance measure data and determine a process for acquiring the data, evaluating its quality and organizing it for archival in the CERP data management system.

Assign Monitoring Responsibilities

  • Assess the type and extent of external agency involvement in the implementation of monitoring tasks and determine which agency will be responsible for monitoring what performance measures and where.

  • Assign to an appropriate entity, the responsibility for general oversight of the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the overall system.

Establish Standard Operating Procedures

  • Develop protocols and standard operation procedures for data collection (i.e. sampling methods for each performance measure), instrumentation, data processing, lab analysis, quality control and assurance, flow and load calculation methods, and reporting format/schedule.

  • Work with CERP Data Management Program team to establish a set of standards, process procedures and tools to effectively quality assure/quality control data and ensure it can be easily stored, accessed and retrieved, and transferred. Such standards and procedures include those for data validation and formatting criteria, station naming conventions, and metadata requirements (e.g., site registration, GPS coordinates, vertical datum, etc.) for the performance measures.

Integrate Program with Research and Projects

  • Integrate RECOVER monitoring and assessment program with other research and modeling efforts and develop linkages between the RECOVER monitoring and project-specific monitoring.

Procurement Strategy

  • Develop a SFWMD/USACE procurement strategy for monitoring services and resources that includes identification of outsourcing opportunities and possible M/WBE vendors and contractors

  • Pre-qualify expertise of contractors.

  • Develop standard scopes of work for MOUs, MOAs, contracts etc. with agencies and laboratories that will be collecting and analyzing data for the system-wide monitoring network.

  • Outline a prioritization schedule for procuring required monitoring system instrumentation (telemetry, CR10s, autosamplers, etc.) and other capital needs as each phase of monitoring is implemented.

Review and Assess Effectiveness of Monitoring Program

  • Conduct annual reviews of the monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the program for measuring system responses and supporting an adaptive assessment process. The plan will be periodically fine tuned on a scientifically informed basis,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

including refining and enhancing performance measures to optimize the network, as needed.

  • The AAT will prepare an annual adaptive assessment report on system responses, and will identify where CERP refinement may be needed.

(8) Uncertainties in system responses

In the development and selection of performance measures and the resultant monitoring and assessment plan, there are varying degrees of certainty regarding the expected system response as we construct and operate the various CERP projects. Performance measures derived from predictive models that have been calibrated and verified with empirical data, or through cause-and-effect experimentation, provide the most certainty as to their accuracy. However, this type of in-depth analysis and documentation of ecological processes is not routine or uniform across the ecosystem. Many of the performance measures are based on indirect, correlative approaches or best professional judgement. Therefore, it is anticipated that unexpected or “negative” responses may occur as we move through the CERP program.

To illustrate, each conceptual model for CERP links ecosystem stressors to attributes via a series of causal pathways. The linkages between stressors and attributes are the basis for predicted responses of the attributes to changes in the stressors. The linkages represent the present state of scientific knowledge of the ecosystem regarding causal effects of the hydrologic and water quality stressors on the attributes. The level of certainty in each linkage may vary from published causal relationships and models, to ongoing research and unpublished data, to research in comparable ecosystems, to field observations, to best professional judgement. Because large, complex ecosystems such as the Everglades may never be wholly understood or predictable based on research and modeling, the causal linkages represent working hypotheses with varying levels of certainty.

The levels of certainty in the conceptual ecological model linkages affect our ability to interpret ecological changes that are detected through the monitoring and assessment plan. Interpreting an ecosystem change during the implementation of CERP requires an understanding of the causal relationships of the ecological indicators to hydrology, water quality and other stressors that may be outside the influence of CERP. This will be particularly true when unexpected ecological responses occur. Understanding why unexpected responses occur will be fundamental to the role of adaptive assessment in guiding CERP throughout its implementation.

Assessment of the varying levels of certainty in the conceptual model linkages indicates strengths and weaknesses in the restoration expectations of CERP and in our ability to interpret ecological changes toward, or away from, those expectations. Low levels of certainty in the linkages identify highest-priority areas of research necessary to support and supplement the monitoring and assessment plan. Thus the conceptual models, and the levels of certainty in their linkages, yield a strategy for prioritized research and modeling, described in Section IV, that is driven by the adaptive assessment process.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

The implementation of the monitoring and assessment plan will, over time, additionally help to raise the levels of certainties of CERP-related effects on the south Florida ecosystem.

(9) Perspectives on Successful Restoration

This section does not attempt to specifically answer the question of what is successful restoration. Rather it raises several key issues and identifies the key discussions that must occur on a continuing basis during the implementation of CERP, if a broad consensus regarding a collective vision of a successful restoration program is to be maintained and strengthened. To a large extent, the question of “what is successful restoration?” should strongly influence the decisions of “what should be monitored?”.

The question of what is, or is not, successful restoration, is a complex issue, one that continues to be discussed by both scientists and the broader public. It is acknowledged that there currently is a range of definitions of “success” for CERP. The range of views on this question simply illustrates that there are many legitimate criteria that have been proposed for use in characterizing healthy, "restored" natural and human systems. Depending on which criteria are preferred, and there are different views on how the priorities should be set, there are different elements of these systems that can serve as indicators of successful restoration. Continuing discussion of these questions will result in the addition of new performance measures and in improvements to the existing set of measures.

CERP contains both natural system and human system goals. The performance measures and monitoring plan address an array of system-wide biological, ecological, water quality, water distribution, and depth and flow, water supply and flood protection objectives. Broadly stated, the success of CERP will have been achieved when the objectives described by the full suite of performance measures have been reached.

In the natural system, it is widely acknowledged that ultimate success should be determined through measures of ecological and biological responses. Hydrological and water quality objectives are essential precursors to the realization of the overall natural system restoration goals. How closely CERP must achieve these precursor objectives in order to meet its ecological objectives remains uncertain, in a system that is so greatly altered spatially, and where pre-drainage hydrological and ecological linkages are incompletely known.

A more pragmatic question is to ask how many, and which, of the total number of performance measures must be achieved before the plan is considered successful? And how closely to the desired objective that have been established for each measure does the plan’s performance need to come? These questions over time will become more easily answered as understandings and agreements of what actually constitutes a healthy, “restored” natural system improve. The combined effects of continuing research coupled with improvements in public understandings of the natural systems of south Florida will inevitably lead to a growing consensus regarding the qualities of healthy

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

natural and human environments. The current Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, according to modeling, is predicted to return the natural system to a hydrological and ecological condition that is well within the boundaries of a “restored system” as defined by the performance measures used during the Central and Southern Florida Restudy. CERP is predicted also to largely meet its water supply objectives. The role of the monitoring plan and the adaptive assessment process are to increase the chances that these predictions are correct, while at the same time “raising the bar” for the overall objectives of CERP.

(10) Adaptive Assessment Team Editorial Team Members

The following people served as members of the ad hoc editorial team that drafted the CERP system-wide monitoring and assessment plan. For additional information on the monitoring and assessment plan, contact either of the AAT co-chairs, Laura Brandt (laura_brandt@fws.gov) or Susan Gray (sgray@sfwmd.gov), or the SFWMD’s RECOVER Program Manager, John Ogden (jogden@sfwmd.gov).

Tomma Barnes, South Florida Water Management District

Laura Brandt, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Cheryl Buckingham, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Steve Davis, South Florida Water Management District

Juan Diaz-Carreras, South Florida Water Management District

Mike Duever, South Florida Water Management District

Susan Gray, South Florida Water Management District

Eric Hughes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Linda Lindstrom, South Florida Water Management District

Agnes McLean, South Florida Water Management District

Brenda Mills, South Florida Water Management District

John Ogden, South Florida Water Management District

Joe Walsh, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
III. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND DOCUMENTATION SHEETS

This section provides the recommended set of performance measures that form the foundation for the RECOVER monitoring and assessment program. It presents a technical documentation sheet for each recommended performance measure and identifies the categories of information that can be gained by monitoring each parameter. Each documentation sheet describes the parameter of the natural or human systems to be measured, in what geographic regions it is to be measured, and the restoration target. The details of how each parameter is to be measured, how the overall monitoring plan will be designed, (including further review of all of the performance measures to identify the most efficient, informative and cost-effective set of measures to support this regional monitoring program), and how the results of the monitoring will be evaluated will be developed by the AAT over the next few months from the general guidelines outlined in the Introduction

(1) Selection of Performance Measures

The current list of 156 CERP performance measures was developed from three categories of measures (Biological and Soils; Hydrologic; Water Quality) through a series of steps conducted by the AET and, more recently, by several teams of RECOVER. These steps were:

  1. AET created a set of approximately 900 hydrological and water quality performance measures (with restoration targets) and performance indicators (without targets) used to evaluate alternative plans during the C&SF Restudy process.

  2. AAT created additional biological performance measures based on the biological attributes in the nine conceptual ecological models.

  3. RET removed all performance measures/indicators from the original AET list that lacked restoration targets (all indictors) or were not used by the AET during the Restudy plan evaluations.

  4. The RET then organized the resulting set of hydrological performance measures into categories, screened and synthesized them within each category to create a new set of performance measures.

  5. WQT developed a revised set of water quality performance for each region.

  6. A technical documentation sheet for each performance measure was submitted to the AAT, RET or WQT.

  7. AAT organized the biological and soil performance measures into broad categories, screened, and synthesized the measures within each category to create a list of 56 biological and 5 soil CERP performance measures.

  8. WQT organized the water quality performance measures, screened and synthesized the measures to create a list of approximately 73 water quality CERP performance measures.

  9. AAT and WQT teams categorized all performance measures according to the kinds of information that the monitoring data from each will provide to the assessment process.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
  1. The measures created by the AAT, RET and WQT were combined into a “final” list of approximately 156 CERP performance measures. Additional information on the screening and categorization criteria are provided below.

(2) Categorization of Performance Measures

Most monitoring plans fail because they try to do too much, exceed their resources, and in the end, fail to do enough. It was recognized that, even though the list of potential ecological performance measures had been limited to only a few hundred as compared to the almost infinite list of possible measures, it would still be impossible to monitor all of them everywhere. Therefore, a screening procedure was developed to review the submitted performance measures for the information that could be gained from them and their value to the monitoring plan.

The submitted performance measures were organized into the broad categories of:

  • Biological-Animal including endangered species, keystone species, exotics, communities, and productivity, which were evaluated by the AAT.

  • Biological-Plants including communities, invasive exotic and native species, and productivity, which were evaluated by the AAT.

  • Soils, which were evaluated by the AAT.

  • Water Quality, which were evaluated by the WQT

  • Hydrologic including water supply, flood control, and natural system regimes, which were evaluated by the RET.

(3) Evaluation of Biological and Soil Performance Measures

Once the biological and soil performance measures were appropriately grouped, they were further evaluated to determine if any could be combined where the same performance measure was listed from multiple conceptual models, or where two or more were measuring the same components of the system, or could be monitored using similar procedures. This process helped to reduce the number of performance measures and provided a group of consolidated performance measures that could be evaluated for inclusion in the monitoring and assessment plan.

This grouping process condensed the number of biological and soils performance measures to a number still too large for a long term, sustainable monitoring plan. Therefore, a series of screening criteria were used to determine if the consolidated performance measures were suitable for inclusion in the CERP monitoring and assessment plan. In developing the criteria the AAT Editorial Team relied heavily on the list of general criteria developed by The National Research Council for ecological

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

indicators for the nation (National Research Council 2000, Ecological Indicators For The Nation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC). In that document, they state, in part that “the challenge is deciding which rates of change to watch, and to determine which of the changes observed represent significant departures from expected natural variability.” The AAT Editorial Team derived from the NRC list seven areas that should be considered in evaluating CERP performance measures. These fall generally into the four phases (Conceptual Relevance; Feasibility of Implementation; Response Variability; Interpretation and Utility) for indicator evaluation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assist with their Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Jackson, Laura E., Janis C. Kurtz, William S. Fisher. 2000. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC).

Conceptual Relevance

Conceptual Model Basis. Is a performance measure based on one or more of the CERP conceptual models? (This criterion does not apply to performance measures for agricultural and urban water supply, flood control, and water quality which are not based on conceptual models at this time.)

General Importance. Does a performance measure provide information about one or more of the following: multiple ecological attributes, multiple conceptual models, important ecological processes, and major environmental changes?

Avoidance of duplication. Do two or more performance measures indicate the same environmental change or ecological response?

Interpretation and Utility

Well-defined Targets. Is the restoration target for the performance measure clearly identified in the conceptual model(s) as an expected response to changes in hydrology and/or water quality due to the implementation of CERP?

Response Variability

Temporal and Spatial Scales. COMMENT: I’m not sure what the previous sentence means. Seems like the next two sentences cover the ground adequately. “Can the performance measure detect changes at appropriate temporal and spatial scales without being overwhelmed by variability?” Does the suite of selected performance measures cover a wide range of appropriate temporal and spatial scales?

Reliability. Has the successful previous use of a performance measure demonstrated its reliability as an indicator of environmental changes that are relevant to CERP? Regarding statistical properties, has the performance measure been shown to serve its intended purpose? “Is the indicator sensitive enough to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

detect important changes but not so sensitive that signals are masked by natural variability?” A new performance measure that is needed to track an ecological response, but that has yet to be fully developed and tested, may be identified as a research priority in support of the monitoring plan.

Feasibility of Implementation

Cost-effectiveness. The above criteria determine the value of the information yielded by a performance measure, without regard to cost-effectiveness. If that information is found to be essential, can it be obtained for less cost in another way?

Evaluations to date have focused primarily on the assessment of Conceptual Relevance and Interpretation and Utility. Each performance measure was subjected to a screening process using the following criteria:

  • Is the performance measure expected to change DIRECTLY in relation to CERP (is there a clear linkage between the performance measure and the predicted changes from implementing CERP).

  • Is the performance measure in a conceptual model (applicable to biological and soil performance measures only)

  • Does the performance measure have a clearly defined target?

Any performance measure not meeting all of the above criteria was not considered for inclusion in the monitoring plan. The remaining biological and soils performance measures were then evaluated for their ability to provide information on the following:

  • Is it an indicator of an important ecological process? (Processes were considered things such as food webs, energy transfer, etc.).

  • Is it an indicator of important ecological structure? (Including being an indicator for things such as fragmentation, compartmentalization, succession, disturbance)

  • Is it a clear indicator of major environmental change? (Hydrology, Fire, Water Quality, Exotics).

Animal performance measures were further reviewed using:

  • Is the indicator a State or Federally listed Threatened or Endangered Species?

  • Does it have high aesthetic value, high public appreciation/ symbol of the Everglades?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
  • Does it have important recreational value (fishing, boating, bird-watching, etc.)?

  • Does it have important commercial value (fisheries)?

The result of this process are presented in TableIII-1

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Table III-1 - Biological Performance Measures

Category

Unique ID

Performance Measure

Conceptual Models that contain the Attribute

Ecological Process

Ecological Structure

Environmental Change

Temporal Scale

Threatened, Endangered, or SSC

High Aesthetic value

Important recreational Value

Important Commercial Value

Soil

S01

accretion - negative shoreline organic berm LOK

Lake Okeechobee

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Soil

S02

shoreline habitat - Indian River Lagoon

St Lucie Estuary

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

Soil

S03

Wetland soil accretion in greater Everglades

Ridge/Slough, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Marl Prairie, Big Cypress

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Soil

S04

St Lucie Estuary Muck Removal

St Lucie Estuary

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

Soil

S05

MTZ Soil Nutrient Dynamics

Mangrove Transition Zone

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Animal

A01

Snail Kite Nesting

Lake Okeechobee

 

 

 

M

X

 

 

 

Animal

A02

Wading Bird Nesting

Florida Bay, Lake Okeechobee, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Big Cypress, Ridge & Slough

X

X

X

M

X

X

X

 

Animal

A03

Wintering Waterfowl population estimates

Mangrove Estuarine Transition

 

X

X

M

 

X

 

 

Animal

A04

Juvenile crocodile growth, survival, and condition

Biscayne Bay, Mangrove Estuarine Transition

 

X

X

M

X

 

 

 

Animal

A05

Deer numbers and distribution

Big Cypress

 

X

X

M

 

X

X

 

Animal

A06

Crocodile distribution and relative abundance

Biscayne Bay, Mangrove Estuarine Transition

 

X

X

M

X

X

 

 

Animal

A08

Manatee Number and distribution

Caloosahatchee and Biscayne Bay

 

X

X

L

X

X

X

 

Animal

A09

Manatee Mortality

Caloosahatchee and Biscayne Bay

 

 

 

L

 

X

 

 

Animal

A10

Alligator Abundance, distribution, and size classes

Marl Prairie, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Ridge & Slough

X

X

X

M

 

X

X

X

Animal

A11

Alligator nesting effort and success

Marl Prairie, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Ridge & Slough

X

X

X

L

 

 

 

X

Animal

A12

Alligator condition

Marl Prairie, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Ridge & Slough

X

 

X

M

 

 

 

 

Animal

A13

Alligator hole distribution and occupancy

Marl Prairie, Ridge & Slough

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Animal

A14

Wading bird feeding aggregations

Lake Okeechobee, Marl Prairie

X

 

X

M

 

X

 

 

Animal

A15

Dolphin Health Profile ???

Biscayne Bay

X

 

 

L

 

X

X

 

Animal

A16

Juvenile Pink Shrimp Density

Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay

 

 

X

M

 

 

 

 

Animal

A17

Pink Shrimp Catch Rates

Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay

 

 

X

M

 

 

X

X

Animal

A18

Abnormal Fish Prevalence

Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal

A19

Estuarine Aquatic Fauna; Macroinvertibrates

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

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Animal

A20

Estuarine Fish Community

Florida Bay, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Biscayne Bay, Caloosahatchee Estuary, St. Lucie Estuary

X

X

X

M

 

 

X

 

Animal

A21

Wetland Aquatic Fauna

Ridge & Sough, Marl Prairie, Mangrove Estuarine Transition, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

S

 

 

X

X

Animal

A22

Lake Okeechobee Fisheries Monitoring

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

M

 

 

X

X

Animal

A24

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow

Marl Prairie

 

X

X

M

X

 

 

 

Animal

A25

Oyster Distribution, Abundance and Condition

St Lucie Estuary, Caloosahatchee

 

X

X

M

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT APPLICABLE for PLANTS

Plants

P01

Cattail extent

Ridge and Slough

X

 

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P02

Coastal Lakes and Basins Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Mangrove Estuary Model

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P03

Community composition of cypress forests

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P04

Community composition of hammocks

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P05

Community composition of herbaceous wetlands

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P06

Community composition of mesic pineland

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P07

Diverse littoral zone native plant community

Lake Okeechobee

 

X

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P08

Forested Wetland Plant Communities

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P09

Manatee Habitat

Caloosahatchee Estuary and Biscayne Bay

 

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P10

Mangrove presence, distribution, health, relative abundance

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P11

Marl Prairie Vegetation Mosaic

Marl Prairie

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P12

Panther habitat

Big Cypress

 

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Plants

P13

Periphyton

Ridge & Slough

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P14

Periphyton mat cover, organic-inorganic production, and marl accretion

Marl Prairie

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P15

Phytoplankton primary productivity in Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P16

Plant community gradients

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P17

Plant community mosaic

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P18

Plant vegetation dynamics

Mangrove Estuarine Transition

X

X

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P19

Sawgrass and slough spatial coverage and orientation

Ridge and Slough

X

X

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P20

Sea Grasses Abundance - Caloosahatchee

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P21

Seagrasses Biscayne Bay

Biscayne Bay

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P22

Seagrasses Florida Bay

Florida Bay

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P23

Spatial extent of continuous bulrush stands

Lake Okeechobee

 

X

X

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P24

Spatial extent of invasive exotic plants in Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee

 

X

 

L

 

 

 

 

Plants

P25

Submerged aquatic vegetation St Lucie Estuary

St. Lucie Estuary

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P26

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Coastal Lake

Mangrove Estuarine Transition

X

 

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P27

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P28

Tree island structure and function

Ridge and Slough

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P29

Upland/Wetland Mosaic for Indian River Lagoon

St Lucie Estuary

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P30

Wetland community composition

Big Cypress

X

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Plants

P31

Oyster Habitat

St Lucie Estuary

 

X

X

M

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(3) Evaluation of Hydrologic Performance Measures

The second broad category of performance measures are specific to the hydrology of the natural and human systems in south Florida. For the natural system two categories of hydrological performance measures have been created by the RET. One set is based on pre-drainage hydrological patterns predicted by the Natural System Model. This set uses these pre-drainage hydropatterns as targets for restoration. A key tenet of south Florida ecosystem restoration is that hydrologic restoration is a necessary starting point for ecological restoration. The second category of hydrological performance measures are those that define desirable characteristics of wetland systems, which differ from pre-drainage conditions. The measures in this second category are influenced by regional management constraints (e.g., Lake Okeechobee lake levels) or reflect more modern views of desirable ecosystem conditions (e.g., estuarine salinty patterns that may differ from pre-drainage conditions). COMMENT: I thought non-NSM targets were always a result of management constraints (e.g., Biscayne Bay, Caloosahatchee River, WCAs and Lake Okeechobee).

Both categories of natural system hydrological measures are derived from the hydrological stressors contained in the conceptual ecological models. Originally these stressor-based performance measures were developed by the AET to set a number of hydrologic targets for restoration that could be simulated by computer models as a basis for evaluating alternative plans during the Restudy. A highly modified set of hydrological performance measures is finding application in the CERP monitoring plan. The hydrologic performance measures are included in this monitoring plan for their value in setting hydrological restoration and water supply targets for CERP, which when compared to actual field measurements will allow us to assess how well CERP corrects the hydrologic problems in the natural and human systems.

The hydrologic performance measures listed in Table III-2 represent the current set of performance measures necessary to assess changes in the stressors resulting from CERP actions. They define hydropatterns for the different Everglades ecosystems, e.g., ridge and slough, marl prairie, the range of water flows to sustain estuaries and bays, and the ability to meet the water supply and flood protection needs of the human systems. Because all of the proposed hydrological performance measures have their origin either as stressors in the conceptual ecological models or are based on water supply policy or law, no screening or ranking of these measures by the RET was necessary. All are included in the monitoring plan because CERP is designed to correct the problems caused by all of the hydrological stressors

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Table III-2 Hydrologic Performance Measures

Category

Unique ID

Performance Measure

Hydrologic

H1

Lake Okeechobee Extremes in Low Lake Stages

Hydrologic

H2

Lake Okeechobee Extremes in High Lake Stages

Hydrologic

H3

Spring Recession for Lake Okeechobee

Hydrologic

H4

St. Lucie Estuary Salinity Envelope

Hydrologic

H5

Lake Worth Salinity Envelope

Hydrologic

H6

Salinity Envelope for Caloosahatchee Estuary

Hydrologic

H7

Average Inundation Duration for Greater Everglades

Hydrologic

H8

Number of Dry Events in Greater Everglades

Hydrologic

H9

Duration of Water Level Deviation from NSM in Greater Everglades

Hydrologic

H10

Extreme Low Water Levels in Ridge and Slough Ecosystems

Hydrologic

H11

Extreme High Water Levels in Ridge and Slough Ecosystems

Hydrologic

H12

Seasonal Amplitude and Interannual Variability of Water Levels in Greater Everglades

Hydrologic

H13

Seasonal and Annual Overland Flow Volume in Greater Everglades

Hydrologic

H14

Tree Island Hydrologic Impacts

Hydrologic

H15

Model Lands/C-111 Hydrologic Performance Measure Suite

Hydrologic

H16

Surface Water Discharges to Biscayne Bay

Hydrologic

H17

Florida Bay - Surface Water Flows

Hydrologic

H18

Lake Okeechobee Service Area - Frequency of Water Restrictions

Hydrologic

H19

Frequency of Water Restrictions for the Lower East Coast Service Area

Hydrologic

H20

Potential for High Water Levels in South Miami-Dade Agricultural Area

Hydrologic

H21

Prevent Salt Water Intrusion of the Biscayne Aquifer: Meet Minimum Flow and Level criteria for Biscayne Aquifer

Hydrologic

H22

Prevent Salt Water Intrusion of Biscayne Aquifer in South Miami-Dade County

Hydrologic

H23

Continuity: Water Surface Elevations across Barriers

Hydrologic

H24

Sheetflow: Volume of Water Across Transects in the WCAs and Everglades National Park

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(4) Evaluation of Water Quality Performance Measure Documentation Sheets

For the water quality component of the monitoring and assessment plan, the list of AET performance measures was expanded to over 70 performance measures by members of the RECOVER WQT. Measures were developed on a region-by-region basis to capture the unique conditions of each of the main physiographic regions in South Florida. As a consequence, there are multiple performance measures for what appears to be the same water quality parameter; however, each one has a restoration target unique to a specific region. The WQT discussed, agreed upon and went through an evaluation process to assess and better understand the informational quality/applicability of each of the water quality performance measures. However, this process was somewhat different from that conducted for the biological performance measures, in that the evaluations were made based upon a unique set of criteria that the WQT felt was more applicable to water quality. Each measure was initially screened as to whether it:

  • Would likely change in response to the implementation of CERP components.

  • Would be a regional indicator of CERP performance (vs. a project-level measure).

  • Had a clearly defined restoration target.

If the performance measure did not meet all three criteria, it was not considered for inclusion in the monitoring plan. The set of water quality performance measures remaining for each of the geographical regions from this initial screening underwent further evaluation by the team using the following criteria:

  • Is the proposed performance measure a strong indicator of the health of the ecosystem or a major stress?

  • Does the performance measure have a strong regulatory basis?

  • Is the performance measure easy to use or implement?

  • Does the performance measure provide information not provided by other performance measures being recommended for the geographical region?

  • Does the performance measure have a relatively strong degree of predictability (i.e. can you easily distinguish changes resulting from CERP from those contributed by other factors, and is there a mechanism available to predict future performance of the performance measure?)

  • Does the performance measure have a relatively low measurement uncertainty?

The results of this evaluation are displayed in Table III-3.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Table III-3 Water Quality Performance Measures

 

 

 

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Category

Unique ID

Performance Measures by Region (North to South)

Conceptual Model

Stong Indicator of Ecosystem Health or a Major Stress

Strong Regulatory Basis

Easy to use or implement

Not duplicative of other performance measures

Relatively strong degree of predictability

Relatively low measurement uncertainty

 

 

Lower Kissimmee River Basin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ1

TP Load Reduction at and downstream from S-65D

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ2

Trace Metals (Mercury) at Highway 78 bridge

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Lake Okeechobee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ3

Phosphorus Loads

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ4

Pelagic zone total phosphorus

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ5

Net P assimilative capacity

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ6

Water Clarity

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ7

Pelagic zone algal bloom frequency based on chlorophyll a concentrations

Lake Okeechobee

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ8

Pelagic zone TN to TP ratio

Lake Okeechobee

X

 

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ9

Sediment Porewater Phosphorus (P)

 

X

 

 

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ10

Pelagic Zone Diatom; Cyanobacteria ratio

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ11

Pelagic zone nutrient limitation status

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Okeechobee ASR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ12

Increase in Methly Mercury in surface waters in response to ASR activity related to increase in Sulfur

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

Water Quality

WQ13

Increase in Cl and salinity in L.O. in response to ASR Activity

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Everglades Agric. Area/STAs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ14

WCA Inflow Phosphorus Concentrations

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ15

WCA Inflow Phosphorus Loads

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ16

STA Bypass Loads

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ17

Total Load Reductions in STAs & Reservoirs

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ2

Trace Metals (Mercury)

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Caloosahatchee River and Estuary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ18

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ19

Total Phosphorus

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ20

Dissolved Oxygen

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ21

Chlorophyl a

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ22

Total Nitrogen

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ23

Toxicity-Heavy Metals

Caloosahatchee Estuary

 

 

X

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ24

Total and fecal coliforms

Caloosahatchee Estuary

 

X

X

X

 

 

Water Quality

WQ25

Organics (Pesticides)

Caloosahatchee Estuary

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Caloosahatchee Basin/ASR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ12

Increase in Methlyl Mercury in in surface waters in response to ASR activity related to increase in Sulfate

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

Water Quality

WQ13

Increase in Cl and salinity in river in response to ASR activity

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

St. Lucie Estuary and Indian River Lagoon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ25

Organcis (Pesticides)

SLE&IRL

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ26

(TN Loads) - Reduce N Loads to estuary

SLE&IRL

X

 

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ27

(TP Loads) -Reduce P Loads to estuary

SLE&IRL

X

 

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ28

P Load to the IRL from C-25 and C-1 canals

SLE&IRL

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ29

N Load to the IRL from C-25 and C-1 canals

SLE&IRL

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ30

Phytoplankton/Chlorophyll a

SLE&IRL

X

 

X

 

 

X

Water Quality

WQ31

Flow and TP loads to Lake Okeechobee

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

 

 

Lake Worth Lagoon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ32

TSS Loads

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ33

P Loads

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ34

N Loads

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Lower East Coast (North of Biscayne Bay)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ35

N Loads and Concentrations in waters delivered to tide through G56 (Hillsboro Basin)

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ36

P Loads and Concentrations in waters delivered to tide through G56 (Hillsboro Basin)

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ37

P Loads and Concentrations in waters delivered to Loxahatchee Refuge (WCA-1)

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ38

P Loads and Concentrations in waters delivered to WCA3 from C11 Basin

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Lower East Coast ASR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ12

Increase in Methlyl Mercury in in surface waters in response to ASR activity related to increase in Sulfate

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

Water Quality

WQ13

Increase in Cl and salinity in river in response to ASR activity

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Greater Everglades - WCAs, ENP, eastern Big Cypress, Holey Land, Rotenberger, Model Lands/C-111 Basin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ25

Organics (Pesticides)

ER&S

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ2

Trace Metals (Mercury)

ER&S

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ39

Wetland Soil Phosphorus concentration

ER&S

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ40

Wetland Surface Water Phosphorus Mass/Area Loading

ER&S

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ41

Wetland Surface Water Phosphorus Concentration (includes WCA 3)

ER&S

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ42

Wetland Surface Water Phosphorus Mass Loading (includes WCA 3)

ER&S

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ43

Sulfate - surface water; sulfide/sulfate-porewater

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ44

Conductivity

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ45

Total Organic Carbaon

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Miccosukee Reservation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ46

Total Phosphorus Concentration

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ47

Total Phosphorus Load

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Big Cypress Seminole Reservation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ48

Quality of surface water entering reservation

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ49

Quality of surface water leaving reservation

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Lower West Coast-Lake Trafford

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ50

Dissolved Oxygen

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ51

Trophic State Index

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Lower West Coast-Southern Golden Gates Estates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ52

Hardness Concentration

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ53

Phosphorus Concentrations

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Big Cypress Basin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ54

Mean wet season phosphorus concentration in SE and NE Big Cypress relative to 10 year POR

Big Cypress Regional

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ2

Trace Metals (Mercury)

Big Cypress Regional

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ25

Organics (Pesticides)

Big Cypress Regional

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

Everglades National Park

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ55

Flow-weighted mean TP concentrations entering Shark River Slough

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ56

Frequency of Shark River TP inflow samples exceeding 10 ppb within a given 12-month period.

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ57

Mean TP concentration at Shark River Slough marsh stations

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

Water Quality

WQ58

Flow-weighted mean TP concentrations entering Taylor Slough/Coastal Basins

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ59

Frequency of Taylor Slough TP inflow samples exceeding 10 ppb within a given 12-month period.

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×

Water Quality

WQ60

Mean TP concentration at Taylor Slough/Coastal Basin marsh stations

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

Biscayne Bay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ61

Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ62

Water Transparency

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ63

Total Coliform

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ64

Ammonia

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ65

Total Nitrogen

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ66

Total Phosphorus

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ67

Nox

Biscayne Bay

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Model Lands/C-111 Basin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ68

Mean TP concentration of inflow points to the South Dade Wetlands

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Florida Bay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

WQ69

Toxics

Florida Bay

X

X

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ70

Algal Blooms

Florida Bay

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ71

Nutrients

Florida Bay

X

 

X

X

 

X

Water Quality

WQ72

Nutrient Loads

Florida Bay

X

 

X

X

X

X

Water Quality

WQ73

Light

Florida Bay

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

Note:

 

 

WQ1

Summary Sheet for Lower Kiss. River TP Load Reduction

 

 

WQ2

Summary Sheet for Trace Metals

 

 

WQ12

Summary Sheet for ASR Methyl Mercury

 

 

WQ13

Summary Sheet for ASR - Cl and Salinity

 

 

WQ25

Summary Sheet for (Organics) Pesticides

 

 

WQ54

Summary Sheet for Big Cypress Mean Wet Season TP Concentration

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
(5) Documentation Sheets

The documentation sheets presented here are for the set of 156 performance measures listed in Tables III-1 to 3. Each documentation sheet describes the performance measure, in what geographic regions it is to be measured, the restoration target, and a general description of the monitoring protocol. If the original sheets were combined or edited it is noted in the editing comments.

(6) Further Refinements of What to Monitor

The 156 performance measures listed here linked with the key hypotheses in the conceptual models provide the basis for the monitoring and assessment plan. One of the next steps is to review the performance measures in the context of the ir linkages and uncertainties within the conceptual models and refine the monitoring and assessment plan to ensure that it addresses the key restoration hypotheses and focuses on a sustainable number of performance measures. The approach that will be used will examine the performance measures in an integrated hierarchical framework to ensure that the resulting plan will be holistic and include indicators at a range of temporal and spatial scales. The conceptual models will be further refined to focus on the most critical over-riding restoration hypotheses for each physiographic region. The models will be examined for logical groupings of performance measures, linkages, and key questions that will provide the essential information for the adaptive assessment process. The groupings within each model will be evaluated for their importance related to the success of CERP and the resulting groupings from each model will be reviewed together to ensure a system-wide perspective. It is anticipated that this process will be completed in the next 3-4 months.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Monitoring and Assessment Plan." National Research Council. 2003. Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10663.
×
Page 111
Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $43.00 Buy Ebook | $34.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The report evaluates the plan to monitor and assess the condition of Florida's Everglades as restoration efforts proceed. The report finds that the plan is well grounded in scientific theory and principals of adaptive management. However, steps should be taken to ensure that information from those monitoring the ecology of the Everglades is readily available to those implementing the overall restoration effort. Also, the plan needs to place greater consideration on how population growth and land-use changes will affect the restoration effort and vice versa.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!