National Academies Press: OpenBook

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008 (2008)

Chapter: 6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management

« Previous: 5 Lake Okeechobee and Its Place in the Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management." National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12469.
×
Page 222

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6 Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management When the U.S. Congress approved the Comprehensive Everglades Resto- ration Plan (CERP) in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), there was clear recognition that the Central and South Florida Compre- hensive Review Study (or Yellow Book; USACE and SFWMD, 1999) provided only a general outline for restoration of the Everglades and not a detailed restoration plan. Considering the need to move forward in the face of some uncertainties, the Yellow Book proposed an adaptive management plan founded on a comprehensive ecosystem monitoring program. This approach provides a mechanism for emerging scientific information to be incorporated into the plan and for unforeseen consequences of the restoration project to be addressed. Congress subsequently approved funding for an Adaptive Management and Monitoring program in WRDA 2000 and the Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR §385.31) directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to adopt an adaptive management approach. In this chapter, progress toward building the necessary foundations for adaptive management is described, and major recent monitoring and assess- ment reports and associated issues are reviewed, building on previous National Research Council (NRC) reports (NRC, 2003b, 2007). The committee is spe- cifically charged to review monitoring and assessment protocols and progress (see Chapter 1) because monitoring and assessment are essential for evaluating CERP progress. The chapter begins with an overview of the concept of adaptive management, and progress in creating and applying an adaptive management framework for the CERP is discussed. Next, progress in developing the monitor- ing and assessment plan is reviewed as a critical component of the adaptive management process. Specifically, the CERP System-wide Performance Mea- sures report (RECOVER, 2007b) and the first full analysis of the status of the South Florida ecosystem (the 2007 System Status Report; RECOVER, 2007c) are discussed in detail. Previous NRC reports (NRC, 2003b, 2007) reviewed the monitoring plan titled Monitoring and Supporting Research (RECOVER, 2004). 189

190 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Information management and the status of hydrologic and ecological models, which are essential to a well-functioning adaptive management process, are also discussed in this chapter. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Adaptive management facilitates natural resource management or environ- mental restoration activities when uncertainty about the potential outcomes of management actions is present (NRC, 2007). It offers a means to proceed with- out a fixed design and to reduce uncertainty through the iterative refinement of management actions, ideally based on experimentation (Lee, 1999; Walters and Holling, 1990). Of the many applications of adaptive management, the most- effective ones have well-structured processes that include: 1. management objectives that are regularly revisited and accordingly revised, 2. a model or models of the managed system, 3. the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes, 4. mechanisms for incorporating what is learned into models guiding future decisions, and 5. a collaborative process for stakeholder participation and learning (NRC, 2004). Through effective application of such a process, decision making moves from a trial-and-error process to one of experimentation based on continuous monitor- ing, assessment, and reevaluation. Since its inception, the CERP has taken an adaptive management approach to address uncertainty in the restoration. This approach is mainly passive, entail- ing detailed scientific analysis, planning, monitoring, and assessment, combined with feedback to restoration design and operation (see Figure 6-1). In some cases, however, active (i.e., experimental) rather than passive adaptive management may better assist in achieving restoration goals, because substantial uncertainties remain about the degree to which a resilient, self-sustaining ecosystem can be restored under the dramatically changed environment of South Florida. Oppor- tunities for active adaptive management experiments are numerous (NRC, 2007), and the CERP’s Decompartmentalization (Decomp) project in particular is an example of a project that would likely benefit greatly from the active adaptive management approach described in Box 6-1. Opportunities also exist for incre- mental adaptive restoration, which was conceived by the previous committee (NRC, 2007) as a way to advance restoration in the face of contentious uncer-

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 191 FIGURE 6-1  The CERP Adaptive Management Strategy. Figure 6-1.eps SOURCE: Adapted from RECOVER (2006a). bitmap tainties and sequencing constraints, while utilizing active adaptive management to resolve critical uncertainties and improve future project planning (see also Chapter 3). The Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (RECOVER) team has fleshed out many dimensions of CERP adaptive management, including extensive work to create monitoring and assessment plans and protocols that are discussed later in this chapter. In 2006, RECOVER published the CERP adaptive management strategy, which outlines a framework for linking monitoring and assessment activities to management decisions and to plan updates and revisions at both system-wide and project levels (Figure 6-1; RECOVER, 2006a). As required by the Programmatic Regulations, the USACE and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) also have drafted a Guidance Memorandum for Assessment and Adaptive Management that recapitulates and elaborates upon the CERP adaptive management strategy (USACE and SFWMD, 2007a). The Guidance Memorandum lays out a framework for preparing CERP technical reports and for recommending changes or adaptive management actions as needed at

192 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 6-1 Decomp Adaptive Management Plan The Water Conservation Area 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheet Flow Enhance­ ment project (Decomp) has been described as “the heart of Everglades restoration” b ­ ecause of the tremendous ecological benefits the project provides (USACE and SFWMD, 2002). The objective of Decomp is to reestablish hydrologic connectivity b ­ etween WCA-3A, WCA-3B, and Everglades National Park such that hydropatterns in these regions better approximate those experienced in these areas historically. Decomp project planning is well behind schedule due to ongoing stakeholder con- flicts (e.g., disagreements over the need to completely fill canals and thereby eliminate bass fishing habitat) and constraints in the project planning process (Light, 2006; NRC, 2007). To expedite progress the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are developing the Decomp project in three separate project implementation reports and a “Decomp physical model” (DPM), which combines features of a pilot study with an active adaptive management experi- ment. USACE preferred the term physical model over experiment because the latter implies research, which is not in the USACE purview. Because the specific plans are still under development, this section focuses on the general direction being taken with the Decomp adaptive management plan. The plan to decompartmentalize the water conservation areas has raised a number of thorny scientific questions: What is the relationship between the extent of sheet-flow restoration and the rate and degree of ecosystem recovery? What are the effects of partial versus extensive backfilling of canals? How will levee degradation impact adja- cent areas? How will tree islands respond to different water depths and hydroperiods? To date this scientific uncertainty has delayed restoration because interest groups have challenged the credibility of proposed modifications. Decomp adaptive management plan has been designed to reduce scientific uncertainty and to accommodate stake- holder concerns. The program combines gathering of baseline information, field trials of alternative decompartmentalization approaches (through the DPM), monitoring and assessment, and feedback to the agencies and stakeholders. Currently the DPM consists of two proposed experiments that will be installed along the L-67 levee connecting WCA-3A to WCA-3B: the before-after control impact (BACI) flow way and the repeated measure flow way. The BACI flow way experiment would compare geomorphic and ecological effects associated with three canal-backfilling designs (complete, partial, and no backfill) installed in three contiguous 3,000-ft gaps in L-67C (see Figure 4-3). Water would be supplied by a 200-ft (61-m) gap located 2 miles upstream in L-67A. Although the experiment involves no replication, the BACI approach is intended to provide statistical validity to the results: outcomes will be compared to project, subregional (or module), and system-wide levels of the restoration. The memorandum also provides guidance on reporting standards and expectations for peer review. The draft CERP Adaptive Management Implementation Guidance Manual (RECOVER, 2007e) provides clear technical guidance to project delivery teams

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 193 trends in adjacent areas without levee breaches. Field studies are scheduled for 3 years. The repeated measure flow way consists of three 3,000-ft partially backfilled gaps in L-67C intended to measure local variation in the ecological effects of this restoration alternative (Sklar, 2007b). The DPM designs entail field-scale engineering projects that may significantly ­reduce uncertainty while advancing Decomp design and implementation. Large-scale changes in the water management system supported by information from the DMP experiment provide opportunities for learning as well as providing some, albeit fairly small, eco- logical restoration benefits. This approach is consistent with the incremental adaptive restoration approach as suggested by a previous NRC committee (NRC, 2007). The experimental design reflects and responds to operational, fiscal, and political realities. Concerns about the ability of the DPM to fully address scientific uncertainties associated with Decomp include: 1. The current design does not address the relationship between the extent of sheet-flow restoration and ecological restoration; 2. Management constraints may prevent moving enough water through the system to allow fair comparison of the ecological implications of complete versus partial canal backfilling; 3. The proposed design may not accommodate infrequent high flows that could have an important structuring role in the Ridge and Slough ecosystem; and 4. The 3-year assessment period may not allow sufficient time to distinguish treat- ment effects. These concerns are well recognized by RECOVER scientists, and final plans for the DPM are evolving. CERP scientists hope that the scientific uncertainties associated with Decomp can be greatly reduced by the DPM such that the contentious issues regarding the project design will be lessened or even resolved. Of much graver concern to implementing Decomp are the political uncertainties associated with completion of the Tamiami Trail component of the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park project (Mod Waters) (Chapter 4). Currently, it is not clear if Mod Waters ever will be completed as described in the authorizing legislation, or how the recommended Tamiami Trail modifi- cation plan will impact the ecological benefits that can be achieved by Decomp. on whether and how to apply adaptive management at the project level. The manual also provides a brief discussion of system-wide implementation of adap- tive management, promising a more detailed treatment of this topic in future versions. The manual sets out conditions for employing passive versus active management and advocates incremental adaptive management (NRC, 2007)

194 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades as the preferred active adaptive management approach when there is stake- holder gridlock or political pressure for quick restoration benefits (RECOVER, 2007e). Previous NRC reviews of CERP adaptive management concluded that the MAP is generally scientifically strong and that the adaptive management strategy provides a sound organizational basis for passive adaptive management (NRC, 2003b, 2007). Nevertheless, some remaining scientific and institutional chal- lenges need to be squarely addressed, including improved analytical methods and ecological models for upscaling local monitoring data to subregional and system-wide evaluation, stronger coupling of hydrologic and ecological monitor- ing, and the need for a mechanism to document how science has been used in support of decision making. These are difficult scientific and technical challenges that face all large-scale wetland restoration efforts. Social and institutional issues affecting the effectiveness of CERP adaptive management may ultimately prove less tractable than scientific issues. To date, the pace and scope of restoration have been driven more by special interest groups and the need to resolve stakeholder conflicts (for examples, see Box 4-1) than by the desire to learn (Light, 2006), and traditional command-and-control plan- ning and governance structures have prevailed over more adaptive approaches (Gunderson and Light, 2006). Stakeholder and collaborative relationships appear to be fraying as the CERP suffers continued delays (NRC, 2007). Agency com- mitment to continued long-term funding of the monitoring and assessment plan is not assured. Moreover, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3, project-by-project implementation of the plan is laden with planning and review processes that, although well-intended, not only slow restoration but also may operate against effective adaptive management. For instance, analyses of various project alter- natives as part of the project implementation report development process (see Chapter 3, Box 3-1) rely on traditional performance-based assessments that do not account for uncertainty or the potential for learning under alternative designs. This conventional “management for optimality” operates against adaptively managing for resilience and surprise (Gunderson and Light, 2006). CERP MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT The monitoring and assessment plan is the foundation of the CERP adap- tive management program. The CERP monitoring and assessment plan provides the framework that the RECOVER teams use to measure and understand the ecosystem’s responses to the CERP and to help determine how well the CERP is meeting its goals and objectives (RECOVER, 2004). Using a “performance assess- ment” process, the information generated from the monitoring and assessment

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 195 plan provides information required to make informed decisions about the need to alter restoration plans through the adaptive management process (Figure 6-1). Thus, without effective, long-term monitoring and assessment, adaptive manage- ment cannot occur (NRC, 2004). Monitoring and assessment also can support CERP project planning, design, implementation, and operation. Performance assessment (Box 2 in the adaptive management strategy; Figure 6-1) involves determining how the ecosystem is responding to restora- tion activities. Performance assessment consists of three activities: evaluation, monitoring, and assessment. Evaluation uses a variety of modeling approaches (discussed later in this chapter) and existing data and known relationships among variables to project potential ecosystem changes due to restoration activities. Monitoring is the gathering of data for one or more variables that can be used to generate quantitative indicators (or performance measures, described in more detail in the next section) that compress information about complex, related phenomena. Assessment in an adaptive management framework is not simply a report of the status of individual performance measures; it involves comparing the values of groups of linked performance indicators with known and expected values that are based on baseline data, modeling, or extensive literature review to determine the actual response of the system to manipulations, including CERP restoration actions. The CERP monitoring and assessment plan is founded on conceptual eco- logical models that are an assembly of logical hypotheses that describe the relationships among societal actions, environmental stressors, and ecosystem characteristics and the linkages among the physical, chemical, and biological elements within the natural system. They identify key driving factors, processes, stressors, and functional relationships based on extensive reviews of scientific data (Ogden et al., 2005). The conceptual models cover 11 physiographic regions and the entire South Florida ecosystem (i.e., the total system conceptual model) (Figure 6-2a). For assessment purposes, these have been combined into four geographic modules (see Box 6-2 and Figure 6-2b) and two modules that relate to the total system (the South Florida Hydrology Module and the South Florida Mercury Module). These conceptual models are used to inform research, plan- ning, operational management, and the performance assessment aspects of the adaptive management plan. The monitoring aspects of performance assessment are described by three RECOVER documents (see Table 6-1): 1. Monitoring and Supporting Research Plan (MAP I) (RECOVER, 2004), which establishes the monitoring and assessment plan; 2. Development and Application of Comprehensive Everglades Restora-

196 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades A B FIGURE 6-2  Boundaries of the 11 conceptual ecological models (A) and the four monitoring and assess- ment modules (B). Figure 6-2.eps SOURCE: RECOVER (2004). 2 bitmaps (vector A & B) tion Plan System-wide Performance Measures (Performance Measures Report) (RECOVER, 2007b), an analysis and justification of monitored performance measures; and 3. Draft Quality Assurance Systems Requirements (QASR) (RECOVER, 2007d) containing quality assurance and data management protocols (see Box 6-3). All aspects of monitoring including what is monitored and why (MAP I and Performance Measures Report), the spatial and temporal extent of the monitoring (MAP I), and the methods used to collect the data and assure data quality (QASR) are described in these documents. A framework for analyzing monitoring data and evaluating the restoration progress is described in a fourth

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 197 BOX 6-2 Monitoring and Assessment Plan Module Groups The monitoring and assessment plan performance measures are grouped into four geographic m ­ odules (Figure 6-2b) and two additional modules for hydrology and mercury bioaccumulation monitor- ing. The modules are the organizing elements and research units of the monitoring and assessment plan. Each of the modules includes one or more of the conceptual ecological models briefly described in the text and in RECOVER documents (RECOVER, 2004, 2006f, 2007c) and in previous NRC reports (2004, 2007). The modules are designed to test the conceptual model working hypotheses as the CERP is implemented. The module groups are teams of scientists with technical expertise in ecology, hydrology, water quality, and human systems. The module groups oversee the monitoring and research programs in the four major regions of the Everglades and carry out the performance of assessment. • Northern Estuaries (NE) Module Group includes St. Lucie/Indian River Lagoon-South, C ­ aloosahatchee Estuary, Lake Worth Lagoon, and Loxahatchee River Estuary. • Greater Everglades Wetlands (GE) Module Group includes the ridge and slough, southern marl prairies, mangrove estuaries, and Big Cypress swamp regions. • Southern Estuaries (SE) Module Group includes Florida and Biscayne Bays, and the South- west Florida Coast. • Lake Okeechobee (LO) Module Group. • South Florida Hydrology Monitoring module is designed to assist in evaluating water supply and protection for urban and agricultural areas. • Mercury Bioaccumulation. SOURCES: RECOVER (2004, 2006f). TABLE 6-1  Activities and Components of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan Component Purpose Status Monitoring and Supporting Research Describes monitoring plan and Final/January 2004; (MAP I) research justifying plan. Performance Revision of MAP I is (RECOVER, 2004) measures are identified. Focus is the planned for 2008 natural system. Implementation plan is included. Assessing the Response of the Describes the guidelines and Final/December 2006 Everglades Ecosystem to Implementation procedures used to synthesize of the CERP (Assessment Report) monitoring data to assess ecosystem (RECOVER, 2006e) response to the CERP. Development and Application of Describes performance measures Final/October 2007 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration monitored; baseline information. Plan System-wide Performance Measures (Performance Measures Report) (RECOVER, 2007b) Draft Quality Assurance Systems Describes quality assurance protocols Final Draft (peer-review Requirements (QASR) for all performance measures. Includes comments incorporated)/ (RECOVER, 2007d) some information on data validation, October 2007 management, and data archiving.

198 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades BOX 6-3 Quality Assurance Systems Requirements (QASR) Manual The QASR document (RECOVER, 2007d) is an extensive manual developed and periodically updated by the CERP to ensure the quality of the data collected during both research and monitoring activities. It represents the mechanism by which the CERP can ensure that all data collected through the multiple agencies, projects, evaluation and assessment activities all adhere to the same standards and requirements of planning, performance, analysis and data archiving, and that data are comparable among compo- nents of the CERP. Separate sections of the report are devoted to ­detailed discussions of methods and quality assurance procedures for monitoring water quality, water quan- tity, hydraulics, soils and sediments, hydrometeorology, and biological entities. Other chapters specify quality assurance procedures and recommended analytic methods for laboratory chemical determinations and remotely sensed data. The document also addresses research and monitoring administration and lines of responsibility, require- ments for data management and archiving, and data quality evaluation and assess­ment. Extensive appendices list specific EPA and other official sources of methods, and m ­ ethods established in the peer-reviewed literature for a large number of analytes in water, soils, and sediments, for animal and plant groups (e.g., fish, amphibian, birds, macroinvertebrates, plants), for use of remote sensing data, and for methods of data analysis such as methods of measurement and calculations of flux rates. The set of documents constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive, thorough and wide-ranging summary of specific methods in existence, as it integrates over hydrology, meteorology, soil science, environmental chemistry, animal, plant, and microbial ecology, and remote sensing, as well as data management and assessment protocols. The QASR also i ­ncludes a very detailed protocol for documenting sample acquisition, analysis ­methods, and QA/QC analysis. Data custody is assigned to both the agency collecting the data and the Information and Data Management Program of the CERP, which has ­created the CERPZone Infrastructure to foster data availability and sharing among CERP par- ticipants. If the standards and methods for data acquisition, verification and quality a ­ ssurance, and data archiving and sharing can be fully implemented as described in this document, it will itself be a striking achievement of the CERP. document—Assessing the Response of the Everglades Ecosystem to Implemen- tation of the CERP (Assessment Report) (RECOVER, 2006e). Collectively, these four documents (see Table 6-1) constitute the monitoring and assessment plan. The first full implementation of the assessment strategy is described in the 2007 System Status Report (RECOVER, 2007c). The following sections reflect the committee’s evaluation of two major monitoring and assessment reports released between 2006 and 2008: the Perfor- mance Measures Report (RECOVER, 2007b) and the 2007 System Status Report (RECOVER, 2007c). The recently finalized Quality Assurance Systems Require- ment Manual (Recover, 2007d) is also discussed in Box 6-3.

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 199 Performance Measures Because of the complexity of ecosystems, there is no single, simple variable whose response can be used to answer questions about the status of ecosystems, their changes over time, and their responses to management. Instead, indicators are developed that have a suite of properties that support their use for manage- ment (Niemi and McDonald, 2004; NRC, 2000). The Performance Measures Report (RECOVER, 2007b) supports the monitoring plan by describing the set of indicators (referred to as performance measures; see Appendix F) used to deter- mine the effects of CERP implementation. A performance measure may involve a single variable or, more commonly, is developed as a construct of the combined response of several readily measurable environmental attributes (e.g., population size, water nutrient concentration, water flow rates and durations). The choice of directly measured variables is justified by a review of the scientific literature demonstrating a causal relationship between the measured variables and the desired environmental outcome(s) of interest (restoration target). For example, mangrove forest production and soil accretion is an important performance mea- sure of the food webs critical to fisheries production in Florida Bay and wading bird populations in the Everglades. To assess the condition of this indicator it is necessary to measure variables such as mangrove species composition, canopy density, root growth, decomposition of leaves and roots, sediment deposition, and wetland surface elevations. Performance measures have been developed for both indicators of eco- system condition and for critical stressors on the ecosystem (e.g., estuarine salinity, soil and water phosphorus concentrations, hydropatterns). This allows the evaluation and assessment processes to focus on the current understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. This is a great strength of the performance measure system, because the cause-and-effect view of ecosystem dynamics is crucial for implementing an adaptive management approach. Performance measures play a key role in the restoration because they are used in the planning phase to evaluate project benefits at local and regional scales (termed “evaluation” in CERP documents), and they also are intended to be used to assess the effectiveness of projects once they are implemented (termed “assessment” in CERP documents). In project evaluation, hydrologic and ecologi- cal models are used to project the effects of various alternative project plans on performance measures. CERP performance assessment using the performance measures is described in more detail later in this chapter. Some performance measures might also serve as potential “report card” indicators. Report card indi- cators are key indicators used to inform the public about how the natural system is responding to restoration efforts (e.g., the abundance and nesting success of

200 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades wading birds or the abundance of alligators, crocodiles, oysters, or pink shrimp). Such indicators have been used as a strategy to maintain public awareness and support for ecosystem restoration projects (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Program, 2002; Heinz Center, 2002; NRC, 2000). For some of the performance measures, interim goals have also been established (see Box 6-4; Appendix G). BOX 6-4 Agreements on Interim Goals and Interim Targets The 2003 Programmatic Regulations require the development of interim goals and interim targets as means for measuring the effectiveness of CERP in meeting objectives related to both restoration (interim goals) and societal needs for water supply and flood control (interim targets). The goals and targets are intended to provide an important basis for performance assessment within the adaptive management framework. Interim goals and targets are to be developed using the best available science, formally agreed to by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the state of Florida, used as a basis for reporting progress to the U.S. Congress on a 5-year basis, and revised as appropriate. The First Biennial Review (NRC, 2007) noted the release in February 2005 of RECOVER’s (2005b) recommendations for interim goals and interim targets for CERP. It observed that, in addition to their use in evaluating progress in meeting restoration objectives and water-related use needs, they also afforded a way to learn about the trajectories of system response and improve the understanding of ecosystem behavior. NRC (2007) also noted that RECOVER had to base its goals and targets on models that were in need of additional development and that were based on outdated sequencing assumptions. Based on RECOVER’s (2005b) recommendations, draft interim goals and interim targets were formally agreed to in 2007 (see Appendix G). The agreements (USACE et al., 2007; USACE and State of Florida, 2007) acknowledge the current limitations in the performance predictions on the interim goal and target performance predictions recom- mended by RECOVER because of uncertainties with the models and the science at the time they were developed. Consequently, almost all of the interim goals and targets included in the agreement are strictly qualitative (e.g., increase the coverage of oysters in northern estuaries, reduce high and low volume flows, reduce phosphorus concen- trations in Lake Okeechobee, increase the spatial extent of natural habitat, increase water supplies, and maintain or improve level-of-service flood protection). While there are specific water storage and treatment capacities predicted, only the 10 microgram per liter Everglades phosphorus concentration goal is quantitative. The agreements specify that the best available information and changes in assump­ tions since the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was first authorized and the current version of the Master Implementation Sequencing Schedule shall be utilized in developing incremental performance predictions for this initial suite of interim goals and targets. Until this is done, the qualitative nature of present goals and targets greatly limits their usefulness in assessing and reporting progress, other than in a directional sense.

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 201 Evaluation of the RECOVER Performance Measures Report A variety of criteria were used to select the performance measures for the CERP (Box 6-5; see Appendix F for complete list of performance measures). These criteria provide a comprehensive and scientifically sound basis for evaluating and developing individual performance measures because they stress measures that reflect desired outcomes of the CERP and allow evaluation of system-wide responses. The criteria were used to reduce the number of performance measures from well over 200 in early versions of MAP I (NRC, 2003b) to 53 (47 for the natural system plus 6 for water supply and flood protection) in the current per- formance measures report (RECOVER, 2007b) (see Appendix F). This reduction of the number of performance measures is a significant accomplishment. The current number of performance measures is not inherently problematic. However, RECOVER should continue to revise and prioritize the performance measures so that the total number of variables monitored is appropriate to their purposes for informing decisions and to the available funding for monitoring efforts. A weakness in the Performance Measures report and the monitoring plan is that no process for periodic review of the performance measures is described, although the need to revise and adapt the performance measures is recognized (RECOVER, 2007b). RECOVER clearly faces a challenge to maintain monitoring BOX 6-5 Criteria for Establishing Performance Measures • Changes “directly” in relation to CERP implementation • Appears in a conceptual ecological model and/or is based in regulatory program(s) • Includes strong indicator of ecosystem integrity or is a major cause of stress • Includes indicators of important process, structure or environmental change • Regional or system-wide scope (rather than project-level) • Provides unique information (relative to other performance measures) • Directly or indirectly measurable using indicators • Strong degree of predictability and should distinguish CERP effects from other factors • Availability of a mechanism to predict future performance • Low measurement uncertainty • Significance of species in species-based performance measures as listed taxa (threatened or endangered), as a keystone taxon, as having a high public profile ( ­ esthetics, public attention), as having high recreational or commercial value SOURCE: RECOVER (2007b).

202 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades activities in support of the performance measures that are adequate in spatial and temporal resolution to detect change and minimize uncertainty. A careful review of monitoring activities and data sources—Who is moni- toring which variable? How accurate and precise are the data? How sustain- able is the funding and organization to support continued data collection? for example—is crucial to ensure that the performance measures have adequate sup- porting monitoring data to be useful. RECOVER should also work to match the frequency of monitoring in support of the performance measures with the speed of change of the variables that are monitored and place increasing reliance on remotely sensed or automated data collection methods. The set of performance measures should be reviewed regularly to determine whether they adequately capture the crucial processes and stressors of the system, and whether adequate data collection for each could be sustained over the course of the restoration. This periodic review should also determine whether there is an appropriate bal- ance between module-specific and whole-system measures. Yet, caution is urged before dropping a performance measure from the monitoring program without clear justification. The value of long-term data sets arises in unexpected ways when surprising ecosystem responses occur. The performance measures report contains a standard list of information required for each performance measure. The performance measure documen- tation sheets contain information about the scientific basis for selection as an indicator; its relationship to the conceptual ecological models and adaptive management hypotheses as described in MAP I (RECOVER, 2004); the expected response of the indicator to implementation of the CERP; and the way in which it will be used to evaluate plans and assess restoration progress (Appendix H shows what a documentation data sheet should contain). The documentation sheets also provide an analysis of the uncertainties associated with each performance measure (although this information has not been developed for all performance measures) along with critical references and other relevant information. Thus, the report serves as a valuable resource for scientists and managers. Information that would make the documentation sheets of even greater value for assessment and evaluation include length of the data record, the time scale over which the performance measure is likely to respond to CERP-based and natural envi- ronmental changes, sampling frequencies, levels of accuracy and precision in environmental monitoring, and sources of monitoring data. The Performance Measures report provides an excellent discussion of chal- lenges associated with developing and applying performance measures. One specific challenge discussed is the potential for inappropriate claims of uncer- tainty to derail CERP projects. While the report suggests approaches for reducing uncertainty (as recommended by Breckling and Dong, 2000), these suggestions

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 203 are quite general (e.g., “think nonlinearly”), and there is insufficient consider- ation of how to apply the approaches to specific performance measures in the development phase. For those performance measures with documentation about uncertainty, the analysis was based on some combination of formal uncertainty and sensitivity analysis based on quantitative modeling and consensus obtained during peer review of the performance measures. Once sufficient monitoring data have been gathered to generate baselines and confidence intervals for performance measures, additional analysis of the uncertainties associated with performance measure baselines should become part of the performance measure documentation sheet. A major limitation to the application of performance measures is associ- ated with the evaluation (planning) process. Only a few ecological performance m ­ easures—those with habitat suitability index (HSI) models based on the 2-mile by 2-mile South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM)—can currently be used for evaluation (Tarboton et al., 2004). Performance measures with accepted HSIs include the Wetland Landscape Patterns performance measure for Ridge and Slough and Tree Islands, and the Wetland Trophic Relationships performance measure for Periphyton, Fish, Alligators, and Wading Birds. To date, development of evaluation performance measures has focused on the hydrologic instead of ecological performance measures. Greater effort is needed to develop and refine modeling tools for more of the ecological performance measures and to link those tools to those used to predict hydrologic patterns and water quality (see modeling later in this chapter). Only some of the hydrologic performance measures are used for both evaluation and assessment of hydrologic performance measures, and in some instances the evaluation and assessment targets for a single hydrologic per- formance measure are not the same. Some reconciliation of the evaluation and assessment performance measures seems appropriate. Furthermore, in the Greater Everglades module, there are no hydrologic or ecological performance measures that can be used for both evaluation and assessment (see Appendix F). In other cases, RECOVER is not yet able to use a performance measure for either evaluation or assessment purposes, but the indicator is considered to be so important in assessing restoration progress that it was included in the monitoring  For example, the only performance measure that is used for both evaluation and assessment in the northern estuaries module is the estuarine salinity envelope: a two-part salinity target is used for planning and evaluation purposes (450–2,800 cfs at S-79 and 75 percent of the time the flow should be between 450–800 cfs), while a three-part target is used for assessment purposes (mean monthly flow > 300 cfs at S-79, greater frequency of flows at S-79 at approximately 500 cfs in dry years, and reduced numbers of mean monthly flows that exceed 2,800 cfs). Although both targets should result in the same information about the estuarine salinity envelope, they are different enough that comparisons between an evaluation and assessment may be difficult.

204 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades program while the performance measure is developed (e.g., Greater Everglades Module, Ridge and Slough Landscape Dynamics). It is important that RECOVER develop explicit methods of reconciling performance measure standards for evaluation and assessment and that all performance measures currently used in monitoring be completely developed. 2007 System Status Report Assessment of restoration progress in support of adaptive management (e.g., as part of the performance assessment process described previously in this chapter; Figure 6-1, box 2), involves comparison of the status of the ecosystem against some baseline or reference condition. System Status Reports are viewed by RECOVER as a way to provide a holistic description of the entire Everglades ecosystem. The first System Status Report contains an analysis of data col- lected through the CERP monitoring and assessment plan, historical data, and data from other sources (e.g., universities; federal, state, and local agencies) to provide a pre-CERP baseline of ecosystem conditions. Once CERP projects are constructed, these data will be essential to determining if changes occurring in the ecosystem are the result of implementing restoration projects. Until CERP projects are constructed, the reports will also be useful to document ecosystem trends. In the future, System Status Reports will also be used to determine if the CERP’s interim goals are being met (Box 6-4 and Appendix G). The 2007 System Status Report (RECOVER, 2007c) is the first full implemen- tation of the CERP assessment strategy (RECOVER, 2006f). Therefore, the 2007 System Status Report also served to test the adequacy of the CERP monitoring and assessment plan for performance assessment. The 2007 System Status Report was developed based on experience gained from conducting a pilot assessment in 2006 (RECOVER, 2006d). The CERP assessment strategy lists five steps that assessments must complete to determine CERP performance (RECOVER, 2006f): • establish the ability to detect change for each performance measure, • establish a baseline for each performance measure,  Clarity is needed here because the terms baseline and initial condition are used in the RECOVER monitoring and assessment program to reflect two different standards of comparison for evaluating monitoring data. Baseline represents the historical condition as reflected in the most long-term data set available. A baseline reference permits evaluations of trends with respect to long-term patterns of variability. An initial condition or reference condition, in contrast, is based on data collected over a short period of time prior to an environmental change (e.g, a CERP project implementation); it permits evaluation of system response over time to a management action. See NRC (2003b) for additional discussion of this topic.

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 205 • measure change in response to the CERP, • integrate and assess conceptual model hypothesis clusters, and • scale up from the module level to the ecosystem level. The first System Status Report primarily focused on the first two out of these five steps. The fact that no CERP projects have been fully implemented meant that it was not possible to complete a performance assessment and measure change in response to the CERP. As CERP projects are brought on-line, future assessments will complete each of the five steps. Although the status report does not assess CERP performance, it does report the initial condition of the ecosystem and can be used to gauge system response as CERP projects are implemented. For this reason, the first System Status Report is an extremely valuable document. Although it is not clear yet how or if the 2007 System Status Report can be used to support adaptive management presently, there are clear advantages to having completed a full assessment of the ecosystem at this time. First, base- lines and their variability have been established by the status report for many performance measures and interim goals. However, for some performance measures, the monitoring data set is only a year or two long (e.g., water qual- ity and phyto­plankton in Biscayne Bay), and thus what has been established is considered an initial or reference condition rather than a baseline. That some performance measures have been collected for only a short time is not unexpected because the CERP monitoring plan was not completed until 2004. The vast spatial extent and heterogeneous nature of the Everglades made the design and implementation of the monitoring plan exceptionally challenging. Additionally, limited resources (funding and manpower) meant that it was necessary to prioritize implementation of monitoring components so that data collection in support of some performance measures was delayed, making assessment difficult. Second, the experience of completing a system assessment provided valu- able information about the adequacy of the monitoring data (i.e., spatial and temporal extent, and types of data) and the data management system, the uncer- tainties associated with hypothesis clusters, the degree to which conceptual models incorporate correct linkages, the limitation of conceptual models for performance assessment, and the need for additional modeling capabilities. The lessons learned from completing the first System Status Report will be invaluable to refinement of the monitoring plan, the conceptual ecological models, and existing models and further prioritization of future monitoring and assessment efforts.

206 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Approaches to Assessment The 2007 System Status Report describes the activities and results of the assessment process for each of the four geographic modules (See Box 6-2 and Figure 6-2b). The monitoring and assessment plan module groups used three general approaches to assessment: 1. A collection of assessments of functionally different subregions (northern estuaries, Lake Okeechobee modules), 2. Module-wide statistical data analysis by performance measure and hypothesis cluster (southern estuaries module), and 3. Module-wide qualitative data description by performance measure and hypothesis cluster (greater Everglades module). These different strategies for assessment complicate attempts to integrate assess- ment across the entire system. In addition, the types of monitoring data used for a single performance measure were not always consistent across the differ- ent modules. For example, fish abundance was quantified in multiple ways: as standing stock in g/m2 in the Greater Everglades module, as total mass in kg for the Lake Okeechobee module, and as the number of fish per m2 for the southern estuaries module. However, it appears that sufficient data might be collected so that a common metric could be calculated for all the modules. The diversity of subsystems within each module also contributed to the great variability in the metrics used in quantifying performance measures. The northern estuaries module encompasses four very different estuaries and groups of scientists. Consequently, this group analyzed each estuary individually in the context of restoration. While the disturbances, performance measures, and restoration goals among the four northern estuaries are similar, differences in the magnitude of the stressors and in the physical characteristics of the estuaries (e.g., bathymetry, physical orientation, connection to the ocean) make establishing inte- grated baselines across the four estuaries a complex problem. The identity of the flora, fauna, and processes within the four estuaries also are similar, but the com- munity structure and the interaction among the processes differ among estuaries such that different methods may be required to monitor the communities and/or process rates. Differences among investigators in approaches to monitoring and in the history of monitoring within the estuaries led to large differences in the degree of uncertainty associated with the individual northern estuaries module hypotheses from one estuary to another. The Lake Okeechobee module group faced similar problems—functionally dissimilar subregions and a long historical record for monitoring some performance measures by various investigators—and took an approach similar to that used by the northern ­ estuaries module group. For the

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 207 first full assessment, the approach used by these two groups is adequate because it emphasized the need for future assessments to establish common monitoring approaches among subregions and estuaries, to ensure that what is monitored is consistent with the interim goal performance measures, or to develop alternative methods that allow the monitoring results to be synthesized. In contrast, the southern estuaries module team took an integrated approach to assessment that was facilitated by the similarity between Florida and Biscayne bays, the relatively homogeneous environments within the bays, and the long history of the team scientists working together as part of the Florida Bay program. Individual investigators pooled their data and reanalyzed the data from scratch. Their analyses were grouped by performance measure and hypothesis cluster rather than by geography or habitat type, which allowed them to address ques- tions of the robustness of the monitoring plan and the ability to detect ecological response to the CERP to a greater extent than the other module teams. Such an approach that uses all available data to analyze the variance associated with a baseline should be a model for future assessments because it provides robust baselines as opposed to short snapshots, which can only establish initial condi- tions, and simplifies comparison of system response among modules. The Greater Everglades module team integrated summaries of long-term data sets from all the scientists working in the region by performance measure and hypothesis cluster. The primary data sets were integrated by using visual overlays of the spatial data layers for performance measures, creating the first step toward more-robust statistical integration of the data and baseline char- acterization. Like the southern estuaries module group, the Greater Everglades group also has a strong history of working together and sharing data (e.g., Davis and Ogden, 1994) that facilitated the assessment process. Findings gleaned from each investigator were used to weave a story providing a snapshot of the entire central Everglades and how the period 2005–2006 differed from the long- term record for each performance measure where possible (e.g., the Aquatic Fauna Forage Base, Numbers of Wading Bird Nests, and Crocodilian Population Dynamics). For other Greater Everglades performance measures, the monitoring data sets were too short (2 years or less) to allow this type of analysis. For some performance measures (e.g., Ridge and Slough Landscape Dynamics and Water Depth Estimation System [EDEN]), monitoring remains in the planning or early implementation stages, and the 2007 System Status Report addressed progress developing these performance measures. Assessment of the First System Status Report Regardless of the approach taken and the length of the monitoring record within each module, the first System Status Report achieved its stated objectives

208 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades within each module group. The module assessments established a baseline for some and the initial condition for most performance measures being measured, and in most cases they provided some discussion of the ability to detect perfor- mance measure changes or trends. The module assessments also identified gaps in monitoring and addressed the adequacy of the conceptual ecological models, considering their associated uncertainties. For those performance measures with interim goals, the module-level assessments compared the current condition of the performance measure to its interim goal. Analysis of the adequacy of the sampling design for each performance measure is missing from most assess- ments, although in several cases the available data are adequate to allow this type of analysis. A major challenge in performance assessment is the ability to detect environ- mental change and attribute it to specific causes (CERP- or non-CERP-related). The amount and quality of data will have a large impact on this capacity, as will the methods of data analysis. There is no uniform approach to determine whether change has taken place, either among modules or performance measures. The assessment also lacks a coordinated approach that allows comparisons to be made across the module groups. For example, each of the modules includes performance measures for fish, yet there is no clear way to make comparisons across the modules, or to allow the consideration of the effects of a restoration regime across modules. As an earlier NRC report (2005) described, there is a need for assessing trade-offs among modules when evaluating various restora- tion regimes because no restoration regime will benefit all modules equally. As a result, even if system-wide performance measures are not easily identified, a coordinated conceptual approach to assessment would at least facilitate such comparisons. Other measures examined within but not across modules were vegetation patterns and phosphorus. Because a defining characteristic of the historic Everglades was its vast spatial extent (SSG, 1993), evaluating the condi- tion of fish or plants or phosphorus in a coordinated way across the entire system should be fundamental to the assessment process. Future assessments should include evaluation of similar ecological, as well as hydrologic, performance measures across module boundaries at the level of the entire ecosystem, as well as within artificial module boundaries. Thus, unified analysis of data from a variety of sources should be completed among the module groups to assess the status of performance measures in common among the modules/conceptual models. The highly technical nature of much of the status report is a consequence of the focus on establishing baselines and change detection for the performance measures. As a result, the document is primarily of interest to scientists work- ing on similar problems. Nonetheless, this type of analysis is critical to future

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 209 assessments of changes in response to the CERP. For future system status reports with objectives that reach far beyond establishing baselines, this high degree of technical detail alone is unlikely to satisfy the needs of project managers and decision makers. Managers will need information relevant to the interim and ultimate restoration goals. To maximize the usefulness of future status reports for adaptive management, those reports should contain succinct summaries that clearly address whether the interim and longer-term goals are being met; if not, why; and what CERP operations or design changes are most likely to move ecosystem response closer to the interim goals. Use of Performance Assessment to Improve the Monitoring and Assessment Plan The System Status Report describes the possible outcomes of performance assessment and how each outcome would be applied to refine the monitoring plan (Figure 6-3). The procedure is based on Weinstein et al.’s (1997) decision framework for Delaware Bay salt marsh restoration. One possible outcome of performance assessment is the finding that there is insufficient monitoring either spatially or temporally to allow performance measures, conceptual models, and associated uncertainties to be examined in a rigorous way. This situation would necessitate changes in the monitoring plan, such as extending the spatial or temporal extent of monitoring to provide a more robust, sensitive baseline, or changing the monitoring methods. Another possible outcome of the performance assessment is the determination that monitoring results are inconsistent with or do not support the conceptual ecological models, hypotheses, or the interim goals. The response to this situation could require modification of the assessment tools (i.e., models), hypotheses, conceptual ecological models, or performance measures, or changes to the CERP or the monitoring protocols if it could be determined that the monitoring data were somehow inaccurate or inadequate. A third potential outcome requires no action: that the performance measures are adequate to capture system behavior with the desired level of sensitivity, and the performance measure responses are consistent with the conceptual ecological models and hypotheses and support the interim goals. The System Status Report concludes that outcome 1 (“insufficient data and/or time available to establish pre-CERP conditions and identify trends”) applies to most of the performance measures. Nevertheless, a clear methodology is needed to help scientists distinguish between the first and second potential outcomes (see Fig- ure 6-3), because there is potential for wasting time and resources if the wrong outcome is followed. The current effort to revise the MAP (RECOVER, 2004) should include guidance in this regard. When MAP I was released in 2004, RECOVER expected that it would need to adapt to new information learned from monitoring and assessment, surprises

210 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades FIGURE 6-3  Application of System Status Report results to refinement of the monitoring plan. Figure 6-3.eps SOURCE: Adapted from RECOVER (2007c). bitmap in ecosystem response, changing implementation schedules, and changing man- agement or societal priorities. With the completion of the first System Status Report and the uncertainties about funding for monitoring in the current fiscal climate (as discussed in the next section), RECOVER’s efforts to revise MAP I are timely and clearly needed. Questions that should be addressed during the update might include: • Based on analyses in the first System Status Report, what additional data sets might be needed for future assessments?

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 211 • Should the monitoring plan be based on modules and hypothesis clusters? • Should the monitoring plan rely on complementary non-CERP monitoring programs? • Can monitoring be accomplished more effectively by changing the spatial and temporal distribution of the sampling effort? • Should performance measures for urban and agricultural systems be added to the monitoring plan? • How can monitoring better support adaptive management? • Does monitoring directly address the interim goals, and are the correct processes/drivers/stressors being measured so that when the interim goals are not met, the reasons for failing to achieve the goals can be determined? • Should the conceptual models be redefined? Financial Pressures on Monitoring Programs At the current level of CERP funding ($10,000,000 per year), there are insuf- ficient funds to support the system-wide monitoring plan as described in MAP I (RECOVER, 2004), even though this plan counts on leveraging project-level monitoring and monitoring being carried out by other federal, state, local, and private groups to supplement CERP-supported monitoring (RECOVER, 2004). Recent cuts to some of these complementary monitoring programs are of concern and emphasize that the CERP’s monitoring program is vulnerable to changes in funding beyond its control (Sharfstein and Tipple, 2007). Within CERP, resolution of a dispute between project delivery teams and RECOVER over interpretation of CERP Guidance Memorandum No. 40 (USACE and SFWMD, 2008b) could add project-level ecological monitoring responsibilities to the MAP (E. Bush, USACE, personal communication, 2007), further stressing RECOVER’s already limited monitoring budget. Monitoring is expensive, requiring investment in personnel, laboratory facilities and supplies, and access to field sites over an extremely large and often remote region. When costs rise, cutbacks in monitoring programs are often targeted to keep escalating costs down. As NRC (2007) pointed out, the sustainability of the CERP monitoring plan over the long term would benefit from a reduced set of performance measures, but that committee also cautioned that there is danger in excluding too many measures, especially during the early stages of the CERP, until more is learned about which performance measures will be most useful. Thus, optimizing the  CERP Guidance Memorandum No. 40 describes the requirements for incorporating monitoring and assessment activities and costs in planning, design, and implementation documents for CERP projects.

212 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades monitoring budget is challenging. If monitoring data are collected for too many performance measures, resources (money and manpower) are wasted for little gain in information. However, if the monitoring budget is cut too severely, critical information that is needed to guide adaptive management will be lost. Moni- toring that is transferred from the individual projects to RECOVER will stretch an already thin monitoring budget even more. This will inevitably reduce the total number of performance measures, the frequency of measurement, and/or the spatial density of the measurements. If cuts to the monitoring program are sufficiently extensive, the information provided will be severely compromised, making it impossible to detect how the ecosystem is responding to restoration activities. If monitoring and assessment information is going to be available to sup- port adaptive management of the CERP, monitoring of ecosystem response to projects should be a priority. CERP monitoring responsibilities at all levels of project management across and within agencies should be clearly established. While monitoring in and of itself does not ensure restoration progress, without monitoring plans tailored to improve understanding of ecosystem response and the outcomes of project implementation from local to whole ecosystem scales, uninformed management decisions will be made with potentially undesirable ecosystem consequences. Investments in monitoring at the outset of restoration and during the entire restoration process are as important to the CERP as invest- ments in construction projects. INFORMATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT Effective performance assessment in support of adaptive management relies on a well-designed information and data management system, which ensures that investments in monitoring are maximized and data are widely available to be utilized to the fullest extent. Primary responsibility for managing CERP data and information falls to the Information and Data Management (IDM) program, housed with the USACE in Jacksonville and the SFWMD in Ft. Lauderdale. As described in the Program Management Plan: Information and Data Management (USACE and SFWMD, 2007b), the CERP informatics strategy is based on a com- mon information system (CERPZone) that enables Web-based sharing of informa- tion. CERPZone is not a centralized data repository for all CERP data. Instead, it is designed to facilitate search and retrieval of CERP data and documents over an “extranet” of participating agencies, universities, and other organizations. As of March 2008, 26 agencies and organizations were registered CERPZone users. The CERPZone architecture is consistent with the principles laid out in the CERP Master Program Management Plan (USACE and SFWMD, 2000), which

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 213 specifies general requirements such as tools for data and information sharing, networked servers for sharing documents, schedules, financial, scientific and geospatial data information, security, and content standards. The 2000 Master Program Management Plan also stipulates development of a document man- agement and control system for tracking and documenting decisions affecting restoration design and implementation. The IDM program currently operates with an annual budget of $6–7 mil- lion and is jointly funded by the SFWMD and the USACE. IDM activities are now closely coupled to those of the Interagency Modeling Center. In addition to developing and maintaining CERPZone, the IDM program, upon request and approval, provides tools and technical support to CERP projects. Examples of sup- port activities include database administration, Web application development, GIS analysis and map production, and computing infrastructure support (e.g., server backups and data archiving). Thus, CERP activities such as RECOVER participate in ­CERPZone but are also “customers” that can request special services on a cost recovery basis (e.g., preparation of maps for the 2007 System Status Report). CERPZone provides access to an impressive amount of information. Roughly 200,000 online documents and 1 Terabyte of data are catalogued in an electronic data catalogue (EDCat). Documents are stored and tracked using ­Documentum, an electronic document management system. A data access, storage, and retrieval (DASR) system and a GIS portal enable access to the data. A Model Manage- ment System has been developed to access model code and input and output data. Metadata management tools (e.g., Morpho) are being used to standardize data documentation, and tools are being developed to support spatial queries (EDCat v. 2.0). Administrative tools are in place to manage CERPZone access, data storage requests, and technology project requests. A public Web site (www. evergladesplan.org) is maintained to share information with the general public. Future development plans through FY 2010 are listed in the April 2007 Program Management Plan (USACE and SFWMD, 2007b). The CERP IDM program provides a sound structure and good ­functionality for collaborative CERP data and information management. Its effectiveness depends on user awareness of and competence in using available tools and applications, timely provision of research and monitoring data from primary data stewards to CERPZone, and community adherence to data standards and guidelines (these are articulated in a series of guidance memoranda). Experiences of CERP staff to date indicate that the CERP information and data management system is working well for the documentation and retrieval of monitoring data. Most monitoring data and associated metadata collected under  http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/morphoportal.jsp.

214 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades contracts executed with RECOVER are archived, discoverable, and accessible, and data gaps are mainly attributable to some individual principal ­investigators who have been slower to share their data. However, based on experience, assembling the 2007 System Status Report, integration of CERP monitoring and data, and data synthesis for ecosystem assessment are challenging and tools are needed to facilitate the production of standard assessments. Spatial query tools currently under development will help. CERP IDM program staff should work closely with RECOVER scientists to identify and prioritize products that should be routinely derived from CERP monitoring data or tools to help scientists pro- duce such products. MODELING IMPROVEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT As discussed by NRC (2007), models are critical tools used in adaptive man- agement to test the understanding of and to predict the ecological and hydrologic consequences of management alternatives and ecosystem drivers (e.g., rainfall, sea-level rise, climate change). The CERP was developed using simulation mod- els to evaluate expected outcomes of various restoration scenarios. Both moni- toring and modeling support the adaptive management process by providing information to allow informed alterations to the CERP during its implementation. The monitoring program will measure ecosystem response to restoration, and the modeling program provides a system-level context for integrating the responses. As abstract representations and simplifications of the complex real world, models are useful tools for integrating and updating current knowledge of a system and for identifying and prioritizing critical uncertainties. South Florida restoration activities are supported by an enormous and impres- sive multiagency modeling effort. Numerous models have been or are being developed by researchers from agencies such as the SFWMD, USACE, other federal agencies, independent consultants, and academic institutions in the United States and elsewhere. The models vary in stage of development and application; some have been widely applied for evaluation and planning of CERP projects, while others are still being developed, calibrated, verified, or reviewed. The following sections review the current state of restoration modeling of hydrologic and ecological systems and evaluate the status against modeling needs for effective adaptive management. Hydrologic Modeling The current system model for the Everglades restoration continues to be the SFWMM, developed and maintained by the SFWMD. Operating on a

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 215 2-mile-by-2-mile grid (hence “2 × 2 model”), the SFWMM simulates the verti- cal water balance of rain, evapotranspiration, and groundwater seepage as well as overland flow and flow at hydraulic structures. Generally operating on a daily time step, the model simulated a 31-year historic meteorological period (1965 to 1995) for the original CERP planning in the 1990s, whereas recent runs have extended the period of record by 5 years (1965 to 2000), with ongoing efforts to extend the record further forward in time. Extending the simulation period to a starting date prior to 1965 is complicated by fewer rain gages and other moni- tors, although conceivably this could be done through extrapolation and time series techniques. The physics of the 2 × 2 model are well documented, and the SFWMM has undergone extensive peer review (e.g., Bras et al., 2005). However, the SFWMM consists of more than just a simulation of rainfall, runoff, and flow; the operations of the massive and complex SFWMD system are also incorporated into the model, as are operating rules for all CERP components. These operational algorithms are embedded in the Fortran code and are difficult to change and understand by all but the most familiar users. That is, if changes in operations of CERP components are to be simulated, the process involves hard-coding the changes into the SFWMM, rather than in the form of external model input. The SFWMD is well aware that this restriction limits the flexibility of the model with regard to straightforward evaluation of alternative plans and is working for a more flexible means to input operating rules in the next genera- tion of CERP water simulation, namely, the Regional Simulation Model, or RSM (J. Obeysekera, SFWMD, personal communication, 2008). The issue is exacerbated in that system response is more sensitive to operat- ing rule changes than to most changes in the physics of the model. Because of the intricate way in which operations are coded into the SFWMM, it is difficult to tell what change in rules causes what change in output, as well as the rela- tive impact of different operating rules within the system and the relative impact of operating rules versus, say, climate change. This again points to the urgency of differentiating policy from physics in the crucial CERP modeling tools, as is under way in the development of the RSM. The RSM is intended to address this issue by incorporating two simulation engines: one for hydrology and hydraulics (the Hydrologic Simulation Engine, or HSE) that itself has substantial improvements in the physics, and one for management (the Management Simulation Engine, or MSE), for easy variation of operations. Two external panels (Bales et al., 2007; Chin et al., 2005) have recently reviewed the latest version of RSM (and its application to the natural system, the NSRSM). The RSM is approximately 2 or 3 years away from replacing the SFWMM for routine CERP analysis (e.g., first use for CERP as a whole may be in 2010), but it is being tested now in more self-contained basins north of

216 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades Lake Okeechobee (Van Zee, 2007) and is being applied successfully to a variety of local problems (e.g., the water conservation areas, Everglades National Park, and lower east coast [the so-called “Glades model”]; C-111; and Biscayne Bay coastal wetlands). Further improvements in numerical modeling have been identified in a num- ber of earlier reports (e.g., the strategic modeling plan of 2003 [Plato Consulting, Inc., 2003]; NRC, 2007; RECOVER 2005c). Included in these reports are state- ments that the need to model the “fate and transport of nutrients, sediments and nonpoint source pollution is imperative” (RECOVER, 2005c, p. 40). The SFWMD intends to eventually add nutrient and sediment transport models linked to the RSM. Another limitation of the RSM is that it is a two-dimensional model, where only the average flow in the vertical direction is considered. An eventual linkage of the RSM with local project-scale models to analyze fine-scale problems (e.g., sediment transport for tree island or seepage management) is in the planning stage. Limited staff and funding resources mean that these additional envisioned improvements to the RSM will not be accomplished for many years. Hydrologic and hydraulic applications for site-specific CERP project analysis will continue to be handled by local-scale models (e.g., hydraulic models for channels), often with the SFWMM or the RSM used to provide boundary conditions. As recommended in the Strategic Modeling Plan (Plato Consulting, Inc., 2003), RSM development and application are using software engineering and project management processes based upon the Capability Maturity Model Inte- grated (CMMI) developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon. CMMI is a process improvement model consisting of industry best practices that organizations use to improve their business, project management, and software and engineering processes in order to increase product quality, work efficiencies, and customer satisfaction. SFWMD modelers report that the implementation of CMMI processes within the Hydrologic and Environmental Systems Modeling Department of the SFWMD has brought tremendous value and improvements to the RSM, and future progress depends upon continuing these efforts. Similarly, the Interagency Modeling Center has been instrumental in achieving consistency of modeling efforts across agency boundaries. The design coordination team, consisting of SFWMD and USACE personnel, set the model- ing priorities. The priority modeling tasks are then executed by the Interagency Modeling Center (J. Obeysekera, SFWMD, personal communication, 2008). The pace of model development is limited by the staff resources available—a problem typical of all agencies in the CERP. Staff time for model development is also impacted by the need for production runs of the SFWMM and/or the RSM.  Additional information on CMMI can be found online at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/.

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 217 Possible reductions in SFWMD funding will not help this situation. One way in which agencies have tried to adapt to limitations on resources is to use the simplest model that will address specific needs. If the SFWMM is not needed to resolve a local question, then a simpler or more site-specific hydrologic or hydraulic model may suffice. One example of “simpler” is to use the SFWMM to develop regional boundary conditions surrounding a smaller application area, within which the more sophisticated RSM is used to provide small-scale, detailed modeling (J. Obeysekera, SFWMD, personal communication, March 2008). Another example of “simpler” is the use of a regional spreadsheet model in the analysis of Tamiami Trail modifications for the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park project (USACE and SFWMD, 2008a). The model uses measured flows as inputs to a 25-year simulation of flows entering Shark River Slough. The Natural System Regional Simulation Model (NSRSM), the application of RSM to the predevelopment Everglades but with adjustments for topography and landscape constraints, is hampered (just as it has been for the NSM) by lack of predevelopment data with which to calibrate and verify simulation results. Ongoing SFWMD efforts to resolve predevelopment topography will aid in this effort. Regarding application of models such as RSM to climate change scenarios, natural variability in rainfall patterns is partially accounted for by the current 36-year input rainfall time series. Current efforts to develop an input time series dating back to 1914 will certainly be an improvement in developing an under- standing of long-term climate fluctuations and trends. In addition, for climate- change analysis, scenarios of future rainfall time series are needed, as well as changing sea-level boundary conditions. The CERP could not have been developed without models like the SFWMM and cannot continue to progress without models like the RSM. It is clear that agency staff and managers recognize the value of modeling, and modeling is performed in every case in which it is needed. The principal impact of limited resources is to slow model development. Use of the SFWMM instead of the RSM because the RSM is not yet ready for application to the full CERP leads to evaluations that are likely less accurate and certainly more cumbersome. Tech- nical challenges in model development continue to be addressed by a capable model development team. Ecological Modeling Ecological models linking hydrology and water quality to species and eco- system dynamics have the potential to significantly improve the effectiveness of

218 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades CERP monitoring and assessment and to accelerate learning through adaptive management (DeAngelis et al., 2003; NRC, 2003b, 2007). A spectrum of ­models, ranging from qualitative conceptual models to complex dynamic simulation models, has been developed to link water management to ecological outcomes. While each has value, spatially explicit models that are logically coupled to the water management models and support landscape-level planning and decision making have been especially important to CERP (Sklar et al., 2001) Two ecologi- cal models in particular, the Across Trophic Level System Simulation (ATLSS) model and Everglades Landscape Model (ELM), were developed in large part to support restoration design, monitoring, and evaluation (DeAngelis et al., 1998; Sklar et al., 2001). ATLSS is a set of spatially structured models operating at 0.01—1 km2 resolution. Coarse (2 × 2) output from the SFWMM is downscaled to finer- scale hydrologic grids (currently the rate-limiting step in model operation) and then used in process models for lower trophic levels such as zooplankton and phytoplankton, structured population models for fish and macroinvertebrates, and individual-based models for large vertebrates such as Cape Sable seaside sparrows (CSSSs), wood storks, alligators, and white-tailed deer. ELM is a spa- tially structured “patch” model that couples hydrology, energy, and nutrients to species-specific plant growth and vegetation pattern across the landscape (Sklar et al., 2001). Between 1997 and 2001 ATLSS was used intensively for evaluating CERP alternatives (http://www.atlss.org/). Researchers have continued to extend ATLSS capabilities, adding fire and vegetation succession modules and refining and testing spatially explicit species index models and population viability analyses for target species such as the snail kite, CSSS, and American alligator. Software has been developed to support model visualization and decision making, and ATLSS code has been revised to allow the model to be operated using parallel computing to improve scalability and reduce run time (Wang et al., 2006). Despite the large investment in ATLSS models for restoration planning, they have not been used in CERP implementation and are not integrated with MAP monitoring efforts for model validation and refinement, integrated assessment, or for forecasting alternative management scenarios. This lack of integration may be due in part to technical complexity and computing requirements of the ATLSS models. Until recently, the expertise and infrastructure to operate ATLSS models existed only at the University of Tennessee, hindering integration with the water management models. Several modules (e.g., periphyton, crayfish, snail kite, and alligator modules) could be readily applied at the 2-mile-by-2-mile scales of current water management models (although the variable grid sizes of the RSM [0.1 to 2 miles] now under development would be much better for linking to

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 219 the ecological models). ATLSS has recently been installed and is being operated at Everglades National Park, and the Department of the Interior (DOI) intends to locate one or two ecological modelers at the Interagency Modeling Center to operate ATLSS and other ecological models. The latter would be a positive step, as limited DOI involvement has precluded coupled hydrologic-ecological modeling at the Interagency Modeling Center. Given DOI’s relatively low level of investment in modeling staff, it will be probably at least 2 years before ATLSS will be operational at the Interagency Modeling Center. Recent development of ELM (version 2.5) has focused on linking water management scenarios to regional water quality outcomes, specifically total phosphorus concentrations in surface water and net phosphorus accumulation in the Greater Everglades ecosystem. An external peer review of ELM 2.5 concluded that the model formulation was fundamentally sound and relatively unbiased. The peer-review panel argued for close integration of ELM with CERP monitoring and adaptive management and stated that ELM “may be the primary method that SFWMD should use to guide any monitoring changes in the future, not just for ELM itself, but to monitor progress in restoring the Everglades” (Mitsch et al., 2007). Nevertheless, ELM was not integrated into system status monitoring and reporting for 2006 and 2007. In summary, ecological models have seen diminishing use in CERP since the development of the CERP during the mid-1990s (the Restudy). The trend is not due to technical problems with the models and is not a hiatus while next- g ­ eneration models are developed; rather, it reflects reduced staffing for model application and development. The committee can only echo previous NRC reports in stating that integrated hydro-ecological modeling has an important role in project planning, monitoring, assessment, and adaptive management. To improve the application of ecological models for the CERP planning and management, the DOI needs to invest more attention and resources in eco- logical modeling and data management activities at the Interagency Modeling Center. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To facilitate restoration progress despite some scientific and engineering uncertainty, Congress mandated an adaptive management approach for the CERP. Adaptive management requires the support of effective monitoring and assessment protocols and adequate hydrologic and ecological models. In this chapter, recent progress and major issues with respect to CERP science to sup- port the adaptive management process were reviewed. The major findings are highlighted below.

220 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades The RECOVER team has now produced nearly all of the elements needed to implement a decision-making framework using adaptive management to assess scientific uncertainty. Documents describing the adaptive management process (RECOVER, 2006a; 2007e), and all aspects of performance assessment (i.e., the monitoring plan [RECOVER, 2004], an assessment plan [RECOVER, 2006f], performance measures [RECOVER, 2007b], and quality assurance requirements [RECOVER, 2007d]) are completed. Conceptual ecological models that are the foundation of the monitoring and assessment documents have been peer- reviewed and published. The information management and data management system and the Interagency Modeling Center are actively developing tools to support the assessment and planning aspects of decision making and assisted in production of the 2007 System Status Report, the first in a series of assessment reports that documents the ecosystem response to implementation of CERP p ­ rojects. The System Status Reports are a critical component of the adaptive management strategy; they are the vehicle used to transmit new scientific infor- mation to restoration managers. These are significant accomplishments, and their importance should not be underestimated. However, the CERP adaptive management scheme could be improved by addressing several major issues, which are summarized below. In order for monitoring and assessment information to adequately support CERP adaptive management, a robust program of ecological monitoring should remain a priority. While monitoring in and of itself does not ensure restora- tion progress, without monitoring to understand ecosystem response to project implementation from local to whole ecosystem scales, uninformed management decisions will be made with potentially undesirable ecosystem consequences. A well-justified and documented set of performance measures has been developed, and a scientifically robust process for updating, refining, and adding to the set of performance measures is in place. RECOVER should continue to move forward to fully develop those performance measures that are currently monitored and to reconcile performance measure standards for evaluation and assessment. The periodic review of performance measures should consider ways to make sure that the total number of variables monitored is appropriate to their purpose for informing decisions and to the funding available for monitoring efforts. It also is important to match the frequency of monitoring with the speed of change of the variables that are monitored and to increase reliance on remotely sensed data collection methods. Revisions of the monitoring and assessment system should be firmly grounded in the use of the data for planning and management decision making. The 2007 System Status Report achieved its stated objectives to test the monitoring and assessment plan and establish as long a baseline as possible to

Building the Foundation for Adaptive Management 221 capture the natural variance of CERP performance measures. In most cases, the System Status Report also provided some discussion of the ability to detect per- formance measure change or trends. In doing so, the first System Status Report serves as the reference that will be used to gauge system response as CERP projects are implemented, and it is extremely valuable. Insights learned during the production of the report should be incorporated into the revision of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP I) and the conceptual ecological models, as needed, and for reprioritization of the performance measures. To maximize the usefulness of System Status Reports for adaptive man- agement, RECOVER should develop succinct summaries in future reports that clearly address whether the interim and longer-term goals are being met; if not, why not; and what CERP operations or design changes are most likely to move ecosystem response closer to the interim goals. RECOVER should also aim for a more coordinated approach in future assessments that allows for additional consideration of restoration effects across modules. The CERP Information and Data Management program provides a sound structure and good functionality for collaborative CERP data and information management. Performance assessment depends on a well-designed information and data management system so that monitoring data can be widely available and utilized to the fullest extent. The effectiveness of the Information and Data Management program depends on user awareness of and competence in using available tools and applications, timely provision of research and monitoring data, and community adherence to the articulated data standards and guidelines. Based on experience assembling the 2007 System Status Report, it appears that timely integration of CERP monitoring data remains challenging, and efforts to develop tools to facilitate the production of standard assessments should continue. Integrated hydrologic, ecological, and water quality modeling tools are needed for science to have a fully developed role in CERP decision making and ecosystem management. CERP planning and assessment of performance i ­ndicators are dependent on the modeling tools; as model development and implementation lag, so does access to more accurate and functional tools. M ­ odels are needed for each ecological indicator (performance measures) to compare predicted and monitored indicator responses to the CERP for effective adaptive management decision making. This will only occur when: • ecological modeling and data management activities are fully incorpo- rated and funded in the CERP’s Interagency Modeling Center, • Water quality and sediment transport models become routinely available and integrated with the new Regional Simulation Model (RSM), and

222 Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades • These physical-chemical models can be readily linked to ecological models. Linking of models (the third point above) continues to be a particularly slow endeavor. Impediments to achieving the synergy between planning, monitoring, and assessment needed to support effective adaptive management are related to shrinking resources, loss of staff, and time. Shrinking CERP resources mean that the trade-off between use of staff for model development versus for model production runs for CERP planning favors the latter. Moreover, if staff numbers are reduced, the knowledge and training of departing professionals go with them. This committee recognizes that resources are limited but notes that model development is a long-term proposition and should continue with as much sup- port as possible so the tools required to restore and manage the ecosystem are available in the future.

Next: 7 Synthesis of CERP Progress »
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review - 2008 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $70.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book is the second biennial evaluation of progress being made in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a multibillion-dollar effort to restore historical water flows to the Everglades and return the ecosystem closer to its natural state. Launched in 2000 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, CERP is a multiorganization planning process that includes approximately 50 major projects to be completed over the next several decades.

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second Biennial Review 2008 concludes that budgeting, planning, and procedural matters are hindering a federal and state effort to restore the Florida Everglades ecosystem, which is making only scant progress toward achieving its goals. Good science has been developed to support restoration efforts, but future progress is likely to be limited by the availability of funding and current authorization mechanisms. Despite the accomplishments that lay the foundation for CERP construction, no CERP projects have been completed to date. To begin reversing decades of decline, managers should address complex planning issues and move forward with projects that have the most potential to restore the natural ecosystem.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!