National Academies Press: OpenBook

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006 (2007)

Chapter: 4 The Use of Science in Decision Making

« Previous: 3 Program Planning, Financing, and Coordination
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

4
The Use of Science in Decision Making

A key tenet of the Everglades restoration effort is that reliable scientific information will guide critical ecosystem management decisions. This principle is written as background for the Programmatic Regulations, the legal document that guides the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP): “The definition of restoration recognizes implicitly that science will be the foundation of restoration, but it also assumes … that in all phases of implementation of the Plan both restoration and the other goals and purposes of the Plan should be achieved” (33 CFR §385). Given the enormous scope and complexity of the restoration effort and the extensive research conducted in the Everglades, both effective science coordination and synthesis of scientific results are essential for science to be the foundation of the restoration.

Science and research have a long and rich history in South Florida, beginning in the mid-1800s with land surveys and collection of information on pre-drainage wildlife and vegetation conditions. Volumes of scientific studies were available by the late 1980s to support efforts to restore the Everglades. The first Everglades Research Conference, held in 1989, documented the history of the Everglades, its condition, and restoration alternatives. The results of this conference were published by Davis and Ogden (1994) and, along with a 1994 report identifying key scientific uncertainties (SSG, 1994), provided the scientific framework for the current plan to restore the Everglades.

This chapter describes the way that scientific information helps achieve the goals of the CERP. It emphasizes the importance of effective science coordination, synthesis of monitoring data, the development of useful models, and application of adaptive management to support restoration. The chapter reviews three major program documents to fulfill item 4 of the committee’s charge to provide “independent review of monitoring and assessment protocols to be used for evaluation of CERP progress (e.g., CERP

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

TABLE 4-1 Summary of RECOVER Monitoring and Assessment Plan Products

Document

Acronym

Status/Date

Overview

Monitoring and Supporting Research (RECOVER, 2004)

MAP I

Final/January 2004 currently being implemented. See Appendix C for the status of monitoring components as of January 2006.

Describes monitoring plan and research justifying plan. Draft performance measures are identified. Focus is the natural system. Implementation plan is included.

2005 Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (RECOVER, 2005a)

MAP II

Final draft/September 2005

Provides a framework for analyzing relevant monitoring data and assessing progress toward the CERP goals and objectives. See also Box 4-1.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan System-wide Performance Measures (RECOVER, 2006b)

PM report

Revised review draft/March 2006

Justifies selection of each performance measure. The scope, development, application, and associated uncertainty of each performance measure are discussed.

Quality Assurance Systems Requirements (RECOVER, 2006c)

QASR

Peer-review draft/June 2006

Provides quality assurance protocols for all performance measures. Also includes information on data validation, management, and data archiving.

performance measures, annual assessment reports, assessment strategies, etc.).” The reviewed documents include the CERP Monitoring and Assessment Plan: Part 1 Monitoring and Supporting Research (MAP I; RECOVER, 2004), 2005 Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP II; RECOVER, 2005a) (see Table 4-1), and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Adaptive Management Strategy (RECOVER, 2005c; superseded by RECOVER, 2006a). Accomplishments of the science program and issues that will require further efforts are highlighted throughout the chapter.

The chapter begins by assessing the monitoring and assessment programs developed by the Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) program, including the progress and challenges faced in the implementation of the programs. The chapter then describes the importance of science coordination and synthesis to support the restoration effort and

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

examines how science should and does feed back into decision making within an adaptive management framework. The chapter concludes with a discussion of progress in modeling and its importance as a core science component supporting CERP planning and implementation. These topics are all elements of the adaptive management approach expected by Congress. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Senate Report No. 106-362) wrote: “the Committee expects that the agencies responsible for project implementation report formulation and Plan implementation will seek continuous improvement of the Plan based on new information, improved modeling, new technology and changed circumstances.” The success of the CERP depends on strategic, high-quality, responsive, and sustained science.

THE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PLAN

The Programmatic Regulations for the CERP (33 CFR §385) recognize the central role of monitoring and assessment to provide a scientific basis for restoration planning and implementation by mandating the development of a Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP). The MAP provides the framework that the RECOVER teams will 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. Specifically, the MAP will “(i.) establish a pre-CERP reference state including variability for each of the performance measures, (ii.) provide the assessment of the system-wide responses of the CERP implementation, (iii.) detect unexpected responses of the ecosystem to changes in the stressors resulting from CERP activities, and (iv.) support scientific investigations designed to increase ecosystem understanding, establish cause-and-effect relationships, and interpret unanticipated results” (RECOVER, 2004). The information generated from the MAP also can support CERP project planning, design, implementation, and operation and provide information needed to make informed decisions about the need to alter restoration plans through the adaptive management process.

The monitoring plan is based on conceptual models of 11 physiographic regions (Figure 4-1) and of the entire South Florida ecosystem (i.e., Total System Conceptual Model). These conceptual models are an assembly of well-informed hypotheses that describe the relationship between societal actions, environmental stressors, and ecosystem characteristics and the linkages among the physical, chemical, and biological elements within the natural system (Figure 4-2). In all cases, the CERP conceptual ecological

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-1 Boundaries of the 11 conceptual ecological models.

SOURCE: RECOVER (2004).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

models are based on extensive research and the best professional judgment of scientists working in the South Florida ecosystem. The conceptual ecological models link physical stressors with ecological effects and identify the ecosystem attributes most likely to respond to CERP projects and their operations (Ogden et al., 2005b). The conceptual ecological models also provide a planning tool for translating the CERP goals into specific performance measures (or ecosystem indicators) that will be used to assess the success of the CERP.

Although the relationships used to construct the conceptual models are based on extensive observation and experimentation, uncertainties remain about how the ecosystem as a whole will respond to the CERP. Hypotheses about individual system-response relationships will be examined further through the adaptive management process as CERP pilot projects are completed and projects are designed, implemented, and ultimately operated. The conceptual models and their associated causal hypotheses have been subjected to independent scientific peer review and were recently published in a peer-reviewed journal (e.g., Davis et al., 2005a; Ogden et al., 2005a; Rudnick et al., 2005). Development, peer review, and publication of the monitoring plan conceptual models are major accomplishments of RECOVER.

Components of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan

Collectively, four documents constitute the CERP MAP (Table 4-1). The CERP Monitoring and Assessment Plan: Part 1 Monitoring and Supporting Research (MAP I; RECOVER, 2004) describes the monitoring components for measuring the system responses to CERP implementation that will inform the assessment process. MAP I presents early drafts of the conceptual ecological models as part of the rationale supporting the selection of the monitoring components and identifies draft performance measures (further developed in RECOVER, 2006b). Examples of performance measures include the number and duration of dry events in Shark River Slough, sulfate concentrations in surface waters of the Everglades ecosystem, mangrove forest production and soil accretion, and wading bird nesting patterns. MAP I also lays out a plan for collecting data on the variables required to assess the status of performance measures. Performance measures typically do not rely on a single variable (e.g., number of wood stork nests) but instead include measures of a variety of variables. MAP I lays out the variables to be monitored, spatial sampling networks, and monitoring frequency necessary to assess the status of each performance measure.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-2 Example of 1 of the 11 conceptual ecological models that serve as the basis of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan.

SOURCE: Adapted from Davis et al. (2005b).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

BOX 4-1

Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan

The 2005 Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP II; RECOVER, 2005a) provides general guidance for RECOVER assessment activities and a framework for analyzing the data generated from the CERP MAP and other relevant monitoring data to address the overall status of the South Florida ecosystem relative to CERP goals. The MAP technical assessment process (Figure 4-3) offers guidance at three levels: (1) the MAP component level, (2) the module level (i.e., Greater Everglades, Southern Estuaries, Northern Estuaries, Lake Okeechobee, South Florida Hydrology Monitoring Module, and South Florida Mercury Bioaccumulation Module), and (3) the system level (see Appendix C for a detailed list of MAP modules and their individual components).

Guidance at the MAP component level is directed toward principal investigators and focuses on detecting change, establishing reference conditions, and measuring changes from those reference conditions. At the module level, guidance focuses on the integration of multiple performance measures in the evaluation of specific hypotheses. Module-level assessments are designed to determine the direction and magnitude of change in the integrated performance measures and to help evaluate whether those changes are consistent with the expected responses described in the CERP hypotheses. The module level helps evaluate progress toward interim goals and targets, identify unexpected or surprising results and episodic events, and integrate relevant project-level monitoring. Finally, the system-level guidance addresses possible decision alternatives resulting from the assessment of individual or multiple performance measures and MAP hypotheses within and across the modules. Figure 4-4 illustrates the three alternatives for interpreting assessments at the systems level.

The findings that result from the various assessment activities at the MAP component, module, and system levels are presented in several annual reports that are eventually compiled and synthesized to produce the RECOVER Technical Report. The Technical Report assesses whether the goals and purposes of the CERP are being achieved and is released at least every 5 years—more frequently if deemed necessary. The annual assessment reports and the Technical Report fulfill reporting requirements to Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, and the public. The MAP II process is currently under way and the release of the first 5-year Technical Report is anticipated in 2010, although one could be released sooner under special circumstances (RECOVER, 2005a).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-3 MAP technical assessment process.

SOURCE: RECOVER (2005a).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-4 Decision framework for interpreting systemwide assessments.

SOURCE: RECOVER (2005a).

The framework for analyzing the monitoring data collected as part of the MAP and assessing the effects of CERP project implementation is described in the 2005 Assessment Strategy for the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP II; RECOVER, 2005a). MAP II also provides guidelines for assessing the progress toward achieving the restoration goals. Box 4-1 describes in more detail the technical assessment process outlined in MAP II. MAP I and II are discussed in more detail below.

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan System-wide Performance Measures report (PM report; RECOVER, 2006b) describes in detail the development of each performance measure, how it relates to the conceptual ecological models, and how it can be used to evaluate the predicted performance of the CERP or to assess the status of the ecosystem before and after CERP project implementation. The PM report also describes restoration

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

goals or targets for each performance measure. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the PM report was not completed in time to be considered in detail in this report. Nevertheless, the committee utilized information in the most recent PM report draft to support its findings.

The Quality Assurance Systems Requirement Manual for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (QASR; RECOVER, 2006c) is a rigorous, detailed compilation of quality assurance protocols. QASR is a manual that includes the quality assurance and quality control requirements for all CERP monitoring data regardless of the data format (e.g., field observations, laboratory analyses, imagery, model output). Such a plan has enormous value. As noted by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996), “Currently, a great deal of monitoring data is collected in the United States. However, the data are incomplete … of varied quality, and non-standardized in collection protocol.” These shortcomings are potential risks to CERP success because of the massive amount of data needed to support the CERP, the varied format of the data, the number of institutions and individuals involved in data collection, and the life expectancy of the restoration. A peerreview draft of the QASR manual (RECOVER, 2006c) was released in June 2006 and the manual is nearing completion, but it will be periodically reviewed and updated as needed. The committee did not review the QASR manual in detail for this report.

Completion of the full MAP is anticipated in the near future and will be a major accomplishment of RECOVER because all pieces of the MAP are essential to the assessment phase of the CERP. RECOVER has made good progress toward developing and implementing a statistically defensible monitoring plan and an ambitious assessment strategy. This conclusion is based on multiple briefings to this committee, evaluation of final drafts of MAP I and MAP II, and a review of the concerns expressed in a previous NRC review of adaptive monitoring and assessment for CERP, which focused in particular on MAP I (NRC, 2003b). Significant progress has been made since that review, and the authors of the MAP have at least partly addressed many of the previously expressed concerns about the program and its use in adaptive management (Box 4-2).

The MAP documents emphasize that the monitoring and assessment plans will separate the effects of hydrologic management from other impacts (e.g., climate variation, land use). Yet, RECOVER recognizes that linking hydrologic changes to specific ecosystem responses is difficult because of the time lags involved in ecosystem responses, natural fluctuations in ecological variables that may obscure trends, and difficulties in separating system responses to hydrology from other drivers. RECOVER’s current

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

BOX 4-2

Conclusions from the NRC (2003c) Review of MAP and Actions Taken

  1. Although the MAP was grounded on the practice of adaptive management, the least developed aspects of planned adaptive management were feedback mechanisms to connect monitoring to planning and management. Action taken: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Adaptive Management Strategy (RECOVER, 2006a) developed to articulate roles and relationships.

  2. Restoration goals, objectives, and targets were inadequately defined and not reconciled with the large-scale forces of change in South Florida. Action taken: Interim Goals-Interim Targets developed.

  3. Primary reliance on passive adaptive management limited the ability to make inferences regarding cause and effect and to distinguish policy effects from other human forces or natural processes. Action taken: None specifically; this remains an impediment.

  4. The MAP needed a rigorous quality assurance/quality control program to ensure that monitoring data are of high quality and utility. Action taken: The QASR manual is nearly completed.

  5. Including combinations of ecological performance measures and environmental variables hypothesized to impact those measures is critical for the adaptive management approach. Action taken: Performance measures revised to reflect ecological response to environmental variables. Assessment strategy recognizes this need.

  6. Region-wide monitoring of ecosystem drivers is essential to reducing uncertainties associated with the restoration plan, but had received comparatively little attention. Action taken: Developed Total System Conceptual Ecological Model (Ogden et al., 2005a), but performance measures for the total system were not identified.

  7. Scientists developing the MAP needed an explicit understanding of the information management needs and how monitoring results will be used. Action taken: Information management specialists are being recruited.

  8. Monitoring must also serve compliance monitoring and report card functions in addition to adaptive management. Action taken: No action taken.

  9. Strategies for reducing the number of performance measures and prioritizing monitoring needs were needed. Action taken: Number of total performance measures reduced to 73 in MAP I (RECOVER, 2004) from 156 (RECOVER, 2001); however, the PM report (RECOVER, 2006b) lists 83 total performance measures. The number of total performance measures (73-83) still remains a potential problem. Key uncertainties have been identified and are documented in MAP I (RECOVER, 2004) and the PM report (RECOVER, 2006b).

plan is to try to distinguish natural system variation and responses to nonhydrologic drivers from hydrologic changes resulting from the CERP by using modeling tools to estimate ecosystem response in the absence of the CERP. The need for early recognition of surprising ecosystem responses

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

emphasizes the value of frequent assessment of the system even though many ecosystem responses will occur slowly. MAP II lays out a very ambitious annual assessment schedule that may allow surprises to be identified early and could serve as the basis for triggering changes in the sequencing, timing, and/or operation of CERP projects. The information generated by these annual assessments will be invaluable to CERP’s adaptive management strategy.

As RECOVER continues to implement MAP I monitoring projects and works through pilot assessments to test the strategies set out in MAP II, limitations of these documents will be uncovered. For example, RECOVER will need to evaluate whether the type of changes associated with a set of conceptual model performance measures are consistent with one another and if this type of approach can achieve the type of integration necessary to support a restoration activity of the complexity of the CERP. A strength of the MAP is that all of the components are “living documents” that will be revised on a regular basis. RECOVER plans to address limitations and incorporate changes into future revisions of the MAP components as more is learned about which measures provide useful information about how the natural and built environments are affected by the CERP.

The committee has not provided an exhaustive review of the published MAP documents here because an earlier committee provided a detailed review (NRC, 2003b) of an earlier draft of MAP I, which has been integrated into more recent documents. In addition, the assessment protocols (MAP II) themselves are fairly straightforward and sensible but are not very detailed. The success or failure of the MAP really depends on its choice of performance measures to monitor, the pace of its implementation, its sustainability, and the way its information is integrated into the management of the whole restoration program. Thus, the committee focused its review on these overarching issues, which are discussed in detail below.

Overarching Issues

Overarching issues concerning MAP I, MAP II, and the implementation of the CERP monitoring and assessment program include whole-system performance measures, hydrologic monitoring networks, rapid implementation of the MAP, its sustainability, and information management.

Whole-System Performance Measures

The complexity of the Everglades—the broad spatial extent, long response times, multiple scales, and the large number of components—man-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

dates monitoring of ecosystem response at multiple temporal and spatial scales. Whole-system response cannot be determined simply by a process of linear aggregation from small to large scales because system attributes are not uniform or scale invariant. Yet, most of the MAP’s ecological performance measures are area- and species- or community-specific. Few, if any, of the MAP’s performance measures quantify ecological processes or natural populations that operate at the level of the entire ecosystem.

Whole-system performance measures assess the extent and status of an ecosystem, its ecological capital, and its ecological functioning or performance (NRC, 2000).1 For example, land cover and land use are whole-system indicators that can be used to define the extent and status of an ecosystem. Total species diversity, native species diversity, nutrient runoff, and soil organic matter are indicators of ecological capital. Indicators of ecosystem function might include total chlorophyll or carbon storage, which is particularly useful in wetlands.

NRC (2003b) recommended that a limited number of such whole-system performance measures be developed while at the same time recognizing the major difficulties associated with assessments of this type. RECOVER also recognizes this need (RECOVER, 2006b) although the development of whole-system performance measures lags behind that of other performance measures. Until a few whole-system indicators sensitive to the restoration efforts are identified, the ability to provide information about ecosystem functioning in the broadest sense and about the ecosystem’s capacity to respond to changes will be inadequate to meet the information needs of adaptive management. It is critical that such measures be developed now before surprises in the natural system response require modifications to the CERP.

Hydrologic Monitoring Networks

The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that reestablishment of the hydrologic characteristics of the historical Everglades is a precursor to ecological restoration (Davis and Ogden, 1994), and the CERP is based on this assumption. However, ultimately, the success of the restoration will be judged by the system’s ecological response. Yet, in the near term, and of

1

Whole-system performance measures must not be confused with metrics for multicriteria decision making, which provide a quantitative framework to evaluate trade-offs among restoration goals as the uncertainties associated with the CERP are reduced, plans for project design are refined, and restoration goals are reevaluated.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

necessity, hydrologic measures and modeling may serve as a way to assess some ecological aspects of the restoration because of the long response times associated with ecological performance measures (e.g., landscape patterns in the ridge-and-slough region, mangrove forest soil accretion, tidal creek patterns and sustainability). Hydrologic attributes also provide a common metric that allows comparison of ecological requirements and human water needs among potential restoration options. Consequently, hydrologic monitoring networks have a central role in the assessment of restoration.

The current hydrologic monitoring network consists of 753 stage monitoring stations, 512 ground water wells, 434 water flow sites, and 40 meteorological stations operated by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Everglades National Park in the Lake Okeechobee area and the Everglades ecosystem (RECOVER, 2004). The data supplied by the hydrologic monitoring networks are direct measures of hydrologic stage, water flow velocity, or groundwater levels that provide a way to (1) assess if restoration activities are meeting hydrologic targets and (2) provide a common metric that allows trade-offs to be assessed within the natural system and between the natural and built environments. For hydrologic performance measures to serve the second function, they must have an ecological logic behind them. For example, water deliveries made in dry years to a location would be a more ecologically meaningful hydrologic measure than average annual water deliveries. Different hydrologic measures may be chosen to represent different ecological objectives. An advantage of using ecologically meaningful hydrologic measures is that they facilitate linkages between ecological and hydrologic models and improve model prediction accuracy. For example, ecological models could be used to translate hydrologic metrics into predicted ecological responses to a change in storage, diversion, or delivery of water at the system level. Similarly, Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) currently under development offer a way to predict simultaneously how specific water management options could impact multiple ecological performance measures (e.g., periphyton communities, tree islands, alligator abundance and distribution, juvenile shrimp populations). If uncertainties in predictions are recognized, such predictions may prove useful in making trade-offs among different ecological and societal goals and constraints.

The current hydrologic monitoring program may be inadequate to allow evaluation of trade-offs between hydrologic management options. MAP I noted several weaknesses of the hydrologic performance measures (RECOVER, 2004). Most of these weaknesses are associated with the limited ability of the hydrology monitoring network to quantify flood protection and

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

water supply for the built environment. For example, it is not clear if there are specific CERP performance measures that can be used to evaluate the “reliability” of water supply or flood hazard, other than the 10-year drought criterion specified in state law for protection of existing legal uses. MAP II provides little insight into the framework for using hydrologic data to support assessment and evaluation activities, particularly for the built environment or for the interface between the built and natural systems. The USGS is currently reviewing the surface-water hydrologic monitoring network for its suitability for CERP monitoring and assessment in the natural system,2 and this effort should continue. However, the hydrologic monitoring data needs for the built environment should also be carefully assessed, as recommended in MAP I. Additionally, development of networks with better spatial coverage for monitoring meteorological conditions, water supply, flood control, groundwater levels, and flow in structures and on wetland surfaces, including establishing their relationship to ecological performance measures, is a critical need. These types of data are especially limited in the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park.

Rapid Implementation of the MAP

MAP I noted that the monitoring program would be phased in over 2 years (fiscal years 2003 and 2004) with the initial emphasis on filling gaps in existing condition (baseline) data (RECOVER, 2004). As noted by NRC (2003b), baseline monitoring data are essential to support the adaptive management strategy, to understand the ranges of natural variability in the measures of interest, and eventually to assess the effects of the CERP on both the natural and human environments. Although many of the monitoring projects described in MAP I are under way (see Appendix C), a number of key projects are on hold. Some monitoring projects have been delayed while pilot projects determine appropriate levels of replication, spatial and temporal distribution of sampling efforts, and/or the most effective sampling techniques. Other MAP monitoring projects are on hold because of inadequate staff. RECOVER has made some progress in securing additional staff positions for MAP implementation and data management. These functions

2

The Everglades Depth Estimation Network, EDEN (http://sofia.usgs.gov/projects/eden/), is intended to provide the hydrologic data necessary to integrate hydrologic and biological responses to the CERP during MAP performance measurement assessment and evaluation for the Greater Everglades module.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

are vital to all phases of the monitoring plan development, testing, revision, and long-term operation, but even if filled, inadequate staffing in support of the MAP might still slow its implementation. A large portion of the MAP depends on preexisting monitoring programs conducted by various agencies and institutions (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, USGS, the National Park Service, universities). The advantage of this approach is that existing monitoring programs are being leveraged to support the CERP, but it also means that agencies already limited by staff resources are being stretched to an even greater extent (GAO, 2003).

Rapid implementation of a focused group of performance measures would enable establishment of a valuable long-term baseline. Documentation of temporal variability in performance measures and how they respond to water management will provide information invaluable to RECOVER’s efforts to assess and evaluate the impacts of the CERP on the ecosystem.

Sustainability of the MAP

There are neither sufficient funds nor staff available to fully implement the monitoring projects described in MAP I or to address critical monitoring plan uncertainties. Early versions of the MAP identified more than 200 performance measures for monitoring and assessment (NRC, 2003b). To reduce the number of performance measures, RECOVER developed nine criteria (Box 4-3). The general form of the criteria is consistent with the logic of indicator selection suggested in previous NRC reports (NRC, 2000, 2003b), and RECOVER used these criteria to reduce the number of performance measures to 83 (RECOVER, 2006b). However, over the long term, monitoring of even this reduced set of performance measures may not be sustainable, because the number of variables that must be monitored to assess each measure is greater than the number of performance measures.

More performance measures are not inherently problematic if they are properly integrated into an assessment process. However, a smaller number of select performance measures will ultimately enhance communication between scientists and senior mangers. Because CERP resources are inherently limited, the sustainability of the monitoring plan over the long term would benefit from even further prioritization within the current subset of performance measures consistent with the different monitoring objectives of adaptive management, regulatory compliance, and status reports to the public (sometimes called a “report card”).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

BOX 4-3

RECOVER’s Performance Measure Criteria

  • The performance measure should be expected to change directly in relation to CERP implementation; there must be a clear linkage between the performance measure and the predicted changes to CERP implementation.

  • The performance measure indicator should appear in a conceptual ecological model or have a strong regulatory basis.

  • The proposed performance measure should be a strong indicator of the ecosystem health or cause major stress on the system.

  • The performance measure indicator should be an indicator of (1) an important ecological process (e.g., food webs, energy transfer), (2) an important ecological structure (e.g., fragmentation, compartmentalization, succession, disturbance, biodiversity), or (3) major environmental change (e.g., hydrology, fire, water quality).

  • The performance measure indicator should be a regional indicator of CERP performance (versus a project-level measure).

  • The performance measure should provide information not provided by other performance measures being recommended for the physiographic region.

  • The performance measure indicator should be measurable or indirectly measured using surrogate indicators.

  • The performance measure should have a relatively strong degree of predictability. Changes in the performance measure resulting from CERP implementation should be easily distinguished from those contributed by other factors and a mechanism should be available to predict future performance for project planning purposes.

  • The performance measure should have a relatively low measurement uncertainty.

SOURCE: RECOVER (2006b).

Although the monitoring and assessment program is more easily sustainable if based on fewer performance measures, care must be taken in excluding measures during the early stages of CERP because it takes time to understand how some measures will perform. As more is learned through monitoring and assessment and as the information needs of managers are identified more clearly, it will be possible to reduce the number of performance measures to a more sustainable number through an iterative process. The pilot assessments of several performance measures began in winter 2005-2006 (M. Harwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication, 2006), and these pilot efforts could help support an iterative evaluation of the total number of performance measures. These assessments focus on one key hypothesis within each of the four geographic module

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

groups defined in MAP I .3 Although there is healthy debate about which of the hypotheses and their attendant uncertainties should receive highest priority, RECOVER scientists agree that the pilot assessments will allow better prioritization of key uncertainties and monitoring components and determination of the appropriateness of specific performance measures. Ultimately, it will be necessary for RECOVER to focus their long-term monitoring efforts on those performance measures providing the greatest amount of information about the progress of the restoration to avoid interruptions in data collection—and at worst collapse of the MAP program—because of excessive costs.

MAP I reliance on existing monitoring programs makes the CERP program vulnerable to changes in funding that are beyond its control, and the long-term sustainability of these programs currently is unclear. The RECOVER Leadership Group has proposed establishing Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with agencies supporting monitoring efforts that are not funded through the CERP. Although the MOU do not ensure continued funding for monitoring, they do provide a mechanism for formal interagency recognition that these monitoring programs are critical for the CERP.

Information Management

RECOVER recognizes centralized data management as fundamental to the coordination of monitoring efforts and assessment of monitoring data, and RECOVER has made some steps toward developing a centralized system. Presently all RECOVER scientists have access to monitoring data housed in databases collectively referred to as the “CERP zone.” As RECOVER begins to work through pilot assessments, they will need easy access to monitoring data generated by a wide diversity of sources (i.e., field notes, electronic monitoring equipment, laboratory results). To date little has been done to designate how these data are to be transferred and maintained in a consistent manner. Without an appropriate data management system and individuals to manage both the newly generated data and the data that are already available, RECOVER will find the task of assessment to be intractable, particularly considering the short time frames necessary to

3

The four geographic modules identified in MAP I are the northern estuaries (the St. Lucie Estuary, Indian River Lagoon, Caloosahatchee Estuary, Lake Worth Lagoon, and Loxahatchee River Estuary), southern estuaries (Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the southwestern mangrove estuaries), Lake Okeechobee, and the Greater Everglades (includes the ridge and slough, southern marl prairies, Florida Bay mangrove estuaries, and the Big Cypress basin).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

support overall program and scientific coordination. Development of a robust data management system is an immediate RECOVER need.

The information management aspects of the MAP are not moving forward as quickly as needed. Ideally, the data management plan would be developed in concert with the monitoring program. Like implementation of MAP I and II, design of a data management system to support RECOVER activities is limited by a lack of staff. Currently, there are no staff positions dedicated to CERP MAP data management, although the SFWMD recently approved three data steward positions.

Adequacy of the MAP for Adaptive Management

The CERP MAP outlines a strategic plan to provide for a continuous cycle of monitoring and experimentation, as well as regular and frequent assessment of the findings within the larger CERP adaptive management strategy (see below). The combination of monitoring networks, experimentation, and assessment laid out in the MAP has the potential to reduce uncertainty associated with the conceptual ecological models, provide new knowledge to understand old and emerging problems, lead to better simulations of the system, and help to identify information gaps to support adaptive management. The adequacy of the MAP for the purposes of adaptive management can be determined only through implementation of the monitoring plan, testing of the assessment processes, and ultimately use of the assessment results by decision makers in updating and improving the plan during the adaptive management processes. Such an iterative process based on feedback between decision makers and scientists is the foundation of adaptive management of ecosystems.

SCIENCE COORDINATION AND SYNTHESIS

The success of the CERP ultimately depends on effective coordination of scientific research efforts and information synthesis for decision making. An adaptive management process uses information from monitoring and assessment activities to improve the planning and operation of CERP projects. The MAP assessment process is founded on hypotheses of ecosystem functioning and response. Tests of these hypotheses and quantification of their uncertainties will create new research needs (RECOVER, 2005a). Effective science coordination ensures that critical information gaps are identified and the highest priority research needs are addressed. Effective science coordination will also promote data synthesis, leverage dollars

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

across programs, and provide consistency in the quality of research, monitoring, and assessment.

At the broadest level, science coordination of CERP and non-CERP research is the responsibility of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force).4 In response to criticisms from the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2003), the Task Force has been working to improve its science coordination and to develop a structured approach for identifying research gaps. The Task Force made the development of a science plan the highest priority for its Science Coordination Group (SCG), and in December 2004 the SCG released Phase I of the Plan for Coordinating Science (SFERTF, 2004). The SCG plan was intended to identify the conceptual approach that will be used to coordinate systemwide science among the member agencies of the Task Force. An independent review of the Phase I plan found that the plan “created a solid framework to fulfill the Task Force’s goal of coordination among member organizations of the Task Force” (Battelle, 2005). The Battelle report, however, also concluded that the Plan for Coordinating Science would benefit from “a defined process that would more comprehensively assess gaps and research needs” among the conceptual ecological models.

Other science programs with some coordinating role include RECOVER, the Critical Ecosystems Studies Initiative (CESI), and the Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Ecosystems Science Program (FBAMS). The National Park Service coordinates the CESI to provide scientific information for South Florida ecosystem restoration and for management decisions on Department of the Interior lands. The FBAMS is a coalition of federal, state, and local government agencies that coordinates scientific efforts and synthesizes data on Florida Bay and nearby coastal areas. Clearly some processes are in place for the major restoration science programs (e.g., RECOVER, CESI, and FBAMS) to individually identify high-priority information needs, synthesize results, and communicate research results to managers. A critically important question is whether science is coordinated collaboratively across the major programs that support the Everglades restoration.

Synthesis is “the process of accumulating, interpreting, and articulating scientific results, thereby converting them to knowledge or information”

4

The Task Force was established by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to coordinate policies, programs, and science activities among the many restoration partners in South Florida. Current membership and information on the Task Force is available at http://www.sfrestore.org/.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

(NRC, 2003a). Synthesis can be motivated by a desire to understand the fundamental properties of natural systems or to generalize information for purposes of predicting system behavior (Boesch et al., 2000). There is a critical need for science synthesis to minimize technical and scientific disagreements that lead to scientific uncertainties that impede restoration decision making. Because effective synthesis of Everglades science should encompass all CERP and non-CERP projects, synthesis presents difficult scientific questions and science coordination challenges.

In 2003, the NRC suggested that restoration managers in South Florida should consider assembling a science entity that would serve as an independent scientific coordinating advisory body for all of the restoration partners, a motivating force for ensuring systemwide collaboration among programs, and a forum for visionary science synthesis (NRC, 2003a). Although the SCG has the broadest science coordination charge of the various entities in South Florida, it has neither the manpower nor the mandate to provide comprehensive science coordination and data synthesis for the restoration program. Therefore, RECOVER has emerged as the de facto effective leader in scientific coordination and synthesis in the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort, even though RECOVER was created to supply scientific and technical information specifically for CERP.

Although RECOVER’s MAP does attempt to synthesize data across agencies, including both CERP and non-CERP projects, many of the projects critical to the restoration are outside the scope of the CERP and will not be systematically addressed by RECOVER because of the focused mission of the program and a lack of resources. This committee agrees with NRC (2003a) that, unless a viable structure and process along with the resources and authority to truly coordinate and synthesize science across restoration programs are established, the research behind the restoration is unlikely to be effectively used to achieve the restoration goals.

Large-scale research programs like those supporting the Everglades restoration desperately need coordination, collaboration, and integration. In the absence of these characteristics, the restoration may still occur but it is likely to take more time, money, and effort.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

The adaptive management approach facilitates progress in managing natural resources or achieving environmental restoration in cases of uncertainty or disputes about the potential outcomes of management actions. Adaptive management offers a means to proceed without definitive design

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

and to iteratively reduce uncertainty through the refinement of management actions based, ideally, on experimentation (Lee, 1999; Walters and Holling, 1990). To be effective, adaptive management must be a well-structured process (i.e., not ad hoc or trial-and-error) that includes (1) management objectives that are regularly revisited and accordingly revised, (2) a model or models of the managed system, (3) 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, 2004a).

Applications of adaptive management vary substantially, but there are two major types. In passive adaptive management, a preferred course of action is selected based on existing information and understanding. Outcomes are monitored and evaluated, and subsequent decisions regarding, for example, project operations or the design of subsequent projects are adjusted based on improved understanding. In contrast, active adaptive management begins with an analysis of the most serious gaps in understanding about the system and examines or develops several plausible explanations or models of the system’s response to management actions. Practitioners then design and conduct experiments to remove the maximum possible amount of uncertainty about the system response. Experimental results are used to revise the models and better predict the outcomes of management options and may lead to new experiments. Active adaptive management is based on the assumption that early investment in knowledge generation will reduce the likelihood of making inappropriate and potentially damaging management decisions. A potential downside to active adaptive management is that management actions may be delayed, allowing the system to deteriorate while learning occurs.

Progress in Developing Adaptive Management Within CERP

GAO (2003) identified gaps in scientific tools needed for adaptive management in the CERP, specifically a comprehensive monitoring program for ecosystem condition and mathematical models needed to simulate ecosystem responses to restoration activities. Also, NRC (2003b) presented several concerns related to adaptive management, including, for example, the need for explicit feedback mechanisms to connect monitoring to planning and management (see Box 4-2). The CERP has made considerable progress that addresses most of these concerns, mainly as a result of activities undertaken under RECOVER. RECOVER has proposed interim restoration goals and interim targets (Box 4-4), along with an adaptive management strategy that

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

BOX 4-4

Interim Goals and Interim Targets

The 2003 Programmatic Regulations require the development of interim goals and interim targets to provide a means for measuring the success of the CERP in meeting restoration, water supply, and flood-control objectives. An interim goal is defined by RECOVER as “a means by which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated throughout the implementation process.” RECOVER defines an interim target as “a means by which the success of the Plan in providing for water related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection, may be evaluated throughout the implementation process” (RECOVER, 2005b). In this context, the interim goals and interim targets provide an important basis for performance assessment (box 2 in Figure 4-5).

To develop the interim goals and interim targets, “indicators” were identified that were relevant to the CERP and that could be readily monitored as CERP projects were implemented. The interim goals and interim targets are model predictions of how the indicators will respond as individual CERP projects come online and are operated. For example, the American oyster is used as an indicator of the condition of the northern freshwater estuaries. Predictions are made about how the oyster population will respond to water storage projects in the CERP in the next 5 years.

The Programmatic Regulations require that a report on the success of the CERP in meeting its goals and targets be submitted to Congress every 5 years. The intent of this requirement is to assess whether the CERP is meeting its objectives. The 5-year reviews of the goals and targets are to take into account new information from monitoring and research projects and improvement in modeling and predictive capabilities. That is, investigators are able to learn while doing.

The initial set of interim goals and interim targets (IGIT; RECOVER, 2005b) is acknowledged by RECOVER to be based on models that the restoration planners and scientists have explicitly found to be in need of additional development and refinement. Although the 2003 Programmatic Regulations called for more recent versions of the models to be used to define goals and targets, they were not available in time for the IGIT report development. Furthermore the models used a version of the Master Implementation Sequencing Plan that was revised a month after the draft IGIT report was completed. The new sequencing of projects will affect the statement of interim goals and targets, because the interim goals and targets are essentially a transformation of the construction and implementation schedule. This process of establishing interim goals and targets will improve with each 5-year iteration as predictive models are refined, more accurate data are collected, and understanding of the system improves within the adaptive management framework. Of special interest is that the refinement of this process can contribute to the overall CERP planning program in other ways. The Programmatic Regulations requirement to justify “next added” projects based on benefits received before the full CERP is in place can apply the same analytical process that is expected for the IGIT report.

Interim goals and interim targets represent one way to evaluate the progress of the CERP in meeting restoration, water supply, and flood-control objectives, and also a way to learn about the trajectories of system response and improve our understanding of ecosystem behavior. Missed interim goals and targets provide opportunities for learning. In some cases, a missed goal may suggest the need for altering project designs and operations, but in other instances, the failure to reach an interim goal may simply reflect the need to improve analytical modeling tools and conceptual models of ecosystem responses.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

describes the feedback mechanisms linking monitoring to management decision making (RECOVER, 2005b; 2006a). The primary reliance on passive adaptive management and obstacles to active adaptive management approaches—long a criticism of the CERP—remain challenges.

The CERP Adaptive Management Strategy

A multi-agency Adaptive Management Steering Committee was formed in 2002 to begin the task of developing an adaptive management implementation strategy for the CERP. It published the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Adaptive Management Strategy (CERP AM Strategy) in April 2006 (RECOVER, 2006a). A more detailed AM Guidance Manual is scheduled to be released in early 2007. The strategy defines adaptive management as “a science and performance-based approach to ecosystem management and related projects under high levels of uncertainty.” It further states:

Under such conditions, management anticipates actions to be taken as testable explanations or propositions so the best course of action can be discerned through rigorous monitoring, integrative assessment, and synthesis. Adaptive management advances desired goals by reducing uncertainty, incorporating robustness into project design, and incorporating new information about ecosystem relationships as our understanding of these relationships is augmented and refined. Overall system performance is enhanced as AM reconciles project-level actions within the context of ecosystem-level responses.

While much of this construct reflects the concepts of adaptive management reviewed above, two novel concepts are emphasized in the CERP AM Strategy. The first is the incorporation of robustness in project design, where robustness refers to the ability of key design parameters, including engineering, operations, and hydrologic and ecological responses, to operate effectively in the face of variability and uncertainty of future events. The second is explicit reconciliation of project-level actions and ecosystem-level responses. The strategy goes on to state: “Overall system performance is enhanced as AM reconciles project-level actions within the context of ecosystem-level responses.” The AM Strategy proceeds to identify additional management responses required to implement adaptive management principles, including anticipating future uncertainties and contingencies during planning of qualitatively different options, using science-based approaches to build knowledge over time, and building shared understanding through collaboration and conflict resolution.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-5 The CERP Adaptive Management Framework.

SOURCE: Adapted from RECOVER (2006a).

The CERP AM Strategy is based on a four-box model (Figure 4-5), which portrays responsibilities for and interactions among (1) CERP planning, (2) performance assessment, (3) management and science integration, and (4) the CERP update process. Adaptive management within CERP planning (box 1 of Figure 4-5) is intended to go beyond the detection and correction of errors after project construction to anticipate future uncertainty and build performance-based versatility or robustness in the design of the CERP as a whole, as well as each individual project. The AM Strategy calls for updates of the systemwide plan at least every 5 years, as well as incorporation of adaptive management into the project-level planning for all 68 CERP project components. General guidance for the use of adaptive management at the project level is provided in the AM Strategy and more specific guidance is anticipated in the forthcoming AM Guidance Manual.

Performance assessment (box 2 in Figure 4-5) is the principal responsibility of RECOVER. It includes a program for monitoring and assessment of system performance (MAP), project-specific monitoring, and refining scien-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

tific information through conceptual models, hypotheses, and performance measures. This, of course, is intended to support the assessment of the performance of the system itself, as well as progress toward achieving the ultimate CERP restoration objectives. Incremental progress will be measured relative to a reference condition (a set of ecosystem measures at specified times and places; also called a baseline) and to the interim goals and interim targets as specified by the Programmatic Regulations (see Box 4-4). An important product emerging from this activity will be the RECOVER Technical Report, produced as necessary but at least once every 5 years (see Box 4-1).

Management and science integration (box 3 in Figure 4-5) is the responsibility of RECOVER and the agency managers. Activities within this functional area will be triggered by new technical or scientific knowledge that has systemwide implications or by requests for assistance from a CERP project team. The System-wide Planning and Operations Team (SPOT), co-chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and SFWMD, is responsible for overseeing and coordinating these integration activities, which include (1) assessing the issues and the need for management involvement (also called scoping), (2) options development, and (3) other options analysis. For each activity, there are responsibilities assigned to USACE and SFWMD management, SPOT, and RECOVER as well as stakeholder/public involvement. Assessment or options reports will contain the findings from the analyses.

The fourth and final adaptive management activity box is the CERP update process (Figure 4-5) that will occur under the guidance of senior management within the USACE and the SFWMD. The AM Strategy specifies that the update process will consider modifications of the CERP that alter sequencing of project implementation, implement operational changes to improve project performance, and make adjustments to the plan, including adding, deleting, or modifying individual project elements. If the USACE and the SFWMD determine that major changes to the plan are needed, they will prepare a Comprehensive Plan Modification Report. Decisions resulting from the update process obviously require reinitiation of CERP planning (box 1 in Figure 4-5) and the adaptive management cycle. As such, box 4 is a critical step whereby scientific understanding is infused into planning.

The CERP AM Strategy is clearly built on the development of a technical and institutional capacity for adaptive management (e.g., modeling, MAP) and seeks to close the gap, identified by NRC (2003b), between the scientific task of outcome assessment and the engineering tasks of planning and decision making. As laid out, the AM Strategy provides a sound organiza-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

tional model, but like the MAP, its effectiveness can be judged only by the outcomes of its implementation. The AM Strategy expresses the appropriate philosophy of using versatile and robust designs and anticipating future uncertainty, but it remains to be seen how willing decision makers will be to make significant alterations to CERP project designs or sequencing, as opposed to relatively minor alterations in project operations, through the CERP update process (box 4 in Figure 4-5) in response to scientific assessments of ecosystem response. The success of the AM Strategy will be highly dependent on the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the all-important linkages among the functional boxes (Figure 4-5) and coordination of multilevel decision making (e.g., project to system, district to headquarters). Achieving excellence in planning or performance assessment are each necessary, but insufficient, for effective adaptive management; these and the other functions must be highly interactive. Furthermore, they must be appropriately integrated over the scales of planning, assessment, and decision making and among the layers of authority. At the same time, the linkages should not be so rigid as to be an obstacle to timely action and individual and group innovation. Thus, adaptive management should not be viewed as an extra step, consuming additional time and resources, but as a means to advance ecosystem restoration by breaking through logjams of disagreement and to reduce costly fixes later.

The AM Strategy is designed mainly with passive adaptive management in mind, with an emphasis on detailed planning, assessment, and adjustment, and may not be as effective as also pursuing active adaptive management approaches that require exploration of different alternatives. Adaptive management within the CERP should not be viewed as a means to either eliminate all uncertainty in project design or tinker with operations at the margins. Rather, adaptive management, in the committee’s view, is most valuable as a means of testing critical assumptions and thereby advancing effective planning by taking actions in the face of uncertainties. Even though some anticipated responses can take a long time to be fully expressed, adaptive management provides critical insights into whether responses are on the right track before it is too late.

Opportunities for Active Adaptive Management

Uncertainties about components of the functioning of the Everglades ecosystem, and the degree to which functional properties can be restored under the dramatically changed environment in South Florida, are substantial. Therefore, in some cases, active rather than passive adaptive manage-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

ment may better assist in achieving restoration goals. The committee judges that key areas of uncertainty where active adaptive management is particularly likely to be helpful include

  • hydrologic conditions during the transition from current conditions to the final restored conditions;

  • the role of flow, including extreme events, in establishing and maintaining tree island and the ridge-and-slough vegetation;

  • the consequences of massive introductions of water into underground aquifers, and the quality of the water that might be recovered from the deep aquifers;

  • the causes of seagrass decline in Florida Bay and the best ways to restore habitats in the Bay;

  • control methods for invasive exotic species; and

  • the needs of endangered species.

Chapter 6 provides additional suggestions for the use of active adaptive management in the context of a proposed new approach for incremental adaptive restoration.

Requisites for Effective Adaptive Management in the CERP

The CERP AM Strategy relies on a complex array of interacting activities, which, if they are not completed successfully or effectively articulated among the boxes (see Figure 4-5), could delay or prevent effective restoration. Everglades restoration depends on satisfying several key requirements for effective adaptive management: linkages among planning, assessment, and decision making; authorization and appropriations; multilevel decision making; effective communication; and effective stakeholder involvement.

Planning, Assessment, and Decision-making Linkages

The AM Strategy mentions feedbacks, mechanisms, and triggers that will link the activities of the four boxes, but they are described with far less specificity than the activities within the boxes themselves. Yet these linkage functions are at least as critical as the technical execution of specific activities (e.g., NRC, 2004a). Greater attention in the CERP adaptive management program should be paid to ensuring effective linkages among planning (including sequencing, modeling, budgeting and design), assessment, integration, and decision-making functions.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Authorization and Appropriations

The authorization and appropriations processes for component projects require a high level of specificity and long lead times. These processes present major challenges to the full application of adaptive management. The current authorization and budgeting process assumes that the planners will propose and then build the “best possible” project and then fine-tune project operations through adaptive management. There is no federal budget category of activity for large-scale adaptive management experiments, and it is not clear what authority exists to propose and secure funding for actions that will have unpredictable outcomes and that need to be monitored to assess what additional actions are warranted. Under current procedures, the budget available for adaptive management is limited to a fixed proportion of the project construction costs. Chapter 6 discusses changes in the budgeting and appropriations process necessary to support a true adaptive management approach to restoration.

Multilevel Planning and Decision Making

There are multiple levels of planning and decision making that must be coherently integrated for the AM Strategy to be effective. For the South Florida ecosystem, the AM Strategy requires effective integration from the project level to the system level and in the reverse direction as well. Integration must also be effected within and across institutions, including federal and state agencies, across local, regional, and national levels.

Lucid Communication

Information must be effectively communicated within and among the adaptive management functional boxes so that all participants understand the requirements of the process and the results of the performance assessments. Although some level of technical literacy is required of decision and policy makers in order to understand the meaning and limitations of models and scientific assessments, the burden is clearly on RECOVER, agency managers, and interagency teams to clearly articulate information, knowledge, uncertainties, and implications. Lucid communication is also critical to stakeholder engagement (NRC, 2003a).

Effective Stakeholder Engagement

Most adaptive management practitioners regard a collaborative process for stakeholder participation and learning as necessary for successful adap-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

tive management (NRC, 2004a), and it is an expectation specified under the Water Resources Development Act authorization. Yet the CERP AM Strategy does not emphasize stakeholder engagement, except for briefings and comments as part of management and science integration (box 3 of Figure 4-5; RECOVER, 2006a). By developing further opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the AM Strategy, particularly earlier in CERP planning (box 1 of Figure 4-5), agency managers and RECOVER would facilitate collaborative efforts. It is also important that the results of the performance assessment (box 2) and the CERP update process (box 3) are openly and effectively communicated to stakeholders and the public at large.

MODELING IN SUPPORT OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Models are critical tools used in the adaptive management process to test the understanding and to predict the ecological and hydrologic consequences of management alternatives and ecosystem drivers (e.g., rainfall, sea-level rise). The CERP was developed using simulation models to evaluate expected outcomes of various restoration scenarios. During implementation, the CERP will continue to rely on models for setting goals and targets (see Box 4-4) and for addressing uncertainty about the response of the natural system. Both monitoring 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.

In restoring a system as large and complicated as the South Florida ecosystem, multiple models are necessary because of the need to examine a variety of components and processes across multiple regions and scales. As a result, models vary from simple and basic to highly sophisticated and complex. Whether they are simple or complex, qualitative or quantitative, or verbal, mathematical, or graphical, models offer the opportunity to make predictions and explore relationships among physical and ecological components of the system. It is important to remember that model sophistication and complexity do not necessarily imply accuracy: weather forecasters wisely shade their forecasts with probabilities of precipitation and error bands on the paths of hurricanes. Because all models are simplifications of reality, they are always accompanied by uncertainty. For this reason com-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

peting models of decision-critical phenomena facilitate understanding of uncertainty. Models are likely to evolve from simple to complex as more is learned about the system being modeled and as the models are tested against monitoring data. In this way models co-evolve with management actions, supporting adaptive management. However, the outputs of complex models, which have large data requirements, are not necessarily more certain than the outputs of simpler models, which require fewer data.

South Florida restoration activities are supported by an enormous modeling effort. Numerous models have been or are being developed (Table 4-2) by researchers from agencies such as the USACE, the SFWMD, 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, whereas others are still being developed, calibrated, validated, and/or reviewed.

The following sections review the current state of restoration modeling and compare it against modeling needs for effective adaptive management.

Hydrologic, Hydraulic, Hydrodynamic, and Water Quality Models

The two primary models in restoration planning are regional hydrologic models: the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) and the Natural System Model (NSM; see Table 4-2). The SFWMM is regarded as the best available tool for understanding structural and operational responses to water management scenarios at the regional scale and is therefore widely used in CERP planning and decision making. The NSM depicts the hydrologic dynamics of the South Florida ecosystem prior to human alteration and in many cases is used to guide restoration targets. Managers and decision makers can use typical output generated by the SFWMM and the NSM to compare, for example, flows through the northeast portion of Everglades National Park for different restoration scenarios (Figure 4-6). Scores of alternatives were evaluated in this manner.

The SFWMM and NSM depict three of the five components of “getting the water right”—quantity, timing, and distribution, but not quality and instantaneous flow rates or velocities. Regional water quality models include the recently developed WAMVIEW (Table 4-2). WAMVIEW in particular has become a useful tool for simulating physical and chemical processes of pollutant transport and water quality affected by human land use, soils, and other natural and human factors. Although regional hydrologic models include magnitude and direction of water discharge, models of instantaneous velocity and discharge are yet to be developed.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

FIGURE 4-6 Average annual overland flows into the northeast corner of Everglades National Park, through Shark River Slough (SRS) and Taylor Slough (TS), developed from alternative runs of the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) and the Natural System Model (NSM) for a 31-year simulation period (NRC, 2002b).

NOTE: Modeled scenarios are: NSM45F (version 4.5 of the NSM), 95BSR (1995 base or “current condition”), 50BSR (2050 base or “without project condition”), and D13R4 (slight variation of the chosen CERP configuration, D13R). The TS data include Eastern Panhandle flows that discharge to water bodies other than Florida Bay. NSM water depths at key Everglades National Park gage locations are used as operational targets for most alternatives. NSM flows are NOT targets and are shown for comparative purposes only. Uncertainty in the surface flow estimates may be indicated by error bands and is not reflected in the figure.

SOURCE: Adapted from USACE and SFWMD (1999).

The inability to quantify flow velocities in these models hinders estimates of scour and sediment transport. There remains a lack of understanding of the effects of short-term and site-specific flow characteristics (NRC, 2003c; SCT, 2003) that currently limit the usefulness of hydrologic models in planning. As more is learned through experimentation and implementation of the CERP about the effects of flow on critical ecosystem features such as tree islands and ridge-and-slough topography (e.g., the relative impor-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

TABLE 4-2 Representative Models Related to CERP Projects

Model Name

Full Name and Main Function

Example Applications

ATLSS

Across Trophic Level System Simulation consists of a set of ecological models that assess the ecological effects of hydrologic scenarios on biota. These models range from highly parameterized, mechanistic individual-based models (e.g., EVERKITE, SIMSPAR) to simpler, habitat-suitability-index-type models (SESI, Spatially-Explicit Species Index).

Evaluating effects of hydrologic scenarios on Everglades biota (habitat and populations of a suite of species) during the Central and South Florida Projects Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy)

DMSTA

Dynamic Model for Stormwater Treatment Area simulates dynamics of hydrology and phosphorus and predicts treatment efficiency.

Stormwater treatment area design

ELM

Everglades Landscape Model is designed to predict the landscape response to different water management scenarios. ELM consists of a set of integrated modules to understand ecosystem dynamics at a regional scale and simulates the biogeochemical processes associated with hydrology, nutrients, soil formation, and vegetation succession. Its main components include hydrology, water quality, soils, periphyton, and vegetation.

Model in review

MIKE SHE/MIKE 11

MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 is a physically based, spatially distributed, finite-difference, integrated surface-water and groundwater model. It can simulate the entire land phase of the hydrologic cycle and evaluate surface-water impacts from groundwater withdrawal.

Everglades Agriculture Area Storage Reservoirs

NSM

The Natural Systems Model simulates hydropatterns before canals, levees, dikes, and pumps were built. The NSM does not attempt to simulate the pre-drainage hydrology. Rather, the NSM describes frequency, duration, depth, and spatial extent of water inundation of the pre-drainage system in response to recent climate conditions. In many cases, those water levels are used as targets for hydrologic restoration assuming that hydrologic restoration will lead to restoration of natural habitats and biota.

CERP planning tool for comparing management consequences

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

Scale (Spatial Extent; Resolution)

Status

Developers/Sources

Regional; 500 × 500 m

More models are being developed and calibrated

http://www.atlss.org/

Local, at the scale of STA

Plans to improve user interface, better represent hydraulic features

W. Walker and R. Kadlec

http://wwwalker.net/

Regional; 1 × 1 km

Version 2.5 (in review)

SFWMD

http://www.sfwmd.gov/elm/

Subregional, can be used for essentially any spatial resolution

Version 2005

Danish Hydraulic Institute, http://www.mikeshe.com/mikeshe/index.htm

Regional; 2 × 2 mile

Version 4.6.2

SFWMD

http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/models/nsm

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

Model Name

Full Name and Main Function

Example Applications

REMER

Regional Engineering Model for Ecosystem Restoration encompasses most of the South Florida area and includes diverse hydrologic attributes and processes such as canal control structures, surface-subsurface interaction, pumping wells, retention ponds, lakes, levees, culverts, roads, bridges, one-dimensional canal flow, two-dimensional overland flow, three-dimensional subsurface flow, etc.

Model is not yet complete

SFRSM

South Florida Regional Simulation Model is a finite-volume-based model capable of simulating multidimensional and fully integrated groundwater and surface-water flow.

Regional long-term (decades) simulations of complex hydrology with management (e.g., southwest Florida)

SFWMM

South Florida Water Management Model simulates hydrology and water systems and is widely accepted as the best available tool for analyzing structural and/or operational changes to the complex water management system in South Florida at the regional scale.

Regional Modeling for the Everglades Agriculture Area Storage Reservoir

SICS

Southern Inland and Coastal Systems numerical model simulates hydrologic conditions for the transition zone between the wetlands of Taylor Slough and C-111 canal and nearshore embayments of Florida Bay. It is a useful tool for understanding the effects of coastal hydrology and for defining boundary conditions of other models.

Linking with SFWMM and the Florida Bay hydrodynamic model to project coastal flows to Florida Bay and coastal wetland salinities under restoration conditions in the future

WAMVIEW

WAMVIEW is an ESRI ArcView version of an earlier model of WAM (Watershed Assessment Model) for simulating water quality as well as physical and chemical processes.

Used to assist SFWMD to develop pollutant load reduction goals

NOTE: The list is not intended to be comprehensive. Numerous other models describe water circulation, water quality, and aspects of system ecology, especially in the estuaries and Lake Okeechobee.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

Scale (Spatial Extent; Resolution)

Status

Developers/Sources

Regional, adaptable to subregional and local

Activities related to REMER terminated in 2006

USACE

(Cheng et al., 2005)

Regional; 0.1-2 mile triangular elements

Calibration and verification under way as of December 2005

SFWMD

http://gwmftp.jacobs.com/Peer_Review/web_page/peer_review_sfwmd.htm

Regional; 2 × 2 mile

Version 5.5

SFWMD

http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/models/sfwmm/

Local/Subregional; 500 × 500 m

 

Swain et al., 2004

Regional; 0.1 ha

Version 1.1

http://www.epa.gov/ATHENS/wwqtsc/html/wamview.htm;

http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/assets/073PLWAMModel.pdf

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

tance to these features of extreme events, such as hurricanes, versus average annual flow characteristics), the development of regional-scale, predictive flow models to support adaptive management will be essential.

All existing models have the potential to serve the adaptive management process because they predict different aspects of hydrology at various scales. However, most of the models were developed for purposes other than the CERP and, therefore, lack the linkages to other models necessary to support adaptive management during the restoration. The inability to link various models inhibits integrating knowledge about different features of hydrology and extrapolating new information from one scale to another. The most important limitation is that the resolution (2 × 2 mile grid cells) of the SFWMM and NSM is too coarse to be useful in projecting the ecological effects of the hydrology they depict. The limited ability to link ecological models to hydrologic models at the high-resolutions relevant to ecological concerns has been a critical deficiency in planning efforts and will limit the effectiveness of the adaptive management process if not remedied. For limited areas, a high-resolution multi-data source topography (HMDT) has been created using light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and USGS high-accuracy elevation data (HAED) where available (USGS, 2004; see Box 4-5). In most of the area where such LiDAR and HAED data are not available, however, estimates of elevations within each SFWMM 2 × 2 mile cell are developed at a resolution of 500 × 500 m.5 Although HMDT has been used for Across Trophic Level System Simulation (ATLSS, Table 4-2) to reduce the inaccuracies associated with the 2 × 2 mile resolution of the SFWMM (Duke-Sylvester et al., 2004), additional high-resolution models are essential to link hydrology with ecology.

An important recent development is the effort to address this problem by constructing new models with higher spatial resolutions. One such model under development is the South Florida Regional Simulation Model (SFRSM), being developed by the SFWMD. The SFWMD also is developing a Natural System Regional Simulation Model (NSRSM) as an alternative to the NSM. The primary goal of the NSRSM is the same as that of the NSM, but it is based on the same governing equations, object-oriented design, and numerical methods of the SFRSM, which can simulate multidimensional groundwater and surface-water flow. Additionally, the spatial extent of the NSRSM is larger than that of the NSM, and a number of datasets used to set initial model conditions have also been improved (e.g., land cover, topogra-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

phy, predevelopment river network). Most importantly, like the SFRSM, the NSRSM employs a finer spatial resolution than the NSM in some regions, with grid sizes ranging from 0.1 to 2 miles on a side, making the model useful at scales more relevant to many ecological processes.6

The development of subregional and local hydrologic models to provide a linkage between the large-scale, regional hydrologic models and small-scale, local ecological models has increased predictive ability for some critical ecosystem attributes. For example, modelers specifically responded to the need to link ecological and hydrologic models and to better model the southern portion of the Everglades ecosystem (NRC, 2002b) by developing the Southern Inland and Coastal Systems (SICS) and the Tides and Inflows in the Mangrove Ecotone (TIME) subregional models. SICS has been linked with parts of the ATLSS models (e.g., ALFISHES) to provide hydrologic information for determining fish population dynamics (Langevin et al., 2004); TIME has a spatial scale (500 m × 500 m, or 0.31 mi × 0.31 mi) conducive to linkage with other ecological models.

The ability to link regional hydrology models to subregional and local hydrology models and to ecological models is essential to the CERP adaptive management strategy. Without such linkages it will be difficult to provide the information required to make management decisions based on observations of ecological performance measures. The CERP remains deficient in this regard, and more efforts to improve the linkages are needed.

Ecological Models

Ecological models are essential tools for assessing ecological effects of the CERP and for adaptive management. Possible ecological effects, including changes in primary productivity of ecosystems and changes in population dynamics of plants and animals, are among the most important criteria for evaluating the performance of the CERP. However, ecological models are less “mature” (DOI, 2005) than hydrologic and water quality models.

The conceptual ecological models (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2) describe the current understanding of the critical relationships that affect ecosystem functioning in South Florida (Ogden et al., 2005b). The models have considerable heuristic value and, most importantly for purposes of the current discussion, the intended role of the models in adaptive management is

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

BOX 4-5

Advances in High-Resolution Topography

The topography of South Florida provides a subtle but complex platform for the Everglades ecosystem. The land surface in the entire watershed has no more than about 65 feet of vertical relief, and water falls only 20 feet in the 100-mile reach from Lake Okeechobee to the ocean at Florida Bay. Despite this shallow gradient, the Everglades watershed has substantial microtopographic landscape complexity. Variations in terrain height as small as 6 inches create a variety of ecological conditions related to the frequency, timing, and duration of inundation. For example, the ridge-and-slough landscape, one of the major habitat types in the Everglades ecosystem, consists of parallel and usually submerged ridges and sloughs with height differentials of less than 3 feet (Figure 4-7). An understanding of the subtle variations in terrain is critical to explaining the hydrol

FIGURE 4-7 Ridge-and-slough landscape of Water Conservation Area 3A (2005).

SOURCE: Photo courtesy of Christopher McVoy, SFWMD, 2006.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

ogy and ecology of the region and to predicting the potential outcomes of management decisions using numerical models.

Digital information about Everglades terrain initially came from topographic contour maps that were developed through surface surveys. When it became clear that the restoration of the Everglades through the CERP would require highly detailed topographic data, investigators sought a new approach to defining the terrain that would provide highly accurate, high-resolution topographic data for the emerging hydrology and ecology models in digital form. Everglades scientists have worked to develop high-resolution topographic data to a standard of plus or minus 6 inches, first through an unsuccessful experiment with LiDAR in the late 1990s and subsequently with an Airborne Height Finder (AHF) system. Despite these efforts to improve the resolution of Everglades topography, hydrologic models remain limited by topographic data, and they are unlikely to be able to produce improved predictions unless they use terrain data with greater resolution. Inaccuracies in predictions are directly related to inaccurate elevation data with a resolution that is too coarse to characterize significant topographic controls on hydrology. Further application of the USGS’s AHF system is unlikely to improve the present situation because the resolution required by hydrologic and ecologic modelers is finer than the AHF system produces. A resolution at the scale of a meter or so is needed in some crucial areas where the microtopography is complex, where habitat houses endangered species, and where switching points occur for the flow of surface water.

The only current method for creating a digital elevation model (DEM) with plus or minus 6-inch-height accuracy, broad regional coverage that is the same throughout the watershed, and at a horizontal resolution down to about 3 feet in crucial areas is the use of new versions of LiDAR (ASPRS, 2001; Baltsavias, 1999; Fowler, 2001). This technology, and the contractors who use it, have undergone substantial improvements in the past few years. Modern postmission processing of the data can differentiate between the tops of vegetation and the ground surface. Instrumentation and techniques have also improved dramatically. Where the older instruments issued 10,000 light pulses per second, the newer instruments emit up to 50,000 pulses per second, and the large number of emissions also means that it is possible to penetrate relatively dense vegetation such as that found in the Everglades.

Ongoing experiences near Hilton Head, South Carolina, show that LiDAR is effective in an environment similar to the Everglades (Greene, 2004; Tullis, 2003). The USACE has also successfully connected topography of the surface with bathymetry from underwater surfaces in coastal waters using LiDAR in their Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne LiDAR Survey (SHOALS), so similar success should be expected in the Everglades case (Irish and Lillycrop, 1999). Finally, LiDAR has become increasingly inexpensive, especially when it is combined with other airborne approaches and over large areas where unit costs are low.

It is not clear whether LiDAR can produce a region-wide, inexpensive, high-resolution grid for the CERP, but it is clear that this technology is superior to others. It is almost certain that the newer LiDAR systems can meet the plus or minus 6 inches vertical accuracy requirements of the CERP. A horizontal grid of 1 m is easily within the capability of the system, and its potential for wide coverage indicates that it is possible to create a regional hydrologic model with the exceptional resolution needed to include microtopography.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

explicitly recognized and defined. Indeed, the conceptual models provide the foundation for the monitoring plan and were used to generate the set of causal hypotheses about how the natural systems in South Florida have been altered by water management (Gentile et al., 2001).

However, quantitative ecological modeling for the CERP is limited. The emphasis of the current quantitative ecological modeling effort is, appropriately, on using simple models (HSI and Spatially Explicit Species Indices) to evaluate restoration scenarios and identify information needs, until sufficient data exist to calibrate and test more complex individual-based models. Much of the quantitative ecological modeling supporting the restoration is encompassed by the ATLSS program (see Table 4-2), which contains a suite of models for many species. These models simulate ecological patterns and processes in response to different restoration scenarios, such as water management. Model outputs include dynamics and spatial distribution of vegetation, primary productivity, nutrient cycling (e.g., total phosphorus levels), and habitat suitability and population dynamics of various animal species such as white-tailed deer, snail kite, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and wading birds. Many of the model outputs have been linked to performance measures of hydrologic scenarios of the CERP. Another, much-anticipated, ecological model is the Everglades Landscape Model (ELM). ELM is designed to simulate landscape-level responses to management activities (Table 4-2). The latest version of ELM is under review (RECOVER, 2006b).

Future Modeling Needs

Although the overall modeling effort is extensive and continues to improve, several areas require special attention in future modeling efforts so that CERP projects can be designed and managed adaptively to enhance the potential for restoration success.

First, in addition to the limited linkage between the primary hydrologic models and ecological models and the relatively slow development of quantitative ecological models, the lack of linkage among water quality and ecological models is a particularly important problem at the subregional level (e.g., Lake Okeechobee water quality model) as well as at the regional level. Furthermore, ecological modeling capability should be enhanced to better support restoration decision making and to improve linkages with other types of models for adaptive management. Existing models also need to be linked with socioeconomic models, such as demographic models, urban growth models, and land-use models (Liu, 2001; Walker, 2001; Walker and Solecki, 2004), because socioeconomic activities will greatly

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

shape the future of all aspects of the Everglades ecosystem and, thus, the fate of CERP projects.

Second, the design of the entire modeling effort needs to be directed toward its role in adaptive management, as has already been done with the conceptual ecological models. The scales at which models are built need to match the scales at which decisions are made, management takes place, and ecosystems respond to management. A wider range of sensitivity analyses and uncertainty analyses is needed to further evaluate the performances of existing models (DOI, 2004) and to explain the sources and consequences of uncertainty. More empirical data from experiments that involve ecosystem manipulations, such as the Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment, are needed to inform models.

Third, efforts to link and focus models to fit the needs of adaptive management require a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach. While investment in a large and varied modeling effort is necessary and appropriate, coordination is necessary to avoid duplication of effort. It is important that the role of each model in the adaptive management process be well defined in terms of the processes it addresses, how it is to be modified based on feedback from monitoring, and the way it is to be used to inform decision making. In 2003, the Interagency Modeling Center was established to provide a centralized pool of resources and modeling expertise (DOI, 2004). This collaborative effort among federal and state agencies aims to improve modeling efficiency and model consistency. Pooling modeling talents into one unit may facilitate coordination of the modeling activities, foster development of better linkages among models, and give rise to new models to meet the needs for monitoring data integration and assessment and testing the conceptual understanding of ecosystem patterns and processes. A drawback to the Interagency Modeling Center is that it has the potential to isolate modelers from the scientists collecting the monitoring data if interactions among the groups are not close enough. Coordination of modeling and monitoring should be of high priority because of their intimate relationship in the adaptive management process.

Fourth, models will need to incorporate data at more precise spatial or temporal scales that are compatible with model structure and that address ecological needs (see an example in Box 4-5).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee reviewed three major program documents that collectively provide a foundation for ensuring that scientific information needed

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

to support restoration planning will be available in a timely way. The committee also examined the extensive set of models that have been developed to support restoration planning and adaptive management.

The MAP documents reviewed describe a well-designed, statistically defensible monitoring program and an ambitious assessment strategy. The plan provides for a continuous cycle of monitoring and experimentation, as well as regular and frequent assessment of the findings. In combination, the MAP provides an approach to reduce uncertainty associated with the conceptual ecological models that are the foundation of the monitoring plan and to create new knowledge for understanding old and emerging problems. The MAP should also lead to better simulations of the ecosystem and help identify information gaps that currently impede adaptive management.

Implementation of the monitoring plan is occurring more slowly than planned, and two key elements of the MAP are still incomplete. The effectiveness of the MAP as a component of the adaptive management strategy can be determined only by implementation. Each of the components of the MAP needs to be in place and tested to enable integration of scientific information into the decision-making process. A spatially and temporally robust baseline of monitoring data tied to performance measures is essential for a rigorous assessment of the progress of restoration of the natural system. A well-planned, transparent information management system is required to facilitate effective data assessment and information sharing. Additional key staff and staff-support positions devoted to information management and implementation of the monitoring activities are needed to facilitate more rapid implementation of the MAP. Continuing to winnow the number of performance measures to an even smaller subset that includes a limited number of whole-system performance measures would help ensure that the MAP is sustainable over the lifetime of the CERP.

Organizational mechanisms for coordinating and synthesizing science related to both CERP and non-CERP projects are essential to ensure that research can support informed project planning and decision making. Science coordination is occurring at multiple levels within individual organizations with a focus on individual agency missions, but it remains unclear whether science is being effectively and collaboratively coordinated across the major programs that support the restoration. There is a critical need for synthesis of CERP and non-CERP science knowledge to help identify and reduce scientific uncertainties that impede restoration.

The CERP Adaptive Management Strategy provides a sound organizational model for the execution of a passive adaptive management program.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×

The strategy should be implemented soon to test and refine the approach. The CERP AM Strategy proposes a process for addressing uncertainty and supporting collaborative decision making. The objectives, mechanisms, and responsibilities are well specified in the adaptive management strategy, but the all-critical linkages among the planning, assessment, integration, and update activities require further development. The adaptive management strategy should be fully implemented soon to test these all-important linkages to refine the strategy accordingly.

Incorporating active adaptive management practices whenever possible will reduce the likelihood of making management mistakes and reduce the overall cost of the restoration. Active adaptive management approaches that are specifically designed to address uncertainties, such as the Decomp Physical Model (see Chapter 5), offer greater opportunities for learning than an entirely passive approach. Regardless of which adaptive management approach is used, it remains to be seen how willing decision makers will be to make significant alterations to project design and sequencing, as opposed to limiting adaptive management to making modest adjustments in the operation of the CERP projects after their construction.

A coordinated, multidisciplinary approach is required to improve modeling tools and focus modeling efforts toward direct support of the CERP adaptive management process. Models are used to forecast the short- and long-term responses of the South Florida ecosystem to CERP projects and, thus, are the critical starting point for adaptive management. An impressive variety of models has been developed to support the CERP, but better linkages between models, especially between hydrologic and ecological models, are needed to better integrate scientific knowledge and to extrapolate new information to the spatial scales at which decisions are made. In addition, hydrologic models suffer from the lack of high-resolution input data describing the basic terrain, so that their predictions are sometimes in error, and their connections to other more high-resolution ecosystem models is difficult. The development of quantitative ecological models is lagging behind the development of hydrologic models, hindering the model linkages necessary to support the restoration efforts. Because models themselves must be improved through comparison with actual outcomes, coordination between modeling and monitoring efforts, within the adaptive management framework of iterative improvement, should be a high priority.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"4 The Use of Science in Decision Making." National Research Council. 2007. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11754.
×
Page 129
Next: 5 Progress Toward Natural System Restoration »
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $72.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This report is the first in a congressionally mandated series of biennial evaluations of the progress being made by 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, before it was transformed by drainage and by urban and agricultural development. The Restoration plan, which was launched in 1999 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, includes more than 40 major projects that are expected to be completed over the next three decades. The report finds that progress has been made in developing the scientific basis and management structures needed to support a massive effort to restore the Florida Everglades ecosystem. However, some important projects have been delayed due to several factors including budgetary restrictions and a project planning process that that can be stalled by unresolved scientific uncertainties. The report outlines an alternative approach that can help the initiative move forward even as it resolves remaining scientific uncertainties. The report calls for a boost in the rate of federal spending if the restoration of Everglades National Park and other projects are to be completed on schedule.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!