U.S. Geological Survey Program on the South Florida Ecosystem, 2000 proceedings: Presentations made at the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) Conference, December 11-15, 2000, Naples, Florida

Abstract

Future DirectionsOver the past five years from the inception of the USGS Place-Based Program, the focus has mainly been on program planning, data collection, process studies, and development of modeling tools. Several projects have now completed or are nearing completion of this phase and have entered into the phase of data analysis, credibility assurance (quality assurance) initial reporting, KEEPING ON COURSE -MODELS, MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Visions and goals are inherently conceptual. Results are concrete.Translating one into the other, especially on the scale required by south Florida ecosystem, is challenging. The restoration project is using models, monitoring, restoration, and performance indicators to translate conceptual ideas to the real world, adapt projects to changing conditions, and provide accountability.Models -Restoration workers employ a series of computerized models to predict the responses of key variable to changing environmental, social, or economic conditions. Developing simulations that forecast responses to different scenarios permits researchers to identify management alternatives as well as target conditions that will yield desired goals. Computerized models also can be updated as new information is gained, allowing predictions to be continually refined.Monitoring -An adaptive management strategy demands continual feedback. Developing and implementing monitoring programs are a major emphasis for many restoration projects. Some monitoring tracks variables subject to rapid change. Other monitoring programs record long term trends. Monitoring data are essential in assessing the effectiveness of restoration actions, tracking progress, and identifying problems or the need for project modification.Performance Indicators -The restoration project also uses quantitative indicators (levels of phosphorus in runoff) and qualitative indicators (quality of life) to track and assess projects. Comparing actual conditions against predicted targets provides a yardstick for measuring the progress (were are we now, how much farther to go?) and for evaluating the results (what are the benefits/are they worth the costs). Models, monitoring, and performance indicators provide direction, feedback, and accountability for both short and long-term actions. This affords flexible, timely, and responsible management of projects and project funds. Ground-water discharge (G i ) 0.09 (3) 0.06 (2) 2 0.35 (13) Ground-water recharge (G o ) 1 0.88 (31) 0.84 (30) 3 0.90 (32) Net ground-water flux (G i -G o ) -0.78 1 -0.78 1 -0.55 1 Estimated by difference between other two estimates in each column. 2 Estimated using results from Guardo and Prymas (1998). 3 Estimated using results from Hutcheon Engineers (1996).