6

Science Plan to Support Restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem

The Everglades restoration effort has always recognized not only the importance of a solid scientific underpinning for restoration planning, but also a need for continual scientific and engineering information to support ongoing restoration decision making, most of which must proceed despite uncertainty about aspects of system function and future conditions. Evolving scientific and engineering knowledge is incorporated into the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as part of the adaptive management process, defined as a structured management approach for addressing uncertainties by testing hypotheses, linking science to decision making, and adjusting implementation as necessary to improve the probability of restoration success (RECOVER, 2011). CERP managers face an array of restoration decisions under the umbrella of adaptive management, including those related to assessments of restoration performance, near-term operational adjustments, project prioritization and coordination, and investments in additional science to fill knowledge gaps to reduce uncertainties. The committee’s previous report (NASEM, 2021) identified an increasing need for science at this point in the program’s development to support decision making as the restoration program pivots from a focus on planning and advancing individual projects toward operations and adaptive management of the partially restored system, in parallel with ongoing planning for the remaining CERP projects.

The Everglades restoration science enterprise, including work by local, state, and federal agencies; academia; Tribal nations; and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), has made tremendous advances over the past two decades. Examples include advancing the understanding of the role of flow in creating and maintaining the Everglades landscape (McVoy et al., 2011), achieving consistently impressive nutrient reduction in Stormwater Treatment Area (STA)-3/4 (see Chapter 4), determining the mechanisms of Florida Bay algal blooms (Koch et al., 2007; Zieman et al., 1999), and advancing innovative modeling tools that

support restoration planning. These and other efforts provided a firm foundation for the extensive planning that was required for the CERP and the initial operations of specific system components. As projects come on line and the partially restored system begins to signal its response, new questions and needs will arise, such as assessment of vulnerabilities and risks to the newly restored system posed by climate change and continued development and associated water resource needs.

NASEM (2021) recommended that the best science should be actively integrated and synthesized so that restoration benefits are maximized and opportunities for learning from CERP and non-CERP projects are not lost. Characterizing the capacity of the science enterprise to support joint learning and fact-finding among and between scientists and managers, and where that capacity may need to be expanded, is essential to support future restoration. Thus, the committee builds upon the NASEM (2021) recommendations to strengthen Everglades science capacity in this chapter. To this end, the committee identifies the need for a focused science plan, assesses processes to continually update key science questions relevant to management, and discusses how science resources across agencies can be effectively coordinated and leveraged to produce science that informs restoration decisions.

THE NEED FOR A SCIENCE PLAN

The accelerating pace of restoration decision making, as more projects come on line and the South Florida ecosystem responds to changes in water management, increases demands for science support. These demands include, but are not limited to, the synthesis and analysis of monitoring data, identification of critical knowledge gaps and how to address them, and refinement of models. In addition, continued learning about the vulnerabilities associated with changes in climate is needed to periodically refine both project and systems operations to respond to changing conditions and inform new project planning and design. For example, project-scale planning that considers the potential effects of climate change requires greater understanding of the drivers of peat accretion and loss under different flow and water quality conditions so that rates can be refined in predictive modeling tools (see Chapter 5). Chapter 5 further highlights the need for improved modeling; identification of climate change scenarios to guide future planning; and, at the programmatic scale, science to inform the advancement, prioritization, and coordination of major projects (e.g., development of the Integrated Delivery Schedule) and the refinement of goals. The science needs will be numerous and beyond the capacity of any single organization to meet; therefore, a roadmap is needed to ensure that the critical uncertainties that

could hamper systemwide restoration progress are identified and shared so that resources from a range of parties can be directed to meet them. Such a roadmap is used by many large restoration efforts and is often termed a science plan.

A science plan is a set of specific activities that can help to guide the investment of resources across multiple agencies and the application of the skills of agency scientists, academia, or contractors to fill knowledge gaps that are critical for restoration decision making. A science plan is not simply a list of science needs that have been collected across multiple individual projects or efforts. Rather, it identifies science actions that are recognized as multi-group priorities and are feasible to implement and perform—gathering and coordinating scientists, managers, and policymakers around a common set of priorities no single organization has the capacity to address on its own. The committee envisions a consolidated list of high-priority science actions, including model development, targeted data collection, data analysis, and research and synthesis, that along with routine monitoring will support the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem and the array of agencies and other entities working toward that goal.

The Everglades Restoration Science Plan envisaged here could be a parallel document to the Integrated Delivery Schedule that anticipates science needs, enables alignment of a wide range of resources in an efficient manner, and ensures that information is available when it is needed to support the program (see Box 6-1). The science activities included in the plan will vary in terms of the complexity of the work, the length of time to produce results, and the types of expertise, skills, and facilities that may be required. Therefore, the activities are

specified in a way that recognizes the approximate level of resources required so that a path toward completion of the work can be charted.

Although no current, overarching coordinated science plan exists that meets these criteria, a variety of organizations within the Everglades restoration science enterprise have produced science or work plans, of more limited scope, that could contribute to or serve as foundational pieces to such a science plan. The RECOVER 5-Year Plans (RECOVER, 2016, 2022) generally determine the most crucial tasks that must be accomplished to assist CERP implementation and typically include tasks that address systemwide science needs. However, these science needs relate only to CERP-related challenges, and so are not placed into the wider context of both CERP and non-CERP activities. In addition, the RECOVER 5-Year Plans specify tasks to be performed within the resource confines of RECOVER itself and do not engage the complete network of agencies and science providers, thus limiting their ability to serve as guidance for broad investment. Although the RECOVER 5-Year Plan cannot serve as an Everglades Restoration Science Plan for these reasons, it can contribute significantly to broader science planning. The recently completed 5-Year Plan indicates that RECOVER intends to address science synthesis needs by organizing a series of topic workshops, each focused on a key management issue, to summarize the relevant current research and state of knowledge, discuss needed tools, and make recommendations for future research, modeling, and monitoring. The workshops are topic focused and may not identify more integrative needs, but the resulting recommendations should be relevant to the CERP and can be integrated into the Everglades Restoration Science Plan.

In addition, coordinated science plans already exist for some specific components of the restoration, although they do not address systemwide science needs. For example, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Science Plan (SFWMD and USACE, 2021; see Chapter 3, Box 3-1) focuses on science needs specifically associated with employment of ASR technology in the restoration. The ASR Science Plan describes critical uncertainties associated with ASR (including those identified in NRC [2015]) and articulates 26 studies to be conducted to address them. The Restoration Strategies Science Plan does the same for improved performance of STAs (see Box 4-2), with 22 studies designed to address key uncertainties and improve management decisions and tools in the effort to meet STA discharge water quality requirements (see Chapter 4). Such plans can serve as smaller-scale models for the overarching, coordinated Everglades Restoration Science Plan.

Agency-specific science plans have also been developed. For example, the Department of the Interior (DOI) released its Science Plan in Support of Ecosystem Restoration, Preservation, and Protection in South Florida in 2005 to represent science needs from DOI’s interests, which extend beyond the CERP (DOI, 2005).

A potentially promising template for development of a multiagency Everglades Restoration Science Plan already exists and is discussed in detail later in this chapter. The Science Coordination Group (SCG) previously developed a Plan for Coordinating Science (SCG, 2008), which was more comprehensive in scope than the smaller-scale efforts mentioned above. Its preparation was in accordance with the SCG’s duties, as outlined in its charter (SCG, 2003), to develop a “draft science coordination plan that tracks and coordinates programmatic-level science and other research, identifies programmatic level priority science needs and gaps, and facilitates management decisions.” Because restoration is now well under way, a revision is overdue and necessary as the science enterprise shifts to meet its new challenges. Such a plan could provide a central means to prioritize science, monitoring, modeling, and synthesis investments at the federal, state, or local levels.

In the following sections the committee discusses how a science plan can be developed and implemented based on the identification of key science gaps and coordination across various organizations.

ENGAGING THE SOUTH FLORIDA RESTORATION SCIENCE ENTERPRISE

Many different organizations contribute to the science that underpins the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. Here the committee considers the South Florida restoration science enterprise to include local, state, and federal agencies; Tribal nations; academia; nonprofits; and private-sector organizations that have scientific capacity and the ability to contribute financial resources, skills and expertise, facilities, and/or other resources to undertake scientific activities.

Leveraging the work of many in a coordinated fashion is necessary for large restoration efforts so that implementation of learning can occur as quickly as possible and maximum progress can be made toward restoration. Several other efforts (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission—Helsinki Commission) have organized the science enterprise around the following three spheres of science activity, which each contribute to the development and implementation of science plans (Figure 6-1):

1. Identification of key science gaps: the assessment of the state of knowledge related to key management questions and identification of associated knowledge gaps, with continual refinement.
2. Science coordination: the identification of entities that can contribute to the development of science and coordination of their work to advance and exchange knowledge relevant to restoration objectives.

3. Advancement of essential science actions: the identification of specific science actions that serve to guide multiagency work plans and funding decisions. This activity may also involve the tracking of ongoing science progress and adjusting to emerging needs.

These activities and their linkages are presented in Figure 6-1. In the following sections, each of the three activities is discussed separately in the context of the CERP.

Identification of Key Science Gaps

The identification of knowledge gaps related to key management questions is a necessary developmental step of the Everglades Restoration Science Plan and should be driven by the issues that represent significant impediments to restoration progress. That is, what new knowledge, tools, or synthesis of information is needed to answer a key management question (or group of questions) and accelerate progress on a systemwide scale to the maximum extent possible? RECOVER produces a System Status Report (SSR) every 5 years (RECOVER, 2014, 2019), which informs the periodic Reports to Congress (e.g., USACE and DOI, 2020) and provides a useful compendium of data about different aspects of the system. However, as noted by NASEM (2021), the SSR provides only a snapshot of current conditions, failing to provide a synoptic view of how or why the system is changing, why degradation is particularly problematic in specific locations, and what key management questions or knowledge gaps are proving to be obstacles.

During the past 14 years, efforts have been made to identify and curate key management questions and associated critical knowledge gaps, but they have not been directly linked to impediments to restoration progress and decision making at both the project and program levels. In 2008 the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force), assisted by the SCG, identified strategic-level science priorities and systemwide assessments for restoration success, but the resulting document has not been updated since 2010. The 2015 RECOVER Program-Level Adaptive Management Plan (RECOVER, 2015) identified and prioritized uncertainties and then proposed strategies to resolve them in each region (northern estuaries, Lake Okeechobee, Greater Everglades, and Southern Coastal Systems), but direct links to program implementation were unspecified. Currently, knowledge gaps can be identified through several interactions and processes, including the following:

• Prior to and during development of the project implementation report (PIR) and the project-level adaptive management plan, key uncertainties may be identified which, if addressed, may influence selection of the recommended project plan or the final design of the project.
• Public workshops or requested reviews of project design may identify questions that need to be answered to gain a greater degree of stakeholder support.
• Advisory groups, such as RECOVER (e.g., RECOVER, 2015) and the Task Force, or CERP agencies may identify concerns that require additional knowledge.

• The biannual Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) conference and annual science workshops and meetings present new science questions emerging from research.
• Bi-annual National Academies reviews identify research needs associated with issues that may impact restoration progress, such as climate change (NASEM, 2018; NRC, 2014) and water quality threats to coastal systems (NASEM, 2021) or invasive species (NRC, 2014).

All the above processes result in the identification of knowledge gaps. However, without a synthetic effort to determine which gaps are critical to the restoration effort and then characterize, compile, organize, and sequence them, the restoration is at significant risk of not addressing key impediments to restoration in a timely fashion.

This identification of critical knowledge gaps requires collaboration among scientists and decision makers engaged in ongoing restoration work to identify the critical operational risks that could be substantially reduced through improved science investments. In addition, scientists can work together to identify emerging issues with management implications that warrant further study to understand the risk, or benefit, they pose to restoration outcomes. This conversation between decision makers and scientists is critical for the efficient utilization of intellectual resources. Thus, science needs are not only assembled but also curated into a succinct representation of critical uncertainties associated with key management questions—defined as those uncertainties that, if resolved, could change the management course of action.

Once knowledge gaps that are critical to decision making are identified, additional information can help to prioritize and sequence actions across a huge array of potential needs, such as

• scale of risk/vulnerability being addressed;
• number of restoration projects impacted;
• timing of implementation (i.e., when is the science needed) and expected time for completion;
• level of complexity and challenge;
• resources required (expertise, facilities, full-time equivalents); and
• whether the need is already being addressed as part of another effort.

This information can also help guide science providers in matching their capacity and capability to the specific need. Because the sequencing of new pieces of knowledge has implications for the progress of systemwide restoration, iden-

tification of critical linkages and cross-project benefits should accompany the science need.

Several processes have been used by others to identify science needs (Box 6-2), ranging from a general repository and database of science needs derived organically from the efforts of teams responsible for specific goals (Chesapeake Bay Program) to large, facilitated stakeholder efforts that result in a focused science action agenda (Delta Science Strategy). Both of these examples present tradeoffs. Lists of needs that are generated independently by stakeholders across all program areas offer a comprehensive picture with many opportunities for engagement by a diverse group of science providers (e.g., universities, agencies, consultants, NGOs) but may suffer from inaction because of a lack of focus or prioritization. If a focused science agenda is pursued, then the process used to develop it must be carefully constructed and opportunities for input may be limited to a smaller group of stakeholders.

Science Coordination

The science enterprise to support the activities in Figure 6-1 necessarily consists of a large and diverse set of organizations and individuals. Science support for the CERP specifically, and South Florida restoration generally, includes a complex, diverse set of agencies, organizations, and individuals including academic institutions; federal, state, and local agencies; Tribal Nations; NGOs; and external consultants. These players work together across both established structures and informal networks of experts. Organizational structure may be extensive but loose and informal, as in the Bay-Delta (see Box 6-3), or more formalized as in the Chesapeake Bay Program where organizational roles and coordination mechanisms are hierarchical and clearly documented (see Box 6-4).

The Everglades science organization is likely best described as a network of connected individuals and groups, with substantial overlapping participation of individual experts, which enhances coordination while potentially stretching those individuals thin with many coordination responsibilities. The following subsection describes the major groups (RECOVER, the SCG, Integrated Modeling Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Priority Ecosystems Program, National Park Service (NPS) South Florida Natural Resources Center (SFNRC), and universities and NGOs in general) and their responsibilities, along with an assessment of how the current organization may be improved to support the work to identify key gaps and advance essential science action.

Key Organizations in the Everglades Science Enterprise

___________________

¹ The RECOVER Leadership Group consists of the RECOVER program managers—one each from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)—plus one member from each of the 10 following agencies/groups: Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, NPS, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. A five-member executive committee manages day-today responsibilities.

tion of the CERP” (RECOVER, 2021). The work of RECOVER is envisioned to fall within three main areas: evaluation, assessment, and planning. The scale and type of resources required for RECOVER’s work range from those required to address recurring tasks of limited scope to those requiring systemwide integration and synthesis over longer time periods. The recurring tasks support CERP project planning and include regional evaluation of project alternatives in a systemwide context and reviews of performance measure consistency, monitoring plan consistency, and draft operating manuals in the context of CERP systemwide goals. Systemwide tasks involve several CERP reporting requirements, including development of the System Status Report (e.g., RECOVER, 2019) every 5 years, which reviews ecological status and trends of the Everglades ecosystem by region and provides updates on progress toward Interim Goals and Interim Targets. RECOVER also conducts the analysis of Interim Goals and Interim Targets (RECOVER, 2005, 2020) and supports other reporting requirements such as the 5-year Report to Congress (USACE and DOI, 2020). RECOVER is currently working with the Science Coordination Group (described below) to assess and identify opportunities to integrate information to address current reporting requirements to better serve the needs of the effort.²

In recent years, staffing and budget constraints have limited the number of separate initiatives that RECOVER has been able to complete. Although the number of projects in the planning and implementation stages has increased in the past decade, which has increased RECOVER’s basic project support responsibilities, the capacity (staffing and funding) of RECOVER has been reduced (Figure 6-4; NASEM, 2021). Required reporting and consultations with ongoing project planning efforts have taken priority over adaptive management–related initiatives, such as updates to the monitoring and assessment plan (MAP). The major tasks that RECOVER intends to perform during the next 5 years include updating performance measures in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and supporting the CERP Update (anticipated in FY 2024), along with required reporting (Ralph, 2022).

RECOVER leaders work closely with CERP agency decision makers and therefore are well positioned to identify critical knowledge impediments and accompanying science needs. However, RECOVER’s focus is limited to the CERP. Thus, its science needs must be integrated with those identified by others to arrive at a far-reaching Everglades Restoration Science Plan.³

___________________

² This paragraph was edited following release of the prepublication report to clarify reporting requirements.

³ This section of the report was modified after release of the prepublication version of the report to clarify RECOVER’s focus and its intended plans for the next 5 years.

___________________

⁴ See https://www.evergladesrestoration.gov/science-coordination-group/membership-and-operating-procedures.

The SCG has no separate resources (beyond those of the Task Force) to support science or modeling projects and no dedicated staffing. All SCG members have multiple responsibilities within their own organizations, of which SCG participation is only a small part. In recent years, few if any separate meetings of the SCG have been held. Instead, combined meetings have been held with the Working Group to receive briefings on CERP progress, and little meeting time has been devoted to coordination of science needs. The SCG has features that make it particularly effective in certain situations, namely its mandate to consider both CERP and non-CERP restoration efforts and its capacity to address issues quickly and to interact with stakeholders outside of the restrictions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. In addition, its envisioned role to identify programmatic priority science needs and gaps fits well with the development the Everglades Restoration Science Plan envisaged here.

As the CERP pivots to implementation and assessment, there is a need for modeling that compares predicted system response to observed response. The effects of a particular project are difficult to separate from other factors affecting the system, such as variation in precipitation (NASEM, 2021). Model runs from the IMC that incorporate these other factors to generate predicted system behavior are necessary to measure the impact of changes in water management, including those of projects as they come on line (see Chapter 3). Although the IMC does not have the authority to prioritize a new emphasis on the use of models to analyze ecosystem response to restoration projects, it can play a critical role in both identifying science needs and providing tools to meet the needs identified in the Everglades Restoration Science Plan.

___________________

⁵ See https://www.usgs.gov/programs/environments-program/science/everglades?qt-science_center_objects=0#overview.

roughly 35 projects per year. Recent initiatives have addressed invasive species detection and control, ecosystem modeling, and climate change effects. Program priorities are informed by direct requests from and interaction with partner agencies and stakeholders; topics identified by the Task Force, Working Group, SCG, and RECOVER; the DOI Everglades Science Plan; USGS mission area and science priorities; and the expertise, interest, and availability of USGS scientists (N. Aumen, USGS, personal communication, 2022).

___________________

⁶ See https://fcelter.fiu.edu/.

Current Organization and Coordination

CERP decision makers believe that the current organizational structure for science support of Everglades restoration, albeit informal, works well. Several individuals who have extensive experience in the Everglades and serve in multiple organizations within the science enterprise appear to be central to network functions, act as trusted advisors for decision makers, and ensure coordination across key groups. This structure poses risks because it is highly dependent on those individuals and therefore vulnerable to shifts in personnel (e.g., retirements, changing job responsibilities of key individuals, or new restoration leaders with no prior relationship with the science community). The lack of a formal Everglades organizational structure for science may also serve to advance the interests of individuals who have the trust of leadership rather than the collective interest. Other large ecosystem restoration programs have invested substantial energy in the structures and mechanisms for organization and coordination, which would reduce the risk of major disruptions from staff turnover and ensure that the needs of all stakeholders are represented.

As implementation proceeds, learning will accelerate and more structured processes for science coordination will be needed to support restoration efforts. The hierarchical role-based structure utilized by the Chesapeake Bay Program employs a clear definition of roles (coordinating, advising, providing), although some roles overlap (Box 6-4). In comparison, the organizational guidance within the Delta Stewardship Council’s 2019 Delta Science Plan (DSC, 2019) focuses on creating effective interactions across a network of participating entities, by laying out protocols and methods to coordinate, advance, and integrate Delta science; manage and reduce scientific conflict; and support effective adaptive management (Box 6-4). Both cases highlight the utility of defining an organization’s place in the structure, the various roles it serves based on its position, and its interactions with participating entities.

The need to refine science organization within a large restoration program is common and ongoing, primarily because of the natural evolution of a restoration effort. During program development, the major science tasks are conceptual and long term in nature (e.g., conceptual models, hypothesis clusters). As projects are planned, the program must assess the tradeoffs and operational concerns, which are geographically specific and short term in nature. As individual projects come on line, the program must consider management of the partially restored system, requiring systems thinking and synthesis. Sea-level rise (see Chapter 5) and/or the reduced availability of water storage (see NASEM, 2016) may also necessitate reconsideration of targets and goals. These tasks need to utilize multiple levels of learning (Box 6-5). Thus, over time, the organization of the science enterprise will require revision to be responsive and effective, and individual

organizations may need to assess whether they are aligned with the levels of learning for which they are responsible and whether they possess the necessary bandwidth. For example, RECOVER is tasked with learning at two levels (both single and double loop; see Box 6-5), and the appropriate resources to learn at those levels do not appear to be in place.

The preparation of an Everglades Restoration Science Plan should be under the auspices of a group that can focus on long-term goals across CERP and non-CERP efforts, evaluate prior success and failure in science support of restoration decision making, and, if needed, identify reforms to the existing science enter-

prise (i.e., triple loop learning; see Box 6-5). An organization with the necessary remit across South Florida restoration programs and science entities is the SCG. As mentioned previously, the SCG developed a Plan for Coordinating Science (SCG, 2008) to comply with a provision in its charter (SCG, 2003) to develop a “draft science coordination plan that tracks and coordinates programmatic-level science and other research, identifies programmatic level priority science needs and gaps, and facilitates management decisions.” A major revision to this plan is warranted as the science enterprise shifts to meet its new challenges—presenting an opportunity to prioritize science, monitoring, modeling, and synthesis investments at the federal, state, and local levels. The SCG could initiate the revision in several ways, including by standing up an ad hoc committee to develop a draft plan or by assigning a contractor to take the lead. In either case, the individuals drafting the plan must be aware of documented needs and have the ability to, at least conceptually, link skills, facilities, and resources with those needs.

Also of note, both the Bay-Delta and the Chesapeake Bay programs have dedicated, centralized, and trusted science leadership (lead scientist and director, respectively), which is important to ensuring that the diverse science enterprise is effective and meets the needs of decision makers. The long-anticipated pivot of the CERP from planning to operations and adaptive management, and the development of the science plan envisaged here, require dedicated science leadership with influence across all aspects of the restoration effort. A lead scientist could play a key coordinating role in science plan development, communicate progress, interact with decision makers, promote best science practices, and stay abreast of emerging issues or innovations that could add value to the science being conducted under the Everglades Restoration Science Plan (see also NASEM, 2018).

Developing and Implementing the Science Plan: Advancing Essential Science Actions

The committee’s vision for a restoration science plan—that is, a list of high-priority science actions that can help to guide the investment of resources across multiple agencies and the application of the skills of agency scientists, academia, or contractors to fill knowledge gaps that are critical for restoration decision making—is discussed in depth earlier in the chapter (see The Need for a Science Plan). The actions outlined in a science plan are recognized as multi-group priorities that are feasible and important to address. A restoration science plan addresses the needs of managers, scientists, and policymakers by identifying and providing a mechanism to advance and prioritize the essential science actions needed to support restoration decision making. In general, a science plan

provides a roadmap for collaboration to get the science done. Development of a useful and responsive science plan to advance science actions depends on the effectiveness of the other two previously discussed components of the science enterprise—identification of key science gaps and science coordination (Figure 6-1)—as well as the time and staffing devoted to the effort.

Implementation of the science plan requires matching the specified science needs with the necessary resources (including financial support, facilities, and expertise) to meet them. The SCG, with its diverse membership, can liaise with agencies, universities, and state and federal programs to identify and leverage resources both in the near term and the long term to support the work. The attributes of the various science actions, discussed above, can be used to sequence the work so that findings are available when needed. Implementation will require attention to both resourcing (e.g., personnel and facilities to be leveraged across organizations as needed) and the level of effort needed to address the critical science need. Intense multiagency and stakeholder coordination will be necessary to coordinate a plan to advance essential science actions but will also add transparency about, and accountability for, the science foundation for the restoration, in the same way that the Integrated Delivery Schedule lays out a path for the restoration actions.

Identifying funding for science to support the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will be particularly challenging. Although the lack of a centralized source of funding may preclude collective funding for science needs, some agencies may be able to direct funds to portions of the Everglades Restoration Science Plan that align with their specific mission and interests. As activities across agencies become further aligned, a greater sense of the existing available resources may become clearer. An annual implementation plan would identify where agencies are prepared to dedicate funds for particular activities.

An annual progress report for the Everglades Restoration Science Plan could document specific science funding, which would reveal where shortfalls exist. The Delta Stewardship Council produces an annual report of science funding, which shows, retroactively, which state and federal agencies and water contractors are funding which types of work⁷ (Figure 6-5; DSC, 2022b). Such an accounting enables collective discussion of whether the allocation across categories is appropriate for maximum effectiveness. Although the lack of alignment of accounting systems across agencies makes overall assessment of spending an approximation at best, such an assessment for science currently supporting South Florida restoration can provide a better sense of where changes may be needed.

___________________

⁷ Several types of science activities are defined in the Delta science enterprise: core monitoring, status and trends monitoring, synthesis, targeted foundational research, and targeted immediate research (DSC, 2022b).

Resources can be directed to scientists conducting the work through competitive processes or through directed action, depending on the procedures used by each funding source. Competitive processes can help to ensure that all interested and capable parties are provided an opportunity to conduct work identified in the science plan and are routinely used by organizations such as Sea Grant to develop management-relevant research. The Florida RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence Program awards grants via a competitive, peer-reviewed process to support sustainable Gulf Coast Region ecosystem goods and services, including

living resources, fisheries and wildlife habitats, beaches, wetlands, and coastal communities. The Bay-Delta Science program funds science through competitive proposal processes and also via directed actions, which it describes as critical science investigations that are awarded through a noncompetitive process when time is of the essence (i.e., rapid response; DSC, 2019). Directed actions can also enable use of novel technology or unique expertise and are used to further collaboration in science and promote equity. An implementation plan could show where flexibility may exist to ensure timely response to emerging needs, or where novel technical expertise in an area precludes a reasonable competitive process.

The work conducted under the implementation plan must maintain its connection to management of the system. Each activity should be coordinated to ensure that managers and users of the information are either consulted regularly or included on the team conducting the work. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RESTORE Science Program (see Box 6-6) funds science through a competitive process but requires inclusion of resource managers or users on the research teams.

The Everglades Restoration Science Plan should be revisited at least every 5 years to document progress and respond to the evolving science needs; this time period allows for a reasonable amount of progress on funded initiatives while allowing for emerging priorities. By laying out essential science activities across the restoration program for the next 5-10 years, along with associated resource needs and links to a schedule of when information is needed, agencies and other entities can incorporate this information into their own science plans and/or ensure that their resources are efficiently directed for maximum effectiveness. Some agencies may have resources available in the near term, while others may need to include their contributions in out-year budget proposals. The multiyear Science Plan could be used by organizations within the science enterprise to seek additional funds and would provide clear communication to stakeholders, agencies, and Congress about the importance of science and the value of investments to support the ongoing program.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

As the CERP pivots from planning to implementation and adaptive management during a time of rapid global change, it requires support from a science enterprise with the collective capacity and ability to contribute financial resources, skills and expertise, and facilities and/or other resources to undertake scientific activities that respond to the critical knowledge impediments to restoration. The committee presents three essential, interlinked tasks of a science enterprise directed at the production of an Everglades Restoration Science

Plan: (1) identification of knowledge gaps; (2) science coordination to advance and exchange knowledge; and (3) identification and establishment of focused science actions necessary to support progress. These tasks can be undertaken concurrently with ongoing work to advance restoration, with new science being incorporated into planning and implementation as it is developed.

Everglades restoration progress is inhibited by the lack of collectively identified science needs to support CERP decision making. There is no recent centralized compilation of critical management questions and associated knowledge gaps that could guide CERP science funding decisions or serve as a basis for proposal solicitations or collaborative initiatives. Instead, short-term demands command the attention of the available staff, and long-term, systems thinking is generally de-prioritized. Clearly identified science needs enable the science enterprise to stay focused, leading to more efficient utilization of science-provisioning resources and the presence of a critical linkage between management and science.

The Everglades science enterprise should develop a science plan to advance and implement essential science actions that directly support restoration decision making. This effort will require intense multiagency and stakeholder coordination. This Everglades Restoration Science Plan could serve as a central document that highlights and communicates priority science needs and management linkages to a broad audience of potential funders, much as the Integrated Delivery Schedule does for project implementation. The plan would guide the CERP program, other restoration initiatives, and individual funding agencies in their science investments for research, monitoring, modeling, and synthesis to meet agreed upon priority needs. The plan should be updated every 5 years and with the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders to respond to changing needs, with annual implementation plans and progress reports to facilitate coordination and communication of progress toward addressing the science needs.

The Science Coordination Group is best positioned to lead an updated multiagency assessment of priority science needs and gaps at a programmatic level and to develop an Everglades Restoration Science Plan. This group should be tasked to lead this effort and should receive appropriate resources to do so from the Task Force. This effort would be a much-needed update to the 2008-2010 Plan for Coordinating Science. A lead scientist could guide implementation of the Science Plan, ensure completion of the work, and consult with decision makers to identify additional science needs to supplement plan activities.

This page intentionally left blank.