Evaluating Ecological Benefits

1
Evaluating Ecological Benefits
A draft of guidelines presented by ENP Bruce
Boler, Joffre Castro, Christine Chan

• Salient features and recommendations
• suggest inclusion of all PMs, but weighting those
  under authorized objectives
• more heavily (quantitative step)
• rank PMs on a numerical scale using guidelines
  developed by scientists and
• focusing on contribution to systemwide ecological
  benefits (subjective input
• to a quantitative step)
• alternative scoring begins with evaluation of
  model output for each PM
• (quantitative step)
• final score for each alternative relies on
  application of a distribution formula
• to model output. Goal is to maximize high
  scores and minimize low scores.
• Several distributions are presented, but we
  recommend a nonlinear approach.
• (quantitative step)

2
(No Transcript)
3
RANKING OF PM
1. Compile list of PMs 2. Classify PMs according
to objectives (or functional category) 3.
Weight objectives (authorized vs.
additional) 4. For each objective a) score PMs
(science experts) b) derive partial weights 4.
Compute overall weights (PM partial weight X
objective weight)
4
Objectives

• Ecosystem Restoration in TS and EPh
• ENP Natural Values
• Damaging Freshwaters Flows
• Flood Protection for C-111 Basin
• East Everglades Mitigation
• Quality of Waters Diverted to ENP
• Water Deliveries into ENP
• Additional Objectives
• In this example, the 7 authorized objectives
  carry a weight of 1, while the additional
  objectives carry a collective weight of 0.5.
  Final weights to be determined by the PDT.

5
Score the PMs. How important is each one to
totalsystem restoration?

• Develop a scoring system (e.g., 1-10)
• Develop guidelines, or classification system, for
  the scoring system. See following slides for
  examples
• Guidelines should consider each PMs contribution
  within the larger context of the combined
  authorized objectives.
• Scoring system, guidelines, and scoring should be
  accomplished by scientific experts

6
Obj. 1 Ecosystem Restoration in TS and EPh
7
WEIGHTING PMs multiply partial weight by
objective weight
Objective weight
8
(No Transcript)
9
SCORING ALTERNATIVES
Each alternative is scored according to model
output, for each PM, as follows a)populate
table with model output b) score alternatives
(see green button on next page for scoring
schemes)
10
ALTERNATIVES
For scoring schemes --gt
11
Alternative Selection
1. Create summary table with results a) list
PMs ( 1st. column) b) list alternatives (top
row) 2. Populate table a)PM weight X
alternative score b) obtain columnwise
alternative totals 3. Select alternative with
the highest score
12
(partial weight X objective weight)
PMS WEIGHTS
ALTERNATIVE SCORES
Multiply each PM weight by alternative scores to
reach final score
13
SELECTION
14
END
15
SCORE OF 9
FULLY SUPPORTS ONE OR MORE SYSTEM-WIDE
RESTORATION OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING INCREASING THE
TOTAL SPATIAL EXTENT OF NATURAL AREAS, IMPROVING
HABITAT AND FUCTIONAL QUALITY, AND IMPROVING
RELATIVE PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ABUNDANCE AND
DIVERSITY.
16
SCORE OF 7
PROVIDES IMPROVEMENTS IN ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
HOWEVER, IMPROVEMENTS ARE LESS THAN OPTIMAL
AND/OR TOO LOCALIZED TO SIGNIFICANTLY SUPPORT
SYSTEM-WIDE RESTORATION.
17
SCORE OF 4
Guidelines for assigning a score of 4 should be
expanded from the example given here, and
developed by scientists
MAINTAINS EXISTING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, BUT DOES
NOT ENHANCE SYSTEM-WIDE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS.
18
SCORE OF 1
DOES NOT SUPPORT ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, LOCALLY OR
SYSTEM WIDE
19
SCORES
Alternative score
Model output (e.g., number of acres)