Options for Accelerating Recovery of Nutrient Impacted Regions of the Everglades Protection Area Workshop

South Florida Water Management District

March 30 and 31, 2005

Final Meeting Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Options for Accelerating Recovery of Nutrient-Impacted Regions of the Everglades Workshop was conducted on March 30 and 31, 2005. Over 70 participants from various state and federal agencies, District scientists and other stakeholdersparticipated. The panel assembled to provide external technical review of the proposed research was selected for its diversity, expertise, and independence. The agenda sought to balance presentations, panel discussion and feedback, and participant dialogue. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) identified and provided numerous presenters with expertise in the Everglades and adjacent Florida ecosystems.

The goals of the workshop were to: 1) discuss the definition of restoration success and its indicators; 2) review the current understanding of ecosystem restoration in general and specifically Everglades restoration;and, 3) consider options for accelerating restoration in light of ecological, economic, social and political constraints. Insights gleaned from these discussions will be used by District scientists to further refine the proposed research. The following summary of the content of workshop presentations and discussions reflectsthe understanding and interpretation of the workshop’s facilitator, the independent, non-profit Consensus Building Institute (CBI), andhighlights the major accomplishments of the workshop. Any errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of CBI.

The workshop included a panel of independent, habitat restoration academicians who presented overviews of their broader views on habitat restoration as well as participated in the discussions. The panelists included: Dr. Mark Davis, Professor of Biology, Macalester College; Dr. Paul Keddy, Endowed Chair for Environmental Studies,Southeastern Louisiana University; Dr. William Mitsch, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Ohio State University; and, Dr. Craig Osenberg, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida.

After the panelists’ presentations, the participants discussed the question: what are the criteria and constraints for defining system recovery in nutrient-affected areas? Topics discussed included: hydrology, flows, and topography; water quality, soils, and water chemistry; and, definitions of recovery and time frame.

The workshop also included presentations by scientists and professionals working on various aspects of Everglades research and related research in central and southern Florida. Dr. Susan Newman, Senior Supervising Environmental Scientist, Everglades Division, South Florida Water Management District, presented Phosphorus Enrichment Effects in the Everglades—Ecosystem Level Responses. Dr. K.R. Reddy, Chairman of Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, presented Phosphorus Enrichment Effects in the Everglades—Process level Responses. Dr. Shili Miao, Senior Supervising Environmental Scientist, Everglades Division, South Florida Water Management District, presented Displacement of Sawgrass by Cattail: Roles of Phosphorus Enrichment, Hydrology and Disturbance. Mr. Mike Bodle, Division of Aquatic Plants, South Florida Water Management District, presented Noxious Emergent Vegetation Management in the Lake Okeechobee Marsh, 2000-2005. Mr. Mike Norland, Everglades National Park, HID Director, presented The Hole in the Donut (HID)—Eight years of Wetland Restoration in Everglades National Park. And, Mr. Donald Kent, Executive Director of Community Watershed Fund, presented Burn Effect, Soil Phosphorus, and Responses to STA Effluent.

In the afternoon of the first day of the workshop, the participants divided into three subgroups to discuss issues associated with accelerated recovery. The group topics included: 1) invasive species, 2) natural recovery and native species re-establishment; and, 3) spatial and analytical considerations. These findings were presented to the full group in the morning of the second day.

On the second day of the workshop, the South Florida Water Management District offered three presentations on the intended research approaches. Dr. Susan Carstenn, BEM Systems, Inc., presented her literature search on Cattail Control and Management in Human Altered Ecosystems. Dr. Shili Miao, South Florida Water Management District, presented the Draft Research Plan for Accelerating Recovery in Phosphorus Enriched Areas. Dr. Susan Newman, Everglades Division, South Florida Water Management District, presented the second project to accelerate recovery named Cattail Habitat Improvement Project.

At the close of the workshop, the participants identified key points from the two-day discussion. These are listed below.

  • Go slow--do not cause more harm, including existing sampling goals for Water Conservation Area-2 (WCA-2A) transects.
  • Transitional areas hold promise to prevent/reduce spread.
  • Other actions are preferred over herbicide application.
  • P is the cause and cattails the symptom; ensure the public understands this.
  • One must assume the hydrology regime is a given.
  • Other methods to also consider:
  • Chemical amendments
  • Mechanical/baling
  • Natural recovery
  • Experiments and assessments both desired.
  • What is the focus—P reduction, cattail reduction, or both?
  • Need further clarity on desired end
  • Ridge and slough with focus on cattail?
  • Ridge and slough with focus on sawgrass?
  • Open water and wading birds?
  • Sawgrass prairie?
  • Choices and priorities—is this the best project given the money and resources needed?
  • Unclear what the driver of the project is—politics, public, science, etc?
  • What are the scale-up possibilities?

The workshop adjourned at 12:10 PM on March 31, 2005.

DAY ONE – March 30, 2005

Welcome and Introduction

The workshop began at 9:00 am. The facilitator announced the workshop would be videotaped and participants should use the microphones provided for any comment and discussion. The purpose of the recording was to assist with the write-up of a meeting summary.

Dr. Jamie Serino, Director of Everglades Division, the South Florida Water Management District, welcomed everyone and expressed his thanks to all the people that helped organize the event. He noted the challenge the District faces in managing the needs of so many different stakeholders. He expressed his commitment to engage them through the of use good science to accelerate the recovery process and obtain quality results. He then reviewed the goals of the workshop:

  1. Discuss what successful recovery and its indicators are;
  2. Gain an understanding of what is known currently about the Everglades and ecosystem restoration in general.
  3. Consider options and alternatives to move the “accelerating recovery” research forward.

Review Ground Rules

The facilitators were introduced as Mr. Patrick Field and Mr. Larry Dixon of the Consensus Building Institute. The facilitators noted that the facilitation team was non-partisan and brought in to assist the dialogue process. The facilitators noted they had worked on the Everglades phosphorus rule in 2001. Mr. Field reviewed the ground rules and reiterated the purpose of the workshop, noting its focus on technical issues and science, not policy. He went on to review the agenda and explained that the panelists had not previously worked with the District, and thus, would provide a distinct and independent review of the District’s proposed research approaches.

The facilitator explained that the final products of the workshop would include a meeting summary produced by the facilitation team and a research plan review prepared by the panelists of the research projects discussed at the workshop, to be posted in its final form on the appropriate website.

Overview of Recovery Goals

The facilitator introduced Dr. Fred Sklar, Chief Scientist of the South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Division, who gave a presentation titled: RECOVER vs. Recovery: The Goals of Hydrologic vs. Water Quality Restoration, Respectively. For a copy of the presentation, please write to .

The presenter outlined the differences between two ecosystem-based management plans: (1) RECOVER, part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), an $8 billion federal and state plan with a 30 year time frame primarily focused on hydrology and (2) the Long-Term Plan (LTP), an amendment to the state’s Everglades Forever Act (EFA), a 10-year --$444 million state project primarily focused on water quality. Both of these management plans are required to work within the South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) regulatory framework to supply water, control flooding and balance the ecological needs of the Everglades. Dr. Sklar reiterated SFWMD’s commitment to adaptive management.

He went on to say that the goal of the LTP is to reverse the increasing phosphorus (P) trend in the Everglades (reducing levels to 10 ppb) and other symptomatic changes that have accompanied phosphorus increases including the expansion of cattail. He noted that the workshop would primarily address WCA-2A while emphasizing the difficulty of ecosystem-based management.

There were no questions after the presentation.

Panel of Experts on Ecosystem Restoration

The four experts, in presentation and panel format, then shared their views. Each panelist had 15-20 minutes to make a presentation, with five minutes for the audience to ask questions.

Dr. Mark Davis, Professor of Biology, Macalester College

Dr. Davis introduced himself and noted that his research focuses on species invasion and the impact of restoration strategies in ecosystems. The title of his presentation was Restoring Ecosystems in the Face of Thresholds, Hysteresis, Alternative States and Constant Flux. For a copy of the presentation, please write to . Below is a brief summary of the presentation.

Dr. Davis began with a discussion of hysteresis as it relates to ecosystem restoration. He suggested that the goal of many restoration ecologists is to move the ecosystem back to its original state. However, he noted that systems often do not revert back to their original, pre-alteration condition by simply removing a perturbation. Instead, they may progress to an alternative state. For example, he described a study in a Minnesota savanna where ending the original alteration (fire suppression), did not result in the ecosystem returning to its original state and that, in fact, returning fire to the system exacerbated certain undesirable changes. Finally, a combination of mechanical and herbicide treatments were used to control invasive species prior to reestablishing the natural fire regime and only then did the system begin to resemble its historic state. This transformation required substantial human assistance. Dr. Davis noted that there often is a need to manage invasive species prior to restoration activities because both the invasive and desired species can respond similarly to the restoration activities. For this reason, restoration activities can do more harm than good. He emphasized that the context and unique variables of an ecosystem makes each ecosystem quite different and their subsequent response to restoration activities may be different as well. Efforts to understand how these differences influence ecosystem response are needed. Finally, he noted that all invasive species might not be as undesirable as first thought (e.g., cattails take up phosphorus), and noted that some can reduce even toxic materials.

Below is a summary of the questions asked after the presentation, with responses under each.

Q: Hysteresis is important, but the concept could be used to make a case that we should not try to restore some ecosystems since they are so complex. It sounds like there is a fine line (and possible danger) between deciding to do restoration and determining the system is too far-gone to get back to the original state.

  • It is always best practice for scientists to be honest with the public and decision makers about what is and is not achievable, or the best intentions of restoration will backfire. We need to remember to be open and honest about what science can and cannot do.

Q: Does empirical evidence support hysteresis as opposed to time lags?

  • For more on this subject look at Suding et al’s 2004 article. It is not just a time issue; there are other positive feedback loops that prevent the system from getting to the original desired state.

Dr. Paul Keddy, Endowed Chair for Environmental Studies,Southeastern Louisiana University

Dr. Keddy, a wetlands ecologist, introduced himself and his presentation, titled Wetland Restoration: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and noted similar common themes with the previous presentation including hysteresis. Below is a brief summary of the presentation. For a copy of the presentation, please write to .

Dr. Keddy noted that the role of cattails in restoration is a global issue. Dr. Keddy suggests that while some wetlands are relatively easy to restore, including ponds, floodplains, and marshes. Other wetlands, deemed more important or rare (e.g. wet meadows, fens, bogs, and the Everglades), are much more difficult to restore. Important factors attributing to degradation in these ecosystems are alterations in fertility and hydrology. Often invasive species do well with increased fertility. Because of various human impacts including logging, farming, irrigation, and introduction of species (animals and plants), anthropogenic-affected marshes are difficult to restore. But, it becomes even more important to restore these rare and important ecosystems because rare animal and plant species are often found in rare habitats.

There were no questions after the presentation.

Dr. William Mitsch, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Ohio State University

Dr. Mitsch gave a presentation entitled Wetland Restoration and Creation using Mother Nature, Father Time, and Whole-Ecosystem Studies. Below is a brief summary of its main points. For a copy of the presentation, please write to .

Dr. Mitsch explained that coastal restoration can be easier than inland wetland restoration because of the predictable function of the tides. He stressed that self-design, restoration efforts that help nature with the recovery process by doing limited interventions that nature itself can build upon, can be more successful. This approach seeks to harness the natural energies of the ecosystem. It is important to give the ecosystem time to make the corrections it needs and not to rush the process nor have unrealistic expectations. He explained that much of his work involved whole ecosystem studies, ecological studies of such a spatial and temporal scale as to include most, if not all, of the processes of the ecosystem. During his presentation he drew on research from the Delaware coast, Olentangy River wetlands, and the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri River basins (an area that is also dealing with the effects of nutrient enrichment on wetlands).

Below is a summary of the questions asked after the presentation, with responses under each.

Q: There are advantages and disadvantages to using the whole scale approach. Are you advocating using the whole scale approach?

  • Whole scale studies are important because they serve to address questions at a large spatial scale and over a long time period. Thus, they can serve to validate results from meso-cosm and small-scale studies. Sometimes we draw conclusions from smaller scale experiments that are simply wrong (not applicable at the larger scale), so we need these large-scale approaches to verify our smaller scale conclusions.

Dr. Craig Osenberg, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida

Dr. Osenberg noted that his research deals mostly with fish in fresh and saltwater settings, however he was interested in discussing the design and analysis of environmental research studies to provide good information for policy and achieve greater consensus within the scientific community. His presentation was called Quantifying Effects of Restoration: Goals and Approaches of Assessment Designs. Below is a brief summary of the presentation. For a copy of the presentation, please write to .

Dr. Osenberg explained that environmental research studies often attempt to detect the effect of a specified activity. There are two general approaches: experiments and assessments. Most experiments are replicated, randomized, small scale, and attempt to document effects and extrapolate these responses to other similar systems. Assessments are usually unreplicated, non-random, large scale, and site specific. Spatial and temporal variation in ecological data often makes detecting the effect of an impact difficult using classical experimental designs and statistical methods. In addition, replication and randomization, requirements of many classical methods, are difficult to achieve in large-scale field experiments. Assessment designs often have human-controlled impacts and comparisons are made within the site before and after an impact (before-after design). In the before-after design, the control is the before period while the treatment or impact is the after-period and any difference between the two is attributed to the impact. Other assessment approaches include before-after-control-impact (BACI) and the BACI using paired sampling (BACIPS). The BACI design compares data collected in separate control and impact sites before and after an impact and addresses temporal variation that may be attributed to something other than the impact. The BACIPS provides a means of addressing both temporal and spatial variation. It is important to conduct predictive studies in advance and do follow up studies to compare with results from a BACIPS study. Dr. Osenberg stressed that the more data you have in advance of the impact the more robust the study will be.