• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Matter
 Main














Title: Workshop on "South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria"
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000117/00001
 Material Information
Title: Workshop on "South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria"
Series Title: Workshop on "South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria"
Physical Description: Book
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00000117
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA0272
ltuf - AME1936
alephbibnum - 002436771
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
    Front Matter
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
Full Text






WORKSHOP ON "SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA"


April 25-26, 1996

Final Report


Sp-- yd by
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AND




Convened by
CENTER FOR MARINE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES (CMEA)
AND
THE EveRGLADES PARTNERSHIP


I










WORKSHOP ON
"SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
CRITERIA"


April 25-26, 1996







Final Report




EDITED BY:

JOHN H. GENTILE
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI


WORKING TEAM CO-CHAIRS:


HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY:


LANDSCAPE:


RESOURCE (WILDLIFE AND FISH):

SOCIETAL:


AARON HIGHER, U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
LEWIS HORNUNG, U. S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FRED SKLAR, S.F. WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
WENDELL P. CROPPER, JR., UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
CRAIG JOHNSON, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
DAVE BUSCH, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
CHRISTINE C. HARWELL, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
BONNIE KRANZER, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION


I I III I









WORKSHOP REPORT ON
"SOUTH FLORIDA ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
CRITERIA"




Table of Contents



Page
Acknowledgments ............................................ ii


Background ................................................. iii


Executive Sum m ary .......................................... v


W working Team Reports ........................................ 1

I. Hydrology/W after Quality ............................... 3
II. L landscape .......................................... 12

III. Resource (W wildlife and Fish) ............................ 17

IV. Societal ................................... .......... 25


Ecological Assessment and Recovery Principles ................... 30


Commentary: The Everglades Partnership ........................ 39

Appendices
I. W workshop Agenda ....................................... 44
II. Charge to W working Teams .................................. 47
III. List of Participants ....................................... 50









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We would like to acknowledge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in particular Col.
Terry Rice, Bo Smith, and Barbara Cintron from the Jacksonville District, for their logistical
assistance and funding support. Thanks are extended to Colonel Terrence "Rock" Salt and Stu
Langton from the Everglades Partnership, co-conveners of this workshop; to the Working Team
Co-chairs, Aaron Higer (USGS), Lewis Hornung (COE), Fred Sklar (SFWMD), Wendell
Cropper (CMEA), Dave Busch (ENP), Craig Johnson (FWS), Bonnie Kranzer (Governor's
Commission), and Chris Harwell (CMEA), for conducting the sessions and providing written
summaries of their deliberations; and to the session rapporteurs for capturing the essence of the
discussions. We would like to recognize Debbie Drum-Ducloss from the South Florida Water
Management District for providing the color maps used during the work sessions. Special thanks
are extended to Dean Otis Brown (RSMAS) for hosting the workshop and reception and to the
following CMEA staff: Karen Heise-Gentile for workshop organization and logistics, report
preparation, and editing; Angelique Crooks-Reyan and Erica Reyan-Blanco for administrative
support; and Carlos Rivera and Allyn Landers for GIS support. The planning, conduct, and report
preparation for this workshop were funded in part by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program
(Grant #1753-6001111); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station,Vicksburg MI (Contract #DACW 39-94-K-0032; Tasks 3 and 4); and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers District Office in Jacksonville FL (Contract # DACW 17-96-M-0470).


Workshop Report Cover: The photograph of Florida used on the cover of this report was taken by
NASA Astronaut and marine geologist, Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, during space shuttle mission
STS5IC-44-026.









BACKGROUND


The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force is comprised of seven federal
agencies, six state agencies, the Governor's Commission, and two Native American tribes. To
facilitate the immense task of coordinating and integrating the activities of these organizations, the
Task Force created a Management and Coordination Working Group. Within this Working
Group, there are a series of subgroups that focus on topics related to science, management,
infrastructure, public information and education, and social science. The mission of these
subgroups is to provide technical information and feedback to the Working Group. The
Interagency Science Subgroup, the focus of our discussion in this report, is comprised of scientists
from state and federal agencies involved in the restoration activities in South Florida. They serve
as the principal scientific component of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
are responsible for addressing issues of critical interest and concern to the Management and
Coordination Working Group.
The Science Subgroup completed its first report for the Working Group in 1993, entitled
"Federal Objectives for the South Florida Restoration." In this report, the Science Subgroup
suggested a number of precursor and ecological success indices for restoring at the regional and
subregional scales. The original indices were reviewed by the Science Subgroup, and a subset
was recommended for evaluating the overall restoration process (Table 1). Each of these indices
was assigned to a Science Subgroup member, who was then asked to form a committee of experts
to: 1) consider the indices and restate it in more specific terms; 2) provide a justification for its use;
and 3) describe the ecological indices and related factors to be measured. These committees were
also tasked with developing measurement factors that could be presented in an annual "report
card," prepared at the end of each year to evaluate the outcome of implemented restoration
strategies.
Because of the importance of selecting the appropriate indices for measuring the success of
the restoration process, the decision was made to expand this process to include broader scientific
input and public involvement. At a meeting of the Everglades Partnership in November 1995,
plans were discussed for convening a group of regional scientists to review the appropriateness of
the Science Subgroup's proposed suite of indices and measures. The University of Miami's
Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses (CMEA), together with the Everglades Partnership,
volunteered to co-host the workshop.
A workshop steering committee consisting of Stu Langton from the Everglades
Partnership; Brad Brown (NOAA/NMFS), Wiley Kitchens (USGS), and John Ogden (SFWMD)









from the Interagency Science Subgroup; and Chris Harwell and Jack Gentile from CMEA, was
formed to develop the initial workshop concept, agenda, working group assignments, and tentative
list of participants. As a result of their efforts, the "Workshop on Ecological Sustainability Criteria
for South Florida" was convened on April 24-25, 1996, at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science on Virginia Key.
Partial funding for the workshop was obtained by CMEA from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Jacksonville District Office and Waterways Experiment Station and from the
Human-Dominated Systems Directorate of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. Logistical
details for the workshop and the production of the final report were managed by the Center for
Marine and Environmental Analyses, University of Miami.













Table 1. List of Science Subgroup precursor and ecological indices for measuring the success of
the South Florida restoration process.




Precursor Success Indices Ecological Success Indices
Reinstatement throughout the system of Re-establishment of healthy wading bird
natural hydropattems and sheetflow populations

Reduction in body burden of mercury in Fisheries-based success criteria
top carnivores

Organic soil accretion and subsidence Coastal and inland fish populations and
communities

Reduction in phosphorus loading Deformed fish-based success criteria

Salinity criteria for Florida Bay Periphyton-based success criteria

Reduction in turbidity in estuaries Recovery of endangered, threatened,
keystone, and indicator animal species

Increase in coral cover

Landscape indices: vegetation change,
nutrient-tolerant vegetation, exotic plant
indicator, conservation of critical lands
outside protected areas (e.g.,buffers,
corridors, greenways, flyways)









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


A "Workshop on Ecological Sustainability Criteria for South Florida" was held on April 25 and
26, 1996, to review and evaluate the issues of success criteria. Samuel Poole III, Executive
Director of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), requested that those involved
in the planning of the Everglades Partnership conduct such a workshop. Sponsored jointly by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the University of Miami, this workshop is the first
in a series of activities focused on the restoration process in South Florida. The Center for Marine
and Environmental Analyses of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami, volunteered to host and organize the event. The USACE, Jacksonville
District, provided partial financial support for the conference and the publication of this report.
The goals of the workshop were: 1) to review critically the scientific basis for the selection of
indicators and criteria used in evaluating the success of the restoration process; and 2) to broaden
public and academic participation in the process. Consequently, the conference participants
included a large number natural and social scientists, representatives of public interest groups, and
managers of government agencies.
The approach used in the Workshop built upon a preliminary list of indices and indicators,
developed by the Interagency Science Subgroup, for measuring the success of the restoration
process. Workshop participants were divided into four Working Teams: Hydrology, Landscape,
Resources (Fish/Wildlife), and Social Science. Three levels of review were addressed by each
working team: 1) the philosophy and strategy for selecting indicators and success criteria; 2) the
adequacy of the success criteria in capturing the important elements of the restoration process; and
3) the ability of the success criteria to detect and measure critical changes in physical and ecological
structures and processes. This hierarchal review is intended to identify clearly the relationships
among goals, endpoints, and indicators of success. In addition, the Working Teams were asked to
address a series of cross-cutting issues that include: 1) providing guidance for prioritized
research and monitoring activities; 2) identifying the state-of-scientific-practice relative to the
models, methods, and measures needed to implement each success criterion; and 3) identifying
critical research issues that impede evaluation of the success criteria.
The Hydrology Working Team reviewed six papers prepared by the Science Subgroup: 1)
restoration of sheetflow and natural hydropattems; 2) restoration of water quality mercury body
burdens; 3) reduction in phosphorous loading; 4) restoration of natural salinity patterns in
estuaries; 5) restoration of organic soil accretion and subsidence; and 6) reduction in turbidity in
estuaries. The Hydrology Team generally agreed with the choice of precursor indices proposed by








the Science Subgroup. However, it did suggest that the Science Subgroup provide a clear
statement of goals and a rationale for linking precursor indices with ecological indicators
specifically for salinity and turbidity. Other recommendations include treating mercury body
burdens as a wildlife issue rather than a water quality issue; developing a precursor endpoint and
success criteria for contaminants; and conducting a workshop on the topic of soils accretion.
The Landscape Working Team considered two general ecological restoration goals: 1) the
restoration of the natural South Florida landscape/seascape structure and function; and 2) the
increase in area extent of conserved areas. The Landscape Team proposed two endpoints for
restoring the landscape/seascape structure and function: 1) the recovery of the complex pattern and
configuration of the landscape and habitat mosaic; and 2) the recovery of specific communities and
species composition within the landscape. They felt the restoration of the South Florida
landscape/seascape must include consideration of functional attributes as well as structural
measures. Under the goal of increasing the area extent of conserved areas, the Landscape Team
discussed: 1) restoration of "missing" (because of human influence) communities; 2) restoration
and expansion of core areas; and 3) expansion of buffer areas. Team members recognized that the
concept of wildlife corridors is both important and controversial. Nevertheless, they endorsed the
expansion of effective wildlife corridors to increase the conductivity between natural habitats. In
general, the goals and endpoints discussed by the Landscape Working Team represent
generalizations that are consistent with and include several of the more specific endpoints proposed
by the Science Sub-group.
The Resource (Fish/Wildlife) Working Team reviewed six success criteria: 1) increase in coral
cover; 2) recruitment of fishery and non-fishery species (specifically pink shrimp); 3) increase in
fish abundance and restoration of fish species in pre-disturbance locations (including inland,
freshwater species); 4) reduction of deformed fish in estuaries; 5) restoration of wading bird
nesting colony sites and timing; and 6) increase in populations of threatened and endangered
species. The Resource Team generally endorsed the utility of the success criteria proposed by the
Science Subgroup with modifications. These include focusing solely on coral condition rather than
associated variables, including upland birds in addition to wading birds, and expanding the scope
of the "threatened and endangered species" success criteria. Team members recommended
including taxa that are generally overlooked as indicators such as invertebrates (e.g., butterflies,
crayfish) that have proven to be very reliable indicators of environmental health and change, as
well as expanding the criterion to include songbirds, since South Florida is an important corridor
for these species migrating from the tropics.









The Working Teams also proposed a series of general recommendations. The importance of
goal setting was discussed during the plenary sessions by several speakers and reiterated within the
Teams on several occasions. This issue led to the suggestion that the Science Subgroup provide a
clearer statement of goals to focus better the difficult and complex task of selecting endpoints and
indicators. The Working Teams also expressed concern regarding the lack of explicit descriptions
of the linkages between each precursor and its ecological interactions and consequences. In some
cases, the linkages were not sufficiently understood to enable the Working Teams to determine the
logical use of the success criterion. The Workshop findings suggest that the Science Subgroup
provide sufficient background rationale to address these causal links that are critical to developing a
restoration plan.
The Working Teams all recognized that the various projects associated with the restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem will take years to complete. Even after the projects are finished,
several more decades may pass before the South Florida ecosystem responds to the changes that
have been made. Consequently, criteria need to be developed that allowed us to identify short-,
mid-, and long-term physical and ecological changes in South Florida. This will require a suite of
indicators that capture different temporal scales of response and spatial scales of complexity. For
example, species reflecting different life-history strategies and positions within the trophic structure
of the community could be used to monitor the temporal patterns of recovery. Capturing temporal
changes will require the use of different responses for each species, such as physiological
responses as short-term indicators, population responses as mid-term indicators and community-
level responses as long-term indicators of the success of the restoration.
The topic of endpoints received considerable discussion in the plenary and working teams.
There was a general, though not unanimous, agreement that there is value to employing a
hierarchal framework for describing and discriminating among goals/values, endpoints, indicators,
and metrics. The endpoints and indicators selected for benchmarking the restoration process
should reflect alterations and improvements in the health of the system. The implicit assumption is
that there are demonstrable causal links between management options, the precursor indices (e.g.,
physical driving forces), and concomitant changes in ecosystem structure and function. Further,
the selection of success criteria should remain open-ended, allowing for the identification of
additional endpoints as more information becomes available in the future. Because these causal
linkages are the foundation of effective management, they should be as fully described as possible
given the limits of our scientific knowledge. The description of these linkages is best
accomplished by developing conceptual models and hypotheses of the systems interactions. The









conceptual model can also be used as an effective tool for describing and communicating these
linkages to the public.
The "Workshop on Ecological Sustainability Criteria for South Florida" represents the first
broad scientific and public review of the Science Subgroup's efforts to develop endpoints,
indicators, and criteria for assessing the success of the South Florida restoration process. While
the review conducted by this Workshop generally endorsed the Science Subgroup's selection of
precursor indices and ecological indicators, it also offered the following recommendations: 1)
clearly define the concept of an environmental report card for the restoration process; 2) prepare a
strategic plan that identifies the specific roles of science in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation phases of the restoration; 3) develop conceptual models (whole-system and geographic
subregions) and hypotheses that clearly illustrate the linkages among human activities, system
drivers, stressors, and ecological and societal consequences; 4) adopt terminology that is consistent
with current usage in the national and international scientific community; and 5) specifically
address the issue of societal preferences in the selection of endpoints for determining the success of
the restoration process.
In closing, it is the opinion of the sponsors and conveners that this Workshop has provided an
opportunity to move the science of the restoration effort into a public forum where managers,
scientists, and the public can review and evaluate the results. The scientific recommendations
provided by the Working Teams will serve to strengthen and improve the technical foundation for
evaluating the progress and success of the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort.















WORKING TEAM REPORTS









WORKING TEAM REPORTS


Introduction
The "Workshop on Ecological Sustainability Criteria for South Florida," jointly sponsored by
the Corps of Engineers and the University of Miami is the first in a series of activities designed: 1)
to review critically the scientific basis for the selection of indicators and criteria used in evaluating
the success of the restoration process; and 2) to broaden public and academic participation in the
process. Consequently, the conference participants included a large number natural and social
scientists, representatives of public interest groups, and managers of government agencies.
The approach used in the Workshop built upon a preliminary list of indices and indicators
proposed by the Interagency Science Subgroup for measuring the success of the restoration
process. Workshop participants were divided into four Working Teams: Hydrology, Resources
(Fish/Wildlife), Landscape, and Social Science. Three levels of review were addressed by each
working team: 1) the philosophy and strategy for selecting indicators and success criteria; 2) the
adequacy of the indicators in capturing the restoration process; and 3) the utility of the success
criteria in detecting and measuring changes in the indicators. This hierarchal review assured clear
linkages among goals, endpoints, and indicators of success. In addition, the Working Teams were
asked to address a series of crosscutting issues that include: 1) providing guidance for the research
and monitoring priorities; 2) identifying the state-of-scientific-practice relative to the models,
methods, and measures needed to implement each indicator; and 3) identifying critical research
issues that impede evaluation of the success criteria.
It is important to recognize that this process was not intended to be a rigorous scientific peer
review. Rather it was an opportunity for the Science Subgroup to present their findings to a broad
scientific and public audience for review. The Working Team reports that follow provide: 1) a
general review of the rationale and selection process for the Science Subgroup's proposed success
criteria; 2) suggestions to the Science Subgroup on how those criteria might be improved; and 3)
recommendations on a wide range of other issues relevant to developing success criteria. The
intent of these recommendations is to further the process of providing to decision-makers a
scientifically robust suite of ecological attributes to measure the success of the restoration.















HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
WORKING TEAM









HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY WORKING TEAM


Co-chairs: Aaron Higer Lewis Homung
U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Introduction
The Hydrology Working Team started the session by discussing guidelines for identifying
useful indicators. It was recognized in this discussion that all of the indicator categories being
reviewed by the group were precursor indicators. This influenced the identification of the
following guidelines for evaluating the Science Subgroup papers.
Guidelines for selecting good indicators:
1) they should be measurable and can be monitored;
2) they should be related to an endpoint;
3) precursors need to be connected with appropriate ecological endpoints (e.g., success
criteria);
4) information on endpoint is available or could be available;
5) endpoint must be tied to the landscape or seascape; and
6) evaluation of the indicators could be available for a annual report card; if not, they
should be classified as a long-term indicators.
The Team reviewed the following six papers prepared by the Science Subgroup:
Restoration of sheetflow and natural hydropattems
Restoration of water quality mercury body burdens
Reduction in phosphorous loading
Restoration of natural salinity patterns in estuaries
Restoration of organic soil accretion and subsidence
Reduction in turbidity in estuaries.
The observation was made during the workshop that participants who were most
knowledgeable regarding the specific success indicator being discussed were the least comfortable
with its proposed utility as an indicator. Identification, continuous monitoring, and assessment of
success indicators could be the key to the successful restoration of the natural systems in South
Florida. However, it should be recognized that we are just initiating an evolutionary process that
will continue well into the future.









Restoration of Sheetflow and Natural Hydropatterns


Review Comments
It was agreed that the establishment of natural hydrologic characteristics of hydropattern and
sheetflow is a critical component of ecosystem restoration. There was significant debate over
whether restoration of historic hydrologic conditions throughout the system should be a goal.
Because of reductions in the area extent of the natural system and changes in ground elevation
caused by oxidation, restoration of the historic hydrology may not result in anticipated changes in
flora and fauna. Manipulation of the water management system to produce desired hydrologic
conditions is a management action. There were members of the group that felt it was inappropriate
to evaluate a management action as a success indicator. There also was a concern that the linkage
of biological responses to physical alterations of the hydrology was not well-understood.
Therefore, some felt the focus for measuring success should be on biological indicators, not on
hydrology.
It was suggested that the hydrologic goals should be addressed by sub-basin. The hydrologic
goal in a core area may be the natural hydrology, while other areas are artificially managed to
maximize overall ecosystem benefits. Additional information is needed to define what hydrologic
conditions are important for specific areas. There were also concerns expressed about whether
restoration of Natural System Model (NSM) hydrology was a measurable indicator. Inter- and
intra-annual variations in meteorological conditions create substantial background noise that makes
measuring management impacts very difficult.
The Team agreed that the NSM should be one of several tools used to help determine target
hydrologic conditions. It should not be the only tool used. Paleoecologic information should also
be used to help define natural hydrologic conditions. It was agreed that a better title of this
indicator would be, "Reinstatement of hydropatterns and flows that will enable the long-term
sustainability of the mix of native species, communities, and soils characteristic of pre-drainage
South Florida public lands and waters."
There was consensus that: 1) restoring hydropatterns and sheetflow to certain core areas of the
system is desirable, but certainly not throughout the whole system; 2) the NSM is one tool that can
be used within its technical limitations and may only be applicable to certain parts of the system; 3)
rainfall models (formulas) and paleoecology will also make useful contributions toward
establishing hydrologic goals; and 4) the Team did not want to restrict itself to only one solution,
knowing that the restoration of historical conditions, although a useful goal, is not likely to be fully
realized.









Recommendations
The description of this precursor success indicator should be changed to "Reinstatement of
hydropatterns and flows that will enable the long-term sustainability of the mix of native species,
communities, and soils characteristic of pre-drainage South Florida public lands and waters."
Hydrologic goals should be established within subregions. Biologic responses should be
carefully monitored and hydrologic goals should be frequently reviewed. Taylor Slough (ENP)
was recommended as a potential site for a pilot study of this type. Information learned from the
pilot study should be transferred to other subregions. The primary tools for establishing initial
hydrologic goals should be the NSM, rainfall formulas, and paleoecology.


Restoration of Water Quality Mercury Body Burdens


Review Comments
The consensus of the Hydrology Team is that the mercury body burden is really a wildlife
issue and not a water quality issue per se. Rather, it should be addressed by the Resource Team
where the effects of mercury body burdens are of major concern to wildlife (e.g., fisheries,
panthers). In addition, it was agreed that mercury is not a good short-term indicator that could be
used in the annual report card. Mercury is presently viewed as a global phenomenon, and there is
no research presently indicating that we can resolve the mercury problem by our management of
the system. Since no single source of mercury has been identified, it is impossible to predict
which local management decisions would be effective in reducing mercury in the system.
However, the research presently being conducted could provide important insights and
understanding of local mercury sources and their bioaccumulation and magnification in the food
chain within the next few years.


Recommendations
The Team strongly supports and endorses the implementation of the approach proposed by the
Science Subgroup for conducting research and monitoring mercury in South Florida. Mercury is
not useful as a short-term indicator. It may be useful as a long-term indicator after more is learned
through continuing monitoring and research addressing its causes and effects.









Reduction In Phosphorous Loading


Review Comments
The Team agreed that the Science Subgroup paper covers phosphorus in the Everglades well,
and it should be retained as a success indicator because of its importance to the specific ecosystem.
It was agreed that the goal is reduce both phosphorus concentrations and loadings. There were
five load reduction proposals for phosphorus:
reduction in ENR;
reduction in loading from EAA;
reduction in loading at critical structures;
limit phosphorus entering the ENP;
attaining marsh levels.
The Team also recognized that the Science Subgroup needs to expand the treatment of nutrients
beyond both phosphorus and the Everglades. This could include local nutrient reduction and other
water quality recommendations for specific subregions.


Recommendations
The Team recommends that the Science Subgroup develop a precursor endpoint and success
criteria for contaminants, i.e., "Reduction in the concentrations of known contaminants." This is
one endpoint that may be different in each of the geographic subregions and should be a good
candidate for a precursor index.
We recommend another precursor for water quality to cover other potential problems not
included in mercury, phosphorous, and contaminants. Such an indicator may vary by sub-basin.
Therefore, it is recommended that an umbrella indicator be established to establish water quality
conditions for ecosystem restoration by subregion. Specific measures and potential sub-categories
by basin would include:
suspended sediments: turbidity and water clarity;
phosphorus: Everglades;
contaminants: priority for development;
nutrients: all nutrients throughout the entire South Florida system, including Biscayne
and Florida Bays, coral reefs;
mercury: continue work; long-term indicator linked to wildlife and societal issues; and
water clarity: can be measured but connections to the ecosystem are not clear; focus on
seagrasses as a starting point.









Restoration of Natural Salinity Patterns in Estuaries


Review Comments
The consensus from the Team was that for estuaries such as St. Lucie, Caloosahatche, and
possibly Estero Bay and Biscayne Bay, the "haloperiod" approach (based on an algorithm that
included flows, upstream stages, rainfall, and possibly a circulation model coupled to indicator
species) could be a good short-term precursor index. However, this approach may not apply to
Florida Bay, which is much more complex, behaving sometimes as an estuary and other times as a
group of coastal embayments. Also, it may be difficult to apply the "haloperiod" because of
temporal and spatial variability.
There was considerable debate over the value of salinity as a useful precursor endpoint.
Salinity's value is that it is easy to measure, but the ecological consequences of salinity change are
difficult to interpret. Therefore, it should be used in conjunction with biological indicators
whenever possible. The use of salinity in Florida Bay seems problematic because of temporal and
spatial variability. The Team suggested that the "halopattern" concept be examined in pilot studies
of specific areas in Florida Bay and that flow and precipitation modeling also be conducted.
We need to examine further whether this indicator could be applied to northeast Florida Bay or
the northern boundary of the Bay, the mangrove ecotone. The Science Subgroup should review
the Florida Bay "halopattern" approach in more depth. One suggestion is to consider developing a
Florida Bay index that would lessen the temporal and spatial variation by initially selecting three
index sites: Garfield Bight, Little Madeira Bay, and a mangrove location (possibly Taylor Creek).
These three sites could be used to construct a temporary index for Florida Bay.
In addition, the Team further recommended that salinity be supplemented with biological
measures or indicators, as is currently being done at St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee. One
suggestion was that biological indicators be used to define the temporal and spatial patterns of
salinity that need to be managed. A fundamental question is whether we can define a normal range
of salinities that must be maintained based on our current understanding of salinity-induced
ecological effects.
One concern involved situations where flow may be more important than change in salinity.
Within coastal ecotones, freshwater pulsing may be more important than salinity. For example, at
zero salinity in the ecotone, there can be two-fold increases in flow and no change in local salinity.
However, the area of decreased salinity will gradually migrate further offshore. Do we know the
relationship between short- and long-term measures of salinity? What constitutes a chronic change
in salinity? It was also pointed out by one of the participants that there is a long-term periodicity in









salinity patterns in Florida Bay, suggesting that the "haloperiod" is relevant only for short
durations.
A goal of SFWMD is to develop a model that is able to predict changes in salinity and link
those changes to biological indicators. Modeling efforts range over a hierarchy of complexity from
statistical correlation models to dynamic hydrodynamic models. The best approach is one that is
tiered, characterizes natural patterns of salinity, and provides spatial specificity.


Recommendations
Salinity (haloperiod) should be retained as a success indicator, particularly in estuaries such as
St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee. However, its use as an indicator in Florida Bay requires more
investigation. The Science Subgroup should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the
haloperiod approach for all or portions of Florida Bay. Consideration should be given to pilot
studies of specific bays.
Because interpretation of salinity changes is problematic, research should be conducted that
clearly relates changes in salinity to ecological endpoints. Measures of salinity should be used in
combination with ecological indicators whenever possible.
There seems to be some difficulty in interpreting salinity as a function of location. Therefore,
definition of salinity indicators should be as specific as possible with respect to location.


Restoration of Organic Soil Accretion and Subsidence


Review Comments
Under its natural hydrologic conditions, many regions within the natural Everglades accreted
organic soils. Soil accretion was caused by the accumulation of vegetative material formed from
photosynthesis. One often-cited study estimated that soils accreted at the rate of 7.6 cm per 100
years, but this figure is not based on samples from throughout the Everglades. Soil subsidence
refers to a loss of soil depth. In the Everglades, this loss of depth is often associated with loss of
soil mass, soil oxidation, and other factors. When soils oxidize, the carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen in the materials formed by photosynthesis revert back to carbon dioxide and water (i.e.,
volatize from the system).
The paper prepared by the Science Subgroup committee addresses the issue of organic soil
accretion and loss for specific geographic areas within the Everglades:
1) Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Within the EAA, there has been a constant net
loss of soil mass (between 2.5 and 3 cm per year) from oxidation of organic matter









associated with the altering of the natural hydrology. Torry muck soils have subsided
at much slower rates because of their higher levels of mineral content.
2) Water Conservation Areas (WCAs): Some areas within the WCAs have been
overdrained. Subsidence is a concern in these areas. However, an issue affecting
much larger portions of the WCAs is they are subjected to longer hydroperiods than
they were in the predrained Everglades. Accretion in these areas is probably occurring
at different rates than under natural conditions.
3) Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs): Current water and vegetative management plans
for the STAs will result in unnaturally high accretion rates of soils with different
chemical and physical properties from those that accreted naturally in these areas.
Natural accretion rates of organic soils with chemical and physical properties similar to those of
the natural Everglades can only be achieved sensibly by restoring the natural hydrology.
Therefore, the monitoring of organic soils can be an extremely important tool to help determine the
success of efforts to restore the natural hydrology in large regions or small sections of land. The
Team identified the following needs to begin using organic soils for this purpose:
1) completion of soil surveys in the federally owned lands;
2) determination of water levels in each area;
3) measurements of annual soil accretion and subsidence now occurring;
4) best use of cesium and carbon-14 for measuring historical accretion rates.

Recommendations
The team strongly recommends that a scientific workshop be held to put in perspective the
importance of organic soils to the restoration of the Everglades. Topics of discussion would
include coring, dating, and soils (peat) formation. A major purpose of the workshop would be for
organic soil scientists from different disciplines and geographic areas to share their knowledge.


Reduction In Turbidity In Estuaries

Review Comments
There are three general causes for turbidity: resuspension of sediment/solids
(inorganic/organic), transport of organic detritus, and algal blooms. Measures of turbidity
include:









Secchi disk;
nephelometry (measures of backscatter);
light attenuation.
Since the Secchi disk is the easiest measure, it should be calibrated to both light attenuation and
nephelometric measures.
A major concern of the Team is the difficulty in interpreting the ecological effects of turbidity.
For example, in Chesapeake Bay a water quality goal was to improve water clarity. The result was
an increase in algal growth which was deemed undesirable. Thus, there is a definite interpretation
problem with this precursor relative to its ecological implications.
The Team suggests that an integrated approach is needed that considers not only clarity, but
also factors such as nutrients (e.g., P and N). In addition, laboratory studies, coupled with
correlated field studies, must be conducted to evaluate stress-response relationships.


Recommendations
The success indicator should include seagrasses and hardbottom communities in coastal areas
that naturally support seagrass, coral reefs, and hardbottoms. In addition, this indicator should
also discriminate between organic and inorganic turbidity. Experimental studies, e.g., light
requirements for seagrasses, should be conducted. Interpretive guidance on the use of this
precursor needs to be developed, i.e., when it should be used and which measure is appropriate
for different ecological endpoints.


Conclusions and Summary
The Team concluded that a clearer articulation of goals would have provided a better focus, and
that the Science Subgroup needs to provide this type of context and rationale for their work. There
was also a general feeling that the precursor and ecological endpoints should be integrated, i.e., a
rationale should have been presented by the Science Subgroup describing how the precursor
indices link to the ecological endpoints. This effort needs to be done to assure that the right types
of information are being collected. The question of linkages was clearly an issue in the case of
both salinity and turbidity.
Concern was expressed regarding the understanding of the linkages between each precursor
and its ecological interactions and consequences. In some cases, it was felt that the linkages were
not sufficiently understood to enable logical use of the indicator. The establishment of causal links
is critical to any management decision-making.
















LANDSCAPE WORKING TEAM









LANDSCAPE WORKING TEAM


Co-chairs: Fred Sklar Wendell Cropper
S.F. Water Management District University of Miami

Introduction
The Landscape Working Team was tasked with evaluating ecological success indices at the
landscape level of organization. Six indices were proposed by the Science Subgroup: 1) increased
landscape diversity and restoration of missing landscapes; 2) reduction of nutrient-tolerant
vegetation; 3) reduction of exotic invasive plant species; 4) increase in ecotone/buffer area; 5)
increase in spatial extent of wildlife corridors; and 6) restoration of the periphyton community.
The Landscape Working Team aggregated these six indices into two general ecological restoration
goals: the restoration of the natural South Florida landscape/seascape structure function (Figure 1)
and the increase of the area extent of conserved areas (Figure 2).


Restoration of Landscape and Seascape Structure and Function
To restore the South Florida landscape/seascape successfully, it will be necessary to recover a
the complex pattern of communities and habitats (terrestrial, wetland, benthic soft and hardbottom,
and coral) that characterized pre-drainage conditions. The frequencies of occurrence and
distributions of these habitat types should be consistent with those of the natural pre-drainage
landscapes. To achieve this goal will require the restoration of the natural regimes of physical
(e.g., fire, topography, hydropattern and period) and biotic processes (e.g., species composition,
community structure).


Endpoints
The endpoints discussed by the Team for restoring the landscape/seascape structure and
function are: 1) the recovery of the complex pattern and configuration of the landscape and habitat
mosaic; and 2) the recovery of specific communities and species composition within the landscape.
Restoration of the South Florida landscape/seascape must include consideration of functional
attributes as well as structural measures.









Community-Level Structural Indicators of Landscape Restoration
Structural attributes that can be used as indicators of successful restoration for this endpoint
include the patterns and occurrence of communities, their location within the landscape, the sizes
and types of habitats, and the species composition and community structures (Figure 1).
Measures of success for the landscape pattern endpoint include a variety of techniques adopted
from landscape ecology theory. It should be noted, however, that these measures are very
sensitive, requiring that the appropriate scale or scales be carefully chosen.
Measures of community configuration across the landscape can be derived from pattern
analysis, cluster analysis, measures of lacunarity, percolation analysis, and fractal analysis. If
possible, it would be desirable to identify a historical baseline that could be used to assess the
distance from achieving restoration. If this is not possible, a recent landscape state could be
chosen as a baseline to reflect change. It may also be possible to incorporate a variety of sources
of historical and expert judgment information into an ideal simulated landscape pattern that could be
used as a baseline. The intent is to identify indicators that adequately define the position of the
current system state along a continuum of sustainability states (Figure 3) and to predict which
changes would be expected if the restoration efforts are successful in moving the system along a
trajectory defined by historical conditions.


Regional-Level Functional Indicators of Landscape Pattern
Restoration of the South Florida landscape/seascape must include consideration of functional as
well as structural attributes of the system (Figure 1). Restoring the natural fire pattern, including
fire frequency, distribution, areal extent, and intensities, is critical for landscape restoration.
Similarly, it is necessary to restore the natural hydropattern of wetland ecosystems. Essential
components of the hydropattern include the volumes and the spatial and temporal distribution of
water coverage. Other processes that should be considered in landscape restoration include
sediment/substrate processes and nutrient flow dynamics.
Restoration of sediment/substrate processes involves assuring that: 1) the spatial distribution
of organic and inorganic sediments is appropriate; 2) decomposition, accretion, and subsidence
patterns reflect those of a natural landscape; and 3) turbidity and toxic material loadings are not at
damaging levels.


Species-Level Indicators of Landscape Restoration
Landscape/seascape-level restoration should include endpoints that are related to species and
functional groups of species, as well as community/habitat considerations (Figure 1). In South









Florida, reduction of nutrient-tolerant nuisance vegetation and reduction or elimination of exotic
invasive species are of special concern. Examples of undesirable species that increase in
dominance under increased nutrient loading include cattails, some phytoplankton blooms, fleshy
macroalgae on coral reefs, and exotics such as hydrilla. A variety of other undesirable exotic
species have invaded portions of the South Florida landscape/seascape. In some cases, these
species are well-established, and eradication or control programs are necessary for restoration. In
other cases (e.g., bottle-brush), a more proactive control program may be necessary to maintain
landscape integrity.
Other important biological endpoints that need to be included are the functional groups and
critical (keystone) species. Functional groups may include a variety of taxa associated with an
important process such as pollination. Some critical species, such as alligators, are important
because of their influence on the structure of the landscape as well as their trophic interactions.
Other groups, such as periphyton and decomposer communities, are not associated with a
particular species, but have important functional roles. Quantitative measures of the status of the
periphyton community proposed by the Science Subgroup also were discussed. Specifically, a
quantitative measure or index that describes the relative biovolume of major algal groups in the
periphyton was endorsed by the Team which felt it should be possible to construct similar
measures for other function groups.


Increase in the Areal Extent of Conserved Natural Areas
Because of the extensive human alteration of the South Florida landscape, it is not likely that
the remaining protected natural areas can function in the same manner as the original system.
Principal endpoints include: 1) the restoration of missing (because of human influence)
communities; 2) restoration and expansion of "core" areas, and 3) expansion of buffer areas
(Figure 2). To manage the core natural areas as sustainable ecological systems effectively, it will
also be necessary to conserve and expand buffer zones between natural and developed areas.
Effective buffer zones can function in a variety of roles. Water preserve areas can be used to
help reestablish the natural hydropattem of the surrounding landscape. Buffer areas can provide
additional wildlife habitat, provide flood control, and help to limit the invasion of exotic species in
core areas. Additionally, buffer areas can be designed as wildlife corridors.
Although the Team recognized the concept of wildlife corridors as controversial, it endorsed
the expansion of effective corridors. Effective wildlife corridors should expand the conductivity
between natural habitats. While this strategy has the potential for ameliorating the effect of habitat









fragmentation, it should also be noted that increased conductivity may lead to increased spread of
disease or exotic species migration across the landscape.








Restoration of Landscape/Seascape
Structure and Function
I


Recovery of Complex
Patterns/Configuration
of Landscapes


Recovery of Communities
and Species Composition


Structural
* Community Patterns
* Landscape Location
* Habitat Types/Sizes



* Pattern Analysis
* Cluster Analysis
Lacunarity
Percolation
Fractal Analysis


Functional
Fire Patterns
Hydropatterns
Sediments
SNutrient dynamics


Patterns of species occurrence
Keystone Species
Functional Groups(e.g., periphyton)1
* Reduce Nutrient Tolerant Species
Reduce Nuisance Species


' Periphyton Measure: proportion of relative
biovolume of major periphyton algal groups


Figure 1. Conceptual model for the goal of restoring landscape structure and function







Increase the Areal Extent of
Conserved Natural Areas


I
Restore "Missing"
Communities


Conserve/Expand
Core Areas


I
Conserve/Expand
Buffer Areas


Figure 2. Conceptual model for the goal of increasing real extent of conserved areas
Figure 2. Conceptual model for the goal of increasing areal extent of conserved areas


Pii


I



















Possible
Ecological
Sustainability
States


Figure 3. Ecological Sustainability Model (Harwell et al. 1996)


Natural-Human
Changes


















RESOURCE (FISH/WILDLIFE) WORKING TEAM




























17









RESOURCE WORKING TEAM [FISH AND WILDLIFE]



Co-Chairs: Craig Johnson Dave Busch
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Everglades National Park


Introduction
The Resource Working Team was tasked with evaluating success criteria developed for fish
and wildlife resources. We were asked to review: 1) the philosophy and strategy behind selecting
indicators and success criteria; 2) the adequacy of the indicators; and 3) the ability of the criteria to
indicate the direction of the restoration process. The Team specifically evaluated the following
criteria:
1) increase in coral cover;
2) recruitment of fishery and non-fishery species (specifically pink shrimp);
3) increase in fish abundance and restoration of fish species in pre-disturbance locations
(including inland, freshwater species);
4) reduction of deformed fish in estuaries;
5) restoration of wading bird nesting colony sites and timing; and
6) increase in populations of threatened and endangered species.
On the first day of the workshop, the Team reviewed and revised the existing objective
statements that had been developed as indices of the success of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration initiative using fish and wildlife resources. As part of these discussions, the Team
discussed ways to use variables associated with fish and wildlife resources as indices of short- and
long-term changes.
We started with a general discussion of the application of the success criteria. We examined
the concept of the "report card" as originally conceived by the Interagency Task Force. The people
originally tasked by the Science Subgroup (specifically Joan Browder, John Ogden, and Mike
Crosby) provided an overview of their work and the process they used to develop the background
papers. The Team discussed the issue of whether a "report card" could potentially bias the
selection of indices toward those for which extensive databases are currently extant. The Team
agreed that while existing data bases are clearly a plus, we should not assume that existing
databases cover the most important or most sensitive indicators.
Members of the Team believed it was important: 1) to distinguish between short-, mid-, and
long-term measures of success, and 2) to select species responsive at these temporal scales.









Discussion of the temporal aspects of restoration indices must include the idea that biological
responses are inherently not as rapid as some physical responses. Time lags are associated with
even the most rapid biotic responses. The relatively high proportion of terrestrial vertebrates and
slow-growing sessile marine organisms means that long-term responses have a strong
representation in the present list of success criteria. The Team voiced concern that such
populations are more likely to be affected by factors that are beyond the scope of our restoration
efforts. Time lags and extrinsic factors may make detecting change in biological systems difficult.
The application of models may partially obviate the need to document success in certain cases. It
was felt that the integration of modeling efforts with restoration success indices should be more
explicitly defined. Members of the Team also believed it premature to consider reporting on the
success of the restoration until the process actually began.


Coral Reefs
Current statement: Increase in coral cover
Revised statement: Improvement in the coral reef tract condition


The Science Subgroup was asked, "How do we determine if the coral reef tract is healthy?" In
their report, the Subgroup developed variables for coral cover, coral diversity, indices of coral
growth, coral recruitment, sedimentation, and the use of coral reefs by fish, shellfish, algae, and
sponges.
The Team began its discussion using the initial statement from the Science Subgroup. As a
result of their deliberations, they recommended that this criterion focus solely on the condition of
the coral reef and the corals themselves, and that variables related to fish, shellfish, algae, and
sponges be addressed by other criteria.


Recruitment of Fishery and Non-Fishery Species (Pink Shrimp)
Short-term changes in this criterion could be detected through analyses of the catch-per-unit of
effort (CPUE) in the pink shrimp fishery in the Dry Tortugas. Analyses of pink shrimp cohorts
could provide information on long-term changes. Joan Browder believes that these short-and
long-term analyses provide two different ways of correcting for rainfall. She also stated that the
Science Subgroup had begun developing criteria based on gray snapper and lobster, but
subsequently learned that all fish species were being addressed by the group led by Ken Cummins.
The latter group had hoped to develop a model of Florida Bay that would evaluate the various
contributions from different areas of the Bay (e.g., Biscayne Bay). Peter Sheridan has predicted









the success of the shrimp fishery using a statistical relationship between shrimp landings and
indices of freshwater flow. Based on his work, the Team believes this criterion would be
indicative of changes in water deliveries to Florida Bay resulting from restoration activities in the
South Florida ecosystem.


Increase in Fish Abundance and Restoration of Fish Species
Since there is so much published literature on the subject, the Team discussed different
approaches to using fish species as indicators of ecological change. One issue that emerged during
this discussion was the importance of a large, historic database that could be used to establish a
baseline condition. To date, efforts to develop indicators based on fish species have focused
primarily on species that have large, existing databases. Consequently, the effort has not
emphasized invertebrate members of the aquatic fauna throughout the South Florida ecosystem,
since existing data on these species are limited.
Most members of the Team felt the existence of a large, historic database should not necessarily
limit the variables considered, particularly since time is available to develop a baseline for other
species of biotic variables. The Team expressed particular concern about macroinvertebrates,
critical members of the ecology of South Florida, and recommended adding apple snails and
crayfish to the list of indicators, regardless of the amount of information available on them.
The Team also discussed the importance of having endpoints and indicators that represent
different levels of ecological organization. In particular, the value of using changes in the structure
and composition of non-game fish communities as ways of measuring the success of the
restoration was addressed. Many of the Team participants recommended moving toward
community-based indicators of success. However, one of the potential problems with fish
community analyses relates to separating migratory and non-migratory species. Another problem
is that the data sets associated with those communities are not large enough to make this a valuable
indicator. It was suggested that linking long-term databases from the National Park Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service could provide a means of accomplishing more comprehensive
fishery analyses.
The Team discussed other problems caused by the absence of a strong database or a firm
understanding of the baseline condition. Even though he recommended using largemouth bass as
an indicator of the success of the restoration, Ken Cummins felt that population changes in this
species are controlled as much by regulations as by natural phenomena. From a freshwater
perspective, the aquatic fauna of the Eleocharis marsh communities of Everglades National Park









might be one appropriate endpoint for evaluating the success of the South Florida ecosystem
restoration.
Because of their large, existing databases, red drum, snook, and gray snapper were selected as
potential candidates for evaluating the success of the Restoration in coastal areas. Other species
like the sea trout, an estuarine-based fish that does not wander dramatically and occurs throughout
the South Florida ecosystem (including Pine Island Sound), should be considered as possible
indicators of the success of the restoration initiative.


Deformed Fish
Current statement: Reduction of deformed fish in estuaries
Revised statement: Reduce the prevalence of deformed fish in the estuaries


Deformed fish have become increasingly prevalent in various regions of the South Florida
ecosystem, particularly in Biscayne Bay (sea bream, pinfish, grunt) and possibly in the St. Lucie
estuary. Two deformities in particular are involved, i.e., scale deformities and missing or
deformed dorsal spines. Since an extensive amount of published literature exists correlating
contaminants in sediments with these deformities, the Team felt that measuring deformity would be
an effective gauge for evaluating the success of restoration. The members also believed that fish
deformities would respond well to short-term changes induced by human actions.
Although fish deformities do appear to co-occur with higher concentrations of environmental
contaminants, there was some question as to which contaminants lead to increases in the
prevalence of deformities and to the suspected linkages between elevated levels of contaminants
and specific restoration objectives. Both the physiological mechanisms responsible for producing
fish deformities, and the linkage of such mechanisms with ecosystem processes, should be more
explicitly stated.
Finally, the Team recommended changing the wording of the criterion because they felt that the
revised statement shifted the focus to highlight the percentage of deformed fish in the estuaries,
providing a clearer picture of the type of change desired.


Wading Birds
Current statement: Re-establishment of healthy wading bird populations


The Team discussed the importance of wading birds to the ecology of the South Florida
ecosystem and concluded that the focus on wading birds was too narrow. Broadening this









criterion to encompass the status of the overall avian community would enable us to evaluate
restoration of a broader set of environments. The inclusion of migratory and breeding passerines
would allow a fuller assessment of habitats such as pinelands and hardwood hammocks. There
was also concern that extrinsic factors may strongly influence foraging wading bird distribution
and abundance. Peter Frederick has evidence that regional weather patterns may influence wading
bird movement into and out of South Florida. This argues for a focus on wading bird reproduction
for this criterion. In addition to population-based variables, use of habitat-related variables as
potential measures of the success of the restoration was also discussed.


Threatened and Endangered Species
Current statement: Recovery of regionally healthy populations of endangered, threatened,
keystone, and indicator species of animals

The Team recommended expanding the scope of this endpoint to include taxa that are generally
overlooked as keystone and indicators species. The role of the alligator was discussed in
conjunction with the suggested expansion of the scope of the "Threatened and Endangered
Species" criterion. The distribution and density of alligator holes can be viewed as representing a
nexus between biotic factors (e.g., distribution and abundance of alligators, their trophic
affiliations) and landscapes (e.g., karst topography, tree island distribution, hydrology, and soils).
Most of these factors are cited as being important to Everglades restoration. As such, the role of
the alligator as a keystone species represents an example of utilizing comprehensive ecological
monitoring and research to provide valuable information about a variety of restoration endpoints.
Other potential candidates for indicator species include invertebrates (e.g., butterflies, crayfish)
that have proven to be very reliable indicators of environmental health and change. The Team also
felt it necessary to expand the criterion to include songbirds, since South Florida is an important
corridor for these species migrating from the tropics.


Selecting the Appropriate Temporal Scale for Evaluating Success
The Team recognized that the various projects associated with the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem will take decades to complete. Even after the restoration projects are finished,
several more decades may pass before the ecosystem responds to the changes that are made.
Consequently, Team members felt it necessary to develop restoration criteria that will permit
evaluation of short-, mid-, and long-term changes that occur. Available criteria were reviewed to
make certain that the species selected function as indicators along these temporal-spatial gradients









(Figures 1 and 2). The Team concluded that this set of species, though only examples, would
permit the evaluation of success at different temporal scales, and thus would address issues
surrounding scale. In addition, the Team suggested that different variables could be used. For
example, physiological variables could be used as short-term indicators, population variables as
mid-term indicators, and community-level variables as long-term indicators of the success of the
restoration (Figure 3).


Recommendations
We need to recognize that there is more to the South Florida ecosystem restoration
process than hydrology. Although most of the attention has been focused on restoring
the hydrology of the ecosystem, an equal amount of time and attention needs to be
devoted to restoring the habitats and biotic communities of the South Florida
ecosystem. An important exercise for the Science Subgroup would be to assure that
there is full integration of precursors and ecological endpoints.
We need to make certain that plant communities are addressed. Plant communities were
discussed as habitat for species. However, we also need to be certain that plant
communities are also treated as endpoints. In particular, seagrasses (including
epiphytes associated with those seagrasses) and mangroves have life histories that lend
themselves to the development of endpoints.
The individual plant species within these communities must also be considered. A
more detailed review of the entire list of species is needed to ensure there are no gaps or
redundancies.
The process of developing endpoints should be open-ended, particularly given the way
science operates. Identifying additional endpoints should be an evolutionary process,
as more information on species becomes available.
The Working Team has identified a series of pertinent concerns and recommendations that need
to be recognized explicitly. First, because many of the individuals responsible for suggesting and
drafting success indices were also members of the Resource Working Team, our findings should
not be viewed as an independent peer review. Rather this process should be viewed as an
opportunity to enlighten a broader group of scientists about the success indices and receive
preliminary feedback as to their suitability.
Second, a cautionary note voiced within the Resource Working Team reflected the limitations
and pitfalls inherent in deriving lists such as the catalog of success criteria. The concept of a set of
filters was suggested as an alternative to using established lists of criteria. Under this concept, the









set from which the criteria are selected would be initially very broad and would be iteratively
winnowed down to those factors felt to be the best by groups of qualified, objective scientists.
Third, additional concerns were voiced regarding the biotic level of organization of the fish and
wildlife criteria. The Team felt it was heavily weighted toward the population or sub-organismal
level, with little emphasis at the community level. Further, the criteria seem to represent
"measurements" as opposed to endpointss" (see section on Ecological Assessment and Recovery
Principles). Finally, the Working Group noted the importance of trophic interrelationships,
biological diversity, and the ecosystem significance of keystone species as factors that need fuller
consideration in developing restoration success criteria and indices.


















S( pink shrimp
Ssnail kite



al cover
a. cape sable sparrow


amphibian



invertebrates



periphyton
sea grasses


time (years)

Figure 1: how changes in the different organisms reviewed by the Resource Working
Team distributed in time and space. Organisms in the lower left hand corner of the
graph have an indicator value for small spatial and temporal scales. Organisms in the
upper right hand corner have indicator value at large spatial and temporal scales.
















( sea trout
E snook
0 gray snapper
bass








crappie

killifish
forage fish
grass shrimp
oysters





time (years)

Figure 2: an exmaple of how different members of the fish communities of South Florida
could be used to indicate the success of the ecosystem restoration at different spatial
and temporal scales.







relevance


high ecological relevance


Figure 3: how different biotic variables distribute in terms of their temporal response
to ecological change and the ecological relevance of that change [figure adapted from
Adams et al. (1989) The use of bioindicators for assessing the effects of pollutant stress
in fish. Marine Environmental Research 28: 459-464.]


response

















SOCIETAL WORKING TEAM









SOCIETAL WORKING TEAM


Co-Chairs: Chris Harwell Bonnie Kranzer
University of Miami Governor's Commission


Introduction
As a part of the Workshop on South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria, a Working
Team on Societal Criteria was convened. This Team was created in recognition that restoration of
the greater Everglades ecosystem is both a scientific and societal issue. Understanding and support
for ecological restoration must derive from the affected societal sectors in order to sustain long-
term investments in ecological change.
Nearly thirty environmental managers, academic social scientists, public interest group
members, industry representatives, tribal representatives, and others interested in social issues
were invited to participate in this Team. They were joined throughout the two-day meeting by
about ten other workshop participants from the ecological Working Teams. The Societal Working
Team was co-chaired by Bonnie Kranzer (Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida) and Chris Harwell (Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses, University of Miami).
For the larger goal of achieving a social system existing within a sustainable South Florida
environment, the primary objective of this Team was to address systematically how to identify the
essential characteristics of a sustainable socio-environmental system in this region and how to
measure progress toward creating such a system. The Team was charged with identifying the
critical points of functional intersection between change in the environment and change in society.
The Team agreed that the outcome of this workshop should contribute to an understanding of how
ecological changes intersect with social changes, and the desire was to have this initial discussion
have an impact on the public which is the final arbiters of success or failure of ecosystem
restoration.
The intent of the Team was to utilize and adapt the output of the Federal Interagency Task
Force's Science Subgroup on ecological criteria and measures. The Societal Working Team
wanted to develop a corollary framework in the social environment, with appropriate goals and
concepts (or endpoints) and measurable indices (or indicators). Endpoints were defined as explicit
expressions of the goals and values that are to be protected or restored, while indicators were
defined as measurements of progress toward achieving those goals and values (please see the
following section, "Ecological Assessment and Recovery Principles," for a fuller discussion). The









Team recognized that it was often straightforward to assess the degree and direction of changes in a
social system through analysis of data on various economic and social components. However, the
Team recognized that goals and values that addressed environmental health, sustainability, and
integrity were undoubtedly of high societal relevance but were also the least amenable to
measurement. This discontinuity between what can be measured and what should be measured is
an important observation of the Working Team discussions.
Some existing endpoint and indicator frameworks that were examined and discussed by the
Team include: 1) domain-based (environment, economics, society); 2) sectoral (e.g., how cities
organize themselves); 3) goal-based (objectives and targets); 4) issue-based (e.g., waste
management, jobs); or 5) causal (incorporating conditions, stresses, and responses). It was
decided to focus discussions on endpoints and indicators that could be used to describe a society
that supports a sustainable environment. While this may result in some idealization of the topics,
the Team felt that it was important not only to relate to the regional social system as it exists now,
but as it would need to be changed in order to become supportive of a sustainable ecosystem. The
consensus of the Team was that only a sustainable social system in the region
could lead to a sustainable environment in the region.
As a point of departure for the Team's discussions, all participants examined:
the draft general planning objectives for the restudy of the Central and South Florida
Flood Control System, as developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) (Table 1);
the ecological success indicators (both the original and the restated indices) developed
by the Federal Interagency Task Force's Science Subgroup (Table 2);
the draft matrix of societal impacts of options for restoration (Table 3) and the
conceptual model of societal-ecosystem interactions (Figure 1) created by the U.S. Man
and the Biosphere Program's Human-Dominated Systems (US MAB) project on South
Florida;
the social science plan for South Florida's National Park Service units (draft, March
1996);
a list of social and economic issues that connect to the environment, as derived from the
initial report of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida (Table 4)
an article on the plan for the South Dade Watershed Project funded by the South Florida
Water Management District and the University of Miami Center for Urban and
Community Design; and









several conceptual frameworks for development of sustainability indicators, as drawn
from the social science literature.
The Governor's Commission has stated in its report that current trends in the South Florida
environment are not sustainable. To address these issues, the Commission's initial report
examined 110 options that can be grouped into three major categories: 1) the environment, 2)
economics and people, and 3) the urban form. The Team discussed the interactions of these three
categories of options for change.
Three further perspectives on the human-environment relationship were discussed: 1) the
concept of carrying capacity, or the finite ability of an environment to support a sustainable human
population; 2) classical economic relationships between society and the environment, with
questions about whether current economic tools have correct mechanisms for examining human
activities integrated within their environment; and 3) a political look at inequity, with questions
about whether there is a need to shift resources.
As their initial task, the Team examined the endpoints and indicators developed by the
Interagency Task Force's Science Subgroup. These indicators, which were concurrently being
reviewed by the three other Working Teams, were discussed as they applied to the social system,
using some of the conceptual frameworks that had been presented during the plenary sessions.
The Team first drew up a lengthy list of objectives for a sustainable ecological and social
system, without prioritization or aggregation. These options or objectives, which included both
endpoints and indicators, were then correlated with the ecological endpoints and indicators that had
been developed by the Science Subgroup, in order to make the connections further between social
change and ecological change (Table 5; note that many societal objectives were related to more than
one ecological objective).
Major issues discussed included the difference between proactive and reactive societally
relevant endpoints and how these would correlate with ecological endpoints; proactive was defined
as what humans do to the environment (e.g., through consumption, pollution); and reactive as
what the environment does to humans (e.g., through changes in human health, the availability of
resources, the provision of economic opportunities). This approach reflects a direct parallelism to
the precursor indices (i.e., driving forces that shape the ecosystem) and success criteria (i.e.,
ecological consequences or responses) used by the Science Subgroup.
Recurring themes in the Team's discussions were efficiency, equity, and quality of life.
Examples of endpoints and indicators within each of these theme areas are provided in Table 6.
These endpoints and indicators were derived from the initial unaggregated listing, which was then
related to proposed changes in the ecological system (Table 5). The three theme areas were viewed









as threads running through each of the proposed ecosystem changes, as those changes related to
either effects on the human society (reactive) or actions that humans could take to affect the
ecosystem (proactive). Thus, the theme areas become the basic building blocks for a fuller
examination of the societal-ecological interactions as the entire eco-social system strives for
sustainability.
It is the Team's recommendation that proposed changes in the environment
should be examined for both proactive and reactive interactions with the social
system, as each topic relates to efficiency, equity, and quality of life.
The efforts at listing these issues made by this Team are preliminary and necessarily
incomplete. It is highly recommended that a concerted effort be made early in the restoration
process to examine fully these issues, using these methods or other appropriate methods.
While recognizing that this issue examination effort should be ongoing during the restoration
process, the Team also discussed a limited set of measures of success. These interim indicators
could be used to discern trends towards achieving social-ecological sustainability for the region. It
was agreed that these interim indicators would be focused more nearly on the short term, in order
to have relevance for public decision-making pertinent to regional ecological restoration.
Suggestions for interim measures of success for specific topic areas are listed in Table 7, as
derived from an aggregation of the thematically relevant endpoints contained in Table 6.
It was suggested that any selected measures of success should be within the same scales,
should be aggregates of specifics, should show up in the regional economy or the regional
ecosystem, and should be system-oriented. They should also be broad indicators to show success
or failure (similar to the use of the under five mortality rate [U5MR], as an indicator of human
health measures)'. In addition to using the analysis of data from administrative records, it was
suggested that opinion survey and response elicitation processes be used to obtain a better idea of
people's perspective on certain issues. It was felt such surveys can provide a different type of
information stream that serves as a barometer of the public's perception of their quality of life.









I Note was made that the group had very little discussion on issues of human health, though this was
thought to be a topic of importance and should be pursued by public health experts.







Societal-Ecosystem Interactions


Control System


Governance
Regime

Legal
Institutions

Resource
Management


Population

Economy

Technology

Values


Societal Context


Interaction Mechanisms

Land Use
Direct
Utilization
External
Inputs
Resource
Competition


Basic
Needs

Quality
of Life

Environmental
Ethic


4-


Feedback Mechanisms


FIGURE 1. (Harwell et al.1996)


-.i .. ;. ....


Nil
, dS ,-?*-,
T:1: Iq
;1'E'-
''M


-4-


.TS, ",i
.,* ,- ,- -
,\ !i !,
: ,_ ,
!..i~lg i y: ;,.,







Attachment A
GENERAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE RESTUDY

1. Improve habitat quality and heterogeneity.
2. Improve connectivity and reduce fragmentation of habitats.

3. Provide the spatial extent of natural areas required to support the mosaic habitat characteristic of
the pre-drained Everglades ecosystem.

4. Improve and protect habitat quality, heterogeneity, and biodiversity in coastal and associated
marine ecosystems.

5. Provide for sustainable populations of native plant and animal species with special attention to
threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.

6. Restore and, where appropriate, improve functional quality of natural systems (including both
wetlands and uplands).

7. Reduce the spatial extent of invasive non-native species to the extent that they do not affect the
natural system.

8. Halt and/or reverse the conditions causing the spread of native species that are threatening (and
perhaps dominating) areas as a result of disturbances such as nutrient enrichment.

9. Restore more natural hydropatterns, including associated sheetflow.
10. Provide more natural quality and quantity, timing and distribution of fresh water flow to and
through the natural Everglades.

11. Provide more natural quality and quantity, timing and distribution of fresh water flow to estuaries
and coral reef ecosystems.

12. Ensure adequate water supply for urban, natural and agricultural needs.
13. Regain lost storage capacity.
14. Restore more natural organic and marl soil formation processes and stop soil subsidence.
15. Improve water quality, including reduction of toxins, and ensure appropriate water quality
consistent with designated uses including restoration and protection of the natural systems.

16. Control saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
17. Integrate the project with local stormwater, waste water and other water management functions.
18. Establish levels of provided flood protection in terms of frequency, depth, and duration.

19. Reduce damages from flooding to public and private property.
20. Provide water management that supports economic diversity and sustainability derived from the
natural and developed systems.

21. Enhance economic opportunities consistent with sustainable marine ecosystem.
22. Protect and preserve cultural and archeological resources and values.
23. Increase recreational opportunities consistent with sustainable natural systems.


WORK IN-PROGRESS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
TABLE 1. (USACOE 1996)












































TABLE 2. (Science Subgroup 1996)


Precursor Success Indices

Original Index Re-Stated Index
I Reinstatement throughout they system of natural hydropatterns and sheet flow as Reinstatement throughout the system of natural hydropatterns and sheetflow as
approximated by natural models approximated by the natural systems model
2 Reduction in body burden of mercury in top carnivores Reduction in body burden of mercury in top carnivores
I Reduction in concentrations of known contaminants in canal surface sediments and
water column at SFWMD monitoring locations Eliminated

4 Reduction in the rate of soil subsidence Organic Soil Accretion and Subsidence
S Reduction in phosphorus loading Reduction in phosphorus loading
6 Reinstatement of natural salinity patterns in estuaries Salinity Criteria for Florida Bay
7 Reduction in turbidity in estuaries Reduction in turbidity in estuaries
8 Increase in ecotone /buffer area throughout the system Conservation of Critical Lands Outside of Protected Areas- Buffers (ud.mr neaEp eoinl inkn)
9 Increase in spatial extent of wildlife corridors/greenways/ilyways Conservation of Critical Lands Outside of Protected Areas Corridors/Greenways/Flyways
(uwa Ladsap EcoKgi Indkea)








Ecological Success Indicators
Original Index Re-Stated Index


I Reestablishment of pre-drainage wading bird nesting colony locations
and timing of nesting
2 Improvement in recruitment of fishery and non-fishery species
3 Increase in fish abundances and reinstatement of species in pre-
disturbance locations
4 Increase in landscape diversity
5 Reduction in prevalence of deformed fish in estuaries
6 Reappearance of missing vegetative landscapes
7 Reduction in expanses of nutrient-tolerant plant species
8 Reduction or elimination of exotic plant species
9 Presence of periphyton community taxonomic composition characteristic
oligotrophic, natural hydroperiod systems
10 Increases in populations of threatened and endangered species

II Increases in coral cover


Re-establishment of Healthy Wading Bird Populations


Fisheries-Based Success Criteria
Coastal and Inland Fish Populations and Communities

Vegetation Change Index (wdr Lndap Eoloal Inda)
Deformed Fish-Based Restoration Success Criteria
Vegetation Change Index (ct LaresrEndap Ecocal Indic)
Changes in Nutrient Tolerant Vegetation (undr Lndscape (CoO(icnds)
Exotic Plant Indicator (undr Lar sapEcologcal Indice.)


Periphyton-based Restoration Success Criteria
Recovery of Regionally Healthy Populations of Endangered, Threatened,
Keystone and Indicator Species of Animals
Increase in coral cover


TABLE 2. (continued)







MATRIX OF SOCIETAL IMPACTS OF OPTIONS FOR RESTORATION
Societal Impact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Direct
Native American areas 00 0 O 00
Physical Dislocation 0 0
Construction Effects 0 *0 + *
Economics
Economic Dislocation 0 O 0 9 + 0
Tourism 0 0 O0 0 0 > 0 0
Re-Engineering Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Road Realignment Costs 0 0
Tax Base Changes 0
Land Purchase Costs 0 0
Water
WaterQuality O 0 0 0 +0 O O 0 O
Urban Water Supply 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
Flood Control 0 9 0 O O
Agriculture
Agricultural Water Supply 0 O
Loss of Agricultural Land 0 + 0
Soil Subsidence > O O
Societal Uses
Recreational Use 0 00 0 0 0 0 9+ O O 0
Estuarine Recreation O O O O O O + +~ O<
Okeechobee Recreation 0
Other
Degree of Political Resistance OC 00 0CO 4+ ( + 0C0 O O O


0 = higher probability, positive impact
O = lower probability, positive impact


* = higher probability, negative impact
+ = lower probability, negative impact


TABLE 3.








Activities and Outputs of Restoration Alternatives


1- planned acquisition of lands (includes Model Lands, Frog Pond, Rocky Glades)
2- removal of L-67A and L-67C (within Water Conservation Areas)
3- removal of L-28 below the tie-back along the west side of 3A
4- increasing flow capacity across Tamiami Trail
5- removal of levees separating WCA 1 from 2, 2A from 2B, 2 from 3, and along Miami Canal alignment
6- management of Lake Okeechobee as a water storage area, including repairing and raising levee
7- acquisition of wetlands contiguous to the core forming a proposed western or eastern buffer (81/2 Square Mile, Bird Drive Basin, Pensu
wetlands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Golden Gate wetlands)
8- management of the proposed eastern and western buffer areas (water supply, storage of runoff, seepage barriers, filtration, aquifer recha
recreation)
9- more extensive purchase and management of former wetlands as an eastern buffer (non-Everglades Agricultural Area lands)
10- management of EAA as a buffer leasing/options on land or rights or use
11- management of EAA as a buffer owning some land or rights or use


TABLE 3.








Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida
Initial Report, October 1995

Social and Economic Issues that connect to the environment

1. Population

2. Economic sectors:
tourism
agriculture
international trade

3. Transportation

5. Land Use/urban sprawl/urban design

6. Water Use

7. Drainage/flood control

8. Pollution, point and non-point

9. Lack of education/conservation/protection-oriented values

10. Energy use


TABLE 4.









RELATIONSHIPS OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIETAL ENDPOINTS


ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS


Reinstatement throughout the system
of natural hydropatterns and sheet flow
as approximated by the natural systems
model







Reduction in body burden of mercury
in top carnivores


Organic soil accretion and subsidence
(reduce subsidence)




Reduction in phosphorus loading


SOCIETAL ENDPOINTS OR INDICATORS


Reduction in urban extent, especially into wetlands
Reinstatement of more natural hydroperiods in the coastal ridge and increase ground water
Restore more natural flooding patterns in urban and urban fringe areas
Increased water supply
Increase spatial extent of natural areas
Decrease per capita/per acre water consumption
Increased efficiency of agricultural water use
Decreased human population near special areas/critical habitats
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal
Increase water re-use (urban/industry/agriculture)


Consumption restrictions removed on freshwater and saltwater fish
Increased confidence of fish as food source


Improved sustainable agricultural indicators
Decreased soil subsidence
Increased efficiency of agricultural water use
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal


Improved sustainable agricultural indicators
Better urban and suburban waste water management and treatment
Increased efficiency of agricultural water use
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal
Increase water re-use (urban/industry/agriculture)


TABLE 5.








Salinity criteria for Florida Bay (reinstate
natural salinity patterns in estuaries)






Reduction in turbidity in estuaries




Conservation of critical lands outside of
protected areas buffers









Conservation of critical lands outside of
protected areas -
corridors/greenways/flyways


Decrease per capita/per acre water consumption
Increased efficiency of agricultural water use
Reduce conversion of permeable to impermeable land
Increase water re-use (urban/industry/agriculture)
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase recreational fishing
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Reduce conversion of permeable to impermeable land
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase recreational fishing
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Reduction in urban extent, especially into wetlands
Improved sustainable agricultural indicators
Increase spatial extent of natural areas
Decreased human population near special areas/critical habitats
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal
Maintenance or growth of green open space
Increased visibility/accessibility to natural areas
Increase low impact uses of environment
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Reduction in urban extent, especially into wetlands
Increase in environmentally sensitive community design
Increase spatial extent of natural areas
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal
Maintenance or growth of green open space (low-impact)
Increased visibility/accessibility to natural areas
Conservation of land in critical areas through corridors, greenways and flyways
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


TABLE 5.








Re-establishment of healthy wading bird
populations



Fisheries-based success criteria
(improvement of species recruitment) and
coastal and inland fish populations and
communities


Vegetation change index (increase in
landscape diversity)








Deformed fish-based restoration success
criteria (reduce prevalence of deformed
fish)


Vegetation change index (reappearance of
missing vegetative landscapes






Changes in nutrient-tolerant vegetation


Increased bird watching
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Increased recreational enjoyment
Increase recreational fishing
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Maintenance or growth of green open space (low-impact)
Increase in environmentally sensitive community design
Increase spatial extent of natural areas
Decreased human population near special areas/critical habitats
Increased use of agricultural practices compatible with ecosystem renewal
Increased visibility/accessibility to natural areas
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Increased confidence of fish as food source
Increase recreational fishing



Maintenance or growth of green open space (low-impact)
Increase in environmentally sensitive community design
Increase spatial extent of natural areas
Increased visibility/accessibility to natural areas
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Reduce non-native species


TABLE 5.








Exotic plant indicator (reduce/eliminate Reduce exotic species harmful to humans
exotic plant species) Reduce non-native species


Periphyton-based restoration success
criteria


Recovery of regionally healthy populations Increased recreational enjoyment
of endangered, threatened, keystone, and Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
indicator species of animals Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


Increase in coral cover Increased recreational enjoyment
Increase in number of return visitors to natural attractions
Increase in eco-tourism/revenue-income


(Unassigned) Create appropriate economic indicators for environment
Incentive-based approaches to sustainable communities
Increased opportunities for environmental employment
Decrease in job loss or duration of job loss from environmental policy
(increase job transfer to environmentally sensitive jobs)
Strong sustainable ethics and practices of resource users
Increase positive environmental behavior
Reduction in waste
Increased participation in environmentally aware groups
Increased sense of "community"


TABLE 5.










SOCIETAL/ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
ENDPOINTS AND INDICATORS


THEMES

Efficiency Maintain or reduce long-term social cost of water supply
Increase personal responsibility for conservation of water
Increase local recharge, site by site
Alter landscaping practices to be water sensitive and place appropriate
Re-examine settlement patterns: urban sprawl, inefficient infrastructure,
hidden subsidies, maintenance of urban growth boundaries
Increase home offices/telecommuting
Enhance public transportation
Create ecologically compatible transportation corridors to reduce habitat
fragmentation
Improve adequacy of infrastructure
Improve building methods (return to early methods for storm protection)
Encourage technology to improve ecologically sensitive construction
Decrease household energy use
Enhance solar energy conversion
Increase composting
Increase efficient use of solid waste
Improve business, community, and industrial waste streams
Improve pesticide and fertilizer use (including agricultural/industrial to
personal)
Improve responses to major storm events/natural catastrophes (codes,
zoning, education)
Reduce soil subsidence
Use full cost accounting (including marginal cost accounting)
Improve access and availability of information/mobility



Equity Assume greater self-responsibility -- individual ownership of ecological
solutions
Provide equitable distribution of the cost of restoration
Provide equitable distribution to society of the benefits of restoration
View social capital as the connector between equity and governance
Reduce institutional conflicts by providing government programs consistent
with environmental restoration
Create shared goals among the government hierarchy


TABLE 6.









Quality of Life Improve public confidence in the quality of the water supply
Provide improved access to recreational amenities, including improving
urban outdoor experiences
Increase public willingness to live in low-impact communities
Re-examine ecological/social settlement patterns, especially for
urban/rural dynamics
Stabilize median income and employment in rural areas
Improve access to environmentally-benign jobs, job mobility
Improve human health through reduced exposure to contaminants, reduced
pollution
Improve seafood/freshwater fish safety
Improve long-term air quality, including contribution to mercury deposition
Reduce water pollution
Improve public access to coastline
Seek stability within the agricultural/industrial sector -- question whether
rates of change are acceptable
Change attitudes about mosquitoes, standing water in front yard, other
natural system attributes


TABLE 6.










PRELIMINARY SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS CRITERIA


Public Interest Indicators

An increase in the people involved in the public processes of the restoration (e.g.,
public attendance at Governor's Commission meetings, Corps of Engineers public
hearings, Interagency Task Force meetings). Caution that this could be a false
indicator (fear of change overrides desire for true contribution in support of
restoration effort).

An increase in the longevity of residency in South Florida (as an indicator of what
people think of their personal investment in the future of the region's environment).

A perception of fairness in the equity of restoration (distribution of costs and
benefits).


Land Use Indicator

A decrease in the number of permits / zoning variances granted in sensitive areas
(i.e., wetlands, agricultural lands, recharge areas, uplands).


Income Related Indicators

A decrease in the number of households living in poverty.
An increase in the median income of the region.


Regional Efficiency Indicator

A reduction in the number of vehicle-miles traveled (relates to community size and
location, corridors).


Human Health Indicator (related to the environment)

A decrease in the number of warnings and closures indicating hazards to human
health.


Water System Indicators

An increase in public confidence in the drinking water supply.
A decrease in the per capital / total volume of water used.
An increase in wastewater treatment (including increased reclamation per capital .


TABLE 7.









Human/Ecosystem Impacts Indicator

A decrease in human-caused pollution per unit of land (air pollution, water
pollution).


Institutional Indicator

An increase in the number of laws and regulations consistent with environmental
restoration and a sustainable ecosystem.


TABLE 7.
















ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND
RECOVERY PRINCIPLES









ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY PRINCIPLES



An important function of the Workshop was to provide a forum for educating and evaluating
the science and management of the South Florida restoration process. It was clear from the
Plenary and Working Team discussions that there was a divergence of opinion on the use of the
term success criteria in specific, on terminology and nomenclature in general, and on the need for
establishing explicit linkages between precursor indices and ecological consequences. The staff at
CMEA thought that it would be useful to provide a summary of ecological assessment and
recovery principles, concepts, and terminology. Such a discussion is particularly timely and
relevant given the concerns expressed by the Working Teams regarding; 1) the absence of an
explicitly stated set of goals and rationale that clearly coupled the science to management decisions;
and 2) the need for a conceptual framework or model that explicitly linked precursor indices,
driving physical forces that are in large measure responsible for shaping the ecological landscape,
with specific endpoints representing a range of scales and complexity. It is the intent of the
discussions that follow to provide a review of assessment and restoration principles, concepts,
terminology, and methods for structuring assessments that will be both informative and useful to
the Science Subgroup, the broader scientific community, and the public in addressing the Working
Team concerns.


Assessment Concepts and Principles
Risks to ecological systems result from individual and multiple stressors acting singly or in
combination over a wide range of spatial, temporal, and ecological scales. Consequently, stressors
often affect one or more ecosystems simultaneously, often requiring that ecological assessments be
conducted at multiple levels of ecological organization. The scale and complexity of ecological
systems and their interaction with anthropogenic and natural stresses present a challenge in
assessing risks, impacts, and recovery in these ecosystems. There are, however, two central
themes critical in understanding the role of stress regimes in ecological assessments. First is the
characterization of both natural and anthropogenic stressors, i.e., their sources, distribution in
space and time, and co-occurrence with biological receptors and processes that are important to the
health of the ecosystem. Second are the changes in characterization of ecological ecosystem
responses because of the actions of one or more stressors. The response of ecological systems can
occur at the species (e.g., keystone, endangered species, etc.), population, community,
ecosystem, and landscape levels of organization. Analyzing and understanding the complex









interactions among stressors and ecosystem responses require a framework that systematically
defines, synthesizes, and interprets relevant and necessary information for the decision maker.
The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a "Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment" (EPA 1992) that has become the principal source of guidance for conducting
ecological assessments within the U.S., Canada, and Europe (Figure 1). The principles and
process described in the Framework are being used as the primary assessment tool for regulating
health and ecological effects throughout this country. Similarly, this same framework has served
as the strategic foundation for the Man and the Biosphere Human Dominated Systems (US MAB)
program (Harwell and Long 1992). The MAB program used a risk-based framework to define
sustainability goals and identify ecological endpoints for a series of landuse and water management
restoration scenarios for South Florida and the Everglades (Harwell et al. 1996). Similarly, these
principles and processes can be used as a framework for the Interagency Science Subgroup to
identify and select precursor and ecological endpoints and measures for evaluating the success of
the restoration. Further, this assessment framework, when coupled with scenario-consequence
analysis, becomes a powerful tool for developing hypotheses that describe the ecological
consequences of specific management options for the whole system (MAB 1996), and more
specifically, for management actions within individual geographic sub-basins.
Risk assessment and recovery of ecological systems can be viewed as opposite sides of the
same coin. Risk assessment is the process of determining the probability (with associated
uncertainty) of a particular event occurring as the result of the action of a specific agent or stressor
(EPA 1992). Similarly, recovery of ecological systems can be viewed as the process for
determining the probability (with associated uncertainty) of a particular event occurring (e.g.,
recovery to a socially and ecologically desired sustainable state) as the result of mitigating the
action of a specific agent (e.g., canals, berms) or stressor (e.g., phosphorus). If one accepts this
premise, then the principles and process of ecological risk assessment can be applied to predicting
the recovery of ecological systems after the removal of the stressor.
The three principal functions of the risk assessment process are: 1) identification of potential
causal relationships between stressors and effects (e.g., precursor indices and ecological
indicators); 2) selection of endpoints, indicators, and success criteria; and 3) development of a
scale-dependent conceptual model that describes the inter-relationships between multiple exposure
pathway co-occurrences and multiple ecological receptors. These functions of the assessment
process are necessary for predicting the consequences of land use and water management actions,
shape the foundation for effective decision-making, and directly address the concerns expressed by
the Working Teams.










Causal Relationships
The goal of the risk assessment process is to establish the causal relationships between human
activities and the resulting types, magnitude, and frequency of disturbance or stress these actions
cause to the environment. Coupled with these effects are the rates and magnitudes of responses of
ecological systems to these disturbances. A simple model that describes the causal linkages among
the various components comprising both the risk assessment and recovery processes is illustrated
in Figure 2. In practice, risk assessment begins with an inventory of sources and their resulting
stressors and proceeds to a determination of the spatial and temporal disturbance or exposure
patterns and pathways. These are then linked to their co-occurrence with ecological receptors or
system-level structures or functions. Models are developed that describe the functional relationship
between magnitude and duration of the disturbance/exposure and the specific ecological responses
endpointss) that have been chosen as measures of ecosystem health. Spatial-temporal disturbance
patterns, co-occurrence with ecological receptors, and stress-response relationships are combined
to estimate risk, i.e., the probability of adverse ecological effects the action of one or more
disturbances in the natural environment. Knowledge of these same relationships can also be used
to "hindcast" the direction and rates of the recovery process.


Goals, Endpoints, and Measures
The potential number and variety of ecosystem properties that can be affected by human
activities is virtually unlimited. Therefore, a process is needed for identifying and selecting the
endpoints and indicators that will be used to define the health of the ecosystem and serve as the
benchmark for the assessment and/or recovery process. For each ecosystem of concern in the
recovery process (e.g., fresh- or saltwater marshes, cypress strand, sawgrass plain), the
manager/scientist must determine which of the myriad ecosystem properties, if sufficiently altered,
would elicit a change in the ecosystem of such ecological and/or societal importance as to serve as
endpoints or indicators of ecosystem health. One approach that can be used to reduce the
dimensionality problem relative to endpoint selection is the use of hierarchy theory.
The concept of hierarchy was developed as a way of understanding highly complex organized
systems. The central theme in hierarchy theory is the concept that organization results from
differences in process rates (O'Neill et al. 1986). This suggests that hierarchy theory provides an
objective way of decomposing complex ecological systems into their essential components. The
properties of hierarchal systems are described in detail in Table 1.









Table 1. Properties of Hierarchal Systems (after Saaty 1987)

ATTRIBUTES HIERARCHAL LEVELS

High Medium Low

Specificity Low Medium High

Abstraction High Moderate Low

Influence Greatest Moderate Low

Concreteness Least Moderate Most

Controllability Least Moderate Most

Certainty Least Moderate Most

Risk Greatest Medium Least


Hierarchal theory makes two important contributions to understanding the relationships among
components of complex systems, providing organizational structure and reducing dimensionality.
The relationships among values/goals, endpoints, and indicators, as discussed in the plenary
session, are essentially hierarchal in nature (Figure 3). For example, goals, and particularly
values, are least controllable. Since they also are most uncertain, they are not amenable to
measurement with the same level of precision as indicators or metrics.
Because each problem setting is unique, the actual endpoints for a particular assessment
generally are specific. The strategy is to focus on developing criteria for selecting the properties of
ecological systems that can be used to estimate the health of the system. These properties, if
sufficiently altered, will constitute a fundamental change in the ecosystem that is of ecological and
societal importance (Gentile et al. 1993). This approach has led to the classification of two types
of endpoints for use in ecological assessments: assessment endpoints, which are explicit
expressions of the environmental values that are to be protected; and measurement endpoints,
which are measurable ecological characteristics that are related to the assessment endpoints (Suter
1990; EPA 1992).


Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints are defined as explicit expressions of ecological system characteristics
which if changed, would constitute a change in the health of the ecosystem (Gentile et al. 1993). A









distinction must be made between all possible changes that could occur and those changes that
really matter ecologically. That is, we must accept the fact that every detectable change does not
necessarily constitute an ecologically significant change. To consider otherwise would mean that
every human activity would ultimately result in adverse ecosystem health changes. Additionally,
assessment endpoints often constitute a suite of characteristics, often overlapping the hierarchal
configuration of the biological organization, from tissue, population, and community, to
ecosystem, landscape, regional, and global levels. Assessment endpoints can represent both
structural (e.g., physical habitat and structure of communities) and functional (e.g.,
decomposition) components of the ecosystem that are at-risk or being restored. The implicit
assumption in using a suite of endpoints is that any significant change occurring in the ecosystem
should be reflected in a concurrent change in at least one of the endpoints. Thus, these assessment
endpoints should represent a parsimonious set of system characteristics that are necessary and
sufficient to indicate change in the heath of the ecological system.
As discussed during the plenary session, it is only the assessment-level endpoints that have a
societal value component and thus serve as a bridge between society's values, the manager's goals,
and the measurements or indicators familiar to scientists (Figure 3) (Costanza 1992). Criteria
proposed for selecting assessment endpoints include: 1) ecological importance; 2) societal value; 3)
susceptibility to the stressor or disturbance; and 4) operational definition. Ideally, one should be
able to estimate or predict such criteria directly from other measurements. The selection of
assessment endpoints is not a trivial task. In addition to being at the point of intersection for
societal values and ecology, the selection of endpoints is often confounded by incompatibility
among spatial, temporal, and ecological scales. Since the ecological systems are responding to
changes in natural or anthropogenic disturbances, scale becomes critically important.


Measurement Endpoints
The second category of endpoints used in ecological assessments and restoration activities is
measurement endpoints (Suter 1990; EPA 1992; Kelly and Harwell 1989). These indicators
measure ecological responses to disturbances related to assessment endpoints. As such, they
possess the following characteristics: 1) amenable to direct measurement; 2) related to assessment
endpoint via algorithm; 3) susceptible to disturbance; 4) appropriate to the spatial and temporal
scale of the disturbance; and 5) exhibit high signal-to-noise ratio. These are the direct measures of
ecological responses that are the most familiar to scientists.
An important consideration in conducting risk or restoration studies is ensuring that the scales
of the disturbance are matched to the responding ecological endpoints. For example, it is of little









use to measure disturbances on a daily basis if the responding ecological endpoint requires two
years to manifest a detectable change. Conversely, measuring an annual value of phosphorus is
too coarse for predicting phytoplankton productivity, which is much more gradual.
Finally, there are two important issues that must be satisfied if endpoints are to be used as
meaningful measures of the success of the restoration process. First, the ecological endpoints and
indicators must encompass appropriately scaled attributes that realistically reflect the health of the
system. Second, there must be clear causal links between the pre-cursor endpoints (e.g., physical
attributes of the system that are functioning as the driving variables shaping the ecology) and
specific ecological systems, receptors, and responses. Satisfying these two objectives will ensure
that causality and ecosystem health are adequately addressed by the decision maker. Together,
these objectives form the foundation of a conceptual model describing the recovery process.


Conceptual Models and Hypotheses
The construction of conceptual models is an essential and powerful tool used in risk-based
assessments. Such models can be qualitative or quantitative descriptions of the potential causal
relationships among landscape activities, sources, stressors, and co-occurring ecological systems.
Typically, a conceptual model includes the following elements: 1) a description of all the stress
regimes/exposure pathways and co-occurring ecological systems; 2) a clear delineation of the
spatial, temporal, and ecological scales and boundaries; 3) a description of endpoints and
indicators; 4) the potential causal pathways linking sources, stress regimes, and ecological
responses; and 5) a series of hypotheses describing the potential impacts (risks). The goal of the
conceptual model is to describe the spectrum of hypotheses (risk or recovery) that are likely to
occur in the problem setting. These hypotheses can be critically examined and ranked in order of
importance based on both empirical data and/or professional judgment.
Building conceptual models and formulating recovery hypotheses have important benefits both
to the public and to managers. Use of these techniques has shown that they: 1) de-mystify the
science; 2) provide a visual description of the rationale for the science that is readily understood; 3)
reduce the complexity and dimensionality of the problem; 4) separate essential from non-essential
information; 5) make complex and sometimes confusing issues transparent; and 6) provide a tool
for visualizing the problem, thus facilitating the communication of important concepts and
relationships. Further, conceptual models can be constructed at different spatial and ecological
scales and for different sub-systems within the larger regional system. For example, models
should be prepared both at the regional scale (e.g., South Florida) and for each of the specific
geographic sub-units identified by the Governors Commission. The development of scale-explicit









models is important because the time frame chosen for the expression of ecological structures and
processes at regional and sub-regional scales obviously will differ. In addition, scale also will
influence the selection of indicators and sampling design used in selecting and monitoring the
temporal component of the performance criteria chosen to measure success.


Recovery Concepts and Principles
In contrast to human health assessments where risks focus on the individual, ecological risk
assessments focus on populations, communities, ecosystems, and landscapes that may or may not
have the ability to recover from perturbations. Consequently, recovery is a significant feature of
the ecological system that needs to be considered when assessing risk. Characterization of
ecological recovery provides information on whether a stress-induced effect on an ecosystem is
reversible or is irrevocable, information that may be particularly important to both the scientist and
the decision maker. Ecological recovery can be characterized in terms of: 1) the rate at which
ecological endpoints rebound once a stress is removed; 2) the amount of recovery that ensues from
reducing the level or frequency of the stress; and 3) the degree of recovery feasible or required for
particular uses.
Several factors that must be considered in evaluating this process include:
the characteristics of the ecosystem;
the nature of the stress;
previous ecosystem experience with the particular type of stress encountered;
the intensity of the initial effect and its spatial extent;
the potential sources of propagules for replacing species;
the degree to which the effects cut across functionally redundant components of the
ecosystem; and
intrinsic time-lags in the ecosystem.
A wide range of methodologies is used to analyze ecological recovery: direct measurement,
use of analogs, simple mathematical models, and detailed process-oriented simulation models. The
approach chosen to characterize ecological recovery, like stress-response analysis, must be
adaptive and flexible, and requires that the user track uncertainties, rely on expert judgment, and
finally produce probabilistic outputs for the decision-maker.


Summary
The purpose of this section is to provide background scientific information on several
important issues discussed within the Plenary and Working Teams sessions. Several points must









be emphasized: 1) there is a large body of peer-reviewed literature that describes the methods and
processes for conducting ecological assessments including both prospective risk assessments and
retrospective recovery studies; 2) this literature represents an internationally accepted framework
for structuring assessments, thus ensuring that critical elements are included and appropriate
linkages are made among management goals, remedial actions, resulting stressors (e.g., chemical,
physical, or biological), and their ecological consequences; and 3) considerable effort has been
devoted over the last five years to formalizing the process of selecting and classifying endpoints,
indicators, and metrics used in assessment activities.
It is our hope that this information will be not only informative but useful to managers,
scientists in the Science Subgroup, and the general public in their quest for restoring the South
Florida ecosystem.


John H. Gentile, Ph.D.
University of Miami


REFERENCES CITED
Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. R. Costanza, B. Norton, and B. Haskel
(Eds.). Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp 239-
256.
Gentile, J.H., M.A. Harwell, W. van der Schalie, S. Norton, and D. Rodier. 1993. Ecological risk assessment: A
scientific perspective. J. Haz. Mat. 35:241-253.
Harwell, M. A. and J. F. Long. 1992. US MAB Human-Dominated Systems Directorate Workshop on ecological
endpoints and sustainability goals. University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, Miami, FL. 115 p.
Harwell, M., J. F. Long, A. Bartuska, J. H. Gentile, C. C. Harwell, V. Myers, and J.C. Ogden. Ecosystem
management to achieve ecological sustainability: The case of South Florida. 1996. Environ. Mgmt.
2Q(4):497-521.
Kelly, J.R. and M.A. Harwell. 1989. Indicators of ecosystem response and recovery. S. Levin, M. Harwell, J.
Kelly, and K. Kimball (Eds.). Ecotoxicology: Problems and approaches. Springer-Verlag, NY. pp. 9-35.
O"Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, and T.F.H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 253 p.
Saaty, J. 1987. Risk, its priority and probability: The analytic hierarchy process. Risk Analysis 2(2):129-142.
Suter II, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Mgmt. 14(1):19-23.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001,
Washington, DC.


























Figure 1. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (After EPA 1992)



























Figure 2. Causal linkages in ecological assessments







GOALS
System sustainability
and health

ENDPOINTS
Ecosystem attributes of
ecological and/or societal
importance

MEASURES
Societal Direct measures
Relevance of system stressors and
I responses

Scientific Relevance

Figure 3. The relative contribution of society and science to the delineation of
goals, endpoints and measures in assessments (After Costanza 1992).



















COMMENTARY: THE EVERGLADES PARTNERSHIP



























39









COMMENTARY: THE EVERGLADES PARTNERSHIP


Background
The Everglades Partnership is being organized as a not-for-profit consortium to promote
cooperation in South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts. The Partnership is a vehicle to facilitate
key institutional players engaged in the South Florida Restoration process by assisting them in
working together on selected issues in ways that are best, fast, smart, and economical. When
incorporated, the Partnership will function as a resource to the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force and the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. In this
context, the Partnership receives a variety of assignments both from the Task Force and the
Commission.
Representatives from over 30 public and private institutions involved in restoration activities
have been planning and organizing the Partnership since May 1995. They have concluded that the
Partnership's program should consist of the following elements: 1) Science Forum and Integration
Program; 2) an Information System Initiative; and 3) a Partnership Development Laboratory.
Although the Partnership will not become incorporated until the Fall of 1996, those involved in
planning are committed to working together informally as a cooperative "network" until
incorporation is completed. Operating as a network, the Partnership is undertaking a number of
projects including this Workshop.
There is widespread consensus today that the Everglades and the South Florida ecosystem have
been seriously degraded and are in need of restoration. Over two billion dollars are being allocated
by government and private sources for this purpose. What does it mean to restore the Everglades
and the South Florida ecosystem? What qualities would be reflected in a restored system? How
clear would the water be? How much water would flow? Where would it flow and when? How
many wading birds would be present? These are but some of the many questions of concern to
those who support and manage the multibillion dollar ecosystem restoration process of South
Florida.
If ecosystem restoration is to be successful, it is critical to define what "success" means. This
requires identifying features and qualities that must be present once restoration efforts are
completed. In addition to clarifying desirable end-states that reflect success, it is equally important
to be able to judge if real progress is being made. This requires identifying specific levels of
improvement that can serve as key indicators of progress for every desired end-state. This
complex task, which has been undertaken primarily by the Interagency Science Subgroup, is
currently at a point requiring both peer evaluation and broader scientific participation. To further









this effort, the Everglades Partnership was asked to facilitate a workshop on sustainability/success
criteria.


The Sustainability Workshop: Consensus Building
A "Workshop on Ecological Sustainability Criteria for South Florida" was held on April 25 and
26, 1996, to review and evaluate the issues of success criteria outlined above. Samuel Poole III,
Executive Director of the SFWMD, requested that those involved in the planning of the Everglades
Partnership conduct such a workshop. The Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses
(CMEA) of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami,
volunteered to host and organize the event. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Jacksonville District also agreed to sponsor and provide support for some of the conference costs
and the publication of this report. By way of context, it should be noted that this workshop on
success criteria was not an isolated event. Rather, it is but one step in an ongoing process of
building an agenda for ecosystem restoration in South Florida by the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force. The Task Force, which includes representatives from Federal agencies,
state government, and the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, interfaces with the Governor's
Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, and seeks the broadest possible input from the
public.
Because the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort is the largest such undertaking in
history and covers a very large and diverse area, building an agenda is complex and challenging.
This process of agenda-building includes at least three components as illustrated in Figure 1. The
cornerstone of this process is an integrative "system" agenda for all of South Florida from the
Kissimmee River to the Keys. As many scientists have pointed out, such an agenda requires more
detailed elaboration for subregional areas such as the Everglades National Park, the Everglades
Agricultural Area and Coastal Estuarine Systems, Southeast Florida, etc. Additionally, in order for
the public policymakers to monitor progress, it would be beneficial to have a relatively short list of
success criteria in the form of a "report card," that can be used both to summarize the most
important strategic end-states to be achieved for each sub-region and to measure and report
progress.
The Workshop on Sustainability Criteria is a key step in building such a report card. The intent
of this workshop was to construct a list of physical and ecological indicators that would reflect the
state of scientific thinking with respect to restoration. These indicators would form the basis for
selecting key criteria for the "report card" and would provide a meaningful tool for monitoring
progress and informing the public. The challenge with the "report card" concept is that it must









convey complex concepts regarding the health of the South Florida ecosystem to a diverse audience
(Figure 2). Building a consensus on success criteria is a two-step process: 1) critically reviewing
the scientific basis for the selection of indicators and criteria used to evaluate the success of the
restoration process; and 2) broadening public and academic participation in the process.
Consequently, the conference participants included a large number natural and social
scientists,representatives of public interest groups, and managers of government agencies. Public
interest participation was particularly important because of our intent to conduct a second
workshop on success criteria specifically for interest groups and the public later in the year.
In keeping with its strategy of using existing information and data, the workshop reviewed and
built upon a preliminary list of success indicators developed by the Science Subgroup of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force). Workshop participants formed four
teams to identify "Success Criteria" and "Indicators" related to Hydrology, Fish and Wildlife,
Landscape, and Social Science. As anticipated, there was both agreement and disagreement on
some of the proposed restoration indicators. Criticism was not unexpected, since this was the first
time that the work of the InterAgency Science Subgroup had been presented and reviewed in an
open scientific forum. Generally, the workshop made good progress both in advancing agreement
and consensus in some areas and in identifying other areas that require further clarification and
agreement. An unanticipated benefit of the workshop was the degree of consensus achieved in
identifying and examining Social Science criteria. An important learning, particularly relevant to
future workshops involving non-scientists, was the need to clarify terms and concepts of success
criteria and indicators and to clearly communicate this information to the public.
This Workshop report is intended to serve two purposes. First, the scientific review and
recommendations from the workshop will be made available to the Science Subgroup of the Task
Force as they continue their challenge of developing indicators and criteria. Second, it will serve
as an important resource in the continuing dialogue to articulate the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Agenda. A planning group will be convened in the Fall to design a second workshop
for a wider audience that will expand upon the continuing work of the Science Subgroup, thereby
furthering our outreach process.
It is my personal hope that this report will be a helpful tool in building a clearer picture of what
meaningful ecological restoration will look like and to visualize real progress toward it as quickly
as possible.
Stuart Langton
Organizing Director, The Everglades Partnership


















Report Card


Integrative System
Agenda
(Baseline Indicators)


Sub-Region Agendas


Figure 1. Agenda Elements for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.


Public
Interest Groups
Concerned Citizens







Managers
Resource & Regulatory
Agencies


Policy Makers
Elected/Appointed
Officials


Figure 2. Key Audiences to Involve in Building a Sustainability Criteria and Baseline
Indicators "Report Card."


Kississimee River
Everglades Agricultural Area
South West Florida
South East Florida
Lake Okeechobee
Everglades National Park
Florida Bay/Biscayne Bay/Keys
Upper East Coast


Scientists

















APPENDICES


















APPENDIX I


Workshop Agenda























44









UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI EVERGLADES PARTNERSHIP

Workshop on South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria
UM/RSMAS
April 25-26, 1996


Agenda


Thursday. April 25


Registration

Welcome and Workshop Overview

South Florida Water Management District

Governmental Task Force

Report from the Governor's Commission

Report from US MAB Human-Dominated Systems
Program: Human/Environment Interaction

Break

US COE Restudy

Natural/Social Science Approach to Sustainability

Defining Performance Measures/Success Criteria
(Ecological and Societal)

Science Subgroup: Endpoints and Indicators

Lunch

Discussion Period

Working Team Sessions

Adjourn/Dean's Reception


Mark Harwell/Stu Langton

Sam Poole

Rock Salt

Dick Pettigrew

Mark Harwell




Stu Appelbaum

Chris Harwell

Mark Harwell/Brad Brown


Wiley Kitchens/John Ogden



Wiley Kitchens/John Ogden


8:30-9:00a

9:00-9:20a

9:20-9:30a

9:30-9:50a

9:50-10:00a

10:00-10:20a


10:20-10:35a

10:35-10:55a

10:55-1 :10a

11:10-11:30a


11:30a-12:30p

12:30-1:15p

1:15-2:15p

2:15-5:30p

5:30p












Update on Consensus List of Scientific
Indices and Indicators

Working Team Sessions (reconvene)

Break

Working Team Sessions (continued)

Lunch

Working Team Sessions (conclude)

Plenary/Working Team Reports


Wrap-up and Adjourn


Working Team Chairs











Mark Harwell and
Work Team Chairs

Stu Langton


Friday. April 26


8:30-9:00a


9:00-10:30a

10:30-10:45a

10:45-12:00n

12:00-12:45p

12:45-2:30p

2:30-3:30p
















APPENDIX II


Charge to Working Teams

























47









MEMORANDUM


April 18, 1996


SUBJECT: Charge to Workgroup Co-Chairs


FROM: Mark A. Harwell, Director
Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses
University of Miami

The Indicator Workshop jointly sponsored by the Everglades Partnership, the Corps of Engineers, and
the University of Miami is the first in a series of activities designed to review the scientific basis for the
selection of indicators and criteria used to evaluate the success of the restoration process and to broaden
public and academic participation in the process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
participating in the workshop and for accepting the responsibility for chairing a workgroup. Your
experience and expertise will be invaluable to the success of the workshop, to facilitating working team
discussions, and to the preparation of the workshop report. To assure proper coordination in the workshop
we would like you to plan on attending workshop breakfast meetings at 0730 in CMEA's Map and Chart
Room in Collier Building April 25 and 26th.

As chairperson of a working team, your main responsibility will be to facilitate the following:

1) discussions of the draft indicator papers prepared by members of the Interagency Science Subgroup
2) coordination and preparation of material for presentation at the plenary and wrap-up sessions
3) recommendations for the Science Subgroup authors to consider in the revision of their reports
4) recommendations for the Everglades Partnership on issues and topics that need to be addressed at
future workshops
5) preparation of a final workgroup report in cooperation with Science Subgroup authors and
rapporteurs

There are three levels of review, proceeding from the general to specific, that will need to be addressed
by each workgroup: 1) the philosophy and strategy for selecting indicators and success criteria; 2) the
adequacy of the indicators to capture the restoration process; and, 3) the utility of the success criteria to
detect and measure changes in the indicators (Figure 1).

Philosophy and Strategy. The first level of review will focus on evaluating the Science Subgroup's
philosophy and scientific rationale for the approach they used to select the suite of indices and indicators
for evaluating the restoration process.

1) What criteria were used to select the proposed indices and indicators?
2) Are there any flaws in the rationale that have gone unnoticed and need to be addressed?

Indicator Review. The second level of review will focus on the sufficiency and adequacy of the
indicators that have been chosen to capture and characterize the restoration process.

1) Do the indicators represent the correct properties and attributes of the system to measure and
are they consistent with the goals of the restoration?









2) Do the proposed suite of indicators fully characterize the important features of the restoration
process?
3) Are additional indicators needed, can some be combined with others, and some deleted?
4) Are the indicators of the appropriate spatial and temporal scale?
5) Are the scales across indicator categories (e.g. hydrology, resources, and landscape)
compatible?

Success Criteria Review. The third level of review will address the sufficiency and adequacy of the
proposed success criteria to detect and measure change in the indicator of interest.

1) Are the linkages between the success criteria and the indicators they are measuring clear and
explicitly stated?
2) Are the success criteria-endpoint linkages consistent with ecological theory and principles?
3) Is the linkage based on inference, professional judgement, statistical analyses, or an other
type of operationally defined algorithm/model?
4) Is there a one-to-one link between success criteria and indicators or are suites of criteria
needed?
5) Are the measures and metrics appropriate? Are others needed?

Finally, the following cross-cutting questions need to be addressed for each indicator and success criteria
whenever appropriate:

1) What are the research and monitoring priorities that need to be considered to implement the
restoration
2) What is the state-of-scientific-practice relative to the models, methods, and measures needed
to implement each indicator and associated success criteria;
3) Are these methods available; and, if not what steps need to be taken to make them available?
4) Prioritize the critical research issues that presently an impediment to evaluating the success of
the restoration process. How may they be addressed?

You will note that the societal working team is not shown on the attached schematic because the process for
that group will be different than that used for the Science Subgroup review. A "straw" document will be
prepared and used as a point of departure and to facilitate discussions of the societal working team.















APPENDIX III


List of Participants

























50









UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI EVERGLADES PARTNERSHIP

Workshop on South Florida Ecological Sustainability Criteria
UM/RSMAS
April 25-26, 1996

List of Participants


NAME AFFILIATION TELEPHONE


Sue Alspach DERM 305/372-6594
Stu Appelbaum USCOE/Jacksonville 904/232-1877
Jerry Ault UM/RSMAS 305/361-4884
Oron Bass Everglades National Park 305/242-7800
Joan Browder NOAA/NMFS 305/361-4270
Brad Brown NOAA/NMFS 305/361-4284
Susan Brown USDA-ARS 407/924-4864
Dave Busch Everglades National Park 305/242-7843
Iliana Caicedo Bioland R&D None provided
H. K. Chaudhari Florida Memorial College 305/626-3696
Dan Childers SERP/FIU 305/342-3101
David Chin UM/Coral Gables 305/284-3391
Barbara Cintron USCOE/Jacksonville 904/232-1692
Wendell Cropper UM/RSMAS 305/361-4029
Michael Crosby NOAA/NOS 305/713-3155
Ken Cummins SFWMD 407/624-6901
Don DeAngelis UM/Coral Gables 305/284-1690
Barbara DeMeo-Anderson Seminole Tribe of Florida 954/966-6300
Christopher Deren University of Florida 407/996-3062
Deborah Drum-Duclos SFWMD 305/669-6947
Nelson Ehrhardt UM/RSMAS 305/361-4741
Jean Evoy DERM 305/372-6594
James Fishman UM/RSMAS 305/361-4639
Milt Friend National Wildlife Health Center 605/264-5411









Kofi Fynn-Aikins U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 407/562-3909
Nancy Gassman Broward County Commission 954/519-1464
Dale Gawlick SFWMD 407/687-6712
Jack Gentile UM/RSMAS 305/362-4152
Barry Glaz U.S. Dept. of Agriculture ARS 407/924-5227
Carole Goodyear NOAA/NMFS 305/361-4255
Pat Gostel SFWMD 407/624-6902
Ken Haddad Florida Marine Research Inst. 813/896-8626
John Halas NOAA/F1. Keys Natl. Mar. Sanctuary 305/451-1644
Bob Halley U.S. Geological Survey 813/893-3100
Tim Harrington Bioland R&D Not provided
Chris Harwell UM/RSMAS 305/361-4168
Mark Harwell UM/RSMAS 305/361-4157
Ben Haskell NOAA/Fl. Keys Natl. Mar. Sanctuary 305/743-2437
Genny Healy UM/RSMAS 305/361-4810
Karyn Hershman Everglades National Park 305/242-7825
Aaron Higer U.S. Geological Survey/SFWMD 407/482-1108
Ron Hilton USCOE/Jacksonville 904/232-2105
Ronald Hofstetter UM/Coral Gables 305/284-6500
Gail Hollander University of Iowa 319/354-9036)
Lewis Hornung USCOE/Jacksonville 904/232-2585
Christine Johnson GAP Commission 904/922-6907
Craig Johnson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 407/562-3909
Ron Jones Florida International University 305/348-3095
Clyde Kiker University of Florida 352/392-2396
Wiley Kitchens NBS 305/348-3095
John Klein NOAA/NOS 301/713-3000
Bonnie Kranzer Gov. Comm. for a Sustainable So. Florida 941/338-2929
Allyn Landers UM/RSMAS 305/361-4752
Stuart Langton Everglades Partnership 941/395-9694
Bob Leeworthy NOAA/NOS 301/713-3000
David Letson UM/RSMAS 305/361-4083









Joette Lorion Friends of the Everglades 305/661-2465
Tom MacVicar MacVicar, Frederico & Lamb, Inc. 407/689-1708
Susan Markley DERM 305/372-6863
Frank Mazotti FL Dept. of Wildlife Ecology & Conserv. 954/370-3725
Agnes McLean SFWMD 407/687-6493
Brien McNeal University of Florida 352/392-1803
Christopher McVoy Environmental Defense Fund/SFWMD 407/687-6510
Todd Messenger Florida Atlantic University 407/691-8553
Patty Metzger Joint Center for Env. & Urban Problems 754-355-5255
John Miller UM Not provided
Wally Milon University of Florida 941/763-4128
Douglas Morrison National Audubon Society 305/371-6399
Victoria Myers UM/RSMAS 305/361-4792
John O'Connor CES 407/655-4783
Jayantha Obeysekera SFWMD 407/687-6503
John Ogden SFWMD 305/348-3095
John Ogden Florida Institute of Oceanography 813/893-9100
Robert Pace U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 407/562-3909
Leonard Pearlstine University of Florida IFAS 352/846-0630
Mary Anne Poole FL Game & Freshwater Fish Commission 407/778-5094
Duncan Powell U.S. EPA 404/347-3555
Nanciann Regalado National Audubon Society 305/371-6399
Mike Robblee Florida International University 305/348-1269
William Robertson Everglades National Park 305/247-2606
Joan Rose University of South Florida 813/553-3928
Pete Rosendahl FLO-SUN Incorporated 407/655-6303
Judy Rubin FACEE 305/441-0909
Rock Salt Florida International University 305/348-4095
Michael Schirripa NOAA/NMFS 305/361-4221
Fred Sklar SFWMD 407/996-3062
George Snyder Everglades Research & Education Center 407/996-3062
Helena Solo-Gabriele UM/Coral Gables 305/284-3489









Ben Starrett State of FL Dept. of Community Affairs 904/488-8466
Melanie Steinkamp U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 407/562-3909
John Sternberg University of Florida IFAS 352/846-6087
Peter Swart UM/RSMAS 305/361-4103
Craig Tepper Seminole Tribe of Florida 941/763-4128
Steve Traxler USCOE/Jacksonville 904/232-3834
Sandra Vargo University of South Florida 813/893-9100
John Wang UM/RSMAS 305/361-4648
Jim Weaver National Biological Survey 352/378-8181
Richard Weisskoff UM/Coral Gables 305/651-6383
Tim Whithe UM/Coral Gables 305/666-3533
Dan Williams UM/Coral Gables 305/284-3439
Cyril Zaneski Miami Herald 305/376-3474




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs