Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Front Matter
 Appendix II
 Appendix III
 Appendix IV
 Appendix V
 Quick Reference Index
 Author Index
 Back Cover

Title: Natural Resources Forum '98
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089824/00001
 Material Information
Title: Natural Resources Forum '98
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Natural Resources Forum
Publisher: Center for Natural Resources, University of Florida,
Copyright Date: 1998
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089824
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: 56511292 - OCLC

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Front Matter
        Front Matter
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        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
    Appendix II
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Appendix III
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
    Appendix IV
        Page 79
    Appendix V
        Page 80
    Quick Reference Index
        Page 81
    Author Index
        Page 82
        Page 83
    Back Cover
        Page 86
Full Text

Natural Resources Forum '98:

Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management & Restoration

June 9-10, 1998
Gainesville Radisson Hotel
2900 S.W. 13th Street
Gainesville, Florida

Center for Natural Resources
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

CNR 1998-1004


e vo \
v. /*0

College of Natural School of Foresa Resoures College of Agriculture
Resources and Environment and Conservation 1I"*ad'rl A Ia.inn>s,
lintu Fodland ArkulSil


Cetet 1Stol
Aquatic Mlants ra

A=ricultura print Swin
teensmid.tx~midr~ mi~na i


Center for Wetlands

operative Extension Service
IMrsflai FeKl and Axnilnhrsiixnc

~i~UGS l~ee~~ee~low~~a

JUNE 9-10, 1998

Conference Summary Document
Prepared by the Center for Natural Resources
Editors: Paula Posas, Nancy Peterson, Suresh Rao
September 1998

University of Florida Office of the Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS):
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
College of Agriculture
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
Center for Natural Resources
Center for Biomass Programs
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants

Florida Sea Grant College (SUS/UF)
College of Natural Resources and the Environment
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, U.S.G.S.
Florida Center for Environmental Studies, FAU
Suwannee River Water Management District

JUNE 9-10, 1998

TITLE PAGE .............. ......... .. ......... .......... .......... 1

S PO N SO R S ................................................................ 1

PREFAC E ................................................................ 3

FORUM INFORMATION ........... .................................... .......... 5

FORUM SUMMARY .......................................................... 6

SPEA KER SUM M ARIES ........................................................ 9

KEYNOTE LECTURERS .................................................. 9
STATE ISSUES PANELISTS ........................................... . 19
THEME SPEAKERS ..................................................... 29
THEME REPORTERS .......... ..................................... 40

GATORBACK REPORTERS..............................................49

APPENDIX I: SPEAKER BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES ............................. . 54

KEYNOTE LECTURERS ................................................. 54
STATE ISSUES PANELISTS ........................................... . 56
THEM E SPEAKERS ..................................................... 60
THEM E REPO RTERS ................................................. 63

GATORBACK REPORTERS ....................... .......... ..... . . .66

APPENDIX II: PROGRAM AGENDA. . ............... ..... .................... 68

APPENDIX III: PARTICIPANT LIST ............................................... 73

APPENDIX IV: FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE ................................... 79

APPENDIX V: FORUM VOLUNTEERS AND STAFF .................................... 80

Q UICK REFERENCE INDEX .................................................... 81

AUTHOR INDEX ................................................ ............ 82




JUNE 9-10, 1998

The "Natural Resources Forum '98: Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management, and Restoration" was
organized to facilitate a gathering of diverse groups of scientists, managers, policy makers, and educators
who are all involved in management of ecosystems in Florida. Our goal in doing so was to provide an
opportunity for a comprehensive and holistic discussion of: (1) the state of ecosystem science which is
being used in support of natural resources policy, regulations, and management; and (2) the status of various
educational and outreach efforts to disseminate critical information regarding current or impending ecosys-
tem management issues.

With the help of the Steering Committee we developed an ambitious and unique format for the Forum '98.
Each day, two keynote speakers opened the meeting and provided overviews to set the stage for the oral
presentations in the succeeding concurrent Theme Sessions. In several Discussion Sessions, we asked
panelists to debate policy, science, education, and management issues related to land and water manage-
ment. We also organized a Poster Session and sought assistance from colleagues who served as "guides" to
translate the authors' findings. Finally, in a concluding Discussion Session, several colleagues provided
Theme Session summaries and critical overviews of information presented at the Forum '98.

At the conference, the participants received a compilation of the abstracts for all the oral presentations and
the poster papers included in the two-day program. This companion document contains summaries of the
four Keynote Talks, all of the Panel Presentations, and the Discussion Sessions. We hope that these two
reports will together not only serve the usual or archival needs, but also as a resource document highlighting
important ecosystem issues and the key players in Florida. Videotapes of the Keynote Lectures and the
Panel Discussion Sessions were also developed. These are available for general distribution, making the
information presented at the Natural Resources Forum '98 more accessible. Our plan is to organize similar
forums in the future on a regular basis, and to facilitate periodic gathering to review major ecosystem issues
and to identify the science and outreach needs that would assist natural resources policy development.

We were fortunate to receive guidance from an excellent steering committee, which also provided a post-
conference evaluation and assisted in identifying themes for future Forums. We had the cooperation and
support of over 100 colleagues from academia, federal and state agencies and non-governmental organiza-
tions who presented papers or posters. We were gratified that a total of 225 participants actively contributed
to the discussion sessions. Nearly 30 colleagues served as panelists and discussion leaders. To all of these
colleagues, we offer our sincere appreciation and thanks.

We are also extremely grateful for the financial support provided by UF/IFAS administration (Dr. James
Davidson, Former Vice President; Dr. Joe Joyce, Interim Vice President; Dr. Richard Jones, Dean for Re-
search; Dr. Christine Waddill, Dean for Extension; Dr. Larry Connor, Dean, College of Agriculture; and Dr.
Steve Humphrey, Dean, College of Natural Resources and Environment), UF/IFAS Schools and Centers
(Dr. Wayne Smith, Chair for the School of Forest Resources and Conservation and Director for the Center
for Biomass Programs; Dr. Bill Seaman, Associate Director of the Florida Sea Grant College; and Dr.
Randall Stocker, Director for the Center of Aquatic and Invasive Plants), and collaborating institutions and
agencies (Dr. Leonard Berry, Director for the Center for Environmental Studies, Florida Atlantic Univer-
sity; and Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director for the Suwannee River Water Management District).

A number of students and others pitched in to help compile the documents and run the conference. In
particular, Ms. Paula Posas reviewed all of the videotapes and worked with the authors in developing this
summary document. We appreciate her diligent efforts in this regard. The UF Department of Continuing
Education, Office of Conferences provided essential administrative and organizational support. Our own


efforts were enhanced because of the dedicated help of many individuals. We thank them for their contribu-
tions. We look forward to continued dialog and collaboration with the agencies and individuals involved in
the first Forum.

Suresh Rao
Director, UF/IFAS/CNR

Joe Schaefer
Assistant Director, UF/IFAS/CNR

Wally Milon
Assistant Director, UF/IFAS/CNR

Nancy Peterson
Coordinator, UF/IFAS/CNR

JUNE 9-10, 1998

Forum Purpose
To discover better ways to link good science with sound ecological policy and broad public education for
making informed, intelligent, and cost-effective choices on ecosystem management and restoration.

Forum Focus and Goals
The Forum focused on science, policy and educational topics pertinent to Ecosystems Management and
Restoration. Emphasis was placed on finding management and policy solutions through linkages, which
included bringing together people within agencies and institutions to study, manage, and restore natural
resources. The first day of the Forum focused on Ecosystem Management, while day two focused on
Ecosystem Restoration issues.

The primary goals were:
1) To increase awareness of current projects, educational programs, and policies.
2) To facilitate discussions that would identify needs and issues.
3) To create working groups to continue efforts that address these needs.

Additional Benefits
Each Forum registrant received a printed copy of the Forum program and a compendium of abstracts for
all volunteered oral and poster presentations. In addition, each Forum registrant received a multi-media
computer CD ROM containing the final conference summary, abstracts of the Keynote Speakers, Theme
Speakers, State Panelists, Theme Reporters, and Gatorback Reporters (Forum Commentators); video
clips of selected speakers, and an electronic copy of the original Forum program and abstracts of the
volunteered presentations. Videotapes of the four keynote speakers, the two state panel discussions, and
the synthesis session presented by the reporters are available through the UF/IFAS Media Library at P.O.
Box 110190, Gainesville, FL 32611-0190. Phone: (352) 392-0437.

Forum Organization
Each day, the Forum was opened by a Plenary Session in which two invited keynote speakers provided
overarching (national or global) perspectives on policy and science. Then, the attendees selected one of
three concurrent Theme Sessions for a closer examination of specific ecosystem types (Uplands, Wet-
lands, Coastal/Marine, Invasive or Exotic Species). Each Theme Session was opened by an invited
Theme speaker to set the stage and was followed by six volunteered papers. A Poster Session featuring
approximately 60 posters was exhibited during both days of the Forum. Posters played a significant part
in the Forum, and on Day 1 a guided tour was conducted. Ample opportunity was provided to interact
with the poster authors.

Day I closed with another Plenary Session focusing on two integrating themes (Integrating Land & Water
Management; Water Quality Impacts on Coastal Ecosystems). For each of these issues, discussion was
led by invited panelists. On Day 2, the Forum closed with a Plenary Session in which invited panelists
summarized the major issues and needs identified in the six theme sessions.

Conference Format
The conference format included oral presentations and posters. Specific attention was devoted to these
activities, and time was set aside to ensure interactions between presenters and attendees. Posters were
displayed on both days, however authors were expected to be present only during the poster session.

Discussion Sessions The focus of the discussion sessions was to identify key issues and needs in
ecosystem management and restoration. A facilitator was assigned to each session and was responsible
for generating a report.


Natural Resources Forum '98: Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management & Restoration
Paula J. Posas, Center for Natural Resources

We cannot solve complex ecological problems with the perspective of one discipline alone, and not without
the collaboration of all stakeholders. Collaboration among resource managers, policy makers, and the
general public is an essential element of building consensus views on conservation and restoration issues.
Natural resource issues are important not only for human health, environmental health, and aesthetic
pleasure, but also for sustaining a healthy economy in Florida. Whether speaking of sustainable food and
fiber production, restoration of habitats, preserving biodiversity, or promoting ecotourism, ecosystem
integrity must be maintained. Wetlands, uplands, coastal areas, and invasive and exotic species all present
their own challenges and opportunities for problem-solving and greater understanding.

Land management strategies prior to ecosystem management fell short of protecting Florida's most impor-
tant natural resources. Their inadequacies stemmed from focusing too narrowly on particular issues in a
disconnected fashion. Fixing one problem often engendered another problem. The perspective of these
earlier strategies did not help managers reconcile the bigger picture and recognize possible balances and
interactions between environmental objectives (deHaven-Smith). While some argue that the ecosystem
management mandate still suffers from some nebulous central concepts and basic definitions, it has ad-
vanced maintenance and restoration of ecosystems by encouraging managers to consider ecosystems,
humans, and linking land and water management all at the same time. In fact, the Ecosystem Management
Initiative of 1993 is getting much clearer, with a proliferation of tools, programs, and strategies for more
effective use and stewardship of Florida's natural resources (Barnett).

Presenters at the Forum '98 took a variety of tacks in their presentations. Several offered case studies
(Gjerstad, Greening, Miley, Steward) and identified specific problems, challenges, and potential models
(Costanza, Rice) for ecosystem management. Some presenters laid out principles and guidelines for
ecosystem management (Barnett, Duever, Lowe). Others addressed process issues (Heller, Mills, Reddy),
obstacles within the system (de Haven-Smith, Scarborough, Sims) and potential solutions (Haas,
Humphrey, Monroe, Sims, Swain).

Conceptual issues such as penalty vs. incentive-based conservation programs stirred up some discussion
(Bendick, Humphrey). On the theme of communication, multiple speakers underscored the critical urgency
in effectively transmitting information to the intended audience, particularly to policy makers (Culen,
Kelly-Begazo, Monroe, Percival). Theme presenters stressed the need for greater visibility and attention to
coastal, estuarine, and marine issues (Gilmore, Seaman) and invasive and exotic species issues (Austin,
Langeland). Still other speakers imparted warnings about the recently discovered dangers of changing
freshwater inflows into estuarine systems (Miley) and the likely shift toward an increasingly business-
oriented Florida Legislature (Latvala).

Despite the wide diversity of topics covered, some themes and threads of continuity emerged from the
presentations. Interestingly, they can all be categorized within the headings of the model Col. Terry Rice
outlined in his Keynote Lecture.

Rice proposed a four-stage model for making and implementing effective policy based on sound science.
The four stages identified were science, education, policy, and management; the four agents then are
scientists, educators, policy-makers and managers. In this model, also known as a theory of agency,
science is transmitted to educators who then inform the public and policy-makers. Policy makers, in turn,
write policy, and then managers carry out that policy. In this way, wise, science-based management of

JUNE 9-10, 1998

natural resources is achieved. In reality, the system does not play out in this manner. In fact, it may not
even be ideal, since stakeholder involvement in policy decisions is not explicitly included. Science is not
the cure-all if we are not standing on a strong foundation of linked interests and a wide stakeholder
support base. The ideal model is more of a complex linkage exercise than a relay race. Stephen
Humphrey mentioned that in his experience, policy is arrived at in a rather piecemeal way. Particular
interests discern ways to avoid or reduce their share of the costs of linked research, education, and policy
outcomes, and then they influence or direct policy accordingly. In order to move in a less biased, more
systematic direction and have a society that invests in science-based policy, he recommends that we
recognize and develop alternative theories of agency. This will help us visualize how to build and sustain
necessary linkages (Humphrey).

One major obstacle in the proposed theory of agency happens even before the first linkage. The culture
of science threatens the stability of the model's foundation. There are three main reasons for this: (1)
Scientists usually have a disciplinary focus, and are not in the habit of linking across disciplines. (2)
Natural science research results often stay within the scientific community. (3) Few scientists have
ventured into the area of influencing policy outcomes. Instead of being content to sit on the sidelines,
though, scientists need to "get into the fray." This does not have to take the form of being an activist, but
rather an advocate and communicator.

The second link in the model involves education. Several strong points were made highlighting the
impact and importance of education. In the realm of public education, information needs to be directed
into proper channels through a variety of media. The general public is often misinformed or insuffi-
ciently knowledgeable about state natural resource issues, particularly the benefits, interrelatedness, and
importance of certain ecosystems in maintaining and generating our state natural resources. Our goal
must be to convey information in a language that the intended audience can respond to and specifically to
target people in decision-making positions.

Some relatively new programs are educating and addressing natural resource issues in innovative ways.
"Florida Yards and Neighborhoods," a homeowner incentive/education program, the "Master Wildlife
Conservationist" Extension Program, and the "Lake Watch" Program give lay people the opportunity to
take account for water quality and contribute to local natural resource management. Specific programs
such as these are an important part of sustaining and protecting Florida's natural resource base. In these
programs, it is important that educators and program designers address as wide a cross-section of society
as possible.

Effective education is necessary for changes in policy and behavior. It needs to transmit not only scien-
tific information but cultivate an environmental ethic, the idea of shared responsibility, and the basic
understanding that healthy ecosystems are related to a healthy economy.

Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems whose balances and feedbacks are incompletely understood.
In the face of managing with limited predictability, it is wise and advisable to err on side of caution.
Adaptive management is one way to do this. Embedded in this concept are the directives to build in
flexibility, i.e. take a bit and try it first on a small scale. If the strategy to be implemented costs a great
deal and particularly if it involves public funds, there must be a high probability that strategy implemen-
tation on a larger scale will work.

Some possible solutions to our environmental and ecosystem problems are teaching linkages, training
people to see, make, and promote linkages. Great benefit will come from educational systems that foster
the development of more Rachel Carsons, Aldo Leopolds, and Marjorie Stoneman Douglases; there is a
need for people who can translate their scientific understanding to the public and catalyze action by


effectively communicating the urgency of public causes. When organizations, agencies, governments,
and educational institutions link, care must be taken to forge linkages that are mutually enforcing. Link-
ages are not just for funding relationships, but for facilitating actual exchange between scientists and
people involved in projects. Additionally, linking and educational efforts in this vein need to be institu-
tionalized, so they do not depend solely on good will and constant search for funding.

One important reminder is that local governments must become major players in linking land-use and
conservation planning, because in Florida, local governments are responsible for land-use management.
Furthermore, regional comprehensive growth management plans must contain regional water supply
programs and the five Water Management Districts must provide accurate needs and source assessments
(Scarborough). Sound planning and wise use of natural resources becomes increasingly important, since
Florida's current population of 15,012,200 grows at an approximate net rate of 700-800 people per day.
In other words, every two months Florida gains a new population approximately the size of current
populations in Deerfield Beach, Ocala, or Gadsden County. (Statistics from "Supplement to Sales and
Marketing Management: 1998 Survey of Buying Power and Media Markets.")

Presenters and participants continually reiterated the importance of "thinking outside of the box." Cir-
cumstances in the past were different; we need not circumscribe our actions or limit our scope of influ-
ence by perpetuating a status quo that applied to different times and less pressured conditions. Instead of
becoming complacent or disheartened about our deteriorating environment, we must search for creative
solutions by increasing linkages, looking across disciplines, taking stock of available resources and
elastic variables, and improving communication between scientists, teachers, policy-makers, managers
and the general public. We need to develop ideas, strategies, tools, and values that will help us balance
development pressures with our long-term environmental needs. In our individual and collective endeav-
ors we must keep alert to new ideas and take hold of anything that will promote wise ecosystem manage-
ment and increase our understanding and reaction time to the pressing issues we face as Floridians and
world citizens.

Frank and Ernest
A A rn

SOHII wou! |


Copyrignt (c) 1998 by Thaves. D slbuted irom www thecom~cs.com. Used with permission

Note: Poster Presentation Abstracts and the Forum Proceedings can be found on the Web at
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/-cnr web/index.HTM. Click "SERVICES" and then "Natural Resources


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Transdisciplinary Approach to Ecosystem Management:
Integrative Modeling of Ecological and Economic Systems
Keynote Address, June 9,1998
Robert Costanza
Director, University of Maryland Institute for Ecological Economics

Ecological economics transcends disciplinary boundaries. As people have noted in the business commu-
nity, many important innovations happen by "thinking outside the box." In academia, we've boxed
ourselves in with disciplinary definitions. It's time for us to also get outside the box. This approach
needs to be increasingly emphasized, because we cannot solve any of the complex environmental prob-
lems with the perspective of any one discipline alone. And we certainly cannot solve them as academic
researchers and scientists working in isolation from the rest of the policy and decision-making process
and in isolation from the general public.

First of all, we need to think about modeling. In a broad sense, modeling is any conceptualization or
abstraction of the problem that we can use to help us understand and move forward. This particular
integrative modeling approach has certain characteristics we need to keep in mind.

We can use the process as a consensus-building tool as well as its traditional role of analytical
device. If academics conceptualize the problem and do their mathematical models in isolation and
say here's how the world works and here's what you should do about it, most people will react
negatively to that. So, if we bring the stakeholders into the process as early as possible and actually
build the model together, I think we can make much more progress toward a group understanding.

These models are most appropriate at the landscape and watershed scale, because at that scale
the interaction between ecological and economic systems and their components are obvious.

When doing this type of thing we need to acknowledge very clearly the uncertainty involved in our
understanding of these systems. We may never know precisely the impacts of our actions in the
future, because we are dealing with complex, adaptive systems. Due to the fact that we are dealing
with this in designing regulatory and management systems might the "precautionary principle"
which says that where there is limited predictability, we must err on the side of caution.

There really is no such thing as value-free science. Even the decision of what to study involves a
value judgement. Rather than pretending that our values and assumptions do not exist, it is much
more valuable to acknowledge them so we can have a science that is less biased and more fair, but
not one that is free of values because that is not possible.

All models are simplifications of the real world. There are different ways of making those simplifica-
tions. In the past what we have tended to do is to narrow our focus and simplify by breaking the linkages
between the parts and simplifying the system. To do this kind of integrated model we have to take the
reverse approach and simplify by keeping the linkages between the parts and synthesizing their interac-
tions while losing some of the detail of the individual pieces.

This is not the only way to approach modeling. We need to take a pluralistic approach to this kind of
modeling. There is no one right way to do it. It is a matter of putting together several different perspec-


tives and seeing how they all fall out. In addition to a pluralism of approaches, we need approaches that
acknowledge the history of these landscapes and watersheds and the fact that these natural systems are
evolving. Representing these systems is more of an evolution process than a strict optimization process.

One final point to keep in mind is to approach this kind of modeling in a step-wise fashion. As scientists,
we often jump down to the most detailed kinds of models that we know how to do, whereas to actually
build this participatory and consensus component we need to go through the process in a slightly different
way. I use this three-step model and start with:

Scoping Models-high generality, low resolution models that you can build with broad participation by
all the stakeholder groups affected by the problem and allow that kind of exercise to then determine
what goes into the more detailed and realistic attempts to represent the dynamics of the system,
Research Models-calibrating and testing the models; how well do they represent the behavior of the
Management Models-scenario analysis and looking at the implications of various kinds of policies.

Since this list is in order of increasing complexity, cost, realism, and precision, it is cost-effective. You do
not want to end at the bottom spending a lot of money on a management model that does not incorporate
the interests and concerns of stakeholders that are part of the problem.

In the case studies of the Florida Everglades (protected) and Maryland Patuxent Watershed (unprotected
and subject to development pressures) we used the principles and went through the stages mentioned

Many of these maps and models are good for understanding ecosystem history, communicating with
stakeholders, estimating the value of ecosystems, and making projections and informed decisions about
future policies.

For more information on ecological economics, specific modeling studies, and details (calibrating, scaling,
representing complex ecological relationships over time, etc.) please refer to the following websites (**
sites visited during the talk).

University of Maryland Institute for Ecological Economics

International Institute for Ecological Economics

Ecological Economics the Journal of ISEE
http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/isee pubs.html

Distributed Modular Spatial Ecosystem Modeling

**Integrated Modeling and Valuation of Patuxent River Watershed

**Landscape Modeling in the Florida Everglades

Note: The Center for Natural Resources wrote this summary based on Dr. Costanza's presentation.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Keynote Lecture, June 9,1998
Senator Jack Latvala
The Florida Senate, Senate District 19

I have found in the past two years that the environment is not a partisan issue. I came to the Natural
Resources Committee and the environmental issues before our legislature by accident. I was a business
person with a very heavy political background. I chose the Natural Resource Committee, because I was
interested in fishing, and had seen a steady decline in the fish off my dock. Originally, I had asked to be
involved in salt water fishing issues, but I gradually became involved in many other issues and was
appointed Chairman of the Florida Senate Natural Resources Committee.

As a business person, my other interest was economics. The environment in Florida is a big economic
issue, the key to our growth and development as a state. Our number one industry is the environment
which we project to tourists and people who migrate here. They like our beaches, our rivers, the Ever-
glades, our lakes, our natural environment. Thus, the environment is a business issue. As we look at
promoting Florida's business interests, it's important to look at the environment as a piece of that pack-
age. Two years ago, I was appointed Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. In that time we've
tried to walk down the middle path, striking a balance between business and environmental issues.

We have had several positive accomplishments in the last few years. Clearwater, in my area, has the first
Brownfield pilot project in Florida to be acknowledged by the Federal Government. It is in a minority,
low-income area in my district. There used to be a lot of industry there, but now it is a lot of abandoned
buildings. They asked me to be involved in creating a legislative package and design a mechanism for
the redevelopment of those sites. We came up with a bill that brought business and industry into the
environmental clean-up of those underutilized lands in the Brownfield Redevelopment Act of 1997.

In the area that I represent, there is no drinking water under much of Pinellas County because of salt-
water intrusion. There are a number of bad Brownfield sites with no water wells on them. Under the old
law, water had to be cleaned up to drinking water standards even thought there were no water wells
around. Now with the Brownfield Act and the mechanism we put in place, the water has to be suffi-
ciently, but not unreasonably, clean and thus industry is more likely to take on the clean-up.

In the first year we established a mechanism and in the second year we introduced incentives to try to get
businesses involved. We set up a loan guarantee fund so that an industry that wants to take an old
building and rehabilitate it can go to the state and get a partial guarantee of the loan. We set up a revolv-
ing loan fund where developers or local government can clear the title to some of the orphan lands that
are out there, including old filling stations and land that is so contaminated people cannot even give it
away. We have also put in place tax incentives and tax credits for people who want to voluntarily clean
up using their own money.

The Dry Cleaning Contamination Clean-Up Program had become like a black hole over the past years.
No one could put a dollar figure on how much it would cost to clean up the sites, because it was an open-
ended program and sites could be added ad infinitum. This year we have closed off the program, put in a
risk-based mechanism for the clean-up of dry cleaning sites, and made other efforts to promote that
program in general.

On the marine resources, we have slowly added teeth to the Amendment of 1994 to limit gill netting.
The commercial interests are very strong, but every year for the past three years we have taken additional
steps such as finding where gill nets are, putting penalties in place, and attempting to stop poaching.

-11 -


I know each of you understands the importance of water and proper planning for our water resources.
Twenty-five years ago when we should have been doing planning, we were not and the water situation
reached crisis proportions in the Tampa Bay area right when I came to office in 1994. In Pinellas County
where only 40% of the water we use comes from under our county, it is particularly important. Wells
and lakes were drying up from overpumping. Last year we passed a major comprehensive Water Re-
source Bill that mandates the water management districts to do the things they were told to 25 years ago
and establish minimal water flow levels on a five year planning horizon. If we build roads on a 5-year
planning horizon it also makes sense to develop water resources in the same fashion.

Tomorrow in a historic agreement, the Governor will sign the legislation in which, by democratic vote,
all three counties in the Tampa Bay area will pay the same price and all get water from the same supply.
We are all in the proverbial tank together. We sink or swim together in the future. This will bring a
much more regional approach and perspective to solving the natural resource problems we have.

Additionally, the "Local Sources First" legislation puts into statute the legislative intent which mandates
that people use their water locally before looking any place else. A partnership agreement with the
Southwest Florida Water Management District will put in place the alternative sources that we have
lagged behind in developing over the last few years and undercut our reliance on underground pumping.

Some shortcomings of the few years include not getting an extension on the Preservation-2000 Land
Acquisition, failing to make any changes with the Oklawaha River, and not passing any significant
legislation on the Everglades. Governor Lawton Chiles did, however, veto a measure promoted by the
sugar companies that would have been harmful to the environment.

The dynamic of the decision-making process of Tallahassee is changing and has changed. We now have
a legislature that is comfortably in conservative, business-oriented control. It happens to be Republican,
but there are a lot of conservative Democrats that also assist in doing some of the things that the business
and industrial community like to do with regard to the environment. The dynamics over the past year or
two are that the House of Representatives has been the most oriented to the business, industrial, and
agricultural communities. The Senate has been more in the middle trying to bring compromises between
those communities and our environmental needs. And the Governor has been the traffic cop to stop or
threaten to stop things that are really bad and force us to make compromises in the Senate.

This system has worked fairly well for the past two years. But what I want to dwell on is the future of
that decision. If "the creek don't rise," we are going to have a government starting in January that is
controlled 100% by Republicans, conservative Republicans. Right now we have a Republican candidate
for governor who is 13 points ahead in the polls; there is potentially no traffic cop on the other end
demanding a compromise between business and industrial communities and the environmental commu-
nity. This is not to say that I think Jeb Bush is going to be anti-environment, in fact the opposite. We
have worked with him and gotten him to support some things such as Preservation-2000, but I think it is
going be much easier in the future for business and industrial communities to get their legislation passed
and signed.

One thing I have learned from my time on the Natural Resource Committee is that the environmental
community and the environmental activists have not learned how to compromise. This year we had a few
examples. I thought the time and political climate were right to pass P-2000. I think we should be able
to use those lands and put water wells on them, but the environmental community sees many of these
small concessions as major stumbling blocks. Some people want all or nothing, they are only willing to
go through with it if it is 100% their way. I do not see how that will help the state of Florida with Preser-
vation-2000 or in general. We need to find the right balance. We have to look at the big picture, the


JUNE 9-10, 1998

change in political demographics, and the taxpayer's opinions, and then make what headway we can.

As we continue to promote the growth and healthy business climate of Florida, it is important to under-
stand we have to find the right balance. We have to draw the lines on certain things, our natural trea-
sures-the coastal areas, the Everglades, St. Johns River, and Lake Okeechobee-but before refusing to
permit some timbering in a big forest out in the middle of nowhere, we need to think twice.

I want to leave you with the thought that government is changing, and that we need to look at the big
picture and not all the little ones when we make decisions in the best interest of our state.

Note: The Center for Natural Resources wrote this transcription of Senator Latvala's presentation.



Environmental Issues and Legislation: Creating an Agenda for the Future
Keynote Lecture, June 10, 1998
Jon Mills, J.D.
Founder and Director, UF Center for Governmental Responsibility

As I stood in the middle of the Atlantic rain forest in the coastal Brazil State of Parana, these words came to

"Do not mess with Mother Nature or She will get you."

As we look at environmental policy for the next millennium, there are several "Do's" and "Don'ts" we need
to keep in mind:

The next generation needs to remember to try to exert less command and control of the environment. They
should keep in mind the successes of their predecessors with such projects as the Vistula River.

We must be careful not to lull ourselves into thinking that there is a "scientific genie" who can solve all the
problems that we have brought upon ourselves. No genie, only Nature, can supply hard-to-replace re-
sources such as air and water.

We must be equally careful not to believe in past trends. After all, Florida would not be like it is today if it
were not for unforeseeable events such as air travel, mosquito control, air conditioning, Fidel Castro and
Walt Disney. Who, of those living in 1845, would have ever thought that Florida could be anything but
uninhabitable? And in 1943, the chairman of IBM said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five

We must also not let ourselves believe that price signals will be sufficient to conserve vital resources such
as water and clean air.

Here are some basic principles I would like all of you to keep in mind for the future:

1. Environmental issues are broader than governments and corporations. Such issues will require more
and more multijurisdictional agreements concerning sovereignty, etc. over the natural resources in

2. Science and Policy MUST work together. We need to stop thinking that we can control nature. We
must ALL work together and remember that we cannot fool science or nature. Ultimately, whether we
like it or not, we cannot make environmental policies that would dictate results in opposition to the
laws that govern science and nature. It is imperative that we develop systems in which science and
policy makers work more closely together.

3. We must learn to make decisions with interdisciplinary considerations, decisions that take into ac-
count such fields as science, trade, economics and international policy as well as the environment and
natural resources. We must accept that this will be a very complex phase in the development of
successful environmental policies. Keep in mind however, that, as we globalize the economy, we will
globalize environmental issues. (Mexico tuna policy)

4. We will have to determine the role of the developed world in establishing global environmental
policies. Are we going to lead, conserve or dictate? We must recognize all the issues that are linked to
any given environmental issue and bring those to the table as well when we develop any future poli-


JUNE 9-10, 1998

5. While we can use our common sense to develop some of the solutions, such as mitigation, easements
and buying land, we also need to remember that penalties do not always work and that enforcement of
a policy is as critical as the policy itself. It is equally important that we recognize the logical argu-
ments of opponents and seek to develop coalitions among all kinds of environmentalists, uniting tree
huggers, redneck ECO freaks, cocktail party environmentalists, poll respondent environmentalists
and NIMBY environmentalists.

Now is the time to seek the values and a vision that describe the issue. That is, how do we make sense of
reality? How do we describe this issue of the environment? As a legacy for future generations? As a way
to make life better for the rest of the world? Will some people have to be made worse off in order to make
someone else better off? Should the environmental issue be one of aesthetics? Of economics? Of survival?
We must help to define the issues in a way that is real and relevant.

I remain an optimist. I believe that complexity is not a bad thing and that the internationalization of many
diverse issues can have a beneficial impact on environmental issues.

We should be inspired to work on issues larger than ourselves.

We should create a vision that recognizes the value of natural resources to our basic well-being and sur-

Being part of nature is part of being human.

When the wind and trees are no longer part of the human spirit, then we are a kind of cosmic outlaw.

I think we must think in terms of basic values. We should be willing to plant the seed to grow a tree that
will shade our grandchildren. That is something we should all be able to believe in.



Keynote Lecture, June 10, 1998
Terry L. Rice, Colonel (Ret.), Ph.D., P.E.
US Army Corps of Engineers

I did not realize the problems we face in this region. Although we are at a different level of development,
the issues are the same as in any less developed country; how to live in harmony with this world and have a
smooth interface between protecting the environment and developing economically. If we cannot solve
these problems here at home where we have people who understand the problem, who recognize the
problem, who are bringing resources to the table, and who really care about the resources, how are we ever
going to be able to solve them in the developing world? We have an auspicious situation. Maybe our role
is to make an example here and spread it to the rest of the world.

Florida's 5.5 million current residents are projected to grow to 15 million by 2050. Can we ever be suc-
cessful with restoration when we cannot catch up with all the people who are continually destroying the
environment? As we mentioned yesterday, you have to have growth management that accommodates not
only the environment, but people's growth. Right now we do not have a system that allows that to happen.

As an engineer, I organize my thoughts using models. The themes of the Forum keep coming back to the
"institutional model." This model essentially says: The institution at the foundation of what we are trying
to do is science. You have to know what the truth is. Then we have education, so people can understand
what the truth is. Then those people are supposed to elect officials to carry out that truth, set the policies,
establish the laws. Then managers are supposed to go out, execute, and implement the laws the policy-
makers have promulgated.

This is not how things work right now. All the Forum discussions seem to be trying to figure how science,
education, policy, and management are they linked. How do they work together, how should we proceed in
the future to ensure they are working harmoniously? Much of the time you get policy makers implement-
ing things not based on science, not based on an educated population. That is not a clear, sustainable path
to the future. We are making some progress, though.


There are three things I like to identify that are helping us make some progress in South Florida.

1.) A HOLISTIC APPROACH: You have to look at a whole ecosystem. I can give you numerous ex-
amples in South Florida where we have messed up because we have tried to solve one problem and ended
up creating another. One example is draining agricultural lands, pumping water to Lake Okeechobee, and
raising phosphorous levels. With the Everglades, 18,000 sq. miles, you have got to look at the whole thing
at one time. It is a big area. You do not just look at one aspect of that. If you do not know how that effects
the rest of the system, then you had better be careful of what you are doing.

The Army Corps of Engineers went through a process to develop the South Florida system back in 1948.
Through 1969, we had done flood control, addressed water supply, and prevented salt water intrusion, but
we did not know much about environment, because we sure messed up. In 1992, Congress passed two
resolutions and a law directing the Army Corps of Engineers to figure out the entire ecosystem and tell
them what should be modified for the environment plus take care of those other initiatives that were part of
the project. Before that, a project like that was unheard of. The Corps of Engineers typically does one little
thing here and one little thing there, continuing to mess things up. Congress directed this. All at one time
simultaneously. In July 1999, there will be a report submitted to Congress telling how the Corps and all the
stakeholders believe that the system should be restored.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

2.) TEAMWORK: We need people working together. The Corps used to be famous for going out to do
something. This is what we are going to do for you, and at the end you are going to like it. Unfortunately
that does not always work well. Not only do you send the wrong perceptions, but you get the wrong
results. In September 1993, in a watershed moment, Secretary Babbitt established the Federal South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force bringing together six agencies in Washington, DC; the Depart-
ment of Army, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency. He
directed them to go out and work together. The working group meets every month except August. That
working group was later followed up by the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. We
want to make sure economics, policy, public and private sectors, and environmentalists are in there to be
sure that all of it is working together for a sustainable South Florida.

3.) ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: A.) Do not build things for only one level of operation. Build in
flexibility. B.) Take a little bit and try it first. If you're going to fill in the Kissimmee River, try it, do a
test plug of the 25 miles. Do all kinds of monitoring to make sure it works. We have done that this time,
and in March of 1999 we start the full scale moving of dirt back into the Kissimmee. C.) If you are going
to spend a lot of money, you need to have a high probability that it will work. There are things such as
Lake Okeechobee that I have a hard time looking at without seeing the whole plan. We have boxed
ourselves into too many canyons, and we need to not do that in the future.


1.) ACCOUNTABILITY-When you cannot find accountability in this process, agencies and people from
agencies can do things and be wrong. If you do not have accountability in process, people get away with
murder and no one even notices. Lake Okeechobee at its highest levels ever-that kills the littoral zone
which is important for biological productivity; it is dangerous for the levee because it was built in the
1930s when they did not have the best engineering techniques. The water has been well over historical
levels, and is even backed up into the Big Cypress Swamp where it has killed pine tree islands. Water is
being pushed out into the estuaries, and endangered species have suffered. Freshwater pollutes the estuar-
ies which is evidenced by lesions on fish in the Indian River Lagoon and the Caloosahatchee. This is all
because people have not done their job. The system is suffering, because people are not being accountable
for what they have to accomplish.

2.) SCIENCE: Science loses its vote in this process. I can give you some sterling examples of how it is
working very, very well, but still yet for the most part there is an inability on the part of science to vote on
the critical issues that are out there. When I went to the scientific community for information to make a
permit decision, six different scientists would give me six different answers.

Unfortunately the culture of science is hard to bring into the real world. The scientific community frowns
on applied science. It is not only in the universities, but also in agencies. They reward people for publish-
ing papers on esoteric things that do not really apply to the real world. Now the question becomes, how do
you change all that, how do you get science into the fray?

The scientists could come together internally. How can we as a community be a part? I have always had a
dream of a Supreme Court of Science in which scientists could say things without fear of losing their jobs,
give their best estimate or guess. Whether scientists come to me with a minority or majority opinion, or
with consensus, that helps me make a decision. Something needs to be done so science is in the process.

3.) EDUCATION: I have been doing work in the Everglades for four years, and it is the same 500 people
in different permutations, rolling up their sleeves and getting down to business-scientists, engineers,



managers and reporters. Maybe 5000 have some understanding; they are interested and know what needs
to be done. Then there are the rest of the people. They are not well informed, they do not understand.
They think the Everglades have been saved. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas received over 100 letters on
herl08'h birthday, and over 90% of them said thank you for saving the Everglades. People do not under-
stand what this is about. They do not know what the truth is, they do not know how important it is. The
Everglades is not saved. It is a subtle problem, it does not kill you overnight; but it will kill you some day.
Your tap works and everybody is happy. Water does not disappear overnight; whereas crime, education,
and illegal immigration are with us here every day.

We have to do better at educating people they have to be able to vote with informed discretion. Educa-
tion is essential to our future and we need an army of support.

that allows us to easily link land-use planning and conservation planning. As a regulator, in this Ever-
glades restudy, we are trying to save about 1.7 million acre-feet of water a year. We are pushing it out to
the ocean now, but we want to save it, keep it in the aquifers, and use it. There are counties out there
rezoning the land for commercial purposes even as we are trying to buy it. They are driving the prices sky
high. You never can get ahead of the game. They are not on the team.

In Southeast Florida people build on the coastal ridge, move west, and then what do they do? They dispose
of it. It is too polluted to live in anymore. It becomes slums. Our land is not disposable, we cannot treat it
like beer cans. We have got to slow down on the development. If I had my choice, when I was the District
Engineer, I would have required every county and city to submit their plans to the Corps of Engineers for a
404 permit. That would ensure it complies with Endangered Species, Clean Water, and NEPA. What we
are doing now is just applying bandaids. We need to make sure we are mitigating properly, not destroying
wetlands, and being careful of endangered species. We cannot do it piece by piece.

A few years back the Governor published an executive order directing the Keys to perform a carrying
capacity study. It is a paradigm shift to look at every component of what limits capacity water quality,
schools, roads, habitat, how people want their community to look. Carrying capacity is not going to be a
definite amount, it is how much you want to pay for it, how much you can withstand, what quality of life
you want. The Corps of Engineers has put up through the Critical Project Program part of the '96 Water-
shed legislation $3 million dollars that the State is going to match. It is happening, and I hope it continues,
because it is the key to the future of Florida.

Those are the 4 keys to the future-accountability, science, education, and linking land-use planning and
conservation planning. If we cannot do those and be successful, all the restoration we do will mean noth-
ing. I think this is an extremely exciting business as I am sure most of you also do. I do not think there is
room for pessimism, because if we do not do something our children, our children's children or somewhere
down the line we are not going to have a place worth living in.

I think some of the things we are grappling with here in Florida are going to hopefully show the way if
done properly. As Marjorie Stoneman Douglas said, who recently passed away: "The Everglades is the
test, and if we pass, we may get to keep the planet." I believe there is a lot of truth in that. As we move
into the future, we need to do the right things here in Florida and other places where we have all these
pressures and resources and people coming together trying to solve problems. That way we can set the
trend and the tone as we move into the future everywhere we work. It is that important to me, and I think,
hopefully to all of you.

Note: The Center for Natural Resources wrote this transcription of Colonel Rice's presentation.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

State Issues Panelist Summaries

Conceptual Problems in Ecosystem Management
Lance deHaven-Smith, Ph.D.

When new programs and policies prove difficult or impossible to implement, it is often because of
ambiguities, confusions, and contradictions in the theories on which they are based. This is definitely the
case with efforts to link land-use and water-use planning and regulation. The principal conceptual
problem is the failure to state clear objectives that can be used to decide exactly how such regulatory
frameworks should be connected and steered. Two objectives that have been tried thus far include
growth management and concurrency, both of which produced unintended negative effects because they
were not well thought through. Ecosystem management, which is the newest policy directive for land
and water policy, may fail similarly if it is not quickly clarified.

The term "growth management" was coined in the early 1970s in Florida as policy makers and their
advisors formulated the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) program and the Development of Re-
gional Impact (DRI) review process. The concept is clear enough to rule out certain options; the aim is
not to stop in-migration or to influence urban form; Florida does not have a "growth limitation policy" or
a "development control policy." But beyond this, the notion of growth management is fundamentally
ambiguous, which is why Florida's environment continued to deteriorate in the 1970s and 80s despite the
existence of the ACSC and DRI programs.

The goal of the ACSC program was to prevent development from destroying resources important to the
state. One might have expected sections of the Everglades around the major cities-especially in North
Dade, West Broward, and around the conservation district in Palm Beach County-to have received
protection. But the ACSC program never included criteria that would have mandated designations, so it
has rarely been applied. In fact, this is why the program was at one point declared unconstitutional, and
why, today, ACSC designations must be reviewed by the Legislature.

The DRI program had the same weakness. Its goal was to identify and prevent any negative effects that
developments might have on surrounding counties. However, the law failed to define the important
multi-county resources to be protected. Much later, in 1992 when the DRI program was initially slated to
be phased out, Regional Planning Councils were instructed to designate and map resources of regional
significance, but (even after the DRI was retained) these resources were not folded into the DRI review.
In practice, the DRI review focused on transportation, on-site water retention, and wildlife, while com-
pletely ignoring the effects of large developments on the pace, location, and form of urbanization within
the region. The result is that, today, we have many well planned and highly capitalized developments in
disastrous locations.

The concept of "concurrency" was introduced in 1985 to help provide direction to the State's system of
comprehensive planning and land use regulation. Cities and counties were required to include a capital
facilities element in their plans, and to keep facilities and services up to established levels as population
grows. The word "concurrency" came from the requirement that facilities be brought on line "concurrent
with the impacts of development." With respect to water supply, this concept is obviously muddled. Is
population growth to be restricted if additional water supplies are not readily available, or must new
supplies be found to accommodate growth regardless of costs and environmental consequences? In
practice, the latter approach has prevailed, but the question has never really been explicitly taken up and




Ecosystem management has been proposed in part because comprehensive planning and land develop-
ment regulations have failed to protect Florida's most important natural resources. The system to be
steered by this goal is not land-use planning and regulation, but environmental permitting. In the standard
approach to environmental permitting, projects are typically expected to safeguard to the maximum
extent possible the environmental values being protected by each permitting agency. The problem with
this approach is that it sometimes works to the detriment of the overall ecosystem and fails to recognize
possible balances and interactions between environmental objectives. Florida has had single-issue
permitting since the 1950s, and yet the state has nevertheless lost parts of some of its largest ecosystems,
including the Kissimmee River/Lake Okeechobee/Everglades system; the Ocklawaha River; and the
Florida Keys. Ecosystem management is intended to foster a permitting system that considers the forest
in addition to the trees.

Unfortunately, the permitting methodology for ecosystem management has been difficult to work out
because central concepts are unclear. The basic idea is to encourage project designs that provide net
benefits to the environment, but the idea of"net environmental benefits" remains to be decisively defined
and operationalized. What qualifies as an "ecosystem"? Lake Okeechobee? The lake plus the Ever-
glades? The lake plus the Everglades plus Florida Bay? Do we add the Kissimmee River? Furthermore,
how do we handle actions that improve one ecosystem or one part of an ecosystem while harming another
ecosystem or ecosystem component?

As with growth management and concurrency, the tendency of agencies, when given the ambiguous
mandate of ecosystem management, has been to fall back on old practices and thus negate the benefits of
the new approach. The Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project was the first public sector project to be
permitted under ecosystem management. The project would provide 50 million gallons of water per day
to a region suffering from over reliance on groundwater. However, the permitting agencies were uncom-
fortable with balancing this important benefit against potential degradation of waters in the Tampa
Bypass Canal (from Nitrogen in the purified wastewater). In the end, the permitting agencies approved
the project, but at many points in the process they showed a willingness to sacrifice the region to protect
the canal.

Linking water management and land use regulation is not impossible or even difficult from a technical
point of view. The problem is achieving consensus on the purpose of the linkage.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Integrating Land and Water Management
Linda Conway Duever

It is easy to think that integrating land and water conservation is simply taking some land concerns and
some water concerns into account, but I want to remind you of basic ecological concepts and a few
specific things we need to remember when going into any conservation project.

* When we talk about integrating conservation of terrestrial and aquatic systems, we must first ask, how
are those two systems linked ecologically? There are two basic ways these systems relate to each other.
Terrestrial systems can affect the wetlands and aquatic systems, and the wetlands and aquatic systems can
affect the terrestrial systems. And then, we need to keep in mind that the zones between terrestrial and
wetland/aquatic systems are critical ecotones.

* In a given project, you need to look at how land and water systems are specifically related. Some
factors to consider are water quantity, water quality, disturbance, erosion, etc. What is happening on land
and how is it affecting aquatic systems?

* Wetland systems affect terrestrial systems by providing water sources for wildlife and people, food
sources, breeding habitat, and aesthetic values that drive the land-use process. We need to look at both
wetland configuration and distribution on the landscape.

* Ecotones: What is going on in the ecotone between a given type of aquatic and terrestrial system?
Where are the edges, firebreaks, drought refugia, flood refugia? How are the functions changing in terms
of droughts and floods?

* We need to recognize that the communities we can put neat labels on are not the only ones that are
important. As someone who has written the classifications of these communities, I can tell you that they
are not real and you will not find red lines separating communities. We made some arbitrary decisions.
There are important unclassified communities and narrow ecotones critical to rare species especially in
areas where land and water meet. We need to look at these carefully as we work.

* Finally when we talk about land and water integration, we need to identify what things matter in a
given landscape. What are the issues in this particular place? Regional needs? A rare plant in a narrow
ecotone that must be managed in a particular way? We need to always go back and ask if our plans make
sense for this particular site or are we just taking some general ideas out of a text book?

Note: The Center for Natural Resources wrote this transcription of Ms. Duever's presentation.

-21 -


Integrating Land and Water Management
Jerry A. Scarborough

Since 1985, the State of Florida has spent a considerable amount of time, money and other resources in
an attempt to integrate land use and water use in Florida, one of the fastest growing states in the nation.
Through ELMS I, II, and III, as well as numerous other studies and conferences, we have attempted to
come up with a mechanism by which we could truly integrate land use and water use.

Today, we still face the same question: Is there enough water for each county and region to meet its own
current and future water demands, based on population projections?

Enough talk, it is time to act.
Three things must happen if we are to be successful in finding a solution to the age-old question of how
to effectively integrate land use and water use in Florida.
* First, local governments must become major players in the process, because in Florida, local govern-
ments are responsible for land-use management. Regional comprehensive growth management plans
must contain regional water supply programs, and to assist local governments with land- and water-
use planning, the five water management districts must provide accurate needs and sources assess-
* Citizens and private property owners are the second most important participants in the land- and
water-use planning process. Incentives rather than regulations must be used to encourage land
owners to become willing partners and stewards in land-use planning and water-use management.
* Finally, the water management districts must develop minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for ground-
water and surface waters, to ensure adequate water supplies and the protection of natural systems.

If it is so important for Florida to integrate land-use and water-use planning, why has it not happened?
Simply put, there is no sense of urgency. It seems that most citizens, elected officials, and governing
bodies do not yet fully grasp the importance of developing adequate potable water supplies, and the
possible consequences of not properly balancing regional growth with protection of our natural systems.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Natural Resources Forum: Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management and Restoration
Roger W. Sims

Ecosystems are interrelated, and everything we do to change the environment has consequences. However,
our legal system evolved as a piecemeal response to specific concerns. There has been "linkage" only in the
sense that the agencies talk to each other to some degree and sometimes participate formally in the permitting
process administered by others. An applicant is generally responsible to coordinate the often inconsistent and
conflicting requirements of the various agencies.

This has resulted in a disjointed review process with the Development of Regional Impact (for example)
being started first, because it addresses the broadest scope of issues and because a denial means that the
project cannot proceed.

But since DRI's can take 2-3 years to complete, other permitting review had to be started while the DRI was
pending. As the process evolved, decisions by one agency often caused a change to project plans or condi-
tions that conflicted with the requirements of another agency. If the other agency had already approved the
conflicting plan or requirement, the applicant had to re-open the approval.

Each time an approval is approved or changed, third parties have a "shot" at challenging the proposed action.
The result often was a long, tortuous process of coordinating the requirements of numerous agencies and the
preferences of third parties at the end of a long and expensive review process.

Ecosystem management/team permitting ("EMT") was introduced by 1997 legislation which established
section 403.075, Florida Statutes. This legislation provides in part that

"Ecosystem management is a concept that includes coordinating the plan-
ning activities of state and other governmental units, land management, en-
vironmental permitting and regulatory programs, and voluntary programs,
together with the needs of the business community, private landowners and
the public, as partners in a streamlined and effective program for the protec-
tion of the environment."

DEP is charged with the responsibility of taking the lead to coordinate comprehensive EMT solutions in a
manner which "improves the integration between land use planning and regulation, and which achieves posi-
tive environmental results in an efficient and cost-effective manner".

The DEP Secretary is authorized to enter agreements to "better coordinate the legal requirements and time
lines applicable to a regulated activity", which may include permit processing, project construction, opera-
tions monitoring, enforcement actions and compliance with DO's and comp plans.

Holland & Knight has become involved in an EMT process for two major phosphate mining projects in west
central and southwest Florida proposed by IMC-Agrico Company. The EMT program has facilitated a much
more coordinated and flexible process with vastly improved "linkages" between the legal system and reality.

Participating agencies include: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest District; Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Reclamation; Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District; Florida Department of Community Affairs; Central Florida Regional Planning Council; Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council; DeSoto County; Hardee County; Manatee County; Florida Game and Fresh-
water Fish Commission; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; United States Army Corps of Engineers;
Florida Department of Transportation.




"Coordinated and concurrent review" in this case means that the participating agencies and jurisdictions
agree to coordinate their activities to avoid duplication and arrive at a common understanding of the rel-
evant issues and data requirements "up front". They further agree to a joint process to:

* concurrently identify relevant questions and needed information:

* concurrently review the applications for their respective permits, and;

* coordinate their individual agency or jurisdiction responses, resulting in mutually reinforcing
permitting decisions.

The anticipated result for the applicant is a significantly shorter and more efficient review process. The
anticipated benefit for the reviewing agencies and jurisdictions is a more accurate, efficient, and innovative
review procedure. The anticipated benefit for Florida is the best possible outcome for the environment.


"Net ecosystem benefit" means that review under this process must produce a result more favorable to the
ecosystem than conventional reviews. Far from compromising their substantive standards of review, par-
ticipants look for ways to exceed them. In order to obtain the coordinated and concurrent review, the appli-
cant must show that such a benefit is likely before the agencies and jurisdictions agree to enter into process.
The following opportunities for net benefit to the greater Peace River ecosystem have been discussed by the
participating agencies, jurisdictions, and IMC-Agrico, and have been deemed sufficient to warrant an eco-
system permitting approach to reviewing the applications. Additional opportunities will continually be
sought as the process moves forward.

Opportunities for Net Ecosystem Benefits

* Holistic focus on ecosystem-wide impacts and benefits, considering factors both inside and
outside the project boundaries.

* Formalized, early, and continuing public participation.

* Establishment and long-term protection of a greenway or integrated habitat network on
IMC-Agrico property, both inside and outside the project boundaries.

* Restoration of historic wetland habitat.

* Restoration of upland habitat and connections.

* Restoration of some historic water flow and hydrology in the Peace River System.

* Improvement of recreational opportunities.

* Evaluation of opportunities to coordinate with the Southwest Florida Water Management District's
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Initiative.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

State Issues Panelist Summaries

Summary Not Available
Tom Dyer

Public and Private Partners in Ecosystem Management
Holly S. Greening

Participants in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program have agreed to adopt nitrogen loading targets for Tampa
Bay based on the water quality and related light requirements of turtle grass Thalassia testudinum and
other native seagrass species. Based on monitoring data, it appears that light levels can be maintained at
necessary levels by "holding the line" at existing nitrogen loadings. However, the "hold the line" goal
may be difficult to achieve given the 20% increase in the watershed's human population and associated
7% increase in nitrogen loading that are projected to occur over the next 20 years. Through an intergov-
ernmental agreement addressing the issue of nitrogen load allocation, partners in the TBEP will be
committing to develop Action Plans detailing specific projects that will be implemented to ensure that
nitrogen management targets are met.

To maintain nitrogen loadings at existing (1992-1994) levels, local government Action Plans will address
that portion of the nitrogen target which relates to non-agricultural stormwater runoff and municipal point
sources within their jurisdictions, a total of 6 tons of nitrogen per year through the year 2010. A Nitrogen
Management Consortium of a local electric utility, industries and agricultural interests, as well as local
governments and regulatory agency representatives, has been established to develop a Consortium Action
Plan to address the remainder (a total of 11 tons of nitrogen per year each year through the year 2010),
which is attributed to atmospheric deposition, industrial and agricultural sources and springs.

A significant portion of the Consortium Action Plan will be implemented through an Interlocal Agree-
ment which was entered into by the member governments of the TBEP Management Committee in
March 1998. Through the Agreement each local government and agency member of the Management
Committee (which are also represented on the Consortium) will commit to achieving the goals of the
CCMP by developing and implementing individuals action plans for their governmental units. The
Agreement calls for each party to the Agreement to incorporate appropriate elements of the Consortium
Action Plan into their individual Actions Plans by November 30, 1997. The private sector members of
the Consortium will pledge to implement projects for which they are solely or jointly responsible for
through a Resolution, approved by the private and public partners, which is accompanied by the Consor-
tium Action Plan.



The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program
Christine Kelly-Begazo

It may be surprising that a homeowner's yard is the first line of defense for Florida's fragile environment.
The health of Florida's estuaries, rivers, lakes and aquifers depends in part on how a yard is landscaped
and maintained. One does not even have to live on the water to make a difference.

Storm-water runoff is the reason. Rain falls on yards, roads and parking lots, then washes into tributaries,
bays, lagoons, and the ocean carrying pollutants like fertilizers, pesticides, soil and petroleum products.
Scientists have discovered that fertilizers and pesticides from residential areas are serious threats to the
health of Florida's waters. When runoff contains nitrogen from fertilizers, algae can become so abundant
that sea grasses are smothered, oxygen is depleted and fish kills may result. In some freshwater environ-
ments phosphorus is often the nutrient responsible for algae blooms. Toxic substances, such as common
landscape and household pesticides, can damage reproduction in marine life.

A new ethic is emerging among concerned Florida homeowners who seek to redefine the image of home
and landscape. The idea is to cooperate with local, natural conditions, rather than to battle the elements.
More people are conserving water and energy inside and outside the home. Interest is growing in land-
scaping with native and other beneficial trees, shrubs and ground covers. Homeowners are choosing
plants that blend beauty and environmental benefits. People are selecting safer alternatives to chemicals
used indoors and out. Best of all, many of these benefits to the environment also save time and money
while enhancing our special Florida lifestyle.

The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program provides helpful concepts, tools and techniques for
reducing storm water runoff and the resulting non-point source pollution. With this program the home-
owner, and lay person, will learn the basics of designing a landscape featuring carefully selected plants
suited to our climate, natural conditions and wildlife. Special tips on cost-saving, environmentally
friendly landscape maintenance are incorporated into the program to help reduce water, fertilizer and
pesticide use. Special programmatic consideration is given for homeowners who live on the waterfront to
address shoreline management.

The FY&N program incorporates nine basic concepts, and corresponding lawn care practices, that will
help the homeowner reduce the dependency on high inputs, save time, energy and money, and help
protect Florida's natural ecosystem. The nine concepts of a "Florida-friendly" yard are: Mulching,
Recycling, Providing for Wildlife, Water Conservation, Protecting the Waterfront, Right Plant in the
Right Place, Fertilizing, Reducing Storm Water Runoff, and Caring for Yard Pests.

There are many different types of educational material that have been developed and are available to the
general public. The FY&N program also supports special incentive programs geared toward including
the homeowner as a major stakeholder in the protection of Florida's natural resources through implemen-
tation of changes in current lawn care practices. For more information about this program, please contact
the County Cooperative Extension Service office or the statewide FY&N coordinator.

Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management, and Restoration
Woody Miley

For me, ecosystem management means managing by functional boundaries regardless of land use pat-
terns and land ownership patterns. Apalachicola is a good example of ecosystem management, because
linkages, integrating, ecosystem management is what we do. We have memoranda of understanding with
the local government, with the county, with the city of Apalachicola, and with the Eastpoint Water and


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Sewer District. We are doing the partnership programs, because we cannot do it all, we do not have the
authority to do it all, and because ecosystem management is all about these partnerships.

The Apalachicola National Estuarine Reserve, as soon as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) approves the boundary expansion, will be 246,000 acres. That is huge. The Reserve, the
Bureau of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, and DEP, manages 20,779 acres out of 246,000. That
cannot be done except through linkages and integrating through the process of ecosystem management. So
we have memoranda of understanding with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission who is the
largest lead role manager within the boundary of the Reserve, the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service all of whom have lead role management within the Re-
search Reserve.

We are collectively a good example of ecosystem management in Apalachicola, at least at the state level.
We now have the challenge and the opportunity to be an excellent example of ecosystem management or
there is a very real potential for total failure in that the Apalachicola is only a small part of our ecosystem.
Our system is actually a three river system the Apalachicola, the Chatahootchee, and the Flint Rivers. The
drainage basin for this tri-river system is 19,800 sq. miles. Only 2,400 of that is in the State of Florida.
Eighty-eight percent of the drainage basin that feeds or pollutes the Apalachicola Bay originates outside the
state of Florida and based on average flow for the three rivers. 84% of the freshwater that feeds or pollutes
the Apalachicola Bay originates outside the state of Florida. That is a management nightmare. It is cer-
tainly a challenge for ecosystem management, because we have to go beyond the boundaries of Florida.

The negotiations between the tri-states and the effort at ecosystem management have gotten to the point
where Alabama and Florida have sued Georgia and the Army Corps of Engineers over water rights within
the River. The courts put that on hold, and the hold is over after several extensions in December 1998. The
most important aspect of the negotiations now is the actual water allocations. The Northwest Florida Water
Management District plays lead role with support from DEP. It is just like the old water wars out West.
The mindset is defensible, though. If you stand in Georgia and look down, there are three rivers. If you
stand at Apalachicola and look up, you get a much better functional view. There is only one river. We
change her name when she crosses man's political boundaries, and more importantly, we change the use
and demands on the system, but there is only one river. We have to get to the point through negotiations,
through integrating and linking, so that we recognize this as a regional resource and turn "mine and yours"
into "ours," into a stewardship role for everyone.

We are engrossed in a pretty serious fight. Ecosystem management is the role we want to play. What
Florida does is say, we are a part of this system; we want to be a partner in this system. We are negotiating
now with Alabama and Georgia, and the deadline for water allocation is this December. I wish that this
year had stayed wet like it started off. It is much easier to discuss equitable allocation in a plentiful situa-
tion. If the River continues to be dry, we are going to go to those negotiating tables and start off talking
about each others mothers which is where we left off a few years ago when negotiations got pretty bad.

At the bottom of this ecosystem is Apalachicola Bay, one of, if not the most, productive estuarine systems
in the Northern Hemisphere on a production per acre basis. The economic benefit of just the commercial
seafood in Apalachicola Bay is a 70-80 million dollar a year industry totally renewable, almost no
overhead. However, we must understand the functional relationship with the land use, with up-stream uses,
with the role of marshes, the floodplains, the barrier islands as a dynamic system. If you are not impressed
with 70-80 million dollars, you are absolutely right on target. It does not begin to tell the story of the
importance of the Apalachicola estuarine system. Forty-two percent of all seafood harvested in U.S. waters
comes from the Gulf of Mexico, more than either the Atlantic or the Pacific. Of the species harvested in the
open Gulf of Mexico, 95% of all species harvested commercially and 85% of all species harvested
recreationally have to spend a portion of their life cycle in an estuarine system. Blue crabs, for example,


migrate as many as 300 miles to spawn in Apalachicola Bay. They spend their larval and juvenile stages
in our Bay and then they scatter out all over the Gulf. They are harvested somewhere else, landed
somewhere else, and reflected in somebody else's dockside value, but the product would not be there if
the Apalachicola Bay were not where she is and in the relatively pristine, productive condition she is in.

Environmentalists like myself have been saying things like this for years, but we never really had good
data to back it up. With the dissolve of the Soviet Union, and our access to their scientific literature and
their scientists, we do now have good, hard data. They made all the mistakes; they have been were we
are now. The Aral Sea lost a $1.2 billion dollar a year seafood industry, the same horror story holds for
the Azov, the Caspian Sea, and the vast Volga Delta. Collapse of the seafood industry and sometimes
total collapse of the seafood industry. The number one culprit identified by Soviet research was changing
freshwater inflows into estuarine systems. It was not pollution or changing other things, changing
freshwater inflows was the number one culprit in the loss of estuarine productivity.

Thus, the compact and the water allocations are critically important for Apalachicola. Apalachicola and
other coastal estuarine systems in the Gulf collectively and synergistically are key elements in the
production of the Gulf of Mexico. So, John Muir was right, when you tug on a thing in nature, you find it
connected to the rest of the world.

Deciding an Approach to Gain Local Compliance with Restoration Objectives for the Indian
River Lagoon Estuary
Joel S. Steward

Joel S. Steward, Technical Program Manager, St. Johns River Water Management District, Division of
Environmental Sciences, Coastal Basins

The SJRWMD's restoration and management programs for the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) follow a
formula of comprehensive watershed management with a focus on the recovery or protection of selected
resources. In general, seagrasses, shellfisheries, and emergent wetlands (especially salt marshes) are the
prime resources of interest in the IRL when developing a project's objectives. This is because these
resources are good indicators of the Lagoon's overall ecological health. Since the 1920s, these resources
and the Lagoon's general condition have fallen victim to several regional-scale surface water drainage
projects that cause excessive discharges of freshwater and nutrient loads to this estuary. Solutions to
better manage these inflows for the sake of the Lagoon is further complicated by the fact that the
Lagoon's watersheds are rapidly increasing in population, exerting increasing pressure for improved
flood control drainage. To curb future increases in drainage rates and volumes in addition to reducing
present drainage excesses, the District has adopted for the IRL a largely non-regulatory, cooperative
approach in surface water management.

The approach attempts to leverage friendly compliance by local jurisdictions with discharge restrictions
and pollutant reduction targets through cost-share projects that also provide flood control enhancements
(and potential water supply benefits in some cases). This 'carrot' approach, however, does not have a
mechanism to ensure compliance in perpetuity once the projects are constructed. A regulatory approach
to ensure such compliance could be perceived by local governments as a threat and imposing this 'stick'
could jeopardize the initiation of any cooperative project that would help achieve IRL objectives. Pres-
ently, local governments can obtain permits for flood control and water supply without addressing
restoration objectives for the IRL. Therefore, is regulation necessary to gain long-term compliance with
IRL objectives? Is there an effective alternative to regulation? Or, is there a way to effect an equitable
balance between the 'carrot' and the 'stick' ?


JUNE 9-10, 1998

ITheme Speaker Summary

The Longleaf Alliance: A Regional Effort Promoting the Ecological and Economic Values
of Longleaf Ecosystems
Dean Gjerstad

Dean Gjerstad and Rhett Johnson, Co-Directors of the Longleaf Alliance; Gjerstad is Professor, School of
Forestry, Auburn University, AL 36849 and Johnson is Director, Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center,
Rte. 7, Box 131, Andalusia, AL 36420.

For most of the past 5000 years longleaf pine was the dominant tree species on an estimated 90 million
acres of uplands ranging from southeast Virginia down the Atlantic Coast and across the Gulf Coast to
East Texas (Frost 1991). Today, less than 3 million acres is classified as longleaf forests (Landers et al
1995). Longleaf ecosystems are among the most biodiverse of all forest systems, supporting hundreds of
plant and animal species. However, because of the decline of longleaf acreage, many associated animal
and plant species are threatened, endangered, or languish in diminishing numbers due to changes in land
use or forest practices. From a timber point of view, longleafpine is superior to other southern pines in
the production of high value wood products. Longleaf is also resistant to many diseases, insects, and
other damaging agents common to other southern pines. It is seldom damaged by fusiform rust, a serious
pathogen in slash and loblolly pine; resists attack by southern pine beetles, and is very tolerant of fire
throughout most of its life cycle. With so many attributes, why then has the longleaf forest been system-
atically harvested and then regenerated to loblolly or slash pine? The reasons for its precipitous decline
are many and are rooted in the history of the South.

Landscape-scale fires that swept across most sites every 3-5 years maintained the prehistoric longleaf
forests. European explorers described these forests as open, park-like stands with grassy ground cover
containing little or no hardwood (Bartram 1791). As most early settlers were farmers, the forest required
clearing to encourage settlement of the interior of the South. However, until the development of the
steam engine in the mid-nineteenth century, only longleaf timber adjacent to waterways was accessible
for harvesting. Large tracts of longleaf remained on the uplands out of reach of loggers. Longleaf timber
harvesting peaked in the early 20'h century when railroad logging reached the remaining large tracts
(Croker 1987). By 1930 railroad loggers had moved across the longleaf region with little consideration
for regenerating a new forest. When the longleaf timber was depleted, mills were closed and most
lumbermen moved to the Pacific Northwest to log its virgin stands. However, a few pioneering foresters
remained in the South, believing that longleaf regeneration was possible, an indication that longleaf can
be managed profitably over a long period of time.

Although longleaf pine is considered to be a pioneer species, it does not demonstrate the aggressive
regeneration characteristics noted of most pioneer species (Landers et al 1995). In most years, mature
longleaf trees produce few seed making natural regeneration difficult. Thus, as the virgin longleaf forests
were harvested, few seed were available to regenerate the next forest. In addition, planting longleaf is
more difficult because the "grass stage" seedling essentially has no stem. In addition, longleaf seedlings
are inferior competitors. Weedy competition can retard growth, resulting in seedlings remaining in the
grass stage for several years. However through current technology, the problems related to artificial
regeneration have been, for the most part, overcome and landowners are able to successfully establish
longleaf plantations. In addition, those landowners with existing longleaf stands can, through wise
management, naturally regenerate most stands following harvest.



Another deterrent to the longleaf forest was the fire prevention effort instituted during the first half of this
century (Croker 1987). Fire was considered evil and most thought at that time that it should be prevented
at all costs. However, the longleaf forest is a fire dependent ecosystem and the tree is very tolerant of fire
during most stages of its development. Fire is important in preparing a proper seedbed prior to seed fall
and germination. Fire is also important in controlling hardwood competition that impacts the survival
and growth of longleaf seedlings. Many plant and animal species associated with longleaf are dependent
on fire maintaining a savanna-like ground cover (Means 1996).

Forest management was initiated primarily in response to the pulp and paper industry that moved into the
South during the 1950's and '60's. This industry created jobs and markets for timber, and played a vital
role in the South's post-Depression economy. Unfortunately for the longleaf ecosystem, the emphasis of
this industry was -and is- on wood fiber production. Although longleaf growth rates are competitive
with those of other southern pine species on most sites over periods of 30 years or more, the best return
on forest investment for companies whose product requires only fiber comes from highly productive
short rotation plantations, a kind of silviculture for which longleaf is not well suited. Tens of thousands
of acres of abandoned cropland and cutover woodland were either deliberately reforested by planting
slash or loblolly pine or naturally reseeded with these and other aggressive tree species, like sweetgum
and water oak. The plant community associated with the fire-maintained longleaf ecosystem could not be
sustained under these conditions and gradually disappeared, much like the prairies and savannas of the
Midwest. Interestingly, a significant portion of the remaining longleaf has been conserved out of consid-
eration for another natural resource of the longleaf ecosystem-bobwhite quail. Large quail-hunting
reserves across the South began to use fire to manage the forest for that species in the late 1930s and
continue that use today. As a result, some of the best remaining examples of the longleaf community
exist on quail plantations.

Although fast growing species like loblolly and slash pine are ideal for the pulp and paper industry, many
nonindustrial private forest landowners prefer longleaf pine forests for their timber valuable and associ-
ated ecosystem that is aesthetically pleasing and is conducive to a diverse plant and animal community.
However many of these landowners have not been able to readily obtain information and advice on
longleaf management.

A relatively new organization, The Longleaf Alliance, was established in 1996 with the express purpose
of coordinating efforts to restore longleaf and its accompanying ecosystem on lands where they are
compatible with the objectives of the landowner. The vast majority of forestland acreage in the Southeast
is privately owned (e.g., nearly 95 percent in Alabama). Consequently, the Alliance directors felt that the
greatest opportunity to significantly re-establish longleaf forests was on private lands. The restoration of
a fully functioning longleaf ecosystem appeals to landowners in varying degrees. Recognizing that intact
longleaf forest ecosystems are not likely to ever dominate the southeastern landscape again, the Alliance
has adopted the philosophy that "better is better"; i.e., longleaf in any form is better than a cotton field;
that longleaf and wiregrass are better than longleaf alone, that longleaf, wiregrass, and gopher tortoises
are better than longleaf and wiregrass alone, etc.

This initiative resulted from the recognition that interest in the longleaf ecosystem and the tree itself was
growing rapidly. Ecologists, foresters, wildlife biologists, landowners and land managers were searching
for information or for an outlet to distribute what they had learned. A growing body of anecdotal infor-
mation, personal experience, and scientific data was being passed on fitfully and many publics were not
being reached. The Longleaf Alliance was formed in an attempt to catalog and coordinate all of the
initiatives currently underway and to serve as a clearinghouse for information on longleaf and longleaf
forests for the general public.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

The Longleaf Alliance is based at Auburn University's Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center in south-
ern Alabama in the heart of the largest longleaf concentration left in the country. It is a nonprofit col-
laborative effort incorporating a broad community of similar interests in the longleaf forest system. Its
structure is simple, its goals direct the establishment of a functional longleaf forest ecosystem to the
extent feasible in today's southern forest environment.

Recognizing and emphasizing the importance of both the economic and ecological value of the longleaf
forest broadens the appeal of the Alliance and gives it credibility with both the scientific and private
communities. Members include researchers, outreach providers, landowners and managers, tree nurser-
ies, state and federal natural-resource agencies, forestry and wildlife consultants, forest industries, and
forestry service providers. The effort and the organization are regional in scope, and the Alliance now
has members from every state in the longleaf region. The Alliance maintains and constantly updates
databases on current longleaf related research, longleaf seedling nurseries, forestry and wildlife consult-
ants with longleafexpertise, and pertinent research and demonstration sites. The Alliance's first regional
meeting was held in Mobile, Alabama in 1996 and was attended by over 250 longleaf enthusiasts from
across the region representing virtually every southeastern natural resource perspective. A second
regional meeting will be held in Charleston, S.C. in November of 1998. Publications produced by the
Alliance to date have included proceedings from the first meeting, a landowner's guide to management of
longleaf forests, several research notes, and newsletters.

The Longleaf Alliance is funded through donations, memberships, and grants. Further information on the
Alliance is available by writing The Longleaf Alliance, Rt. 7, Box 131, Andalusia, Alabama 36420,
telephone 334-222-7779, fax 334-222-7779, and e-mail addresses johnson@forestry.auburn.edu,
gjerstad@forestry.auburn.edu, or hainds@forestry.auburn.edu. There is also a Longleaf Alliance home
page at http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/coops/la/la.html and a longleaf list server accessed by leaving a
message to listproc@alaweb.com. Leave the subject line blank and in the body of the message include
the following line: subscribe longleaf Your Name. Interested readers are invited to participate in the
Longleaf Alliance and share in the recovery of this once magnificent resource.

Longleaf has a place in the southern forest for many compelling reasons. However due to the severe
decline in longleaf acreage, it is important that we act now if we desire to insure its continued presence
and reverse the decline of this important component of our southern forest.


Bartram, W. 1791 (1955). Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida. Dover Pubs.
Reprint. NY 414p.

Croker, T.C. Jr. 1987. Longleaf Pine, A History of Man and a Forest. USDA Forest Service. Southern Forest
Experiment Station, Forestry Report R8-FR7.37p.

Frost, C.C. 1991. Four Centuries of Changing Landscape Patterns in the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. In Herman, S.
(ed.) Proceedings, 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystems: Ecology,
Restoration, and Management. May 30-June 2, 1991. Tallahassee, Florida. Tall Timbers Research, Inc.

Landers, J.L., D.H. Van Lear and E.D. Boyer. 1995. The Longleaf Pine Forest of the Southeast: Requiem or
renaissance? 1995. Journal of Forestry 93:39-44.

Means, D.B. 1996. Longleaf Pine Forest: Importance to Biodiversity. In Kush, J. (ed.) Proceedings, First Longleaf
Alliance Conference, Longleaf Pine: A Regional Perspective of Challenges and Opportunities. September
17-19, 1996. Mobile, Alabama. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 1. 178p.

-31 -


Theme Speaker Summary

Maintaining Landscape Integrity
Bob Bendick

Welcome to this session on maintaining landscape integrity uplands. It is my role to frame the issues
of upland conservation before we hear presentations on individual issues from out panelists. Last week,
interesting news there was a panther at our Tiger Creek- Preserve; it had been tracked as it moved
from Big Cypress; illustrates the need for upland protection to sustain native species.

Of the three areas being discussed this morning, upland protection is the most difficult:
Uplands are where most stuff gets built.
Most uplands are privately owned.
Uplands are less protected by law and regulation than wetlands or marine waters (except
in the case of the uncertain protection of the Endangered Species Act).
In Florida, uplands have few natural obstacles for development water, perkable soils,
easily graded and built on (in contrast to uplands in some other parts of the country);
similarly uplands easily converted from wild state to agriculture.
Because uplands not visually spectacular in much of Florida, there is not as strong a
public perception of the need to protect them.
And in Florida, even if purchased, require fire to maintain natural systems.
> Fire
> People management.

In fact, all of this has resulted in large-scale alteration of original upland habitat.

Here and elsewhere in the country we have created several conservation techniques to protect uplands:

Definition needed: could mean protected in natural condition or, as we will discuss, could mean
protection in some other conservation use such as ranching, farming or forest management.

In evaluating conservation techniques it is useful to think about the concept of the public values, that
is the value to the society as a whole of conserving open space uses of land. These values include for
> Sustaining plant and animal species.
> Resource-based outdoor recreation.
> Conservation of water resources surface and underground
> Scenery/natural beauty.
> Sustaining economic uses based upon natural resources such as tourism, farming, ranching, and
> And maintaining a sense of place, of belonging and identity.

While the operation of the market has been extremely successful in our country in providing us
with goods and services, we learned more than 100 years ago, in a far more conservative America,
that the market is not very successful in protecting the public values of land: this was realized during
the early conservation movement Yellowstone, Yosemite, Adirondack Park.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Given the legal and political framework of our society, conservation of uplands must mobilize
money to purchase the public values/management.
And so since that time, we have developed strategies and techniques for conserving the public
values of uplands:
> First, in the west, came simply retaining land already in public ownership as national forests
and parks; not really applicable in southeast.
> Then, public fee simple land acquisition.
> Conventional less-than-fee techniques like conservation easements, purchase of development
> Support and assistance in making private natural resource uses more profitable so they would
remain in conservation use forestry assistance, cooperative extension and creating new
conservation uses of land, like ecotourism, to supplement traditional incomes.
> Tax policy.
r> Agricultural set asides, leases and payments like conservation reserve program.
> Transfer of development rights.
> Cluster zoning of various kinds,
> Habitat conservation plans.
> Landowner education/public pressure.

These techniques have worked in varying degrees in different situations, but the successful use of
such approaches requires similar overall strategies:
r> Identify in some systematic way the priorities for land conservation; everything cannot be
conserved; attempts to do so always fail. Identification of priorities requires both a scientific
understanding of the land and an understanding of the values and beliefs of the community in
which such conservation is taking place.
r> Respect for linkages/connections to create framework/critical mass.
r Understand the landscape, the landowners and the public sufficiently to choose the right
conservation tools for the right land.
> Raise enough money to employ those tools in enough places to permanently protect the public
values the community wishes to protect.
> Raise enough money to provide sufficient incentives such that the land managed properly over
the long run to retain values for which it was conserved.
> Coordination/integration among agencies.

How is Florida doing?
Identification Game Fish closing gaps/FNAI/Greenways/UF => way ahead/CARL.
Giant step forward with Preservation 2000 and county programs in providing funds.
Beginning to use less-than-fee techniques but suspicion remains in some quarters.
Beginning to sort out the relationship of agriculture and commercial forestry to conservation for
other purposes protecting matrix within which critical habitats exist.
Beginning to understand effective management => Governor's summit on land management =>
But explosive growth; collapse of growth management and other regulatory techniques has caused
fragmentation; Uncertain public understanding.

In my view the future depends upon:
(Vision of future) Continuing to set priorities; making the greenway idea real connections/consolida-
tion of lists some political risk We can define those lands shown on maps as land that "should
be conserved," whether by public or private action.


Broadening the use of new techniques conservation easements.
Overcoming the differences between agriculture/forestry and environmental groups to develop
incentives for sustainable natural resource use.
Strengthening the ties between upland conservation and water resources protection.
Authorizing a successor to Preservation 2000 that will provide the funding to work fairly with
property owners to carry out the plans. *
I. CRC Amendment on the ballot
2. Next year's legislature
*Having this same program inspire and encourage local efforts ALL CITIZENS.
*Enough money for restoration management and the will to limit use sustainable
r> Management
t> Coalitions
> Eglin partnership an example of how to do it
Monitoring/adaptive management -> FNAI/others

Can we do it? Absolutely!
We can afford it.
The will to do it? => Public understanding/contact a conservation ethic lessons from Florida's


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Theme Speaker Summary

Maintaining and Restoring Landscape Integrity: Coastal and Marine Emphasis
R. Grant Gilmore, Jr.

What is landscape integrity? What were original landscapes before human modification? How did they
change? What did indigenous landscapes do? How did they function? These are all very basic questions
which must be answered if any landscape maintenance or restoration attempt is to be successful. Land-
scape/ecosystem integrity has to be examined with an understanding of natural environmental change
such as community succession and geological/hydrological dynamics over short and long periods. This
is particularly true of the extremely volatile land-sea margin, the coastal marine and estuarine environ-

Coastal and marine landscapes, ecosystems and biotic communities offer a special challenge to humans
that are making an effort to manage anthropogenic impacts on natural resources. Their extremely dy-
namic nature requires a new perspective by the land manager. In contrast to terrestrial oak and cypress
trees that may live for millennia, algae and seagrass may survive for only days and weeks. Water is
constantly moving with great mass and inertia and the capacity to change coastal margins within hours.
Inter-glacial sea level rise has reduced the size of the Florida by one half since humans have occupied the
peninsula, rising 300 feet within 12,000 years. This was accompanied by an invasion of tropical species
as climates became more moderate. This invasion is still occurring. While terrestrial ecosystems re-
mained primarily warm temperate, the aquatic biota is decidedly tropical in origin for most of the lower
Florida peninsula. This great aquatic biodiversity, the richest within the United States, has only recently
been considered worthy of conservation and protection. Legal protection of mangroves, wetlands,
endangered species and many fishery resources has only been granted during the last 20 to 40 years.
During this period we have significantly expanded our knowledge of unique Florida coastal ecosystems.
Yet we are still just beginning to understand the functional role these geographic areas play in indigenous
organism life histories and ecosystem operation. This understanding is difficult to obtain, but must be
gained before successful protection, maintenance and restoration of any coastal landscape can take place.

Several major examples of recent discoveries in ecological theory and ecosystem function are presented
illustrating the rapidity at which our knowledge has been increasing on Florida coastal landscape integ-
rity, function and importance to major biotic resources. Many agencies and institutions governing
Florida landscape conservation or mitigation have not kept up with this new information nor used it in
managing coastal terrains resulting in a net loss of productive coastal landscape throughout the Florida
peninsula. Florida coastal biotic diversity and aquatic resource productivity has been declining due to
human impact with no apparent stabilization or increase predicted. Slowing and reversing this destruc-
tive human activity is the true challenge for those involved in restoring and maintaining Florida's land-
scape integrity. This session will not only present new discoveries on coastal biotic resources, but also
ways in which multiple organizations may pool resources to restore and manage coastal ecosystems.



Theme Speaker Summary

Displacement of Native Ecosystems by Invasive Alien Plants: The Florida Experience
[How to Destroy an Ecosystem].
Daniel F. Austin

Humans have been introducing plants into Florida since at least the 1500s. Those imports increased
dramatically with the rise of agriculture and horticultural business growth. To date there are records of
over 1000 plant species known to occur in the wild within the state. Several of those naturalized alien
species are physically outcompeting natives and threaten to completely displace and disrupt Florida
ecosystems. This talk provides an overview of the problem, and concentrates on the biogeographic
factors that allowed the biotic pollution and led to this displacement. Among the problems are: (1) the
numbers of plant species that have been introduced; (2) the long historical period they have been brought
here (ca 500 years); (3) similarity of climatic and ecological parameters in their homelands to Florida; (4)
the "insular effect" of Florida biogeography; (5) and habitat alteration in the state. In effect, humans and
their introduced plants have altered and destroyed the Florida ecosystems.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Theme Speaker Summary

Florida's Ecosystem Management Approach
Ernie Barnett, Director, Office of Ecosystem Planning, FL DEP

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began developing its Ecosystem Management
Initiative in 1993. The department had three goals: provide better protection for the state's ecosystems;
establish an agency culture that supports a systems approach to environmental protection; and encourage
a conservation ethic and sustainable lifestyle in Florida's citizens. Ecosystem Management is now at
work in Florida. Highlights include:

The development of a team permitting approach has saved private sector participants hundreds of
thousands of dollars and resulted in clear and substantial environmental benefits that could not have been
achieved through traditional permitting.

A Partnership for Ecosystem Protection Program that is reducing waste and pollution in Florida
through voluntary, incentive-based partnerships with Florida businesses. As of May 1997, four Florida
businesses (a power plant, a chemical manufacturer, a dry cleaner, and a major manufacturer of paging
systems) have taken up the challenge and become Partners in Ecosystem Protection.

* Greater protection for Florida seafood consumers and less red tape for the seafood industry through a
state/federal partnership to improve the inspection of blue crab processing facilities. In 1997 the partner-
ship received the Vice President's Heroes of Reinvention Hammer Award which recognizes excellence in
government programs.

* A Private Lands Initiative for Florida farmers, foresters and ranchers which recognizes the value of
these industries to Florida's economy and to its ecosystems. The initiative seeks to protect these land
uses through permit streamlining, acquisition of development rights, technical assistance, and advocacy
for tax reform and other measures to help ensure that farms, ranches and forests remain a viable part of
Florida's landscape.

* A return of government to the people through the department's landmark Ecosystem Management
Area Teams. The department has divided the state into 24 major ecosystems and has established at least
one team in each ecosystem. The teams are open to all citizens and governments ofjurisdiction. Their
task is to reach consensus on a future vision, identify important environmental issues, and develop and
implement an action plan to protect ecological functions on a regional scale.

* More efficient management of Florida's public lands through a variety of interagency and citizen
partnerships. Interagency partnerships have reduced costs and improved efficiency through sharing of
equipment, resources and expertise. Citizen partners have accomplished many resource management
tasks, particularly in the area of ecological restoration, that would go undone at current funding levels.
Among their many activities, they have grown and planted sea oats, mangroves and seagrasses, removed
invasive exotic species, cleaned up shorelines, and provided surveillance for the Florida Marine Patrol
through the CoastWatch program. In fiscal year 1996-97, the Florida Park Service alone logged volun-
teer hours equivalent to 30 percent of its full time work force.

* More and better environmental information is being put into the hands of government staff, elected
officials and citizens than ever before in history through an increased emphasis on science and technol-
ogy. Decision-makers can now integrate such things as satellite habitat imagery, air, water and biological


data, demographic information, and transportation and land use maps. This has proven essential to the
protection of irreplaceable resources such as Wakulla and Ichetucknee Springs, the Indian River Lagoon,
and the Everglades/Florida Bay ecosystem.

* Educating Florida citizens on the many ways individuals can save money and resources while improv-
ing the home or workplace environment is a goal of the department's Environmental Citizenship Cam-
paign. The campaign encourages Florida citizens to become active participants in resolving environmen-
tal problems by providing them with information on the causes of environmental problems and challeng-
ing them to "do their part" to keep our state clean and healthy.

These examples, and the others show that Ecosystem Management is working for Florida-for the
environment, for citizens, and for the businesses that support our economy. Ecosystem Management is
not any one project or program. It is a philosophy that recognizes and seeks to preserve and restore the
intricate connections between all parts of the environment, including our human communities. It is a
pathway to a sustainable future for Florida.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Theme Speaker Summary

General Principles for Large-scale Wetland Restoration
Edgar F. Lowe

Restoration will be a necessary adjunct to environmental preservation efforts because only restoration can
increase the size of habitats. By enlarging habitats, restoration projects can increase the number of
species which can be sustained. Some of the largest, most ambitious wetland restoration projects are in
Florida. These projects are of sufficient scale that many of the intensive, direct techniques for habitat
management used in small-scale projects will be infeasible. For this reason, large-scale restoration
projects must rely on more subtle management techniques which utilize ecological principles. Most
restoration projects are directed at management of the vegetation, based on the principle that vegetation
creates the habitat and the assumption that faunistic goals will be achieved if vegetational goals are
achieved. For large-scale projects this management chain must be extended an additional step: that is,
abiotic factors control the vegetation and vegetational and faunistic goals can be achieved through
manipulation of abiotic factors. Management of abiotic factors can be guided by theoretical models
which link the factors to vegetation processes (e.g. Grimes, 1979; van der Valk, 1981; Lowe and Keenan,
1997). Strict control of abiotic factors should not attempted: it is often unachievable in large-scale
projects and, more importantly, it is often deleterious. Consequently, management should strive towards
maintaining, and minimally constraining, the range of variation for each factor rather than meeting a
point target. These ranges, taken together, form a multi-dimensional management space which defines
the acceptable variation in abiotic factors. Thus, both the vegetation and the controlling factors will vary
through time in a successful project and this variation will largely be governed by natural processes.

The desirability of constrained variation dictates several general principles for large-scale restoration.
First, manage for long-term effects and avoid temporally parochial management. This is necessary to
allow prediction of temporally-cumulative effects, to enhance acceptance of necessary environmental
extremes and population fluctuations, and to inhibit implementation of politically-driven, short-term
decisions. Second, manage on the basis of broad-scale considerations; the apparent value of any given
habitat changes with the scale of reference. For conservation of biodiversity, often the most appropriate
scale is global. Third, manage towards self-maintaining systems. This reduces costs and increases the
likelihood of long-term viability by decreasing reliance on human support mechanisms. Last, practice
minimalism to reduce costs, to promote variation, and to reduce the likelihood of unintended, deleterious

Literature Cited

Grime, J. P., 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 222 pp.

Lowe, E. F. and L. W. Keenan, 1997. Managing phosphorus-based, cultural eutrophication in wetlands: a concep-
tual approach. Ecological Engineering, 9: 109-118.

van der Valk, A. G., 1981. Succession in wetlands: A Gleasonian approach. Ecology, 62: 688-696.



Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Maintaining Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
Jerry Culen

The importance of this theme to Florida is evident by the twenty presentations (six oral and fourteen
poster) that were selected for this conference. Perhaps this area, wetlands, has received more attention in
the form of research projects, grant funding, protective legislation and regulation during the past decade
than all other theme sessions combined. However, despite this attention, wetlands continue to be lost at
an alarming rate. Is this a function of the lack of good science related to understanding wetlands and
wetland ecosystems? No, but perhaps it is a function of education and communication and how informa-
tion related to wetlands is conveyed to the public as well as to policy makers.

In his opening presentation as theme moderator, Ernie Barnett of the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) emphasized his agency's role in the planning and management aspects of Florida's
ecosystems. This presentation not only pointed out the how's of ecosystem management but also dis-
cussed the agencies goals of improved environmental education, development of an environmental ethic
and the idea of shared responsibilities within the general population. The message of DEP's public land
management maintains that healthy ecosystems will provide many benefits including a healthy economy.
This message also indicates the need for flexibility when considering the linkages and the management of
the human communities while emphasizing a need for better ecosystem protection.

The remaining oral presentations varied and included information on the floating wetland communities
on Orange Lake (Clark and Sieving); wetlands assessment in the St. Johns watershed (Reed); the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan in Florida (Rockwood); protecting water quality of Ichetucknee
Springs (Stevenson); the effects of a wetland case study on student behavior (Culen); and organizing
information for public participation and policy development (Carter). An additional fourteen poster
presentations were accepted for this theme, again, with varied topics for presentation. The abstracts for
the posters can be found on pp. 94-129 of the Program and Abstracts provided to all conference partici-
pants. When these presentations are divided between the three themes for presentations, science, educa-
tion and policy, fourteen related directly to the science theme, five to education and one to policy. The
following observations were made related to each of these theme areas.

The science presentations related to this wetland theme provide numerous examples of the work being
done to understand and protect wetlands. Several projects involved the collection of baseline data
(Gholz, Graves, Loftin, Royals, Scheick, Shih, Clark/Sieving, Reed, Rockwood and Smith) and others
investigate the remediation of existing problems (Anderson, Brewer, Clark, and Kelley). In summary,
these projects demonstrated varied approaches to the investigation and resolution of wetland problems,
with excellent interagency cooperation and good private partnerships/linkages. For the most part, there
was limited direct citizen/public involvement with these projects. Although, most noted impacts to
humans and suggested potential educational efforts that might be initiated for information dissemination.
The desired outcomes mentioned beyond the direct benefits of the scientific information included ecosys-
tem protection/enhancement and policy influence.

The presentations that focused on educational programs (Culen, Monroe, Fisher, Hart, and Sheftall) were
directed at a variety of age groups, middle school to adults. The goals of these programs were aimed at
connecting the science through a hands-on approach to the problem or issue (i.e., Lake Watch was


JUNE 9-10, 1998

directed at monitoring water quality). Most of the educational programs suggested techniques in which
individuals could become actively involved in solutions to problems or to be able to communicate
corrective actions to others as in the case of the "Master Wildlife Conservationist Program". Limited
information and training was presented that related to how individual citizens might influence policy or
policy decisions at higher levels. Although most programs had some evaluation tool to measure immedi-
ate outcomes and success, limited effort to determine the long-term impact of these programs was

The single presentation directed at public participation and policy development (Carter) presented a
methodology to organize critical information that was scientifically accurate but yet communicable to the
public. The presentation suggested that there is poor communication between the scientific community,
agencies, citizenry and the policy makers and that most scientific information put forth is not understand-
able to lay people. The presentation suggested that by generating information that is more useful to
consumers, a more effective give and take during policy negotiations might occur.

In conclusion, the scientific community continues to explore and research the questions related to wet-
lands ecosystems. This information is critical to understanding how these systems function, how they
might be managed and better protected. The task is to make the information accessible and to success-
fully communicate this information to the lay citizenry. The challenge for educators in collaboration
with the scientific community is to find new ways to communicate outside the box, using the science to
guide the educational process. Additional methods for engaging the citizenry in the decision making
process are also needed. Perhaps we are losing ground on the environment because we fail to educate
and subsequently engage the public in the area of decision making relative to environmental problems.
We should keep in perspective that we are all responsible for helping to maintain environmental and
ecosystem integrity. We are all crew on the spaceship earth.



Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Restoring Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
K. Ramesh Reddy

At the landscape level, wetlands form a critical interface between uplands and adjacent water bodies, as
all of these ecosystems are hydrologically linked. The integrity of a wetland is influenced by the man-
agement practices implemented in the adjacent uplands. The key issues discussed at this symposium are:
1) the efforts made in restoring wetland functions in different ecosystems, and 2) the tools, resources and
linkages that have been developed and are being used as part of restoration programs. Although we
learned much about the efforts made in specific projects, two critical issues that did not come out of these
presentation are: what criteria is being used to determine the success or failure of restoration programs?
Secondly, and of particular concern to tax payers, how long will it take for a restored wetland to reach its
original condition or function at new equilibrium? The time factor is critical, because it dictates the cost
of restoration programs.

Restoration Projects:
One theme that stood out in all presentations is the efforts currently being made to develop strong link-
ages and interagency cooperation. However, it was not clear to what extent the cooperation has actually
resulted in technical exchange among these agencies. Are the linkages mainly about funding or are
individuals also getting involved in special programs that facilitate the exchange of ideas between
scientists of different agencies? Funding was the major constraint in all projects.

Dr. Ed Lowe of the St. Johns River Water Management District, was the scheduled keynote speaker, who
could not attend the symposium because of last minute conflicts. However, his associate Dr. L. Keenan
presented the paper. His presentation dealt with general principles for large-scale wetland restoration.

Raymond Kurz presented the first paper, on the topic of"Wetlands and Aquatic Systems in Southwest
Florida." This paper dealt with several restoration programs currently conducted by the Southwest
Florida Water Management District. Linkages discussed in this paper include exchange of information
with state and federal agencies. Craig LeSchack, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
discussed the opportunities for cooperative wetland restoration and enhancement on public lands. Phillip
Darby, University of Florida, presented ecological studies of apple snails and their role as food web
component in wetlands. The South Florida Water Management District, Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, USGS-Biological Research Division provided funding for this project. "Saddle Creek
Restoration and Alternative Mitigation Project" was also presented by two scientists in cooperation with
multiple agencies, including US Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Southwest Florida Water Management

There were a couple of projects on Everglades Restoration Programs, one on Holey Land Wildlife
Management Area presented by Blake Sasse, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the
other on "Tree island restoration in the Everglades Wildlife Management Area," presented by M. Ander-
son, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. J. W. Milon, University of Florida, presented a
paper on how the social sciences are used in the decision-making process. The title of his paper was
"Decision Analysis as a Tool for Ecosystem Restoration Planning." The UF Students Wetlands Club,
which was funded by several UF colleges and the St. Johns River Water Management District displayed a
strong educationally oriented poster presentation.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

General Observations:

* For many ecosystems, the restoration objectives have been accomplished and some are in progress at
this time.
* Interdisciplinary linkages aided in the success of the restoration projects. One clear message in all
presentation was that we still need more interagency dialogue.
* Funding is a major constraint.
* There is a need for more interactions between natural scientists and social scientists so we can transfer
scientific information into policy.
* The final important point is that restoration endpoints must be clearly defined; and also we need to
develop more outreach and educational activities. These strong educational programs are key to mak-
ing the public more aware and in gaining their support.

I have made a few notes summarizing what has been said at the symposium both in keynote lectures and
in the presentations. We still need strong linkages not just between agencies, but also within our own
disciplines. For example, on the UF campus we do not have strong linkages among different depart-
ments. We must develop these linkages at our own sites before we develop them with other agencies. At
this time we do not have any standards set up to compare between projects or to determine whether
restoration efforts are successful or failures. To address this, we need develop tools on how to use the
data effectively, not just do more data collection. In order to be cost effective in making the best use of
limited resources, we need modeling efforts and tools such as those mentioned by Dr. Costanza to
transfer information from one restoration project to another.

Fundamental scientific foundations are critical for any effective restoration program. Think of medical
science for an example. Without strong basic science inputs, we could not have developed the cure for
many diseases. Impacted wetlands are like sick patients. To restore the impacted wetlands we need the
foundation of basic science. We cannot restore wetlands by trial and error. If we do, we will not be
successful in restoring wetlands. Unless we thoroughly develop these scientific foundations, we will not
have success. This does not mean we need to stop the restoration programs today. We need to follow
through with these programs, but at the same time, we must continually develop the necessary scientific
foundation so that we can improve our understanding of the system, develop new techniques, and opti-
mize restoration programs.



Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Theme Report on Maintaining Landscape Integrity, Upland Emphasis
Vic Heller

My charge over the last day and a half has been to follow the presentations and posters in the area of
"Maintinaing Landscape Integrity," especially those with an upland emphasis.

Mr. Bob Bendick of the Nature Conservancy provided a great introduction and framing of this issue by
pointing out that protecting uplands is especially difficult because:
(1) Much of it is privately owned;
(2) Fewer development restrictions apply;
(3) They require active management, such as prescribed burning and exotic plant control, in order to
keep in their natural state; and
(4) They are where the majority of Floridians want to build their homes

In addition, many of Florida's outdoor recreational pursuits and major economic interests, such as
agriculture and silviculture and other industries all require uplands, making conflict resolution and
planning all the more complex.

We heard that a comprehensive approach to maintaining landscape integrity included a well-coordinated
and systematic approach to land acquisition-including the traditional fee simple approaches-as well as
the recent and more innovative approaches of less-than-fee and conservation easements and leases.

Several presenters and posters stressed the importance of a systematic approach to priority setting and
decision making in the landscape protection process. Management agencies need to know what areas
most deserve protection and where to spend their money. This must be accomplished by identifying the
most important biological, social, and cultural priorities and clearly understanding the needs and desires
of the public, and then bring the best and most up-to-date information to the planning table.

Doria Gordon, in her presentation "Developing Priorities for Conservation Research in Florida" stressed
that available conservation information must reach the ears and hands of managers and decision makers.
She cited the lack of integration between researchers and managers, and pointed out that many of us -
even in the conservation community do not speak the same language. She further suggested that the
best way to ensure information integration from researchers to managers and decision makers was to
institutionalize the process.

Two other presentations yesterday contributed to the theme of systematic approaches to landscape
protection. Tom Hoctor and Peggy Carr talked about using a GIS-approach to identifying hubs and
linking corridors of ecological, recreational, and cultural importance to the landscape.

Linda Duever talked about the utility of Charettes and using ecological, economic, and recreational
experts to generate regional maps to facilitate large-scale green infrastructure planning in the Southeast.

Linda, Tom, and Peggy all stressed the importance of having all stakeholders and disciplines involved in
these processes in order to achieve a high level of program success.

Another important component of protecting upland landscape integrity is addressing lands held in private
ownership. Chuck McKelvy enlightened us about the contributions of the Forest Stewardship Program
and the program's goal of encouraging non-industrial forest landowners to manage in an ethical and
productive manner. The program employs a multidisciplinary approach of agency representatives to
develop long-term conservation plans for private landowners, and provides financial assistance to help


JUNE 9-10, 1998

defray the costs of conservation practices. To date, over 917 properties, comprising over 300,000 acres
are enrolled in the program.

I should point out that many of the poster presentations also emphasized the need to establish incentive-
based conservation programs on private lands in order to protect landscape integrity.

Another exciting area we heard about yesterday was Ecotourism. There was one presentation and several
posters regarding this subject. The topic is exciting, because ecotourism is rapidly becoming one of
Florida's most popular pursuits. It promises to stimulate local economies, as well as generate funding
and constituent support for habitat protection programs.

Julie Pennington spoke about the four principal components of ecotourism (recreation, education, conser-
vation, and income production) and explained that the linkages among these components are critical to
successful ecotourism programs.

She stressed the importance of dedicating a portion of ecotourism revenues to the protection of the
resources, and emphasized the need to monitor use levels and the quality of the tour experience in order
to ensure the sustainability of this conservation/business partnership.

In the midst of promising program presentations, we heard about a program where the linkages have not
been made and where some innovative policy changes are sorely needed.

Steve Humphrey reported that the Endangered Species Act is performing very poorly in protecting listed
species on private lands. As a positive alternative to the current penalty-driven system, Steve proposes an
endangered species habitat protection credits program that makes endangered species habitat a valuable
commodity, rather than a liability, and creates economic incentives for landowners to protect endangered

This important theme of balancing penalties-based vs. incentive-based conservation programs was also
central to several excellent poster presentations.

Upon reflection of all the presentations and posters pertaining to maintaining upland landscape integrity,
several common threads of success became apparent to me:

First, is having a systematic, scientifically-based approach to conservation that employs the best
technology and conveys the best and most up-to-date information from researchers to managers and
decision makers.

Second, involve all stakeholders in the development of the program. This includes Federal, regional,
state and local governments, private landowners, user groups, conservation organizations, and
perhaps especially private business. Do not underestimate the power of capitalism to propel a
conservation program.

Third, incentive-based conservation programs will likely be more effective than penalty-based
systems, especially where private landowner participation is necessary.

Fourth and finally, do not preach to the choir about your programs. Learn to communicate with
every group your program affects and touches. Learn to speak their language, learn how to increase
program effectiveness through your program supporters and understanding from program opponents.

It has been a challenging and productive two days, and I, for one, would like to extend my appreciation to
the other Steering Committee members for making this forum an innovative and entertaining learning
experience. Thank you.



Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Restoring Landscape Integrity: Upland Emphasis
H. Franklin Percival

The word perspective is one that kept recurring as I thought of how to report on this aspect of the confer-
ence. Reference to perspective and scale necessarily will continue to appear within this review. Restora-
tion of ecosystems is much more complex than initial alterations to the ecosystems. The task at hand
requires a plethora of skills and perspectives on a wide range of scales. The conference was designed to
encompass 3 topics within each of the sessions: policy, education, and science. Science was predictably
the most prevalent topic within the theme session of restoring landscape integrity of uplands. Perhaps
policy makers and educators are less willing to make presentations than researchers, but they should be
encouraged to do so at the next conference. The presentations varied dramatically in topic, ecosystem,
and detail. The common characteristic appeared to be passion; the presenters were very enthusiastic
about their work.

The poster presentations were a particular treat. Poster sessions are generally the stepchild of confer-
ences, but the guided sessions were especially informative within a small time frame. The presenters
were doubly challenged in having to distill their information in some graphically pleasing manner and
then present their story in 2 minutes. Both are skills and the posters and presentations were very well
done. Both of the guides for the 2 upland emphasis sessions were especially informed about each of the
posters and one guide even had to provide quite excellent impromptu talks for 2 absent presenters. The
topics ranged from technological advances to biological investigations. The range of situations presented
were from severely disrupted phosphate lands to cut over forest lands to an island for which there is no
ecological history. Although I heard some complaints about the small confines during the crowded,
noisy sessions, it seemed to me to add an element of excitement and interest.

Dean Gjerstad set the stage for the oral presentations with an overview of longleaf pine restoration
efforts. This habitat type has decreased in the modem era from 90 million to 3 million acres and presents
particular biological and fiscal challenges in restoration. Although the presentations covered widely
varying, specific topics, the principal message to me is that ecosystem restoration is complicated and
requires much cooperation among scientists, managers, landowners and agencies. The presenters were
excited and well prepared and the audience was quite interactive. Technical problems presented by the
slide projector were overcome by volunteers from the audience. People really do want to cooperate and
this session highlighted that fact in many ways.

This conference was designed to overlap perspectives of participants. We generally do not mix disci-
plines, thus limiting our collective perspective on restoration issues. The challenge before us is a much
reduced and maligned natural environment and linkages must be made to create the synergy required to
solve complex land management problems. As a wildlife biologist, I have long felt that our own problem
was that our vocation also is our avocation, religion and principal source of social contact. It is
important...crucially essential...that we engage ourselves with soil scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.
Florida has an abundance of challenges but also an abundance of raw material in the human resources to
meet those challenges. The management of the human dimension of scientific interaction is a specialty
area in itself. Thus, the ultimate challenge is ourselves and this meeting is one of the answers.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Maintaining and Restoring Landscape Integrity: Invasive and Exotic Species
Ken Langeland

Papers and posters presented in the Invasive and Exotic Species section substantiated the need for greater
attention to this significant threat to conservation lands. Examples that document the scope of this
problem ranged from insect to plant species and included all habitats, from aquatic to xeric. Discussed in
the section were the discovery and attempts at eradication of the African tortoise tick (Amblyomma
marmoreum), which if escaped has the potential to devastate Florida's white tail deer population (along
with other wildlife), the weevil, Metamasius callizona, which is devastating populations of native
bromiliads, and the widespread impacts on native species and habitats caused by invasive plant species.

The theme speaker for the session, FAU's Daniel F. Austin, discussed the serious threat invasive plant
species pose to Florida's natural ecosystems and development of the Exotic Pest Plant Council's (EPPC)
list of invasive plant species found in Florida's natural areas. This list contains 62 species that have
demonstrated the ability to disrupt native plant communities (Category I) and 59 that have the potential to
disrupt native habitats (Category II). The list is dynamic, responsive to changes in species distributions
and to new information, and is therefore updated biannually. Many species on the EPPC list are currently
managed by conservation land managers using public funds.

Information presented on Old World climbing fern described the serious ecological impacts that a single
invasive plant species can cause. This plant, first noted in Florida in the 1950s, is spreading rapidly
throughout the southern portion of the state. It smothers trees by climbing into their canopies, alters fire
ecology, and excludes native understory plants by forming a dense mat of rachis material. It may also
alter drainage and water movement.

The need to develop criteria for predicting invasiveness, which can be used for prioritizing management
efforts and screening potential new introductions, and current research toward this end were emphasized
during the session. A common thread among papers in the session was that political issues are some-
times a deterrent to progress. Both screening protocols for future introductions and public education
programs related to current invasive non-native plant problems on conservation lands are of political/
economic interest to the nursery and landscape industry. A multi-disciplinary approach may be the most
effective for addressing the interests of all groups.

The importance of herbicide and biological control research to support management programs was
emphasized, and linkages between these disciplines are important. While it was suggested during the
general discussion period, by one panel member, that control programs against invasive plant species are
futile, success of managing certain invasive species on conservation lands is presently very encouraging.
For example, the South Florida Water Management District has completely cleared melaleuca from
conservation areas south of Alligator Alley and the marsh area inside the Lake Okeechobee levee is
projected to be completely cleared within five years. Successful invasive plant management programs
such as these demonstrate what can be done when a commitment is made to develop effective techniques
and allocate sufficient funds for control. Faculty with program responsibilities in invasive plant manage-
ment feel that increased IFAS involvement in extension and research in this area would lead to future



Theme Report: Summary of Oral and Poster Presentations

Coastal and Ocean Session Notes
William Seaman

The need for increased attention to marine subjects in research and outreach efforts by forum attendees is
indicated by the relatively low number of papers and posters compared to other subject areas. Yet 80%
of Florida's population lives in coastal communities, so there is a need for attention to this region.

The papers at the forum covered a wide range of subjects, including beach and dune stabilization, sea
turtle ecology, and productivity of reef habitats. There are strong linkages among investigators and
organizations in the ocean and coastal studies field.

A strong consensus among conferences supports the assertion of our keynote speaker that "the sea is
invisible" to much of society. In other words, compared to resources of the land, which are visible
constantly from our homes and businesses, the resources of the estuary and sea are poorly recognized.
For example, while maps and even satellite images may show great detail of the landforms and urban
systems, the same maps typically depict the sea as a gray or blue surface. Even city or county planning
maps may not indicate submerged resources (e.g., seagrass beds) the way agricultural areas are depicted.
Accordingly, the resources of coast and ocean need greater visibility in academic and governmental
agency research and training programs.

Finally, the linkages between upland systems and downstream coastal environments need to be presented
more clearly to professional and lay interests in Florida.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Gleanings from the Natural History Forum
Stephanie C. Haas

Since many of the sessions have been summarized in other parts of the report, I will comment only on the
themes that were reiterated by multiple speakers throughout the conference and three individual presenta-
tions of particular interest to me.

While the science of understanding Florida's ecosystems and species is progressing, the translation of
science to policy remains perilously connected. Several speakers with legislative experience warned of
the likely change in Florida's legislature to a more business, less environmentally oriented body. Repeat-
edly, the point was made that if Florida's scientists cannot or are not willing to provide guidance in
issues, decisions will be made anyway. An effective method for communicating scientific issues to
legislators is a critical need.

Florida still does not have a comprehensive land use plan, nor has land use planning been tied to water
issues. Many felt that this gap will continue to exacerbate Florida's environmental conflicts in the future.
One participant commented that the water issues remained undecided because there is no sense of ur-
gency to the issue everyone still has drinking water.

Steve Humphrey asked for a show of hands to indicate the diversity of viewpoints represented at the
conference. A substantial number of individuals were scientists; educators and librarians/GIS managers
were represented by much smaller groups. I believe there were only two individuals involved in govern-
ment administration and that was at the local level. One of the recommendations tacitly agreed upon at
the meeting was to plan the next one so that legislators would be willing attendees and contributors.

I realize that the individual sessions will be summarized by other individuals, but will comment on three
presentations that 1 found particularly interesting. Michael Burridge, UF Vet School, alerted participants
to the potential threat of Heartwater, a lethal tick-borne disease of wild and domestic ruminants including
cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and antelope. The disease is being brought into Florida in ticks on exotic
species such as tortoises, iguanas, etc. and in the blood stream of imported African ungulates. Linda
Tyson, Ph.D. student, Environmental Engineering UF, has developed a predictive model to assess
whether imports have the potential to become invasive species. David Carter, Food and Resource
Economics, UF, presented a multiple alternative/multiple attribute analysis matrix which allows informed
lay people to understand the technical/scientific aspects of projects; thus allowing more informed partici-
pation in policy development by all interested parties.

Overall, I believe the conference contributed to useful exchange of information between participants. I
believe that the general consensus was that future meetings would be helpful and attempts should be
made to include a broader participation by all "stake holders" in the ecosystem management arena in



Generalizations, Surprises, and Reminders about Natural Resource Linkages
Stephen R. Humphrey

A habit of linkage-thinking and working across areas of expertise-would raise new questions, yield new
ideas and plans, and lead to futures different from the discouraging linear projection of the present. The
habit of thinking and working in linked fashion can be cultivated and taught. Its cultivation must be a
goal, the process must be designed, and implementation takes significant investment of resources. Such
planning, design, and investment was advocated by numerous speakers (deHaven-Smith, Sims, Dyer).

Two general principles emerge: to habitually think and work across boundaries (1) requires knowledge
of social processes and (2) demands investment of time, money, and intellect.

All the presenters advocated or exemplified social processes, first to generate new ideas when faced with
novel challenges, and second to arrive at consensus on goals and actions. Disciplines, generalizations,
and practices have long been established for doing this, in the social sciences. Natural scientists who
want to use social processes effectively would be well advised to study the social sciences systematically.
Educational institutions claiming to prepare scientists for the world of work should recommend or require
such study.

Many presenters also commented on how much work, communication, funding, and thoughtfulness were
necessary to work in teams and engage stakeholders. Linkages fail without this investment, and unwill-
ingness to invest is a frequent reason for linkages to not be attempted.

Rice discussed attributes and challenges of adaptive management in the context of a simple analytical
model of how science and policy relate: science discerns (a) truth, education informs the public, a
discerning public elects a government to make policy based on the truth, and managers carry out the
policy driven by science. Sociologists call this a "theory of agency," which identifies actors, actions, and
motivations. Such a theory provides a basis to anticipate who could act, what steps they should take, and
whether the conditions in place encourage them to act appropriately. My own experience in policy-
making suggests a different theory: particular interests discern ways to avoid or reduce their share of the
costs of linked research, education, and policy outcomes, and they influence policy-makers accordingly.
If we seek to realize Rice's theory of agency and a society that invests in science-driven policy, we
should more clearly articulate the alternative theories of agency to help visualize how the necessary
linkages can be built and sustained.

Beyond these generalizations were some noteworthy lessons.

Gordon revealed a remarkable mismatch of priorities, and hence a striking failure to link, between
researchers and managers-all of whom are biologists. This case shows how profound is the dysfunc-
tional force of our current cultural attributes.

Kelly-Begazo reminded us that a US law creating the land-grant university system gave us a remarkable
instrument-the cooperative extension service-for supplying usable knowledge to those who need it. We
take this extensive education network for granted, but we should not, because it's precious. Lack of such
a system of linkage accounts for the massive, disastrous failure of farms and communities in the recent
settlement of the Amazon basin, for example.

Hoctor and Carr reported on a desirable linkage blocked by conflict. The conflict was resolved by
passage of a law. The result: they believe progress toward desired outcomes is now possible. When
such a conflict is identified, we should routinely engage experts in the fields of policy and law to design
instruments to resolve the conflict.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Environmental Education Summary
Martha C. Monroe

I am pleased to be able to summarize and address the education component of this conference. It was a
strong connector, woven throughout the ecosystem themes, and certainly often cited as one element of the
solutions when we look to future changes to policy and behavior.

The presentations and posters that addressed educational programs tended to target older students and
adults teachers, middle school, high school, and citizens of Florida. This is appropriate, as the programs
we are developing require a sophisticated understanding of issues or problem solving skills. And the
programs portrayed a healthy diversity between ecosystem restoration, such as planting dune grass or
developing school site habitats, to develop investigation and action taking skills around wetlands. We
need more of these examples. Some programs focused on extending the way we do education, through
building partnerships, using new technologies, and meeting new needs. Examples portrayed here are the
DEP activities with Orange Park High School, the CD Rom Kiosk at the Florida Museum of Natural
History, and the Milton campus of the University of Florida. In these cases institutions are learning to
bend a bit to help more folks understand environmental issues and develop environmental expertise. We
will have more opportunities to demonstrate institutional flexibility as we begin to address urban popula-
tions with better environmental education programs.

And several programs address adult education, such as the Master Wildlife Conservationist and the Florida
Yards and Neighborhoods programs through Extension. Both were excellent examples of adult education
that will lead to behavior changes and will promote program expansion as the trained individuals begin to
work in their communities. I particularly remember mention of the sign that participants can display in
their front yard to advertise the appropriateness of their gardening skills. We need more strategies that use
the powerful determinant of social norms and peer pressure to encourage education and behavior change.

Finally, in an example of the old "process vs. content" interaction, two presentations explored how to
present information and how people weigh decisions to engage and predict public participation. Certainly
attention to how we convey information and what makes that process more efficient is an important
component of our efforts.

We have some excellent examples of dynamic and successful programs to help Florida's citizens under-
stand our environmental challenges and work to resolve them. In thinking about what we need, I have
several suggestions:

1. Most of these programs are sustained by good will, high interest, motivation, and constant efforts to
find funding. We need to institutionalize environmental education programs and offerings so they can
expand throughout the state.

2. Most of these programs were evaluated by demonstrating that something is better than nothing. That is
helpful, and certainly better than no evaluation at all, but if we think about program improvement and
effectiveness, it would be nice to compare models and tweak programs a bit. This strategy may make
it harder to find significant differences, but it may be possible to identify some major point of differ-
ence around which a program turns. How can we best use our educational tools to achieve our goals?

3. Most of these programs, and indeed most of this entire conference has looked at linkages between
ecosystems, science and policy, or resources and economics. When any of us think about the future,
we bellyache and worry about growth and increasing pressures on the ecosystems. Yet I do not hear
many of us talking about slowing population growth rates or changing consumption patterns. Perhaps
we need to develop linkages with completely other fields in order to truly develop a sustainable
environment in Florida. Thank you.

-51 -


Gatorback Report
Hilary Swain

A view of this meeting
All of us come to meetings with different perspectives and wearing different hats. One of the measures
of success of a meeting such as this is to consider what it would be like to attend as a person with limited
background. How would a decision-maker arriving at this conference with insufficient knowledge of
conservation or environmental issues feel? Perhaps their viewpoint would resemble that of an untrained
person walking into the air traffic control center at Los Angeles International Airport. There would be a
large number of screens with lots of science and management projects flashing urgently, blinking on and
off. Some areas of the radar screen would be chaotic and blinking fiercely, and other areas would seem
less pressing. But somehow this person, the decision or policy maker, has to make a decision as to how
to prioritize the projects in flight and bring them down for a safe landing. I would suggest conferences,
such as this one, do a marvelous job of posting the issues on the radar screen. But we still have a way to
go before such meetings are truly able to help scientists, managers and decision makers develop a inte-
grated and linked approach to natural resources traffic control. Two ideas to improve attempts at linkage
come to mind.

Linking the steps of science with outreach
For effective natural resource management, the base of this social pyramid of linked agencies and ideas
has to be sound science. Rigorous science in the service of natural resource management has to be a 3-4
step process. Projects should be a linked sequence of (1) establishing a hypothesis, (2) data collection,
monitoring or collation of existing data, (3) modeling to extrapolate the results from these findings, and
then (4) conveyance of this information to the scientific and management communities, public and
decision makers. These should be guiding principles for review of conference contributions, but were not
necessarily present in all papers. In particular the methods employed in conveying information out to the
other components of the linked pyramid, especially to education programs and decision-makers, should
be a critical component of all future projects. New innovative tools are available to convey information
out to the public. Visualization models coming on line, like those available on the San Diego Super
Computer web site, are able to clearly present complex analytical facts such as those data collected for
San Francisco Bay. Web site-based displays, such as those Bob Costanza projected for hydrological
models of South Florida, are well suited to conveying complex spatial information to the public.

Integrated spatially-explicit analysis as a organizing principle for promoting linkage
One thing that struck me was how few of the "science projects" presented at this conference were genu-
inely interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary; they were all over the map thematically and regionally. An
overwhelming issue in natural resources management in Florida is to examine whether there is a coherent
relationship between ecological, economic and socio-political factors, and how this relationship changes
over time. Tackling this type of question requires truly interdisciplinary spatial analysis. One idea to
promote linked spatial analysis is to consider the establishment of an independent Center of Spatial
Analysis, fully equipped with the tools of the trade for the complex spatial analysis of issues facing
Florida. There is a good model for this at the National Science Foundation-sponsored National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) in Santa Barbara, California-it sponsors high-level work-
shops to look at integrated spatial analysis. How nice it would be to have a center like this in Florida
where we could bring in independent scientists, from different disciplines, to undertake some of the
state's complex analytical problems. The way NCEAS works is that it seeks proposals, on a competitive
basis with peer review, to have knowledgeable groups address a particular issue or discipline, and subject
it to analysis. An institution like this for Florida might propel the state into the forefront of complex
spatial analysis for applied problems and help us examine some of the most intransigent linked ecological
and economic problems.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

In conclusion
Going back to the original analogy of the radar screen with science projects blinking away at a great rate
of knots, the metaphor I want to leave with is that I feel "we are flying without landing gear". There are a
large number of science projects in the air and we do not have good mechanisms to bring them down to
the ground in an orderly manner. This will involve conveying information to the public and presenting
data in a way that people are receptive to hearing. With this approach, we might actually arrive on
schedule, with a soft landing, having got the information out to the people whom we'd really need to



Robert Costanza, Professor and Director
University of Maryland Institute for Ecological Economics

Robert Costanza is a professor in the Center for Environmental Science and Department of Biology at the
University of Maryland. He also is the director of the University of Maryland Institute for Ecological
Economics, the co-founder and president of the International Society for Ecological Economics, and
chief editor of the Society's journal, Ecological Economics. Paul Ehrlich has described ecological
economics as "arguably the single most important discipline today." Professor Costanza has also served
on numerous editorial and advisory boards and as a research program director for the Beijer International
Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

Professor Costanza's work has focused on the relationships between ecosystems and economic systems.
He has developed innovative large-scale landscape models to evaluate land use and water quality changes
and written extensively on the importance of a broad, transdisciplinary approach to environmental
research and policy. He has published over 140 journal articles and book chapters, 12 books, and pre-
sented over 200 invited seminars and lectures. His recent article on the value of the world's ecosystem
services in Nature was widely reported in the national and international press including feature stories in
Science, the New York Times, and The Chroniclefor Higher Education. Professor Costanza's work has
been supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Ford and MacArthur Foundations.

Professor Costanza received the Distinguished Achievement Award from the Society for Conservation
Biology, the Outstanding Publication Award from the National Wildlife Federation, and he was selected
as a Pew Scholar. He received three degrees from the University of Florida, a Ph.D. in systems ecology
in 1979, a M.A. in Architecture/Urban and Regional Planning in 1974, and a B.A. in Architecture in

Senator Jack Latvala, The Florida Senate
Senate District 19, Palm Harbor, Florida

Senator Jack Latvala was born November 3, 1951 in Oxford, Mississippi. He moved to Florida in 1961,
graduated from Bartow High School in 1969 and received a B.A. degree from Stetson University in 1973.
Senator Latvala was elected to the Florida Senate in 1994 and was reelected with over 60% of the vote in
1996. Latvala chairs the Natural Resources Committee and serves on the Education, Transportation,
Executive Business, Ethics & Elections, Ways and Means, and Rules and Calendar Committees. He is
also Alternating Chairman of the Joint Committee on Everglades Oversight and formerly chaired the
Select Committee on Water Policy.

Out of the 39 bills filed in 1997, Latvala passed 21, including the first major election campaign reform
package in recent years, a bill giving mobile home owners increased rights. He also passed the
Brownfield Redevelopment Act to promote the clean-up and use of abandoned, environmentally-dam-
aged property, and a comprehensive water bill setting Florida's policy about water management and
supply. As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Latvala worked to protect marine resources
by putting increased bite into the net ban and a requirement for greater surety fees from oil companies
drilling off Florida's Gulf Coast.

JUNE 9-10, 1998

In earlier years, Latvala passed bills designating Lottery money for college scholarships for hardworking
students and creating The Florida Health Insurance Coverage Continuation Act, and he was the author of
the significant Homebuyer's Protection Act, the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, and the
Educational Facilities Act.

Jon Mills, J. D., Founder and Director
Center for Governmental Responsibility

Jon Mills, J.D., is the Founding Director of Center for Governmental Responsibility, the state's oldest
legal and public policy research center and a former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives,
which he served for ten years. Since founding Center for Governmental Responsibility in 1972, he has
directed major studies on a wide range of environmental and constitutional topics. He has published and
litigated in international environmental and land use issues, policy-making, constitutional issues, and
especially privacy and voting rights. He also directs the Center for Governmental Responsibility's
programs in Brazil, Poland, Central America and Haiti. Under Mr. Mills, the Center has received over $6
million in outside grants and funding from sources as diverse as the MacArthur Foundation, the United
States Information Agency and Caixa Economica Federal (The Federal Bank of Brazil). Mr. Mills also
teaches Legislative Drafting, Florida Constitutional Law, Comparative Legal Strategies for Sustainable
Use of Natural Systems, and Environment and Trade. He was a member of the 1997-98 State of Florida
Constitution Revision Commission and chaired the Style and Drafting Committee of the Commission.
He is currently a member of the Public Education Committee appointed by the Constitution Revision

Terry L. Rice, Colonel (Ret.), Ph.D., P.E.

Dr. Terry L. Rice was born in Herrin, Illinois on May 19, 1947. He graduated from the US Military Acad-
emy at West Point in 1969 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the US Army Corps of Engineers.
He received a Masters of Science in civil engineering from the University of Illinois in 1977 and a Doctor-
ate of Philosophy in hydraulic engineering from Colorado State University in 1981. Dr. Rice's military
education included the Command and General Staff College and the War College as a Fellow at the Walsh
School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. He served as a professor of Environmental Engineering
and Development Assistance at USMA and Georgetown University. He is a Registered Professional Engi-
neer and a recognized specialist of both Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East/North Africa. Dr. Rice's
publications cover a broad range of subjects and he speaks French at the professional level.

Dr. Rice served 29 years as an officer in the Corps of Engineers, with over 16 spent in Africa, Asia, Europe,
and South/Central America. He commanded units from platoon through brigade level. As both commander
and staff officer, he managed over $2 billion of construction and hundreds of projects in over 25 countries.
He served in the US Embassies in Niamey, Niger and Rabat, Morocco. In addition, he worked three years
for the US Agency of International Development and the Niger Basin Authority. His final assignment in the
Corps of Engineers was Commander of the Jacksonville District where he had civil works, military con-
struction, emergency management, regulatory, and real estate responsibilities for Florida, Puerto Rico, the
US Virgin Islands, and the nations of the Caribbean. Everglades restoration was his greatest challenge.

Dr. Rice became a member of the Southeast Environment Research Program (SERP) at Florida Interna-
tional University and President ofT.L. Rice, Inc. during February of 1998. He represents the Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians of Florida on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group and serves on the
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. From this platform, Dr. Rice will pursue his
personal goal of ensuring a healthy Greater Everglades Ecosystem and world.



Lance deHaven-Smith, Director
Reubin O'D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University

Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith is Director of the Reubin O'D. Askew School of Public Administration and
Policy at Florida State University and is Associate Director of the Florida Institute of Government. He is
the author often books, five of which cover various aspects of Florida government and politics. He
served as the Executive Director of Florida's Local Government Study Commission in 1997 and of the
Citizens' Commission on Cabinet Reform in 1996. He has worked in an advisory capacity with water
agencies and regulators throughout Florida, with several federal agencies, and with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (the world's largest water district). Currently, he is facilitating
Florida's second Ecosystem Team Permitting process, which is for an indirect potable reuse project in
Tampa. Dr. deHaven-Smith received his B.A. degree, Summa Cum Laude, from the University of
Georgia in 1975 and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the Ohio State University in 1978 and 1980, respectively.

Linda Conway Duever, President and Principal Ecologist
Conway Conservation, Inc.

Linda Conway Duever, founder and president of the Conway Conservation, Inc. environmental consult-
ing firm, focuses professionally on Conservation Planning, Habitat Evaluation, Green Infrastructure
Development, Environmental Communications, Facility Planning, and natural Areas Management. Ms.
Conway Duever, long involved in environmental and natural resource work, has done extensive research
and fieldwork leading to numerous articles and journal publications. Ms. Conway Duever received her
AB degree from the University of Georgia and did graduate work in Geography at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Mr. Tomas H. Dyer, President
The Dyer Group

Tom Dyer is President of The Dyer Group, a Tampa based consulting firm specializing in strategic
planning, permitting and alternative land use planning for private, corporate and public landowners. Tom
is currently a consultant to the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP and was formerly Vice President of
Two Rivers Ranch with senior management responsibilities for over 20,000 acres of lands in
Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando and Citrus Counties.

Two Rivers Ranch was the recipient of: Conservationist of the Year Award from the American Farmland
Trust, the 1995 Audubon Corporate Conservation Award, the 1995 Land Conservationist of the Year
Award from the Florida Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation.

Tom is a former member of the Governor's Private Property Fights Commission, the Florida Water
Management District Review Commission, Chair of the Commission's Land Acquisition & Management
committee and was the Co-Chair of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Private
Landowners Committee for Ecosystem Management. He is currently Chairman of the Hillsborough
County Agricultural Task Force, the Florida Greenways Commission and serves as Vice Chairman of the
Hillsborough County Blue Ribbon Committee on County Finances.

Tom is from Davie, Florida and has resided in Tampa since 1990.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Holly S. Greening, Senior Scientist
Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Professional Background

Dr. Greening's academic training involved extensive food web studies in North Florida estuaries. She
received her MS in Marine Ecology from Florida State University in 1980. Other estuarine work included
examining the effects of point and non-point pollution on water quality and biology in estuaries in South
Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Chesapeake Bay. As Research Coordinator for the Okefenokee
Swamp Long-Terin Ecological Research Grant (funded by NSF), Dr. Greening was responsible for the
management, implementation, interpretation, and publication of results from several wetland ecology and
water quality projects. As an environmental consultant from 1985 to 1991, she was responsible for the
implementation and management of freshwater and estuarine projects for state, federal, and private clients,
including studies on water quality in surface waters subject to acidic deposition or eutrophic conditions,
watershed and lake restoration techniques, and the identification and management of point and non-point
sources in lakes, streams, and estuaries.

Current Responsibilities

Dr. Greening's current position as Senior Scientist for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program includes the follow-
ing major elements:

* Function as Project/Contract Manager for projects in the areas of general aquatic ecology, watershed
management, water quality, information management, atmospheric deposition and toxic materials

* Design, conduct, and manage technical research projects, and provide information for management and
regulatory activities to improve bay management.

* Serve as principal contact and liaison with federal, state, and local agencies and consultants.

Christine Kelly-Begazo, Statewide Coordinator
Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, UF/IFAS

Christine Kelly-Begazo, is the Statewide Coordinator for the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N)
Program at the University of Florida. This program was developed to be an educational, outreach pro-
gram to inform and educate the homeowner and lay person how to be more "environmental-friendly"
with their lawn care practices. Ms. Kelly-Begazo is responsible for the coordination of the statewide
expansion effort of this program; she supplies logistical, administrative and financial support to the
FY&N program through the Cooperative Extension Service in each county. Ms. Kelly-Begazo is also the
program liaison between the University of Florida and other partners (DEP, NEP, WCRWSA, Water
Management Districts, etc.) of the FY&N program.



Woody Miley, Manager
Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

Woody Miley is the manager of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Regional
Administrator for Aquatic and Buffer Preserves in Northwest Florida, all of which are Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection programs. Woody earned a B.S. from the University of South Florida
and an M.S. from Florida Atlantic University. He has worked in research for Florida Atlantic University,
Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission, Florida Department of Natural Resources, University of
Florida and Florida Department of Environmental Protection during his 30 year career.

Jerry A. Scarborough, Executive Director
Suwannee River Water Management District

Jerry Scarborough joined the Suwannee River Water Management District staff as Executive Director on
January 1, 1990. He was Suwannee County Clerk of the Court for 14 years and former editor of the
Suwannee Democrat newspaper.

Jerry Scarborough grew up in the Suwannee County area, graduating from Branford High School and
then the University of Florida in 1971, with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism.

Before his appointment to Executive Director, Mr. Scarborough was involved in water resource manage-
ment issues. Jerry served on the District's Surface Water Improvement and Management Advisory
Committee, and as Chairman of the Suwannee River Resource Planning and Management Committee, a
panel appointed by former Governor Bob Graham to develop ways to protect the Suwannee River.

Roger Sims, Partner
Holland and Knight, LLP

Roger Sims is a partner in the Holland & Knight Orlando office specializing in environmental law, water
use and land use matters. He has extensive experience in groundwater, surface water, wetlands, solid waste
and hazardous waste issues. Mr. Sims deals with many agencies on a regular basis, including the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Department of Community Affairs, Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and others. He has special expertise in the
permitting of large projects, including developments of regional impact.

Mr. Sims served on an ad hoc rule development committee for surface water matters at the St. Johns River
Water Management District. He has been on the Executive Council and served as Chairman of the Environ-
mental and Land Use Law Section of The Florida Bar in 1988-89. He is listed in the Best Lawyers in
America for 1995-1998 (environmental law). He is a member of the University of Florida Council of
Advisors for Research and Extension in Natural Resources. Mr. Sims currently serves on the American Bar
Association Section on Natural Resources, Environmental and Energy Law (SONREEL). He chairs a na-
tional legal task group on wetlands for ASTM.

Mr. Sims earned his B.A., with high honors, in 1972 and his J.D. in 1974 from the University of Florida. He
was on Moot Court and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa, Florida Blue
Key, and Phi Alpha Delta fraternities.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Mr. Joel S. Steward, Technical Program Manager for Coastal Basins
St. Johns River Water Management District

Mr. Joel S. Steward received his B.S. in Biology from the College of William & Mary in 1976 and his
M.S. in Biological Oceanography from Florida Institute of Technology in 1980. At that time, Mr.
Steward's interests were in the biogeochemical cycling of trace elements in estuaries, particularly the
determination of exceedance levels of potentially toxic metals in shellfish based on the ratio of those
metal concentrations to heme metal cofactor concentrations.

Mr. Steward's interests broadened upon his employment with the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) where he currently serves as Technical Program Manager for Coastal Basins pro-
grams, Division of Environmental Sciences. Over the last 10 years in that position, Mr. Steward has
managed the Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program,
cooperatively funded by SJRWMD, local, and state sources. More recently, federal monies and manage-
ment interests have been drawn in following the designation of the Lagoon as an Estuary of National
Significance (a.k.a. National Estuary Program). Now, at all governmental levels, Mr. Steward is involved
in the coordination of several agency programs to develop and pursue water quality, seagrass and salt
marsh remediation objectives in the Indian River Lagoon basin.

The most significant of these objectives is the completion of the Lagoon's first coastal sub-basin restora-
tion plan, the Turkey Creek sub-basin management initiative, by 2010. The initiative includes the $24
million C-1 canal drainage re-diversion project (by 2005), the implementation of the multi-million dollar
Palm Bay and Malabar stormwater management programs (by 2010), and the $3 million dredging project
to remove organic muck sediment deposits from the mouth of Turkey Creek (by 2000). Additionally, a
Lagoon-wide model is in development that will be used as a tool to determine pollutant load reductions
for the remaining sub-basins, and substantial progress has and is being made to rehabilitate the 35,000
acres of impounded salt marshes throughout the Lagoon basin in the SJRWMD.



Daniel F. Austin, Professor & Director of Environmental Sciences; Curator of the Herbarium,
Florida Atlantic University; Fellow of the Linnean Society, London.

Daniel F Austin, professor and Director of Environmental Sciences at Florida Atlantic University,
received his B.A. from Murray Sate University in 1966 and his M.A. and Ph.D from Washington Univer-
sity, St. Louis in 1969 and 1970 respectively. He has held the following faculty positions: Adjunct
Assistant Professor of Botany, Florida International University, Miami, 1974; Adjunct Professor, Univer-
sity of South Florida, Tampa, 1979-1980; Adjunct Professor, Department of Botany, Arizona State
University, Tempe, 1989-1990; Research Associate, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Interna-
tional University, Miami, 1987-present.

Dr. Austin has collaborated with a diverse array of agencies, both national and international, and has
served on committees and as an advisor for organizations such as Florida Native Plant Society, Florida
Academy of Sciences, Society for Economic Botany, National Science Foundation, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, The Nature Conservancy, Office of Endangered Species of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Crops Advisory Committee on Sweet Potatoes for the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary, Endangered Plant Advisory Council of the
Florida Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Austin has received numerous grants and awards from 1970 to present, and is the only holder of two
Green Palmetto Awards from the Florida Native Plant Society. He has had six books and over 200
papers published, both scientific and popular. Special research interests are Evolution and Phylogeny of
the Convolvulaceae; Ecosystem Dynamics, with emphasis on endangered and exotic organisms; and

Ernie Barnett, Director of Ecosystem Planning and Coordination
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Ernie Barnett is the Director of Ecosystem Planning and Coordination at the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. His responsibilities include coordinating the development and implementation
of department-wide ecosystem management policies and strategies and coordinating the department's
efforts in south Florida ecosystem restoration. Mr. Barnett has been with the department 13 years where
he served previously as a shellfish biologist, aquatic preserve manager, Environmental Administrator,
and Water Management Administrator. He has authored or co-authored 31 publications and agency
reports on beach management, shellfish management, sea turtle nesting, natural resource damage assess-
ment, and ecosystem management. Mr. Barnett received his B.S. in Environmental Resource Manage-
ment and Planning and his M.S. in Biology from the University of West Florida.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Robert L. Bendick, Jr., Regional Director
The Nature Conservancy, Florida Chapter

Bob Bendick has been Regional Director of the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy since Novem-
ber 1, 1995. In this role he directs the Florida operations of the Conservancy which is a national and
worldwide conservation organization dedicated to the protection of habitat for plant and animal species.
The Florida Chapter is one of four state programs of the Conservancy that are their own regions and are
directly responsible to the home office.

Prior to coming to The Nature Conservancy, Mr. Bendick was Deputy Commissioner for Natural Resources
at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation between 1990 and 1995. The Deputy
Commissioner is responsible for supervision of New York State's natural resource programs. During his
tenure in New York, Mr. Bendick also served as Chair of the Northern Forest Lands Council between 1991
and 1994. The Council was a broad based effort supported by the U.S. Forest Service to make recommen-
dations about the future of 26 million acres of forest land extending across the north country of New York,
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Between 1982 and 1990, Mr. Bendick was Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management and responsible for all natural resource and environmental programs in Rhode Island's state

He is the recipient of a number of environmental and conservation awards including the Chevron Conser-
vation Award, the President's Public Service Award of The Nature Conservancy and the Environmental
Leadership Award of the New England Environmental Network.

Dean H. Gjerstad, Professor of Forest Biology at Auburn University,
Co-Director, The Longleaf Alliance

Dr. Gjerstad received his B.S. in Forest Management from Iowa State University in 1966. He went on to
earn a M.S. and Ph.D. in Forest Biology, also from Iowa State University. Dr. Gjerstad held multiple
posts at the Auburn School of Forestry. He was the Director of the Southern Forest Nursery Cooperative
(1975-82), Associate Professor (1980-88), Director of the Silviculture Herbicide Cooperative (1980-90),
Acting Associate Dean, and Professor (1988-present). Dr. Gjerstad, Director of the Forest Regeneration
Center (1990-present), is also co-director of The Longleaf Alliance where he has been since 1996. Dr.
Gjerstad's research interests include Longleaf pine management and restoration; Establishment of
longleafpine seedlings; Plant-plant interactions; and Stress physiology.

Richard Grant Gilmore, Jr., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Fish Ecologist
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida

Dr. Gilmore completed graduate studies at the University of West Florida and Florida Institute of Tech-
nology on behavior, neural anatomy, comparative ecology of fishes indigenous to the Gulf of Mexico and
tropical western Atlantic. The majority of his professional research has been conducted in fish ecology,
life histories and habitat relationships while at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution from 1971 to
present. This includes subtropical/tropical ichthyofaunas ofestuarine freshwater tributaries, mangrove
forests, seagrass beds, continental shelf and tropical epibathyal habitats. Mr. Gilmore maintains a joint
appointment and adjunct faculty status in Dept. of Biological Science, Florida Institute of Technology;
Freie Universitdt, Berlin, Germany; Florida Atlantic University, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmo-
spheric Sciences, University of Miami.
-61 -


Mr. Gilmore has over fifty publications in technical journals, 34 technical reports, 50 grant awards in fish
biology and ecology. He has also completed extensive quantitative work in estuarine mangrove and
seagrass habitats including comparative species ecology, behavior, migration, mortality and survival as
well as community ecology. He conducted the first detailed long term quantitative interdisciplinary
studies of estuarine and continental shelf aquatic biological communities on the Florida East Coast. His
fish studies generated publications and a data base that not only promoted a basic understanding of
marine/estuarine fish (organism) biology/ecology, but was also used by a variety of federal and state
aquatic managerial agencies and organizations, South Atlantic Fisheries Council, National Marine
Fisheries Service, EPA, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These studies were
also instrumental in designating the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Reserve system and the Indian River
Lagoon as an Estuary of National Concern by the EPA National Estuarine Program, in wetland restora-
tion and the formation of the Oculina Reef Reserve.

Oceanic and neritic studies conducted by Dr. Gilmore include over 300 submersible dives and 28 years of
ocean cruise and research experience in continental shelf and deep tropical reef ecosystems throughout
the tropical western Atlantic, Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific. He has extensive experience in public
program development for all media. He is a member of seven professional societies, currently President
of the Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

Edgar F. Lowe, Director of the Division of Environmental Sciences
St. Johns River Water Management District

Edgar F. Lowe received a B.S. in Zoology from Ohio University, an M.A. in Biology from the University
of South Florida, and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Maine. He is the director of the Divi-
sion of Environmental Sciences for the St. Johns River Water Management District, an agency respon-
sible for management of the water resources of northeastern and east-central Florida. His primary
professional interest is the restoration and management of aquatic and wetland ecosystems.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Gerald R. Culen, Assistant Professor
Department of Family, Youth, and Community Sciences, UF/IFAS

Dr. Gerald R. Culen is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family, Youth, and Community
Sciences. He is the design team leader for the Cooperative Extension Service's Environmental Education
State Major Program (FL714) and directs the programs at the University's four residential camping
centers. He received three degrees from Southern Illinois University, a Ph.D, and M.S. in Curriculum
and Instruction with and emphasis in environmental education and a B.A. in Zoology. His research
emphasis focuses on curriculum evaluation and how instructional models in environmental education
influence environmental behavior. This research emphasis is directly related to the "Extended Case
Study" an instructional model for investigating and evaluating environmental issues and actions which he
has co-developed. He has also authored or co-authored a number of publications including three case
studies: Canada Geese: A Wildlife Management Case Study; Wetlands: A Major North American Issue,
and his most recent publication, Coastal Marine Environmental Issues: An Extended Case Study for the
Gulf Coast and Florida Peninsula.

Victor J. Heller, Assistant Executive Director
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC)

Mr. Heller, current Assistant Executive Director of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(GFC), has spent 20 years with the GFC, plus 4 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory
Bird Research). His GFC service includes positions as Regional Wildlife Biologist Everglades Region,
Statewide Supervisor of Wildlife Management Area Program, Supervisor of Nongame Wildlife Section,
and Assistant Director Division of Wildlife. Mr. Heller received his B.S. and M.S. in Wildlife
Ecology from Oklahoma State University.

Ken Langeland, Professor
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants

Ken Langeland is a Professor of Agronomy in the IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. His re-
search program is aimed at solving practical problems in invasive plant management. His extension pro-
gram focuses on public education on invasive aquatic and terrestrial plants. It also involves pesticide
applicator training for applicators who apply pesticides for aquatic weed control and invasive plant manage-
ment on conservation lands. He is the author of over 50 journal publications and extension publications.

H. Franklin Percival, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, University of Florida

Dr. Percival, who currently works with the US Geological Survey Biological Resources Division of the
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, has received multiple grants and written numerous
publications on biological and environmental sciences in Florida. Dr. Percival received his B.S. in
Biology from the University of South Carolina. He went on to earn a Masters and PhD in Zoology from
Clemson University in 1968 and 1972 respectively.



Dr. Percival has been the principal investigator in projects on 1.) American alligator distribution, ther-
moregulation, and biotic potential relative to hydroperiod in the Everglades National Park U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey/BRD completion 6/99 (with K. Rice); 2.) Assessing the impact of the Lake Kissimmee
restoration on apple snails Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, South Florida Water
Management District and the St. Johns River Water Management District completion 6/98; 3.) Demo-
graphics, genetic relationships, and impacts from red-imported fire ants on the Florida grasshopper
sparrow USAF, Avon Park Air Force Range completion 12/98; 4.) Dry down tolerance of the Florida
apple snail (Pomacespaludosa, Say) effects of age and season U.S. Geological Survey/BRD comple-
tion 4/99; 5.) Movements, spatial use patterns, and habitat utilization of radio-tagged West Indian mana-
tees (Trichechus manatus) along the Atlantic coast of Florida and Georgia Sirenia Project, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey/BRD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completion 7/2000.

Ramesh Reddy, Professor
Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS

Dr. K. R. Reddy, Graduate Research Professor, University of Florida Wetland Biogeochemistry Labora-
tory, Soil and Water Science Department. Dr. Reddy and his coworkers conduct research on biogeochemi-
cal cycling of nutrients in soil-water-plant components of wetland ecosystems. Author or co-author of over
200 scientific papers. Major research interests are: spatial and temporal variations in biogeochemical cy-
cling of nutrients and other contaminants in wetlands and aquatic systems, as related to ecosystem functions
and water quality. Dr. Reddy teaches one graduate course on Biogeochemistry of Wetlands and undergradu-
ate course on Wetlands and Water Quality. Fellow Soil Science Society of America; Fellow American
Society of Agronomy; Chairman 1992 Div. A-5 (Environmental Quality), American Society of Agronomy;
Chairman 1994 Div. S-10, Wetland Soils Soil Science Society of America; University of Florida Re-
search Award 1990, 1991-92; Edward Deevey Jr. Award, 1998.


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Dr. William Seaman, Jr., Associate Director
Florida Sea Grant College Program, UF/IFAS

Dr. William Seaman, Jr., Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida,
Associate Director of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, Gainesville, Florida

Dr. Seaman is trained as an ichthyologist and has worked with fishes and habitats in freshwater and
marine environments. His principal assignment is to work with statewide and national programs in
sustainable development of coastal and ocean natural resources through research, technology transfer,
public service and education sponsored by Sea Grant.

As a principal scientific effort, Dr. Seaman's involvement with artificial reefs began over a decade ago
through various efforts to improve reef-building by diverse coastal fishery harvest and environmental
restoration interests in Florida through information transfer. Due to the status of Florida's reef network as
the largest in the U.S., he was invited to address national and regional conferences to describe it. Subse-
quently, he undertook research which includes (1) the first quantification of fish assemblages on re-
deployed obsolete petroleum platforms (in the U.S. Atlantic); (2) experimentation with full-scale artifi-
cial reefs and the effects of their dispersion/clustering on food and game fish species (Gulf of Mexico);
and (3) determination of the influence of reef size on fish biomass (U.S. Pacific).

In other professional areas, Dr. Seaman was President of the Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society, and produced a book, Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources, which was voted "book-
of-the-year" by a statewide fishery organization. He organized and taught the first fishery science course
at the University of Florida and is a life member of the American society of Ichthyologists and Herpe-
tologists and the American Fisheries Society, and was elected to the American Institute of Fishery
Research Biologists. He served as a member of the Florida Council on Environmental Education,
collaborated in a long-term National Science Foundation global environmental education workshop
program for teachers, and in 1996 he received the "Founder's Award" from the League of Environmental
Educators of Florida.



Stephanie C. Haas, Librarian
Marston Science Library, University of Florida

Stephanie C. Haas is the Environmental Sciences Librarian at the Marston Science Library, University of
Florida, Gainesville FL 32611-7011. (Her internet address is haas(aimail.uflib.ufl.edu). She has been at
UF since 1987. She received her BS in Psychology from Purdue University, an MLS and a post-graduate
fellowship in Environmental Studies from the University of Denver. She established the library at the
Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO; and held positions as assistant head of the Denver
Botanic Gardens Library, Denver, CO and as the Forestry Librarian at Colorado State University, Ft.
Collins, CO.

Dr. Stephen R. Humphrey, Dean
College of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida

Dr. Humphrey is the Dean of the College of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of
Florida. He received a B.A. degree in Biology from Earlham College and received his Ph.D. in Zoology
from Oklahoma State University.

He has conducted research on endangered species at the University of Florida for 26 years and has
published two books and more than 60 technical articles.

Currently, Dr. Humphrey is an Affiliate Professor of Latin American Studies, Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation, Zoology and is a curator in Ecology at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the
University of Florida. He is also chair of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Environ-
mental Regulation Commission, Chief Financial officer of the Society for Conservation Biology, Trustee
of the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, and a member of the Florida Panther Technical
Advisory Council.

In the past, Dr. Humphrey has served as Board Chair for the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy,
Co-chair for the Save the Manatee Club and Interim Chair for the Department of Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation at the University of Florida.

Dr. Martha Monroe, Extension Specialist
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, UF/IFAS

Dr. Martha Monroe is an extension specialist in natural resources education and assistant professor in the
School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida in Gainesville. She provides
support to a variety of environmental education programs (such as 4-H and PLT) and teaches communi-
cations and EE courses on campus.

Her work in environmental education spans over 20 years of teaching youngsters, facilitating teacher
workshops, developing curriculum, and working on college campuses. She holds a BS, MS, and Ph.D. in
Natural Resources from the University of Michigan, where she concentrated on environmental policy,
cognitive psychology, and environmental education. Recently, she was the Resource Center Director
with GreenCOM (the international EE activity of USAID), and prior to that she led the development of


JUNE 9-10, 1998

the EE Toolbox (a collection of resources for teacher educators) for the National Consortium for Environ-
mental Education and Training. She began her work here in Florida in January, 1998.

Hilary Swain, Executive Director
Archbold Biological Station

Hilary Swain is the Executive Director of Archbold Biological Station, an independent research facility
dedicated to long-term ecological research and conservation of the organisms and environments of the
Lake Wales Ridge. She oversees: research activities; land management of the Archbold's own 5,000-acre
scrub preserve; a K-12 education program; and the major conservation role of the Station in protecting
regional scrub habitats. Hilary also provides oversight and direction for the MacArthur Agro-ecology
Research Center, a major division of Archbold Biological Station. The Center is a 10,300-acre full-scale
commercial cattle ranch which conducts research on the relationships among cattle ranching, citrus
production and Florida's native biodiversity. Her research interests are in ecology, conservation biology,
and computer mapping systems for reserve design, land management and planning for endangered




Linkages in Ecosystem Science, Management, and Restoration


Bob Costanza, Director, Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Maryland,
Ecological Economics and the Valuation ofEcosystem Services




Suresh Rao, Director, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS
Joe Joyce, Interim Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources


Senator Jack Latvala, Chairman, The Florida Senate Committee on Natural
Bob Costanza. Director, Institute for Ecological Economics, University
of Maryland, A Transdisciplinary Approach to Ecosystem Management

10:00 AM BREAK



EwErnie Barnett, Director, Ecosystems Planning, Florida DEP

Volunteered Papers:
David Reed, Assessment of Wetlands in the St. Johns River Watershed Management District,
St. Johns River Water Management District
Mark Clark and Katie Sieving, Physical and Vegetative Characterization, Wildlife Use and
Spatial Dynamics of Floating Wetland Communities on Orange Lake, North Central
Florida, Soil and Water Science Dept., Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS
Jerry Culen, The Effects of a Wetlands Case Study on Environmental Behavior and Associated
Variables, Family, Youth and Community Sciences, UF/IFAS
David Carter, Organizing Information for Public Policy Development and Public Participation:
A Case of the ACF Interstate River Compact. Food and Resource Economics Dept.,
James Stevenson, Protecting the Water Quality ofIchetucknee Springs: A Watershed Working
Group Process. Florida Department of Environmental Protection


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Stephen Rockwood, North American Waterfowl Management Plan The Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture Comes to Florida, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission


m'Bob Bendick, State Director, Florida Chapter of the Nature Conservancy

Volunteered Papers:
Doria Gordon, Developing Priorities for Conservation Research in Florida. Botany
Department, UF
Tom Hoctor, A GIS-Based Landscape Approach to Identify a Statewide Ecological Greenways
System for Florida, Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS
Charles McKelvy, Florida's Forest Stewardship Program, Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission
Stephen Humphrey, Paying Landowners to Produce Endangered Species-An ESA Amendment
Creating a Market in Habitat Protection Credits, College of Natural Resources
and the Environment
Frank Mazzotti, A Scientific Framework for Developing an Ecotourism Program, Everglades
Research and Education Center, UF/IFAS
Linda Conway Duever, Green Infrastructure Planning for the Southeastern United States,
Conway Conservation, Inc.


G Grant Gilmore, Senior Scientist, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution

Volunteered Papers:
O.E. Rivera, The Integrated Habitat Network (IHN): If You Build It, They Will Come!!! Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and Phosphate Mines: A Partnership
for Better Ecosystem Management, Florida DEP
Lynn Lefebvre, A Team and Partnership Approach to Manatee Research and Recovery, Florida
Caribbean Science Center, USGS
Debbie Miller, Enhancement of Natural Dune Building and Revegetation Processes on Santa
Rosa Island. West Florida Research and Education Center, UF/IFAS
Margaret Lamont, The Cape San Blas Ecological Study, USGS/Biological Resources Division,
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Stephen Bortone, The Role ofArtificial Reefs in Fisheries and Ecosystem Management, Florida
Center for Environmental Studies, FAU
Ray Carthy, Roles of Sea Turtles in Marine Ecosystems: Research Programs of the Archie Carr
Center for Sea Turtle Research, Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS

12:15 PM LUNCH (Ballroom B)



See Pages 8-11 for Poster Information
1:00 -1:30 PM
1.Posters #1-10, Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
Guide: John Wlhite, Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS

2 Posters #21-30, Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Upland Emphasis
Guide: Randy Brown, Chair, Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS

1:30 2:00 PM
3. Posters #11-20, Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
Guide: Bill Debusk, Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS

4. Posters #31-40, Maintaining and Restoring Landscape Integrity: Upland Emphasis
Guide: George Tanner, Acting Chair, Wildlife

2:00 2:30 PM
5. Posters #41-50, Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Coastal & Marine
Emphasis, Guide: Debbie Miller, West Florida Research and Education Center, UF/IFAS

6. Posters #51-60, Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Invasive & Exotic Species
Emphasis, Guide: Alison Fox, Agronomy Department, UF/IFAS


Panel 1 Integrating Land and Water Management

Preside: Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida Institute of Government
Panelists: Linda Conway Duever, Conway Conservation, Inc.
Jerry Scarborough, Suwannee River Water Management District
Roger Sims, Holland & Knight Law

Panel 2 Integrating Land Use, Water Flows, and Estuary Activity

Preside: Holly Greening, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
Panelists: Tom Dyer, Holland & Knight Law
Christine Kelly-Begazo, Florida Yards and Neighborhoods, UF/IFAS
Woody Miley, Apalachicola Bay National Estuary Reserve
Joel Steward, St. Johns River Water Management District


School Bus Departs from Radisson Hotel Entrance (for those without transportation)




JUNE 9-10, 1998


*John Mills, Director, UF Governmental Responsibility
*Col. Terry L. Rice, (Ret.), Affiliate Professor, Environmental Research Programs,
Florida International University

10:00 AM BREAK



1Lawence Keenan, Technical Program Manager, Environmental Science Division, St. Johns
River Water Management District

Volunteered Papers:
Philip Darby, Ecological Studies ofApple Snails, Dept. of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,
Craig LeSchack, Opportunities for Cooperative Wetland Restoration and Enhancement on Public
Lands. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Raymond Kurz, Restoration ofAquatic Ecosystems in Southwest Florida, Southwest Florida
Water Management District
Blake Sasse, Effects of Everglades Restoration in the Holey Land Wildlife Management Area,
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Stanley Inabinet and James Mills, Saddle Creek Restoration and Alternative Mitigation Project,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Walvl Milon, Decision Analysis as a Tool for Ecosystem Restoration Planning: An Application
for the Everglades Ecosystem, Food and Resource Economics Dept., UF/IFAS


9'Dean Gjerstad, President, Long Leaf Pine Alliance, Professor, School of
Forestry, Auburn University

Volunteered Papers:
David Alden, Spatial and Temporal Use of High Pine Habitat by Black Bears on Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS
Christine Keenan, The Use of GIS to Combine Regulatory Requirements with Ecosystem
Restoration and Management Goals in Phosphate Mined Lands, Florida Dept.
of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Reclamation
David Sylvia, Role of Mycorrhizae in Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Soil and Water
Science Dept., UF/IFAS
Lyn Branch, Effects of Landscape Structure on the Florida Scrub Lizard (Sceloporus woodi),
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS
Michael Wefer, Getting Started: Inter-Agency Restoration Effects on the Big Bend Wildlife
Management Area, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
David Johnson, Apalachee Wildlife Management Area LongleafPine/Wiregrass Ecosystem
Restoration Project, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Division
of Wildlife
(Salon I)

'Dan Austin, Director of Environmental Sciences, Florida Atlantic University

-71 -


Volunteered Papers:
Linda Tyson, Is There a Screening Protocol That Will Protect Us Against Invasive Alien
Plants?, Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, UF
Alison Fox, Dealing with New Invasive Plants: Can We Improve Our Efforts to Stop Trouble in
Its Infancy?, Agronomy Department, UF/IFAS
Michael Burridge, Eradication of an Exotic Tick Species Imported into Florida from Africa on
Tortoises, College of Veterinary Medicine, UF
Amy Ferriter, Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum) in Florida, South Florida
Water Management District
Ken Langeland, Accomplishments and Constraints on Invasive Plant Extension Programs,
Agronomy Dept., UF/IFAS
James Cuda, Application of Plant Tissue Culture Technology for Research on Insect Natural
Enemies ofHydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrocharitaceae), Department of
Entomology and Nematology, UF/IFAS

12:15 PM LUNCH (Ballroom B)


Synthesis of Themes

Jerry Culen, Asst. Professor, Family, Youth & Comm. Sciences, UF/IFAS,
Maintaining Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
Vic Heller, Asst. Dir., Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Maintaining Landscape Integrity: Upland Emphasis
Bill Seaman, Assoc. Dir., Florida Sea Grant College,
Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Coastal & Marine
Ramesh Reddv, Professor, Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS,
Restoring Landscape Integrity: Wetland Emphasis
Franklin Percival, Unit Leader, Florida Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Restoring Landscape Integrity: Upland Emphasis
Ken Langeland, Professor, Agronomy Department, UF/IFAS,
Maintaining & Restoring Landscape Integrity: Invasive & Exotic
Species Emphasis

Gatorback Reporters:
Stephanie Haas, Environmental Science Librarian, Marston Science Library, UF
Steve Humphrey, Dean, College of Natural Resources and the Environment, UF
Martha Monroe, Asst. Professor, Forest Resources & Conservation, UF/IFAS
Hilarv Swain, Executive Director, Archbold Biological Station

E'Moderator: Joe Schaefer, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS


*Note: Poster Presentation Abstracts and the Forum Proceedings can be found on the Web at
http://qnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~cnr web/index.HTM. Click "SERVICES" and then "Natural Resources


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Name (Last, First) Position Title, Affiliation Street Address City, State, Zip Code
Alavalapati, Janaki Asst. Prof., UF/Forest Resources and Conservation 365 Newins-Ziegler, PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32605-0410
Alden, David UF/Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation 303 Newins-Ziegler, PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Aldrich, Jim Senior Biological Scientist, UF/IFAS/N.F.R.E.C. Rt. 4 Box 4092 Monticello, FL 32344
Allen, Nancy Biologist, US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 1317 Palatka, FL 32178
Anderson, Michael Biological Scientist 10088 NW 53rd St Sunrise, FL 33351
Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Annabel, Mike Assistant Professor, UF/Dept. of Env. Engin. & Science 353 Engineering, PO Box 110450 Gainesville, FL 32611-0450
Arachchi, Daya Ranamukha Graduate Assistant, University of Florida Business Address Unavailable Gainesville, FL 32603
Austin, Daniel Professor & Director, Department of Biology, FAU 777 Glades Rd., FAU, Dept of Biol. Boca Raton, FL 33431
Ballweber, Jeff Policy Analyst, Water Resources Research Institute 1473 Augusta Drive Starkvlle, MS 39759
Barnett, Emie Director, FL Department of Environmental Regulation MS 45, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399
Bartos, Leonard Environmental Manager, SW FL Water Mngmnt. District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Bassett, Melda Assistant Vice President, IFAS/SHARE, UF/IFAS PO Box 110170, McCarty Hall Gainesville, FL 32609
Beck, Cathy FL & Caribbean Science Center/US Geological Survey 7920 N.W. 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653-3071
Beck, Howard Associate Professor, Agric. and Biological Engineering PO Box 110495 Gainesville, FL 32611-0495
Bendick, Robert State Director, The Nature Conservancy 222 S Westmonte Dr. #300 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
Bennett, Dale Wakulla County Extension Director, UF/IFAS 84 Cedar Ave Crawfordville, FL 32327
Berry, Leonard Director, Florida Center for Environmental Studies, FAU 3970 RCA Blvd, #7401 Palm Beach, FL 33410
Bersok, Constance Environment Administrator, FL Dept of Environ. Protect. 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS #47 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Bodle, Mike Senior Environmental Scientist PO Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416
South Florida Water Managment District
Bonde, Robert Biological Science Technician 412 NE 16 Ave., Rm.250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
USGS-BRD Sirenia Project
Bortone, Stephen Professor, FL Center for Environmental Studies 3970 RCA Boulevard, Suite 7400 Palm Beach, FL 33410
Boyett, Jan Librarian Specialist, Florida Marine Research Institute 100 Eighth Ave. S.E. St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095
Branch, Lyn Associate Professor, UF/Wildlife Ecol and Conservation 303 Newins-Ziegler, PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Brazis, Dorothy Research Assistant, University of Florida PO Box 110610 Gainesville, FL 32611-0610
Breeze, Marshall Associate Professor, Ag Ed & Communication, UF/IFAS 218 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540
Brennaman, John Natural Resources Extension Agent, Polk County PO Box 9005 Bartow, FL 33831-9005
Brewer, J.P. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2051 East Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32310
Brown, Randy Chair & Professor, Soil and Water Sciences, UF/IFAS 106 Newell Hall, PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510
Bryan, Dana Bureau Chief, DEP/Natural & Cultural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S.530 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Buhrman, Judith Consultant 6123 113 St., #504 Seminole, FL 33772
Burges, Richard Natural Resources Supervisor, Alachua EPD 226 S.Main St Gainesville, FL 32601
Burridge, Michael Professor, UF/College of Veterinary Medicine PO Box 110880 Gainesville, FL 32611-0880
Campbell, Ken Professor, University of Florida PO Box 110570 Gainesville, FL 32611-0578
Canfield, Timothy Ecologist, US EPA Agency 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820
Carter, David Intern, SWFWMD 2397 Brood St Brooksville, FL 34609
Carthy, Raymond Courtesy Assistant Professor PO Box 110450 Gainesville, FL 32611-0450
UF/Wildlife Ecology & Conservation
Clark, Ken Post Doc Associate, UF/School of Forest Resources PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
Clark, Mark Graduate Student, Soil and Water Science Department P.O. Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510



Cohen, Matthew Graduate Assistant, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230, 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Confer, Andrea Agricultural and Biological Engineering PO Box 110495 Gainesville, FL 32611-0495
Conner, Larry Dean and Professor, Academic Programs, UF/IFAS PO Box 110270, 2001 McCarty Hall Gainesville, FL 32609
Costanza, Robert Director & Professor, Institute for Ecological Economics Center for Environmental Science Solomons, MD 20688
University of Maryland PO Box 1589
Craft, Cheri Staff Environmental Scientist PO Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416
South Florida Water Mangament District
Craft, Nadine Environmental Specialist, DEP of NW Florida 7257 Highway 90 East Milton, FL 32583
Craig, John Graduate Student/Agricultural & Biological Engin. Dept. PO Box 110570 Gainesville, FL 32611-0570
Cuda, James Assistant/Entomology, University of Florida PO Box 110620 Gainesville, FL 32611
Culen, Jerry Assistant Professor, University of Florida Box 110225 Gainesville, FL 32611
Darby, Phil Graduate Student, University of Florida PO Box 110450 Gainesville, FL 32611-0450
Davidson, James Retired VP Emeritus, University of Florida/IFAS 4421 NW 20 Place Gainesville, FL 32605
Davis, Fred South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gunclub Rd West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Debusk, William (Bill) Assistant. Professor PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510
UF/Soil and Water Science Department
deHaven-Smith, Lance Associate Director, FL Institute of Goverment, FSU 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg 300 Tallahassee, FL 32303
DePra, Don FL Department of Environmental Protection 3804 Coconut Palm Dr. Tampa, FL 33619
Deutsch, Charles Post Doctoral Associate, USGS-BRD Sirenia Project 412 NE 16 Ave., Rm. 250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
Duever, Linda President, Conway Conservation, Inc. PO Box 949 Micanopy, FL 32667
Durgee, Duane Deputy Chief, Field Operations, Division of Forestry 1600 NE 23rd Ave Gainesville, FL 32609
Dyer, Thomas Consultant, Holland & Knight LLP PO Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601-1288
Eckdahl, Jack Assistant Director, St. Johns River Water Management PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178
Ethridge, Laura Publications Specialist, FL Dept. of Env. Protection 3915 Commonwealth Blvd., MS710 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Farley, Ann Unavailable Unavailable Tallahassee, FL 32301
Ferriter, Amy Staff Environment Scientist, SFWMD PO Box 24680 W Palm Beach, FL 33416
Fish, John Senior Forest, FL Division Forestry 618 Plantation Rd Perry, FL 32347
Fisher, Dwight Rangeland Scientist, USDA ARS JPCSNRCC 1420 Watkinsville, GA 30677
Experiment Station Rd.
Fox, Alison Assistant Professor, University of Florida 304 Newell Hall, PO Box 110500 Gainesville, Fl 32611-0500
Frank, J. Howard Professor, UF/Entomology & Hematology Dept. PO Box 110630 Gainesville, FL 32611-0630
Freidin, Brian Graduate Student 2919 SW 13th #94 Gainesville, FL 32608
Gager, Lynn Coordinator, Gulf Coast Comm. College 5230 W. Highway 98 Panama City, FL 32401
Garcia, Angelica Biological Science Technician 412 NE 16 Ave., Rm. 250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
USGS-BRD Sirenia Project
Gholz, Henry Professor, UF/School of Forest Resources PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611
Gilmore, Jr, Richard Sr. Scientist, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute 5920 1st St SW Vero Beach, FL 32968
Gjerstad, Dean -g Professor, Auburn University/School of Forestry 108 M. Smith Hall Aubur, AL 36849
Gordon, Doria qa- r Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy PO Box 118526 Gainesville, FL 32611
Graetz, Donald Professor, University of Florida PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611
Greening, Holly Senior Scientist, Tampa Bay Estuary Program 100 8 Ave. SE, Mail Station I-1/NEP St. Petersburg, FL 32701
Haas, Stephanie Environmental Sciences Librarian, University of Florida PO Box 117011 Gainesville, Fl 32611
Hamilton, Alison Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611
Hammer, Marie Professor, University of Florida 3002 McCarty Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Hart, E.W. FL Department Environmental Protection Unavailable Gainesville, FL
Heller, Victor Assistant Executive Dir., FL. Game & Fish Commission 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL 32388-1600
Henley, Brian Student, University of Florida PO Box 116450 Gainesville, FL 32611-6450


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Hoctor, Tom Research Assistant 305 Newins- Ziegler Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-5706
UF/Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation PO Box 115706
Holbrook, Karen Vice President, Dean & Professor 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-5500
UF/Research and Graduate Education PO Box 115500
Holland, Stephen Director, UF Center for Tourism PO Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 32611-8208
Huffman, Mary The Nature Conservancy 225 East Stuart Avenue Lake Wales, FL 33853
Humphrey, Stephen Dean, UF/College of Natural Resources and Environ. 330 Little Hall, PO Box 118100 Gainesville, FL 32611-8100
Inabinet, Stanley Engineer IV, FL Dept. of Environmental Protection 2051 E Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32310
Jacobson, Michael Assistant Professor, University of Florida School of Forestry, Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
Jacobson, Susan Associate Professor, University of Florida PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation
James, Richard Dean, Director Office of Dean, IFAS PO Box 110200, McCarty Hall Gainesville, FL 32609
Johnson, David FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission Rt. 7, Box 3055 Quincey, FL 32351
Jones, Richard Dean, University of Florida/IFAS PO Box 110200,1022 McCarty Gainesville, FL 32605
Jordan, Nancy Birding Trail Coordinator 620 S. Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Joyce, Joe Vice President for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110180 Gainesville, FL 32611-0180
Juan, Chung-Hsin Graduate Student PO Box 110570 Gainesville, FL 32611-0570
Jubinsky, Greg Position/Affiliation Unavailable 3917 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32333
Kane, Michael Associate Professor, University of Florida PO Box 110670 Gainesville, FL 32611-0670
Kautz, Randy Biological Administrator, 620 S Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Keenan, Christine Environmental Specialist III 2051 East Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FI 32310
FDEP Bureau of Mine Reclamation
Kelly-Begazo, Christine State Coordinator University of Florida Gainsville, FL 32611-0670
Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program PO Box 110670
Kelly, Gene Planner, SW Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Kersey, Alice Extension Agent IV, Polk County Extension Service PO Box 9005, Drawer H503 Bartow, FL 33831
Kidder, Gerald Professor, UF/Soil and Water Sciences PO Box 110290 Gainesville, FL 32611-0290
Kiefer, John Chief Engineer, CF Industries PO Box 1549 Wauchula, FL 33873
Kirschbaum, Daniel Graduate Student, UF/IFAS PO Box 11069 Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Knadle-Meiss, Kathy Stewart Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230, 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Kurz, Raymond Environmental Scientist, SW FL Water Mngmt. District 2379 Broad St., (US 41 South) Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Kutz, Doug Yard Waste Educator, Ext. Agent, Brevard Co, UF/IFAS 3695 Lake Dr. Cocoa, FL 32926
Lagos, Jorge CAD Engineer, Florida Department of Env. Protection 2051 E. Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FI 32310
Lamont, Margaret Graduate Student, FL Coop/Fish & Wildlife Res. Center 117 Newins-Zlegler Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Langeland, Ken Professor, UF/Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants 7922 NW 71 St. Gainesville, FL 32653
Latvala, Senator Jack Florida State Senator, Florida Senate Committee 35111 US Hwy 19 N #105 Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Leeds, Stephanie Cabinet Aide, Department of Education LL-24, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32303
Lefebvre, Lynn Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 412 NE 16 Ave., Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
USGS-BRD Sirenia Project
LeSchack, Craig Wetland Biologist, FL Game and Fresh Water Fish Com 2690-E S Ponte Vedra Blvd Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
Linehan, Peter Assistant Professor, UF/IFAS PO Box 3634 Milton, Fl 32572-3654
Litt, Andrea UF/Department of Wildlife PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Loftin, Cynthia Research Assistant, Florida Coop Unit/WEC PO Box 110450 Gainesville, FL 32611-0450
Lohrer, Fred Archbold Biological Station PO Box 2057 Lake Placid, FL 33862



Lowe, Ed Director, Division of Environmental Sciences, SJRWMD PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32718
Main, Martin Assistant Professor, UF/IFAS 2686 SR 29 N. Immokalee, FL 34142
Marois, Katherine Asst. Data Manager, Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1018 Thomasville Rd., Suite 200-C Tallahassee, FL 32303
Martinez, Alberto Environmental Scientist, SWFWMD 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Mazzotti, Frank Assistant Professor, Everglades Research & Ed. Center PO Box 8003, EREC Belle Glade, FL 33403-8003
McGlincy, Joe Wildlife Biologist, Southern Forestry Consultants, Inc. 305 W. Shotwell St. Bainbridge, GA 31717
McKelvy, Charles Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission 3125 Conner Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399
Meffe, Gary Professor, University of Florida 502 SW 179 Ave. Micanopy, FL 32667
Miley, Woody Apalachicola Bay National Estuary 261 7" St. Apalachicola, FL 32320
Miller, Deborah Assistant Professor, UF/Milton Campus PO Box 3634 Milton, FL 32572-3634
Mills, James Engineer IV, FL Dept. of Environmental Protection 2001 Homeland-Garfield Rd. Bartow, FL 33820
Mills, Jon Director, UF/Center for Governmental Responsibility PO Box 117629 Gainesville, FL 32610
Milon, J. Wally Asst. Director, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230, 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Minno, Marc St. Johns River Water Management District PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178
Moll, Lisa Staff Assistant, Florida DEP 2051 E. Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FI 32310
Monroe, Martha Assistant Professor, University of Florida/SFRC PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
Neel, Todd Research Assistant, University of Florida PO Box 110500 Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Norcini, Jeffrey Assoc. Professor, UF/IFAS NFREC, Rt. 4 Box 4092 Monticello, FL 32344
Okoniewski, Rusty Acting Director, UF/IFAS PO Box 110110 Gainesville, FL 32611-0110
Olson, Clay County Extension Director, Taylor County Extension 108 N. Jefferson St. Perry, FL 32347-0820
O'Meara, Tim Bureau Chief, FGFWFC 620 S. Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
Parenteau, Craig Environmental Specialist 4801 SE 17'n St. Gainesville, FL 32641
DEP/Division of Recreation & Parks
Parveen, Selina Deparmentt of Family, Youth, & Community Sciences PO Box 110365 Gainesville, Fl 32611-0365
Pennington, Julie Wildlife Researcher, University of Florida 3245 College Ave. Davie, FL 33314
Percival, Franklin Unit Leader, FL Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit PO Box 110450 Gainesville, FI 32611-0450
Pereira, Jose Tomaz Visiting Professor, University of Florida Business Address Unavailable Gainesville, FL
Peterson, Nancy Coordinator, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230,1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Pikula, Linda National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 4301 Rickenbacher Miami, FI 33133
Pitts, William Biological Scientist PO Box 1292 Sneads, FL 32460
Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Portela, Rosimery Position/Affiliation Unavailable Business Address Unavailable Gainesville, FL 32608
Posas, Paula Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230. 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Possley, Jennifer Graduate Assistant 7922 NW 71v St. Gainesville, FL 32653
UF/Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants
Powers, Mike Conservationist, Lake Soil & Water Conservation Dist. 32235 Merry Rd. Tavares, FL 32778
Puz, Willie DEP Unavailable Unavailable
Rao, Suresh Director, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230, 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Reck, William Environmental/Planning Engineer, USDA-NRCS PO Box 141510 Gainesville, FL 32614-1510
Reddy, K. Ramesh Professor, UF/Soil and Water Science PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510
Reed, David Environmental Specialist PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
St. Johns River Water Management District
Reid, James Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USGS-BRD Sirenia Project 412 NE 16 Ave., Rm. 250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
Rice, Terry Research Scientist, Florida International University OE-148 Bldg., University Park, FIU Miami, FL 33199
Richards, Anthony Sr. Land Management Specialist, SWFWMD 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, FL 34609
Rivera, Orlando Environmental Administrator, Florida DEP 2051 East Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32310
Roberts, Sharon Graduate Research Assistant, UF/IFAS PO Box 12604 Gainesville, FL 32604

JUNE 9-10, 1998

Rockwood, Stephen Waterfowl Biologist 3200 T.M. Goodwill Rd. Fellsmere, FL 32949
FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Royals, Homer Chemist, FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission PO Box 1903 Eustis, FL 72727
Russell, Mary Ruth Student, FSU/Public Administration & Policy 130 Mallard Cirle #A8 Tallahassee, FL 32304
Russo, Jerard Director, USDA, Aphis, Plant Protection Center 8710 SW 185 Terrace Miami, FL 33156
Sasse, Blake Biological Scientist III 11320 Fortune Circle, Suite G-16 Wellington, FL 33414
FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
Scarborough, Jerry Executive Director 9225 CR 49 Live Oak, FL 32060
Suwannee River Water Management District
Schaefer, Joseph Asst. Director, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230, 1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Scheick, Brian UF/Wildlife Ecology and Conservation PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Schert, John Executive Director, FL Center for S&H Management 2207-D NW 13'" St. Gainesville, Fl 32609
Seaman, William Prof and Acting Directr, FL Sea Grant College, UF/IFAS PO Box 110400 Gainesville, FL 32611-0400
Sheftall, Will Extension Agent, UF Natural Resource Management 615 Paul Russell Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32301-7099
Shih, S.F. Professor, UF/Agricultural & Biological Engin. Dept. PO Box 110570 Gainesville, FL 32611-0570
Shukla, Claire Graduate Research Assistant/Soil and Water Sciences PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510
Sieving, Katie Assistant Professor, UF/Wildlife Ecology and Conserv. PO Box 110430 Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Sillan, Gloria Assistant, Center for Natural Resources, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230,1051 McCarty Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Sims, Roger Attorney, Holland & Knight LLP 200 S Orange Ave #2600 Orlando, FL 32801
Singleton, Lloyd District Conservationist 32235 Merry Rd. Tavares, FL 32778
Lake, Soil, & Water Conservation District
Smith, Hanley Biologist, Corps of Engineers PO Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32232
Smith, Jacqueline Regional Biologist, DEP Invasive Plant Management 3111-B13 Fortune Way Wellington, FL 33414
Smith, Steve Environmental Scientist, SFWMD PO Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Smitherman, Steve Graduate Student, UF/School of Forest Resources PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
Stevens, Philip Biological Science Technician, Biol. Resources Division 7920 NW 71' St. Gainesville, FL 32653
Stevenson, Jim Chief of Public Land Management, Florida DEP 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, Fl 32399
Steward, Joel Technical Program Manager, SJWMD PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178
Stocker, Randall Professor & Director 7922 NW 71 "Street Gainesville, FL 32653-0610
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, UF/IFAS PO Box 110610
Stricker, James Extension Agent, Polk County, UF/IFAS PO Box 9005, Drawer H503 Bartow, FL 33831
Swain, Hilary Executive Director, Archbold Biological Station PO Box 2057 Lake Placid, FL 33862-2057
Sylvia, David Professor, University of Florida PO Box 110290 Gainesville, FL 32611-0290
Tanner, George Acting Chair & Prof., Wildlife Ecology & Conservation PO Box 110430, UF Gainesville, FL 32611-0430
Thangata, Paul Graduate Student, UF/IFAS PO Box 110230,1051 McCarty D Gainesville, FL 32611-0230
Thayer, Dan Vegetation Mangament, SFWMD PO Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Torres, William Bureau Chief, FL DEP/Invasive Plant Management 2051 E. Dirac Drive Tallahassee, FL 32310
Trubey, Jill Research Staff, FL DEP 100 Eighth Ave., SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Tyson, Linda UF/Environment Engineering Services Black Hall, PO Box 116450 Gainesville, FL 32611-6450
Vandevelde, Iskande Biolog. Science Technician, USGS-BRD Sirenia Project 412 NE 16 Ave., Rm.250 Gainesville, FL 32601-3701
Vandiver, Vemon Extension Agent, Broward County, UF/IFAS 3205 College Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314-7799
Vericker, John Graduate Assistant, UF/Forest Resources and Conserv. PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
Waddill, Christine Dean, Director & Professor, UF Extension PO Box 110210 Gainesville, FL 32609
Warr, Karen Environmental Specialist III, SJRWMD PO Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Watson, Craig Assistant Coordinatoar, USDA/Forest Service 2730 Savannah Hwy Charleston, SC 29414


Wefer, Michael Biological Scientist Supervisor 663 Plantation Rd. Perry, FL 32347
FL Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
White, John Graduate Student, Soil and Water Sciences, UF/IFAS PO Box 110510 Gainesville, FL 32611-0510
Wiley, Nick Bureau Chief, FL Game & Fish Commission 620 S. Merdian St. Tallahassee, FL 32311
Yingling, Jay Senior Economist, SW FL Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, FL 33604
Zattau, Bill Biologist, US Army Corps of Engineers 406 W. Bay St., CESAJ-CO-OA Jacksonville, FL 32225


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Appendix IV- Forum Steering Committee

Nick Aumen, Director
Okeechobee Systems Research Division
South Florida Water Management District

Leonard Berry, Director
Florida Center for Environmental Studies
Florida Atlantic University

Ronnie Best, Chief
Restoration Ecology Branch
U.S. Geological Survey

Don Bethancourt
Ecosystem Management Staff Officer
National Forests of Florida
USDA Forest Service

Tom Crisman, Director
Center for Wetlands
University of Florida

James Cuda
Department of Entomology and Nematology

Jack Eckdahl, Director
Division of Land Management
St. Johns River Water Management District

Jeff Hardesty, Director
Public Lands Program
The Nature Conservancy

Stephanie Haas, University Librarian
Marston Science Library
University of Florida

Victor Heller, Assistant Executive Director Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

Stephen Humphrey, Dean
College of Natural Resources and the Environment
University of Florida

Mike Long, Assistant Director
Florida Division of Forestry
Florida Forest Protection Bureau

Pam McVety, Executive Coordinator
Ecosystem Management
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Wally Milon, Assistant Director
Center for Natural Resources, and
Department of Food and Resource Economics

Nancy Peterson, Coordinator
Center for Natural Resources

Franklin Percival, Unit Leader
Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
U.S. Geological Survey

P. Suresh C. Rao, Director
Center for Natural Resources and
Department of Soil and Water Science

Joe Schaefer, Assistant Director
Center for Natural Resources, and
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation UF/

Bill Seaman, Associate Director
Florida Sea Grant College

Will Sheftall, Natural Resource Agent
Leon County, Florida Cooperative Extension Service

Hanely Smith, Acting Chief
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wayne Smith, Director
Center for Biomass Programs, and
School of Forest Resources and Conservation

Randall Stocker, Director
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants

Hilary Swain, Executive Director
Archbold Biological Station



Forum Registration and Logistical Support
Matthew Cohen
John Craig
Jennifer Jones
Alex Juan
Margaret LaMont
Nicole Murrey
Nancy Peterson
Paula Posas
Sharon Roberts
Brian Short
Claire Shukla
Gloria Sillan
Cathy Stewart-Meiss
Paul Thangata

Compilation, Editing, and Layout for Proceedings Document
Lisa Molley
Nicole Murray
Brian Short
Gloria Sillan
Nancy Peterson
Suresh Rao

Compilation, Editing, and Layout for Summary Document
Paula Posas
Nancy Peterson
Suresh Rao

Transcriptions and Forum Summary
Paula Posas

Logo Design
Beverly Tiner

Cover Layout
Brian Short

Guest Speaker Interviews
James Cuda

Videographic Recording and Editing
Al Williamson
Kerith Brandt
Cathy Hendricks
Erin Easterling

CD Rom Technician
Chris Frascati


JUNE 9-10, 1998

Keynote Speakers
Bob Costanza ................................... ................. 9,54
Senator Jack Latvala ........................................... 11,54
Jon Mills .................................... .................14,55
Terry Rice ........................ .......... ........ ........... 16,58

State Panelists
Integrating Land and Water Management
Lance deHaven-Smith .............. ............................ 19,56
Linda Conway Duever .. .......................... ................. 21,56
Jerry Scarborough ........... ..... ........................ . 22,55
Roger Sims .......... ...... .......... ................... 23,58

Integrating Land Use, Water Flows, and Estuary Activity
Tom Dyer .............. . ................................ 25,56
Holly Greening ........ .... ................................. 25,57
Christine Kelly-Begazo .................... ....................... 26,57
Woody Miley .................... ........ .................. 26,58
Joel Steward ................ ...............................28,59

Theme Speakers
Maintaining and Restoring Landscape Integrity
Ernie Barnett Maintaining: Wetland Emphasis ......................... 37,60
Ed Lowe Maintaining and Restoring: Wetland Emphasis ................... 39,62
Robert Bendick Maintaining: Upland Emphasis ......................... 44,61
Dean Gjerstad Maintaining and Restoring: Upland Emphasis ............... .29,61
Grant Gilmore Maintaining and Restoring: Coastal and Marine Emphasis....... 35,61
Dan Austin Maintaining and Restoring: Invasive and Exotic Species Emphasis .. 36,60

Theme Reporters
Jerry Culen ............... .......... ............................ 40,56
Vic Heller ........... .. .......... ................................ 44,63
Ken Langeland ............... ........................... 47,63
Franklin Percival ............ ........................................... 46,63
Ramesh Reddy .............. ......................... ............ 42,64
Bill Seaman .......... .. ............................. ............ 48,65

Gatorback Reporters
Stephanie Haas .................... ......................... . 49,66
Stephen Humphrey ......... ............ .... ...... ............. 50,66
Martha Monroe ......... .. ......................... ............ 51,66
Hilary Swain ................. ................................. 52,66

Note: The page numbers correspond to presenter summary and then biographical sketch.



Dan Austin ........... ................................. ........... 6,36,47,60,73
Ernie Barnett ............... ................................... 6,37,40,60,73
Bob Bendick ..................................................... 6,32,44,61,73
Bob Costanza ............. .............................. ......... 6,9,43,52,54,74
Jerry Culen ........... .................................... .......... 6,40,63,74
Lance deHaven-Smith ................. .......................... 6,19,50,56,74
Linda Conway Duever ................ ........................... 6,21,44,56,74
Tom Dyer .......... .......... ................ ...... ....... 25,50,56,74
Grant Gilmore .............. ................................... 6,35,61,74
Dean Gjerstad .................................................... 6,29,46,61,74
Holly Greening ....................................................... 6,25,57,74
Stephanie Haas . .............................................. 6,49,66,74,79
Vic Heller .................................... .................... 6,44,63,74,79
Stephen Humphrey ................. ...................... 3,6,7,45,49,50,66,75,79
Christine Kelly-Begazo ............................................. 6,26,50,57,75
Ken Langeland ............ .......................................... 6,47,63,75
Senator Jack Latvala .................................... ............ .. 6,11,54,75
Ed Lowe ............ ............................................ 6,39,42,62,76
Jon Mills ........... ................................................ 6,14,55,76
Woody Miley ............ ................................ ............ 6,26,58,76
Martha Monroe ..................................... ............... 6,40,51,66,76
Franklin Percival ..................................... .............. 6,46,63,76,79
Ramesh Reddy ..................................... .................. 6,42,64,76
Terry Rice ........... ........................................... 6,16,50,55,77
Jerry Scarborough ................ ................... ............ .3,6,8,22,58,77
Bill Seaman ..................................... ................ 3,6,48,65,77,79
Roger Sims ............ ......................................... 6,23,50,58,77
Joel Steward ........... ............................................. 6,28,59,77
Hilary Swain . ................. ............ ................... 6,52,67,77,79


JUNE 9-10, 1998



Ecosystem Research
Outreach Education
Sustainable Solutions



J Develop cost-effective strategies for remediation and
restoration of adversely impacted ecosystems

* Through outreach and education programs, inform
research and extension faculty, and link them with

Develop a scientific basis for ecologically sound
management and conservation of natural resources.

C Provide integrated ecosystem and economic analysis
for management and policy conditions.

Center for Natural Resources
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
1051 McCarty Hall
P.O. Box 110230
Gainesville, FL 32611

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