• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main






Title: Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Everglades National Park; and the National Park Foundation; and Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management Regarding Restoration of Wetlands in the Hole-in-the-Donut
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00093945/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Everglades National Park; and the National Park Foundation; and Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management Regarding Restoration of Wetlands in the Hole-in-the-Donut
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Publisher: Florida International University
Place of Publication: Miami, FL
Publication Date: 1993
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00093945
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.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

hidagree3 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
Full Text




MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING


BETWEEN

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

AND

THE NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

AND

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT


REGARDING

RESTORATION OF WETLANDS

IN THE HOLE-IN-THE-DONUT


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










TABLE OF CONTENTS


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................ 1
ARTICLE I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................ 1
ARTICLE II. STATEMENT OF WORK.................................................... 3
A PA R K 'S RESPO N SIBILITIES................................................. ................. 3
Implementation of Restoration .............. ....................... .............. 3
Preparation and Submission of Reports .................. ............. 4
Receipt of Funds by the FOUNDATION on behalf of the
PARK ............ ............................................... ..... ............ 4
M maintenance of Records ........................................... ............ 4
Access to Records ..................... .................... .... .. .......... 4
B. FOUNDATION'S RESPONSIBILITIES................................... ................... 5
Receipt of Funds by the FOUNDATION on behalf of the
PA R K .................................................................... ....... ..... 5
FOUNDATION to Manage Funds Received ................................. 5
Maintenance of Records ...................................... ............ 5
Access to Records ................ ..... ............... ........ 5
Preparation and Submission of Reports ................... ........ .... 6
C. COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES.................................. 6
Review and Implementation of Program....................................... 6
Identification of Hole-in-the-Donut Contribution Amounts ............. 6
Crediting to Index Code of Hole-in-the-Donut Contribution
A m ounts.............. ................... ..... .............. ....... ........ ......... 7
Transfer to the FOUNDATION of Hole-in-the-Donut
Contribution Amounts .......................................................... 7
M maintenance of Records ........................................... ............ 7
Access to Records ....... ..... .................. ....... ........ 7
Preparation and Submission of Reports ................... ................ 8
ARTICLE III. TERM(S) OF AGREEMENT ............................................. 8
ARTICLE IV. KEY OFFICIALS ........................................ ............ 8
PAR K ................... ............. .......... ..... .......... 8
C O U N T Y ................................ .......... .... ......... 9
FOUNDATION ............. ...................... ......... 9
ARTICLE V. PROPERTY UTILIZATION ......................... .......... 9
ARTICLE VI. PRIOR APPROVAL ............................ .......................... 9
ARTICLE VII. REPORTS .................................. ............................ 9
ARTICLE VIII. AMENDMENT ..... .................... ................ 10
ARTICLE IX. TERM INATION ............................................ .... ............. 10
ARTICLE X. REQUIRED CLAUSES..................................... ............. 11
ARTICLE XI. N OTICES............................ ............... ............. 11
A R T IC L E X II. V E N U E ............................................................................. 12
IN W IT N E SS W H E R E O F ............................................................... ............ .............. 13
N A TIO N A L PAR K SE RV ICE ......................................................... ... ................ 13
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ...................................... ................... 13
D A D E COU N TY .. ................. .............................. ................ ....... ..... ........ .... 13

E X H IB IT A ................... ................... ......................................................... .. 14

E X H IB IT B .................................................................................................................. 15
A B ST R A C T ......................................................... ...... .......... .... 16


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










INTRODUCTION ....................................... 17
STUDY AREA ............................. ......................................... .......... 18
MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ............................................... 19
Substrate Rem oval and Surveying ............................ ..... ...................... ... 19
Data Sam pling ........................................................... ............. 19
Vegetation Sampling ....................................... .... ........................ 20
H ydrological Sam pling ........................................... .......................... 20
Substrate Nutrient Sam pling.......................................... ................ 20
Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (VAM) Fungi Sampling ...................... 21
Data Analysis ..................... ........................... 22
Vegetation Data........................... ............................ 22
H ydrological D ata.................. .............. ... .. ........... ... .............. 22
VAM Fungi Data .... .... ................. ........................ .... .............. 23
RESULTS ....... ........................................................... ....................... 23
Substrate Rem oval and Surveying ............................................. .................. 23
D ata Sam pling ................................ ............... .... 23
Vegetation Sampling .............. .................................. ................. 23
D IS C U S S IO N .................................................................. .......................................... 2 4
ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS ..................................................... ..... .............. 24
L IT E R A T U R E C IT E D ....................................................................... ........................... 26
Table 1. Partial listing of species colonizing the mitigation site in the Hole-in-the-
D o n u t .............................................. ................... .... ............ ............................ 3 0
Figure 1. Flow chart showing general pattern of succession on farmland abandoned
without the effects of rock-plowing and with the effects of rock-plowing .............. 32
Figure 2. Map of southern Florida and Everglades National Park, indicating the
area of the H ole-in-the-Donut. ................................................................................... 34
Figure 3. Map of the Hole-in-the-Donut showing the location of the mitigation site. ......... 36

ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS..................................... .......................... .............. 37
A Topography and Control Sheets ................................................ ...... .............. 37
B. Aerial Photography for Production of the Topography and Control Sheets.................. 37
C. Bench Mark..................................................... 38
D. Vegetation Clearing ................. .............. .. .......... .. 38
E. Substrate Removal ................................................ .............. 38
F. Continuous-Monitoring Hydrological Well ....................................... ................. 39
G Staging A rea................................ ............... .... 40
H. Time Frames .................... ................................................ 40
I. Final Considerations Engineering Specifications ............. .................................. 40

MONITORING AND STUDY SPECIFICATIONS ........................................... 41
O v erv iew ...................................................................................... 4 1
A Vegetation Sam ple Plots..................... ............................................. ........................ 41
B. Photopoints....................................... 42
C. Hydrological Sampling ............ .......... .......... .. ........ ........... ............. 42
D. Additional Environmental M monitoring ............................ ..... .......................... 42
E. Substrate Nutrient Analysis............................ ........ .............................. 42
F. Additional Responsibilities of Contractor(s)....................... ........................... 43

DATA ANALYSIS ............................ ..... ............................................. ........... 43
A V egetation................. ........... ................................ ........... .......... .... 43
B H ydrology D ata................................ ................... 43
L IT E R A T U R E C IT E D ..................................................... .................................. .... 44

f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc












TABLE 2. Per Acre Budget.................... .......................................... ........................ 48


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING


BETWEEN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
40001 STATE ROAD 9336
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA 33034-6733

AND

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
1101 17TH STREET, SUITE 1102
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

AND


METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
PROFESSIONAL SAVINGS BANK BUILDING
33 SW 2ND AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130



THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter the "AGREEMENT")is made and entered into this


day of


1993, by and between the United States Department of the Interior,


National Park Service, Everglades National Park (hereinafter the "PARK"), the National Park

Foundation (hereinafter the "FOUNDATION") and Metropolitan Dade County, a political

subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter the "COUNTY").


ARTICLE I.


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES


WHEREAS, 48 STAT. 816 passed May 30, 1934, provided for the establishment of

Everglades National Park in the State of Florida; and



WHEREAS, Public law 90-583 (1968) provides for the control of noxious plants on federal

lands, and Executive Order 11987, issued May 29, 1977, calls for restrictions on the introduction of

exotic species into natural ecosystems on Federal lands; and


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










WHEREAS, Everglades National Park in its "General Management Plan" (1979) recognized

the Park's responsibilities to "control exotic plant and animal species when necessary to prevent

disruption to native communities"; and



WHEREAS, The Everglades National Park Master Plan and the Resource Management

Plan address the issue of mitigating the effects of exotics, particularly the successional trends in the

area known as the Hole-in-the-Donut in Everglades National Park (Exhibit A); and



WHEREAS, 39 STAT. 535, passed August 25, 1916, enables Everglades National Park to

enter into Agreement with other agencies and persons; and



WHEREAS, Public Law 90-209 of the 90th U. S. Congress, December 18, 1967 established

the National Park Foundation; and



WHEREAS, the FOUNDATION is empowered by Congress to act on behalf of the PARK

with regard to the acceptance and management of funds or income; and



WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the PARK have agreed to establish a cooperative program to

implement control of exotic plants in the Hole-in-the-Donut; and



WHEREAS, on July 21, 1992, the Dade County Board of County Commissioners created

Section 24-58.21 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, which established the Freshwater

Wetland Mitigation Trust Fund (FWMT Fund) for receiving mitigation contributions from developers

in the Bird Drive Everglades Wetland Basin and the North Trail Wetland Basin; and the COUNTY

represents that (1) this AGREEMENT has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the

Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the COUNTY, and (2) it has the required


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 2










power and authority to perform this AGREEMENT.


WHEREAS, the FWMT Fund was created for use in acquiring (including by eminent

domain), restoring, enhancing, managing or monitoring freshwater wetlands within Dade County.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and mutual covenants contained

herein, the parties agree as follows:



ARTICLE II. STATEMENT OF WORK

A. PARK'S RESPONSIBILITIES

1) Implementation of Restoration. The PARK agrees to, and shall be solely responsible for

implementing, the program in accordance with the general procedures and methods contained in the

document entitled, Restoration of Former Wetlands within the Hole-in-the-Donut in Everglades

National Park: Project Plan and Specifications, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The PARK shall be

solely responsible for obtaining all of the required federal, state and local permits for the

performance of the work, writing and awarding of contracts or cooperative AGREEMENTs regarding

implementation of work, scheduling, hiring and payment of personnel, purchase or rental of

supplies, materials and equipment or other project support as necessary. The PARK may, at its

sole discretion, add to or modify the methods or procedures contained in Exhibit B as deemed

necessary or appropriate based on information from the results of previous or ongoing project work,

monitoring data or study results in order to improve or enhance any of the elements or purposes of

this project as described in this AGREEMENT, provided, however, that such modification shall not

alter the PARK'S obligation to mitigate the number of acres for which payments have been

committed prior to such modification pursuant to this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT, including

all appendices, attachments and codicils shall not under any of its terms, limitations or conditions

be considered by any of the parties to this AGREEMENT to encumber or otherwise in any way limit


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 3










the use or direction of funds received from sources other than those described within this

AGREEMENT by the FOUNDATION on behalf of the PARK.



2) Preparation and Submission of Reports. The PARK shall provide to the COUNTY

documentation and reports, as specified in Article VI of this AGREEMENT, sufficient to verify

satisfactory completion of work in accordance with Exhibit "B". Annual reports shall be generated

by the PARK and provided to the COUNTY and the FOUNDATION for distribution to any parties

of their choosing. The PARK's reports shall include a general description of the work performed to

date, discussion of monitoring results (as these become available) or general observations, as well

as a summary of expenditures to date.



3) Receipt of Funds by the FOUNDATION on behalf of the PARK. The PARK agrees and

represents that receipt by the FOUNDATION of funds) from the COUNTY in accordance with the

provisions of this AGREEMENT shall constitute receipt by the PARK of the funds for use in

implementing the Hole-in-the-Donut project in accordance with Exhibit "B".



4) Maintenance of Records. The PARK shall keep accounting records which conform with

generally accepted accounting principles which shall include, but not be limited to, a cash receipt

journal, general ledger, and all such subsidiary ledgers as reasonably necessary. All such records

will be retained by the PARK for not less than five (5) years beyond the term of this AGREEMENT.



5) Access to Records. The PARK shall provide access to all their records of or relating to this

project and AGREEMENT, and agrees to provide such assistance as may be necessary to facilitate

their review by the COUNTY or the FOUNDATION when deemed necessary by either to insure

compliance with accounting and financial standards. The COUNTY or the FOUNDATION shall

have the right to access all records for not less than five (5) years beyond the term of this


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










AGREEMENT. The PARK shall make all records or documents which relate to this AGREEMENT

available to the COUNTY or the FOUNDATION at the PARK's offices during regular business

hours.



6) Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be construed to require the PARK to expend funds that

have not been lawfully appropriated and administratively allocated for such purposes.



B. FOUNDATION'S RESPONSIBILITIES



1) Receipt of Funds by the FOUNDATION on behalf of the PARK. The FOUNDATION agrees

to accept, on behalf of the PARK, and solely for the purposes as outlined in this AGREEMENT, the

principal amounts received from the COUNTY's above-described revenue index code of the FWMT

Fund.



2) FOUNDATION to Manage Funds Received. The FOUNDATION shall manage the funds

received from the above-described index code of the FWMT Fund solely for the benefit of the PARK

in order to provide solely for the implementation of the work and projects outlined in this

AGREEMENT and any attachments, exhibits, appendices or codicils.



3) Maintenance of Records. The FOUNDATION shall keep accounting records which conform

with generally accepted accounting principles which shall include, but not be limited to, a cash

receipt journal, general ledger, and all such subsidiary ledgers as reasonably necessary. All such

records will be retained by the FOUNDATION for not less than five (5) years beyond the term of

this AGREEMENT.



4) Access to Records. The FOUNDATION shall provide access to all their records of or relating


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 5










to this project and AGREEMENT, and agrees to provide such assistance as may be necessary to

facilitate their review by the COUNTY or the PARK when deemed necessary by the either to insure

compliance with accounting and financial standards. The COUNTY or the PARK shall have the

right to access all records for not less than five (5) years beyond the terms of this AGREEMENT.

The FOUNDATION shall make all records or documents which relate to this AGREEMENT

available to the COUNTY at the PARK's offices during regular business hours.



4) Preparation and Submission of Reports. An annual report shall be generated by the

FOUNDATION and provided to the COUNTY and the PARK for distribution to any parties of their

choosing. The FOUNDATION's reports shall include a statement showing the amount of funds

received to date from the FWMT Fund and a summary of account activities (deposits and

expenditures) relating to the project described in this AGREEMENT.



C. COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES

1) Review and Implementation of Program. The COUNTY shall participate in the review of

the implementation of this exotic plant control/freshwater wetland restoration program. The

COUNTY's Department of Environmental Resources Management ("DERM") shall be responsible for

review of the project to ensure compliance with project goals, procedures and methods contained in

Exhibit "B".



2) Identification of Hole-in-the-Donut Contribution Amounts. The COUNTY shall, upon receipt

of a mitigation contribution, identify an amount equal to that percentage of the total amount

collected which has been designated, by mutual consent and agreement of the member agencies of

the Special Area Management Plan Committee (SAMP Committee), for use in restoring that area of

the PARK known as the "Hole-in-the-Donut." This percentage is set forth in Exhibit "A", which

exhibit may be amended to reflect any changes (as determined in writing by the U.S. Army Corps of


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 6










Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and the COUNTY) by mutual

written agreement of the COUNTY and the PARK. The Assistant County Manager and the

Everglades National Park Superintendent are authorized to provide the written AGREEMENT

required to amend Exhibit "A".



3) Crediting to Index Code of Hole-in-the-Donut Contribution Amounts. The COUNTY shall

credit to a revenue index code within the FWMT Fund the percentage of the mitigation amount

received in accordance with paragraph 3 above. Interest accrued on this principal amount prior to

disbursement to the FOUNDATION shall be retained by the COUNTY for use for administrative

costs.



4) Transfer to the FOUNDATION of Hole-in-the-Donut Contribution Amounts. The COUNTY

shall, within 30 days of the end of each month, transfer to the FOUNDATION those principal

amounts accrued in the above-described revenue index code of the FWMT Fund.



5) Maintenance of Records. The COUNTY shall keep accounting records which conform with

generally accepted accounting principles which shall include, but not be limited to, a cash receipt

journal, general ledger, and all such subsidiary ledgers as reasonably necessary. All such records

will be retained by the COUNTY for not less than five (5) years beyond the term of this

AGREEMENT.



6) Access to Records. The COUNTY shall provide access to all its records of or relating to this

project and AGREEMENT, and agrees to provide such assistance as may be necessary to facilitate

their review by the PARK or the FOUNDATION when deemed necessary by the either to insure

compliance with accounting and financial standards. The PARK or the FOUNDATION shall have

the right to access all records for not less than five (5) years beyond the terms of this AGREEMENT.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










The COUNTY shall make all records or documents which relate to this AGREEMENT available to

the PARK or the FOUNDATION at the COUNTY'S offices during regular business hours.



7) Preparation and Submission of Reports. Annual reports shall be generated by the COUNTY

and provided to the PARK and FOUNDATION for distribution to any parties of their choosing. The

COUNTY's reports shall include a summary of all activities (e.., deposits, transfers, expenditures,

land purchases, etcetera) of the above-described revenue index code of the FWMT Fund.



ARTICLE III. TERMS) OF AGREEMENT



(1) Initial Term. This AGREEMENT shall have an initial term of TWENTY (20) years,

beginning on the latest day and year noted on the WITNESS page of this AGREEMENT.



(2) Renewal Term(s). This AGREEMENT may be renewed upon the same terms and conditions

for up to TWO (2) additional FIVE (5) year terms by mutual written agreement of all parties.



(3) Continuation of this AGREEMENT (in whole or in part) beyond the term specified in

ARTICLE III, item 1 above is contingent upon the availability of funds.



ARTICLE IV. KEY OFFICIALS



PARK: The Superintendent of Everglades National Park will provide review and approval of

terms of all agreements and will exercise the authority to approve conduct of cooperative projects

regarding Everglades National Park. Robert F. Doren, Assistant Research Director, will act as the

contracting officers' authorized technical representative with regard to the technical scope of this

AGREEMENT. The Contracting Officer with the National Park Service (NPS), Everglades National


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 8










Park, will provide contracting authority and fiscal control for the PARK. The PARK shall provide

written notice to DERM and FOUNDATION of any change in key officials within thirty (30) days of

such change.



COUNTY: The Director of DERM will provide review and approval of terms of all

agreements and will exercise the authority to approve conduct of cooperative projects regarding Dade

County. Frank Bernardino, Environmental Resource Project Supervisor, shall act as the authorized

technical representative for DERM with regard to the technical scope of this AGREEMENT. The

COUNTY shall provide written notice to the PARK and FOUNDATION of any change in authorized

technical representative within thirty (30) days of such change.



FOUNDATION: The Director of the FOUNDATION will provide review and approval of

terms of all agreements and will exercise the authority to approve conduct of cooperative projects

regarding The National Park FOUNDATION. The Controller with the National Park

FOUNDATION, will provide contracting authority and fiscal control for the FOUNDATION. The

FOUNDATION shall provide written notice to the PARK and COUNTY of any change in authorized

technical representative within thirty (30) days of such change



ARTICLE V. PROPERTY UTILIZATION N/A



ARTICLE VI. PRIOR APPROVAL N/A



ARTICLE VII. REPORTS



Reports shall be prepared and submitted as previously described for each party in ARTICLE

II above. Reports shall be due by each agency ninety (90) days after the end of the respective


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 9










agencies fiscal year.


ARTICLE VIII. AMENDMENT



This AGREEMENT may be modified by amendment upon mutual written agreement of all

parties.



ARTICLE IX. TERMINATION



(1) This AGREEMENT shall terminate automatically unless the same is extended by mutual

written agreement prior to twenty (20) years from the latest date of authorized signature upon the

WITNESS page, provided, however, that this AGREEMENT shall NOT terminate until the PARK

has completed the amount of mitigation required under the terms of the AGREEMENT for the funds

already transferred to the FOUNDATION on behalf of the PARK for this project, from the above-

described revenue index code of the FWMT Fund. During the term of this AGREEMENT, should

further funds become unavailable, this AGREEMENT shall NOT terminate until the PARK has

completed the amount of mitigation required under the terms of the permit for this AGREEMENT

for the funds already transferred to the FOUNDATION on behalf of the PARK for this project, from

the above-described revenue index code of the FWMT Fund.



(2) Either the PARK or the COUNTY may terminate this AGREEMENT at any time by

providing ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. The PARK shall complete all mitigation

work for which principal monies have been remitted by the COUNTY. Receipt of written notice from

the PARK, issued upon completion of the mitigation work for monies remitted up to the point of

written notice of termination, shall constitute the date of termination of this AGREEMENT.




f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 10










REQUIRED CLAUSES


"During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the participants agree to abide by the terms

of Executive Order 11246 on nondiscrimination and will not discriminate against any person

because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The participants will take affirmative action

to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national

origin."



"No member or delegate to Congress, or resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any

share or part of this AGREEMENT, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this provision

shall not be construed to extend to this AGREEMENT if made with a corporation for its general

benefit."





ARTICLE XI. NOTICES



All notices required or permitted to be given under the terms and provisions of this

AGREEMENT by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties as follows:



As to the COUNTY:

John W. Renfrow, Director
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management
Professional Savings Bank Building
33 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130



As to the PARK:


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc


ARTICLE X.











Richard Ring, Superintendent
Attn.: Robert F. Doren
Everglades National Park
40001 State Road 9336
Homestead, Florida 33034-6733


or to such other address as may hereafter be provided by the parties in writing. Notices by

registered or certified mail shall be deemed received on the delivery date indicated by the U.S.

Postal Service on the return receipt.



ARTICLE XII. VENUE



Any litigation hereunder shall be brought in the applicable state or federal court in Dade

County, Florida. The liability of the United States for the acts and omissions of its employees

arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act.






























f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 1 2










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed

by their duly authorized representatives) on the latest day and year noted below.


NATIONAL PARK SERVICE


By:
Superintendent


Richard Ring Date
Everglades National Park


By:
Contracting Officer


Sherry Dague Date
Everglades National Park


NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION


By:
President


By:
Controller


Alan Rubin Date
National Park Foundation


Chris Jerussi Date
National Park Foundation


DADE COUNTY


By:
County Manager
P.E., P.L.S.


Joaquin G. Avino
Dade County


Attest:


By: Deputy Clerk


Approved by County Attorney
as to form and legal sufficiency


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc


Date











EXHIBIT A


Pursuant to facts and figures presented by representatives of Everglades National Park (the
PARK) before the Special Areas Management Plan Committee (SAMP), the member agencies of the
SAMP have agreed to transfer two thirds (2/3) of each per-acre mitigation contribution made to the
Dade County Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Trust Fund (FWMT Fund) for work in the Bird Drive
Everglades Wetland Basin and the North Trail Wetland Basin, to the PARK, for the purposes of
restoring, monitoring, studying and managing that area of the PARK known as the "Hole-in-the-
Donut." The per-acre amount of revenue transferred to the PARK from the FWMT Fund, for work
performed in the subject wetlands basins, shall not be less than that required to restore, monitor,
study or manage an equal number of acres within "Hole-in-the-Donut." For the 1992-93 fiscal year,
the cost of restoring, monitoring, studying and managing an acre of land in the "Hole-in-the-Donut"
is $16,500.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc





















EXHIBIT B


RESTORATION OF FORMER WETLANDS

WITHIN THE

HOLE-IN-THE-DONUT IN EVERGLADES

NATIONAL PARK




PROJECT PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










RESTORATION OF FORMER WETLANDS WITHIN THE
HOLE-IN-THE-DONUT IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

by

Robert F. Doren, Louis D. Whiteaker
Everglades National Park
P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Fl. 33030

George Molnar
Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management
111 NW 1st Street
Miami, Fl. 33128

David Sylvia
University of Florida
2169 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Fl. 32611


ABSTRACT


A major site of exotic plant invasion within Everglades National Park is an area of former mesic
prairie wetlands now called the "Hole-in-the-Donut." This area (4000 hectares) was intensively
farmed for several decades using only crude mechanical soil preparation methods. In the early
1950's the process of rock-plowing was developed which crushes the natural limestone rock,
producing a substrate much better suited for crops than the existing substrate. This pedogenesis
changed the area from primarily low nutrient, low oxygen (perhaps anaerobic in some circumstances)
conditions to higher nutrient, higher oxygen conditions which have been tied to increased
susceptibility to exotic invasion. Approximately half of the "Donut" was rock-plowed and, since
acquisition by Everglades National Park, has become dominated by Schinus terebinthifolius.
Various techniques (planting, mowing, burning, bulldozing, substrate removal, etc.) have been tried
in an attempt to restore this area to wetlands. Of these methods, only substrate removal has been
effective. The results of substrate removal are an increase in hydroperiod and mitigation of the
conditions created by the disturbed substrate. These changes alter the secondary successional
patterns in favor of natural revegetation. In order to evaluate this technique for possible use on all
former wetlands in the Donut, a large scale test has been implemented utilizing an off-site
mitigation program involving Everglades National Park, Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Substrate has been removed from
24.3 hectares within the Donut. Secondary succession, hydrological, microbiological and nutrient
relationships are being monitored over the next several years. Preliminary results suggest that
hydrological and pedological conditions are favoring succession toward native wetland vegetation.


INTRODUCTION



1 This publication should be cited as: Doren, R.F., L.D. Whiteaker, G. Molnar and D.
Sylvia. Restoration of Former Wetlands within the Hole-in-the-Donut in Everglades National
Park, in Webb, F.J., Jr., Ed. 1990. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on
Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.

f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 16












Exotic plants pose one of the greatest threats to the integrity of Everglades ecosystems. Over 220
species of introduced plants occur in Everglades National Park (Whiteaker and Doren 1989). One of
the major areas of exotic plant invasion within the park is called the "Hole-in-the-Donut". This area
includes approximately 4000 hectares of previously farmed land. Farming began in 1916 primarily
using crude mechanical soil preparation and clearing. In 1934 Congress authorized the
establishment of Everglades National Park but excluded this large area of privately owned
agricultural land. In the early 1950's rock-plowing was developed. By crushing the natural
limestone rock, rock-plowing produces a substrate much better suited for crops than the existing
substrate (Ewel et al. 1982). This pedogenesis changed the area from primarily low nutrient,
anaerobic conditions to higher nutrient, aerobic conditions which has been tied to increased
susceptibility to exotics (Gerrish and Mueller-Dombois 1980, Bridgewater and Backshall 1981,
Huenneke, et. al. 1990). Rock-plowing continued in the Donut through 1975 by which time
approximately 2000 hectares of land had been rock-plowed. The remaining 2000 hectares of non
rock-plowed land were variously abandoned from around 1930 through the early 1960's. The
majority of non rock-plowed land has returned primarily to native vegetation, with only a small
portion dominated by Schinus (Ewel et al. 1982). The oldest areas dominated by Schinus are about
35 years past abandonment (Figure 1). The 2000 hectares of rock-plowed land formerly consisted of
approximately 1600 hectares of wetland prairies, 140 hectares of sawgrass glade, 40 hectares of
ponds, 180 hectares of pineland, with the remainder in bayhead or hammocks (Krauss 1987). In
1975 the park acquired the remainder of the Hole-in-the-Donut, and farming ceased with this
acquisition.

Once farming was discontinued, the Park Service perceived a dual problem of re-establishing native
vegetation and preventing invasion of exotic species, particularly Schinus. Virtually no information
was available regarding the successional trends of abandoned rock-plowed farm land in southern
Florida (Alexander 1973). Several attempts to quantitatively and qualitatively define and describe
old field succession were made. Regional studies on the processes and stages of old-field succession
have been detailed by Oosting (1942), Keever (1950), McCormick and Buell (1957), Odum (1960),
and Egler (1952). Robertson (1953, 1955), Hilsenbeck (1976), and Alexander (1972) attempted to
quantify succession and early seral stages. Loope and Dunevitz (1981), Ewel et al. (1982), Krauss
(1987), and Doren and Whiteaker (1990a) quantitatively examined the patterns of old field
succession occurring in the park. Loope and Dunevitz (1981) determined that the Schinus was
increasing by as much as twenty times its population density per year. Doren and Whiteaker
(1990a) found that Schinus invasion proceeds from low densities in a mosaic of herbaceous
vegetation (five to ten years since abandonment) through extremely high densities (ten to twenty
years since abandonment) to a self-sustaining stand with somewhat reduced density but with many
very large trees (>20 years since abandonment). Krauss (1987) and Ewel et al. (1982) were unable
to relate successional patterns or apparent final stages to farming history, hydrological differences,
or substrate variations, but concluded that the successional forests dominated by Schinus are
maintaining themselves. They also concluded that proximity to seed source, seed rain intensity,
and local distribution were primary causes for the expansion of Schinus in and around the Donut.
Doren and Whiteaker (1990b) determined that fire does not exclude the establishment of Schinus
and other hardwoods, nor does it promote the establishment or expansion of paragrass (Brachiaria
mutica), or other grasses, in the Hole-in-the-Donut. Previous work by Allen (1936), Egler (1942),
Myers (1983), Ewel (1986), Smith (1985), Harper (1965), Crawley (1987), Sukop and Trepl (1987)
and Vitousek and Walker (1989), has shown that perturbation favors the colonization of weedy,
principally exotic species, and the elimination or mitigation of the disturbance does not. Further,
review of unpublished records pertaining to attempts to restore the Donut included various projects
such as: 1) planting pine seedlings and saplings; 2) seeding with pine and several species of


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










hardwoods and grasses; 3) transplanting native grasses and sedges; 3) mowing; 4) discing; 4)
burning; 5) bulldozing and other forms of mechanical removal of Schinus; 6) removal of substrate in
a former slough to reestablish hydrological flow; 7) planting hardwood saplings; and 8) chemical
control of Schinus. Only two of the projects, the substrate removal in the former slough and a
portion of the bulldozed site, resulted in the recolonization of previously rock-plowed sites by native
vegetation to the exclusion of Schinus. While constant mowing or discing prevent Schinus invasion,
the cost of such a program is prohibitive, and once stopped succession again proceeds to Schinus.
The net result of the two substrate removal project was the elimination of the effects of the
disturbed substrate and subsequent increase in hydroperiod. Both disturbance and shortened
hydroperiod have been directly related to changes in secondary successional patterns and exotic
invasion by Bridgewater and Backshall (1981), Allen (1936), Egler (1942), Myers (1983), Ewel
(1986), Smith (1985), Harper (1965), Crawley (1987), Sukop and Trepl (1987), and others.
Additional examples of the effectiveness of substrate removal are demonstrated in several sites in
the East Everglades Management Area, where Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management has required the removal of substrate disturbed by illegal rock-plowing or
filling as mitigation for permit violations (Dalrymple 1989).

The project presented here was proposed to systematically examine the results of the removal of
rock-plowed substrate as a rehabilitation tool for abandoned farmlands dominated by Schinus
forest in the Hole-in-the-Donut. The project has the following objectives:

1. Determine the effects of partial and total removal of disturbed substrate in former
wetlands on vegetation composition, especially recolonization by Schinus and other exotics.

2. Determine the effects of increased hydroperiod due to the lowering of surface elevation on
vegetation composition, especially recolonization by Schinus and other exotics.

3. Evaluate the synergistic effects of partial and total removal of disturbed substrate and
increased hydroperiod on vegetation composition, especially recolonization by Schinus and
other exotics.

4. Determine the changes in vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi associations and their
possible effect on plant succession as a result of the removal of disturbed substrate and an
increase in hydroperiod.

5. Determine the changes in soil nutrient levels as a result of removal of disturbed
substrate, standing vegetation, and increased hydroperiod.


STUDY AREA


The study area is located in the extreme southern everglades in Everglades National Park, Ranges
36 and 37 East, Township 58 South, in Dade County, Florida (Fig. 2). The natural features and
vegetation of the area have been described by Davis (1943), Egler (1952), Robertson (1955),
Craighead (1971), Alexander and Crook (1973), Hilsenbeck (1976), Wade et al. (1980), and Krauss
(1987). Soils were mapped and described by the USDA (1958). The study site is within the Hole-
in-the-Donut (Fig. 3, item # 1). Post farming successional vegetation associations have been
described by Ewel et al. (1982), Krauss (1987), and Doren and Whiteaker (1990a). The site is
located 335.4m + north of the southeast corner of Section 36, Township 58S, Range 36E (Fig. 3).
The site extends approximately 570m along the road, and approximately 426.8m perpendicular to


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 18










the road, and is a total of 24.3 ha. It is subdivided into two sections so as to allow partial removal
of the disturbed substrate on the southern most 6.1 ha. Disturbed substrate was removed to the
level of undisturbed substrate on the remaining 18.2 ha.


MATERIALS AND METHODS


This study involved the removal of exotic dominated vegetation cover (Schinusterebinthifolius) and
the disturbed, previously farmed, substrate on 24.3 ha of the Donut. Removal was down to
limestone bedrock on 18.2 ha (completely mitigated site), and on 6.1 ha (partially mitigated site)
approximately one half of the disturbed substrate was removed. We proposed the study in order to
evaluate the use of substrate removal as a means of restoring former wetlands. The two different
removal strategies were developed in order to further evaluate the relative effects of soil removal and
increased hydroperiod on effectiveness of restoration, and the prevention of Schinus reinvasion.

Substrate Removal and Surveying

Prior to vegetation or substrate removal, survey lines were cleared by bulldozer (model D8).
Elevation sightings were taken at the edge of the cleared survey lines (outside of the disturbance
created by the bulldozer) in order to provide a topographic map prior to soil removal. A 15.24cm (6")
contour map was produced from the initial survey. Elevations were determined to + 0.3cm (0.01 ft)
National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 (NGVD29). After this elevation survey, the vegetation was
cleared and piled, allowed to dry, and burned. Soil depths were systematically taken on the 6.1 ha
portion of the site. Three depth measurements were taken at each location using a standard soil
probe.

Substrate removal began after the vegetation was burned. Substrate removal consisted of
bulldozing the substrate into windows, loading the substrate into dump trucks and hauling the
substrate to a previously approved site outside the park for disposal.

After substrate removal, another topographic survey was completed and a six inch contour map was
created.

Topography and control sheets were produced from a black and white aerial image taken of the site
after substrate removal. The control sheets identify the location of all vegetation plots, seed traps,
hydrological wells, site corners with UTM locations, location of bench mark, and topographic survey.









Data Sampling

Vegetation Sampling

Sixty-three vegetation sample plots were systematically placed in a grid pattern throughout the site,
49 plots on the completely mitigated 18.2 ha site and 14 on the partially mitigated 6.1 ha site.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 19










Each plot is 100 m2 (10 m X 10 m) in size. Each vegetation plot was placed at an intersection of a
60.75 m2 (200 ft2) grid previously surveyed on the site. All vegetation plots are permanently tagged
and numbered, and marked at the four corners with 1.27 cm (0.5") rebar. Vegetation is sampled in
six layers (1 = submersed, 2 = liana, 3 = 0 m, 4 = >lm <2m, 5 = >2m <5m, 6 = >5m), and by
life-form (herb, shrub, tree, liana). Occurrence of each species within each plot is evaluated by layer
using the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale (1 = numerous but with < 5% cover; 2 = any
number with 5 25% cover; 3 = any number with 25 50% cover; 4 = any number with 50 75%
cover; 5 = any number with > 75% cover; 8 = few with < 5% cover; 9 = solitary with < 5% cover)
(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Federal wetland category is determined for each species. A
complete species list is determined for the site at each sampling interval (including species not found
within the designated sampling plots. Vegetation data are collected every six months.

One square meter (1m2) subplots are located in the southeastern corner of each plot. Schinus
seedlings are counted in each subplot.

In order to estimate the amount and pattern of incoming Schinus seeds onto the site, 0.5 m2 seed
traps were placed adjacent to each vegetation plot. Nine additional seed traps were placed at
systematic intervals near the edges of the mitigation site, and nine were similarly place within the
surrounding Schinus forest. Seed traps are sampled monthly. Seeds collected in the seed traps are
tested for viability by germination under mist, in a greenhouse. Germination is defined as the
emergence of the cotyledons.

Total potential for Schinus seed germination from the existing substrate seed bank were estimated
using substrate samples and allowing for germination. Samples were randomly located and will
consist of 10 1m2 samples of soil removed to bedrock.

Hydrological Sampling

Hydrological wells were drilled adjacent to each vegetation plot. Each well has an "effective"
minimum of lm deep. Each well was drilled using a standard well drilling rig with a 6 inch (15.24
cm) bit, and cleaned of rubble using the blow-out method where compressed air is forced down the
bottom of each well as drilling proceeds. Each well is then lined with 2 inch (5cm) PVC pipe which is
surrounded by pea gravel and capped at ground level with concrete. The top of each well pipe is
surveyed to + 0.3 cm NGVD29. Water levels are measured manually every two weeks using an
engineers tape measure.

A continuous water level recorder was placed in an additional well located near the center of the
site. This well was drilled using the same drilling rig and clean-out method but used an 18 inch
(45.7 cm) drilling bit. The finished well is 12 inch (30.5 cm) wide, has an "effective" minimum depth
of 6m, and is lined and finished in the same manner as the other wells. Mean water level is
automatically recorded to NGVD29 every hour using a potentiometric data logger.



Substrate Nutrient Sampling

Twenty substrate samples (approximately one per 1.25 hectares) were systematically taken, using
a grid pattern covering the entire site, before substrate removal. Twenty additional samples were
taken 2 years after the initial mitigation.




f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 20










The analysis parameters include: pH, conductivity, ammoniacal nitrogen (ug/g NH4), nitrate
nitrogen (ug/g NO3), total nitrogen (mg/g Kjeldahl N), total phosphorus (ug/g Total P04),
chlorides (ug/g Cl), total organic matter (%TOM), Aluminum (%Al), Iron (%Fe), Potassium (%K),
Magnesium (%Mg), Copper (ppm Cu), Manganese (ppm Mn), and Zinc (ppm Zn).


Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (VAM) Fungi Sampling

A. Initial Documentation of Host Plant Colonization and Predominate VAM Fungi:


1. Adlj.ini.- Schinus forest:

The distribution of VAM Fungi and the intensity of VAM fungus colonization of roots in an adjacent
site, comparable to the mitigation site, were determined. Twenty-five cores (ca. 15 cm diameter and
20 cm deep) were taken randomly at the site. Roots were washed free of soil. Fine roots (<2mm)
were cleared in 10% KOH, stained with 0.05% trypan blue, and percentage of fine root length
colonized by VAM fungi were estimated by a gridline-intersect technique. Spores were separated
from the soil by wet-sieving and decanting, followed by centrifugation in water and 40% sucrose.
Spores were quantified and identified to genus and, where possible from field-collected material, to
species. A subsample from each core were mixed into a composite sample from the site for
determination of the inoculum potential of VAM fungi, using the Most Probable Number (MPN)
method.

2. Partial and full mitigation sites:

Following mitigation and permanent location of vegetation study plots, an assessment were made of
the VAM status of the partial and full mitigation areas. Cores were collected adjacent to every other
vegetation plot, giving a total of 32 samples. Distribution of spores were determined as noted in
A. 1. above. For determination of inoculum density, subsamples from cores were mixed to provide
material for three and six MPN assays for the partial and full mitigation sites, respectively.

B. Determination of the VAM Status of Recolonizing Plant Species:

1. Root colonization of recolonizing plants:

Approximately 12 and 18 months after mitigation, representative fine root samples were collected
from plants growing adjacent to the 63 vegetation monitoring plots. Root samples were processed
as noted in A. 1. above.

2. Monitoring inoculum potential and predominant VAM species:

Approximately 12 and 18 months after mitigation, cores were collected adjacent to every other
vegetation monitoring plot. Spore populations and inoculum potential were determined as noted in
A. above.

C. Determination of the VAM Status of Abundant Native Wetland Prairie
Vegetation in Undisturbed Natural Communities.

1. Root colonization of native wetland species:



f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 21










Representative fine root sample of Cladiumjamaicensis, Muhlenbergiacapillaris, Eleochariscellulosa,
Rhyncospora tracyi, and Pluchea rosea were collected randomly from an area of undisturbed prairie.

2. Monitoring inoculum potential and predominant VAM species:

Cores were collected randomly from an area of undisturbed prairie. Spore populations and inoculum
potential was determined as noted in A. 1. above.


Data Analysis

Vegetation Data

The synthesis table technique (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Gauch 1982) were used to
arrange the sample plots in a sequence that brings together plots similar in species composition and
to arrange species in a sequence relating to their distributions among samples. Sample plot
vegetation data were input into a species/sample plot matrix for use with the COENOS (IBM PC
compatible) microcomputer program (Ceska and Roemer 1971).

The data will also be analyzed using the dendrogram technique (Mueller-Dombois 1974). A
dendrogram was produced to display the mutual relationships among sample plots. Data were
input into a matrix for use with the MVSP (IBM PC compatible) microcomputer program (Kovach
1986).

Comparisons of the number of species were made by their Federal wetland categories to evaluate
the numbers of species recolonizing the site and their relative habitat designation.

Seed trap data was used to calculate mean seed rain and standard deviation per m2 per month.
These calculated values will also be used to describe the variability of seed rain relative to time of
year and distance from nearest seed source. Correlations between distance from seed source (and if
possible, method of dispersal by bird, mammal, or wind/water) and occurrence of Schinus within the
vegetation plots was determined.

Percent seed viability of the Schinus seed collected was determined using the germination results.


Hydrological Data

Water levels were determined to NGVD29. They were compared to the site topography to
determine depth, total area inundated, and period of inundation by month. Water levels from the
manual wells were correlated to the continuous reading well in order to determine hydrological
conditions over the entire site using only the continuous well. These data were compared with the
topographic map and were correlated with vegetation colonization. Data were entered into a GIS
using the GRASS III program for geographic analysis.

VAM Fungi Data

The VAM study is being conducted to determine if there is a relationship between successional
trends on the various sites and VAM fungi species that colonize these sites in unmitigated areas of
the Hole-in-the-Donut, mitigated sites and natural prairie areas. The data collected here were used
to establish any VAM fungi macrophyte species affinities and habitat preferences. Correlations of


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 22










the occurrence of different VAM fungi species by site (disturbed substrate/Schinus dominated forest;
mitigated sites; undisturbed native prairie) were determined. These results were instrumental in
developing a method, through inoculation of sites, for encouraging more favorable and rapid
recolonization by desirable wetland species on mitigated sites.

RESULTS

Substrate Removal and Surveying

Substrate scraping and removal was completed between January 23 and June 13, 1989. A total of
3,437 dump truck loads, or approximately 68,740 cubic meters of rock-plowed substrate, was
removed from the site. The number of truck loads removed per work day ranged from 7 to 166 loads
per day. The number of trucks working on days that substrate was hauled ranged between 1 and
14 trucks.

Exotic vegetation and rock-plowed substrate was removed from a 24.3 ha area that is 569 meters
by 427 meters. Disturbed substrate was removed down to undisturbed substrate (limestone base)
on 18.2 ha of the site that is 427 m2. Substrate was partially removed from a 6.1 ha site that is
427 meters by 142 meters. Vegetation and substrate were also removed from a 30.5 meters wide
"buffer zone" along three sides of the site.

Aerial photography of the site was taken in September, 1989 and adjusted to a scale of 1 inch = 50
feet (2.54cm = 15.2 m) based on targets placed at known points. A topographic map with 6 inch
contours was produced at this same scale to overlay the aerial photography. Elevations on the site
ranged from -0.9 meters (-3') NGVD29 to +1.1 meters (3.6') NGVD29.

Data Sampling

Vegetation Sampling

The vegetation of the site has been sampled twice from each of the 63 permanently marked
vegetation plots. The initial sample was taken in August, 1989 and the second sample was taken
in February, 1990. The data from the initial sampling has not yet been analyzed with community
analysis methods. However, these data resulted in a list of 101 species that were classified into
Federal wetland habitat categories. Eleven percent are obligate wetland species, 39% are
facultative wetland species, 2% are submerged species, 29% are facultative upland species, and
20% are upland species. Thus, a total of 54% of the plants listed from the site are wetland species.

Six of the 63 one meter square seedling subplots contained Schinus seedlings in August, 1989. Only
two of these subplots were in the area where the rock-plowed substrate was completely removed,
and four of the subplots were in the partially removed area. In the partially removed section the
calculated Schinus seedling density is 0.93/m2, while in the complete substrate removal area the
calculated Schinus seedling density is 0.08/m2.

No seed traps contained seeds in September, 1989, two traps contained two seeds each in October,
1989, ten traps contained from three to 37 seeds in November, 1989, and twelve traps contained
from two to 149 seeds in December, 1989. Of the seed traps that contained seeds, both were under
the Schinus canopy in October, eight of the 10 traps were under the canopy in November, and nine
of the 12 were under the canopy in December. Therefore, only five seeds traps outside the Schinus
canopy contained seeds for the period for which the data has been tabulated. These five traps



f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 23










contained from two to 21 seeds each. The traps under the Schinus canopy contained from two to
149 seeds each during this same period, and ranged from 17 to 149 seeds per trap in December.


DISCUSSION


This project was implemented as off-site mitigation for a private wetland development in Dade
County. Total project costs of $640,000.00 were borne entirely by the private developer. Everglades
National Park, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Dade County Department of
Environmental Resources Management (DERM) worked cooperatively to develop this project. This
cooperative effort was needed to ensure that it would meet the compensatory mitigation needs
mandated under Federal, State and local regulations, as well as the National Park's needs to
design a management tool for rehabilitating the Hole-in-the-Donut area.

Dade County DERM has had a long standing interest in promoting the development of a practical
methods for wetland mitigation that could be applied to certain wetland dredge and fill projects
requiring regulatory permits. The project represents a pilot attempt to accomplish such off-site
mitigation. If project goals are met, Everglades National Park will consider whether to establish a
large-scale funding source for off-site mitigation in the Hole-in-the-Donut. Under this concept, a
General Permit mechanism would be approved to allow individual developers within a defined,
highly-stressed wetland area of Dade County, to meet mitigation obligations under Federal, State
and local regulations, by paying into a fund at a unit cost per acre of wetland impacted. Costs per
acre would be based on mitigation ratios established under the General Permit by the regulatory
agencies and the Park. It is anticipated that a mitigation rate of $15,000.00 per acre will be the
minimum required. This process will hopefully provide sufficient resources to enable Everglades
National Park to eventually rehabilitate the entire Hole-in-the-Donut.

Initial data suggest that the mitigation site is favorable for colonization by native wetland species,
since 54 per cent of the species encountered in the initial monitoring have been classified as wetland
species. These results also support the sequence of old field succession found by previous studies in
the Hole-in-the-Donut (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, Ewel et al. 1982, Krauss 1987) where initial
stages of this succession are dominated by weedy herbaceous wetland species (Figure 1). However,
Schinus seedling colonization on the partially mitigated area is similar in density (0.93
seedlings/m2) to that found on abandoned rock-plowed sites that have succeeded to woody
communities dominated by a Schinus canopy (0.9 seedlings/m2; Doren and Whiteaker 1990). In
contrast, the fully scraped area has a substantially lower density of Schinus seedlings (0.08
seedlings/m2). This suggests that the partially scraped area is more likely to follow the successional
sequence towards a Schinus dominated successional forest, and the fully scraped area is likely to
follow the successional sequence towards a community dominated by native plants.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the engineering contractor, CAS Engineering, Inc., for the work involved with the
substrate removal, aerial photography, and topographic survey. We thank the biological consultant,
Mark McMahon, for the data collection. We thank Patrick 0. Keefe, Larry Bloomer and Kierin
O'N I.111 .y for their activities in monitoring the engineering work. We thank Terressa Mussetto, Dade
County Attorney, for her legal advise and support. We thank Everglades's contracting officer, Sherry
Dague, for coordinating the cooperative agreement. We thank George Dalrymple for his time and
unqualified support of this project and his excellent ecological advice. We thank The U.S. Army


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 24










Corps of Engineers personnel, Chuck Schneppel and Karen Kennedy; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
personnel, Bob Turner, Joe Carroll and Dave Ferrel; Environmental Protection Agency personnel,
Eric Hughes; and National Park Service SERO personnel, Dominic Dottavio and Trish Patterson, for
their support of this project. And finally we thank Everglades National Park Superintendent
Michael Finley and Assistant Superintendent Rob Arnberger, without whose support this project
could never have been implemented.



















































f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 25











LITERATURE CITED


Alexander T. R., and A. G. Crook. 1973. Recent and long-term vegetation changes and patterns in
South Florida: Part I: Preliminary Report. South Florida Environmental Project.
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 224 p. PB-231,939.

Alexander T. R., and A. G. Crook. 1975. Recent and long-term vegetation changes and patterns in
South Florida: Part II: Final Report. South Florida Ecological Study. University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida. 827p.

Allen, H. H. 1936. Indigine versus alien in the New Zealand plant world. Ecology 17: 187-193.

Bridgewater, P. B., and D. J. Backshall. 1981. Dynamics of some Western Australian ligneous
formations with special reference to the invasion of exotic species. Vegetatio 46: 141-148.

Ceska, A. and H. Roemer. 1971. A computer program for identifying species-releve-groups in
vegetation studies. Vegetatio 23: 255-277.

Craighead, F. C., SR. 1971. The Trees of South Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gable,
Florida. 212p.

Crawley, M. J. 1987. What makes a community invasible? pp. 429-453, in A. J. Gray, M. S.
Crawley, and P. J. Edwards (eds.), Colonization, Succession, and Stability. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Dalrymple, G. H., 1989. Ecological study of wetland mitigations in Dade County, Florida. F.A.U. -
F.I.U. Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Unpublished manuscript, copy
at Everglades National Park, P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030. 44p.

Davis, J. H., JR. 1943. Vegetation of the Everglades and conservation from the point of view of the
plant ecologist. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. 5A: 104-115.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and
Sons. New York, New York. 547p.

Doren, R. F. and L. D. Whiteaker. 1990a. Comparison of economic feasibility of chemical control
strategies on differing age and density classes of Schinus terebinthifolius. Natural Areas
Journal 10(1) 28-34.

Doren, R. F., L. D. Whiteaker and A. M LaRosa. 1990b. Evaluation of Fire as a management tool
for controlling Schinus terebinthifolius as secondary successional growth on abandoned
agricultural land. Environmental Management 14(6) in press.

Egler, F. E. 1942. Indigine versus alien in the development of arid Hawaiian vegetation. Ecology
23: 14-23.

Egler, F. E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida, and its management.
Vegetatio 3: 213-265.



f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 26










Ewel, J. J., D. S. Ojima, D. A. Karl, and W. F. DeBusk. 1982. Schinus in successional ecosystems
of Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-676. 141 pp.

Ewel, J. J. 1986. Invasibility: lessons from South Florida. pp. 214-230 in H. A. Mooney and J.
Drake (eds.), Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag,
New York.

Florida Department of Transportation. 1986. Standard Specifications for Road Bridge
Construction. Edition of 1986. Florida D.O.T., Tallahassee.

Freese, F. 1962. Elementary Forest Sampling. Agriculture Handbook No. 232. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Gauch, H. G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press,
New York.

Gerrish, G., and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1980. Behavior of native and non-native plants in two
tropical rainforests on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Phytocoenologia 8: 237-295.

Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology (Studies in Ecology; Volume 9). University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Harper, J. L. 1965. Establishment, aggression and cohabitation in weedy species. pp. 243-265, in
H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins (eds.), The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press,
New York.

Hilsenbeck, C. E. 1976. An investigation of old field succession in Everglades National Park, 1st
Interim Report. Everglades National Park. 63 pp.

Huenneke, L. F., S. P. Hamburg, R. Koide, H. A. Mooney, and P. M. Vitousek. 1990. Ecology 71(2):
478-491.

Keever, P. 1950. Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmont, North Carolina. Ecological
Monographs 20: 229-250.

Kovach, W. L. 1986. A Multivariate Statistics Package for the IBM PC and Compatibles. Indiana
University, Bloomington.

Krauss, P. 1987. Old Field Succession in Everglades National Park. South Florida Research
Center Report, SFRC-87/03. 75 pp.

Little, E. L., JR. 1978. Atlas of United States Trees, Vol. 5. Florida. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Misc. Publ. No. 1361. 256 + maps.

Long, R. W. 1974. Vegetation of southern Florida. Florida Scientist 37: 33-45.





f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 27










Long, R. W., and O. Lakela. 1971. A Flora of Tropical Florida. A Manual of the Seed
Plants and Ferns of Southern Peninsular Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral
Gables, Florida. 962 pp.

Loope, L. L., and G. N. Avery. 1979. A preliminary report on rare plant species in the flora of
National Park Service areas of South Florida. South Florida Research Center Report M-548.
42 pp.

Loope, L. L., and V. L. Dunevitz. 1981. Investigations of early plant succession on abandoned
farmland in Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-644. 65
pp.

Marriot, F. H. C. 1974. The Interpretation of Multiple Observations. Academic Press Inc., New
York.

McCormick, J., and M. F. Buell. 1957. Natural revegetation of a plowed field in the New Jersey
Pine Barrens. Botan. Gaz. 118: 261-264.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Myers, R. L. 1983. Site susceptibility to invasion by the exotic tree Melaleucaquinquenervea in
southern Florida. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 645-658.

Myers, W. L. and R. L. Shelton. 1980. Survey Methods for Ecosystem Management. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.

Odum, E. P. 1960. Organic production and turnover in old field successions. Ecology 41: 34-49.

Oosting, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina.
American Midland Naturalist 28: 1-126.

Porter, C. L., Jr. 1967. Composition and Productivity of a Subtropical Prairie, Ecology 48, No. 6:
937-942.

Robertson, W. B., JR. 1953. A survey of the effects of fire in Everglades National Park. Mimeo
Report. 169 pp.

Robertson, W. B., JR. 1955. An analysis of the breeding-bird populations of tropical Florida in
relation to the vegetation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois. 599 pp.

Small, J. K. 1904. Report upon further exploration of southern Florida. Jour. N.Y. Bot. Gard. 5:
157-164.

Small, J. K. 1929. From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy. Science Press Printing Co.,
Lancaster, Pa. 123 pp.


Smith, C.W. 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaii's native biota. pp. 180-250 in C. P. Stone and
J. M. Scott (eds.), Hawaii's Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management.
Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 28










Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological
Research. W. H. Freemand and Co., San Francisco.

Sukopp, H., and L. Trepl. 1987. Extinction and naturalization of plant species as related to
ecosystem structure and function. pp. 245-276, in E. D. Schulze and H. Zuolfer (eds.),
Potentials and Limitations of Ecosystem Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Tomlinson, P. B. 1980. The Biology of Trees Native to Tropical Florida. Harvard University
Printing Office, Allston, MA. 480 pp.

USDA. 1958. Soil survey of Dade County, Florida. Series 1147, No. 4. Soil Conservation Service
and the University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station.

Vitousek, P.M. and L.R. Walker. 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant
demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 50(3):247-254.

Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-17. Southeast Forest
Experiment Station. Asheville, North Carolina. 125 pp.

Whiteaker, L. and R. F. Doren. 1989. Exotic Plant Species Management Strategies and List of
Exotic Species in Prioritized Categories for Everglades National Park. U. S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Research/Resources Management Report SER-89/04.
Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 21 pp.
































f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 29










Table 1. Partial listing of species colonizing the mitigation site in the Hole-in-the-Donut.
Aeschynomene spp.
Ammania coccinea
Ammania latifolia
Andropogon glomeratus
Aster subulatus
Boehmeria cylindrica
Caperonia palustris
Conoclinium coelestinum
Cyperus brevifolius
Cyperus distinctus
Cyperus odoratus
Cyperus polystachyos
Cyperus surinamensis
Dichromena colorata
Diodia virginica
Erigeron quercifolius
Eupatorium leptophyllum
Chloris glauca
Ludwigia microcarpa
Ludwigia octovalvis
Lythrum alatum
Mikania scandens
Cynoctonum petiolata
Myrica cerifera
Phyla nodiflora
Pluchea odorata
Salix caroliniana
Senecio glabellus
Solidago stricta
Typha spp.
Sagittaria spp.
Carex spp.
Rhynchospora spp.
Najas spp.
Pontederia cordata
Cladium jamaicensis
Schoenus nigricans
Eleocharis spp.
Aletris farinosa
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Schizachyrium spp.
Flaveria spp.

Periphyton









f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 30







































Figure 1. Flow chart showing general pattern of succession on farmland abandoned without the
effects of rock-plowing and with the effects of rock-plowing.




























f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 31













































































f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 32









































Figure 2. Map of southern Florida and Everglades National Park, indicating the area of the Hole-
in-the-Donut.





























f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 33













































































f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 34









































Figure 3. Map of the Hole-in-the-Donut showing the location of the mitigation site.





























f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 35













































































f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 36










ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS


A. Topography and Control Sheets

Soil depths are to be taken on a 100 X 100 foot grid on each site. Three depth measurements shall
be taken at each sample site before vegetation and soil removal, using a standard soil depth
probe.

A Topography and Control Sheet shall be done after substrate removal and final grading are
completed in order to provide before and after substrate contours and profile. The control sheet will
have three inch (3") contour lines plotted on black and white aerial photography using a scale of one
inch equals one hundred feet (1 inch = 100 feet). The contour map shall be produced using a
minimum 10 foot control grid. Additional elevation 'shots' are to be taken within each 10 X 10 foot
grid to capture all elevation changes > 3 inches for individual topographic features greater than 3 ft2
in extent. All topographic features smaller than 3 ft2 in extent do not have to be included in the
elevation survey. The Topography and Control Sheet will be a reproducible negative, and five
blackline copies of the sheet will be provided in 'D' size format. An additional 'E' size format will be
provided for all sites where 'D' size format will not encompass the entire site at the indicated scale.

A separate registered overlay of the survey grid with all elevations at all surveyed points is to be
provided at the same scale as the topography and control sheet. All surveys are to be performed
and certified in writing by a surveyor licensed and insured in the State of Florida. All survey points
are to be accurate + 0.1 feet (_ 0.3 cm) NGVD29. Proof of State licensing and insurance shall be
provided with bid package.

The following control items are to be represented on all Topography and Control Sheets:

North Arrow
Scale Bar (Scale ratios are NOT acceptable)
UTM location for all photographic targets
Survey grid; surveyed locations of all study plots, wells, equipment; survey corners of entire
site, or other important features as determined by EVER
Bench mark and UTM location and elevation for bench mark

In addition to hard-copy maps all geographic data are to be provided in digital format compatible
with park GIS hardware and software configurations. Specifications for GIS compatibility are
available from the Computer Sciences section at the Center for Everglades Restoration, Everglades
National Park.

B. Aerial Photography for Production of the Topography and Control Sheets

All aerial photographs are to be black and white. All aerial photographs are to be taken AFTER
substrate removal. Flight height above the ground will be such that the negatives will have an
average scale of one (1) inch equals one-hundred (100) feet. Negatives having a departure from the
specified scale by more that 5% because of tilt or abrupt changes in flying altitude must be
corrected. Ground control targets are to be set out within each site. A minimum of 5 targets are to
be placed within each site, or if a site requires more than one photographic image to capture the
entire area, then 5 targets are to be placed within each photographic frame. The targets are to be
placed such that there is one at approximately each corner of the site (or frame) and one in the
approximate middle of the site (or frame). The targets will be a minimum of one meter square (1


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 37










m2) with distinct alternate black and white checkerboard pattern. Each black area will be 0.5 m2
alternating with each white area of the same size. The coordinates of each target center will be
determined to within + 0.25 meter accuracy using a Geographic Positioning System. The final
coordinates will be noted on the Topography and Control Sheets in Universal Transverse Meridian
(UTM). Should the 'site' require more than one photographic image, then end lap will be sufficient
to provide full stereoscopic coverage of the area. End lap shall average 63%, plus or minus 5%. End
lap of less than 58% or more than 68% in one or more negatives will be cause for rejection of such
negatives. Negatives shall be made with the optical axis of the aerial camera in the vertical
position. Tilt of any negative by more than three degrees, an average tilt of more than one degree
for the entire project, or tilt between any two successive negatives exceeding four degrees may be
cause for rejection. Crab in excess of three degrees may be cause for rejection. The photographs and
resulting Topography and Control Sheets, will be clear and sharp in detail and of average uniform
density. They shall be free from all clouds, cloud shadows, light streaks, static marks or other
blemishes. All photography shall be taken at such time as to ensure a minimum solar angle of 30
degrees. The photographs shall be exposed using a distortion free 6 inch focal-length precision
aerial mapping camera. A precision camera calibration report from the National Bureau of
Standards shall be included in the bid proposal, for the camera to be used. If more than one image
is required for the 'site' a photo index will be prepared by directly photographing on safety base film,
at a convenient scale, the assembly of contact from all indexed and evaluated prints used. Each
photo index shall carry a suitable title, scale bar and north arrow.


C. Bench Mark

A permanent bench mark, to U.S. Geological Survey or Army Corps of Engineers standards is to be
established in the vicinity of the mitigation site (it shall be included within the aerial photographic
coverage of the site, and shall be clearly marked on the photographs). The bench mark is to be
constructed of concrete poured into a 12 inch diameter section of PVC pipe. It shall be extend into
the ground at least 24 inches. It shall have a brass control plate firmly imbedded in the concrete.
The top of the monument shall extend no more than three inches (3") above ground, but shall not be
below the surface level of the ground. The elevation (accurate to within + 0.01 feet; + 0.03 cm), and
the coordinates (accurate to within + 0.25 meters using a GPS) shall be stamped into the brass
control plate. All topographic surveys on the site shall be made using the benchmark established
for that site. The locations for existing triangulation stations within Everglades National Park will
be provided as reference for initial survey points.


D. Vegetation Clearing

Vegetation clearing is to be done using chopping or slash producing equipment that reduces the
vegetation to manageable slash. This may require several passes by such equipment. After
sufficient time to dry, the slashed vegetation may be burned on site if the existing slash is
determined to be too bulky to include with substrate removal. Mulching and removal of mulch may
be considered as an option.




E. Substrate Removal




f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 38










Once substrate removal begins a crew superintendent will be on site at all times work is in
progress. All interactions with EVER personnel regarding substrate removal specifications and
directions on the site will be with the crew superintendent and/or site engineer, or other appropriate
representative of the contractor, only.

Substrate is to be cleared and grubbed using appropriate equipment, such as bulldozers (ex. D8,
D9), front-end loaders and dump trucks for hauling. All substrate, rubble, rock, vegetation, etc.
removed from the site is to be completely removed from the site and deposited at a location
previously identified and designated as part of this project. A map indicating the dumping location
will be provided to the Contractor. The areas shall be bladed to remove all windows, rubble piles,
hillocks, or other raised sites or coarse disturbance which may serve as locations for re-invasion of
Schinus. In order to reduce final disturbance and ensure minimum remaining rubble, the final two
passes with bulldozer used to remove the soil must be done using equipment fitted with double
Grouser treads. The entire removal process, in order to achieve the objective of total substrate
removal and surface rock clearing, may take as may as six to eight passes with bulldozers. The
total number of passes needed will be determined based on review of results by EVER personnel.
Substrate that may be compacted by dump trucks during the removal of substrate windows must
be rescraped and removed as well. Resultant rock and rubble from fine grading is to be disposed of
as all other substrate, rock, vegetation, rubble, etc.. All soil pockets, depressions, holes, or other
topographic features of the site that can be cleared using heavy equipment are to be cleaned of
disturbed substrate to ensure that variations in natural rock surfaces and micro-topographic
features are restored and not filled and leveled with the disturbed substrate.

After final substrate removal the entire area is to be compacted with a multiple rubber-tired traffic
roller. The compacting shall consist of two passes of the roller in one direction and then two more
passes perpendicular to the first. Compacting does not have to include holes or depressions difficult
for the compactor to negotiate, but shall include all negotiable portions of the site and shallow hard-
bottom depressions.

No portion of the final scraped site shall have an elevation greater than +3.0 feet NGVD29. No
minimum elevation applies.


F. Continuous-Monitoring Hydrological Well

An hydrological well is to be placed near the center of the site, but not in an extreme topographic
position. Placement of these hydrological wells shall be as indicated on a GIS well grid-map as
provided by Everglades National Park. The top of the well shall have a mounting platform that is a
minimum of 36 inches (88 cm) and maximum of 40 inches (98 cm) above ground level.

The wells shall be installed according to the standards set by the Everglades National Park
Hydrology Department to operate within a range of 12 feet (3.5 meters) below and 29 inches (0.75
meters) above ground level. In order to accomplish this quality of finished well, the unfinished well
must be a minimum of 18 inches (44 cm) in diameter and be fully slotted starting at a depth of 1
foot (30 cm) below the top of the bedrock. The well must be blown-out during the drilling process
using airlifting or comparable technology. The well must be lined with a minimum of 12" inside
diameter PVC pipe. The pipe must have slots every 6 inches around the pipe to within 1 foot (30
cm) of the surface of the bedrock to ensure good water equilibrium within the well. The annular
space shall be back-filled with coarse gravel to the top of the slotted screen, then completed with a
concrete collar to the ground surface and a 4" X 3' X 3' poured concrete pad to anchor the well casing.
The finished well shall be fully developed until all remaining sediment has been removed.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 39











A PVC collar no less than 2 inches wide, shall be attached to the top end of the PVC well pipe to
serve as a mounting platform for EVER environmental monitoring equipment. All well mounting
platforms are to be placed level using a bubble level and the elevation of the top surface of the
platforms are to be surveyed to within + 0.1 feet ( 0.3 cm) NGVD.


G. Staging Area

If requested, a staging area will be made available for the refueling and staging of equipment and
will be designated by EVER. All equipment maintenance (other than necessary on-site repairs)
office or equipment trailers, vehicles or any other equipment or supplies that must be stored or
warehoused are to be kept at this location. Storage of fuel, if not delivered by fuel trucks) but
stored in stationary tanks, must meet OSHA and NPS standards for fuel storage facilities. The
staging area must be maintained and/or returned to original condition or better after completion of
the project.


H. Time Frames

All earth-work is to begin when the substrate is reasonably dry and workable. This will usually be
during the dry season from approximately December through May. No work is to begin until final
approval to begin is provided in writing by the Park. Approximate timing for commencement of
earth-work will be December through May, each year. Contractors work for each site shall be
completed within the dry season the work starts, barring any "Acts of God" that would create
environmental conditions precluding this type of earth-work. No contract will be awarded that
would require more than one dry season for completion. No earth-work should be planned outside of
the December to May period or planned to extend into the following December to May season.


I. Final Considerations Engineering Specifications

Prior to commencement of work, the contractor is to develop a tentative schedule for all engineering
work, including time frames, type and number of pieces of equipment and approximate number of
vehicles passing through park entrance station daily with approximate numbers of dump truck trips
expected per day through the entrance station or along park roads. After completion of substrate
removal and final grading of the mitigation site, any and all damage or disturbance to the road
shoulder is to be repaired and the shoulder graded to approximately a 7:1 slope into the mitigation
site in order to prevent drop-offs into the restored area. The road shoulder is to be reseeded with
Bahia grass.

All motor vehicles, trucks, trailers or other equipment must meet Florida highway road weight
specifications. If dump trucks are equipped with a third axle, it must be placed down (except on
turns) in order to properly distribute the vehicle weight. Trucks must not be overfilled, are to be
covered while traveling on roads, and are to be reasonably free of loose rubble before leaving the
work site in order to prevent rubble on road, and to eliminate hazards to other vehicles from falling
debris.

The contractor must inform the designated EVER contact persons) prior to bringing heavy
equipment into the park. As each new pieces) of equipment is needed the contractor must call the
designated EVER contact.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 40











All access roads created within the Hole-in-the-Donut for access to and from work sites must be
created only from existing disturbed substrate within the Hole-in-the-Donut, and all traces of access
road(s) must be removed from the restoration site(s).

Portions of these engineering specifications were developed using standard
methodologies and procedures where available, and some were developed on site
through trial and error for all cases where no standard methods were available. As such
work is unique and in most cases unprecedented in scale and venture, these
specifications may be modified as the project proceeds in order to enhance the quality
or efficacy of this work.


MONITORING AND STUDY SPECIFICATIONS


Overview

The study of plant community ecology has many methods available and almost as many proponents
of one method or another. Approaches have varied from the subjective description (no longer
considered scientifically valid) of vegetation with or without reference to associated environmental
factors to complex quantitative analyses of the characteristics of the vegetation under consideration
(Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Greig-Smith 1983, Green 1979, Myers and Shelton 1980,
Sokal and Rolf 1969, Gauch 1982, USDA 1962, Marriot 1974). Since the purpose of this study is to
monitor the response of the vegetation to a management action and the associated changes,
community sampling and multivariate analysis methods have been chosen as the principal methods
since they have the advantages of objectivity, speed and low cost, effective correlation with other
factors, relevance to other study interests, and compatibility and comparability with similar studies
in the literature (Gauch 1982). Total floristic composition is an important aspect of this study to
evaluate effectiveness of exclusion of exotic species and for comparison to similar projects on other
sites, and to undisturbed native prairies (Gauch 1982, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974).

As is understandably the case with such studies, many questions arise as data from
existing studies are analyzed. When such questions inevitably occur additional studies
may be developed and implemented. Restoration has become an important element in
many natural areas today, and these additional studies will assist everyone involved in
the restoration of natural areas in understanding the dynamics of the restoration
process, the processes relating to succession in highly disturbed sites, comparisons with
natural relatively undisturbed sites, the function of wetlands and the links between
these processes and environmental factors effecting or affecting them, and the
management implications of land restoration. As results from previous and ongoing
studies and other work are analyzed, procedures, specifications or methods for carrying
out this project work, studying or monitoring these sites will be modified to incorporate
new information for the purposes of enhancing or improving the quality or efficacy of
this project.


A. Vegetation Sample Plots

Vegetation sample plots will be placed throughout the site in order to best cover the expected range
of variation of the environmental factors found throughout the site, and vegetation that will colonize


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










the site (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Krauss 1987). Each plot will be at least 100 m2 in
size in order to sample the upper limit of the empirical area given by Mueller-Dombois and
Ellenberg (1974) to sample the total species composition of grassland and agricultural weed
communities. The plot size chosen is also significantly larger than required for sampling everglades
prairie communities (Porter 1967). The corners of all plots and subplots will be permanently
marked with 1/2 inch rebar stakes driven into the substrate, and each plot will be permanently
tagged and numbered for future reference. All plot corners will have GPS locations that will be
labeled as part of the aerial photography and site survey work. Smaller subplots may be located in
each plot in order to evaluate and monitor smaller scale phenomena. Separate plots may be
established for other individual monitoring or biological or environmental evaluations that may be
deemed important to further the understanding of wetland restoration.

Each plot will be sampled at the time of completion and at specified intervals (to be determined by
sampling design and protocol for each element of the monitoring program) for the term on the
project. All plots, subplots, sampling locations and wells are to field numbered using tags of a
permanent type material such as aluminum, and identification information (including GPS UTM
location) is to be located on one blackline copy of the Topography and control sheet. Periphyton
shall be considered as a species for sampling protocols involving macrophytes where appropriate.

B. Photopoints

Photopoints will be taken of each area before vegetation clearing, after vegetation clearing but before
substrate removal, and after substrate removal. Additional photographs will be taken from the
same locations once each year for the duration of funding for this study. Additional photographs of
individual mitigation site will be established after substrate removal.

C. Hydrological Sampling

Continuous water level recorders shall be placed in within each project area. This finished wells are
to be 18 inches (30.5 cm) wide, have an "effective" minimum depth of 6m. Mean water level shall be
automatically recorded to NGVD29 every minute and averaged on the hour using a potentiometric
data logger.


D. Additional Environmental Monitoring

Evapotranspiration and rainfall sampling will be added to the sensor arrays placed within the
study area. These additional parameters will be used to assist in understanding the relationship
to restoration dynamics of the site and environmental parameters.


E. Substrate Nutrient Analysis

A standard substrate analysis will be performed on the site before substrate removal. A minimum
of one sample per 3 acres shall be taken. Samples are to be collected in a systematic grid pattern
that covers the entire site. Analysis will include: a physical description of the soil, analysis for: N
ammoniacall nitrogen NH4, nitrate nitrogen, and total nitrogen, P (phosphorous), K (potassium), Mg
(Magnesium), Mn (Manganese), Fe (Iron), Cu (Copper), Zn (Zinc), organic content, chlorides,
conductivity and pH. A second set of twenty samples are to be taken at the 12, 24, and 36 month
monitoring intervals.



f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 42










F. Additional Responsibilities of Contractor(s)


The contractor shall develop a schedule for monitoring all variables described in A, C, D and E
above, which will be subject to the approval of EVER personnel. Standardized data collection
formats and computer data entry methods will be used for data collection and data entry. Quality
of data and entry will be subject to the review and approval of EVER personnel. All raw data and
data formatted for analysis as specified below, maps, drawings, photographs, tables, etc. shall be
available to EVER personnel within 30 days after each monitoring cycle and become the sole
property of Everglades National Park at the end of the period for which the contractor is responsible
for the monitoring program.


DATA ANALYSIS


A. Vegetation

The synthesis table technique as described by Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) and Gauch
(1982) will be used to arrange the sample plots in a sequence that brings together plots similar in
species composition and, similarly, to arrange the species in a sequence that brings together species
similar in their distributions in the samples. Thus, groups of sample plots can be identified that
are similar in their vegetation structure and floristic composition. Sample plot vegetation data will
be input into a species/sample plot matrix with the appropriate format for use in the COENOS
program, which is an adaptation for use on a IBM PC or 100% compatible computer of an earlier
main frame program for synthesis table analysis (Ceska and Roemer 1971).

To supplement the synthesis table analysis, the data will also be analyzed with the dendrograph
technique as described by Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974). A dendrograph will be produced
which displays the mutual relationships among the sample plots whose pairwise similarities are
given. The dendrograph will be entirely based on a similarity matrix that will be calculated using
several calculation methods. Data will be input into a matrix in ASCI format appropriate for input
into MVSP, a program to analyze sample plot data on an IBM PC or 100% compatible computer
using the dendrogram technique (Kovach 1986).

Previously identified and permanently marked plots where the vegetation communities recolonizing
the Donut area at various time intervals since abandonment have been described, will serve as
controls.






B. Hydrology Data

Water table levels will be determined relative to mean sea level and substrate surface. Hydroperiod
at each well site will then be determined and analyzed for correlations with vegetation colonization.






f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 43










LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, T. R., and A. G. Crook. 1973. Recent and long-term vegetation changes and patterns in
South Florida: Part I: Preliminary Report. South Florida Environmental Project.
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 224 p. PB-231,939.

Alexander, T. R., and A. G. Crook. 1975. Recent and long-term vegetation changes and patterns in
South Florida: Part II: Final Report. South Florida Ecological Study. University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida. 827p.

Allen, H. H. 1936. Indigine versus alien in the New Zealand plant world. Ecology 17: 187-193.

Bridgewater, P. B., and D. J. Backshall. 1981. Dynamics of some Western Australian ligneous
formations with special reference to the invasion of exotic species. Vegetatio 46: 141-148.

Ceska, A. and H. Roemer. 1971. A computer program for identifying species-releve-groups in
vegetation studies. Vegetatio 23: 255-277.

Craigheaad F. C., SR. 1971. The Trees of South Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gable,
Florida. 212p.

Crawley, M. J. 1987. What makes a community invasible? pp. 429-453, in A. J. Gray, M. S.
Crawley, and P. J. Edwards (eds.), Colonization, Succession, and Stability. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Davis, J. H., JR. 1943. Vegetation of the Everglades and conservation from the point of view of the
plant ecologist. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. 5A: 104-115.

Doren, R. F. and L. Whiteaker. in prep. Fire effects on secondary successional communities in
Everglades National Park: the Hole-in-the-Donut.

Egler, F. E. 1942. Indigine versus alien in the development of arid Hawaiian vegetation. Ecology
23: 14-23.

Egler, F. E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida, and its management.
Vegetatio 3: 213-265.

Ewel, J. J., D. S. Ojima, D. A. Karl, and W. F. DeBusk. 1982. Schinus in successional ecosystems
of Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-676. 141 pp.

Ewel, J. J. 1986. Invasibility: lessons from South Florida. pp. 214-230 in H. A. Mooney and J.
Drake (eds.), Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag,
New York.

Florida Department of Transportation. 1986. Standard Specifications for Road Bridge
Construction. Edition of 1986. Florida D.O.T., Tallahassee.

Freese, F. 1962. Elementary Forest Sampling. Agriculture Handbook No. 232. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










Gauch, H. G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press,
New York.

Gerrish, G., and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1980. Behavior of native and non-native plants in two
tropical rainforests on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Phytocoenologia 8: 237-295.

Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology (Studies in Ecology; Volume 9). University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Harper, J. L. 1965. Establishment, aggression and cohabitation in weedy species. pp. 243-265, in
H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins (eds.), The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press,
New York.

Hartman, H. T., D. E. Kester 1968. Plant Propagation Principles and Practices, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., New Jersey.

Hilsenbeck, C. E. 1976. An investigation of old field succession in Everglades National Park, 1st
Interim Report. Everglades National Park. 63 pp.

Keever, P. 1950. Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmont, North Carolina. Ecological
Monographs 20: 229-250.

Kovach, W. L. 1986. A Multivariate Statistics Package for the IBM PC and Compatibles. Indiana
University, Bloomington.

Krauss, P. 1987. Old Field Succession in Everglades National Park. South Florida Research
Center Report, SFRC-87/03. 75 pp.

Little, E. L., JR. 1978. Atlas of United States Trees, Vol. 5. Florida. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Misc. Publ. No. 1361. 256 + maps.

Long, R. W. 1974. Vegetation of southern Florida. Florida Scientist 37: 33-45.

Long, R. W., and O. Lakela. 1971. A Flora of Tropical Florida. A Manual of the Seed Plants and
Ferns of Southern Peninsular Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
962 pp.

Loope, L. L., and G. N. Avery. 1979. A preliminary report on rare plant species in the flora of
National Park Service areas of South Florida. South Florida Research Center Report M-548.
42 pp.

Loope, L. L., and V. L. Dunevitz. 1981. Investigations of early plant succession on abandoned
farmland in Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-644. 65
pp.

Marriot, F. H. C. 1974. The Interpretation of Multiple Observations. Academic Press Inc., New
York.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc










McCormick, J., and M. F. Buell. 1957. Natural revegetation of a plowed field in the New Jersey
Pine Barrens. Botan. Gaz. 118: 261-264.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Myers, R. L. 1983. Site susceptibility to invasion by the exotic tree Melaleucaquinquenervea in
southern Florida. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 645-658.

Myers, W. L. and R. L. Shelton. 1980. Survey Methods for Ecosystem Management. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.

Odum, E. P. 1960. Organic production and turnover in old field successions. Ecology 41: 34-49.

Oosting, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina.
American Midland Naturalist 28: 1-126.

Porter, C. L., Jr. 1967. Composition and Productivity of a Subtropical Prairie, Ecology 48, No. 6:
937-942.

Robertson, W. B., JR. 1953. A survey of the effects of fire in Everglades National Park. Mimeo
Report. 169 pp.

Robertson, W. B., JR. 1955. An analysis of the breeding-bird populations of tropical Florida in
relation to the vegetation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois. 599 pp.

Small, J. K. 1904. Report upon further exploration of southern Florida. Jour. N.Y. Bot. Gard. 5:
157-164.

Small, J. K. 1929. From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy. Science Press Printing Co.,
Lancaster, Pa. 123 pp.

Smith, C.W. 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaii's native biota. pp. 180-250 in C. P. Stone and
J. M. Scott (eds.), Hawaii's Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management.
Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological
Research. W. H. Freemand and Co., San Francisco.

Sukopp, H., and L. Trepl. 1987. Extinction and naturalization of plant species as related to
ecosystem structure and function. pp. 245-276, in E. D. Schulze and H. Zuolfer (eds.),
Potentials and Limitations of Ecosystem Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Tomlinson, P. B. 1980. The Biology of Trees Native to Tropical Florida. Harvard University
Printing Office, Allston, MA. 480 pp.

USDA. 1958. Soil survey of Dade County, Florida. Series 1147, No. 4. Soil Conservation
Service and the University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station.





f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc 46










Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-17.
Southeast Forest Experiment Station. Asheville, North Carolina. 125 pp.

Whiteaker, L. and R. F. Doren. 1989. Exotic Plant Species Management Strategies and List of
Exotic Species in Prioritized Categories for Everglades National Park. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, National Park Service, Research/Resource Management Report SER-89/04.
Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, GA. 21 pp.


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc




























TABLE 2. Per Acre Budget


Per acre costs based on previous project costs and cost estimates and attached specifications.


Land clearing, vegetation and substrate removal 7,800.00
Aerial Photography 70.00

Topographic surveys 350.00
Hydrological well construction, placement and survey 10.00

USACOE cost for contracting of earth-works (7% of contract costs) ??
Monitoring and Study of Physical and Biological Parameters 5,600.00
15% Adminstratvie and Project Support Costs EVER ??
TOTAL COST PER ACRE ??


f:\share\doren\agree#3.mdc




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