<%BANNER%>

Algae, exotics, and management response in two Florida springs

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAKJ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-15T02:28:49Z PACKAGE UFE0019675_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 49332 DFID F20101114_AADNMJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH evans_j_Page_167.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
cb3ae19c69b5364323a89a864466c293
SHA-1
d1ed9a6d6cdda8a9ef9fc6b011df4ff8dc2e5892
12134 F20101114_AADNLV evans_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
c1bfcde221b9eee63b2cc495c64c876e
4c1249b0d67f3343577fead200d1e94460fdf5fa
2191 F20101114_AADMJH evans_j_Page_122.txt
872fa732684a5b979b6d8016342293b4
75742424f21e3b28a480aee2799d400dc73dda43
121715 F20101114_AADMIT evans_j_Page_019.jp2
7f0c824da2f581292e1e78a9511e961b
9294cf0827425f8bf505f0a4091bb8d3f9efec94
84775 F20101114_AADNMK evans_j_Page_161.jpg
3630d70cb6b5837847f0120ff64ef9e0
5b2d85042b82865c13fa63324fd93e0e9a6b4fe6
79138 F20101114_AADNLW evans_j_Page_136.jpg
e35f823ff9a52e66e6c97702427e60d7
7800718a67c1ed4435391495822b88ad005e6d25
7315 F20101114_AADMJI evans_j_Page_017thm.jpg
650e2dfdb46fd1563652f4b41f9c1ad6
885ba12d987820178474f8ba29c544d747f36cac
25957 F20101114_AADMIU evans_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
d69f5d198eef76f58806ac801b7b7aa7
c864b3901c3f7be4c40ff10128b992dae7651ec8
77290 F20101114_AADNNA evans_j_Page_043.jpg
87cc36a7d6286d8791022475cbfe86fe
3e20a83f288859b69294e65b86d950ba5e76862a
2153 F20101114_AADNML evans_j_Page_139.txt
1bd9ad4c381b9579bc3eb70faf8d6186
910280df77cde76ba89f9a61fd0484800a209638
18564 F20101114_AADNLX evans_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
976fe3b7969db84893650d41c448ac0d
e3d88cc289240d6ba3387c3c027fd57f8436caa8
82570 F20101114_AADMJJ evans_j_Page_081.jpg
62602cae50167724a09279191c2e51f0
6bef0b9d469c7e961652eddb7066e28b0d63eb9c
1053954 F20101114_AADMIV evans_j_Page_056.tif
c1c654f3d8a7bc34a01f1a62d489ae9a
61cb7412b7361484d2b87881d6cfb51d7cd8e6c8
F20101114_AADNNB evans_j_Page_037.tif
44a029c882990cc31ca22eb344a01e56
9b9a3bf8b587925de96d969643596b42303c1158
4087 F20101114_AADNMM evans_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
d4927d4d1a0f890bed94f2ab90246773
ddf58035e179cff7335459c73c7dee0167912fd5
6893 F20101114_AADNLY evans_j_Page_013thm.jpg
160d2e15b36592eeb08ab9ab794943c2
5cc7a94ce093d7555bc9c9edc9c3fc1865ddc900
111741 F20101114_AADMJK evans_j_Page_014.jp2
1a4dd50018d2bf94d5062e4f796ac900
343fa14070b4167774d41af23dc49cdc1f2d33fb
1974 F20101114_AADMIW evans_j_Page_014.txt
30e86f895a20bc41106bd46f2fcd87db
c84e97b4ccf53b559150ef6c92327e036eadc413
6771 F20101114_AADNNC evans_j_Page_065thm.jpg
47d5054eca2783d4772aec98418e6ac6
b43b4396dba06d914c46fb80e87aa6daff2de9fe
135682 F20101114_AADNMN evans_j_Page_078.jp2
23ccc807d0eacd8904c331c7b707e8e5
2296533d1a0851daa7a30edd9227ac0ce1dcb6a2
F20101114_AADNLZ evans_j_Page_110.tif
7cd61fd7a58e657dc4f380d56d06dd22
08044327d6ebb37a149dda2edafa2be58ec7f05b
164950 F20101114_AADMJL evans_j_Page_064.jp2
4544d7613da8f79e0f029a745f9e20f6
0fa780d2ad4751c82d4156df6e3121d136611519
F20101114_AADMIX evans_j_Page_038.tif
573f226c43af8d8e732eaccbde2fd1ca
22d7c5b18e8d19e878bd13010832b008bef038d4
25539 F20101114_AADMKA evans_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
b5260bc0da2708562129045f250a8b75
af67bbe41c0f43f00560493c7204fe75da2a39b8
140884 F20101114_AADNND evans_j_Page_017.jp2
c88dddbedce004c13d24f0bdb35d8335
7a65bfd20f6f3f49555788525f626a81f8a7e0af
23379 F20101114_AADNMO evans_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
b9879c4c74aa8bb8a34e69d17449b018
a81b9b4f4c5cd15a9af3f3466bdc84e93eefa3ee
1395 F20101114_AADMJM evans_j_Page_168.txt
4d2cd0d1585a76bd346492ee58075e7d
7535ccf7e0a5469f117aa405cf691c2bd5ad7a75
24191 F20101114_AADMIY evans_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
256f26c330c5b8f44f0eeda1f8bedd07
73f6fcd7095c0f09d0cf158b55e9f3c78849e309
26858 F20101114_AADMKB evans_j_Page_011.jp2
70a4c042aa26baaad9b5986a132d708c
7bcab3dbe871e1638736e81c7e278a92d84439c2
7300 F20101114_AADNNE evans_j_Page_073thm.jpg
2e8a22116ffa9354140b89d7959c075b
80db6611f829f797fd57d1f70465950aa75ed5ce
52749 F20101114_AADNMP evans_j_Page_004.pro
3509e78ba146bc48f49fce313048056f
e97737e18326e8cd64608c5ae0e5e24161836fc3
21676 F20101114_AADMJN evans_j_Page_011.jpg
02864ab1128feb6e74608c8eef0b0b13
3c2e04e024a7c05751c9915e1a9a4e1779f41fac
8423998 F20101114_AADMIZ evans_j_Page_016.tif
3bd27334886c7cef67b78e2e91d59b1f
f3b35a424a045fa5ded956c5b46d3cc1049dfc69
53825 F20101114_AADMKC evans_j_Page_047.pro
4274f39db00eca76db196fa6cd59bd1d
0f931c6a6cafeb0c3afcffb179a06f68b4e4833a
F20101114_AADNNF evans_j_Page_093.tif
1c73d0cf20c82fd91cdc7670735eab05
c9625df1b1955efebc8bdd01a7858f3e2a91e496
1890 F20101114_AADNMQ evans_j_Page_023.txt
858a2db33b3d5d1fa122c9b6d84df995
c12378f5e028d18294524a38e3e87c301bac5c0a
25100 F20101114_AADMJO evans_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
9f6068d3ab67fc4dc701f91e7d6ae772
483ceba4969fee78f4ee997ac5884150e5b7af06
57038 F20101114_AADMKD evans_j_Page_156.pro
dcba42bc88e43e5ee12cd58047db143b
67d993bf0f7018db9a9865f4e2e321d374359a16
25351 F20101114_AADNNG evans_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
31b028f398b6aebda18ab9754fab7657
4ba99be99dd20d4053182b1875f214847e213781
21444 F20101114_AADNMR evans_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
2de6d74f272bd4f82637b91f4a84ddb3
503bd31d1ba5d006e101bdac660f8644935958da
52600 F20101114_AADMJP evans_j_Page_065.pro
c2b0af3392395b1696325b0b11137e4b
ae7248ebac2e2cde5fae742018c999c8e45c2e94
6992 F20101114_AADMKE evans_j_Page_122thm.jpg
c838848d01b9388428e0edfb9d3d440e
004042370fd3f341ebf864565d703737d4b4b9a8
2140 F20101114_AADNNH evans_j_Page_119.txt
429754ee8dd92990c466af436390bcd7
228016220c6d7dc0518d5d84907394a7409cfcd1
25271604 F20101114_AADNMS evans_j_Page_151.tif
19f3ed5154e6e3c3913d0858501c0d5c
c2dbe596258bc6777680733c86062586f2ec20e8
78030 F20101114_AADMJQ evans_j_Page_109.jpg
88c5a5b55d3e979d32521af0cb9b760c
94ba5edb430c645a5def8687be42b0185b3200b5
54444 F20101114_AADMKF evans_j_Page_068.pro
02f09a7c5a9f7fd3bf768588cc0075ed
a97aac7125e6622a5c6ad6d40435e01b158ffb48
111 F20101114_AADNNI evans_j_Page_002.txt
bc375ddda9e3ee64c0e84ad9f939aa9b
1743fc20b789477f84476d0488362c143beaa027
12643 F20101114_AADNMT evans_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
f73cddc3b3c7fc6f335fd420a0110a43
80c2649bc76e3d0dd0c5c22558e11f040c9f10fd
F20101114_AADMJR evans_j_Page_157.tif
2e2318c9e52718237af237f312fc9c46
63893f94c886ead69a71bc75ab657534870f19f4
52719 F20101114_AADMKG evans_j_Page_062.pro
12e4aa279f2e476419634eb62ffebcb3
bbac1215f87ccc2e841c5255abc423bcf7a7110c
81232 F20101114_AADNNJ evans_j_Page_138.jpg
0e4aa9d513d413a89ffe2209f6002bbb
a2c38ddb9e7ea26429d256457251dcf297caa758
54609 F20101114_AADNMU evans_j_Page_166.pro
b83109bbd53d76aae91cdafa8ad59980
ecf92b049c65a18ff3ba3069b38792bd963f4b1f
77418 F20101114_AADMJS evans_j_Page_096.jpg
013eed05b23aa12ea5333667eaf85506
5d1e017ca1bdab8df2afdd0cf2d6246fc274bc87
F20101114_AADMKH evans_j_Page_105.tif
64ebe48c36fb27dcb8bf97faeb22a946
373c77fff512be3e5d18b8b633cbe586ff6e5bc9
F20101114_AADNMV evans_j_Page_101.tif
2081d6039352b7e45a71046e7ec5b79c
036a38aaa919869575eb95f09f5fde828da573d7
56577 F20101114_AADMJT evans_j_Page_016.pro
c3792bf233fe44fa2570b5e963422bdc
2855ab947e2cf6edb74405f84f42ce6dd6b97078
6465 F20101114_AADNNK evans_j_Page_012thm.jpg
60ae01349d1efb28f40ac2749d89e2fe
f8053dc514086f9965561dcb11f8367098043781
210 F20101114_AADNMW evans_j_Page_124.txt
a70ab9a6296fd5e3f18590f844422908
dca324c09357349fa4e4cdd4794192fe67289515
130885 F20101114_AADMJU evans_j_Page_144.jp2
15a994ddfe41c85ee8bd9b3a49681d15
fd850613b2a08ec24fa3a42294f1d36b2c0a9a9d
61208 F20101114_AADMKI evans_j_Page_159.pro
81df9ac799e2abd034b488b1e2e38f87
87a95e79d6f0997600a712801f2727130a635c6a
81453 F20101114_AADNOA evans_j_Page_076.jpg
7801a3561665642b1a6148dcd1f06de8
947116addceb50707be6fa562f93f019bdf215df
73057 F20101114_AADNNL evans_j_Page_017.pro
c991fe3291b7a2b0aeaecbd08c031017
b5b04004f8ad39aacf19ad9cae8b4f9e72053985
3340 F20101114_AADNMX evans_j_Page_006.txt
4f18245408a856446f5fec0dd0c806b7
8e3a5a14a49c10c2b8b27e5eb92289a851b56839
2065 F20101114_AADMJV evans_j_Page_120.txt
ac2be720ba8011f87b4136c2b1ffa0f8
91e45c1787fae46a184c0708cd447c1ecec5d77c
6696 F20101114_AADMKJ evans_j_Page_059thm.jpg
f48ae147af7c015d299690e565aeccb0
ccaa2e28a62e79fde0f4d563a339fbbe6084eec3
5083 F20101114_AADNOB evans_j_Page_168thm.jpg
1cc91fb01b08da79f88fc4e0ddfd56b6
cca61c62a67e2b24a83e9e3f8a2b13224acca9fb
54313 F20101114_AADNNM evans_j_Page_024.pro
f52da8aac1788b1e56c923b1f63b4ac6
a13011cd684560316c310805a526a73ead8f883c
20492 F20101114_AADNMY evans_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
83bcbc8bbddab9e4ea9ef55011f2f0e9
be170d2249f6bc8cba7264379595ca42bb55739a
F20101114_AADMJW evans_j_Page_127.tif
2dc59c782b0ec738be9b1784889a9ce3
289bc7719f3daa94798e6c3043106dfe7490474b
6940 F20101114_AADMKK evans_j_Page_052thm.jpg
280aa20e578cea9eaf8142f994bfc43f
297e35f33046f487d5d77fa30baefc3318c101bf
53927 F20101114_AADNOC evans_j_Page_046.pro
0d0dfa346924f3d61964447842b1d11a
0ce2f7f645c4206dcc452093efb7e6c6ffc66d94
F20101114_AADNNN evans_j_Page_137.tif
578a30c42dffb5514c3a31ad7fcea02b
5a61b7d2468fb02b557088b0f538ccc1bb9a0871
52992 F20101114_AADNMZ evans_j_Page_039.pro
8bff5b3b55fe0195d1901b4ec23de9cd
6209c631c37b1069fdebbea8a466fb4ef3f0081a
124539 F20101114_AADMJX evans_j_Page_076.jp2
230a1af4e4e39c404fbb57106e8bc9ff
986ee8f09a137f490882f99c3921660db90a4c5e
F20101114_AADMLA evans_j_Page_082.tif
a7abdba9355ba503ff7c661ceebb0b1e
adb56eddf74dfcf7d1c0cc0db03c6cfee1504ab8
6983 F20101114_AADMKL evans_j_Page_031thm.jpg
1e7aaf17b3e94c36e64b89cdd93fbb90
aedbdd2ca0887ec6595d33ee48a59e2c8bb87e66
74699 F20101114_AADNOD evans_j_Page_065.jpg
348cfacbebc46f3a4e65958009626209
99cd8e287d83283917d406d335310c91dd107e86
6934 F20101114_AADNNO evans_j_Page_061thm.jpg
f048b295ce42b27f96dd4dd42e681335
28157dd1e9f33584cd63f443328fd0df4dd78979
26185 F20101114_AADMJY evans_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
c7351a14ec6f87c63538d44c378afaff
8c39cba555ca5ddefd9cc4fe8726b2e865c2b588
55572 F20101114_AADMLB evans_j_Page_032.jpg
17f013ad62c738a716c8e317ed450699
1d835400fd471b6395acd1bbd01a8b40c7f3c5ff
98414 F20101114_AADMKM evans_j_Page_153.jpg
86fd02c38a667b944e699eeeb779e80c
a6711a44e63ee02f84d6c7f430df5b1fd71c1b58
3839 F20101114_AADNOE evans_j_Page_167thm.jpg
dd443cb0a28d8369552e521952a1790b
a20718cd454efd5267b77a2848b7a4e53c368e28
F20101114_AADNNP evans_j_Page_055.tif
fec403de0340d0a7be2027bcfdb9635e
3b90768858b3f452878237fbed690b5772aebeac
78237 F20101114_AADMJZ evans_j_Page_055.jpg
1cf014ed4347fb5b8d0695d4cda702d9
c7fc9913f481f72d109d14d709575dfea5af9e54
25874 F20101114_AADMLC evans_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
eba9dcf22439402e020017f9b6412c96
5a9feb445a688bffd29549ee82071f583cbfb19a
21999 F20101114_AADMKN evans_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
568064aea2146283b7e9e0e1df1f0331
016635655fceb7ef9a09043a99d2b647f20e05f3
2182 F20101114_AADNOF evans_j_Page_056.txt
4ea5e5d3f9f754c3fe75f0ac0e04a28c
8061aba5e1cc4c14e8fea602bbfe7663d4b58826
2117 F20101114_AADNNQ evans_j_Page_046.txt
67ec272d4ff7e2ba135bdfe10d5cef99
ae6a7217ca7ccfbe0c0e4e60e1b46bff68cea258
23977 F20101114_AADMLD evans_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
a00b2661ffa196ad3bfd1bd09e0ad783
475db9f5bf19bcd3f224b3d6ab2f5b9f7bd24431
1597 F20101114_AADMKO evans_j_Page_146.txt
ad3388f6741a606eb9dc95554f60555c
f0efd3c6897dfc07a29e542dcb06292030fdc873
116753 F20101114_AADNOG evans_j_Page_101.jp2
8e14b2ea09e7c17625f34871356e873b
e373b4c6cd7bf6fd6244f7db3eef6d13e069e05f
F20101114_AADNNR evans_j_Page_040.tif
a79148dd7af795d10d7b88a203eb827f
366e71365137a0d86177d01fb90d75527e476566
6765 F20101114_AADMLE evans_j_Page_074thm.jpg
935beeaa08c8c89e5c6d261c4441b117
2b3eb00a0ee5c5d2cf8812c841e2841c4cab7bb2
F20101114_AADMKP evans_j_Page_159.tif
5676a7345d940ac95e6e46e2bfb0f636
4287ccf7835b569026a58b8a25ffe2190aa8825a
1051968 F20101114_AADNOH evans_j_Page_164.jp2
7bc53d1e1b15cd429eff590583a4ca0d
7b828fd638d50b7616561762b3d39337eef2ff36
F20101114_AADNNS evans_j_Page_041.tif
c4e131557abbe60c80be2ec0e1f8e2ab
85c2513c011cac7f40284fcae2847579d29c1161
60308 F20101114_AADMLF evans_j_Page_160.pro
e9e3387e5b9cba9d2b8e70114d97942c
52d29eab4e3f41ff8b7acd98432869c776e1030b
21661 F20101114_AADMKQ evans_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
b6dce53b3a345c3642a31440faca5226
7a8ec29c8ebbaa91c0ff2041b136783613561535
F20101114_AADNOI evans_j_Page_068.tif
417c7ca2190b4d1195902ff3d9f8bdcb
93037a1dd35c0300273a8313eb8e2665681fa7f6
2178 F20101114_AADNNT evans_j_Page_154.txt
5e30b1f98d9ebd2ae9f6fc3748d3548b
e7236c0529221330ae87a2de48c64d93ee01a8fe
50511 F20101114_AADMLG evans_j_Page_087.pro
01be581b7219a82f959d1c8c64cfd582
046a73de8358cbd61a9b8789991de1847b4b0373
2018 F20101114_AADMKR evans_j_Page_028.txt
b2ca5579643b07732926452e7af554f8
33b651288bddd81f050bcdf6cbc1211dfe3dea6a
142676 F20101114_AADNOJ evans_j_Page_020.jp2
ad9a4593c303a5472687d771c5ae1d82
f3af56745185956e93c208a86e2c13ea1bdf0136
6948 F20101114_AADNNU evans_j_Page_093thm.jpg
f8f9462aaeeb1d6529b52d871ff9d6a1
99f6fd882606502133ec23f24259c49ebb70dab5
1601 F20101114_AADMLH evans_j_Page_032.txt
d584b3977c7cfa6b322d2c22e90effb1
7664cc7f41a9d4c360bb973b63c536ebafaa0692
F20101114_AADMKS evans_j_Page_105thm.jpg
825afa763a414e81ba9ca85cc2e397ea
ed0149836f9ee064c227f46e9fcacf28b0c0e47b
6718 F20101114_AADNOK evans_j_Page_004thm.jpg
cf07b99463f891b671f53b2246311f0d
7bc45eedc77e66912388b85f3c56aedd9c359960
95063 F20101114_AADNNV evans_j_Page_007.jpg
c76da421d3881a13b6fdbc94cdff8602
fbe333c4b3fd8105ad93f778604156cbb4f8e558
9730 F20101114_AADMLI evans_j_Page_001.pro
25bf3cb78a2fe824591a111b98ef571a
7894561d1c13de9edda6591e47619b537bc5763a
2235 F20101114_AADMKT evans_j_Page_094.txt
ad9b12dcc870f959890624ae0a43fc73
f099f5fb388941336435b0a2f9f16674c07e185d
76775 F20101114_AADNNW evans_j_Page_132.jpg
f638ea1b177f39b60d1999423e33c887
2a191e1be8a6fe6c30e26468e8ee0a82dd7ecdd9
60789 F20101114_AADMKU evans_j_Page_076.pro
c66960a9ae7a2f103f2a43a266dc514a
fdbf703483a1dd511d480b8fa549948e8b4b5a3b
87330 F20101114_AADNPA evans_j_Page_078.jpg
6942585d023cc141d3a7f0a77e9cab9e
bc0a05e32af0975038b8c492fd9e9003624e81ff
1051961 F20101114_AADNOL evans_j_Page_129.jp2
89eba0a3729d6479e5f5a023014b72d7
d5c3e4deea77fcbf424f109294a4d7c47c64d8ae
71459 F20101114_AADNNX evans_j_Page_034.jpg
c1c14887e5b63f235fcd90d89d56aa19
c1fd633926606197d7b6d1060580ece140d07ba8
77438 F20101114_AADMLJ evans_j_Page_061.jpg
44bc89ac50518d3a349dd6971dfd3698
c8176c45fb4e1b9fc85e051061b579b81e10f070
1981 F20101114_AADMKV evans_j_Page_038.txt
2e509cb9a102af8ffade313306695f1f
b2d1f51adbcc31e6717c34da131a4c4fe2d0bd8b
82825 F20101114_AADNPB evans_j_Page_160.jpg
3c2d136f937f465072ac9a3e7b6bc701
0874af917e8ed1bf6dcba6bd0d93d2070b8b74db
118584 F20101114_AADNOM evans_j_Page_099.jp2
4015a8e9e852d9441c12b93d1bab3c4d
135a73e5882a95550e99d5919c277b95fc53dd3c
F20101114_AADNNY evans_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
64c699a528447eb2a898d23097da0cca
98863203de543a35bf99429b1f132c328286f90d
25682 F20101114_AADMLK evans_j_Page_152.QC.jpg
5128386871f65171487c631ad6c5eb02
b93452b1f7e299c91d9d8d088a60b9099f32fbb6
118246 F20101114_AADMKW evans_j_Page_132.jp2
c07f7de8d27011c63da07cb0ac424893
0d106389332cefa7626b1231f874e734d2418b2f
25404 F20101114_AADNPC evans_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
9f840e4e7042c3ff207dc78126b07546
d792f0afc1d09b3a64ba94f0a07a2e7cfb82ab58
124896 F20101114_AADNON evans_j_Page_070.jp2
0983246f34215db3b846d9794cf3a3e5
d674f623e8489bac0769fb2483413c64c8afb877
45262 F20101114_AADNNZ evans_j_Page_005.jp2
1f07ffc79c5e1144f0c7961ba82f34f0
44ccab1312fbe9564872e84ed6e4c0c338829930
115553 F20101114_AADMMA evans_j_Page_091.jp2
10928973e8ec506a9fb6b40872473174
ac3d15b4aeb22fdd405e8e297e195f8218c9eb47
79455 F20101114_AADMLL evans_j_Page_095.jpg
9d40bc1144c34790d5c13dab2f202ab7
1ee06b3d0a9eef30547dd7d9a1e1372b0595b42e
682992 F20101114_AADMKX evans_j_Page_167.jp2
77086711560c8b2dd63e11c30865b44f
417c108f589e34120d4dc5c4a5e1cb982f103247
77396 F20101114_AADNPD evans_j_Page_020.pro
b4c558418f5fdd0d39e1e419829c22fe
1998f05ca8b71102392309d5e14fc8bdd19a7c85
2193 F20101114_AADNOO evans_j_Page_142.txt
5f745023b3c39379f0bb1fbeef9d461b
36c0795ae621ac3825553262a11572a1a9417253
26016 F20101114_AADMMB evans_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
b5b36fdafccd841d380b8a4c0a106434
a6968a25bab562512edf4bf9fece11db4a71941f
F20101114_AADMLM evans_j_Page_163.tif
59b14859011df0ca178dae5cdf187526
15e216e039c41421684c2bbc904267a6b621c2b1
298666 F20101114_AADMKY evans_j_Page_085.jp2
1448b1d3b64728e0d053d60ecff29c30
18df1f77c6bb6b78721f54d7fda18b154ced3137
25048 F20101114_AADNPE evans_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
531b55e865234dc8a7e68deee07592f7
30173d10ba6cb5bc209956a3e494fef20059cd5c
87234 F20101114_AADNOP evans_j_Page_150.jpg
9fbc035ded4c5357b82b4187ccf667e6
6ed7363af2fa80e1fe1cc3819ba1349088caf2aa
117905 F20101114_AADMMC evans_j_Page_053.jp2
f6b6e526b0716b5d0fc9e0ba4c084e09
768f72dd6f7dbfe26ad2a1c981f240c9c9e987c2
20790 F20101114_AADMLN evans_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
d955b97d6e4da9fece40a71b579f24fb
de5a2a074ab8cb0cebc99b64e87642d93e666eaa
2497 F20101114_AADMKZ evans_j_Page_001thm.jpg
a44b92e4f3341d3f9302de06767be085
ad1ae90270ae8af88fbcdb61def0105b842ae60e
4332 F20101114_AADNPF evans_j_Page_084thm.jpg
c760a6552f2192e212f462e4a8b827d2
0cc20ad10ab8222eb163c639aba0fe1a6a11c848
1840 F20101114_AADNOQ evans_j_Page_033.txt
c27a89f5f3c10a4b848888068a3399ab
a50b870d83b17957dc0472f51d1a29f2d2553e23
45528 F20101114_AADMMD evans_j_Page_123.pro
11dbb11b2d4d50e6a9c6e384309f6d87
a9101425b3b667eca79959fd18807b1700de95fe
81632 F20101114_AADMLO evans_j_Page_035.jpg
0dd90fab2b390a2851368e2d18978441
0f20ee93f8b5342f4902dab62bcbaa23cea3948e
1051973 F20101114_AADNPG evans_j_Page_152.jp2
cb11f512eb45c737bf99d2be98a9930d
662f9824b0ed5a584f41e968fc7bc2540dd7c40e
25884 F20101114_AADNOR evans_j_Page_156.QC.jpg
52b8958ab656bb8a0be9505c1d21f80d
eacdd76870707a16332ee95094ca312c794fc929
53980 F20101114_AADMME evans_j_Page_053.pro
6163533e026d9ba8f386849b74240f47
c91ee580d05e24a518010f8e358d47b804e6674d
2107 F20101114_AADMLP evans_j_Page_030.txt
615523434637249122596662596240cd
015ce8d8912d28693f42da7b726607b5b07fb4db
6750 F20101114_AADNPH evans_j_Page_051thm.jpg
0fe53ef4580482a9a7a3aea8980addd3
1a01e3ff0e86fab4f74fec724b8865da8a1358b3
F20101114_AADNOS evans_j_Page_078.tif
160b336ef3ec19fdc2f5d25dd6928095
5c64fd535b609a4c6cf1d7c549795afeb451a289
F20101114_AADMMF evans_j_Page_146.tif
dcdbe336e851aa7a04d4050ce6f974d7
8737b1c2f7667ddcc3a1376c3cce5077651f4c66
2963 F20101114_AADMLQ evans_j_Page_020.txt
55756ab97f221a5d4e6df42c4c70024c
504270e68c2209e6dc96458a8a7b9501889858f0
26269 F20101114_AADNPI evans_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
8592e95c47f9ebac409163f671c884b5
a3384a8bb02fbc2ca230433ed837b718d6cf2dc5
6967 F20101114_AADNOT evans_j_Page_142thm.jpg
13454cc8dd1ce8c0c8ae37bff7674c87
6d2c4fc0031f4756fea028eb7d316658d70bcba9
55504 F20101114_AADMMG evans_j_Page_115.pro
d3f916a647a4b82882ef2a83eb37668d
024d4f609350ddf4c5c0b0d85ef846402249cf4b
2061 F20101114_AADMLR evans_j_Page_018.txt
38a092fb4e44245d4c38b96cdbe91866
9ada8d840814d4574488870dfd883426cff9971d
2499 F20101114_AADNPJ evans_j_Page_150.txt
c0a28817cbed0692c5c62e6885c7af2d
4f9d63eaf59d17f9f44085bb9a4557da55a7d9d8
19772 F20101114_AADNOU evans_j_Page_005.pro
174c39bdfd51ca5033eeb8c08f50a800
4b9fbfff559223b8c21520633b8760bc6879ace4
F20101114_AADMMH evans_j_Page_030.tif
f3b3d8309d396eee5ce2acfe00ce7f29
99a5ce7cfb2da666c15a4cc69b6f899adba86173
2118 F20101114_AADMLS evans_j_Page_041.txt
410044b7b3cafe0d9954663c6badf4ae
af550dc94017d5aa0217a29cd91a6755bae3ebaf
55808 F20101114_AADNPK evans_j_Page_057.pro
f068a09bd90a05691a828e8e9e95a3af
efebbbac02c290a7b10bfc5eb96476ce0e8357b8
2176 F20101114_AADNOV evans_j_Page_111.txt
ff1f5e8966ccb515fb00dedc09367753
22cacc502d3167f445f5dd6792ef0897195ac662
F20101114_AADMMI evans_j_Page_104.tif
52ab1c6b2f31a7a278c806d72643cf84
305d676700e59171f15dc46ce9e061f296439afb
26415 F20101114_AADMLT evans_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
ca9a0c7b2bf521bc9b4563b6b2b0e626
1996347d12b71714de4d119c5588741656d677fd
62934 F20101114_AADNPL evans_j_Page_144.pro
8349a5411ddf732937090c9ef5f91735
fc4b69fdb74ce92de3d729838f408900e421417d
F20101114_AADNOW evans_j_Page_003.tif
6f6a36edef6b9a9ddd3231519765e9a6
3939fed69d17053c9f076f0274019150eae6d15e
F20101114_AADMMJ evans_j_Page_111.tif
9bb9b8c949c37336095f10075134f213
7b61e1be56f55b7657c4419aae71843bc5149316
2152 F20101114_AADMLU evans_j_Page_134.txt
90f4b2829ac6f250cb2d9bed525d2a10
b191bd5de541ee3af5394a88706abeb8cb08c2a1
28593 F20101114_AADNQA evans_j_Page_079.jpg
d01d4bacefe906a4a7bfd2afc8644377
2b426022505bf3af380af94db7db038528deb6aa
118951 F20101114_AADNOX evans_j_Page_061.jp2
70d4617b9103726f8b8f11a5d40106af
1b1da76b4c5b2580944a33a61c15af5730233d64
121533 F20101114_AADMLV evans_j_Page_069.jp2
8c05709ee48b48f08852b845a931106a
1d7b871fcece5cfd63842a9216f9e37bf03d345c
43154 F20101114_AADNQB evans_j_Page_130.pro
e28d4f0cededff1697a9194ea8ee8c57
f6d8f7a486661293557d1975e02e0a66c65a8a93
6925 F20101114_AADNPM evans_j_Page_054thm.jpg
153cee31d71d9dd3a861b07c81c8ec76
fa6894e898e721d207cdd972a3ee797e5fdb3a8d
F20101114_AADNOY evans_j_Page_006.tif
b926cbf14a8a1400675fec3b0e9532f4
52f0a6fee7b8709293d9c5868b261e5944806b40
25143 F20101114_AADMMK evans_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
b8b7f41516c16f640cc25193d2d48296
28149ec478c2a818ad915f46f99f3c8eb772a10d
2852 F20101114_AADMLW evans_j_Page_079thm.jpg
2740273c81ab07e9be019847cfe58554
d4a438d368a83c811b1df90a5f73815f76dddbdf
50904 F20101114_AADNQC evans_j_Page_128.jpg
c56e7fd596abbc44f0975fc34e46be96
874e30d6fe1a8113b1a4f158b43da5091a5cf0e0
54618 F20101114_AADNPN evans_j_Page_119.pro
ce3752cf068077a5f033820859f8896e
a1d3c740b7593b52de2381dfabebd49bc302e8af
117788 F20101114_AADNOZ evans_j_Page_121.jp2
638b856eeae2ec027719059724f39f94
a9109b3f22a908e6c177526df212d651d3c6aea4
56226 F20101114_AADMML evans_j_Page_114.pro
c145c5f2007997200016b00c51829c7f
d6db0b96f7574c10a1da04ebba2b2e1b8ddd0f9e
119654 F20101114_AADMLX evans_j_Page_043.jp2
e0904dc8ce116e1e14608abe3484c91f
86bb9748119241b90844773c30d08992cc56bc2c
F20101114_AADMNA evans_j_Page_071.jpg
c5050bac33af4a7cbc863d0d0c21431b
f80a044edb0a5871fac58c2851bce656255721f4
21141 F20101114_AADNQD evans_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
228a1c47de0d47c6d88cf2265a251774
618a5bd7b7bbafc27626849718c641e1ceb9f949
F20101114_AADNPO evans_j_Page_079.tif
8aaa5e0d556da36a92010ac8b3a4060b
ac6c00c546b88ad8b6846cacf914916932557e2a
117254 F20101114_AADMMM evans_j_Page_046.jp2
dce27402e325f68094e84612c4dd46e6
4d1fbc6e17e55b989fa27a739349fdcc3a53e77b
55115 F20101114_AADMLY evans_j_Page_097.pro
eaa0d0597a64ef2b4c08c2b64100d34b
d43240902a2854d8ea2973d779bd45196cce168b
2121 F20101114_AADMNB evans_j_Page_053.txt
92cfc0061080cbef9ccdee5d90d905cb
346f7fe4b8672cc399adb38a10bed7aa865ce3aa
53387 F20101114_AADNQE evans_j_Page_067.pro
d5161b7e2f79a1cd4bf6bb556ff57e41
0f8bb5f8359b06cbe621b271c76fadbfbc3a6675
2209 F20101114_AADNPP evans_j_Page_118.txt
e96040f6e50da21666455dd2be5b4ede
b68e0fcdb12424d342804f2d942727a0658ed383
19414 F20101114_AADMLZ evans_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
521705fde435500817f2f045b5851c37
19280c5eb0b5cf9fcc9dfc571e8561cfd645eac7
55653 F20101114_AADMNC evans_j_Page_056.pro
03e8a5b9036e5c75c41877fc57182d5f
bec5be60c48336d98a9c84d162718b2ce912efa6
6089 F20101114_AADMMN evans_j_Page_007thm.jpg
c9db44cfff22f9259136d5f8e5ab7e1a
53ea8e5f5d57aab821e258dc95fe459f6596e68e
2001 F20101114_AADNQF evans_j_Page_034.txt
075229d201968818e7ec4966100c70f0
4224e2b85ae06fbe6eb9caa5f00b79d1b68b0531
F20101114_AADNPQ evans_j_Page_089.tif
7d3a8a1be5042475e2e6e46b34184eff
c06ae2acee321fdb38e7a248bbda1ddc41f913be
2222 F20101114_AADMND evans_j_Page_140.txt
13ebff8a5dacdaf1ca256cb34fe53655
fc4b6e6f58e580438b87a7d49149254030d56009
1051941 F20101114_AADMMO evans_j_Page_151.jp2
2a295150a1bf1169fb3df6a903de07d8
8bc28ba374fc3d5cbc396f40c9948b643d5a7d86
F20101114_AADNQG evans_j_Page_075.tif
174d4239a51a446e54825f327a9986f4
d65dbd03700d97433d5a72ef8a89526a9bdc4dea
54597 F20101114_AADNPR evans_j_Page_168.jpg
983f301cd7368e056755497619844b15
b1dea3dfb81df059fe1e0894ced7013efbe8b6cf
F20101114_AADMNE evans_j_Page_031.tif
c9475d220118d7f8c7c98864c8d34b81
ba0b61da174cbf1d301a37cb874280b799fc04ab
100269 F20101114_AADMMP evans_j_Page_151.jpg
9bc15da2f756cda7eac538b8453341a0
a40bae338e6cce21d804510df8307781852218eb
4915 F20101114_AADNQH evans_j_Page_128thm.jpg
965eda64155c5a8684dd2e4ef562430d
5c07abc4387e1a4a24a11ee50bf611f31818ebad
45332 F20101114_AADNPS evans_j_Page_147.pro
95fc3f4f6cb98e7a08a1084a72603c66
9baa2a76b3108651479b3e5aa0f40e608ae6a83d
115860 F20101114_AADMNF evans_j_Page_062.jp2
59ae670fedc9d29502c090a547b54d27
000602351f0e53b73d634f50a22299a2b01f5a4d
75435 F20101114_AADMMQ evans_j_Page_039.jpg
82b4e377ee996792ceb958c91754a858
e79d7a4ac1918c9bc4fd138bf1e9aba38fa1a21f
1051825 F20101114_AADNQI evans_j_Page_128.jp2
3f1594bc3a4eba1555c2afb1e199944e
605bfbe8fdbcba6ea4866504badb6a9d3cefdff5
95478 F20101114_AADNPT evans_j_Page_156.jpg
a91035d0042b607c3a9347972d592126
8b4cf7efe4f71e814c456cb772bf1ca32e93af6e
6956 F20101114_AADMNG evans_j_Page_025thm.jpg
4a0b3dcdd8e5e8c2f00b119ee33bb3d3
c5054afe6b24134329fa4ea10947483678b62f92
2221 F20101114_AADMMR evans_j_Page_072.txt
b24e7d914a2a2be880efded11494c6bb
8c997399c6984690dbc95a39e81fc0f274d993a4
117724 F20101114_AADNQJ evans_j_Page_040.jp2
8bcd9bce1b7a9c73e2ce8023f15d1dfe
4df65e14dba726bc0649746e504d2b7ec3762e6d
7019 F20101114_AADNPU evans_j_Page_078thm.jpg
e66fa11f79adaea8937af84b09cd11fc
0f3f485ec97ed0b29431d3e218e060e5c16cb35e
124929 F20101114_AADMNH evans_j_Page_073.jp2
1df81fe8ab458254dff85421ca368974
25b6bb88d3c5bd9b20bdd9ae0e17936fe0227828
24740 F20101114_AADMMS evans_j_Page_154.QC.jpg
22c4d08b527abe9d4d0aa1b569f379d6
6e88c6e7e88de23117c1ea67d4c89910c00dc2dc
6821 F20101114_AADNQK evans_j_Page_027thm.jpg
8a1cab2574909931a0ed593bd3f1488c
4761842d2b866a77625052c3cbf02ad837ec2f61
80010 F20101114_AADNPV evans_j_Page_057.jpg
11fb2d4659b404b0617602f10d900e4f
5160acd1767f6e0806fce839b7f4ce759e4c3656
27471 F20101114_AADMNI evans_j_Page_165.QC.jpg
e31ebe7df1d90db8d11482a103ebb4ae
4a89b4403240cd79dcacfa9b80b3c4ac662417ba
F20101114_AADMMT evans_j_Page_044.tif
2edcafa92e73b912a8c497c94ca22ab4
b9265ae9864248e4602cae2ef7bddb28ae3979be
119110 F20101114_AADNQL evans_j_Page_141.jp2
805d411097646743eaefaf7f5b464c49
9df050fa15e772248210d612acc87e960c0d392b
2210 F20101114_AADNPW evans_j_Page_057.txt
dcb76f2c963e17abdd4bb2127647f08f
e8071796b96e45b89fd5d3f7c877931e7977fa9d
79290 F20101114_AADMNJ evans_j_Page_069.jpg
1814d551146476cbb890d4afb8e89201
9400338a5bf4f6193bcf5d39d160cb8a045b85ed
77737 F20101114_AADMMU evans_j_Page_100.jpg
1d4f19e8e4fe8e20dccd40dae0a05840
962cc975c3ea52688b77a0130c1ad4171f2b26b5
46168 F20101114_AADNRA evans_j_Page_033.pro
a5b872bb213fd86b72e3db75cd2f46ef
b48fd59d6ddb2514f244421df55e983ddff9d495
114289 F20101114_AADNQM evans_j_Page_041.jp2
c844531c981fe2ea1dd849f229f88baf
a5bcdbaa703938b87577285185052a4766de9a37
53576 F20101114_AADNPX evans_j_Page_105.pro
b4a9a0b922da745e4cec8577887849e8
ff510ffc4f97865f82b83204c21eb9935473032c
2224 F20101114_AADMNK evans_j_Page_103.txt
9df4d5cfa7bf9e8b941f7eb9969eabfa
d6ab642ddddb439877c2840e68f686ec46bca844
118019 F20101114_AADMMV evans_j_Page_054.jp2
5b97faf6958126c278f96a7934cb4ab8
f720d47434d10231e7c70d9afdbb8d5864cce2bf
5398 F20101114_AADNRB evans_j_Page_146thm.jpg
dbab0d0171a14f0b0aaffd6a7cd8107f
e4fdd2d05c32581a2c72d7f6562edca8d9d2e721
25567 F20101114_AADNPY evans_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
a2a575ebd9ea8172a93f2d7e20d2b6da
544bf172bfebd569940ca85c7df16165fae7f8bd
98546 F20101114_AADMMW evans_j_Page_165.jpg
24016241d0fc79fed61d9528f80d14b0
6d54ad7eae2c4afadf38f1872e0b23ebf320bac7
26591 F20101114_AADNRC evans_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
08d51dda65a0965c864d84c7ad9f0a98
1ac5b4bf502b503b4ae11f4f825e04a78952250b
107933 F20101114_AADNQN evans_j_Page_010.jp2
8481bd7b8ff9d3a36e249276e86cf63d
be0d36a3b4db231b8f37de71723a8215bad8a10a
3238 F20101114_AADNPZ evans_j_Page_129thm.jpg
ed82bd2ebf276a7a3378343385a90abd
038377e41f9d81993194146ce05dc6094a65d6c4
52387 F20101114_AADMOA evans_j_Page_060.pro
5fa26f13b818cdf23822d86ed195506b
b63787f0c6fb77178658ad3457c0323f05017511
124271 F20101114_AADMNL evans_j_Page_102.jp2
b194d1b886129efc60b152ee9473c511
ff5bb58c44a713ad51560a7a389508dd3d49f42e
2173 F20101114_AADMMX evans_j_Page_115.txt
14e4d13f00bd9a554d7d66af952101ee
20a982b8d2ec15377cf20f3e31f840215b7725fb
5577 F20101114_AADNRD evans_j_Page_032thm.jpg
ca908f29a8a17599cc7e30f277341485
b1d0f78a46a48d3897d4d0e7d5bfa7ec11535b8f
114158 F20101114_AADNQO evans_j_Page_018.jp2
c95f8e0a36ff58c44946b0c675efef35
45e7e50275d8757fb8e72dc16609eef79fb3d1b7
115994 F20101114_AADMOB evans_j_Page_059.jp2
541204c7a7124154c70b020918006505
8c1485df8ef114738cdfad14d3cd4ebc25f7113a
F20101114_AADMNM evans_j_Page_004.tif
1da086f838498047e5838867a313b1c7
fe2a87655ad3a84574a2a97efdaec23359763315
6229 F20101114_AADMMY evans_j_Page_022thm.jpg
7bf6ec2f5fefa5c7ace0c6ae31d50ffd
4737a22e1deb44f8384edbbf79f4824aafc0c371
72135 F20101114_AADNRE evans_j_Page_148.jpg
c0aec9e5fb3343939a45e383b99f9f9e
9801e6d423ef2ee46faf504a6db26dc1d0eac58c
50127 F20101114_AADNQP evans_j_Page_014.pro
a630fad57bb47fc818b40fdfca2b2f39
03eb638f359f0f07f3ff2557ad823679c852ee45
F20101114_AADMOC evans_j_Page_043.tif
e8c94474b4b338ade59f9b4142085b68
655d7bcd2faf2726f90a7c42557dbbb9d7fe1e2e
1761 F20101114_AADMNN evans_j_Page_048thm.jpg
9c1828be98803ece3627b4e11f588776
67e1ad599d20913faf397dc3708a6763a0e670d8
1051970 F20101114_AADMMZ evans_j_Page_127.jp2
80de61036ca213487f35fcb53c25166d
d4b36403685096b9fc02ca597e27f2207caf014d
25735 F20101114_AADNRF evans_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
36f714b9a2a2a8a07daa2a125605af65
75fef51e909266b24f1adfe27deed18b3a78583f
81398 F20101114_AADNQQ evans_j_Page_015.jpg
8fba8d6ee6e110b1c88bac974a120ead
6597194df82b2e0a0a522458b2c0be5457797227
101772 F20101114_AADMOD evans_j_Page_163.jpg
72bfd7ad0384fbc023acaae25e4573e4
207de417dae70a3bcd54fef9882911ca3cb21aac
77246 F20101114_AADMNO evans_j_Page_046.jpg
f242b4a7f9d93d1a6f18868528281b71
387e58edb8e5e0d0034ef0adc8a27755132aa2ff
25771 F20101114_AADNRG evans_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
ddb7c5d4b6d1a423db4b810a68411f4d
46b37565c1d603129ef5b77effb8de1277f13179
25120 F20101114_AADNQR evans_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
dd50743f849ae84544b5c7eac3d9bf80
f2a7d06fb24403f267d3f22424b85fced6ecd587
F20101114_AADMOE evans_j_Page_010.tif
a92d6ca1774a3abf50e5e0ef3ec8b21e
b03ca4b748dbc5b8c9e04a7db96abcca0b1f2854
2085 F20101114_AADMNP evans_j_Page_039.txt
9c867148cce821b5687be784dbe946e2
da673be95a1b10fdaadd8031430b9e0d83896629
6811 F20101114_AADNRH evans_j_Page_030thm.jpg
0f18222117be5020e140e1225d54dd52
58e8f654c7582026aa11cdc9e9625c7bd262e44f
25029 F20101114_AADNQS evans_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
25d89f0d561578fc777aa9a74ade443c
43f3abb5809d6a7209f29cd9f4cabda576cab2fa
1808 F20101114_AADMOF evans_j_Page_123.txt
d6829ca3c8504cfa7cbf6962674277a5
d732e774b53eba34cf3e0698c6c7e61040ba0429
117923 F20101114_AADMNQ evans_j_Page_098.jp2
57b50c81dd8ce82090c226b02ed54920
5aa204ba9461e0b72bcb4be1d6210b1d9e38f973
18336 F20101114_AADNRI evans_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
84c2d4730be9b74507a27864eaad2786
94b2d1a2776d93976a9a145ece4ed88607307119
F20101114_AADNQT evans_j_Page_014.tif
a08346621221ad1a99e49e04cb499de3
7cfe6bfb2b76d29dc743cef159a067826c6aa392
79182 F20101114_AADMOG evans_j_Page_097.jpg
505ca7d8cd88ac42e0b5c53a4f883ee3
d0a777ee030b24a0e8886ccbddf970a7b5c5cc25
25450 F20101114_AADMNR evans_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
689daf85f34ae3eb60a204de6733c006
4d2c9563a40f8e0427d5dd535e4e766da56569b9
2194 F20101114_AADNRJ evans_j_Page_137.txt
82a2accc47ae0125d907daaf9a8feb74
ca94a37789ec6382645a0c9efecedf64b140b38f
75158 F20101114_AADNQU evans_j_Page_050.jpg
ee024e98806b3074c9198a76ae9ae74f
64613b4b7a0c975c3b9556c4e987f23ff818b9e5
55776 F20101114_AADMOH evans_j_Page_136.pro
3d57132d620e199ec20311f28869187d
4b505e5f2daad7a9ea9502473d9ea77d109c0ea1
1051982 F20101114_AADMNS evans_j_Page_007.jp2
9f5a0b9558e1f6c611638c088ed50b17
28290aa89a06922d51d71f73ec29825312ef7b13
77586 F20101114_AADNRK evans_j_Page_121.jpg
5ff221200b5b24173f312026480fc809
cf91aefc49935a3e89980edeec003ea5ed019c31
6633 F20101114_AADNQV evans_j_Page_154thm.jpg
58aaae60e98165b164c222b1a79edfb8
fd38f9bbc4739f8964b00bdfaa7da9bea5cef56e
25967 F20101114_AADMOI evans_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
ea076faf6e9b8e53ece01b1f0198a7a2
1b9cbc708cbcc66ad66c229777188ca40974d506
9661 F20101114_AADMNT evans_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
9979680d1c8beeb6f8bc22f8c9390af7
733f3d83a508ec01a91cc8a317768e23f34cee64
73763 F20101114_AADNRL evans_j_Page_049.jpg
2f4d5b4abd4fa5644d07d995ca9bb57f
ca7d763398a3356e3b5212043d2999a924ec381a
26973 F20101114_AADNQW evans_j_Page_167.pro
63bc6fa1582157c533f247f768d6402e
ce4b3270346a0f74d3810976c01c4fa937e0ab18
2519 F20101114_AADMOJ evans_j_Page_129.pro
68be3a12cc64aba56f6eb69d644e4399
9a146aa89acb88caec42884fa8d527ce4f42ce6c
6976 F20101114_AADMNU evans_j_Page_068thm.jpg
dba3d756c014ee2067c3c940ff10c6bf
172c299f09e8982cc0f1c0abf615c9e265173365
55948 F20101114_AADNSA evans_j_Page_117.pro
dcbd569e3ffa8addf15ea8a7af069f8f
10b437c1bb634fa0132070fa9d0872971f596062
109019 F20101114_AADNRM evans_j_Page_034.jp2
bfe73613a02c39b0c0e3028cee94b2db
223e2104f74090cabf06ecf38f01be26c3080634
6861 F20101114_AADNQX evans_j_Page_160thm.jpg
81aecd79fe3ec9a534b26e8d282e1b98
5bc3e645092e019bd0532452603669d155074605
7098 F20101114_AADMOK evans_j_Page_161thm.jpg
523652adca1401e82ba66073f77794d6
940da99df9e827e31cd31797263d994f6597c3cf
F20101114_AADMNV evans_j_Page_104.txt
c5b837fc93918e795c6d0c0eaf17fdfc
fe2b771dbc30fce4f562ecdf6b8f05a651fc9712
119372 F20101114_AADNSB evans_j_Page_071.jp2
5e985513c3ae4da07b1f49d9b1a450aa
da4f16ad26ad27b0692d5d07961a912f2aa99c31
F20101114_AADNRN evans_j_Page_139.tif
2d8d19dbcfa40083c77b59abf921a006
3b7ae5f7eef917ec0446a7b61adaa3d2d744aa19
2075 F20101114_AADNQY evans_j_Page_026.txt
b0fc2ee3c11307ec5766f312672ca9a7
d077145f5693f5fec2999fc5a285755b18534a57
F20101114_AADMOL evans_j_Page_100.tif
5d16d872beba8638617fc57903d5b7a4
8a2043d7f30c01ce629ad8835b48b369dcb09eac
3464 F20101114_AADMNW evans_j_Page_005thm.jpg
c9aa16f1eb8580588998d61a1f40e314
e948510bf8fac699d444d7df88a2415311dafddd
6698 F20101114_AADNSC evans_j_Page_047thm.jpg
ed31be9dff4ef81b77a909db796c3cb7
930482a065875e4d4fa1ba357a4b33f4d239bd8b
78421 F20101114_AADNQZ evans_j_Page_137.jpg
00086a22ac27bcc1458f83f3ec7ae019
dd2045571aa7419871dfb3fcfcbb88803228f296
6593 F20101114_AADMNX evans_j_Page_014thm.jpg
350594148cef5cefffde86d5b9c0fb7b
f68b33f70b4963742236bbe603d4881a1ebfc6c5
29158 F20101114_AADMPA evans_j_Page_001.jp2
ca71344bce559bd3a7b8d4670a8ef3d1
7d50e0c340921fc2bc1709cd56ea00bb9fb4c8d4
26822 F20101114_AADNSD evans_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
14ece823c37c1a4393f8811480f94134
201ecf017eefa8555bff6f272866d6abaccd2a44
6131 F20101114_AADNRO evans_j_Page_033thm.jpg
ab3a671c548b01488055c782e0eff04b
37f6dd9878ec3ee90253bfb55882803161935425
26371 F20101114_AADMOM evans_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
f6ba98f7be1e01fcbece13e53a990170
9b68b9862e0bd1bea6261705741814863da7a047
7725 F20101114_AADMNY evans_j_Page_155thm.jpg
0da8f9a6fd1a5c57dfc3b05431bedd7e
a54b2daaf476f4a61c740cd7d7df84f39a21b113
77959 F20101114_AADMPB evans_j_Page_074.jpg
aad45f0050ba932bd54e36dfcb3c0bd5
c938623f21b3a78e63d618e8aa67bff6c0e93452
26784 F20101114_AADNSE evans_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
7d74373ff63b295fdc3bea3934a27957
3f4e730d2c66613ccfaf966dd4fd2fb48f8e01d7
53698 F20101114_AADNRP evans_j_Page_021.jp2
d525835531a6ff596bf6050f02e4ced3
b6977b5ed34173a9046db91f812171424865029f
79126 F20101114_AADMON evans_j_Page_115.jpg
53e087f6a8cf2bf56c2540eea430a072
6851acb4ca45eff222397b1e0e490325aa92363e
1049684 F20101114_AADMNZ evans_j_Page_082.jp2
a9e501d0b030c24510dffedb7c6847eb
a6ee5db40a2c5a19ed4555f7373a2d1fc2e9acaa
7507 F20101114_AADMPC evans_j_Page_165thm.jpg
686cf26f6f80b7a9a4730df928d036a0
eaee16451362454c41615d340e12ced88b09deec
118486 F20101114_AADNSF evans_j_Page_013.jp2
ea5f2c54372ef7d4c024c33d4f7ff571
2075f0d88c78ec92335656ba5f840e002aea3470
2116 F20101114_AADNRQ evans_j_Page_029.txt
290fbd7b83d31acef34783c3e181a34f
ac0defeff124d499708a3dc4033c44ce47bb3955
6941 F20101114_AADMOO evans_j_Page_058thm.jpg
5c122e87fe49926bbf31182b3465ab6e
39c579c69856de5194c108e1a195400608c0221b
109098 F20101114_AADMPD evans_j_Page_012.jp2
f61566dddae2fa5939c118940564e84f
515a288fe8eb01f74cda7482fe012ba0430c1754
54323 F20101114_AADNSG evans_j_Page_098.pro
c5e757b267b99014687721456f0bff2d
6726f74612b1af8012ec81081f103be6705d4d08
11999 F20101114_AADNRR evans_j_Page_003.jpg
e85922f1baddf5ad5a8afe3d52add931
bf885a8ad525d1b89c0925d9a68735429a9b973c
76307 F20101114_AADMOP evans_j_Page_101.jpg
9344c2072eda8045c87a4092844b4797
b16b7ab1f3aefe812300170299daed41dfd6fbe5
6935 F20101114_AADMPE evans_j_Page_044thm.jpg
d9789c97e5532ff1672d4a6e4b6e833b
790757ddc53fc54b1aaac1be539d39f34dd7b7b8
931 F20101114_AADNSH evans_j_Page_080.txt
87176f13c35e06d3b20e6dc75b51c8c8
0a2b4dba76db54080bd4ade137216487ad0b8020
141 F20101114_AADNRS evans_j_Page_003.txt
05e18e4435457cc135bb095d42d15973
0aab9548451daf2ce82ead81ee3fbcbf2f12f97d
28273 F20101114_AADMOQ evans_j_Page_153.QC.jpg
3c55d87bfb21f7748782bcc3fcfab220
631586fc288277e98e28a0e79e2077f66b806664
53821 F20101114_AADMPF evans_j_Page_134.pro
551ace2b44b91a4564ad79837dc2d79f
915a020c083a3edddf75ba2404ed7120140f7a7a
F20101114_AADNSI evans_j_Page_097.tif
01cf48faf042ffd78d913cbb00a0966c
d4a92681f9e6559b6b4d1c5a5d1cf52de932f237
52854 F20101114_AADNRT evans_j_Page_026.pro
94beca68736a31897dabd5453b98ea1d
24c916148afd5c775c4f57e05d809509c36f1583
92800 F20101114_AADMOR evans_j_Page_157.jpg
14fc63f7886439c140fb7d8f985a7d6e
ed4e51948fb42edd99588b07d76b90833dc24412
1051908 F20101114_AADMPG evans_j_Page_080.jp2
7c7fabcaef991dc007f6ed4ece14ce1a
f674e55ddc33d9561ccd36585b086495997b8053
F20101114_AADNSJ evans_j_Page_057.tif
d2ecdf2f2bfd91c9342fe0d58b79b19a
d7fef9355c054fb2c0d16689693a5d06cf31eb9f
5058 F20101114_AADNRU evans_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
dc1cee69036a73e83a5575544c13ac3c
d3746126d142a7d10dd24379b8f48d1abb1d040e
F20101114_AADMOS evans_j_Page_080.tif
9582340733e0b1c9b18eb697c24915ac
77c5c09c186a883a881355f54b3d7db8808d8ca0
F20101114_AADMPH evans_j_Page_147.tif
b66c3b468be968e0e07384d178f23903
16debfa41e91823579aae796e3557d13ba5c5338
6579 F20101114_AADNSK evans_j_Page_145thm.jpg
f9e227bf163d8762ff268ba5b1be5e5c
6ee457408f48fb3e56f4d0e16cf2b3008d0df9ce
25594 F20101114_AADNRV evans_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
ddcbc60b1f280a9a3d6bce1c15fccdf6
847ae598de18de020237f4f2149e51e12f750b71
6990 F20101114_AADMOT evans_j_Page_096thm.jpg
b61fed245926a8a13224f8a97274c27a
52fd656c58dd061065c020c69ef31da19a32ae17
25989 F20101114_AADMPI evans_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
f860c907629e07591fef8f0cdd689acf
745b986aef092a997b3693309b3c4e9a6d041c6c
6639 F20101114_AADNSL evans_j_Page_087thm.jpg
025e3954eceec407f7f379e78aff3e58
f9e5aed8305031d65043b79c664c888f36a3ff2f
134131 F20101114_AADNRW evans_j_Page_149.jp2
637c1717298d713b948bd7d7a0065fec
6c3dd6579776a510d8b6fdb53dd1043e4870e2c5
102517 F20101114_AADMOU evans_j_Page_164.jpg
29ab37e12865152b4454a1948939d1a4
303b811286ac079a5c2a2c66002f5465cf4217e1
F20101114_AADMPJ evans_j_Page_129.tif
73bfd6048eaf1a0f27a2cc9b70e755fb
6751da6dd67a5d9bb74e1ceae283a1faca7ef1b0
79827 F20101114_AADNTA evans_j_Page_120.jpg
5da60c5047dabc3d6825dc992c4d3e9c
3c9c2ddf5b59ecd4621ae3629ecf86c9f16f2122
F20101114_AADNSM evans_j_Page_109.tif
477a50e4c8899f2f38218e2a7e69722a
003f853c6505c0aa6c2229f690e5e40bb0300eab
76260 F20101114_AADNRX evans_j_Page_040.jpg
84e3ba27e554c5bf9c2d872bd66b8f41
92d0c61fb517c750879132ef412a069f3f060360
2137 F20101114_AADMOV evans_j_Page_096.txt
6206a089697d5389434a3baaa7b13a5e
d6d598e633f05deb8d7474f73bdb000312f015bf
25571 F20101114_AADMPK evans_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
55bce8ed97724b5ff861cfd73a704782
f7522b045cf4b9505353fb0bfa9551405f6c9834
56366 F20101114_AADNTB evans_j_Page_125.jpg
f8bdd1e0f6fc9d02b634eabb20a3eb02
f5e3b19f7a3dae3cb27173f269f5b241077625bc
F20101114_AADNSN evans_j_Page_058.tif
fca31fb5669f7b7fdea59cca29972fb4
88d37805119721277f93a1680fb50241f9458c41
5636 F20101114_AADNRY evans_j_Page_124thm.jpg
a16676a1f79377644549a2dfbc6402aa
b17deb00eb69d3d042c8c0d3eac4abf8e65ad77e
25831 F20101114_AADMOW evans_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
33789cd047e864f7de1e2a209ead80a9
77fe526e80213705078a9ad121ecb5090bc68c6d
40098 F20101114_AADMPL evans_j_Page_083.jpg
759d781e9275c2332b5313a753e7a357
cffb585b150a3580ed36265a5330de9b9347e746
79606 F20101114_AADNTC evans_j_Page_140.jpg
a22121864b6c07549165e24e8016589c
e01786b2334ef51355a9cd398ad553cd8516328c
192705 F20101114_AADNSO UFE0019675_00001.mets FULL
6c42845158eacce9c506d28152ac35b8
45dfb322e67ec19db20df74cc4647fab2c79b8b4
120882 F20101114_AADNRZ evans_j_Page_031.jp2
3f3e3a4afa09f7539949b678bb9b42f8
2de09ae7b69e2c14daf572184b0d531d403cee03
77386 F20101114_AADMOX evans_j_Page_044.jpg
d028e55229854e31857cebded1ef40d3
79fef655cce9dc4277155b38c7cf32d41b164a61
122206 F20101114_AADMQA evans_j_Page_094.jp2
5ccfafa5098128ca060c8146e5ed4cad
94f5689a0ea600bee2296285fca2bd2ecf1b8265
73129 F20101114_AADMPM evans_j_Page_010.jpg
0e1e82d5a99086cb9acdbd7de8cae89e
104c7624ce71d916da283a7cf1953500201cf470
77579 F20101114_AADNTD evans_j_Page_141.jpg
8ecf0a0b0a09d586be1d02ae4386048d
81ee145fe3c3b9264c6307f65e0d21f09a266bcd
25366 F20101114_AADMOY evans_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
7e46bf085fdc49366f4f70ef016b6aa4
93a7f1267afb2d4e1ecfcd11e4024c2705cdfaaa
F20101114_AADMQB evans_j_Page_148.tif
99bddf0497f7194c8ae2865154293863
e70001167287f795479b3c1e1a8a42459fb0faaf
59010 F20101114_AADNTE evans_j_Page_146.jpg
0adc3b9942eb960b08ef04da8dede91b
058c632ad0ec4dd18f5f6e1c5d82e0fbb461bb40
24269 F20101114_AADMOZ evans_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
2b702d70a1845107fb376730629a7a91
3f665ab3b7304b8975445fda2c0688451fd71bfc
89917 F20101114_AADMQC evans_j_Page_017.jpg
b76301f846c9c228b2eb8d23b8f32bea
eb767f09a9036afb08dc28002a9c017fb33b85d0
123326 F20101114_AADMPN evans_j_Page_088.jp2
71c4ac82aa31da7d871cc54c4893adff
9960498a877714da34599cc77b73d4bb6cdd7965
85620 F20101114_AADNTF evans_j_Page_154.jpg
0cc9de56216df78b1ac7ffcb5e92fe24
2558fa9787935a4b267ea300395ab85554ca6c63
55087 F20101114_AADMQD evans_j_Page_037.pro
9f8358772f10fb0c5b7c57a6b3f31050
4d2a9d1ae0affe35544b9a7d4fc3f612052873ed
6958 F20101114_AADMPO evans_j_Page_099thm.jpg
67e5a113a295233f5d4ed16643af3cfa
db497ad222927140bcb26c5ba5da30e2b08f768a
94747 F20101114_AADNTG evans_j_Page_158.jpg
4296d8a84381c997c9446190926ccc65
fd92a1306668a78a0932df091fe00e785f5d5f63
13660 F20101114_AADNSR evans_j_Page_008.jpg
36aafe57eb664c251019c60f6903cc68
f886c40efdf6c66ae60f03e02b84c746a18dbbd7
151 F20101114_AADMQE evans_j_Page_129.txt
7d81ffe9c9de096cd33d83a338dbedc9
c61797a27ec0992805b32f33df5e488cf0639031
6971 F20101114_AADMPP evans_j_Page_063thm.jpg
1be96b7d7dfacf5abf01023a84e80068
41b4dda234d51e4b36764be9884e3e7f0043e17c
84242 F20101114_AADNTH evans_j_Page_166.jpg
dd177485d158f66c6b75056a491fbcad
dfacdc74453cc5cd5cedb9c4c94830df4b10d469
65290 F20101114_AADNSS evans_j_Page_022.jpg
0f4c96ba798e765c230f5cb5b2c1bf60
4339fc82ef1ebb9baccdbf51c5837bf4d1189efc
77641 F20101114_AADMQF evans_j_Page_105.jpg
b0a63a96ac01854c4213ff1ec2048353
6793498ed677e145a66b9f671b8cf55126ac2e60
114753 F20101114_AADMPQ evans_j_Page_092.jp2
6beabfd3838184a1becdf028f599c2f3
5c315fa1b7ba4677d1a31bfe66ceb82ffac7ab78
5790 F20101114_AADNTI evans_j_Page_002.jp2
63033b0acdea334d3105b39b66053b55
64f60fdd948644047bf4526c57716abd59692b5b
66765 F20101114_AADNST evans_j_Page_033.jpg
d95e52f224fac4179a8c12c63abdd807
ffe5469214b47ab803d0363481e14a5a7073051b
F20101114_AADMQG evans_j_Page_065.tif
7a4d6b1181ade07a1c51487a6d1eee18
73b5df9602912d8e7c2e497d0cbdf8b16cabe257
74961 F20101114_AADMPR evans_j_Page_028.jpg
6c2f56ebeccaf4ce8d015418f0288d2b
9e3b64af4b5e5e2cc16215a974b349cec6d82383
8698 F20101114_AADNTJ evans_j_Page_003.jp2
11b64a0f9271bf4255d44aed6e9535ca
1bf9705d8f10d1b310a165fcad8663b870097102
78697 F20101114_AADNSU evans_j_Page_042.jpg
2c8c78945883fdc489faf404f372fc9f
28394b71ccc4cc637f94db4c9127b7ddb6d40821
77575 F20101114_AADMQH evans_j_Page_119.jpg
8c93a358bfe748f94790ca39175668e8
662f69d6b77f2bf278f49850c39826bcb184eef4
55234 F20101114_AADMPS evans_j_Page_111.pro
9eafb0a795e45ce18e2c14ebc0960e5c
feb312ef3257b50b060b0304e76b2047749d6042
114612 F20101114_AADNTK evans_j_Page_028.jp2
dc09a0fa31086de25ab463e2ebc7615c
5036afcd95db8905e7c8a7d6a05c3643ef0d725a
76428 F20101114_AADNSV evans_j_Page_047.jpg
a259d588a878c5efc1a9242f989bf8ed
b159e99f8cfe64a97cdacbdee84fb95d321afe07
2157 F20101114_AADMQI evans_j_Page_141.txt
e95f1501d1e77ef22b31fecaf7230332
1e16273c19fdd3287d49e8cce6e69171c278629e
2205 F20101114_AADMPT evans_j_Page_114.txt
ca9aadc6a9d4d911bb4abe3abc1e74f8
b4a114fffee32985bcd2e15d1a05fb1b6509f09f
102471 F20101114_AADNTL evans_j_Page_033.jp2
0095d7a93fec104b056578edee14c823
f8d6dbcd4508f1407e6bc7b2530f09b6b7677b64
77483 F20101114_AADNSW evans_j_Page_054.jpg
b0be698a1196971ce91db584278d025e
6fa39d8c3d759f037ff1e193b66035eef0181a02
751 F20101114_AADMQJ evans_j_Page_083.txt
42edda8fbdaf55cfa1ffd7a3d4f67721
a4cd78be50fb7e31eaace78e5be15930bf8943a2
56026 F20101114_AADMPU evans_j_Page_135.pro
e2bc6bb24a4cb522b574afff777e95be
8e1543c007fd52b37d5f394c9230f8569fb2640c
114446 F20101114_AADNUA evans_j_Page_116.jp2
ba16da83207a1c035e21b9ec0a65bf82
8753db7708852249a8c786e21bb2e58071b1289f
109474 F20101114_AADNTM evans_j_Page_038.jp2
68ec61af81f26b89c30a525d2066f21c
7cf7058e1d45d32c4ba86ce9f1ad125bb66c0001
76234 F20101114_AADNSX evans_j_Page_062.jpg
cbd307348238995f38d63d80dc273126
5e643b818747a1d3737e6fac8191605602cb0f10
77561 F20101114_AADMQK evans_j_Page_090.jpg
1b820f667a2f4b4aa3341d7caa775860
13f9ab5a350a0c249d09a81b725c8790711d505a
7395 F20101114_AADMPV evans_j_Page_020thm.jpg
3812b33fb93be8474dd2acbb7f562683
3c25d9a0614d82fccae675c2ba2fef10d5bcccd2
121817 F20101114_AADNUB evans_j_Page_118.jp2
ff849860d69ad7829ca9fed487bce05f
ac51876b13a157b98bc65da756e79dfb5752efda
118611 F20101114_AADNTN evans_j_Page_052.jp2
e4a2ec2647a9d95040d51c89cb54cc82
4d4bfe877ea1371e96e50e80a6b6c1adcda22be3
79949 F20101114_AADNSY evans_j_Page_094.jpg
411c8f9a8a4d1ebcedcbb19af48ebe6f
ff82d93b24e6650a927931cd8e6476d8a1c1f73d
F20101114_AADMQL evans_j_Page_029.tif
d46b8819d702968f84880201384f7170
77ffcdc8750e8393291b5f05a491a7a4ca64685d
123097 F20101114_AADMPW evans_j_Page_136.jp2
764dbffb99c63039ea4eb8d42acdf670
c962c03a7a6e55ed4a72cc94912a150c453c5a0e
122196 F20101114_AADNUC evans_j_Page_137.jp2
3c4b4c4f416cbaf506e58071d197ea75
620441201dd4f089aa865ecaff9fbc942909bf63
113337 F20101114_AADNTO evans_j_Page_060.jp2
d2fd12e5d5395242c9daaf8b7dffcf10
47e6c7cb05093c4d4545d68f5b28f923198a7d25
79729 F20101114_AADNSZ evans_j_Page_118.jpg
e2d9b9c7c40c7ed8aae4feea14c35060
c7a7dada2f73100c039e6cad1977e9466edab6ea
7209 F20101114_AADMRA evans_j_Page_106thm.jpg
9feaedfe002d4584a7a07d8033e491b6
a6a030eb068ddeffd6b99f62ff1e18efb01ec54a
118774 F20101114_AADMQM evans_j_Page_029.jp2
44a06426de61ce51ad79fb7454720863
5540efa0c44e9bc1beb1cf0ddb2900024477ed1d
1051949 F20101114_AADMPX evans_j_Page_165.jp2
6bf57bd5746c79dce007778b5c9a8ab2
d2a6a1262ada04771e61ac211b981eed326508f0
123812 F20101114_AADNUD evans_j_Page_143.jp2
914324f3aed058b78dbe48d71dd65526
9f16547e8f08d1cd089a7643c864a4222d5cc261
122458 F20101114_AADNTP evans_j_Page_066.jp2
ce817d376f50f6d5109646cfeb7e8405
8aafd9bbbc540a9736c98e440921c7a087d26719
56779 F20101114_AADMRB evans_j_Page_072.pro
7529a38c0e2c08fd478380f249276611
e6f50c0112b15e65586c6fd892310c8cc6793a61
80183 F20101114_AADMQN evans_j_Page_066.jpg
87284d25a81dbde0b1b49dcc10ac3eb1
c5fdbb58beb00c4844abe58afb43fe4ef83dd315
2493 F20101114_AADMPY evans_j_Page_085.pro
42651224df19d6950b27a19d0e24a766
d6f35b0dbfae3b99e23bd07e29ae4d660b24f65d
1051985 F20101114_AADNUE evans_j_Page_161.jp2
258443ae628398fdde4606bc4739fdc4
ce58951c23b4b88e5f530548ae1f209ba9788b3c
52051 F20101114_AADMRC evans_j_Page_131.pro
11f9736b36b8ae944842d937582edd3a
d96dd1e1c1bc95a6fc6c6d321b9d633684fadcda
54651 F20101114_AADMPZ evans_j_Page_109.pro
b93071b4afb635abb46dfa9eaf60da46
cdf6676ed34f7df651e063e3cc972254ff7a015a
F20101114_AADNUF evans_j_Page_018.tif
58059e966d6b13ce8bb302aa1a875689
9d7d69f74ed943b2941e9cc1c118950623266a17
119090 F20101114_AADNTQ evans_j_Page_068.jp2
0d91b8535d3a6b569230470f3db5a81b
d549ac159bbd1ca3b11a599b287d3a9425ac3dcc
113986 F20101114_AADMRD evans_j_Page_065.jp2
1543235605398ba13a2d34277a55480e
4bd478dd377b7851e1bbe11e3f7d4f2739b02e5c
25132 F20101114_AADMQO evans_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
f8f87ef770cda8c2c813aec24f81f54f
fb24df973647a10b0d624b809219aae09a9dc343
F20101114_AADNUG evans_j_Page_032.tif
3fbb7b89d45c69c353f2fa19729064c8
cce361f35fb2fa0407636a24f4b05ea469dd7131
118051 F20101114_AADNTR evans_j_Page_075.jp2
050c4713f36214d7a58f2146d3021801
230076818800a83f710de27da268b1e1c6e33e49
25800 F20101114_AADMRE evans_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
62c365391fa97b3f7de84eff1dd3bc3c
19eb8644703038b2e8dcc8a0bea0dd4550dbd3f8
F20101114_AADMQP evans_j_Page_163.jp2
fe467c5303b9d39ea3589147c863df48
7d7671fe61ac77295aeb355993eb7a826ee3b30a
F20101114_AADNUH evans_j_Page_049.tif
a76cd0e9a08614ce8722e244e906e465
920ba6f2b87a57299ab742f2d155e7957b287fec
115312 F20101114_AADNTS evans_j_Page_086.jp2
c531b9b87552e4d1b0db3283d339c8f4
ec2d7f3ce2d75e84df2751901eb81d8cbd3afe36
103058 F20101114_AADMRF evans_j_Page_155.jpg
002128bd898e9bcb58a880753345c979
0542092d438cc0482dc12503fa1115508a8b4b92
115117 F20101114_AADMQQ evans_j_Page_131.jp2
5571fafe0daaf61ac3bf61955c8174e0
61a8eafc837390fa030fd6ae1a65814e800d1a75
F20101114_AADNUI evans_j_Page_053.tif
3368673240364c97cebadba9005d9fb0
7f344137e05b0132688e418de564ba2b491d18bf
112971 F20101114_AADNTT evans_j_Page_087.jp2
0fc0fb7d5fcd58f78740f97a04dd4025
4ac7662dcec35772e67a1856a78bc0c38eef9af7
5858 F20101114_AADMRG evans_j_Page_148thm.jpg
b61cf5a046e1f6f558fcfbbd7c264e59
40ff3382da1e4f06e90a7117e9d454fd092d825b
24644 F20101114_AADMQR evans_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
200cff274d90575b109f6f49f8763ed8
94bcf400a89c64766e4b36c15983926cce2f1a5c
F20101114_AADNUJ evans_j_Page_054.tif
7c104e5f61b146ee721fec9dfc9ca70e
74e8e8501f11f686ad7bd4b62c35b6aa2312e40c
123673 F20101114_AADNTU evans_j_Page_089.jp2
e71483d7589750c6853a0f550ca6b051
719e868cbf47d09a5f6bdf4e5aac18f4d9c391be
10508 F20101114_AADMRH evans_j_Page_011.pro
b91308e18cb1c8c94e6d0b9a93d4216a
d593839d898b7bb2df31029f0f552c10ed7ab21c
F20101114_AADMQS evans_j_Page_047.tif
be10b416f2943899d0f0cbbcb0730a74
6245fe738dbc58f015d720b9222f92388dbf2f47
F20101114_AADNUK evans_j_Page_059.tif
78edcd4d501b110a074ca02bf08f6a4e
e636686eab200846c50dc35921ea50942aa57a08
118680 F20101114_AADNTV evans_j_Page_090.jp2
bded6d03b345bf9238294bb6431312cb
1ad3465363f76ebe6731643a5bbbe6af863e440e
54850 F20101114_AADMRI evans_j_Page_141.pro
463d604d119d40877a1ec8f57ce67e4e
a3d1e3c54fdec8c2f76fd987655a6907e584361a
F20101114_AADMQT evans_j_Page_133.tif
5c4eff3721ef1f12a7efc7e357fc7543
a1fc43030d316462d8316fe12905475a064702d1
F20101114_AADNUL evans_j_Page_062.tif
a854feb6d85f29856a56dcae880f1685
9b13669906e4bd02d05cc19a6aad2e35d596df77
120786 F20101114_AADNTW evans_j_Page_095.jp2
bb05e5d3d8b17d7f2559959545748b1e
2c54dd8bd8c1ef1299e79a6f4147f23cfa9af331
7167 F20101114_AADMRJ evans_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
c56266d9ba51cee258f2c689848f3736
fab17e980a2085a9fea871999fe5c143ee078720
56803 F20101114_AADMQU evans_j_Page_138.pro
272767b88a5e4f00a4b162295f78fe12
f4cee4eb97a9dc5aad3f751e095d214f0f94444f
F20101114_AADNVA evans_j_Page_160.tif
efc0812b6a1c57332acf8ec847e2c67b
ccb18ae29d50a89411f88fd27e1f497ef094eaf9
F20101114_AADNUM evans_j_Page_064.tif
412d3f0544e6bfba0225ba71e07cdd7b
1d9f8b475c73f290bdf887da98b93d23c258ca79
120951 F20101114_AADNTX evans_j_Page_097.jp2
1a715c1739523628ca3302d5dff71549
9e71f16fb354abe9f05afd3ecae3cbd376dbabab
25534 F20101114_AADMRK evans_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
855208a8888c7ec066386062b5362fc6
b2d960f8b1b2c92c8a289bacc14c4148c21ad992
7025 F20101114_AADMQV evans_j_Page_103thm.jpg
08acec962567a924667bfa92d7e876f8
fabefebf4e9d9306fa647ff4b0bec9aca0fff082
F20101114_AADNVB evans_j_Page_162.tif
9cac84477d4a35f4b1f4dd16e76c5889
115a5464a2aeec7d8a90f17bcf99a62f816075f1
F20101114_AADNUN evans_j_Page_083.tif
e6bcf9612357913bced8bbafd5d3b35b
64db55d67a7668086fb4fcf04305510b7e84fec5
118824 F20101114_AADNTY evans_j_Page_110.jp2
75f14b2d18c8b43382d558ec0cbf116d
8619c8009ce72b4aefd87018f2ca7da6c676adcf
120214 F20101114_AADMQW evans_j_Page_139.jp2
98bd6b2c6f40ab316dde2e69907cf408
fd8d95d74ea21789b88f31113939a87d09248e2e
7132 F20101114_AADMRL evans_j_Page_138thm.jpg
e26ad03f2df0f7d739a818b77d93e4f8
2e27caba0001310a6e9df2aec3a49097b9cd8954
81982 F20101114_AADNVC evans_j_Page_007.pro
7a95e425fb86d58c73f6b1d58bad6d74
6953d4717be2da6a62af2c0046a2a313991d40dd
F20101114_AADNUO evans_j_Page_084.tif
c96c9d5f9e9067e26809fcbfcf3bfb45
5e54b760316276d33f36df018b17c73821eff936
122624 F20101114_AADNTZ evans_j_Page_114.jp2
26a57684249cdf24b59f1e56e177d252
0c78b3fce42ca6a451fd7ba7c831279703980ebe
27898 F20101114_AADMQX evans_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
3c35961572f270c63bb84dfdcd359d89
b44bab140e4ca5c7bd5f1fc51bb65f710d947f14
2145 F20101114_AADMSA evans_j_Page_109.txt
01e3b11c5b05dacba08e1abbce52185b
f5a0d9cb02f40fba2f9e1ddc645c855bc7478c3a
54851 F20101114_AADMRM evans_j_Page_139.pro
9157eda7b4ae45fc09114f4677ea9a8a
fccc8e4c01c5a955ef14ff741816f239eae75f77
45564 F20101114_AADNVD evans_j_Page_009.pro
50c6d7d5c7c4583813c60efcc57ada36
885748e9bb4f26be0b4e26d1eefb57e534707aa2
F20101114_AADNUP evans_j_Page_094.tif
1304b548dd8bc4f2b1560e513cd9df12
38086ccbd1a72a1e0a04534cb7c6cb5cbd213fba
2332 F20101114_AADMQY evans_j_Page_152.txt
4b03a72cccca1478cf76bcd2f30569df
cade62c2be1d1ce88f706d411ef879dffc1cb85e
56935 F20101114_AADMSB evans_j_Page_089.pro
1238f43dfb0a6ae650237150f1bc7c77
9a0d996e4fd334f8f21dec6887e646f98b8adbe5
F20101114_AADMRN evans_j_Page_025.tif
cdae9db9cdd382b5086e06c0db975ff0
8607d016f594f21dfc52c4349e2ce0f8710898d6
49991 F20101114_AADNVE evans_j_Page_012.pro
529486ead34f49bc020efb4d3d1f4118
1758f1aa96e7d18a9744e9823d681f88136e2501
F20101114_AADNUQ evans_j_Page_098.tif
a5d141fe2ac83c3b743561e6144761af
8b078c8908ed09c3828ed09f3ac05ddae3ddb8fe
25746 F20101114_AADMQZ evans_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
f5c91c69cb54663d2c7c7e47be5d2446
1d15e7ace77a7cb9bab5dd173c5d05c9a713c2aa
25579 F20101114_AADMSC evans_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
5a684fbea9a822db9f976b2710b728d7
e2faae8ca4ca6846605eb204089f3a30c29552f7
52658 F20101114_AADMRO evans_j_Page_050.pro
514f7eb95e2513503594737f7b6ac9e9
30b9fb8c280f05e592657196bfe284452a4725e9
51487 F20101114_AADNVF evans_j_Page_018.pro
40bf5d01aa7ded23ca2ee47161643138
612e07c54825aea5357c32fba516e5dd1bf2a2dc
432 F20101114_AADMSD evans_j_Page_081.txt
92a6797e26a75c6619b88bcce4da8095
8f16e45a35c4c7cb78322261e0cbaff16f0c6663
55354 F20101114_AADNVG evans_j_Page_019.pro
0506b5aa394c87b3e52a89e7f21e7af1
a888929772e8fa3bb611efc2060e174f281954b6
F20101114_AADNUR evans_j_Page_102.tif
2244a414b31459ad3f57bc54b1297f19
4c8b5def3faf21f6acc9ddcf7207a177bd875928
2142 F20101114_AADMSE evans_j_Page_068.txt
9f01dc9aac2eca6233591fb9304e5eae
14af391dda3330425f4dab3d8f7c3de6454be493
2105 F20101114_AADMRP evans_j_Page_101.txt
a201940d9f70a144090c62642416ca1d
ee19a86bcc62def53aa72a643ca2ef728957d06b
44261 F20101114_AADNVH evans_j_Page_022.pro
88a3f6b072fdf4c9c03d440e58ef93f3
1aa5aefb2c93eae1bbb0e95662a059c7ba3d4a70
F20101114_AADNUS evans_j_Page_115.tif
6f40ef83674f3004742982ae68eec71c
f74e3b3ceea5fd26e9709572d4054cc17955fde6
64591 F20101114_AADMSF evans_j_Page_023.jpg
ec106f6fabc44e23173aa8f15666ec68
2609e364f754d7652696101d494fa4df0ecbba9c
118234 F20101114_AADMRQ evans_j_Page_058.jp2
ef177a22f45e548aee3ed2a43396b6b5
20f84a8497e6f536c2f07b29211d8cb624e5294b
44827 F20101114_AADNVI evans_j_Page_023.pro
264746b26be78583cbe7410596ca9763
033d377363a15f4f61d337b11e94663cbb1bce05
F20101114_AADNUT evans_j_Page_124.tif
a047bd78422fecb40c452e6cdf3c3bb5
5ffd7bcfed48f51da48cf5475ca49ba5e066e59f
6357 F20101114_AADMSG evans_j_Page_010thm.jpg
4a61f69126de7e89376cb4830d0a7d1e
78863761b5b7df2498ae947b9f2d078c7cd31749
6914 F20101114_AADMRR evans_j_Page_072thm.jpg
5889a90c43186861d895cfe42f392bb3
324a6c241ebdd826c3189233d9641bc530cbb264
49090 F20101114_AADNVJ evans_j_Page_034.pro
4a14fb72be40a8d9b1240ebda0620a15
7d664f246427239bed32a0e9f0056755574530f6
F20101114_AADNUU evans_j_Page_131.tif
299d476d491caea91a1949cb0b314276
8c2961f66bc98b2609b5330f2fe89bf877998a7e
77493 F20101114_AADMSH evans_j_Page_058.jpg
38ca69ed8a4a8edb36545a7e4068ee05
7966a7a3839b77c99d37c487d90061a1581a2ea2
2072 F20101114_AADMRS evans_j_Page_062.txt
1538af6087ea38da51a8b45612f420c1
28065e10ff9ca4ea800ad82e4a65e23ef1768665
55054 F20101114_AADNVK evans_j_Page_061.pro
6e4cf3f16801c4d34a29f40b677d1290
75362f2fd99dde55ec7cc60f171dbe5a7373dced
F20101114_AADNUV evans_j_Page_132.tif
8c7e57942bfbe614125632593199016c
8dc13d15eafea6452a53c991882175c84cf0085b
F20101114_AADMSI evans_j_Page_125.jp2
a83f1a6d5fe88e151397e47d7573f77c
023097e1083cf93fcf586b74a47233f6a41615ac
20767 F20101114_AADMRT evans_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
703823b9cba5c9b91a6dc535e246a961
25455a4113cafb804a653c299de7fa6a8722ae59
55921 F20101114_AADNVL evans_j_Page_074.pro
c8bf259787df44eed77ce46c906976de
c344cca8ef21564d3502eed7ff10851ae7d5f87d
F20101114_AADNUW evans_j_Page_135.tif
81971c189da536a1c5c902f2c9d98d52
4861e4b550ff014fdeaf0cc43cde1c234159987d
77195 F20101114_AADMSJ evans_j_Page_098.jpg
7ee7374696aec153cfe108c3862b2b32
02c6a797549721f495d5fb107498434afd9f4fee
7388 F20101114_AADMRU evans_j_Page_163thm.jpg
8d9f4d5c140a168edf0912b52ca92fa8
15286af2e48116d63cadc01297ffdb55ce228afc
5584 F20101114_AADNWA evans_j_Page_128.pro
950fe1d31ef5e2612531ff823e3ab250
975f501351604e062dc4512de5992b1cd14c98c6
58498 F20101114_AADNVM evans_j_Page_077.pro
bff7ab043d0cdf05856c619d44c8131d
a06af6a52ac35e0ec63954b56f4476f4c0a68087
F20101114_AADNUX evans_j_Page_136.tif
8d293695e2a46b3ef4d796dcf0936e96
75b720db518b75a1ffd887a3a119da0238744a2e
2228 F20101114_AADMSK evans_j_Page_089.txt
02b44b0da9c23f4f4ca03fab0430266b
b18909933e18caa7f2339b910303a60c62ba63cf
1051986 F20101114_AADMRV evans_j_Page_006.jp2
f5ef6e92cb92260637b42dff7ea1705b
eb993490495db6442279002e09ea195127cb3596
54454 F20101114_AADNWB evans_j_Page_132.pro
0960901d11c0cfc94eefc05a55ac52ad
c10b0190d63fbae5df320e1a07f20ce10f9cc4ea
15893 F20101114_AADNVN evans_j_Page_079.pro
d8f43a17dd9785d9ea382c86fdd16ae2
c76c756a0072eb8d16feecebc76ee849ff856b5c
F20101114_AADNUY evans_j_Page_140.tif
c9968f62fcbe2f540400523d667083b8
8c18de4bcb662529b6fea3ed70390043a53f8217
13233 F20101114_AADMSL evans_j_Page_167.QC.jpg
d757a5f90d78010ab3973eff67dbb0d0
942ca06a7d468760ed06797c2650230f3169e2aa
122654 F20101114_AADMRW evans_j_Page_117.jp2
bc6490a24bc1dea1467454bd3aff9ed9
9c03065a59df33252bb704b04b3a6218c084bab3
56957 F20101114_AADNWC evans_j_Page_143.pro
45b0474fd239dd6f5b492e1a40c99b79
2c2c01334ea2e728bccab4523c784398e299208c
12895 F20101114_AADNVO evans_j_Page_080.pro
978f3521e0505a96684516f78a56824d
d9b1cfb42ab85d0c48b9ae7b5c4dc8558f03c18a
F20101114_AADNUZ evans_j_Page_141.tif
bf123bd4e9fcff0ed4f342f252c5abc6
34a0c08bdb8193e92ac4e5a54087e97f1b88c449
F20101114_AADMTA evans_j_Page_125.tif
065dd8f49a8f3783941de1ddf75d422c
69991620489bf6feae18840057821c5b13129b94
F20101114_AADMSM evans_j_Page_161.txt
e7e69fc8507d550252f44d8755c437fe
dfe6678f229eda60f826c8c5827154f4bd0c1289
3341 F20101114_AADMRX evans_j_Page_085thm.jpg
59cbf02b9e33a80b7849cf38df0fddf0
7070338dcdcb2a1173cd2f9320b49651b5b07bec
40223 F20101114_AADNWD evans_j_Page_146.pro
8fbd124d5db06de427d4a4f3dc7ddb2c
219507abdc245ccd3e81213e7f3a01b102587379
12605 F20101114_AADNVP evans_j_Page_083.pro
d42f2e14387b4d15951ed1442bcf3498
fedcf98595c49d1add974d08627453758260c54d
F20101114_AADMTB evans_j_Page_126.tif
756d26ba3373ea105e060f3e7e60799b
cdfefdca2d71d886c8e87a3d4bd16491db5c0309
F20101114_AADMSN evans_j_Page_063.tif
06796dd404b5dd5d250cc6e21d78eddd
fb64732e6afe5cd6705b6f099c09f50c3a4258c5
24280 F20101114_AADMRY evans_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
c5d1484df790ac0e6d5550d292ebd4c9
16daaf4387aa1127939093f5da71dfaa407166e8
62888 F20101114_AADNWE evans_j_Page_151.pro
d40998c73188a36f485e350009f86d48
1dfad28ace2935e1f9551cf1b5db7fccc3f9454f
55295 F20101114_AADNVQ evans_j_Page_088.pro
df8862e1afe15390da315469a3c1fb14
746aa4db1c60e8e15a43614b09839c4cb3fee066
73421 F20101114_AADMTC evans_j_Page_087.jpg
7f2bfc1180874146f14f79c663811467
2ab6f2c3d500fa3f9cc8afb1bca0b2a89f2a662c
1051971 F20101114_AADMSO evans_j_Page_158.jp2
0b39d65d64569185683ab0606f744592
7a003d5dd36537821c5325b2da302b7f7c72f6ed
79845 F20101114_AADMRZ evans_j_Page_006.jpg
ab4177bc4c9bb9dcf1388de4d9c2aaa1
5233a85094bb62bfce0557795611dd3c699b3779
64436 F20101114_AADNWF evans_j_Page_155.pro
baa010df28701bb9673de8a6895db4e8
92dcacbaa9b774b972f1f19cd4605d9b9b06b61a
54264 F20101114_AADNVR evans_j_Page_093.pro
859b87b569dcf399416886579e8877cb
259c6f01aec60c02b3f3d09d622fbcd9be8bab1a
76871 F20101114_AADMTD evans_j_Page_013.jpg
26c07669c0fb564178f1958aeaf11aa1
f811cb67f329e70f139f0e88662dbc21285d8096
F20101114_AADMSP evans_j_Page_069.txt
f1aba6107a6be0ba596c937a97869108
7bdb0e0a14394cdd8580a558b3df5d3d0ce4bae4
2114 F20101114_AADNWG evans_j_Page_010.txt
46f6b3fef41d499cae3898b6bb92ef86
7254441a9e2d9d5159bce51bea63f8819628b63b
1051945 F20101114_AADMTE evans_j_Page_124.jp2
a752697f9fd840cdf645a87acadc19ea
e3fd1f7612c601be953df7dfb152eb76130e1231
422 F20101114_AADNWH evans_j_Page_011.txt
fd0dc4349f46cc523f4a39d30cf93265
fb4bb72b071c175c9f2c9a36c0f9433990dcc81c
55678 F20101114_AADNVS evans_j_Page_095.pro
f8d4e01f8aeca41e66357ed01388fb42
2209c13d9b0438b174ac081a32c6852145c86cd7
F20101114_AADMTF evans_j_Page_155.tif
c8222625de35af6468ac21f8c1ec48b9
17d9dfee71cf50e12abdc958f914f57aee86287e
58611 F20101114_AADMSQ evans_j_Page_157.pro
22193d6c20727be1ac59fe4c9184cd0a
76a2aa66c357427d58c0ba528f0bd468ea7090c7
2081 F20101114_AADNWI evans_j_Page_012.txt
25aa813ba1834b67de14fdfa06bf7ec3
785f9574e178dd2ffba3f62dbf7807f3450b5ef1
53358 F20101114_AADNVT evans_j_Page_099.pro
088196be7472678160b196908d6a6a2a
b5de5fa735c912e64c7f5f78c3e66e22a5b11375
120258 F20101114_AADMTG evans_j_Page_030.jp2
904c5436bf8d239d3ad3b1198437094b
70f03f7298682fb108ce11af912f1aa098b361c4
55405 F20101114_AADMSR evans_j_Page_036.pro
031dbc045c7f8730f15ec9c5f5d4e6e2
f0e485309a6d9190f4bbe62f35f217ca7330b65d
2141 F20101114_AADNWJ evans_j_Page_013.txt
8b615ccedaefedaebf6ebfec3176ad67
5060cdfd369edbd6e0dfb9ee4e074fba24b795ce
53548 F20101114_AADNVU evans_j_Page_101.pro
3e750593b7c51c06ef2b6d20a2253e77
66bfdf02f256a167188fd03064c54020d3ee5f9a
F20101114_AADMTH evans_j_Page_036.tif
bec02ce182d121c78e0bdaf9b86f17f0
d1f8e767862bb6b0d3bffd5dcbe500cdec7bd1d1
77670 F20101114_AADMSS evans_j_Page_104.jpg
e8eda25934f43397082502a4b09b09ad
50d6e42ed6f4b9acbe0e068110f298a1e2424321
2801 F20101114_AADNWK evans_j_Page_017.txt
ffbcfe27de6f86478e3fff336a0491c2
4a732d8d901da57a2593d9f0abc3033d4e96b47c
56952 F20101114_AADNVV evans_j_Page_102.pro
5c343464b0254e43c9562bb6da17295a
ebc4bcacfe6619f8fa5cf0cb6510b8e07eb8f7bb
2227 F20101114_AADMTI evans_j_Page_106.txt
c99a6b8dee46869d17d164cae2a766eb
2bbaaba8d5803304778fcd96d571eec003f7ebd8
73827 F20101114_AADMST evans_j_Page_041.jpg
db25ce72910edff86f25f0947b06a5cd
170028f0de367a47bd355f6ec3f977d12d30b28e
F20101114_AADNWL evans_j_Page_025.txt
02bc4373d47e068eadf71a3368505d1e
2756087da858ad8f3110dfd06987fd47caa3f5d8
56981 F20101114_AADNVW evans_j_Page_106.pro
8321bf49c380ebde1b6660a5551dc53a
60f97416a138cc259b908fcbab426457434b4257
25342 F20101114_AADMTJ evans_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
02105963423ea58730f1cc2897f16b05
aaec99427fd5a35965bbd9d544f40ab6186532e1
120040 F20101114_AADMSU evans_j_Page_074.jp2
8c031039c6a16e2c5f0f29d7758fec66
bf133d6f42fd3fdbf3a9d7c4adeb61288f2d6c1a
2198 F20101114_AADNXA evans_j_Page_117.txt
f95d58f28c13f8ed39e117f6ef31b4b9
892225703c23fff76f21740f5d5c07e8c8b7c320
2175 F20101114_AADNWM evans_j_Page_036.txt
a78f7ecce153f7d60e4daca63224908b
04471b986b848e506d7ba93ff966ed8df0596a61
53611 F20101114_AADNVX evans_j_Page_112.pro
ae3742ffb464d3a9408060db9d46461c
3d77e81ad138d0846673476b601f00efcad536ab
6782 F20101114_AADMTK evans_j_Page_120thm.jpg
b969c74047f3f802f59f086ddcd03c38
895203b3d199f7376d4a3f7459c160a7ea909e53
6910 F20101114_AADMSV evans_j_Page_069thm.jpg
490f9c6fc0a4f3215b48ad2c070b5484
ddc0bf51c8584e96e105f50ac2375988b87d0ce4
2502 F20101114_AADNXB evans_j_Page_144.txt
6748b378816a69e200044affd137ba09
108aa282a87458cc9ed612377dca8e821222a81c
2169 F20101114_AADNWN evans_j_Page_043.txt
4a9237bfc0a05959f255707e1d5fd4f7
14054c4bbbd21d7a14e374e640af45ed47ecf6b2
54797 F20101114_AADNVY evans_j_Page_113.pro
e2d35d76246ff53d8cfec1f5e4933d59
240e62f8026924cb139534ff59c90b4f75f9ffb3
2177 F20101114_AADMTL evans_j_Page_019.txt
ecbb176986ebd790ddd0a768a85aa0de
e77de0b8b6119ee693fc831bc77aebe8cc4e9ebf
F20101114_AADMSW evans_j_Page_166.jp2
7b64f6134be96fac39d33a19eef4658d
f5af43bc770271399224ff7c1a93c9bfb674c002
1841 F20101114_AADNXC evans_j_Page_147.txt
ae457ba5ce4ddeb743a64bd87c369be8
d02479f8f1976b4717954329e9f094b3329ee90e
2150 F20101114_AADNWO evans_j_Page_055.txt
98685f448eb199addd9db6a55bf84278
21ccf103957cb45d43af683580774554febf813c
4997 F20101114_AADNVZ evans_j_Page_126.pro
645b754f9c54a956ffebee8f994ea777
3a4d71e67d33f5aca74e3cdd0ae37b5f65a865d8
88532 F20101114_AADMTM evans_j_Page_146.jp2
6a9fa08cb6c8098696ea5662b0a47e2b
e9faae95aaaa9529829f85481e0dfd8e0665c5db
6682 F20101114_AADMSX evans_j_Page_050thm.jpg
286908d09019b8bbe8f39d6b3c5baef3
4e3335bdc6bd64aa63805001ecd266c5425222e8
55687 F20101114_AADMUA evans_j_Page_031.pro
174a86c92a21d70af572ec68add7df0c
cb4b46c684fa6567f6aa5578b5fe63d8caac0f5f
2527 F20101114_AADNXD evans_j_Page_151.txt
db5a9f98bbfe2ab0a378b32d9910f865
610b4c1a88d8def68758730d18bd34a4cd7432e1
3689 F20101114_AADNWP evans_j_Page_064.txt
48688a7dd8f21c51d93ddb805055220a
3353b40647f1ea76ecd882ddcef50e533eb8a42c
F20101114_AADMTN evans_j_Page_120.tif
4b885c07aa708df5cd8eedc7f15b08b1
f825bfa52c580d0e41df8510609ef8fbb7bfd610
F20101114_AADMSY evans_j_Page_008.tif
fc8f6990b1cc03623f99dcc86b7a2238
138f5af340e74bdf5c45f1d1ed70b202e2bf01dd
24482 F20101114_AADMUB evans_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
cce1d6111d5555a84c89828831d370db
81cd14953d1e059340d29754b0802fc013f33e7d
2609 F20101114_AADNXE evans_j_Page_155.txt
164f3faba421a73323f4a87eff9cd1b0
3f9b0abda4d64a20bf6f36dfb006082b1a907a50
2079 F20101114_AADNWQ evans_j_Page_065.txt
94835ecbf0432ecea65012e8d36d19d9
1301a805128b6f6fb08dec929f401b6d1b01d975
44100 F20101114_AADMTO evans_j_Page_133.pro
ff92602b0936888fc66c92f0173a20da
ecfad514aad825acab9ab4c3b8597e11d51354ec
56373 F20101114_AADMSZ evans_j_Page_069.pro
fd71c471daad591d5916d4a2f35a937d
97faa05a0552d897f3e3bdba39bf6fb5256aa004
103556 F20101114_AADMUC evans_j_Page_064.jpg
c6615407a7306c0667ce7ff31e41c236
13ac708b00e36029a46e751548f917d117bb1fd2
2432 F20101114_AADNXF evans_j_Page_158.txt
4d985c0fcf498c12a46202a9285c9743
2b8c7ac0246c02e46d66d47ea9f243e029840d56
2487 F20101114_AADNWR evans_j_Page_070.txt
3265b2df31560cce2f088fa8fcbfefeb
567b4e8ef731ee7c14affd924e2f35d7eef0f519
56733 F20101114_AADMTP evans_j_Page_152.pro
be73d394415fb9c1fc971d88e56f75d7
1598ed4ed7dc17427aef4e27cc4c315775f3c6eb
114830 F20101114_AADMUD evans_j_Page_004.jp2
b3c91488402406bc30f5cb5af2b7d7a8
49898edfb34abbed67ea35dc2adf4fbd29966f6c
2486 F20101114_AADNXG evans_j_Page_162.txt
ebdd33eeb1f30e3dbd3789dbe37c077a
3058d2c9fecf544c7419faebfc64264b28ee9ace
F20101114_AADNWS evans_j_Page_071.txt
43f0f35429b6724baadfb0d69a0084f5
32a2158c9bcb6fa20a70bc8238fd0fb08871b3fc
F20101114_AADMTQ evans_j_Page_112.tif
3976e3b7232ab2ebfb698e967d97b925
3f9e9d99f1f68cd06b001c5f4a4297e51ae6cf50
26127 F20101114_AADMUE evans_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
dc57593d9c310a50b7b6014a1ecca8e5
2020e1ed94c22b7f3b7adf16f646d1d5777d57a7
2405 F20101114_AADNXH evans_j_Page_165.txt
f56bd28bdf536928efad8d0e40286f3c
546301c756983ddd6bb989e81c601ab4b1648b8b
F20101114_AADMUF evans_j_Page_066.tif
d722251be0801754d08bdb7b9ddce657
342ba3a3473af326b3a2f039b3a2ae0ccb03d544
F20101114_AADNXI evans_j_Page_166.txt
4afb3a638152503f3b05a43dd5f5317c
e7f7871416a3c0bdff13c8a7d52c445e5cb996f5
2776 F20101114_AADNWT evans_j_Page_078.txt
1fc0e9a90598da9a09bb553ddb4cbdc7
fee43cf0334c4d83bec21e773a5583eaa8e574d4
119304 F20101114_AADMTR evans_j_Page_115.jp2
6cce2672daa1a36c0d87e033a9d6769d
16edc8a2308bcab3800bc62cd168a360b23b17ed
7121 F20101114_AADNAA evans_j_Page_081thm.jpg
22fb01e8262acdc477dda7b7d5271704
de7d2f6ccbcc8af410279279525aa26ca7f0ae61
81392 F20101114_AADMUG evans_j_Page_106.jpg
6025bf524ac84d13ed69abaa902495f8
11905e97949d2cdf79e67029a0abac69d35370ab
3451849 F20101114_AADNXJ evans_j.pdf
d327320b43c91515dc36e545d529fcff
77b46e67a5c34e876c7f57f75ec19dcc1863112f
632 F20101114_AADNWU evans_j_Page_079.txt
281637296e0a3f339f9a117a92902c88
b9930ec90d5bc3bd3676387b1b0e617b116b7c8b
21693 F20101114_AADMTS evans_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
a6c948dcf741ae85e0fcdf1262cf316b
63ed07a5564de2cccb2bd7d6c59bf021f28358bf
118929 F20101114_AADNAB evans_j_Page_119.jp2
8fe8bacf7df2d950f2487bc2af0b38e3
9e008a56bcffe29373766c65c9daf5182eb8ba4b
124750 F20101114_AADMUH evans_j_Page_138.jp2
78f2166350072d42206e50fc34476213
42c7f9b44eec3f6bf4aa82256ccf938250f21fcf
3727 F20101114_AADNXK evans_j_Page_021thm.jpg
561d87ae77c03e038f62ae9cd9c5b620
db090b7ec52898c73c213a9cbc286873352c9b5c
2179 F20101114_AADNWV evans_j_Page_095.txt
0b891923119c5e50686bb330ac709f89
9a3aec249bc58d632881e9cbabdac00548e214a2
2133 F20101114_AADMTT evans_j_Page_058.txt
da5f1e1edd91c88abb9c31d273e0f92b
12657bfd8afbeeaa10a3f2a8c668d2bfeeb8b571
25507 F20101114_AADNAC evans_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
59a8d68338d3d96958a400b5aabadeed
d265a2d3f195943bcb33ab6389317e145f5f1be2
76784 F20101114_AADMUI evans_j_Page_004.jpg
763d5abd0b0eb8a038716f1b69f74f58
d328fa1ec2680e8644444c741bf4f61b44040228
3292 F20101114_AADNXL evans_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
821f6f5b542d00afe2be9e5708a45046
8ffe8b25ce0c16abd0772c79d9bf338ff820c6fd
2167 F20101114_AADNWW evans_j_Page_097.txt
70a42d069e5ef35604d33e2b994c7505
54cc55065eb04e01d3235bdbed69ebcc55382ff2
117986 F20101114_AADMTU evans_j_Page_047.jp2
70a221d50b90721834e406b4e5fc937d
5db6afb623f52a895d25cc1f2c2e12a6103bd3a2
6733 F20101114_AADNAD evans_j_Page_045thm.jpg
71538fceb65057acaf12a92825fa13fd
9eba78725ce821bdf132426a05f339cca71dc4db
F20101114_AADMUJ evans_j_Page_117.tif
724f98de4168793b939355bdd536b40f
bf7b07e4445a68e9e30a7c89c23b1772e571348d
25268 F20101114_AADNYA evans_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
ab9b3656d18051618177b4db0f9a8b2a
b6deca0d5e88dfc59c578b4f55719ad173f58973
2392 F20101114_AADNXM evans_j_Page_011thm.jpg
88b8b6c2c118ab960e53289406210c90
7377de67d3eae7c6d6e49b39766b267f394f22cc
F20101114_AADNWX evans_j_Page_098.txt
65f8a940efa4dc0e3a06ecf996141f88
c0f898d9c74f2500e06c58bbda045bc9266f1d06
F20101114_AADMTV evans_j_Page_061.tif
90dd09a4385cf7f11bb0b1f52e4dd2ff
fc67aeb9298ba4a8e1a85e8ba960937410c5094d
121777 F20101114_AADNAE evans_j_Page_111.jp2
9e9b44ee10c65b05b23d2a845c3ceca0
6b5030c8f23c9a4aca85cf0ae49208e0582ddff1
76613 F20101114_AADMUK evans_j_Page_026.jpg
44a15ef83d7c61d0b4dd89bc267c0660
7727768ccb055d5b93be34a9b5fb55d7e9f56778
23699 F20101114_AADNYB evans_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
793886727a5a559aa7360e7eb23a3d0e
484d4be87a11bce08dd2c8b28bf4fc1c8bf77125
6805 F20101114_AADNXN evans_j_Page_141thm.jpg
2b7be597a0bb1d9963319c60d59724e6
2b5e37116b79cd4038640fc8384eddc30b5a611b
2129 F20101114_AADNWY evans_j_Page_100.txt
fd33a83567b74975d0c6d6747acd604c
237c5425ac259a140e66a95b5ef7deb02e8ba589
F20101114_AADMTW evans_j_Page_134.tif
c737db69231282182a7b2f42049d3281
9e8aa927a46506246b9d06686a0062c350b9127d
67158 F20101114_AADNAF evans_j_Page_147.jpg
63adfc93b78673175effe3e7c2ff83fd
145a8a686fa6d5c86e533949c757da3ffab01921
26487 F20101114_AADMUL evans_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
1ac8f6a31d306a849f1b324a4408726b
a98ccef1270ffd15e94730eb09dd095acd91fa68
6713 F20101114_AADNYC evans_j_Page_028thm.jpg
d65a1fa13caad8151edf9e2cbc9e035a
309b68d5730bbc4e2bcea1b56cd522d440ca7408
25061 F20101114_AADNXO evans_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
ac9a9c4dff6f636ef527d858ec42bf48
6e7898295e890d9cc5e97519f589fb30b0e9f81a
2006 F20101114_AADNWZ evans_j_Page_116.txt
974df090de8e2935ad7a7e3b2f3c21ff
a75c3e3e79fc65a4343b51c840efab0ad0c56991
33879 F20101114_AADMTX evans_j_Page_005.jpg
0b7537faa816a0d4662b4272e80b8d38
77d6afb1103cda9639140707544de7a4285027df
25790 F20101114_AADNAG evans_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
9a931dd59c91eda4798baac94df0841b
1c10ef042e664c686dee1fbffbd97d6e8c8c03da
99914 F20101114_AADMVA evans_j_Page_023.jp2
d2878a7d068bb193dbc0931319728041
2fd8efdb943a7fd8e9bb90aacd2bf9f8dea95d0c
123291 F20101114_AADMUM evans_j_Page_140.jp2
58567472ad2183858e902445dda9b0e6
9488a8dbeb64c0436250351a3ead77271dd39d1b
25632 F20101114_AADNYD evans_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
879a4caebbf05dc937d393312526052a
1f2931af9cc00217b8415a8f457a007db8265d8a
6837 F20101114_AADNXP evans_j_Page_104thm.jpg
76d523b45f8cbc028d91152b7dd4657e
3245c403f27f19a79927346ff98bd5afabee2843
26229 F20101114_AADMTY evans_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
1f51fdd3a6f68a1f797856e0a0ad7a9d
0dea4c3ae55a93518d1c9948b2d090c184d03417
25758 F20101114_AADNAH evans_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
f7818851450ef8428af042f518088265
5bd398c07c2f67d22b884b3caf3dfd2464c9ddcb
81438 F20101114_AADMVB evans_j_Page_126.jpg
58862c66c1c9ea38f256de9bf43fc27e
c38f0239145c0d17c968e74ca2cbb8fe3c79b538
F20101114_AADMUN evans_j_Page_011.tif
577f8f16f29b896e2f91c1b6fa773446
9399f57c9374d90cb381480984a9fbf6532e8d3c
25553 F20101114_AADNYE evans_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
773778b61a9fcfb93e72e031b92e6934
36d96b809a135f65c551dd89cb80f6f9cf08fe39
26412 F20101114_AADNXQ evans_j_Page_157.QC.jpg
f240bbadecdbc375ad7cffb7a4898464
5239463d01744fd962be2d803dc1d4de98125695
54137 F20101114_AADMTZ evans_j_Page_040.pro
c2da2072b94ff15e59b85420a249b64e
b881f49ca90b7f71076cff3cfc16ae3aa5f4d667
F20101114_AADNAI evans_j_Page_119.tif
16918c96d3ca1cae39797db6489ed010
dd2fd567f758c1fc8fc013376f0d4654557b9c12
2138 F20101114_AADMVC evans_j_Page_093.txt
3b4cddcc5b85034e27ddc7b1c823dc7c
820d5421b5c859767907d5a47b1495aa271eddd7
F20101114_AADMUO evans_j_Page_087.tif
bf211fc4a5ff4306d4ddceb9329ae8ed
da0f373f18bb4e72b6ff0fbf5919a94a8dfd3d12
6933 F20101114_AADNYF evans_j_Page_053thm.jpg
bf948e31ba2e88c6ffc3993e6297b72a
2b6244e5a248c984b63fe0e6f6858fa20a889951
25216 F20101114_AADNXR evans_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
a05f3674a1b59dfbb13f5a50700b8850
3b36b0f0891f1b2512d2d1bcd1c7d16fd125d7b1
9744 F20101114_AADNAJ evans_j_Page_082.pro
a19980bd154960a896c1c530301e1b6e
b66f469df26b8d98297b86b7595cff46a39662a3
2064 F20101114_AADMVD evans_j_Page_060.txt
e980584a09414e46e98e59d0bab2ce51
b0e60a3ad5877ccb422dae29ed9b3337effa94fd
63351 F20101114_AADMUP evans_j_Page_070.pro
dabf1e93fa56699c9862665cb3c815d4
aad51e9a5a62c8cb0d6bb47034d12cff9ef8ea3d
F20101114_AADNYG evans_j_Page_055thm.jpg
15e466df81bb0e09124626a29610bf73
0d771e8974de38988f6f73e10d132e6ea8b5d632
29317 F20101114_AADNXS evans_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
f120279bffafd14d8b1a1188fd8f1c39
f19781eb3223750ecfc960a7637e6f6a8448deff
F20101114_AADNAK evans_j_Page_046.tif
6ab79ed38165557643e85c50d3875a4a
d61b2b09748f043e1ca8777804ccecbf2b95638f
55079 F20101114_AADMVE evans_j_Page_063.pro
856970a6e877d6cff21983fabfb056f6
c024c9c344b2c63b208f209798780cd09b5e5a42
1989 F20101114_AADMUQ evans_j_Page_087.txt
d12c24ff97dfc534a9583d8697c02450
eb5ee22e8f39778fd125a6b23a93a08e6a3c5d15
25296 F20101114_AADNYH evans_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
658d926e4d287afea5470adf2d4d4851
c6650fcc4db489b5272e20e7eab8b81f9de1cbef
7022 F20101114_AADNXT evans_j_Page_097thm.jpg
a32ace36fa89eaad342761a31717bc17
99e03698cc35e56131d418d3f738a7ea99d302ec
80188 F20101114_AADNAL evans_j_Page_070.jpg
90ea41110925ca9404f1208d6363d39c
09b3be2b2ea52cb483ac74b154a28361e29ca504
50194 F20101114_AADMVF evans_j_Page_038.pro
af236a0fc45400e383f65c8bea02bc3f
7859bbece164a64b2be07379b1eadc290cad3e0b
F20101114_AADMUR evans_j_Page_152.tif
c82a6a1fc627303f071d098e8e8c5e53
03cc84f2ddd5073a7ebe812c9c5c90249f93c9e5
25694 F20101114_AADNYI evans_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
b3bf062fb91424a019ed858e1c9c8a2c
c9004286182d531231d78c3d60003b88b5ac3bf9
53650 F20101114_AADNAM evans_j_Page_044.pro
97e5c669cb7dbfe1f1303d02f9b8e286
43c355955b407317d5377380764a29a51599427a
24799 F20101114_AADMVG evans_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
17353f0c511ffadcef73d0081bfa420b
f21c2ca55e98d86740644fd5073c7b538d379595
F20101114_AADNBA evans_j_Page_138.tif
a9270e26eb22b7ad10c843fb50f9f34c
4507feb90c56a1ac93213ec28d2d45de1a3755e7
25815 F20101114_AADNYJ evans_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
091d5378aa2a8529868d5a81c7753db7
95bcd691195a1dbcd0e254fe6dde0706170fe5c5
24976 F20101114_AADNXU evans_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
1f31d29de1a2bd0f4721c1fcb2b50ff2
1b9fbb7aa75fabb3790ffbe2274d6256bc369080
F20101114_AADNAN evans_j_Page_074.tif
b2e84cf2f5e994a5a100d62fefea48bf
19b73ec7d0fcd3a3909a86a673cda16f187cc48b
6886 F20101114_AADMVH evans_j_Page_121thm.jpg
6382503dbcdfef78cf187e00cf26ab4b
540656f1a1fa66b9a266d1d83aab2b16933ea5ef
1051974 F20101114_AADMUS evans_j_Page_009.jp2
025319dc7c72205c9d36bd96687645d3
19c3a21bb11bfd9e7056b4f0a09ab7d5bad2d2a3
2130 F20101114_AADNBB evans_j_Page_049.txt
1584ceae0ea245c3365f7a4c2b259d54
66757dbe66069be80996591cf75bfbe022915218
25894 F20101114_AADNYK evans_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
7b84a7bcd24b59527e411b6f9e710770
2c3e15cdc287e26069f3a52e5600cc38c4e24d90
7215 F20101114_AADNXV evans_j_Page_162thm.jpg
ec89c87b2435a23e31f57f25fdc72380
7ca61391ac6bdef76592121b1f8a53fe61ca1b7e
17617 F20101114_AADNAO evans_j_Page_084.pro
7d90a2dadc7c3d92e74be2bb5b217d22
768e872dc69ee5ffca3a0d4588ab503dcf64db50
24579 F20101114_AADMVI evans_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
47153240e4e7828bbde98ccb6e197544
9a750394bad140615621671a14a59dad6a2bebe9
26590 F20101114_AADMUT evans_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
2b601ad8f1994bba35215e17ed446282
f3b39f138eb7b3009437299484ccf20dd3907178
F20101114_AADNBC evans_j_Page_072.tif
97acd2e5f5e30ca9d28b452414880920
b9a30eb5079bff9258a8f737f085ea8634ea4118
25318 F20101114_AADNYL evans_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
c78bc8790a0d6bc881a4e83bef17b23e
0df9d74657241212d6d3bfb88156613f72ed70e5
20261 F20101114_AADNXW evans_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
d8056878ebbbe70c2b0a0cdd3a7054fb
70ab8698b574e15e0ba216622acf2d71ced5e63a
2110 F20101114_AADNAP evans_j_Page_112.txt
834a6a640aa88cc65aa65bfc260024a9
955d9ab49b375b6e2a158133ded5ecdfb5ae079c
82176 F20101114_AADMVJ evans_j_Page_077.jpg
ff1d27afec9b1c35414ee032d8136e09
de18d343442b7604ed07a2d0e282bf21ac5dbe32
F20101114_AADMUU evans_j_Page_034.tif
f4ff6305965d9d69ceb6a5b1bcac402f
a7bb832296f9368b7f528214997a154bd19b1ee6
76884 F20101114_AADNBD evans_j_Page_134.jpg
31afd87f72381ec2588db1053bb5479e
f4aa34ad74a7409d60e892db497da9fc21245009
28544 F20101114_AADNZA evans_j_Page_155.QC.jpg
37fc2b1954909aebdc297d388c8948a0
9ab2b232706e852aaa0e84caa365b4587a4ce01d
6761 F20101114_AADNYM evans_j_Page_075thm.jpg
ca6042524e7db0ede1304db158b84b22
c0e8db26fe0a629c76aae023e08b15b9077b73f6
249679 F20101114_AADNXX UFE0019675_00001.xml
3bcb0d88ccb21fc1eee050647e60b6f2
69f3c1a6e008ad45f1863f34f1fcb73bfbb80e15
F20101114_AADNAQ evans_j_Page_123.tif
737609e082ae0c546a8aea059efe7990
9a2bcae97c527b06ac525bf289c596dece7a14e2
77334 F20101114_AADMVK evans_j_Page_110.jpg
55b2247e8578c926387ad8d136e63676
31fc539868165a02173ee0989da6cd364a2ff507
41485 F20101114_AADMUV evans_j_Page_129.jpg
cd84730235163098898bae47f4fdf4f6
ff9baf20d55aa5110ce228507ea77f7a5dfccab9
53529 F20101114_AADNBE evans_j_Page_161.pro
ff7d2ffdd388c4b688320ce4ff194bec
da663959363d75c587dc2202b290ca4dfef02d00
7146 F20101114_AADNZB evans_j_Page_158thm.jpg
c87fd309bb8bc5d0199ba4ef9ab44735
34aee85985694711acfde1d72a44c7290a164f72
26925 F20101114_AADNYN evans_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
57c7e6d9debe0469ee3c0d812cf6ad2c
345e78cdea90836876e4a4c7859c60508f756828
1379 F20101114_AADNXY evans_j_Page_002thm.jpg
2027985afc60bbd3dd3b2f3650d0a97d
fe205333fb8741a07dd4670127190d29303512bb
56647 F20101114_AADNAR evans_j_Page_094.pro
571fff42b49e9a5a3bef0a7c81bdb9a0
6c9007ac34e8c4e9924eea1075b86f6266cc0c5a
65390 F20101114_AADMVL evans_j_Page_080.jpg
14bcdee279561595a191e2f97e23e4af
972cd0cb03c5c301134542bf10bb1061c96a2e29
6781 F20101114_AADMUW evans_j_Page_060thm.jpg
de8fdbca72a8fde7ac778a2b023b7fd4
950d08484cb5eef551f976cd415f8c2eb62c94c9
60908 F20101114_AADNBF evans_j_Page_162.pro
1c1006de817fcbd1b416027fd44452e6
2062c31c0a47b4934fa853a1c49b8016aef79f05
7168 F20101114_AADNZC evans_j_Page_159thm.jpg
65e376481c1a614e092d6b9d90c659d9
1f9de7eedb9a408b9d8793dc2ab3ec8096dff21c
16544 F20101114_AADNYO evans_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
a2fc06d806d1db4f134a840e23ca0e6b
9d89d5da7ab4a13117765a60d0b55c85ff95f9e7
1513 F20101114_AADNXZ evans_j_Page_003thm.jpg
b86b033108bf7965d536e81bd1ede4ae
dc0e0aef9be4de9bb29c717252f9b3c234480ca4
5922 F20101114_AADMWA evans_j_Page_123thm.jpg
ce3559568679ca01cc23cafbade8eb36
9691d2edaef97cc56a1b17d84c9a643eaaa00d29
93731 F20101114_AADNAS evans_j_Page_162.jpg
eb615635fa34a9f5abbf492675af4615
8a6cacb4f75142487e196229b930ea1ddc745b54
24217 F20101114_AADMVM evans_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
6e794330c82ea1ae5267d5f3b141ec2d
f3aeaeb973a6c6e32d14e9e69ad98b89e61c5068
6744 F20101114_AADMUX evans_j_Page_110thm.jpg
3e67396a3e519479558dffe165923b3a
0ad84c4d77ca418345db83eeac2bd0d42c723a8a
2132 F20101114_AADNBG evans_j_Page_052.txt
85ff03816ba5df27c26cd55be6308e6f
02ea66a8e7fdf79c7a7b57989f3de8650894a0f5
24750 F20101114_AADNZD evans_j_Page_161.QC.jpg
4cf53767015886b3e45aec3f67f9d520
a13495e5ee6eaa87bfc37314ad9e9cdd39af4ab5
11102 F20101114_AADNYP evans_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
87ae366ff0745191cebf6703a3ea6593
50d321e5c22fc89bfee094bab3bce168cad8da36
F20101114_AADMWB evans_j_Page_001.tif
0530fdd2d269518df068d700d09595b1
a8f46f0de97409bfa8ec2a6fbdd7281aa4b5004e
2286 F20101114_AADNAT evans_j_Page_035.txt
2dec6d837cc50b57b4ab9a2ac533e396
10c3a91bff544736671ed6f0222b9d472d92b582
F20101114_AADMVN evans_j_Page_076.tif
9dbddf5624a5132b63862e0306098d05
e90e8aca33208c5c1b58ee3c1ebdaa751b2bf13a
27239 F20101114_AADMUY evans_j_Page_001.jpg
d100bd98546c50a6eddf01b70ac24ae5
730bf3497321750487fd371efcd700188682a6e8
57651 F20101114_AADNBH evans_j_Page_073.pro
d627778a069a7e0df415f1b033b6cf23
99a866717a953e74e367842d4664e0d098ffc752
25336 F20101114_AADNYQ evans_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
8a1abe6524535ff5af91e99a03b3c803
27a8f00d4b84ea3637a771eec8f73ade0cb6ef7d
6806 F20101114_AADMWC evans_j_Page_108thm.jpg
10ae4942ac6fa8eb469e2e202d5ad60e
bf344643523dbd06b0260f2fda3a3536df201e98
7117 F20101114_AADNAU evans_j_Page_094thm.jpg
2375c7c494009495581faa3d01a908cb
3490886d318c91d63326682d5e0f62c2a3a9e5fe
26128 F20101114_AADMVO evans_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
2e8f9adb11cd6169a0b7f20c0dd7a076
1ee92bfb406aab5d725e3dea268fca137f79076d
25740 F20101114_AADMUZ evans_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
e419312c0580ef72fe48a653e8c94215
2616986a3b06544cb2c2427bc76b16dc04b62e88
F20101114_AADNBI evans_j_Page_156.tif
2a001a16d925384a7c09c78d9acbfd46
786f47a67c20c96118de26b8c6ca2a2162fbdaaa
25648 F20101114_AADNYR evans_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
cef592b89cd0a1088952b916fae01526
89de7c6d7a29c784cee67557e693fff25a7d9fdb
F20101114_AADMWD evans_j_Page_077.tif
7c2702729114d58a1b0a68b96a6317a5
c9c83c0efb7e44298926d831b7a431c8e8dfe29a
53829 F20101114_AADNAV evans_j_Page_013.pro
ff1b2943a020502dbdaa6d0aa7f075c8
23cd53096311aa3c03eacfe7de80a93b99ff6c13
8891 F20101114_AADMVP evans_j_Page_081.pro
e5d8dbbe40398ee341091f55afa0325c
81968ac6a910dd43033edb9b42b4bee4bdd048bc
F20101114_AADNBJ evans_j_Page_027.txt
4c81f19e2166a8f8c98020619db74792
22e474b7248858ec8148e182028868938dca89a3
24681 F20101114_AADNYS evans_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
79ae0932676a2c751e7f4daf2ef466ca
3ef2464401b05826fabd3ecdd8bf45c186ba9ec5
53803 F20101114_AADMWE evans_j_Page_025.pro
2148517fcac47f189dae6c30ea820ee8
6edbf5ab2db56f1b5fd5a49c04852252c5316870
292 F20101114_AADNAW evans_j_Page_126.txt
155b7a62111f693200470b30f1422029
598fedc4e823a6a8d86b870c59a0adbf01799270
2186 F20101114_AADMVQ evans_j_Page_031.txt
fb7d7fb43dd781ba0eb49fd5125b47b6
460b8c69b8c6181f8da506940165c8274c871903
53539 F20101114_AADNBK evans_j_Page_104.pro
70ceda67184ebe14f5b1357e29c04098
01f21494726b07dd98c437cb683677480b9dc464
6773 F20101114_AADNYT evans_j_Page_116thm.jpg
63a9dc3ff5b6d8790c7ddb8eeb2ac8fe
a300341e0ef1cd5eac99515b9b2b6c69cd948aff
76566 F20101114_AADMWF evans_j_Page_086.jpg
535f5d4bc1ed1be3c4b4657d98e20012
779beb95daa8682f494e9b44e2234cb293134aaf
25170 F20101114_AADNAX evans_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
95367b999f1bd9a63f8cac29b1faaad7
291fb81af77201ba31980b917a14393c5c45e515
26330 F20101114_AADMVR evans_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
2660a35ec52f9a8fc5a9ff35d49685b7
9a42290f739367110350491bf459920b224537ed
123473 F20101114_AADNBL evans_j_Page_015.jp2
629e5d3a2fce6cbc36e88cc57518303e
bba9a8e2d50cb7dc02bf1eeaa9727506d90b9497
26270 F20101114_AADNYU evans_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
4076ba2dc3b3e40845b9c14d9bfb5a53
66ecf073d1e2c318d05acf81f6b223478edeae40
23883 F20101114_AADMWG evans_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
3dc80e261984ec0883729bd25893d2d9
b5a54a6716d137ee9796a8f5c618834d9846caff
1870 F20101114_AADNAY evans_j_Page_130.txt
8551c9d31ebbaf2e7cbc36a2028f655e
171c12be8675560d19d6d67bfc344028065fd189
27908 F20101114_AADMVS evans_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
aad23562c0918ef1998c5985f8ece1d5
44922afd5d3b441d92a6a96e28edd8179a3ca36d
2581 F20101114_AADNCA evans_j_Page_163.txt
50109fe5408d4e67cb0a94fc27d30479
d441acee3c590128a1cafc19e8253bb834329d48
1051978 F20101114_AADNBM evans_j_Page_162.jp2
176ca3a50dfaad2c215578c4bfb5f252
a0b2a0717889627343337d70f86e2790da9622de
79875 F20101114_AADMWH evans_j_Page_117.jpg
a2c2fab4478701ff9fefc2ab37672ca8
5ff0a780fc484b0c37096056a21300f75ff1ff44
F20101114_AADNAZ evans_j_Page_051.jp2
cfc26bd21d54b1a22c6fce8a3c81574a
3ddc100e6afcd779e0c01183cd5aec9d51cd3ecf
48609 F20101114_AADNCB evans_j_Page_010.pro
f2019fc25136a4baf2720af8ccaf76cb
b4f7b33c2cd5568d071298cf7ae87a556d06fd6f
2161 F20101114_AADNBN evans_j_Page_061.txt
4c9d5eca08703c9a4bbbf5d93c544300
86c2167a2751035181e27823e977f519a99015ae
25308 F20101114_AADNYV evans_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
35870ef41675e5ad83b5fe7a1a6c548a
c48a8094cac7118d353d2be884be5083ce9fecce
1051969 F20101114_AADMVT evans_j_Page_157.jp2
c0dd7596d3d2cdb4978323b63504ff8f
61cbb36beeab2540ace403706fe0db0a55f0bb79
25512 F20101114_AADNCC evans_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
38fcd75d71a86dc38f54d794d122e682
3cc95c51a3e9f802ea77732e3633950cc16285d8
58558 F20101114_AADNBO evans_j_Page_035.pro
6fe61303bac67ddb76073551d62aa05f
021cfd9f8962beb0e3d4b328c2ed38e8d2c454c6
5300 F20101114_AADMWI evans_j_Page_147thm.jpg
bd777e1642c4e1b9b4b482f8fe731d66
2cbf400cacbfa84f5f6b5a53d1e5e09aff8e4036
5776 F20101114_AADNYW evans_j_Page_127thm.jpg
1252961459f222e722877cb9314ac176
e60f33af6fb5039929d02bf4651271dce0174335
72630 F20101114_AADMVU evans_j_Page_012.jpg
c1f1a7da71a704f84496100a66860ce2
89cdfc4ea396d544510c783202f1e75bcb08ee71
F20101114_AADNCD evans_j_Page_012.tif
1c677e110c662ec83909ad3f54298e0a
7e933a4ccfafabd4a673a64d574a944f87a9f354
392 F20101114_AADNBP evans_j_Page_125.txt
963a96d25ddac746b5abbfb3d67b8112
b15f61876ab71d8fb7e7aea4c6ce0c3d62eb2b1a
118527 F20101114_AADMWJ evans_j_Page_093.jp2
9f0b3128ad8c5e6082f5ae07b5932a77
c7a4f6ff6060edcc1a45f8352d376e4a61a764b8
6960 F20101114_AADNYX evans_j_Page_132thm.jpg
384cac3c9553f6e09fe506d2206a0192
0d3ce00c1f966a1df7c358008fec5f1f346ce4ba
6823 F20101114_AADMVV evans_j_Page_119thm.jpg
86822efe6dd66773191bb854e04d23a4
ffd211e2ce475e3f215c21b3b950c2c722a4bf8a
1051963 F20101114_AADNCE evans_j_Page_156.jp2
97d71bcb3da1f090567b0035aa7d833b
26e89da980409754d2059b266f813a281fcf3c12
2102 F20101114_AADNBQ evans_j_Page_108.txt
37f4a8edb2415f5d5ef30e5df2059e58
3abed7ddedb439576326a9198afeace76e087b5a
3541 F20101114_AADMWK evans_j_Page_007.txt
161a12f93cc4a8732984ef7469e8bce1
2c285aa16be45f3ee5924f388c790ee97ee35820
19793 F20101114_AADNYY evans_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
c3fefbef2f76f46b6a1a457687a32926
c94636a804e1b099b5ab0ff3c22e2753ecf58f34
2308 F20101114_AADMVW evans_j_Page_077.txt
7f4d96292caf707f6d4ff68621727b9e
e04ae20b21518f2c1b380f1060b2f7d133b0d8db
F20101114_AADNCF evans_j_Page_143.txt
8d1c3edb66e8a0b782b6c13e76ad2fad
a33d2b66ce2ff4de6819a82f0be82243fde656d7
F20101114_AADNBR evans_j_Page_044.txt
97006fb1489cf2fc041cb259f70c3fab
da0f0e1b34928468735f58528793f47c3bcecf76
77697 F20101114_AADMWL evans_j_Page_135.jpg
fba3ea1427bc3496e392609d1cc59de0
5b4f0df6aa029cc36d21b676512a4d7297d34c10
28861 F20101114_AADNYZ evans_j_Page_151.QC.jpg
57ee2c43cc296b87d814165e88cae708
9c9e13f34958abcbb9aba2e10aca41ae0e8a7df6
26002 F20101114_AADMVX evans_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
02416e5c308f9120bde91b63b2a8b6a5
e7f9ea88024903a376c65abfb25c9c2c26b74c44
80899 F20101114_AADNCG evans_j_Page_089.jpg
a81696cf139f79b37f9bad775b98b406
d0bc59f77bd00d1f11ddfce43af6dc0e3e833ac4
54237 F20101114_AADMXA evans_j_Page_054.pro
5a9d1fc376ac7fbcf7659d1563524e21
51316cbd540abc0679ebafbd4f42eacb3412520c
78888 F20101114_AADNBS evans_j_Page_036.jpg
88eba4fd4c5f6856ce65a4b8338f2c0f
bf111a4e0a18a68e37b1cc603affb166c227a101
74564 F20101114_AADMWM evans_j_Page_018.jpg
b1774e3f52ed4dff544cad7edbe826b6
da8f11b2e0a5ea46db4b7c20fcdf2f3d577c7f13
51237 F20101114_AADMVY evans_j_Page_028.pro
d51bd08f967d82d984577d0ce7c991b1
67808685f8cc8ae706c9b77fdb10a7cf7a108e21
1051979 F20101114_AADNCH evans_j_Page_153.jp2
4a7dc0535400543aca84edfbd5ac2631
30e2a1bec653b2d0e9d32f3102efcd8937bf329a
51008 F20101114_AADMXB evans_j_Page_116.pro
be3ddd90d21d35fc065edecfbfab8165
42f261dde39176c7925ed0a84dc3679433ce6a54
10845 F20101114_AADNBT evans_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
f404cf537ec96ff4348b658ad601093b
b001894757af4c111f266c6ee1e3627bb9601207
2101 F20101114_AADMWN evans_j_Page_067.txt
a958cfe54bbc6a5281b89c50d8367739
05933b508cfcc4c0214238a88df9fec64ab632c4
120703 F20101114_AADMVZ evans_j_Page_037.jp2
ee6b9b2d1c87ee22ea621c224eb98a9e
022642fc24141ff5f829de1221959b7d9fd8d3d5
10342 F20101114_AADNCI evans_j_Page_002.jpg
7dfe4afa5ddf721ae275708579dd5141
56f9a7838848ef6ae86304076cb4d163603f54fb
7148 F20101114_AADMXC evans_j_Page_056thm.jpg
720809988184660fc22c0683eb7c6a97
2664d3a62df93be9ac6f536cf3f840190d275856
26701 F20101114_AADNBU evans_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
ccc16ec57e8fc4b6256e7ef578361eba
3dd59cde5f065cc993bee2318800483d4caa9bc0
116355 F20101114_AADMWO evans_j_Page_050.jp2
d57107448baf34b7bfcb5eef3aedbd51
40f1c2b67db7df311a49df133e1ba2617b983775
24534 F20101114_AADNCJ evans_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
2571bae57052dfd19b81b0a139c82ae6
3bff8204e7c2b23915c27db7838ac94d8d4ecbe2
2225 F20101114_AADMXD evans_j_Page_066.txt
52c2aee4ce37d297b78647972e9d912d
0b652fe023a1a9a55ada252bb0f8ee770b4755fd
28236 F20101114_AADNBV evans_j_Page_163.QC.jpg
d28851f12da7f934662fe94a15d7ae5a
b50799cf1b5df35a36914b2ea11decc176120563
54657 F20101114_AADMWP evans_j_Page_107.pro
f9e725b7cbfc7f50043f4a0bf00070fb
b341643df7263c43524d15dd33e9e490c10b2606
F20101114_AADNCK evans_j_Page_051.tif
7d57851f0ffaafae78817a3d2f5eb3bb
c7746ad7502d95717f288e0140bae8828999398f
2139 F20101114_AADMXE evans_j_Page_054.txt
f4748c1feb002336f9de79ca29471ae2
a34e20b3a67e7eb963c9fa7751061608bc0f2555
F20101114_AADNBW evans_j_Page_165.tif
1ae5832084b0a035bf8bdbe53606afdd
9c351fe5a7c84db4b1183fd1cf59b51b396c5445
121806 F20101114_AADMWQ evans_j_Page_142.jp2
8675d2beda6032626693a8cd5dd76f97
6b637a161d38ebac5acfe948db94170318fb4f39
78751 F20101114_AADNCL evans_j_Page_142.jpg
34fab537eca7a140c7b04f41bf44c344
8e60bd6554a1cbe738034bb7c898096f00a7d3b9
2197 F20101114_AADMXF evans_j_Page_074.txt
63c4f106057001b1d9eb406314f30d68
e271d7f2dec8d6e5e8a26de53af3cf2526c53b40
2456 F20101114_AADNBX evans_j_Page_160.txt
46ec5cfe2230a818c1b0d0be2cf31f73
2d45d33bb5150cfaa7e24a2fbb6124d4d56d94e4
2200 F20101114_AADMWR evans_j_Page_088.txt
a4dbb7830b0d0cd9c7fe6553c27392c7
b2b74f3dcb9744d58a626efe59cb5cc9189ab937
100929 F20101114_AADNDA evans_j_Page_123.jp2
829ae56d8c00cba9a69d71dd517bdad2
c7e7cb3632ec0a38b5457756bed4510fdea2a834
2078 F20101114_AADNCM evans_j_Page_091.txt
8d0a2e4783291d665cca71432040a527
161bb42bcc3ef9140e3c72e9a443b2481b9142d7
7029 F20101114_AADMXG evans_j_Page_144thm.jpg
52f42e4d39f3faafff3ebec3a4165c98
f6e8c99100818ca07121956b475867658db54f45
78063 F20101114_AADNBY evans_j_Page_027.jpg
7098c87c1dac76fd97acf795ff6782c3
1b9885ec95f4aacd12d5ef86ec7ae07bd0dcad7a
F20101114_AADMWS evans_j_Page_164.tif
379eea318c6e660beffcd9811621bf37
890e09c8d496b3616b3db7c49bf74ef3e2301ad4
74604 F20101114_AADNDB evans_j_Page_116.jpg
3749a1fd89cad9321056e3a6cbe5dde9
5b6faa0b50f3643551a23d99503acc86f7d38119
2166 F20101114_AADNCN evans_j_Page_024.txt
ea86b80b600a2d408b9606ab61fb0018
d689508d3e2d2ab5b98b220651bd627219541b66
121020 F20101114_AADMXH evans_j_Page_107.jp2
e59bad0eeeb390fc75439397e4a1a638
c1c8a67e0a4ed7eae86d28e7bee64a58d4be6315
7002 F20101114_AADNBZ evans_j_Page_152thm.jpg
517ba684d8246fe2b72862562984004e
2f910e674b8acba04d858a0102b2d9b58779e15d
2365 F20101114_AADMWT evans_j_Page_076.txt
b2ed99c275f93df62a27231452eb02ed
8a6514317873568de2032d0e4baf0c1168704c5b
56450 F20101114_AADNDC evans_j_Page_118.pro
c08569cec142ba5d5f041e31c70509c4
0658c10843aaf4e82084bf4a57f22b5ec02a95a9
2201 F20101114_AADNCO evans_j_Page_015.txt
abf4d56d7af75ec0b83db379c6120735
98a254b5d19d8cff61ab7c3a7ac41d6b2ad6085f
7124 F20101114_AADMXI evans_j_Page_102thm.jpg
864b4d647e5d231c5129d177516fa635
5527df723d861cfd45304aeea5a8b6f233b5be20
47401 F20101114_AADNDD evans_j_Page_082.jpg
16d17983c25e669471b9bc5fd92ee2dd
a61e134b35d906bd619df39d9010036f0847d53e
1145 F20101114_AADNCP evans_j_Page_002.pro
3aa59f1c89a5f815179cf36a5823aa5b
f7f2bf09d73eb2a2cc37288129c0e8854a1a7566
75108 F20101114_AADMXJ evans_j_Page_131.jpg
d198f3d96ebb5d6cd450d8a084a60e9b
54e5563819ed0441ca889c39fdcbdc060e13cf6e
F20101114_AADMWU evans_j_Page_045.tif
072a4b04f509b82b1616e850a851d390
198145e25cf87ac44ad2d1cd0b8f1ab3e7118404
F20101114_AADNDE evans_j_Page_159.jp2
fff692ae50974f5d6dfb123436ae984c
0f5bc4ab06bc360b5684dc49323c73be3c9438ef
F20101114_AADNCQ evans_j_Page_114.tif
a9f8f5b712270d88b54195f0e01988d7
72b06b470b669ad4ce85690ba7f0ffa5bfff53e2
F20101114_AADMXK evans_j_Page_035.tif
a934e7179c2a69d58295af793fb09e52
b18535cb4e59ad5ce5672981762c8aa975e82270
F20101114_AADMWV evans_j_Page_107.txt
5dfd764c872a4967fce248a7647a204a
e0ae9d093122dd863ffe2c55136c3b59c19e2733
22554 F20101114_AADNCR evans_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
7363b7dc1c3491b39ac7b99e6491ad3b
17cf5f850c453cb10b5ec8201c03689a2137fc08
78326 F20101114_AADMXL evans_j_Page_139.jpg
67326c3695fa5b7cff576f5ea4c17d68
62677954d856aadc8289df8d828aafb5ce53b0ac
F20101114_AADMWW evans_j_Page_145.tif
70f102a298bac3fc3b7b1eb97ac92fdf
8024e5ab9cb5187b17b986c0314bfcbd67495c62
F20101114_AADNDF evans_j_Page_029thm.jpg
dc65e6342e6ed6959cfa0cd57f0d58b2
bd7efb7956aa046b5c6bc554e7af8fe9cf3c2a22
51405 F20101114_AADMYA evans_j_Page_049.pro
5d42f60cb2187d7591039d5ff01e9bc7
888b750c547ac110d5f5ece63244f9af46a221ea
6846 F20101114_AADNCS evans_j_Page_092thm.jpg
c468242080a0cfaa6dabe467fc118387
32dda3453d30549fc2bfd7671bca1b3fde08b459
F20101114_AADMXM evans_j_Page_131.txt
bce4835edfb904a7853f7036d9f4f3d3
071024fe64a75e8b7167c55740d2b1a33e3091ba
25554 F20101114_AADMWX evans_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
7c4fd0e645748d8430015decb712f8d7
5f69dfa54a144215bff6e3bc346e1f2615494f91
2147 F20101114_AADNDG evans_j_Page_132.txt
48c7a22127bce26a25f2ff8817adf626
74940865c2104e24e4dc36b2d4ed5569353f4541
34203 F20101114_AADMYB evans_j_Page_168.pro
19881c35d179587a2341a7b72023dadc
0b24c3fb58cb865bc35c1d374e0a63a2d3b21117
5420 F20101114_AADNCT evans_j_Page_006thm.jpg
f118620d867484ba309bef14c5c032b6
6d9f600c0a2709a2a8bbe5f84bf3425200440c54
1844 F20101114_AADMXN evans_j_Page_009.txt
f12b2dada28007f55916dea2460105f3
4462b05671c8c1271ca04923f5f47f05ac819fdc
118451 F20101114_AADMWY evans_j_Page_105.jp2
8b982ddb85afe8e806594a00347a57f9
c41b75b34c5cb9f5a2471381a0129c0f13ba88de
54894 F20101114_AADNDH evans_j_Page_045.pro
3618835477e32f5881ff7a93e0034e28
67412db4af64bc6db5f083ff00ca1c52e750ef8e
F20101114_AADMYC evans_j_Page_042.tif
b8a67f32203bbecbf665e9f98c92130f
d505086db89dcbc0c9e0d26c8c1ee58cc7b42454
4502 F20101114_AADNCU evans_j_Page_083thm.jpg
d9a7324e225346c8a51ad50a78236482
433e50c18c9d5716f5f554aa6d8cc85841d80f15
799 F20101114_AADMXO evans_j_Page_005.txt
2d692b48e15e37b9f7490159352136ec
6a8afa24fc584ca0d6c1400d48a5fa09449e408c
10711 F20101114_AADMWZ evans_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
28029f98d669e583ce6a6e38764b1153
99ee97fc86097f55e8c40d7ae583180857780b96
87468 F20101114_AADNDI evans_j_Page_144.jpg
14a4f3d8c263c0438d571393581ed862
053433cd5304b56485872880f885e61466dc9102
125469 F20101114_AADMYD evans_j_Page_035.jp2
547d97961b9b73fde6e21b3f1be029ce
541207cf8ce0b886f2dc22cbaa7b2288181b0282
53494 F20101114_AADNCV evans_j_Page_121.pro
463a08b730878b5c2e572bc5ac582cc9
d3fd12548e9890b3cab19510fb5d015dc48265f5
120534 F20101114_AADMXP evans_j_Page_122.jp2
6807b5ca0eba8fa44c90c74f463a50d0
5f38c2d761fbeffbc80b8fa06f47d40f6c44214b
113515 F20101114_AADNDJ evans_j_Page_049.jp2
ffd37128c7da5fb734d48a61a5178381
1c442b9758d4f0893ff167c982b641511bffc9a7
F20101114_AADMYE evans_j_Page_143thm.jpg
52353ca6a4917a2b79f0de040ef040f6
a0cb4191389b72b02320b1bc0c8568c5b46103ff
F20101114_AADNCW evans_j_Page_048.tif
71fda4d59373a428d5f0d33d44e595b9
86e97878aa2d68b4a0dd54922a2dfa9c8dcc2869
26825 F20101114_AADMXQ evans_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
823e3501ea2f3370775b4f2595c73c80
280baa2f32bbfb27ad1213ff1326a9ee1267ee07
2090 F20101114_AADNDK evans_j_Page_059.txt
b1f3cf113e8d79736cadc019064b3e6a
4efa4c1460879063fe7a2532fc20b344d8b377fb
53848 F20101114_AADMYF evans_j_Page_029.pro
97f266c55efd06babf1ada3596211072
70aecee3b81f444b1e6d0431f0173658c42f3b5b
56813 F20101114_AADNCX evans_j_Page_103.pro
623335ac98cec15a6e3b7bf4950656df
a8d47f82536e54b3c718986ec1c78cd807420de2
53724 F20101114_AADMXR evans_j_Page_100.pro
d54221641a6d366f4a358369e38dd16f
37e17237ac8370d908778b20185940a5764ffc7c
54180 F20101114_AADNEA evans_j_Page_090.pro
2af0ed569622adbebdb5ce5c6df380ac
3c7c4bc10014cdd76ad43dc21579c726439097db
F20101114_AADNDL evans_j_Page_135.txt
6a3918427760a66819cb73fabc098b94
709275dee694417d44f570d02270440e0762132f
26017 F20101114_AADMYG evans_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
3ec948a7e76a1f57a093782617071597
b4ebffc8f1537fd0897b5134e85b3779c0ab2e35
2331 F20101114_AADNCY evans_j_Page_156.txt
a6af5cd3a91746c5e64bf82dfd1bade1
7bf75bcaeb8817a2e385aae1cf7e53e02a20c5d4
F20101114_AADMXS evans_j_Page_033.tif
a09e6c17f30bbd13b37aa8181a25c820
19d16aaf35f31edf6873e3d08409acf5c274729a
2390 F20101114_AADNDM evans_j_Page_157.txt
f5bd5864748ce40967a2e24bb4bc55c7
c3d9144a5038ea4b4678391f906daa4462b70543
4784 F20101114_AADMYH evans_j_Page_125.pro
c21ffd8cdad429a020c5ced0a64e9097
4a5a4c5dff27333ce53fbd81f3e521a59a7f4502
79121 F20101114_AADNCZ evans_j_Page_107.jpg
bb9ac56034de1ad59b8a3e6227a7372e
b9684b58ed4797bb8ec74e9428a3e8e6b125340a
80055 F20101114_AADMXT evans_j_Page_143.jpg
073860872ffad6cf91173a2749f70b0b
7e9a959453de4bea4b6200db25378e5b22975453
80923 F20101114_AADNEB evans_j_Page_102.jpg
f2b9a2eaa91daec9caea9f8621ded6a1
b4b09e2fc9991540ac4072141c0f057136845c05
25545 F20101114_AADNDN evans_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
4efa18b247aec4a999cde7a9e86311e0
52d3a9d90c86e876113d070fcf450f92196fdc61
F20101114_AADMYI evans_j_Page_116.tif
3de766c364b4a77d6dd4f803ad73bb4f
80376278428d667d68942bcd60a964b2f55efbd4
7085 F20101114_AADMXU evans_j_Page_089thm.jpg
f69166be3f8ba65e7d15f6d9bd3c5713
66c926e7b3877eb67293f4a3de481163f5907310
1051939 F20101114_AADNEC evans_j_Page_120.jp2
35d6b6f23c020264fbd3f4fc405a3669
44567dbbb2e3d2e3f90e60c7b8cbc451215b4a54
119543 F20101114_AADNDO evans_j_Page_042.jp2
7b9d6ba2b7a4fcea23c0b1960ca311c0
4734741a79983e176560451f9d40cca692b8cc05
120536 F20101114_AADMYJ evans_j_Page_135.jp2
1fd20f66c2c81d5fa91da84d8489c082
64a13875b11840177bb815f1237e51c2b6db55e3
F20101114_AADNED evans_j_Page_149.tif
89d31e0371eacc9dadeb2801f4234c01
20aa6e9e6c7e469e766bbb9fb4bf680637a4a649
F20101114_AADNDP evans_j_Page_091.tif
49aef299e96ac98f73a2e2596a24b0ca
56e6a234291abe9ad68466ef1fcbe0803e9ce113
78858 F20101114_AADMYK evans_j_Page_029.jpg
2513b54cb7f35ca948ced1ca6c441396
57d195d6570c4512f32ac248264e85b127810a64
439796 F20101114_AADMXV evans_j_Page_084.jp2
dfbdae02a2f5e49217a019b20be2d20e
bb9c84056bc6dd10944a4a38c018a99b8013201d
1503 F20101114_AADNEE evans_j_Page_124.pro
152d3f31e13833defdd77c40cb914ad7
4863c1c465681564418b48a90777514b08e22272
23306 F20101114_AADNDQ evans_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
7e4d2d5b6530894f30ba1aeb7c466dfe
6bb28acb5008db0aa192614e1d87eff93cb13b91
61736 F20101114_AADMYL evans_j_Page_149.pro
c5b8b30ce95db96606c9f3e80c950664
4984c9fc156e00d1ee785a178d9768f0818ff6ce
18354 F20101114_AADMXW evans_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
6b55524bb7c7a7dd279acc4aa32ad38f
b2b82f808615852290e418d7b652317066608124
6740 F20101114_AADNEF evans_j_Page_038thm.jpg
faf9acd06267e3c6b3331bc50fb86ce0
7f5481a2e49b5e2d4707a4b1e1e15491db13bce9
75268 F20101114_AADNDR evans_j_Page_006.pro
a5498ee28ceaab11d7bc81fd0c7894ed
66fecabf619cbe34b6ed339333beb2bd5f3113e1
23037 F20101114_AADMYM evans_j_Page_021.pro
666e2e0248a86c4a7084b2a6261309fa
f66a8f00a4d4e1f8c7239109dba20558610a2fb4
F20101114_AADMXX evans_j_Page_154.tif
5ff885a2af441a4fe603530cea6f5729
eb2a27760c06407adab637ee73e76d722700520c
25217 F20101114_AADNEG evans_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
7eb6f12469ca9bd023301214c60345de
f22a33b314f8b493d684b4af7c7f82232360ffbf
625 F20101114_AADMZA evans_j_Page_082.txt
e09d782df32fd52d34995d6cf5948f73
ebdfb9199bd181e0ad7dee26ec2a55059a04cd27
25456 F20101114_AADNDS evans_j_Page_166.QC.jpg
1cdb19f9b453810734b7d24c72c9c261
2fc1267540f26921a5050ef3c411dc797537cf8a
15645 F20101114_AADMYN evans_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
a09ffbf0894abb48c7d265265f01b6a8
bb6fa5ab6a1f259c179b9e95b5e684c1113775cb
86790 F20101114_AADMXY evans_j_Page_149.jpg
3fc1960775db87c3f0109f1727060afa
410dc233d6eed7fa4f2b129c2125c1a188b3c41c
95701 F20101114_AADNEH evans_j_Page_064.pro
3dc88cf0ef23c43ce255db229ac21943
a0e0667c896425b9c898320282f15de7688785a5
27086 F20101114_AADMZB evans_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
5cb37c4c4c6c60fe5c9b1e2efe4924f0
04777564a4ae7e4f7f5e1a16f47271b98fa2ba2e
F20101114_AADNDT evans_j_Page_090.tif
0fca611c0f63882ed259c55f466764d2
4e32afe347716b2437b0b00c0eaef6fe359a98ac
113351 F20101114_AADMYO evans_j_Page_145.jp2
69fd5733f381cbd14383b0436388ed40
571f25ededfd64f479153ce940752af40d25b66b
25276 F20101114_AADMXZ evans_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
37a28d558c22ed4ec91bbad3a7b7fd52
6706287b6335dd6a43463e24b47712b55afb8f4c
118294 F20101114_AADNEI evans_j_Page_104.jp2
9e22c5345c9308a41bebff7954bd3ad3
781f5db7aa47eb3c4574054e94603c15f9d50b59
26106 F20101114_AADMZC evans_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
0432dcf494c9814dd677eb87503cfe0f
8705e99e55ae9a2ce0b8a2365ba8da09b48834e8
F20101114_AADNDU evans_j_Page_122.tif
11005fbea97f7ecb663ca1bac018f333
065978fdf3db795aaea31c70b0d37a283937db99
7657 F20101114_AADMYP evans_j_Page_151thm.jpg
ba274397a7937c902ca4d83461b6632a
bad2651c5122c27a3032b5ee76b5e7ba4d20c18f
1785 F20101114_AADNEJ evans_j_Page_008thm.jpg
e49131a44bc1f1088f320b39e2a502b6
f7e0ed6ca761be75ba7413b73fa37f5564a5f794
7108 F20101114_AADMZD evans_j_Page_140thm.jpg
7697c3ace885c3fc8a48e5c3166b770d
55de1f2f77a6a9dde6761798aca57da1c00c338f
2220 F20101114_AADNDV evans_j_Page_138.txt
3fd9a291195fb7bea867c7c4f4e16aee
8fff866517bcd8279825f643f3ddd3cc5010616e
6867 F20101114_AADMYQ evans_j_Page_100thm.jpg
4a3ca494a436125745aacf8484893aec
58819dda7bb398786f2ecb8708dd8d5ea0abf984
53263 F20101114_AADNEK evans_j_Page_041.pro
4f36f8a01a8b6ef34d03063b5cef12b7
33061dea4739944dba13cb7d680f8374f8d5ca34
F20101114_AADMZE evans_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
82c657f2700ab929bb83a4c1560c2cbf
d1abafa0776df443484b34674272cc3ec6da6daa
F20101114_AADNDW evans_j_Page_052.tif
33f4d2788b8758246b960abe2a7bd0eb
151475f9e2beffe793b8ace53f04d71f38b8d6e9
137 F20101114_AADMYR evans_j_Page_008.txt
e3fbfdfa0a959ac4e5d7999cab626cf3
13081522ce0117a191832a9f8da52dddb3a5bedf
121667 F20101114_AADNFA evans_j_Page_072.jp2
338f49ff314405c2f779977fecb6e788
0c874806a4a18a1ee08c874854b1214ca040ae42
118583 F20101114_AADNEL evans_j_Page_025.jp2
053f20122eb3603c14b62a9d380210ed
d80abb48887cf90703b20eca48129a0859c80a6d
6865 F20101114_AADMZF evans_j_Page_109thm.jpg
308cc7e782baed53895283f3fc2ee362
40d445052d93ed2c7c3621b0c4ae8f191059ec65
52913 F20101114_AADNDX evans_j_Page_059.pro
aaf866bc954d720149a354796fdb135b
13586c91d4f50a7adb8bf3f0bd6f54711fb4a585
6951 F20101114_AADMYS evans_j_Page_090thm.jpg
892f77e1464f64532f30b8035e2f263e
9e3543cd3d30082e926a2cbf4f08b76d7ca2ae99
F20101114_AADNFB evans_j_Page_086thm.jpg
4fb8937e98df50c7a8fca80226db8081
fbf14bedeb6fe34d3fb83ec05fba7c445d60db63
55350 F20101114_AADNEM evans_j_Page_043.pro
e4a8908352c1e78cc6f1122a87d20b87
785a2e5dce241b13e90a009e834870d1c8901b89
F20101114_AADMZG evans_j_Page_121.tif
74118bbbc0834353daeb7af332a3978d
7f390491bcd7c3ed4409cea6a4129b6d4f34817e
6907 F20101114_AADNDY evans_j_Page_107thm.jpg
ebf31b3c15b26ae15ed58314d96a3d9a
3cc16bb0c0df6f9533c91b0fe2fb1f783c5d39e6
F20101114_AADMYT evans_j_Page_039.tif
08f8b289bfd86492c8d7e8d4c98dd6df
dd25eb5d0f73bd759d7128623bde30e4baa46fc1
6730 F20101114_AADNEN evans_j_Page_157thm.jpg
4acb868b294c0176155bfc50b69e1ced
f923a020fce7f1d3eb4e7263fa6dcdd993fcfc2b
26483 F20101114_AADMZH evans_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
d67b5a7f0f3e43b4b2f3869bb08e062b
c7295a91ab022dd395c646e54d484160a62f75c3
33764 F20101114_AADNDZ evans_j_Page_085.jpg
ea51a0f97cc7189d685bdc0aa165c3ae
975645e2f17c3dbf58be6a1a602fe0bb340f0076
80749 F20101114_AADMYU evans_j_Page_103.jpg
4e02fd4b9aaf760f70d802c1f18ca5b6
fd85703b6883fc03b516ca1273ada0e0b24917e6
66967 F20101114_AADNFC evans_j_Page_123.jpg
99efbc1e04889af866f73533d3aaddc2
d2696317959eee3a8df92ec48b3852b006988e7d
F20101114_AADNEO evans_j_Page_161.tif
e59f914751fa66e4a3ed630d351ad78b
d2bb6e3bf886f98db21536aa06f28dfaa5c34086
6973 F20101114_AADMZI evans_j_Page_114thm.jpg
77322f05e6bd5247dd9301fc79ed84ca
0cdcb5d0e500f7926c8f86636c531108a7b9c28a
54286 F20101114_AADMYV evans_j_Page_052.pro
2cee29b8d971b76f357c1aeccfbbc55a
c463d9ee68c112845dd91d388e406ade771a15e3
2109 F20101114_AADNFD evans_j_Page_004.txt
ad4fee621386246fecf33ebc787e3c7f
c947ce048ab112e95a20b90ce78be96f2ef4f353
25979 F20101114_AADNEP evans_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
5be15f3eb124624b585e13983b0ddb64
be5b4c8d6093a76e8707ac20736d48f9f17112a8
6945 F20101114_AADMZJ evans_j_Page_111thm.jpg
7f06be2fbe1cd59e0ae0b85c0af243ab
e09428b7283b677cb95528ca99798123f10a1312
25349 F20101114_AADNFE evans_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
26f8be4c5947e674248a6ce5ae474500
5692949f5b9f1a36da414547d2762ea45e71718e
96427 F20101114_AADNEQ evans_j_Page_130.jp2
f9710438bb565e8a59a670df2ffe81fd
2f940e20c84862251af983c0def094d6f5b785ce
F20101114_AADMZK evans_j_Page_099.txt
7f7c36e1cb2e299400f8e64051cb9f59
8e50ebc5e9f5016c4fb3690b86952d620192874f
1051865 F20101114_AADMYW evans_j_Page_126.jp2
6c98401c5b119fea67755ac2ca201b04
bcc842fcf96628f33e3e4f903430fad6671cb6c2
7038 F20101114_AADNFF evans_j_Page_015thm.jpg
06f3a90ba821ef8d800726f85179f500
ea51c778e591305c634ec0f51994df71d4d402ba
1013107 F20101114_AADNER evans_j_Page_148.jp2
493f194bbede3884b9a9fa4ef0da5ed8
da6751d854c5a821a9c4f4a6f74d954f834f4992
6853 F20101114_AADMZL evans_j_Page_137thm.jpg
beee4253c64e040b2e0ea130326c40ef
0a3144cf61abc6294839fe58bb59415f61bf4295
F20101114_AADMYX evans_j_Page_050.tif
99ffa64b7836439ea8215c918fa9b1c8
9e9497b5adce2bfc5f76cc3115db6fb9a070d2ef
2589 F20101114_AADNFG evans_j_Page_153.txt
7538c5074f8d5c573b0d66f1705ddbfc
ecb3830d3870541a932d5179a514a40aca3f89e8
116733 F20101114_AADNES evans_j_Page_067.jp2
dd4e1d0d0bcf06919e1ba88c36641f75
beda8f6dd1366a14dc93ee28fe1357beb0dd8f85
54670 F20101114_AADMZM evans_j_Page_055.pro
e3991a2621e55c18e6fbe88b3b27395c
d96c59eced341f1c6b81add920b87e40a1ed5300
7104 F20101114_AADMYY evans_j_Page_126thm.jpg
6381726c45042d4feefd6e7db8d779f5
8156db85f54ff82ce8183b318e0c6b02186db32e
6994 F20101114_AADNFH evans_j_Page_076thm.jpg
20e16074eb1792a9950cb61221d2ca92
25445bc9af91984ae869a06d0eb87d7fb22a7567
7724 F20101114_AADNET evans_j_Page_127.pro
c64d5785eecaca18f8f118c044e520b0
27bd11de5a7a232f2b2d3ce18abc1c10f1298457
7026 F20101114_AADMZN evans_j_Page_070thm.jpg
7918dff229369195c4ae8ce44e5912b0
abb0726bcc9fed4f27b972221356417e19737931
25159 F20101114_AADMYZ evans_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
06698ed854afd4004cd64e1642633f58
3c676f9c0e09460c87d7b270d21044bab4757bed
65400 F20101114_AADNFI evans_j_Page_164.pro
ec57a6b00b346cafff20a0b045e5137d
3f2c2d90acd13a7bbb42f97b9691bdeefd0ff602
F20101114_AADNEU evans_j_Page_095.tif
2850cba43927aa8559f147ddda2b5d5c
97a6108425796e425297e47ad6729ecce7a83b3a
52636 F20101114_AADMZO evans_j_Page_092.pro
2e4f02daf67c29252089c16e42cf3cdc
9d9c655f43cc2d5ea73c84b493470b6eaa1b3b4f
75058 F20101114_AADNFJ evans_j_Page_145.jpg
da0aaa8c9e142f7d7628c78a5b0b5ba4
dd7d3bf01bde2ff5d97ff0011a60570619d45aa3
39101 F20101114_AADNEV evans_j_Page_084.jpg
2d16b3835ad4a7fb82917f6379448300
debe268e92f655d4eb1cf3a7411aade3940dbec0
F20101114_AADMZP evans_j_Page_167.tif
70c0f47bcd67867de854de5f6df112d4
6e2d65bfc43f7c849686a475619e73caefdd6ebb
F20101114_AADNFK evans_j_Page_039thm.jpg
32b71b9aede6b7bf35d3637dca88ebeb
4543519532c2fd8f4f51b9c9a6d8d6011923f950
6709 F20101114_AADNEW evans_j_Page_101thm.jpg
ff92502cdb0d375e57fd7f47e4abee18
4f01be552c3aef595e944bdbf4cd728db5a9b876
27064 F20101114_AADMZQ evans_j_Page_159.QC.jpg
1eee99b1ed3307b75f99dc14a626b786
c25da69494889ee54311f63c2a2578992a5c2679
25574 F20101114_AADNFL evans_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
1a86bd24332f803834df5b52a5373606
66fbbccc481795e3f424544d5804ab7bf4dd6b0d
118267 F20101114_AADNEX evans_j_Page_055.jp2
71eb055d2096a86d8b8df358f8a7346d
14dab1131cf2f33b4fb71e48f505a6c3f9d4f72c
152 F20101114_AADMZR evans_j_Page_085.txt
a5827eb93e6945b93855480ca912ec15
7bf3fd7b7b2671d24b27b2f22823500c6ae951db
6848 F20101114_AADNGA evans_j_Page_067thm.jpg
24803fe31cd0b2322820f9cfa6dd25bb
35468391299ab8e8996dbfe935145a755c88e222
79495 F20101114_AADNFM evans_j_Page_072.jpg
babd3791d57bc862f82b5ebf43e17eaf
21dc57ded43dcbb65a31d7c860d6afe9fe116816
F20101114_AADNEY evans_j_Page_070.tif
0ea0c721432507877220b807ac1bd20f
e2d23ed2aefa044030b96064bfa4ebd4af5cc120
F20101114_AADMZS evans_j_Page_099.tif
f9373fe34f33e0733ab46e120ecd0423
aa0552595ea59f3fe20e68b94082bce6759b5317
25377 F20101114_AADNGB evans_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
c07cee0e735d9607ea6b3965f11fd776
c8c7ba9dd14a7f2e45cd9bd8816712351b15dca2
6818 F20101114_AADNFN evans_j_Page_112thm.jpg
480182c52bd5aa43b4506787236f69b2
3469bf4d58ecbe498bf4b8a4218c04b95acf9b6f
F20101114_AADNEZ evans_j_Page_081.tif
a95854d323e353ef2e2209e85b82eb24
421751e865078c63e748e23a4fad59a4bca743a6
6959 F20101114_AADMZT evans_j_Page_118thm.jpg
9b69e4cd82607c8fb73aa1953a76e813
6b86d14a0527b1c2a4e4ba5b867019cbd0921d81
F20101114_AADNGC evans_j_Page_002.tif
5f3708d5279a9a5931785aeae20d0464
edbdec11893b30885675d920edd01b563bf2636f
6961 F20101114_AADNFO evans_j_Page_042thm.jpg
cf66a2748596cfa6336dd5c11cd45857
e7a47c69dfc5751b28aec4b2e4531afc4f4209e4
22977 F20101114_AADMZU evans_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
537afef64d980c7d7c2967dd8ed81802
1850d6e930c0491308c710e243d5908d4bab2239
F20101114_AADNFP evans_j_Page_066.pro
bb2ac49d0ec74578d906886759948e94
77bb65056da86a278b285e0e481f6c251845076e
F20101114_AADMZV evans_j_Page_088.tif
22c5b508452db7ac76ffdd7b7ad3bedb
889ab11ed09eaf3170ec54ad78d2bffa3f6f5f37
63662 F20101114_AADNGD evans_j_Page_153.pro
e003391d210bf969876434e52e392894
ba191eb1c31eac04409fe87d19ffb08a33000331
63372 F20101114_AADNFQ evans_j_Page_130.jpg
eb231e432b643130af911d3aaa9fac1b
62706b64fb04bdfd51b04899223895b4b48740a3
6862 F20101114_AADMZW evans_j_Page_098thm.jpg
aad4c194368aeb8de5b5ef3b8637b625
33ce8626dbd49681fd12813db189e7ce77407685
84493 F20101114_AADNGE evans_j_Page_032.jp2
11f75c60c4842ef6924e354ef516338d
5a7e1062762d4d7ed8d6b3444ee014413c9719a7
91530 F20101114_AADNFR evans_j_Page_020.jpg
0fda2931f00b6adfb1a589badafd5e09
23bf9fe8752ac9d6ce50d5c9465777e53988415e
6926 F20101114_AADNGF evans_j_Page_037thm.jpg
1b6fc402596116b43c6e8992cecda797
b393f7cda66be25cb22556a11abfbecd56ee09ce
25897 F20101114_AADNFS evans_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
a91efa7fcdfb731cbb1a2356f2057812
2b9af3b524b1c08d8a78709b95e3bc2c2d751e32
6407 F20101114_AADMZX evans_j_Page_041thm.jpg
134f768996b9987848e04c5a8c0192db
b7984a08f663d7c3146253a70db86450614605b1
38165 F20101114_AADNGG evans_j_Page_079.jp2
4e627b0b369934d543311e51d042039c
156f0cba78b96b323e8e9b6c221a80532d664229
77975 F20101114_AADNFT evans_j_Page_052.jpg
43c873149ec264adac4f8d1234e5792d
71ca90e714890c23048c291f47d82d70cc79cde7
118641 F20101114_AADMZY evans_j_Page_024.jp2
2ee9463966ec96cc99236515f78f748c
1db458afc28bf810458f3b0141c58f60fff0a6db
F20101114_AADNGH evans_j_Page_118.tif
6e9a30c48e05ecff2cd0f7048fe94349
4a17a44268e46681354224fcf06007a1ac40cba5
F20101114_AADNFU evans_j_Page_168.tif
335bb2b351820c23d5496ddd5af4ef4a
8f432a074991d24b8413edb36fbdb55daf39e809
F20101114_AADMZZ evans_j_Page_142.tif
0ed6001e10b64ccf209252597833d104
1b2c0c5ceb30fda7a507b200849e27132fa1499a
372 F20101114_AADNGI evans_j_Page_127.txt
dd6c28343f2002aab0bcc8a788c66096
77c87e4de0b68f15b48c96819e529272eac7eb1e
99966 F20101114_AADNFV evans_j_Page_022.jp2
27eb023e7a5e4a9d95824053c52d6bc8
10fc2903ec57681d924faeab2d676bfcc2ba7895
78319 F20101114_AADNGJ evans_j_Page_053.jpg
d24e0a93beab98efc31cee2ac3f5022f
d6ee57a4c59f413c02645bbbdfecc508dceb30df
F20101114_AADNFW evans_j_Page_096.tif
0137a272421122974f116adee4bc5cfb
269ffee9eb584a9af71994dbaf78196d012d3654
7552 F20101114_AADNGK evans_j_Page_164thm.jpg
9fbc29a6b4d7997dc4b7c0d96b4aa4df
2480a24a47bffd0e944b37a335a21b5a0b81133c
8076 F20101114_AADNFX evans_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
fe19204d8470c497a463fb47525c28b3
fbc57d9239d927dfc3071c3639db2a676b0a436c
119320 F20101114_AADNHA evans_j_Page_045.jp2
e2a4666e963b1867323fcecaacc3136d
26d99cf88a580d0b8ae9be8e80f33e7dbc47c494
447531 F20101114_AADNGL evans_j_Page_083.jp2
7dc42908ee0c346eed0151e9d8e97789
a35e9a713f440a6c0278a0343f6720fde0bb9801
24940 F20101114_AADNFY evans_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
927a044c9da1b01f75f61cc808ad6816
c79a254c7074b78efc62e597d6f190e61328bcdc
2146 F20101114_AADNHB evans_j_Page_113.txt
4b8cfdb3abd6162264a3860c74946bd0
268452bcebd1c0757d17ed8a40e7001fbfce5ce1
F20101114_AADNGM evans_j_Page_015.tif
c40abb9a35421419ca5a494f1d06d462
8d2b2f9a1ffecfe178ded3b09612ae52569277c1
F20101114_AADNFZ evans_j_Page_103.tif
d0cf68231ec5a0ed04d6755a6fbd4cac
06cf447bc13439502755ca74a49bcee3adbff41e
56055 F20101114_AADNHC evans_j_Page_142.pro
8dc3554061e74ac79db22c8f4d09f527
a2c2b0e926be3f6d3e24e3305c3ea3af50f4f4b3
F20101114_AADNGN evans_j_Page_024.tif
faabf9101f1528633135fc17a36da11a
d873a2c652b72822db1c3be160985c779ea434ea
F20101114_AADNHD evans_j_Page_130.tif
0b90aba47a59bf64f5e58c7d80b76f21
4f159b93f28d150e9470be5100f3e6f460111103
922 F20101114_AADNGO evans_j_Page_021.txt
e58544ddb9857a0cdb50bcee5fe3b236
bce69454547c8920ad85549aaba162d0cec12514
72355 F20101114_AADNGP evans_j_Page_014.jpg
f341108770aa179d2258b0acf4500cd0
31027f909fed7dc157f8912b973a1442f0def3e0
96268 F20101114_AADNHE evans_j_Page_147.jp2
3355bf40cee8bf713e40adc931e14ff8
a1f89cbdcc0571f6a3ab101330a8ebe63a61ec45
6428 F20101114_AADNGQ evans_j_Page_034thm.jpg
6470bc657eb14706384201f993c62145
e7aefe260d302abe6ae3529171500b7a6d964279
14031 F20101114_AADNHF evans_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
cc5c1641c3001ef8ee1b618cabdd3ff7
355adf1643ebfbe664bab57dbc2ffec0f5d55b6b
26194 F20101114_AADNGR evans_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
7aae2f466c02180c2797a544cf7161f3
77891d12ac3a90674bd46504f24103478b433b67
1960 F20101114_AADNHG evans_j_Page_022.txt
b16e5121ac3e9fa0294ccbe7d5c9b64f
bb5a4161c82dd39e92d6f316da5ce661de8ca70e
54586 F20101114_AADNGS evans_j_Page_110.pro
916d58a0dcf223d4c930b650980eb1c2
248adee4d64c294fa7c72f1af94ef39616d1f267
61579 F20101114_AADNHH evans_j_Page_127.jpg
fa252127d7fd224de37d2c0e187a3e93
3b93002f78d56716fd72acbecdbf7c41bbaa91be
F20101114_AADNGT evans_j_Page_067.tif
81d740088e9e7c238be8d1074435514e
6dbd83823bec3118227102ea1bfe7db4c2aa1961
1051972 F20101114_AADNHI evans_j_Page_081.jp2
6552261546797524f2f14a4f04e6324b
524ce1b3b79b22613f79ce6e3bccb7b849562ae3
2057 F20101114_AADNGU evans_j_Page_145.txt
0c48718cf884bb3b248b27972f61503b
6fa7ef00540ba836dba8e23f6e9c865a8c0f2e0b
F20101114_AADNHJ evans_j_Page_026.tif
baef0a9922e1dbf8b066b86824d4fbfa
360eb611997d2ecae85d2074def9c2c92918dcaa
79695 F20101114_AADNGV evans_j_Page_114.jpg
5a3292a9825858953efdfc80d048ceca
d02ef603d1677a788f88d478c89a5940182c297f
6060 F20101114_AADNHK evans_j_Page_023thm.jpg
3a814e334fb5d8792ce70bfa9de0b6eb
a1df70f2b533944bce6b68af77f858a784076ad1
6714 F20101114_AADNGW evans_j_Page_046thm.jpg
68f615ab69dff4885d762a6ac4e10f49
75996b8fdc380abac81224c377e2fee9550a9066
F20101114_AADNIA evans_j_Page_007.tif
f639fdf8f25ddd9fa7ff3af039f13c4d
846980d1c5ad57512eb8ff3547ab66f08d07a9fe
74730 F20101114_AADNHL evans_j_Page_060.jpg
6dc7027eef9206c4b810bf54a601389d
5ad4d30368dcc69b23a16fc095b117670ccf29d7
2234 F20101114_AADNGX evans_j_Page_102.txt
de1f3a633446b146ca3f9622c836ce81
fbce0b769eaa79f1fe5c282fdba3aa9f095405c5
117879 F20101114_AADNIB evans_j_Page_096.jp2
520b2c06ff7dbcf4b6e6aa5c366baea2
17b321cf9ba0117ce61398240c77aa7e66f91217
119709 F20101114_AADNHM evans_j_Page_056.jp2
7995440e225dce2963da015f2aeab7f1
e6a8c02f69b7e177336db06ddfc6297e3e176652
F20101114_AADNGY evans_j_Page_121.txt
d5da1f15d6e307895bf8c0055517714e
ff34ef8f0a139c35d8efddfe764a00db0d7a0a0f
F20101114_AADNIC evans_j_Page_009.tif
799987e1c754ddaabb2a7dbeca27e9b5
6757d32f71f24da1cc470315acb4064089467061
2144 F20101114_AADNHN evans_j_Page_110.txt
c40580f9dde03c0f7cddc9f0caf95f73
c2c2f1ec0be94c68f2dd9cc8f0f73f985e825a41
2212 F20101114_AADNGZ evans_j_Page_016.txt
6c63c12e00ee017b82152a443df71857
b09037023af27644a02e080fead335208fd6c7f6
75035 F20101114_AADNHO evans_j_Page_059.jpg
8ac8eb845a891c1fb1e20e811abca233
cbe2a39807a7b6537ea58c48813627b66a012abf
F20101114_AADNID evans_j_Page_095thm.jpg
3f0bef94837bef5f7c31da7f0e7960d0
3f3b91824b560c523c970be2e07d526a7cceb5a7
7066 F20101114_AADNHP evans_j_Page_156thm.jpg
743110e17172638ae5a4d9be03d8e398
7f789f49ecf81a9bbe5e4605db9af40b00440d21
6702 F20101114_AADNIE evans_j_Page_018thm.jpg
ecc9cde5b8086e2d73086b23f24c3331
ec04cb1bb6ea76e83d13355f84f68fe96b5ea002
77610 F20101114_AADNHQ evans_j_Page_075.jpg
fe25e4c14396a5c6bd27f1bbc7d66136
2cfc6761e383c2c9c086460a7c422bb48a56631f
F20101114_AADNHR evans_j_Page_021.tif
2ce125f4cca497b4fa9e4332a4f28940
8f07458aaefe02547fd6e9fbf9ef1b3922cd9142
56154 F20101114_AADNIF evans_j_Page_015.pro
9ece889af5f1a363f1f623ffbe947b66
0a5303aa2129a269f111ff91dc8c06a04fb63540
7172 F20101114_AADNHS evans_j_Page_077thm.jpg
8a0083bff74d0d9e7274bfa7c8c5c982
16ba436a7148394b2522b0e7741137525912c105
26746 F20101114_AADNIG evans_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
6ae57843b52e25cbf58fb0609fafed47
3b779614b0e245a3bfacb318f80f34ccd8203d6a
2491 F20101114_AADNHT evans_j_Page_149.txt
f3086d059978f4ec03f30eae1e76a8b0
7aa97e4ebf206f85d931caea27832d7bbbf00f40
6760 F20101114_AADNIH evans_j_Page_071thm.jpg
66a305e642cd9d8278bfcbbc56607b33
39ca09510bb78ef2a14aac26ab1fd7d5038109e7
62840 F20101114_AADNHU evans_j_Page_009.jpg
0b5a452156f84f5b76381b826a8c3973
f9e21e257620a0a49a7e0d0535d164a627791ede
27023 F20101114_AADNII evans_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
bf1eb01c7286ffb44a0d455b93b2181d
e0756bf22124b123cb1ce246e2c1dce71f89f8c8
79422 F20101114_AADNHV evans_j_Page_031.jpg
eaa214f756f62ecc59e5cee592f1f477
9c4fb1a16abc9a48adb26c91e8419b7c37018b8e
89617 F20101114_AADNIJ evans_j_Page_152.jpg
a4101755bf78811ecf708ec0c1adae48
7d29a465cd6132e01fa7c8097c1cf6a078cafd35
98231 F20101114_AADNHW evans_j_Page_133.jp2
1697638443bc2b8cfa4424a8eef2232d
dbdfb9643165cdd356f1adf3e6d0deed5b4a67a9
25445 F20101114_AADNIK evans_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
f66fdcbc6fd63f7dbddbd870a00afc92
17681a7a6ab3917f053fe5f49f308902e2ed9b25
77968 F20101114_AADNHX evans_j_Page_168.jp2
e79ac92c7fcb18906dee96ea48e1e7bd
52127c1cbcc43f7eae4bb3506d955cf99b17a3b3
43719 F20101114_AADNJA evans_j_Page_148.pro
1da36204bdc51e60ffae99bc1d767038
23ff4b549b9c04064f1006ded226e773737cdcb0
F20101114_AADNIL evans_j_Page_037.txt
7c2881178b6e8534d2394d41e6390448
314ce1660db10b877862ad90f3557f109cd1f759
54791 F20101114_AADNHY evans_j_Page_075.pro
15d72b6ce3382b471e360b8cec04da2d
f99f68891a915f6564c4495f41a05c78b057647a
52532 F20101114_AADNJB evans_j_Page_120.pro
0b94fbebb5e4145b89d83f57071d6ce8
788d9beefbf78c3681775a3aab3e22af29d8ee43
75208 F20101114_AADNIM evans_j_Page_091.jpg
d4e7932fc828f4556509ae96a15d016c
6334927ecbd5ce3e4e991c2b99f9bc80455d3c2c
26711 F20101114_AADNHZ evans_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
71fea6953d143d86439c537959ae0557
3e3d408102a1d085456b0d79e90a8e724b430cd3
26399 F20101114_AADMGA evans_j_Page_158.QC.jpg
76f8de56fcea1343101b2d0f01ed8f4f
f3d78444e777c4f44ad540da1a1201f28114a8d5
3575 F20101114_AADNJC evans_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
d9885c5044c37a1677bc25fdb3e1e842
bfb83a8d4f5f24c155ae7d063f9aa90d276552fa
128121 F20101114_AADNIN evans_j_Page_160.jp2
b89fba4bf867b1bd571ab11034b8617d
c4b1bfe82cbab3fadafb7d8f6ff71ba5a4e9b6e2
F20101114_AADMGB evans_j_Page_143.tif
c16c31073c896190305ed3adf58462f4
fe294b54cb2d1d5f9a494496b735fe45d2d2f6a1
F20101114_AADNJD evans_j_Page_047.txt
c53fd48367dcdf060ba9e5eec03f66f9
ec4abaf26877d0931e0466472a5f75048a64d6c0
7037 F20101114_AADNIO evans_j_Page_024thm.jpg
536cb24b059fb01d898605e72956a668
3f732ce5fc781f022089af3f48ade3673a52939a
119281 F20101114_AADMGC evans_j_Page_036.jp2
7b18dca892b79297247640f6ec305f94
e39f7fb80f4db7569c8446be6e34c7685902cc62
6296 F20101114_AADNJE evans_j_Page_133thm.jpg
40045bb236635f05fd705a2cbe12fd25
536d0ba0a765b62547bdd12b101bae3e1ffac0fb
6816 F20101114_AADNIP evans_j_Page_019thm.jpg
067fc151678bed3e10904f1f78dd7d15
c3908f599af3748f7b69123b4232e26a20af2104
F20101114_AADMGD evans_j_Page_153.tif
ec09ec353b9f901a1bbceafe47b2ac5b
0ebb46365d31cb84dc490cd532bd8eb3b6a1a22d
F20101114_AADNJF evans_j_Page_128.tif
559791f96c4bd2c6bd2242bbaaa9ae97
6eb718b853e6ed9eb431d745606ffd2b0dc06e8a
1051957 F20101114_AADNIQ evans_j_Page_155.jp2
02efbcec4a6d32b3d39bcfeb4b9a7d62
f761e65243baea9f25be4c00a058291ea257b858
25398 F20101114_AADNIR evans_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
6bd10c5ebd0a4f50c6a26dd2aeb7e840
2a22fc232881833dfe5620edc527df04424aa5b9
59376 F20101114_AADMGE evans_j_Page_165.pro
8f0fe273aa89552949330d5b87262da9
75be45868939bd6bdad5936573d629f4d81c7ca7
24007 F20101114_AADNJG evans_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
a3120ee88e81190e831d9cd7d39411af
08fec57c57d4d23550f9065f5c9f5912d2cf6d45
F20101114_AADNIS evans_j_Page_017.tif
dfcb74b6c53f2e17a900779509ce4f18
9803224289c8fb57fda633ab5b7b33c127d263a2
118426 F20101114_AADMGF evans_j_Page_113.jp2
274daeb4ee2f9d1cc871360fd89395ef
2226568f79d64d2e9ea5f0fb2d0fa852a179abbc
7518 F20101114_AADNJH evans_j_Page_153thm.jpg
45f867a6b006cfcbdd1535105c6395aa
0abe8ff55334821650e1cc557bf7296b1fcc8e32
85941 F20101114_AADNIT evans_j_Page_016.jpg
30e9211522e552a3bf72d1ace7420f9b
ce60e8fa31d309d1888ee5dc92fb11742aa3aea2
6722 F20101114_AADMGG evans_j_Page_049thm.jpg
982ab6e3f59c04df94281de736ea6c64
5bdc601ca56b83af3a5c7e983017d543e13b7d84
F20101114_AADNJI evans_j_Page_016thm.jpg
2d5bab13ed1eac448a3e840892abdb9b
430820d0877879c0d642d192d705502959bc049a
2122 F20101114_AADNIU evans_j_Page_090.txt
82d848ce45e645ced4b4333f26b99cf3
77523c4109389bd2cefba8133cfc554cb9dc2bba
6942 F20101114_AADMGH evans_j_Page_166thm.jpg
70483fee587432b84c87af81d85a0807
2048e42c1ee281ed2f9985a9e3a86495abef74ff
4544 F20101114_AADNJJ evans_j_Page_080thm.jpg
73c0fed3646f8cea27adad8a25afb591
88f3f3559c1166d6ef520685722183197107d06f
2151 F20101114_AADMFT evans_j_Page_075.txt
602ad83713793b88c2200eb0347829e2
8b52bef43de227b0768a047b18924c125e2018ae
1727 F20101114_AADNIV evans_j_Page_148.txt
7c25bd25de72703f696c7e263ffeedcc
82110186f830c4fb1dc128f6ac51e1937afa402c
52300 F20101114_AADMGI evans_j_Page_145.pro
9c7c7e2dcfb0d963515fded3bd53c891
2d8bcd10f8282e00b7fe5d7c3d176f8e73a4e3f7
75683 F20101114_AADNJK evans_j_Page_092.jpg
bc45a67ffb677b88ff0fea04334c7b60
2074a771497ffe164bf3c4e6a587a65f97cfa614
2159 F20101114_AADMFU evans_j_Page_086.txt
fd62babcac6f8b528dbc62324888f84b
079104a2b9c370b788a4eb8315b05c0a7b0ba407
59525 F20101114_AADNIW evans_j_Page_158.pro
7388afa718b7cd03b83f091cd36caf64
ae5a57248ce18c4b8b378c5d361656ac332b825e
F20101114_AADNKA evans_j_Page_144.tif
ea1524c581c349c47a19c04242481ab7
c809130f02907d64342360b4f285bbde0382f798
122639 F20101114_AADMGJ evans_j_Page_103.jp2
15fdfc69a1a3fd0718ea63ba51a49f03
0bafeec951f6969b604160fc118e347695a464f0
14648 F20101114_AADNJL evans_j_Page_048.jpg
ac842da4416c64f547930a88a171b810
91d82b98d65e8b1c791a12b487e1a28259c136b6
361 F20101114_AADMFV evans_j_Page_128.txt
0d731eff97c6a556d5d82b8b1038f939
943214aed6458213dc2128114019b7aee84085ac
78495 F20101114_AADNIX evans_j_Page_111.jpg
85d7c62055bd32c02017d4185df9a4a8
4d5a2e5872d27ab5c1be34992fcb1d2178d23845
6899 F20101114_AADNKB evans_j_Page_036thm.jpg
1a776cf267ad0c365f09212e33a13718
2e17b4cc7dd742803469d937c6a41e053de82331
2158 F20101114_AADMGK evans_j_Page_045.txt
0fadab24f67f7d31a77382b5b38642dc
dadacce96b937ac359e4d904c96d85622c925cca
76587 F20101114_AADNJM evans_j_Page_051.jpg
850c83ce84258ef14e9b57de6083cb6e
79f83cf4a5c3b87ae92de3cf13e7497819cfbede
F20101114_AADMFW evans_j_Page_105.txt
17bda850038b3dae24adb3651798e9a4
a8cd05ef2889e3b0c6f79ecc6ab9d68c96abed85
7153 F20101114_AADNIY evans_j_Page_088thm.jpg
da0fee688620f7d117979cba5e21c329
485e1a17da02a53b04b6e0cb1cc21e72c924608b
F20101114_AADNKC evans_j_Page_158.tif
627c230d2fe9f79579b3f16983e531a2
738df281afd2cd931f96f4fb33a0e548c0d2a897
7036 F20101114_AADMHA evans_j_Page_057thm.jpg
e8527eb2ee993badb3d819c805d59cc1
e3e0d372e37b30777eb9a713deee81be0aea80fb
57973 F20101114_AADMGL evans_j_Page_124.jpg
cde01661261dcb91295cb7d5d0cececc
4927868b382a81ad77d80516b5eabe59721e6f9f
78699 F20101114_AADNJN evans_j_Page_019.jpg
7d0c45fd343e74f94f48b58ab1db8534
c211caedd6868a5953bbc0fd21c135146631ffb9
6989 F20101114_AADMFX evans_j_Page_066thm.jpg
986ab348a9ef0590f0b9dccf3515d6ed
eb039dcaf15dd05027379ae0846c30f53315076c
118498 F20101114_AADNIZ evans_j_Page_027.jp2
247565b869c005af6b2d6b868b5f9db7
de401505193e7bfaf6db2b558bb106644b97da8b
78428 F20101114_AADNKD evans_j_Page_063.jpg
e94ea75bc5ec3b79faf18cc47f081338
af0c4ab17a8357def68810f92a7eebdbebea8b5d
6903 F20101114_AADMHB evans_j_Page_062thm.jpg
c3a03690193a85f3f75eb0f2b586027c
e0732dca0c2fd29c7fa66b8f6215222f40a4230b
117143 F20101114_AADMGM evans_j_Page_026.jp2
567de0e3c294dd9d78a814e6de6fd9b3
f23ae642de9c0667fafca0699f32962fd2062bb1
97521 F20101114_AADNJO evans_j_Page_159.jpg
8b7b147c791416d55acd9987025f9cde
da3bee2eaf16383a75267a6fdc1e76c6ebd63459
F20101114_AADMFY evans_j_Page_086.tif
a9e1ce99446f66a991d03b4d38424216
f26a814261b5e0823171d827fda15387414adc0b
124773 F20101114_AADNKE evans_j_Page_077.jp2
2ffee4cf0953162e70032229e316fde8
0f86a1ecdeb431e9c7d63b75beb0327f510b1725
78278 F20101114_AADMHC evans_j_Page_068.jpg
f06fe8a161e101237f80a541bc95cfe8
97108e7dc83bad594606c0187e54bec2dba40f41
78480 F20101114_AADMGN evans_j_Page_122.jpg
408759b384cbef2e2f70e3dd1be7e3cb
d9d5bb4508879a3059d96fe3cbc1a3df0bfc4a16
6936 F20101114_AADNJP evans_j_Page_113thm.jpg
796200d308cda5d9826fa027647d421e
062b6eb019a1e9646946c3ba22ee9bc07ff51ef6
76927 F20101114_AADMFZ evans_j_Page_093.jpg
a5747f59e86be9fc2d39034c5273f163
47888103aa0b99eb5752002f8179c2cf91aceef7
2073 F20101114_AADNKF evans_j_Page_092.txt
0fb660843a193db387e3d9f515dd4acf
62434107505429c24c9528b058e2ba80d323540c
4541 F20101114_AADMHD evans_j_Page_082thm.jpg
fe7572837a1c04399e90246ddfc9cb7d
3cf30701aef85302559c83ecf034fdd2cb70217e
54320 F20101114_AADMGO evans_j_Page_058.pro
65a71eec96f36439633108d6bbda61e8
7509d895997e5d3f6634735812a2292c117dea31
63142 F20101114_AADNJQ evans_j_Page_133.jpg
1ab97544b4060d214cf6d8178387038e
a48515730a821d1266d894d33334c5a7b3d31a39
76499 F20101114_AADNKG evans_j_Page_108.jpg
3b7023968d6f746e230aef4d0d0a7f8a
011566671d122daaead222a4d0b4d0ddd83f0ad5
24226 F20101114_AADMHE evans_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
8966674edf7d680e091c3b9dc644c532
69680ba2470310fdfedbe9c8e185af625d3b6583
F20101114_AADMGP evans_j_Page_045.jpg
1ccc06df119055b1234743690842b59b
5510b59cb17f83522e93a6a36eeb1c604f5c210c
61936 F20101114_AADNJR evans_j_Page_150.pro
df70ee17d7754562ae6a9bb34cad27e3
3e0bb62a9d1e6fdd6dd355be7e6c3b41dd5ab873
78833 F20101114_AADMGQ evans_j_Page_056.jpg
33034166e40e2f1c3f69114d6dba2bd4
055560bdc551753edb24ebaf6cbe21864a4a3e27
1853 F20101114_AADNJS evans_j_Page_133.txt
c56da3404589e88a1fc147142a89f6bd
d0e030aa0888000b5b1e3a60738cae1eb72772d0
2189 F20101114_AADNKH evans_j_Page_136.txt
c6df299cdbf1cbfef448ae1d71a272cb
d375e544ab01e5f327a45253fa0713fddeb1e645
2070 F20101114_AADMHF evans_j_Page_050.txt
7b21c5fe9e836cbcb26ca65dcba50e3c
80af599a327aa61d56117570fdb35765676ee068
115695 F20101114_AADMGR evans_j_Page_039.jp2
d3c9959b6c11ec13a011fb73ae66dfc0
67884ade31adb70b8a00b39c3e49b1676b3daff6
25461 F20101114_AADNJT evans_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
8562b32704c296d5163037e1af527b85
9298d1a96109c3b33252f2bb3aac391010f4749a
13951 F20101114_AADNKI evans_j_Page_048.jp2
b3111a8f8dad2836c7bed19e8c322bef
8c0d974a111171a7263f31613edaa24a6e8505aa
F20101114_AADMHG evans_j_Page_019.tif
290323e0be8a7cdc5e2a1f73006feb4a
ffa35188860abe7fecd8be35b59e2250067b7165
2492 F20101114_AADMGS evans_j_Page_159.txt
5d7d5463e1a27195f99bd61d9e7aed24
41179e9a3716dff06d4202fdb4b702e474eccdc8
80018 F20101114_AADNJU evans_j_Page_088.jpg
8041899679af2a255e4493bb84feea74
196a13c2bb1faa88454bd239a599c30c21068190
1051977 F20101114_AADNKJ evans_j_Page_154.jp2
e55d48f056557df1f3cc6aa79866026e
da1436009970d6a6227ca23bd713a7972a4f7e21
2174 F20101114_AADMHH evans_j_Page_051.txt
4978374a403b49deae07fdc860ed44ec
b2a9a8c588e4075fb1ca9c901d6881eb8bf8e7a6
F20101114_AADMGT evans_j_Page_073.tif
5e7b7555e0b979267cfc5c0df96fd1c1
abb271997c3bd343e858edb8f38a69bbb68dd710
F20101114_AADNJV evans_j_Page_022.tif
80977c824121397b4c72d340f47b3fd4
993a361b8c0459199a1d17f80419c46e2dcea980
F20101114_AADNKK evans_j_Page_107.tif
b39fb3499ddb10e3b4ff9b768d9cf0e5
0f09a24478820cd1b9ff317cf48b8be7ac897789
52874 F20101114_AADMHI evans_j_Page_108.pro
e3c5d076232ff8878571244a7e10b43f
6a2353e1c6c63c10589c38d97108933c63808c60
F20101114_AADMGU evans_j_Page_115thm.jpg
c37c082eef1e9ae89a488d5a9407bf23
854a9fa025d2ac77600d32492d7aa6c81609ec9f
24594 F20101114_AADNJW evans_j_Page_160.QC.jpg
53d26253e788679575caf7d8b87a309f
b038f1a9387fd0f0591ea65e90c9a4fdbc0d8ae6
76978 F20101114_AADNLA evans_j_Page_067.jpg
38cf1061571cbbfd165476bdb0cfe27c
a1d13bf5bcc6630f0790468c4abdb42c83ccabc3
78156 F20101114_AADNKL evans_j_Page_025.jpg
9619aab7ef3a83018e42464a56a5116d
0c86021e7c6ca384d6fd168c59e7311c2a826f36
79434 F20101114_AADMHJ evans_j_Page_030.jpg
06c2917a975d106bbed34187c3aeaba0
22407ee00254d6833495e6ab7ea85102f3765d9b
148664 F20101114_AADMGV evans_j_Page_008.jp2
3c6889359b0e6c1fa14459d9f922f48b
c9e7403b8f4a175f47b6a446f20f02f32aebcbd4
3286 F20101114_AADNJX evans_j_Page_008.pro
799da42ff57b49744dfa5e7ae148deea
d003f93fbd5172de3853d43a2380b646cba57fce
55915 F20101114_AADNLB evans_j_Page_137.pro
f36f74ba7737a23bd4bc4c3753d1deb9
c164f5133646f8fefaf0ed502f0be6894e2a2907
72383 F20101114_AADNKM evans_j_Page_078.pro
08bc035f60a81aeef6602aaff3c1a6ec
452035936fc89d084f20d68f38543e2388563105
5048 F20101114_AADMHK evans_j_Page_009thm.jpg
804baff897789c883297a3e2eaf487c3
3448075cc5c6008c913bcf4f181d1f9cae970d37
1051965 F20101114_AADMGW evans_j_Page_016.jp2
7c75643f4fb3dde7c56144a6f224c4df
8eb7a92182a720676efbd2289859a3935843e45c
F20101114_AADNJY evans_j_Page_092.tif
e6f917ebe63c1cc3b2b40b9143fb3f24
4ff8639d8962d1c0dc594f1f1be9f87a4d259559
118564 F20101114_AADNLC evans_j_Page_044.jp2
d4d95298e27568fc14887a399bb41929
8d4d211540da871f0b4a15b55b3e1b27edd9c37c
14897 F20101114_AADNKN evans_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
596f22615bdc805385f2544c6d69c6aa
7758500bdc332331243e0a63f0b844b29ae84539
23843 F20101114_AADNJZ evans_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
16c99065d54adc804bdd813f24fc57b1
441347e5cadabef7819aa2aff1cd0d8aae78820c
F20101114_AADMHL evans_j_Page_150.tif
cc2575ee7b78f0b5734d12f015b999e4
31515f1458ba24e254b49481befee1b42da21741
119095 F20101114_AADMGX evans_j_Page_063.jp2
987b8f63ea0655eb60d9b34a92a940ba
e0ce1c71c5d56db178380e0c41939741bc377c24
F20101114_AADMIA evans_j_Page_028.tif
1172e39adc7c6a2c20a45c7afc115912
47a3342589ba644f357bf45ca261508707535e94
135218 F20101114_AADNLD evans_j_Page_150.jp2
c2fe987061ab1081d977777c043048a2
f81c9c466bd67e31cf9188d696f75b25244a5e3b
117122 F20101114_AADNKO evans_j_Page_108.jp2
b447f344dcfb4a016dda4521473c7360
a724994d59710821db27c8b2137891d9504d8ee6
192 F20101114_AADMHM evans_j_Page_048.txt
7fee4f8b499fa8588e118151230069f9
835248d6b6bee486f199f2e5e38c2b64b46a65a7
6650 F20101114_AADMGY evans_j_Page_131thm.jpg
edf79fa244cdd4a27681ec6be739b5d8
5b551b08f2f44ea3c5bc2f075b937e0696ccaa6b
24379 F20101114_AADMIB evans_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
f0cb08b0a05de62e547af19bb2cfe3d5
0a87a31052cd0cbc0652378a10f7f35b98d06b19
6751 F20101114_AADNLE evans_j_Page_134thm.jpg
8a8999eab0d97e0adb506928e7c17cd9
62f79248ae5d9ecfe645fc96283606cd7711fad7
80943 F20101114_AADNKP evans_j_Page_073.jpg
47cc24409a9ee7a64ccceb9d7e9392ef
e2ff07ccde96d85278a9cd9ab5cfe9df34b87c56
118878 F20101114_AADMHN evans_j_Page_100.jp2
91467d7ca0603c56e55762b6cedc2621
574448077713ad4b44f3f13e2bf880d249ec65b0
6986 F20101114_AADMGZ evans_j_Page_117thm.jpg
189f58efb80b9bba99a3f4a3f9df70cf
e05d2ce969370446d858133bba7428f0fbc308a2
F20101114_AADMIC evans_j_Page_042.txt
c7674cac620274fac98445100f1c2a5b
362154bcb268d288ded70f7845e4e45543710c5e
F20101114_AADNLF evans_j_Page_085.tif
19d5aaa90519085a23690c88c668ce75
ebe1993500c399b9896db117743cfa08495b0efc
78265 F20101114_AADNKQ evans_j_Page_037.jpg
411dc5ebaee7386074c17bd7faf32984
b715c5b76126b4f52ac57e1adc93ff5e330ca092
2162 F20101114_AADMHO evans_j_Page_063.txt
b954e49f668dc6352c00318edb6d860f
530461dca3373288dc906d624cf0d9fd0914741e
17266 F20101114_AADMID evans_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
f98b37df99965abf55808b0ebfc1237c
be8f8e0de34f699c3764eca943ba1b0fd624af03
77609 F20101114_AADNLG evans_j_Page_113.jpg
981de7c093e9580c3bccf8ccd17f1ef0
f58eca571c065f0b9ad2be9ba2f09da5bb9a858d
F20101114_AADNKR evans_j_Page_013.tif
f0e63e86bb08c8527b7b0713a7e7a5a1
2cbc6b18c51a60858c1711287590e979e63154b6
6675 F20101114_AADMHP evans_j_Page_026thm.jpg
97783b2dec3254e79fa30095f02b2ab1
2a96eaed5324e788488609666dc391b665265fd7
56898 F20101114_AADMIE evans_j_Page_140.pro
84a37b194b1af703135ff6f14b17daa1
5221bad905fa893beb928b2aca4aedfcad3401ee
27238 F20101114_AADNLH evans_j_Page_162.QC.jpg
548a978fb1177d9c4239bdb86c8d4559
b87a69625be154177bd890eabc2b6249002884f9
6627 F20101114_AADNKS evans_j_Page_040thm.jpg
44247a586d4145d7dbb5e003324baa94
3192ce70ba50f8aba65ba9813707646425a48d7d
25417 F20101114_AADMIF evans_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
b488581263b64acfd96e55bc9a0a21a3
796b3ec5510e9421f1c9be7c2f66065d6426f65b
25477 F20101114_AADMHQ evans_j_Page_149.QC.jpg
25758f7b63419bfa089c48cb707189d0
647ae157523b7f28b8a5f164f0adff97b51d450b
37855 F20101114_AADNKT evans_j_Page_021.jpg
48d966caa5002fcb3db7c17ed9faf75f
195ab6d694b3085e7ed2b52d0fde042e1a58b272
6909 F20101114_AADMHR evans_j_Page_091thm.jpg
d94647b5c02e59a4989c9a9eaec753a4
6d59618f1f78746a334dc81174cbf2c8a90dcef6
791 F20101114_AADNLI evans_j_Page_084.txt
5dcb7c0f5f10179f02e602d62e2f55c4
e9cc01f47de894a9d9b40ffe790a899af279b305
F20101114_AADNKU evans_j_Page_112.jpg
e5d035dc8bc9f13bc03293d624490dcf
49bd38e6aa8de493981c7915b643e9596662fbd5
123114 F20101114_AADMIG evans_j_Page_057.jp2
188feac0ae4c8d740abb70ed000555bc
75e0f261821300a829a07006b87410900b82a802
2281 F20101114_AADMHS evans_j_Page_073.txt
2fc59e26250c7f1c5dad4cf267aaadcb
7f299e9a063d51f51a4d270e04e8116265a27be9
7178 F20101114_AADNLJ evans_j_Page_035thm.jpg
1f9b5fe397afb7301184e770929c2605
ae3eeb6a250b8be2e94f74998b3d7e4042d85a3b
63985 F20101114_AADNKV evans_j_Page_163.pro
6f805e9f3d36f206d03e762ea3d42882
7d495bef715d1f886c6bfcd5bbf6dc12cd9c72c7
71539 F20101114_AADMIH evans_j_Page_038.jpg
d246b2ef057463410948d88c1e3519fc
5e465ee25f11e39aee3e5ea4b0b3f8087a88b67b
F20101114_AADMHT evans_j_Page_023.tif
f85506226afc5d23fc1b6ed53bb57ab0
11b9fec601f16036bbee85485f492f2795bd9084
117913 F20101114_AADNLK evans_j_Page_112.jp2
6b32fc242a031564411627c0a7412eb7
6b963fc7308269aeca53407709128dbeb395cc46
4768 F20101114_AADNKW evans_j_Page_048.pro
623a6cde91a9aaeb59f2138a653ebc79
75d0975fd3293bcc76c50cf8f20a7c548ff21ca3
F20101114_AADMII evans_j_Page_060.tif
b47bb51a062bd7d2d7730918e3a9018d
4c4a1fb24f9b35198962b2eb4297eced8ec1117f
F20101114_AADMHU evans_j_Page_069.tif
18feea23a46d67f500b1914c1852861b
97a912885a5744012312e05e526e05bdddb0e8ca
55400 F20101114_AADNMA evans_j_Page_027.pro
68328193c1f48f44e339aeb1836c686a
78c440cb33d78c5a32f94d2c5fc73fb4f036bf61
55838 F20101114_AADNLL evans_j_Page_122.pro
75647fab7aa193c46b5697006f972274
978def51f3210bf42b81186b3db61f1cf49bcefd
2259 F20101114_AADNKX evans_j_Page_003.pro
ee80d9ab7a1b49611aa80d27a86bfc05
c171996f332d9a62b1bd46e199fdb01558bf9477
6927 F20101114_AADMIJ evans_j_Page_043thm.jpg
1c9af2242405089871eb192be618afff
be5c180fccffaec19daf79a5e4704bd83fe85ebb
54542 F20101114_AADMHV evans_j_Page_051.pro
9875ed582ebd0166641a51392b2207d7
051b58902af6512bafd0315a61b8e0cf891bdda9
25801 F20101114_AADNMB evans_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
fc28ae1c3552a94051dcad3984a928a8
65379e161b518d91deac76eaa61352e3f4bde96b
F20101114_AADNLM evans_j_Page_020.tif
0c08b63abd545edb99018d09197771bb
a10f71ca71e23258b4968597e5578ebe9e8b8789
55591 F20101114_AADNKY evans_j_Page_042.pro
5bc38f0e51db054d958259b38e47e63f
c6c7118b48e614c5920fcbaa63fab96921fba77a
28462 F20101114_AADMIK evans_j_Page_164.QC.jpg
5d0bc4aa85eda8d80f62b769914a2fb3
b5010f114223455d6df4800f08e403fcaa69e6d9
124228 F20101114_AADMHW evans_j_Page_106.jp2
210d2851b5e005146a8a60fa0193e4c0
b576dd0faf79b772dd75142ce6894492bc07f6a5
17851 F20101114_AADNMC evans_j_Page_168.QC.jpg
d64bfe48a3c80ad0c3ffb28bc01bd9b4
3de2c6c66845065245e82d3de55190d5ee8e588d
119369 F20101114_AADNLN evans_j_Page_109.jp2
a9fbb689428ba6e5dfddfaea965a4f6e
b1d401ada0624a2e840fae2f5cdb31ef8b7ce685
F20101114_AADNKZ evans_j_Page_108.tif
56f3516e52ea5b352ca6d2d4471b939d
72035ecf5aa822d496ed09f588daf82600423a2b
37793 F20101114_AADMJA evans_j_Page_032.pro
79cd422ff961f456bc19ba2270b5bdbd
d1eb58635d93dc9fb4e8279276bc6a94aee4fda4
F20101114_AADMIL evans_j_Page_166.tif
e91b18712a08b40d0199867272b7db70
bbabd2c6959b3dfcfd54c08f4dcb4482aafc4ba0
53711 F20101114_AADMHX evans_j_Page_030.pro
16c9bd8309816708f088a4e832698fb2
ead3ebf4734f7f68c4554627505afbc1198fb9da
F20101114_AADNMD evans_j_Page_149thm.jpg
b3e0b6c9fd8724327f427da47fe71be1
1968b4c442cefa2dcc1f9fb103b00a16d2ae9106
26204 F20101114_AADNLO evans_j_Page_150.QC.jpg
a79b0297374a6ef68fed3f0786f5a83a
a2a6ad53350f618b505b08ac1483ea73f252fe8d
5336 F20101114_AADMJB evans_j_Page_125thm.jpg
65d8cda2811cce7f2315daa8f508d451
4f42a61744c378349d0b090a2a2c56c67772d077
7296 F20101114_AADMIM evans_j_Page_064thm.jpg
37c51df6a8750cc7349cb845acb9218e
080bb043ca4fb749a3b5de4988f949c2a65ffe9e
76620 F20101114_AADMHY evans_j_Page_099.jpg
43e9ed617c1a04a1b97807ef4742c67e
a8a96a76ebf03a224e32b0b3d8ccdca82c308796
51912 F20101114_AADNME evans_j_Page_091.pro
e24d19d0ec8dc2737d87f7db15be2b11
edb2e05680eec4c493c4462f2e41e2a98d312603
F20101114_AADNLP evans_j_Page_071.tif
b5723bc4393df55fde0f1711cdf60a48
87c1f00baceec2e87b16399d3c1313bcb60636b9
53194 F20101114_AADMJC evans_j_Page_154.pro
db3dc14f41441a6d9814e3c3aec10231
22abd08fa544053bdfbf25957dc9f511b20c402c
553 F20101114_AADMIN evans_j_Page_001.txt
e337f26a984b99dbb3ff319265609917
f39b973721f5abeb58c7c1673dd60cbfc1f29f73
76188 F20101114_AADMHZ evans_j_Page_024.jpg
a75de299f37cec70e0f563e3fbfdabd0
ecd891236259fd78d0e5dec29bad929ce9947fb3
6900 F20101114_AADNMF evans_j_Page_136thm.jpg
89819f7a663cfee62000118e1c4d5ad0
a4fb15d313dc378b4df8ccffd208d1829008b105
55383 F20101114_AADNLQ evans_j_Page_071.pro
37fee96445ddd4936ae7008871c13a1f
0534879b49769e9aab249dd0b9821b1ac2a4ab43
7158 F20101114_AADMJD evans_j_Page_135thm.jpg
02a8c06bbbf833371c0dadf42e70de5c
ee8c83705d31fdc3cfbe719fbd21e94313fac4ff
F20101114_AADMIO evans_j_Page_106.tif
f32ae66cdafba998beee5a4c691ad7ef
a13fb92800c68b7c59926f7446d9c9b9a9f070ab
26374 F20101114_AADNMG evans_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
48b013be4ef99cf4ca58e4fb9a14b216
f19b4173de6ec89637e9699204af539080c001c3
54403 F20101114_AADNLR evans_j_Page_096.pro
9c82a9bff16c4a8aa225f4a974419e6d
10e5cec2c49209ddf988421cad20ec55bae93fb7
1104 F20101114_AADMJE evans_j_Page_167.txt
9383156d8799c7aebaa627422e459515
a01c3709e61ed1dc7c01dec9c4bed71e24ab2621
2650 F20101114_AADMIP evans_j_Page_164.txt
fd6eb81ecd0d10a3a42c17d584e616b4
287bbc74e5c94bf3d46c42fa8b23b6a52032c721
F20101114_AADNMH evans_j_Page_005.tif
e48da3318b5e7f66c2a5e9d75ec8d9e4
9c5684fa2e6195739f675166b9c493c9071ac60e
2160 F20101114_AADNLS evans_j_Page_040.txt
d51742dcbd42f056fbcbd14076b867ec
34bc3f5615a8a321ea020388aa74d83d49241757
52293 F20101114_AADMJF evans_j_Page_086.pro
30f01232447b2699f25b515bf3870c39
df8d912a57025d7434ad9b8fc5c602fb5917cc29
F20101114_AADMIQ evans_j_Page_150thm.jpg
7848f44b3182e60d4ce1f429be186c36
dc5a6c04e53717502b16f40577a9e4828800305f
118852 F20101114_AADNMI evans_j_Page_134.jp2
daf1f2b7ff3cca77d1c59bd2e33c7ec3
b40b592dcb0863544802f95c0425b8a29cc2bcbe
F20101114_AADNLT evans_j_Page_027.tif
6e973053d610dfbf2172c302e72efba4
3377c645ab2ea2a0169253a367ed938d8f6e72c6
F20101114_AADMJG evans_j_Page_113.tif
9fe054eb7e410725d270b7ecbc689349
1dd69a25351d1f1c3caa3ce9d01d97bf97ae07d6
6002 F20101114_AADMIR evans_j_Page_130thm.jpg
d91c07243c06c51909ac6050dee65f21
7adf25d176a9637ca8c272cda6daa6e18b5260bc
24678 F20101114_AADNLU evans_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
0fcd5223b1bf59de96d996c5d30484e7
da4bcd8f46c2b03f0c382893f518c721ba27e177
6772 F20101114_AADMIS evans_j_Page_139thm.jpg
5df37856ba6b6e57155202fba01bcda2
ae12ea8aca87fc806927384da51659df8fac3ff4



PAGE 1

1 ALGAE, EXOTICS, AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE IN TWO FLORIDA SPRINGS: COMPETING CONCEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A TIME OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT By JASON MICHAEL EVANS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2007 by Jason M. Evans

PAGE 3

3 In memory of Ralph Frank Ashodian (1950 to 2006), beloved mentor and friend.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who made this dissertati on possible. First of al l, I sincerely thank all of my committee members for the unique insi ghts and contributions they provided throughout the dissertation process, as well as my overall academic career at the Un iversity of Florida. Former committee member Dr. Clyde Kiker help ed get me through the proposal process through long, entertaining conversations about interdisciplinary issu es. Dr. Mark Brown provided rigorous courses and excellent mentoring on systems ecology, geographic information systems, and ecological engineering, while also helpi ng me get over ecological bigotry. Dr. Richard Hamann prodded me to join the Conservation Cl inics springshed protection project, which, along with his bonfire parties, was one of the most rewarding experiences of my graduate career. Dr. Richard Haynes served as my advisor throughout my masters thesis project, provided me with the opportunity to work as a graduate teaching assistant in two courses, and, perhaps most rewardingly, has served as my mentor for gard ening in the Paynes Prai rie corridor. Dr. Annie Wilkie, my committee cochair, helped me appreci ate the wonders of aquatic plants, develop a deeper appreciation for the many facets of sust ainability through the BEST society, and get on with the business of writing. Dr. Jeff Burkhardt, my committee chair, gave me the freedom of intellectual and philosophical e xploration, while also patiently reining me in to produce something that, hopefully, turned out to be somewhat coherent. While not on my committee, Conservation Clinic Director Dr. Tom Ankersen played a key role in this dissertation by, among other things, introducing me to the Crystal River area. Next, I thank all of the stakeholders who par ticipated in this research, whose commitment to protecting springs ecosystems is truly an insp iration. Without their gracious help and time, this dissertation certainly would not have been possible.

PAGE 5

5 I also thank Julie Morris, Jono Miller, and He idi Harley for giving me the opportunity to work as an adjunct professor and environmenta l consultant at New Co llege of Florida during much of my Ph.D. candidacy pe riod. Not only was the experience invaluable in itself, the opportunity to present so me of my preliminary dissertation results to students helped the dissertation evolve in new directions. My parents and other family have provided great love and support throughout my long collegiate career. In particular my wife, Sharon, has selflessly helped support me throughout most of my graduate career. Her love and patience throughout this process are something that I appreciate greatly, and will ne ver forget through the rest of our lives.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... ...12 Floridas Springs.............................................................................................................. .......12 Conservation and Protection Efforts.......................................................................................13 Florida Springs Task Force.............................................................................................13 Water Quality Working Groups......................................................................................14 Model Land Use Codes...................................................................................................15 Other Regulatory Efforts.................................................................................................16 Research Problem............................................................................................................... ....18 2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................................................22 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........22 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ..........22 Participatory Research......................................................................................................... ...24 Typologies of Participation.............................................................................................25 Participatory Methods.....................................................................................................29 Problematizing Participation...........................................................................................35 Confronting Wicked Problems........................................................................................39 Systems Ecology................................................................................................................ .....40 Analytic Scales................................................................................................................ 41 Multi-scalar Narratives....................................................................................................42 Adaptive Management............................................................................................................ 44 3 ICHETUCKNEE RIVER.......................................................................................................49 Site Description............................................................................................................... .......49 Socio-Ecological Background................................................................................................51 Pre-History.................................................................................................................... ..51 Spanish Invasion (1539 to 1708).....................................................................................52 Seminole Period (1708 to 1845)......................................................................................52 American Settlement and Development (1845 to 1940).................................................53 Early Socio-Ecological Accounts (1940 to 1960)...........................................................54 Mass Recreation (1960 to 1980)......................................................................................55

PAGE 7

7 Ecological Recovery (1980 to 1990)...............................................................................56 Water Quality Concerns and Springshed Research................................................................57 Uncertain Science: Nitrate-Nitrogen and Algae Response in Springs Ecosystems...............59 Water Lettuce Eradication...................................................................................................... 64 Observed Ecosystem Response.......................................................................................66 Systems Model................................................................................................................69 Stakeholder Responses.......................................................................................................... .70 Adaptive Learning and In stitutional Rigidity.........................................................................73 Management Experimentation: Moving beyond All or Nothing............................................77 4 KINGS BAY/CRYSTAL RIVER..........................................................................................86 Site Description............................................................................................................... .......86 Watershed Context.............................................................................................................. ....88 Participatory Methods.......................................................................................................... ...91 History of Nuisance Aquatic Pl ants in Kings Bay: 1950 to 2005..........................................94 Factors Related to Lyngbya wollei Dominance....................................................................100 Current Restoration and Management Strategies.................................................................104 SWIM Plan....................................................................................................................10 5 Kings Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan.................................................................106 Maintenance Control vs. Adaptive Management.................................................................108 Adaptive Restoration Opportunities Provi ded by Four Notorious Macrophytes.................111 Hydrilla....................................................................................................................... ...111 Water Hyacinth..............................................................................................................114 Eurasian Milfoil.............................................................................................................11 9 Water Lettuce................................................................................................................12 0 Recommendation: Participatory and Adap tive Management of Aquatic Plants..................121 5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. ....130 Research Summary............................................................................................................... 130 Objectives..................................................................................................................... .130 Research Questions.......................................................................................................133 Beyond Ideology in Aquatic Plant Management..................................................................134 Invasion Biology and Ecological Restoration...............................................................135 Alternative Stability Domains.......................................................................................138 Defining Harm...............................................................................................................140 Final Thoughts...............................................................................................................14 3 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................... ...........147 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 149 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................168

PAGE 8

8 TABLE Table page 3-1 T-test comparison of Ichetucknee River nitrate levels 1985-1998 vs. 2001-2006..........84

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Map of Ichetucknee River and Springs.................................................................................80 3-2. Time series photographs of Devils Eye Spring A) 1987 B) 1989 C) 1993 D) December 2000 E) May 2001.............................................................................................................81 3-3. Map of water lettuce removal at ISSP....................................................................................82 3-4. Ichetucknee Spring s nitrate: 1966 2006..............................................................................83 3-5. Ichetucknee Spring s nitrate: 1985-2006.................................................................................83 3-6. Ichetucknee Spring s nitrate: 2001 2006..............................................................................84 3-7. Systems model of water lettuce and algae competition at Ichetucknee River........................85 4-1. Map of Kings Bay/Crystal River..........................................................................................124 4-2. West Indian manatees in Kings Bay, May 2006..................................................................125 4-3. Lyngbya wollei in Kings Bay, May 2005.............................................................................125 4-4. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1944.................................................................................126 4-5. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1960.................................................................................126 4-6. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1974.................................................................................127 4-7. Kings Bay total nitrogen and total phosphorus, 1989-2002.................................................127 4-8. Harvester in Kings Bay, May 2006......................................................................................128 4-9. Contents of harvester in Kings Bay, May 2006....................................................................128 4-10. Tape grass and Lyngbya wollei after harvester pass in Kings Bay, May 2006..................129

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ALGAE, EXOTICS, AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE IN TWO FLORIDA SPRINGS: COMPETING CONCEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A TIME OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT By Jason Michael Evans May 2007 Chair: Robert J. Burkhardt Cochair: Ann C. Wilkie Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Interdisciplinary methods based upon principles of participatory act ion research, systems ecology, and adaptive management were used to create multi-scalar narratives of ecological changes associated with nutrient enrichment in two Florida springs ecosystems: Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River. Review of scientific literature presentation of historic water quality data, qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and iterative public engagements with stakeholders about ecosystem management policy are integrated in both of the case studies. Patterns of management pathology, or the tendency of management instituti ons to rigidly adhere to policies that are inappropriate for the mainte nance of desired socio-eco logical values in the face of emergent environmental changes, were identified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River in relation to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is based upon the laudable goal of maintaining nati ve biodiversity and ecological function, a holistic consideration of histor ical ecology, scientific litera ture, and stake holder accounts indicates that emergent conditi ons associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant factors may make aquatic plant management prac tices an important catalyst in shifting springs

PAGE 11

11 ecosystems towards an undesirable stability dom ain characterized by dominance of filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Adaptive management experimentation based upon growth and optimum harvest of nonnative plants, particularly water lettuce in Ichetucknee River and water hyacinth in Kings Bay, is recomm ended as a potential means of facilitating recovery of more desirable stability domains.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Floridas Springs The artesian springs of Flor ida are among the worlds most unique and treasured natural resources. These aquatic ecosystems are known to have served as centers of human culture in Florida for thousands of years, with images su ch as the Fountain of Y outh and biblical Eden commonly used throughout historical times to desc ribe the crystal clear wa ter of springs and the beauty of their surrounding lands capes (Scott et al. 2004). Today Floridas springs continue to serve as beloved oases that prov ide natural respite from the states summer heat, critical habitat for unique ecological associations, and important windows into the states main drinking water source the Floridan aquifer (Flo rida Springs Task Force 2000). Like many of Floridas ecosystems, alarming ch anges are being observed in the ecological condition of springs throughout the state. The most common problems include decreased spring discharge due to groundwater pumping for huma n usage, contamination of groundwater by human land use activities, seve re ecological shifts characte rized by increased growth of undesirable plant and algae species, and physical impacts associated with recreational activities (Florida Springs Task Force 2000). Concern associat ed with such issues has come from a wide variety of citizen stakeholders and public offi cials, with some scientists and policy-makers suggesting that issues related to springs and groundwater conser vation may become as prominent (and difficult) for Florida in the 21st century as Everglades protect ion and restoration became in the latter half of the 20th century. Given the vast ecological co sts associated with years of policy and management failures in the Everglades (Light et al. 1995) and the huge economic costs, uncertainties, and controversies now associ ated with implementing the Comprehensive

PAGE 13

13 Everglades Restoration Program it is hoped that effective conservation and management strategies will help av ert a similar socio-ecological traj ectory for springs and groundwater. Conservation and Protection Efforts Several programs specifically dedicated to th e conservation and protec tion of springs have been initiated by government agen cies in recent years. Some of the more notable programs include 1) the formation of a statewide Florida Springs Task Force that collects information, funds research, and advocates for the protection of springs statewide; 2) the establishment of several local water quality working groups that collect information, facilitate collaboration, and advocate for the better protection of indi vidual springs systems and their associated groundwater basins, or springshe ds, on the local scale; and 3) the development of model springshed protection land use code s that local governments may in corporate within their growth management plans. Florida Springs Task Force In 1999, the Florida Department of Environm ental Protection (DEP) formed the Florida Springs Task Force as a multi-agency entity charged with recommending strategies for the protection and restoration of Florida's springs (DEP 2007b). An initial report produced by the Florida Springs Task Force (2000) has served as the primary foundation for springs protection and restoration over subsequent years. The two major strategies suggest ed by the report for fostering and promoting springs protection ar e education of the public and formation of collaborative springshed working groups, with th e hope being that appr eciation of Floridas springs will bring about cooperation and volun tary compliance with springshed protection efforts (Florida Springs Task Force 2000, 22). Examples of f unded education efforts include production of videos, outreach to public schools and local governments, and placement of signs along highways to denote springshed capture ar eas. Significant research related to springs

PAGE 14

14 hydrogeology and identifying groundwater contamin ant sources has been performed through the auspices of the Florida Springs Task Force a nd other government agency programs (e.g., Jones et al. 1996; Katz et al. 1999; Champion and Starks 2001; Butt and Murphy 2003). Knowledge developed through these studies has been criti cal for identifying ways in which current regulatory programs might be modi fied and/or strengthened to be tter protect water quality in springs. Water Quality Working Groups Formation of water quality working groups is promoted by the Florida Springs Task Force (2000) as a means of expanding upon the educationa l and research missions of springs protection on a local basis. Working groups have been fo rmed for several large springs groups, including Wakulla Springs, Silver Springs, Ichetuckn ee Springs, and the lowe r Santa Fe Springs. Participants in the working group process typi cally include representa tives from government agencies, the local agricultural community, business groups, environmental organizations, university researchers, and other members of the genera l public concerned about springs ecosystems. Working group meetings generally are held on a quarterly or bi-annual basis, with the stated intention of facilitating a vigorous collaborative process for identification and resolution of spring problems through discussion of research findings creation of outreach strategies, and making plans for meeting additional research and outreach needs (Florida Springs Task Force 2000, 24-25). The ideal behind such a co llaborative approach is to build upon local and scientific knowledge to develop appropria te conservation goals, create research and volunteer networks that can mon itor progress towards conservation goals, and maintain a visible political presence that helps to ensure the consis tent pursuit of spring protection into the future.

PAGE 15

15 Model Land Use Codes Soon after the release of the Florida Springs Task Force report, an advisory committee composed of representatives from several st ate agencies, local governments, business groups, and environmental organizations was formed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and DEP. The deliberations and recomme ndations of this committee were used to produce a planning manual that recommends a series of land use policies and practices that can be used by local governments, industries, and the ge neral public to further the goal of protecting water quality in springs ecosystems through the pr ocess of local comprehensive planning (DCA and DEP 2002). Comprehensive planning is the general framework under which local governments in Florida regulate growth and devel opment in their communities, and the statutory rubric of this process gives local communities the power to articulate a vision of the future physical appearance and qualities of its commun ity using a collaborative planning process (Florida Statutes 2006a). Due to both the br oad powers of local government to regulate development and the impact that development can have on the water qual ity of nearby springs, the manual suggests that local comprehensive pl anning represents one of the most powerful instruments for developing long-terms springs protection strategies. General guidelines as to how human impacts on springsheds can be mitigated through site selection and development design are given in the planning manual, as are more specific best management practices (BMPs) for large land usages that can be associated with large nutrient loadings, such as golf courses, silviculture, and agriculture (DCA and DEP 2002). In addition, it is suggested that local governments can utili ze hydrogeologic informa tion to create planning maps that designate appropriate land uses ba sed upon the risks of gr oundwater contamination associated with geologic formations and conn ections with springs. Under these guidelines, highly vulnerable areas geographica lly near and/or with direct hydrogeologic connections to

PAGE 16

16 springs would be designated as primary protect ion zones. Low intensity land usages such as conservation land, open space, unimproved rangela nd, and long rotation silviculture would be considered appropriate for these primary protect ion zones. Secondary protection zones would be established for those areas not as vulnerable as primary zones, but that are still important to protect due to their function as treatment zone s for water moving toward the spring from more intensive land usages. Higher intensity silviculture rangelands, low density rural residential, and any of the primary protection land usages are c onsidered appropriate for secondary protection zones. Tertiary zones appropr iate for more intensive land usages such as high density residential, intensive agriculture, mining, heavy commercial, and golf course would be established for all areas that do not pose a high risk of contaminating springs. While the development and implementation of such planni ng regulations currently are at the complete discretion of local jurisdictions, some commun ities near popular springs have recently begun to adopt some of the recommended planning principles (DEP 2005). Other Regulatory Efforts One of the major regulatory impediments to springs conservation is the use of drinking water quality criteria in the establishment of permitting standards for municipal and agricultural wastewater discharged into groundwater (Evans 2004). Direct discharges of municipal and agricultural wastewater into surface water are di scouraged by DEP as a matter of explicit public policy (DEP 2007d). Advanced wastewater treatment with minimum standards of 3 mg/L of Total Nitrogen (TN) and 1 mg/L of Total Phosph orus (TP) typically is required of municipal facilities that do discharge into stat e waters (Florida Statutes 2006c). However, municipal wastewater facilities that discharge into gr oundwater typically only ar e required to meet a secondary treatment standard of 10 mg/L for TN (Florida Administrati ve Code 1993) and not result in violations of the 10 mg/L drinking wa ter standard for nitrate-nitrogen within the

PAGE 17

17 groundwater (DEP 2007c). In addition, large anim al feeding operations are regulated by DEP through its industrial wastewater program. Recei pt of an industrial wastewater permit is contingent upon determination by DEP that discha rges will not adversel y affect flora, fauna, and/or beneficial uses or result in drinking wa ter violations in the r eceiving water body (Florida Administrative Code 2005). In practice, adverse ecological changes in surface waters occur at nutrient levels well below numeric drinking water quality standards,1 and nutrient management plans designed to prevent such adverse eff ects are required of fac ilities that discharge agricultural wastewater into state water bodi es (Florida Administrative Code 2005). These discrepancies between surface water permitting standards based upon ecological criteria and groundwater permitting standards base d upon less stringent human health criteria likely have had the effect of spurring preferential construction of facilities designed to discharge wastewater directly into groundwater, incl uding springshed areas (Evans 2004). The straightforward economic rationale for choosing groundwater discharge in such a regulatory environment is that secondary treatment is signi ficantly less expensive to achieve than advanced treatment. However, studies increasingly sugge st that permitted wastewater discharges from municipal and agricultural sources may be a significant source of nitrate-nitrogen loading to springs ecosystems such as the Wakulla Rive r, Ichetucknee River (Ritchie 2006), and Wekiva River (DEP 2004a). The process of groundwater di scharges eventually a ffecting surface water resources fed by groundwater, such as springs ec osystems, was not anticipated when current 1 A serious problem with the overall regulatory system is the utilization of drinking water standards designed to protect human health as the default water quality standard for water bodies that have primary ecological usages. For example, Florida establishes no explic it numeric standard for nitrate in Cla ss III surface water resources used for boating, swimming, and fishing, but does state that nutrients must not cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna (Florida Administrative Code 2006). Numeric standards for individual water bodies generally are established as a mitigation tool after a water body is de emed impaired, in the sense that an imbalance of flora and fauna as a result of nutrient loading is documented Establishment of numeric criteria for nutrients as a preemptive means of avoiding impairment, while undoubtedly complex, clearly is needed if prevention of impairment is a primary goal of clean water regulations.

PAGE 18

18 regulatory frameworks were crafted (Evans 2004) To address such concerns, the DEP has engaged in a thorough review of how groundwat er quality permitting standards might be modified for springsheds impacted by wastewat er (DEP 2004a), and has also helped broker agreements and secure financing for upgrades to advanced treatment for wastewater facilities that discharge into springshed areas (DEP 2006) Additional measures such as the aggressive development of BMPs for farmers within springsh eds and, in some cases, establishment of total maximum daily loadings (TMDLs) are being pursued for the purpose of reducing nutrient loadings into groundwater from all sources, in cluding wastewater, agriculture, and urban stormwater (DEP 2007a). Research Problem While these education, regulatory, and planni ng efforts undoubtedly represent an important step in springs conservation, li ttle research attention, however has been given to the socioecological complexities associated with managi ng and/or restoring springs ecosystems through a time of long-term nutrient enrichment. The rationa le for such an ecosystem management concern is fairly straightforward. Even if it is assume d that current conservation strategies are highly successful in reducing the loading of contaminants (such as nitrate-nitrogen) into springsheds, groundwater monitoring and hydrogeol ogical research both indicate that extant contamination is likely to take several decades to flush through springs ecosystems (Jones et al. 1996; Katz et al. 1999; Champion and Starks 2001; Cowell and Dawes 2004). Consequently, the grim prognosis is that, despite ongoing conservation efforts, water qu ality is likely to continue declining in many springs ecosyst ems for at least the next two or three decades a condition with profound and far-reaching imp lications that current mana gement practices and policy discussions have yet to reckon with in any holistic manner.

PAGE 19

19 The primary objective of this dissertation resear ch was to directly engage this major gap through case studies of two popular springs ecosystems that ar e both affected by groundwater contamination and have active cooperative re storation programs based upon the working group model: Ichetucknee Springs and Kings Bay/Crysta l River. Interdisciplinary methods based upon principles of participatory action research, sy stems ecology, and adaptive management were used to create multi-scalar narratives that discu ss ecological changes associated with nutrient enrichment in both of these ecosystems, as we ll as the ongoing management responses to these changes. Review of scientific literature about springs and othe r aquatic ecosystems, presentation of historic water quality data, qualitative interviews with stake holders and ecosystem managers, and iterative public engagements with stakehol ders and ecosystem managers about ecosystem management policy are integrated with in both of the case study narratives. What emerges from this broad approach is the identification of what recent natural resource theorists have deemed management pathologies (Holling 1995; Gunderson et al. 2006). Management pathologies have their origin in management in stitutions rigidly adhering to policies that are inappropriate for the maintenan ce of desired socio-ecological values in the face of emergent environmental changes. A typical result of such static management is the precipitation of a complex and nonlinear shift in ec ological function and structure, which often is expressed as the sudden collapse of the socioecological values that management policies originally were designed to protect (Holli ng 1995). The shifts in ecological conditions represented by the sudden collapse are generally referred to as a lternative stable states or stability domains. Sudden switches in stability domain, particularly in aquatic ecosystems, have proven extremely difficult to reverse th rough traditional management, conservation, and restoration approaches (Sche ffer et al. 1993; Gunderson 1999).

PAGE 20

20 Patterns of management pathology were iden tified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River in relati on to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is based upon the laudable goal of maintaining nati ve biodiversity and ecological function, a holistic consideration of histor ical ecology, scientific litera ture, and stake holder accounts indicates that emergent conditi ons associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant factors may make traditional aquatic plant manageme nt practices an important catalyst in shifting springs ecosystems towards an undesirable st ability domain characterized by dominance of filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Following and expanding upon a recent philoso phical argument made by Sagoff (2005), it is argued that the a priori attribution of ecological harm to targeted nonnative plants is a primary factor driving the observed management patholog ies, in regard to both moral and scientific discourse. In terms of moral discourse, it was found that key institutional actors tend to conflate the socio-moral attribution of harm into a tec hnocratic conception of established scientific knowledge, with this conflation then used as a basis for di scouraging open reflection, public debate, and/or experimental modifica tion of current management policies.2 As a result, novel assessments of ecosystem conditions and management activities become stunted at an a priori level, to the detriment of both the advancemen t of scientific knowle dge and the creation of 2 Put another way, the harmfulness of nonnative species is thus mistakenly defined as an undisputable scientific fact, rather than as a highly disputab le socio-moral claim about what constitutes harm. Following Norton (2005) and other pragmatist philosophers of science, the distinction between facts and values implied here can, however, also be called into question. Through a pragmatist conception of trut h, there ultimately are no undisputed f acts. Rather, there are good arguments and ba d arguments that can be used in support of claims, and it is based upon the strength of these arguments whether moral, scientific, or both th at provisional claims of truth emerge. However, all truth claims, including scientific ones, ar e always open for dispute, modification, and/or refutation through the development of strong alternative arguments. The irony of the conflation being described here is that a neopositivistic truth claim, which typically justifies its pr imacy based upon the assumed reliability of knowledge established through scientific discourse, is actually, in th is case, predicated on what appears to be a tautological moral position of defining the presence of nonnative species as an inhere nt form of ecological harm (Sagoff 2005).

PAGE 21

21 adaptive socio-ecological techniques that could be used to confront surprises posed by emergent environmental conditions. For both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay, a likel y implication of maintaining such a rigid management framework towards nonnative species during this time of nutrient enrichment is a continued shift towards stability domains characterized by increasing coverage of filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Qualitative research perf ormed in both of these ecosystems indicates that many stakeholders currently regard such a sh ift in stability domain to be more harmful than increased coverage of nonnative plants. Increas ed monitoring, holistic evaluation of existing aquatic plant control programs, and adaptive ma nagement experiments to better understand the functional effects of alternative aquatic plant approaches are suggested for both ecosystems.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Introduction An increasing amount of natura l resource management and soci al scientist theorists argue that broad, interdisciplinary frameworks pr ovide a means through which the many different factors relevant to complex environmental problems can be methodol ogically explored, effectively integrated, and coherently analyzed (Gunderson et al. 1995; Fi scher 2000; Allen et al. 2003; Norton 2005). Such an integration of pers pectives from both th e natural and social sciences helps bring focus onto the complex wa ys in which human culture interfaces with nonhuman nature, thereby overcoming artificially sharp distincti ons, both epistemological and ontological, that often are made between the real ms of nature and society (Sneddon et al. 2002). Objectives Floridas springs ecosystems provide a clear oppor tunity for such interd isciplinary research due to the wide range of geological, ecological, legal, political, and sociomoral issues associated with their long-term management and conservati on. Based upon this general premise, six specific methodological and analytic obj ectives were established for this dissertation research: 1. To participate actively in two collaborati ve conservation groups: the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group and the Kings Bay Water Quality Subcommittee. 2. To represent the targeted na tural systems through basic maps and textual descriptions. 3. To outline the conservation problems facing the natural systems as typically defined in public discourse. 4. To describe past and present ecosystem management actions taken by management agencies within each of the case study systems.

PAGE 23

23 5. To evaluate how conserva tion problems are being appr oached through ecosystem management and policy. 6. To make specific research recommendations for facilitating adaptive management in each of the case study systems. The following research questions were then derived from these objectives: 1. Are the principles of adaptive management being utilized in the conservation and management efforts within each of the case study springs? a. What, if any, management practices may be inadvertently catalyzing observed degradation in the natural systems? b. How open are managers and stakeholders to new hypotheses about the behavior of the natural systems? 2. What research and policy priorities can be identified for facilitating the emergence of adaptive learning? a. What gaps in current research and monitoring efforts can be identified? The conceptual framework utilized for concei ving and addressing these research questions is based upon three complement ary foundations: the methodological principles of participatory research, the analytic theories of systems ecology, and the normative criteria of adaptive management. It was recognized from the outset of this project that th e stated objectives are complicated in scope, fraught with a number of epistemological perils, and unable to address completely the many different geologic, ecologic, legal, and socio-political factors that may be relevant to springs protection. However, such difficulties are commonly associated with interdisciplinary research on complex environm ental problems that cover multiple temporal, spatial, and epistemic scales. Following Sneddon et al. (2002, 666), an integrative approach was

PAGE 24

24 adopted as a means for better understanding the interplay between, on the one hand, physical and ecological processes operating at certain scales and, on the ot her social processes that may be constructed according to an entirely different scalar logic. In this chapter, detailed explanations of the theoretical constructs underlying this conceptual framework are developed. First, prin ciples of participatory research are described, problematized, and justified as an appropr iate primary methodological approach for understanding and confronting wicked problems that resist straightforward solutions based upon existing ecosystem management paradigms (F ischer 2000). Second, principles of systems ecology are presented as a holistic means by wh ich information gathered from disparate epistemological sources can be integrated into multi-scalar models and narratives, thereby avoiding the traps of both crude reductionism and crude relativism. Th ird, it is argued that principles of adaptive management, particular ly as expounded by C.S. Holling, L.H. Gunderson, and in a recent philosophical work by Bryan Norton (2005), provide clear epistemological, discursive, and normative criteria by which eco system management can be both judged and guided. Participatory Research Participatory research has been described as research that goes beyond an effort to come up with research findings through a conscious a ttempt to provide communities with information that is directly relevant to the problems that they face (Fis cher 2000, 180). While there currently are a variety of competing school s and conceptions bundled under th e general term participatory research (Berardi 2002), a unify ing thread is that it offers an alternative to top-down approaches, particularly those carried out within centralized bureaucracies, that tend to privilege expertise from natura l resource sciences and economics over local knowledge (Ferreyra 2006, 577). It is generally argued that such an alternative is needed because the complex, value-

PAGE 25

25 laden, and particularized natures of socio-ecologi cal systems make traditional forms of scientific expertise an insufficient albeit useful and necessary basis for making many natural resource management decisions (Sneddon et al. 2002; No rton 2005). Participatory research is thus fundamentally based upon both understanding and empowering local ecological knowledge, which can be defined as the informal forms of experiential knowledge and narrative accounts developed by members of a community through long-term utilization an d/or observation of a given natural resource. As such, the typical participatory research project is characterized by a bottom up engagement with community members, who are viewed as co-equal partners in identifying, defining, and attempting to iteratively solve co mplex socio-ecological problems (Berardi 2002). As described by Fischer (2000, 179), the ongoing dialogue between researcher and the community creates a dialectical tension betw een formal academic knowledge and the popular knowledge of ordinary citizens, which can then be used to enrich th e standard quantitative analyses of efficient means to given ends with a qualitative discussion of the ends themselves. In other words, participatory research helps pr ovide alternative perspectives on the management techniques employed to achieve established goals, while also giving a holistic means by which evolving opinions about what goa ls should be pursued can be iteratively discussed. Such an approach often implies interaction of divers e methodologies from fields such as geography, anthropology, sociology, philosophy of science, and environmenta l science, with the overall purpose being an integration of informal local knowledge into the form al processes of both analytic research and policy-development. Typologies of Participation In recent years, there has been an accelerat ing trend towards approaches that outwardly encourage public participation in ecosystem management and re search, particularly through the

PAGE 26

26 creation of cooperative waters hed initiatives that utilize communication among stakeholder groups as a key tool for gathering information and managing aquatic ecosystems on a watershed basis (Briassoulis 1989; Norton 2005; Ferreyra 2006). Many cooperative wa tershed initiatives originally arose on a gra ssroots level through coalitions of en vironmental organizations and other community activists unsatisfied with the progress of agency bureaucracies in solving issues such as dwindling water supply, dete riorating water quality, and pres ervation of local landscapes (Wescoat and White 2003). However, agency bureau cracies themselves have also increasingly moved to create collaborative forums, such as watershed working groups, in which a key stated goal is participation among a wide range of stak eholders for the development of more robust ecosystem management plans. Springshed wo rking groups in Florida are examples of collaborative watershed initiatives that are es tablished and institutionally coordinated through government agencies. One result of the increasing utilization of th e collaborative watershed approach has been the buzzword, hence often equivocal, usage of terms such as collaborative, participation, and participatory to describe ecosystem resear ch and management activities. Critics argue that, in some cases, creation of a collaborative wate rshed group and/or labeling of an ecosystem management process as participatory may be little more than a formal statutory requirement, a public relations attempt, or even a cooptation tactic that masks a bureaucracys continued use of traditional expert-based research models and ce ntralized decision-making structures (Sneddon et al. 2002). In other cases, however the turn towards collaborativ e and participatory approaches may, in fact, produce a reworking of power rela tions between the wider stakeholder community and bureaucracies, which is actual ized through the direct utilizat ion of local knowledge in the

PAGE 27

27 production of future expert knowledge and eval uation of management techniques (Berkes and Folke 1998; Fischer 2000). Berardi (2002) helps to clarify these defin itional issues by giving five typologies to describe different ways in which the term partic ipation is currently used, both in terms of the institutional framework in whic h a collaborative watershed group is organized as well as the principles under which local knowledge is employe d within the ecosystem management context. First, manipulative participation is defined as an extreme situ ation in which participation is used primarily as a pretense for manipulati ng or confusing the public with respect to a controversial issue. Second, participation by co nsultation is defined as a condition, commonly encountered within the context of regulatory and/or permitting deliberations, in which citizens are consulted and questions are answered by offici als, but there is no obli gation to accept and/or act upon public comment. Third, functional participa tion is used to desc ribe those situations where participation is seen by agencies as a m eans of achieving pre-determined, but generally non-controversial, goals at reduced cost, of ten through the use of volunteer labor. Fourth, interactive participation describes situations in which local citizen intimately participate in research, development, analysis, and implementa tion of management plans. The fifth typology is self-mobilization, or a condition in which pa rticipation and/or formation of collaborative frameworks is initiated from a grass roots level that is independent of government bureaucracies. While the buzzword process has to some extent muddied the waters of what is meant by participatory research, academic researchers have tended to bring confusion from another direction: overly pedantic distinctions and arguments about what constitutes authentic participatory research. The wide array of acronym s used for approaches such as participatory rural appraisal and participatory rural assessmen t (PRA), participatory action research (PAR),

PAGE 28

28 participatory learning and action (PLA), rapid rural appraisal ( RRA), grass roots environmental management (GREM), participatory forest resour ce assessment (PFRA), participatory analysis and learning methods (PALM), and participan t observation research (POR) underscores the diversity of participatory appr oaches being employed by differe nt researchers and research teams. Although each research methodology has some differences that may be more appropriate for specific situations, Berardi (2002) notes that there has been an unfortunate tendency among some practitioners to turn a style of resear ch originally focused on empowering community change into a technical academic problem char acterized by debates about who is really doing participatory research, or what is the proper brand descripti on of a participatory research project (Argyris and Schon 1989; Bellamy et al. 1999). Chambers (1997), however, sidesteps such academic squabbles by arguing that participatory research ultimately is charac terized by the underlying attitude of engaging community stakeholders in the production and utilization of knowledge rather than through strict, ideological adherence to a given set of favored methods. Development of a relaxed rapport with community members through participation in local activities a nd workshops, conducting conversational interviews with key informants, us e of triangulation in which observations are confirmed from multiple perspectives, and assist ing community members w ith the translation of local knowledge into forms relevant for utilizat ion within the manageme nt policy and research context are cited as key features common to a ll participatory research approaches (Chambers 1997; Fischer 2000; Berardi 2002; Ferreyra 2006). A ge neral use of such guidelines, not strict adherence to any of the acronym approaches, was employed in both the Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River case studies.

PAGE 29

29 Participatory Methods Participatory research for this dissertation wa s conducted by engaging with stakeholders in three collaborative conservati on groups: the Ichetucknee Spri ngs Water Quality Working Group (ISWG), the Kings Bay Water Quality Subcommittee (KBWQS), and the Kings Bay Working Group (KBWG). While the term stakeholder is so metimes used to describe non-scientist, nonagency, or other non-expert participants w ithin a collaborative c onservation process, a stakeholder is more broadly defined in this dissertation to include all those who attended meetings of the collaborative conservation gr oups, including research scientists, agency scientists, and other gove rnment officials. The ISWG is a stakeholder discussion group established in 1995 and funded through the DEP. The major goals of the ISWG are to in tegrate knowledge about the Ichetucknee River, educate the public about threats to the rivers water quality, a nd promote polices and voluntary adoption of land use practices that can increase protection of water qua lity in the Ichetucknee springshed. It includes represen tatives from environmental groups, agriculture and business interests, all government agencies with juri sdiction in the Ichetucknee springshed, elected officials, and other interested citizens. In 2005 and 2006, the ISWG met three times a year. I attended at least some part of meetings held on February 15, 2005; May 24, 2005; October 11, 2005; February 8, 2006; and October 11, 2006. Due to a scheduling conflict, I did not attend a meeting held on May 10, 2006. The KBWQS is a stakeholder discussion group th at advises the City of Crystal River on policies related to improving water quality in Kings Bay, and is funded through grants provided by the Waterfronts Florida Partnership of the DC A. Meetings were held monthly or, in some cases, every other month. I attended ten meeti ngs of the KBWQS from November 2004 through March 2006: November 16, 2004; February 15, 2005; March 15, 2005; April 19, 2005; May 17,

PAGE 30

30 2005; June 21, 2005; July 19, 2005; November 15, 2005; January 26, 2006; and March 15, 2006. Core members of the KBWQS included a lead facili tator, a home builder, a restaurant owner, a commercial fisher, a waterfront homeowner, a re tired scientist from a federal environmental agency, and two local vendors who cater to waterbased tourism. Several meetings were attended by one or more members of the Crystal Rive r City Council, and two meetings included presentations by representatives from government agencies with regulatory and management jurisdiction over the Kings Bay water body. Stak eholder attendance, including myself, ranged from four to sixteen at the mee tings in which I was present. I gave a presentation about issues associated with adopting a local fertilizer ordinance to the KB WQS on November 16, 2004, which I gave as part of a course project. I also gave a presentation showing examples of water hyacinth phytoremediation and ut ilization to the KBWQS on Ja nuary 26, 2006. By invitation of the city manager, I gave a presentation about my work with the KBWQS a nd a review of recent water hyacinth phytoremediation and utilization to the Crystal River City Council on June 26, 2006. The KBWG is a stakeholder discussion group facilitated by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The major purposes of the KBWG are to integrate scientific knowledge about Kings Bay, educate the public about voluntary actions that can be taken to improve water quality, and achieve greater coordination betw een government agencies with management jurisdiction over the water body. I attended KBWG meetings held on July 25, 2005; November 10, 2005; March 16, 2006; September 19, 2006; N ovember 30, 2006; and March 7, 2007. I gave a presentation about water hyacinth phytoremedia tion, utilization, and aquatic plant management in Kings Bay to the KBWG at the meeting on November 10, 2005. I also ga ve a presentation to the KBWG on November 30, 2006 about stormw ater GIS mapping and landscaping outreach

PAGE 31

31 work that I conducted in Sarasota over 20052006 through partnership with New College of Florida, with a focus on benefits that a similar project might have for Kings Bay/Cr ystal River. Experiential knowledge formed through attendance at public meetings was used as a basis for conversational interviews with key info rmants among stakeholders in both case study ecosystems. The conduct of this interview rese arch was based upon a protocol approved by the University of Floridas Institutional Review Bo ard in April 2005. Key informants typically are defined in qualitative research as those peopl e who have intimate knowle dge of the topic of concern (i.e., conservation of the springs ecosystems), including holders of both informal local knowledge and formal scientific knowledge (R oss et al. 1999). The key informants were identified through snowball and opportunist ic techniques, which commonly are used in qualitative research for the purpose of locating members of the public lik ely to have a greater knowledge of the topic of intere st than the general public at large (Miles and Huberman 1994). The snowball technique employed entailed solic iting nominations of knowledgeable individuals from the lead facilitators of the ISWG and th e KBWQS. Nominated indivi duals who participated in the research then were asked for names of ot her knowledgeable individual s, with this process repeated until at least 20 interviews were conduc ted. The opportunistic approach was used to identify new key informants, particularly research and agency scientists met in public meetings, not captured through the nomi nating process. After potential interview informants were identified through e ither the snowball or opportunistic approach, they were contacted by phone and/or e-ma il and asked if they would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of dissertation research about the case study ecosystem. If the potential informant agreed to be inte rviewed, a time and place was agreed upon for the interview. Upon meeting the informant at the ag reed upon time and place, a brief explanation of

PAGE 32

32 the interview process was given. All informants th en read and signed an informed consent form, a copy of which is contained as an appendix in this dissertation. Field notes were taken during all interviews, and a cassette tape recorder was used to record interviews of those who agreed to be taped. Under the terms of the research protocol all interview informants are kept strictly anonymous in this dissertation. The interview process utilized an open-e nded, conversational a pproach to solicit perceptions and information about conservation issues within the respective case study spring system. All informants in both case studies were asked the following ten questions: 1. Please describe your career. 2. If you work for a government agency, please indicate your job title and the agency for which you work. 3. Approximately what year did you first visit the spring system? 4. How close do you live to the spring system? 5. How often do you visit the spring system? 6. Why are you interested in conservation issues within the springs system? 7. Approximately what year did you become concerned about problems in the springs system? 8. Please describe your understanding of th e problems currently facing the springs system. 9. Where did you learn about problems curre ntly facing the springs system? 10. What do you think are the most important c onservation and management issues within the springs system today?

PAGE 33

33 For both case studies, the overa ll purpose of this basic interview questionnaire was to develop a richer historical unde rstanding of changes in the ec ological systems and stakeholder perceptions about these changes. Follow up questions and comment s were added in the flow of conversation, generally to be sure that I adeq uately understood informational points given by the informant and also to encourage informants to go in more detail about their specific remembrances and knowledge. As discussed in more detail in both chapters scientific and policy discussions in springs ecosystems are largely focused on the role of increas ed nutrients, particular ly nitrate-nitrogen, in causing ecological changes observed over time. Ba sed upon this focus, most policy-making and education efforts undertaken by agencies for the purpose of maintain ing and/or restoring ecological communities are hinged largely upon the achievement of significant nutrient load reductions into the spring ecosystems. For the purpose of novel hypothesis development, particular attention was given to those understandings and perc eptions among local knowledge holders found to be qualitatively different from those official accounts high lighted in scientific and agency discourse. In the Ichetucknee case study, an additional interview research component was included. Using my own observations of the ecosystem ta ken while living and working on the river in 2000-2001 and a review of scientif ic data and literature, a hyp othesized relationship between increased algae growth recently observed in the system and manual eradication of water lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes ) was described to informants. After presentation of this information, the following questions were asked:

PAGE 34

34 1. Have you previously been presented with in formation suggesting th at there may be a relationship between invasive plant manageme nt and proliferation of nuisance algae in the springs system? 2. Based upon your knowledge and experience, do you believe that there is any merit to the idea that invasive plant management may be linked to proliferation of nuisance algae? 3. Do you think that the idea of invasive plan t management being linked to proliferation of nuisance algae should be inve stigated further by scientists? 4. Do you believe that ecosystem managers shou ld consider modifying the ways in which they manage invasive plants in the springs system? Because my involvement in the KBWG was s ubsequent to the approval of the interview protocol, informants for interview research we re not selected from this stakeholder group. Instead, my own participati on and subsequent public co mmunications with agency representatives in the KBWG were utilized as a means of more deeply exploring how different conceptions of nature and values affect di alogue in ecosystem management at Kings Bay, particularly in relation to nonna tive plant species. Public comment s from KBWG members to the formal presentation given at the meeting on N ovember 10, 2005 were recorded by field notes, and discussed in more detail on an indivi dual basis through follow up e-mail communications. An additional round of public comments about issu es related to water hyacinth phytoremediation in Kings Bay was solicited from all KBWG me mbers through an e-mail communication sent on April 28, 2006. The solicitation of comments in April 2006 was associated with publication of a front page article and accompanying editorial about my research in the Citrus County Chronicle (Hunter 2006a, 2006b), the major local newspape r for Crystal River and surrounding areas of

PAGE 35

35 Citrus County. The genesis of the Chronicle stories apparently came when I sent draft copies of my findings in Kings Bay/Crystal River to seve ral stakeholders whose interview accounts were relied upon heavily in the construc tion of the ecological change narr ative contained in Chapter 4. The explicit purpose for sending the draft to stakeholders was to ensure that the narrative representations were an accurate reflection of the information they had provided, but an unintended consequence of this confirmation exer cise was that the draft text was leaked to the Chronicle I agreed to do an interview when contacted by the newspaper for further comment on my work. Although the newspaper stories were unplanned and, arguably, premature in terms of disseminating dissertation research findi ngs among the wider public, nine public e-mail responses about water hyacinth phytoremediation among government agencies were recorded as a direct result of this process. These responses were catalogu ed, and excerpts are reported anonymously in Chapter 4. The specific results of the participatory methods described in this section are embedded within and qualitatively discussed in each respective case study. Problematizing Participation A number of questions have been raised by cr itics, and even some practitioners, about the objectivity and efficacy of partic ipatory research methods. Perhaps the most fundamental charge is that the up front commitment to utilize val ue-laden information gained through participatory methods within the policy context can lead the research er into a slippery slope of activism, which, it is charged, inherently prevents the ac quisition and transmission of reliable knowledge. There are, however, two answers to this. Fi rst, some philosophers have noted that the prima facie case against openly value-laden, and even activis t, research can be dismantled through the assertion of a straightforward distinction between objectivity and neutrality (Proctor 1991). Through this distinction, objectivity is defined as the open search for reliable knowledge about the world, while neutrality is defined as ta king no normative position abou t a given condition of

PAGE 36

36 the world. Thus, while the research and results of a participatory resear ch project may not be neutral in the sense that speci fic positions are advanced thro ugh the inherently value-laden discourse of ecosystem management, objectivity can still be maintained so long as any given position is based upon interpretive reasoning that utilizes a transp arent set of facts and defined values (VanDeVeer and Pierce 2003). A second line of defense is to question the very idea of any firm dis tinction between facts and values in the conduct of the scientific enterprise (Norton 2005), particular ly as characterized within the politicized and uncertain context of complex environmental issues. For example, Fischer (2000, 101) found that one of the most important determinants for characterizing the different positions of scientists giving expert advice in the midst of complex environmental issues are the moral commitments and institutional interests of the scientists. Such a relationship appears to provide compelling empirical evid ence of the interdependent, if unconscious, relationship between facts and values in the production of scientific knowledge (Hays 1987). When viewed in this way, it can be argued that participatory methods differ from traditional expert discourse on environmental issues only because they cons ciously and, thereby, more objectively bring this interdep endence into the forefront of the research concern. More problematic, however, are questions about the ultimate efficacy and/or usefulness of participatory approaches in achieving the stat ed aim of producing meaningful and beneficial socio-ecological changes. A nu mber of researchers recently have utilized the rubric of participation to generate models of inclusion a nd collaboration within th e policy-making context, and to identify the effects of these variable s on the development of ecosystem management plans. The results and conclusions of such st udies are mixed, at best. For example, Brody (2003, 412) found that a wider breadth of participation in the develo pment of local Comprehensive

PAGE 37

37 Plans in Florida was not at all correlated with an increase in the protectiveness of ecosystems, likely because the din of competing interests leads to a logic characterized by the lowest common denominator. Although Kellert et al. (2000, 709) did find success in meeting socioeconomic objectives through participatory approach es in both Alaska and Kenya, conservation and biodiversity protection goals were signific antly more difficult to achieve. The work by Duram and Brown (1999) is more ambiguous in that participatory watershe d planning across the United States is not found to re sult in any significant improvement in environmental or social conditions over other types of planning, although facilitators of waters hed planning initiatives generally believe that better par ticipation does result in the produc tion of better watershed plans. However, Suman et al. (2000) concluded that the failure of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to foster public participation in the establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary clearly had a negative effect on ecosystem management, largely because the backlash of st akeholders angered at being excluded from the management process eventually led to the weaken ing of regulations critic ally important for the sustainable management of fisheries. What these studies demonstrate is that wh ile public participati on may be increasingly recognized as a necessary political component of successful ecosystem management programs (Lovell et al. 2003), it is erroneous to assume that even the be st implemented strategies of participation and the emerging consensus resulting from participation will be sufficient to achieve successful ecosystem ma nagement (Wescoat and White 2003 ). For example, there is the possibility of consensual mana gement plans emerging that are not consistent with long-term protection and/or restoration of environmental resources simply because the respective users and/or managers of the resource determine that other political or economic values are more

PAGE 38

38 important than environmental conservation. Al ternatively, consensual plans for managing environmental resources may fail because the participatory consensus and eventual plan implementation are based upon fundamental misunde rstanding of the dynami cs of the targeted ecological system. As Fischer (2000, 33) writes, the recognition of such limitations within participatory approaches is often used in support of the trad itional argument that experts alone have the knowledge and skills needed to render the comp etent decisions required for effective social guidance in solving environmental problems. In this view, wider participation, as suggested by Brodys (2003) work, offers little more than simplis tic, self-serving information of little use for tackling inherently complex issues over which th e general public has li ttle, if any, technical competence. But several interrelated answers can be given to this challenge. Firs t, as suggested above, there is the empirical evidence that expert discou rses and scientific expe rts are not immune from getting locked into simplistic, myopic, and ev en self-serving lines of reasoning, particularly when deliberations and decisions about complex eco logical issues are made in an insulated, nontransparent, and/or mechanical fashion. Fo llowing from this is an argument based upon democratic theory, which, as summarized by Grudens-Schuck ( 2000, 82), suggests that participation goes beyond the goal of produci ng smarter outcomes and, instead, finds its ultimate justification in an ethi c of democratically respecting p eoples accounts of the world in the process of open argumentation. A final epis temological justification for participatory research is that, ideally, it helps to facilitate convergence between local expertise and scientific expertise, thereby producing emergent forms of socio-ecological understanding that would not

PAGE 39

39 have been achieved through strict reliance on traditional scientific methods (Fischer 2000; Norton 2005). Confronting Wicked Problems The term wicked problem is often used to describe those problems that defy solution, and often times become measurably worse, through traditional problem-solving tools, particularly those locked within a narrow disciplinary perspec tive. Wicked problems are often contrasted with what are called benign problem s. While benign problems can be exceptionally complex, such as completion of a higher-level mathematical proof or construction of a skyscraper, experience shows that these problems, as defined, can be reliably solved through a given technical method. Environmental problems often are given as archetypal examples of wicked problems, generally because most environm ental issues are associ ated with, and cross, many different boundaries of natural science, economics, politics, and human values. This inherent interdisciplinarity has the effect of preventing resolution of many environmental problems through prescribed technical approaches. Indeed, many environmental issues even defy any sort of consensual statemen t about what the problem actually is due to incomplete information, multiple analytic variables, and cha ngeable, conflicting values. A key virtue of an interdisciplinary, participatory approach is th e explicit focus on both diagnosing those wicked problems that may lie at the heart of a give n environmental problem, and on utilizing the dialectic between local knowledge and expert knowledge to devel op novel lines of analysis that can be used as the basis for experimentally c onfronting some aspects of the wicked problem (Norton 2005). Participatory methods in this di ssertation are utilized in this dialectic spirit, in the sense that local knowledge gained through attendance of public meetings, stakeholder interviews, and direct observation of natural systems is not unc ritically valorized as a panacea for solving the

PAGE 40

40 wicked problems of ecosystem management in the two case studies. Rather, local knowledge obtained through participatory methods is comb ined with expert knowledge obtained through a review of scientific li terature and application of systems ecology princi ples, resulting in the construction of alternative eco logical hypotheses and management scenarios relevant for both further exploring and, ideally, experimentally confronting the wicked problems of ecological change in springs ecosystems. Systems Ecology Environmental science and management can be loosely characterized by two streams of thought and inquiry. The first stream is a reductio nist science of parts in which a narrow enough focus is chosen to pose hypotheses, collect da ta, and design critical tests for the rejection of invalid hypotheses. The other is an interdiscip linary science of the integration of parts that combines historical, comparative, and experiment al approaches at scal es appropriate to the issues (Holling 1995, 12-13). This second stream of thought is commonly referred to as the science of systems. Odum (1994, 4) defines a system as a group of parts that are inte racting according to some kind of process, with n ew properties emerging from the interactive combination of parts. A basic premise behind systems ecology is that the properties that emerge from the interactions of constituent parts in any give n ecological system are more functionally and structurally complex than the simple sum of th e parts. Systems ecology typically utilizes the findings of reductionist science to build models that simulate linkages and identify emergent properties, ultimately attempting to reveal causal processes that underlie the complexity of time and space behavior of complex systems (Ho lling 1995, 13). Computer simulations that track material and energy flows implied by modeled rela tionships are a key tool utilized by systems ecologists for better understanding the behavior of ecosystems. Mo re broadly, the use of systems

PAGE 41

41 thinking can be used to help to facilitate th e identification of knowledge gaps, development of new hypotheses, and institution of integrated evaluative methods for better understanding the effects of human actions on the structure and f unction of environmental systems. By extension, the iterative models and theories of systems ecology provide an important tool by which logical and interpretive reasoning about the interplay between moral values, management choices, and ecological conditions can be deep ened (Lovell et al. 2003). Analytic Scales Scales are defined the spatial and temporal dimensions associated with ecological and social processes. Systems ecologists consider diffe rent scales to have ch aracteristic orders of analytic magnitude in both spatial extent and tu rnover time, or the time it takes for the system to replace itself (Lovell et al. 2003) A basic premise behind systems ecology is that phenomena of the world operate within and among a diverse rang e of analytic scales, and that robust models should therefore include all scales pertinent to the phenomena of inte rest (Odum and Odum 2000, 14). The iterative process of relating the t ranscending concepts that link processes and actors at different levels in time and space is often referred to as s caling (Lovell et al. 2003, 111). One of the biggest challenges in the management of ecosystems is the common tendency of researchers and management agencies to become stuck within one scale of analysis (Holling 1995). As Odum and Odum write, There is a tendency, through l ong habit and the desire to simplify, to concentrate on models of one scale. No scale is more basi c than another, but pe ople concentrating their work think of their scale as special. Ho wever, limiting the scale of view limits understanding, because every scale is part of the scale above and com posed of the smaller scaled items below. We cannot understand one scale without studying its relation to that above and below (2000, 14).

PAGE 42

42 An implication of scalar logic is that the results of a study that focuses on one scale in a particular socio-ecological system will tend to be radically different from another study of that same system that focuses on a different scale of analysis, meaning that choices about what variables and scales are monitored ultimately have profound effects about the ways in which knowledge about an ecosystem is both produced and interpreted (Norton 2005). With these scaling issues in mind, participatory research with stakeholders emerges as having critical linkages with system ecology in that it provides a m eans of both gathering information that transcends scales of analysis normatively established through the oftentimes insular paradigms of management institutions, and focusing new analyses onto those scales in which there is broader social consensus that a problem exists (Gunderson 1999; Fischer 2000; Norton 2003). Multi-scalar Narratives Utilization of a narrative style is often used as a mechanism for integrating and analyzing information collected across multiple scales of analysis (Berardi 2002; Sneddon et al. 2002; Allen et al. 2003; Norton 2003). Th e stylistic approach adopted for both case studies in this dissertation is deemed as multi-scalar narrative. Multi-scalar is a term that denotes that the research traverses a variety of different tempor al, spatial, and ontological scales of analysis, while the narrative form describes the packaging of the various scalar analyses into a unified socio-ecological story interwoven with different empirical, theoretical, and moral interpretations. Most generally, narratives are the means by which humans communicate throughout the bounded limits of language, perception, and imaginati on. Narratives have been said to comprise the quintessential form of customary knowledg e (Lyotard 1984, 19), the banisters of ethical life (Thiele 1999, 9), and the fabric by which be havior, communication, a nd intellectual inquiry are framed within shared discursive commun ities (Roling and Maarleveld 1999). All metaphors,

PAGE 43

43 myths, fictional stories, historical accounts, sc ientific theories, instit utional worldviews, and philosophical axioms are thus narratives in the sense that all of these communicate a particular story and/or account about some aspect of the world (Roling and Maarleveld 1999). Thus, Allen et al. (2003, 232) suggest that narratives about complex envi ronmental problems provide a serial arrangement for events that are very diffe rently scaled in ways that are consonant with both the human experience and the way humans remember and reflect on their experience. From a systems perspective, narratives might be characterized as both an emergent property of language and an organizing principle for epis temological, moral, economic, and political constructs within human societies. Less abstractly, systems ecology principles can provide the framework by which diverse forms of data from hard data, such as wa ter quality, to soft data such as experiential anecdotes can be integrated in to iterative models, which then form the basis of testable hypotheses about ecological behavior In both case studies of th is dissertation, a review of scientific literature, communication with local and scientific experts, water quality data, and personal observations are used to provide the foundation for the creation of aggregated ecological systems diagrams (Odum 1994; Odum and Odum 2000), GIS maps, and rich textual descriptions that generally ch aracterize the hydrogeology and ecosy stem structure. In addition, management and ecological histories of the syst ems are constructed through a review of the natural systems literature, policy literature, and interviews with public officials and long-time local users of the systems. At both Ichetuckn ee and Kings Bay it was found that the ecological dynamic currently commanding most social concern is an apparent shift in stability domain towards increased dominance by filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Therefore, the multiscalar narratives ultimately are organized around a description of various socio-ecological factors

PAGE 44

44 thought to be driving the shift in stability dom ain, along with a presentation of the various ecological, societal, and institut ional pressures that currently constrain and/or prevent an effective response to the emergent ecological conditions. Adaptive Management The term adaptive management is commonly used to describe the development of systems approaches for the management of natural re sources. The ideas behind adaptive management were initially developed as a means of better managing forests and fisheries through the use of systems ecology models and monitoring regimes th at could be used to facilitate iterative management and policy adjustments (Holling 1978) but have been greatly expanded in scope and applied over a wide variety of ecological, social, and instit utional settings (Wescoat and White 2003). The inherent uncertainty characterizing huma ns ability to understand and predict the behavior of natural re source systems is a key component of adaptive management. From this recognition emerges the following six principles that underlie adaptive management: 1) natural resources always change due to both human mana gement actions and the inherent stochasticity of nature; 2) some of these changes will be qu ite surprising; 3) new management uncertainties are bound to emerge from these surprises; 4) a ll management policies should be treated as experiments from which new observations, hypotheses, and knowledge about the managed resource can be developed; 5) management polic ies should be continuously modified to reflect newly understood realities within the managed resource; and 6) local citizens should be intimately involved as partners in building basic know ledge and future goals for better managing the resource, not just informed passively a bout agency actions th rough public information programs (Holling 1995; Berkes and Folke 1998; Kiker et al. 2001; Nort on 2005). The creation of new ecological, social, and institutional understandings thr ough the application of these

PAGE 45

45 principles is often called adap tive learning, while the socioscientific feedbacks between adaptive learning and the development of ne w management plans to reflect the new understandings are often refe rred to as the adaptive cy cle (Gunderson et al. 1995). Proponents of adaptive management have found th at failure to manage natural resources with the recognition of inherent uncertainty in ecological syst ems and to adjust to this uncertainty through adaptive learning may often be directly responsib le for the destruction of the very resource that managers are attempting to co nserve and control. Situ ations in which static institutional paradigms and assumptions within the applied management of a targeted natural resource lead directly to the collapse of that same system have been termed management pathologies. Hollings (1995) work suggests that management pathologies often result when management institutions achieve initial success in controlling a singl e target variable within an ecosystem. This initial success then generally re sults in a subsequent focus on increasing the operational efficiency of management operations while efforts to monitor the ecosystem for other changes are lessened or even discont inued over time. The result of such narrow management, Holling (1995) argues, is ofte n an unnoticed homogenization of critical components within the ecosystem, which consequen tly results in decreasi ng resilience within the ecological community. This decrease in resilience is suggested to then make the ecosystem much more likely to be unexpectedly flipped into a state of persistent degr adation by the kinds of disturbances that could have been previously absorbed. A major analytic goal of this dissertation was to identify and describe different types of management pathologies that may exist within the two case studies. Ecological hypotheses relevant to ecosystem management were deve loped integrating available scientific data, stakeholder and personal observation s, and scientific literature. While it is believed that these

PAGE 46

46 models do represent important ecological relations hips, it was not intended or proposed that these ecological hypotheses would be tested usin g experimental, statistical, or other formal means for this dissertation research. Such testin g involved time scales a nd resources that were beyond the scope of this project. Instead, the pr ocess of hypothesis development in this project was viewed as a participatory contribution to the adaptive cycle (e.g., Woodhill and Roling 1998), with formal management experimentation contingent upon the inte rest, collaboration, and resources of relevant stakeholder gr oups and/or regulatory agencies. As Holling (1995, 13) argues, in an adaptive ma nagement framework there is considerably more concern that a useful hypothesis might be rejected than that a false one might be accepted. Thus, how ecosystems managers resp ond to hypotheses about ecological behavior suggested by stakeholders becomes a variable of considerable interest when evaluating the social capacity of adaptive learning, particularly wh en such hypotheses directly challenge the assumptions of entrenched institutional and re search paradigms (Dout hwaite et al. 2003). Habermass (1995, 44) influential principle of communicative rationality suggests that a precursor to the emergence of morally and rati onally legitimate solutions to difficult problems involving a multitude of different inte rests is the presence of an i deal speech situation in which all rational stakeholders are able to participate in deliberations that result in agreement through argumentation on practical questions (see also Roling and Maarleveld 1999). Using Habermass (1995) criterion, the rejection of any well-reasoned hypothesis by managers would be socially legitimate so long as it was based upon procedur es of open and rational debate, but would be illegitimate if based upon communica tive restrictions or other m odes of coercion that prevent stakeholders from reaching a truly informed consensus. Under Hollings (1995) stronger

PAGE 47

47 adaptive management criteria, le gitimate rejection would be c ontingent upon scientific studies that clearly disprove a reas onable hypothesis. Norton (2005), through the development of what he calls methodological naturalism, offers a very detailed explication and philosophical de fense of the position that the process of hypothesis development in an adaptive manageme nt framework goes beyond natural science, and enters into social processes of argumentation. Th is implies an ongoing search for coalitions and consensuses by studying actual citizens and stake holder groups that participate in actual processes in actual situations, with adaptive management emer ging out of those deliberative processes that regard no a priori principles, whether scientific or normative, as unchallengeable (Norton 2005, 206). Experiences, valu es, data, and arguments can al l be freely entered into the wider discursive community, and, crucially, it is within those areas in which fundamental disagreements are found between the interpretations of par ticipants that scientific experimentation is squarely aimed. Through this process of shifting towards an active experimental science of management policies become justified or discarded through the validation of shared e xperience, rather than through arguments about the correctness of genera l theories of value (Norton, 208). As facts emerge, Norton (2005, 210) continues, assumptions once comfortably held often are discarded as new and disturbing questions are raised abou t the overall implications of these assumptions. Using the criteria of Norton (2005) and Holling ( 1995), it can thus be deduced that management pathologies may often emerge from an ecosystem management context in which a priori principles stultify the discussion and, ultimat ely, testing of useful hypotheses put forth by members of a discursive community engaged in a collaborative conser vation process. This principle of discourse provide s the foundation for which participatory methods and systems

PAGE 48

48 ecology can be used to make judgments about pr inciples such as flexibility, open evaluation, experimentation, and learning ch aracteristic of an adaptive management process.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 ICHETUCKNEE RIVER Site Description Located near the town of Ft. White and forming the southernmost border between Columbia and Suwannee counties, the Ichetuckn ee River is an approximately five mile long spring-fed stream that discharges into the Santa Fe River with an average daily flow of 233 mgd. The upper three miles and all eight major spring groups of the river ar e located within the boundaries of Ichetucknee Springs State Park (I SSP), a designated Nati onal Natural Landmark commonly described as one of the Florida Stat e Park Services crown jewels due to its outstanding natural beauty. ISSP is a highly popular recreational ar ea that annually attracts about 150,000 visitors, almost all of whom engage in river-based activities su ch as tubing, canoeing, snorkeling, and diving. These visito rs are thought to generate approximately $2 million in annual economic activity in the rural area surrounding the park (Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group 2000). Ecologists, biologists, and other naturalists have long not ed that the Ichetucknee River, similar to other spring-fed rivers in Florida, supports a highly producti ve, diverse, and unique aquatic ecosystem. The rivers clear water histori cally has provided ideal conditions for a rich submersed aquatic plant community composed of tape grass ( Vallisneria americana ), eel grass ( Sagittaria kurziana ), water primrose ( Ludwigia repens ), two-leaf water milfoil ( Myriophyllum heterophyllum ), musk grass ( Chara spp.), and several other less co mmon species. A large variety of aquatic invertebrates, fish, turtles, birds, and mammals ar e also found in the Ichetucknee River, including rare, threatened, and e ndangered species such as wood storks ( Mycteria americana ), limpkins ( Aramus guarauna ), American beavers ( Castor canadensis ), Suwannee sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ), and West Indian manatees ( Trichecus manatus ). In

PAGE 50

50 addition, the Ichetucknee River eco system contains at least one endemic species, the Ichetucknee silt snail ( Cincinnatia mica ), which has a range that is entirely restricted to the small Coffee Springs group. In recent years, the ecological condition of the Ichetucknee River has been characterized by increased growth of filamentous green and blue green algae (e.g., Vaucheria sp. Sprirogyra sp., Oscillatoria sp., Lyngbya sp.) (Stevenson et al. 2004). Th e observed expansion of algal biomass is widely regarded by ecosystem mana gers, scientists, and lo cal citizens as having negative impacts on the rivers ec ological communities and recr eational appeal. Some of the more commonly cited effects include smothering a nd even complete displacement of submersed aquatic plants by algae, significant declines of aquatic fauna such as spring run crayfish ( Procambarus sp.) and loggerhead musk turtles ( Sternotherus minor ) (Ritchie 2006), and a general loss of aesthetic beauty associated with the slimy appearance of the algal growth. Highly publicized suggestions that contact with algae may be the cau se of skin rashes and other allergic reactions developed by swimmers at ISSP in the past several years have further heightened the level of con cern (Bruno 2004; Pittman 2006). It is widely suspected that increased concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3 -) in discharged spring water are the primary cause of the ecological changes observed in th e Ichetucknee River (Rin gle 1999; Bruno 2004), as well as many other springs ecosystems throughout Florida (Jones et al. 1996; Florida Springs Task Force 2000). In this chapter, a social history and ecol ogical narrative of the Ichetucknee River is developed using published historical and scientif ic literature, scientific monitoring data, and information gathered from communications with local citizens and agency officials. While acknowledging that anthropogenic co ntamination of groundwater is a fundamental driving force

PAGE 51

51 behind recent ecological changes documented in th e river, it is argued th at scientific studies indicate that conserva tion strategies based so lely upon reduction of nitr ate-nitrogen are unlikely to significantly reduce algae growth in the river in the foreseeable. Field note observations and a review of scientific li terature are then utilized to deve lop a systems model suggesting that management activities associated wi th eradication of water lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes ) may have exacerbated the recent shift towards algae dominance a nd loss of aquatic fauna in the ecosystem. Discussions with citizen stakeholders, agency o fficials, and non-agency scientists in formal interviews and public communicatio ns are then used as a means of exploring ways in which normative and scientific disagreements associated with aquatic plant cont rol are handled within the ecosystem management context. Based upon thes e discussions, it is argued that institutional rigidities associated with a priori attribution of harm to targeted plant species currently prevent the types of scientific evaluation and open public discussion of ecosystem management experiments that are necessary for adaptive le arning. A holistic program of ecosystem response monitoring, pilot experiments to te st the effects of reintroducing contained water lettuce mats into some areas of the river currently ch aracterized by algal ove rgrowth, and periodic communication and reevaluation of aquatic plant management techniques in public forums are suggested as ways of introducing principles of adaptive learning into the management of water lettuce in the Ichetuckne e River. Socio-Ecological Background Pre-History The Ichetucknee River has a rich archaeological and historical herita ge dating back over 12,000 years, when the first humans arrived and sett led in Florida. Early human tools made of elephant ivory and high concentrat ions of bones from a large variet y of Pleistocene animals have been found in the Ichetucknee, providing some of the most important archaeological and

PAGE 52

52 paleontological evidence that arrivi ng humans likely played a dete rminate role in the extirpation of North American mega-fauna (Milanich 1998). Despite the pr esumably quite severe socioecological disruptions caused by the extinction of these animals, the archaeological record suggests that the Ichetucknee River area was occupied and utilized by human cultures on an almost continuous basis throughout the subsequent millennia. Spanish Invasion (1539 1708) An account by Milanich and H udson (1993) indicates that Sp anish conquistador Hernando de Soto encountered Aguacaleyquen, a large village of indigenous Timucuan people with bountiful agricultural resources, lo cated near the Ichetucknee Rive r in 1539. It is well-known and documented that the Spanish invasion and subseque nt settlement of Florid a over the next several decades had catastrophic effects on the Timucuan people, including those of Aguacaleygquen. In 1608, a Franciscan mission, San Martin, was founde d at a site near Ichetucknees Mission Springs for the purpose of Christianizing the areas surviving Timucuan people (Milanich 1998). The San Martin site is believed to have been abandoned or destroyed between the years of 1660 1675 due to rebellions by remaining Timu cuan people (Worth 1992). Another mission, called Santa Catalina, was built north of the Sa n Martin site in approximately 1675, but was destroyed by a confederation of Yamassee Indians and English colonial fo rces in 1685 (Milanich and Hudson 1993). By the early 18th century, the Timucuan culture in Florida had effectively vanished due to rampant warfar e and disease (Milanich 1998). Seminole Period (1708 1845) Soon after the disappearance of the Timucua, Creek tribes be gan to permanently migrate into Florida and came to be collectively referr ed to as the Seminoles (Milanich 1998). While little is known about Seminole utilization of the Ic hetucknee area, it is believed that the word Ichetucknee was derived from a series of Cree k words that loosely translate to beaver pond

PAGE 53

53 (Simpson 1956). The American army outpost of Ft. White (located on the banks of the Santa Fe River and several miles to the west of the pr esent town of Ft. White ) was established in 1838 during the initial phases of the second Seminole War (Keuch el 1981). Written records from the second Seminole War period provide the earliest doc umentation of the term Ichetucknee River being used (Simpson 1956). American Settlement and Development (1845 1940) Florida became a state in 1845, soon after th e conclusion of the second Seminole War. Although little is known about the settlement of the Ic hetucknee area from statehood through the American Civil War period, several letters wri tten by Ambrose Hart, an American settler who lived on a plantation near the Ichetucknee, do pr ovide valuable insight into years immediately after the Civil War. Hart describes drying figs, eating fresh peaches at the plantation, and hunting plentiful game in the rich hummock lands surrounding the Ichetuc knee River (Herring 1994). The river and its springs are desc ribed by Hart as being clear as crystal (Herring 1994; 39). More intensive land use activ ities began to occur in th e Ichetucknee area around 1890, with phosphate mining and intens ive logging of virgin timber al ong the river and in surrounding uplands (Behnke 2003). The Dutton Phospha te Company acquired land surrounding the Ichetucknee River around 1900, and used convict la bor to hand extract phosphate rocks from several small mines in the area from 1900 to 1920 (Herring 1994). The base s of cut cypress and several depression features from abandoned phospha te mines in areas along and near the river are obvious artifacts of this logging and mining era. In 1920, Loncala Phosphate Company purchased from Dutton the 2,241 acres that later became ISSP (Behnke 2003). Mining activities ceased soon after the Loncala purchase, largely due to the discovery of more highly concentrated and extensive phosphate deposits in central Floridas Bone Va lley district (Herring 1994).

PAGE 54

54 Early Socio-Ecological Accounts (1940 1960) Perhaps the first detailed descriptions of the Ichetucknee River from an ecological perspective come from the famed Florida-based naturalist, Archie Carr. Carr first visited the Ichetucknee in the 1940s, in a time that he desc ribes as before tubing; before the Crackers starting storming up the spring runs in boats with ten-horse Johnsons; before Cousteau perfected his first scuba regulator a time so far back that the face mask which I saw the things I told of was only a circle of window pane in a headpi ece cut from an inner tube (1994, 60-61). Over several pages in the book A Naturalist in Florida: A Celebration of Eden Carr gives vivid, literary descriptions of biota he observed in the Ichetucknee using this crude diving mask. A colorful underwater landscape formed by aquatic plants such as elodea ( Philotria densa ), musk grass (called stonewort by Carr), and eel grass is described, as are unusual fish such as the endemic Suwannee bass ( Micropterus notius ), hogchoker ( Trinectes maculata ), and a freshwater pipefish ( Syngnathinae sp.) (Carr 1994). It is also reported that Carr enjo yed catching crayfish in the Ichetucknee throughout the 1940s, and later de scribed the crayfish population as sometimes being from wall to wall in the springs (Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group 2006). Similar to Archie Carrs accounts are a seri es of old-timer remembrances of the Ichetucknee River given by Behnke (2003). Crystal clear water, lush vegetation, bountiful fish, incredibly large concentrations of crayfish, and a wide variety of ducks, reptiles, and amphibians are all recalled in years spanning from 1925 to 1960. The river was also described as a center for cultural activities such as baptisms, recrea tion, and family gatherings (Behnke 2003). Less wholesome stories such as cars being driven into the river, common use of dynamite to catch fish, and bulldozing of sediments and other land clearing debris dire ctly into the river are also recalled (Behnke 2003).

PAGE 55

55 Mass Recreation (1960 1980) In about 1960, the Ichetucknee was discove red by students from the University of Florida located approximately 40 miles aw ay in Gainesville (Behnke 2003). The river reportedly was used by a large number of student s as a weekend partying retreat throughout the 1960s, and, over time, these unrestric ted recreational activities came to be associated with large amounts of accumulated litter, rampant vandalis m, and public drunkenness. There are also consistent reports that some lo cal people and/or Loncala officials, upset by the impact of the student crowds, attempted to st op the flow of the river by load ing large amounts of cement and other debris into the Ichetucknee Head Spring area throughout the 1960s (Behnke 2003). Although the spring was not stopped entirely, the accu mulated debris did change the appearance of the Head Spring area and may have significantly restricted discharge. In recent years, much of this debris from the Head Spring has been re moved through sustained vol unteer clean up efforts sponsored by ISSP. In 1970, Loncala sold its 2,241 acre tract of land surrounding the upper three miles of the Ichetucknee River to the State of Florida, which then developed and opened todays ISSP. Although the advent of state management in the early 1970s quickly curtailed the party atmosphere and led to the clean up of most accumulated litter, it soon became apparent to managers and scientists that the throngs of vis itors who came to tube and swim in the new park were severely impacting the ri vers aquatic plant community. DuToit (1979) utilized detailed monitoring a nd experimental work to quantify the severe impact of existing recreational activities on a quatic vegetation and faunal communities. This study represents the first extensive ecological stu dy available on the river, and is important for several reasons. First, detail ed accounts of submersed macrophyte coverage are given for 19771978, with explicit measures for cover and standing crop bio-mass given. Second, a faunal

PAGE 56

56 survey including mollusks, arthropods, and fish was also taken. Although the faunal surveys are less detailed than the floral studies, they do correl ate faunal decline with floral decline related to recreational overuse. This ecological methodology was then used to determine a recreational carrying capacity approach for both minimizing damage and allowing adequate time for aquatic plants to recover. Ecological Recovery (1980 1990) ISSP quickly followed DuToits (1979) recommendations by establishing daily and seasonal carrying capacities along va rious sections of the river in the early 1980s. The most restrictive carrying capacity of 750 daily swimme rs and tubers in summer months (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) and a closed season for the remainder of th e year is established from a launch area immediately down river of th e Head Spring to the Mid-Point dock, located just past Mill Pond Spring. A less restrictive carrying capacity of 3,000 per day and no closed season is established for the river reach from the Mid-Point dock to another dock referred to as Dampiers Landing. No limits are enforced for the river below Dampiers Landing. Several individuals interviewed for this dissertation report that the aquatic plant community quickly recovered after the institu tion of the recreationa l carrying capacity observations that are supported by bi-annual sc ientific monitoring st udies conducted by ISSP (Hand 2006) and other accounts (T aylor 2002). Attracted by the rivers natural beauty, many local artists and hobby naturalists be gan to visit the Ichetucknee Ri ver ecosystem in the early to mid 1980s, and a popular lore referring to the Ichetu cknee as the most pris tine river in Florida took hold as images of the river were produced and widely distributed. Time series photographs of the eel grass community in Devils Eye Sp ring run during the 1980s and early 1990s (Figure 3-2A, 3-2B, and 3-2C), provided by Melrose artist Johnny Dame, give an interesting documentary reference of ecological conditions during this time. According to Dame, and as

PAGE 57

57 indicated in the pictures, the a quatic plant community at Devil s Eye was characterized by dense growth of submersed eel grass and a changeable fr inge of water lettuce interspersed with other emergent vegetation along the banks of the sp ring run throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Water Quality Concerns and Springshed Research Beginning in the early 1990s, indications of ecological change appa rently unrelated to recreational impacts, such as increased coa ting of submersed plants by large strands of filamentous algae, were detected by scientists managers, and other co ncerned citizens. State officials indicate that algal accumulations were fi rst noticed within the Mission Springs run and nearby areas (Ringle 1999). In 1995, mounting concern associated with the algal growth and suspicion that declining water quality discharged from the sp rings was responsible for the observed ecological changes led to the formatio n of the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group (Working Group), which has spear headed most conservation and research efforts in the river and its springshed since that time. The Working Group is a stakeholder discussi on group composed of representatives from environmental groups, agriculture and business interests, all government agencies with jurisdiction in the Ichetucknee springshed, electe d officials, and other in terested citizens. The stated purposes of the Working Group are essentially five-fold: 1) consolid ate all research about the river and springshed developed by different agencies and scie ntists; 2) identify gaps in existing data and knowledge; 3) facilitate and coordinate studies for gathering new knowledge; 4) effectively communicate all gathered know ledge to local policy-makers and other stakeholders; and 5) foster a sense of comm unity stewardship that encourages citizens, businesses, and governments to voluntarily ad opt land use practices that better protect groundwater resources. Facilita tion and formal meetings of the Working Group are funded through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), while the research,

PAGE 58

58 monitoring, and outreach activities presented to the Work ing Group are supported through DEP and a wide variety of other government agency, nonprofit, and private sources. Significant improvements in the understanding of the Ichetucknee sp ringsheds hydrology have been made through research projects prom oted through the Working Group process. Cave diving and dye trace studies in sinkholes south of Lake City that serve as the primary outfall for three creeks Rose Creek, Clay Hole Creek, a nd Cannon Creek have convincingly shown that these sinkholes are hydrologically connected to the Ichetucknee Rivers major springs through large conduit systems, sometimes described as underground rivers, in the limestone of the upper Floridan aquifer (Butt and Murphy 2003). An important implicat ion of these studies is that the creek to sink systems, all of which are plagued by stormwater contamination from urban and agricultural sources in the Lake City area directly affect the wa ter quality of both the Ichetucknee River and domestic drinking we lls. A recent state land purchase and retrofit construction of a stormwater retention pond at Rose Creek sink near Columbia City were expressly undertaken for the purpose of better protecting the groundwater sources leading into the Ichetucknee River. The Working Group has also attracted much public attention to elevated levels of groundwater nitrate-nitrogen (Ri ngle 1999; Ritchie 2006), which is widely cited as the primary suspected cause of increased algae growth and other ecologi cal changes observed in the Ichetucknee River and other Florida springs (J ones et al. 1996; Florida Springs Task Force 2000). Recent nitrate-nitrogen conc entrations in the Ichetuckn ee River average between 0.5 1.0 mg/L, or approximately 10 20 times over the es timated historic background concentrations of 0.05 0.1 mg/L (Florida Springs Task For ce 2000). Porous overlying soils, lack of clay confining layers, and large number of sinkholes with direct groundwater connections together

PAGE 59

59 make the upper Floridan aquifer in the Ichetuck nee springshed extremely vulnerable to nitratenitrogen contamination (Katz et al. 1999). Major identified sources of nitrate-nitrogen contamination are as follows: fertilizers applied in agricultural fields and domestic lands capes, disposal of animal and human wastewater effluents in spray fields and se ptic tank drain fields, emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and land-clearing/deforestation that decreases the amount of soluble nitrogen absorbed by plants and other organisms in surface soil layers (Jones et al. 1996). Efforts to reduce nitrate-nitrogen loading into the Ichetucknee spri ngshed include pursuit of funds to finance sewage treatment and process upgrades for Lake Citys municipal sewa ge treatment facility; expansion of sewage service to areas currently served by septic tank systems; encouragement of stricter septic tank performance and maintenance standards for hom es and businesses locat ed outside of the municipal service area; and outreach to promote voluntary re ductions in fertilizer usage by homeowners, farmers, and la ndscaping professionals. Uncertain Science: NitrateNitrogen and Algae Response in Springs Ecosystems Despite the attention given to water quality improvement at the Ichetucknee River since the early 1990s, media reports (Bruno 2004; R itchie 2006) and scientif ic data (Hand 2007) indicate that the problem of nui sance algal growth c ontinues to spread at an increasing rate throughout the ecosystem. A consistent message given in media reports, suggested by many members of the Working Group, and reported by most individuals interviewed for this research is that rising nitrate-nitrogen is primarily to blame for these changes. Accompanying this characterization is an apparent assumption that decreased concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in the river would be expected to reduce growth of nuisance algae, thereby l eading to the recovery of desirable submersed pl ants and aquatic fauna.

PAGE 60

60 These cause-effect characterizations about nitr ate-nitrogen contamina tion and algal growth are a fundamental driving factor in envir onmental policy discussions focused heavily on reducing nitrate-nitrogen loading into springs heds for the purpose of protecting springs ecosystems (DCA and DEP 2002). While reduction of nitrate-nitrogen load ing or any other human contaminant into groundwater may be inhe rently worthwhile from the perspective of improving water quality, an objecti ve look at recent data trends and scientific studies for Ichetucknee and other Florida sp rings ecosystems suggests two inte rrelated points: 1) nitratenitrogen may not offer a sufficient explanati on for ongoing increases of nuisance algae growth; and 2) reductions of this nutrient may not n ecessarily result in a co rresponding reduction of nuisance algae. A review of water quality data in the Iche tucknee River obtained from the DEP (Hand 2006) helps to introduce these points. While long-term data (Figure 3-4) do clearly show that a dramatic upward trend in the rive rs nitrate-nitrogen concentrati ons historically occurred from mid 1960s through the mid 1980s, the data in Figur e 3-5 suggest that ambient nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the river have only slightly increased sin ce the mid 1980s, a time in which there was little concern about water quality or eco logical changes in the ri ver. Furthermore, the excerpted data shown in Figure 3-6 actually indi cate a steady downward tr end in nitrate-nitrogen during the period from 2000 2006, while a t-te st comparison between the data from 2000-2006 indicate no significant difference in nitrate-nitrogen levels over this period as compared to levels measured from 1985-1998 (Table 3-1). If algal gr owth and biomass accumulation were to have a simple linear relationship to nitrate-nitrogen concentrations, it seems to follow, based upon available data, that algal grow th and biomass accumulation woul d have either decreased or

PAGE 61

61 remained stable since 2000. Howeve r, available data indicate that the biomass and coverage of undesirable algae have greatly expanded during this time period (Hand 2007). One possible explanation for th is anomaly is that nitrate-nitrogen measurements at Ichetucknee Springs have been shown to have ex treme variability over very short periods of time due to the flushing of stored c ontaminants during storm events and other stochastic processes (Martin and Gordon 2000). High frequency samp ling before and after storm events are recommended by Martin and Gordon (2000) as a means of detecting important spikes and pulsed trends within nitrate-ni trogen levels a recommendation that is not reflected in the sampling performed by state agencies. Thus, it is conceivable that undetected pulses within nitrate-nitrogen levels are occurring within the river and that these nutr ient pulses might indeed be a cause of the observed increases in algal gr owth. Clearly, this line of reasoning cannot be dismissed and should be explored in more detail in future rese arch. However, the fact that extreme nitrate-nitrogen pulses were detected by Martin a nd Gordon (2000) before rapid increases in algal growth were observed in many areas of the ri ver also tends to support the search for additional explanatory variables. Field observations from 2000 2001 and cursory an alysis of water quality data are used by Evans (2002, 47) to hypothesize that algal growth in the upper Iche tucknee River likely is more correlated with elevated phosphorus concentrations than with nitrate. This observational hypothesis is in agreement with subsequent stat istical analyses of algal biomass and water quality conducted by Stevenson et al. (2004) and Hand (2007), both of whom found that algal biomass in the Ichetucknee Rive r spatially correlates with phosphorus concen trations and shows no direct statistical re lationship with nitrate-nitrogen. On the one hand, a phosphorus relationship with algal growth is not surprising given the pr imary role that phosphorus often plays in cultural

PAGE 62

62 eutrophication of aquatic systems throughout the world. Furthermore, Biggs (2000) found specific correlations between phosphorus and al gal biomass accumulation in field studies of stream systems in New Zealand, with mu ch of this accumulation accounted for by Vaucheria sp. similar to those found in the Ichetucknee. But on the other hand, phosphorus enrichment does not seem to provide a coherent explanation for observed ecological changes in the Ichetucknee River, largely because phosphorus concentrations measured within spri ngs are, unlike nitratenitrogen, not known to have increased significantly over time. Geologi sts have found that phosphorus loaded into springsheds from fertilizer applications and wastewater disposal is adsorbed to overlying soils and carbonate rock before groundwater can be contaminated, meaning that differential phosphorus concentrations among springs genera lly are a function of the natural phosphate content of rocks being eroded by groundwater flow in areas of the Floridan aquifer near the spring outfalls not anthropogeni c contamination (Jones et al. 1996). A policy implication of this geological finding is that reduction of phosphorus concentrati ons discharged from springs likely is not a plausible ecosystem management strategy for reducing algal growth in springs (Joyner and Paerl 2007). Even if algal accumulation in the Ichetuc knee River is phosphorus limited, it can be coherently hypothesized, however, that algal gr owth may have been or iginally triggered by nitrate-nitrogen contamination, with naturally available phosphorus in the spring water simply limiting the extent to which the growth reaction can be expressed. While this hypothesis clearly cannot be dismissed and should be researched in more detail, declines of submersed plants associated with spread of nuisance algae recently have been recorded in Silver Glen Springs and Alexander Springs, both of which have undevelo ped springsheds contained almost entirely

PAGE 63

63 within the Ocala National Forest and background concentrations of both nitrate-nitrogen (under 0.1 mg/L) and phosphorus (Joyner a nd Paerl 2007). The importance of this finding is that undesirable ecosystem changes associated with al gal overgrowth in some cases can be triggered by disturbance factors appare ntly unrelated to nitrat e-nitrogen contamination. In addition, Cowell and Dawes (2004) recen tly found that the biomass accumulation of Lyngbya wollei a cyanobacterium species that is increa singly displacing submersed plants at Ichetucknee and other Florida spri ngs, is only significantly redu ced in spring water at nitratenitrogen concentrations as lo w as 0.07 mg/L, or approximately 10 times lower than what is currently found in the Iche tucknee. This finding suggests that, even in those cases where nitratenitrogen may be a primary causal factor in tr iggering increased algal growth, the subsequent changes in ecosystem function and corresponding auto catalytic feedbacks may represent a nonlinear shift in ecosystem stab ility domain (Scheffer et al. 1 993). An implication of such a nonlinear relationship is that even a dramatic re duction of nitrate-nitroge n to levels (e.g., under 0.3 mg/L) historically not associ ated with high levels of al gal biomass accumulation may be insufficient for abating the continued accumulation and expansion of algal biomass in the future (Cowell and Dawes 2004). But even if these findings and suggested rela tionships are discounted and a simple linear relationship between nitrate-ni trogen and algal growth is a ssumed, current management and restoration strategies still are in complete in the sense that they do not adequately account for the long-term entrainment of nitrate-nitrogen in the groundwater from past and ongoing land use activities. Given current contam ination patterns and the travel times of groundwater in the springshed, even the most succe ssful conservation and/or wate r quality improvement programs are not likely to result in signi ficant reduction of the ambient c oncentration of nitrate-nitrogen

PAGE 64

64 discharged in large springs ecosystems like Ichetu cknee for at least two decades (Jones et al. 1996; Katz et al. 1999; Cowell and Dawes 2004). Take n together, all of these analyses suggest that current ecosystem management and policy de velopment strategies, which are hinged almost entirely upon reduction of nitrat e-nitrogen loading within the springshed, are unlikely to be sufficient for the achievement of significant reduc tions in algal growth in the Ichetucknee River for the foreseeable future. Water Lettuce Eradication In June 2000, DEPs Bureau of Invasive Pl ant Management (BIPM) announced plans to begin herbicide applications on the Ichetu cknee River to control water lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes ), a floating aquatic plant found along the banks, snag s, and stagnant areas throughout much of the river at that time. According to aquatic plant control researchers at the University of Florida, water lettuce is an invasive nonnative3 plant that can significan tly reduce biodiversity in Floridas aquatic ecosystems by shading out na tive submersed plants, destroying emergent vegetation, and by eliminating underwater animals through oxyge n depletion (Ramey 2001). 3 Although the ability of water lettuce to spread rapidly (i.e., invasively) in disturbed and nutrient-enriched aquatic ecosystems in tropical and s ub-tropical areas of the world is well-docume nted (Sharma 1984), the claim that water lettuce is not native to Florida is a matter of considerab le scientific controversy and inconclusive speculation (Stuckey and Les 1984; Stoddard 1989; Ramey 2001). A major source of the controversy comes from the fact that the explorer William Bartram, often used as a historical source for cataloguing the native flora of Florida, commonly observed and made drawings of water lettuce on the St. Johns River, Suwannee River, and several lakes in 1765 (Stuckey and Les 1984). Stuckey and Les (1984) argue that the best biological evidence for presuming that water lettuce is exotic to Florida (i.e., introduced by human activity in the post-Columbian era) derives from an assumption, commonly held at the time their paper was written, that water lettuce does not produce seeds in Florida due to a lack of appropriate pollinators. Based upon this assumption, they sp eculate that the water lettuce observed by Bartram may originally have been introduced from South America by 16th century Spanish settlers in St. Augustine. This speculative introduction theory is, however, undermined to some extent by a later finding that seed production is, in fact, an important source of reproduction fo r water lettuce in Florida (Dray and Center 1989). Some aquatic plant researchers, perhaps through a misunderstand ing of Stuckey and Less ( 1984) original speculations, currently suggest that water lettuces most likely mode of introduction into Florida was through the ballast water of Spanish ships (Ramey 2001). However, Spanish sailing ships in the 16th 18th centuries (and all other sailing ships before the late 19th century) used non-water stone ballast (Wiley 1995), indicating that ballast water clearly was not the mode of water lettuces introduction into Florid a before the time of Bartram. The primary source, other than Bartram, suggesting that water lettuce may be native to Florida is Stoddard (1989), who uses paleofloristic and ethnobotanical findings to make a sp eculative argument that water lettuce likel y has been present in most tropical and subtropical regions of the world, including Florida, throughout antiquity (Stoddard 1989, 23).

PAGE 65

65 While acknowledging that wate r lettuce had been documented to create only minor problems on the Ichetucknee River, BIPM argued that the new control program was, however, urgently needed to help reduce environmental and economic losses associated with water lettuce in the tidal creeks of the lower Suwannee River estuary, located approximately 60 miles downstream (DEP 2000). Likely in response to significant public opposition engendered by the chemical control proposal, over the next several months BIPM agreed to indefinitely delay herbicide applications an d instead assisted ISSP with the ins titution of an experimental water lettuce eradication program based upon hand ha rvest of the plant. A part-time employment position at ISSP dedicated solely to removal of water lettuce was funded by BIPM, and plans were initiated for up to 9 weekend water lettu ce round up days each year that would utilize community volunteers. The water lettuce removal efforts began at th e Ichetucknee Head Spring in late 2000, and have progressively moved down river as the wa ter lettuce in upstream areas is successfully extirpated (Figure 3-3). The peri odic volunteer events are used to quickly remove large water lettuce concentrations from targeted areas of th e river, while the ISSP em ployee, with periodic assistance from volunteers, interns, and/or wo rkers from service organizations such as AmeriCorps, maintains a day to day focus on rem oving every visible piece of water lettuce from the river bank and other hard to reach areas. The laborious process of removing even the smallest fragments of water lettuce in the river is ofte n referred to as nit-picking. Once removed, the water lettuce is deposited in dis posal sites located along the rive rs adjacent flood plain forest (Figure 3-3). Several years later, this effort has been a clear success in term s of almost entirely eradicating water lettuce from si gnificant stretches of the upper Ic hetucknee River. The influence

PAGE 66

66 of this management strategy has reached as far as California, where resear chers recently cited the Ichetucknee water lettuce eradi cation campaign as a primary exam ple of utilizi ng a strong sense of stewardship among a local co mmunity to effectively institute a non-chemical invasive plant control program (Greenfield et al. 2004, 59). Local media also have given positive coverage to the volunteer clean up days, with one representa tive story citing offici als and volunteers who argue that the water lettuce removal helps to save th e river from an invasive exotic plant that is choking life and reducing biodiversity in the aquatic ecosystem (Sobel 2004). Observed Ecosystem Response In January May 2001, I recorded a number of field observations while working as a volunteer student intern at ISSP. My primary duty throughout this internship was hand removal of water lettuce, which as discussed above ha d recently been initiated as a formal control program. On most days I was the sole assistant to the ISSP employee recen tly hired for the water lettuce removal program, although on some days small work crews from AmeriCorps and other service organizations would also assist with harvesti ng and nit-picking acti vities. In addition, I participated in several of the large volunteer work day events, which generally attracted 50 100 people, held during this time period. As show n in Figure 3-3, the wate r lettuce eradication program during 2000 2001 covered the upper Ichetu cknee River, with some gaps, from the Head Spring to Devils Eye Spring. A consistent observation made throughout th is experience was that contrary to the description of the plants adve rse effects (e.g., oxygen depleti on and faunal depopulation) given by Ramey (2001) and largely adopted in public communications about th e eradication campaign at ISSP (Sobel 2004), water lettu ce was being utilized as habitat by a large number of aquatic fauna in the Ichetucknee River. In particular, I consistently obse rved that the fibrous roots of harvested water lettuce plants often contained la rge populations of aquatic invertebrates such as

PAGE 67

67 spring run crayfish, several types of mollusks and snails, and a wi de variety of insects. While limited effort was made to return some of the larger organisms back into the river, it seems fairly safe to assume that most of the removed organisms perished. Although these observations, and similar obser vations recently reported in a newspaper editorial by Dame (2006), clearly ar e anecdotal, they also are cons istent with better documented accounts. For example, field measurements of oxygen levels under water hyacinth, which has similar ecological functionality to water lettuce, in the spring-fed St. Marks River indicate that flowing water conditions in spring-fed streams can be expected to prev ent the large-scale oxygen deficits and faunal depopulation commonly attributed to floating plant mats in other ecosystem contexts (Bartodziej and Leslie 1998). The potentia l habitat value of water lettuce in spring runs is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by Thom psons (1968) descripti on of the dense hydrobe snail ( Aphaostracon pycnum ), a species endemic to Alexander Springs in the Ocala National Forest and reported to be almost exclusively associated with fl oating mats of water lettuce and water hyacinth. In addition, inte rnal studies performed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission indicate that water lettuce is preferenti ally utilized as cover habitat by several small fish species such as the least killifish ( Heterandria formosa ), pygmy killifish ( Leptolucania ommata ), and an endemic topminnow ( Fundulus seminolis ) (D. Gallagher, Environmental Specialist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, E-mail Communication, May 8, 2006). Although somewhat diffe rent than springs ecosystem in terms of water flow rates and chemistry, extensive mats of water lettuce found in the Lettuce Lakes of south Floridas Corkscrew Swamp are known to be characterized by very large populations of crayfish, wading birds, turtles, alligat ors and other native animals (USGS 2007).

PAGE 68

68 Another observation made at Ichetucknee was that eradication of water lettuce from a section of the river was often followed by a ra pid colonization and expansion of filamentous algae. Although the colonizing alg ae tended to be most obvious and severe in the same low flow velocity areas where the water lettuce had pr eviously accumulated, substantial increases of filamentous algal coverage on beds of submerse d vegetation such as eel grass and tape grass were also observed on several occasions after the eradication of adjacent water lettuce mats. Such an observational relationship of filame ntous algae quickly invading into adjacent submersed plant communities was specifically recorded in field notes at Blue Hole taken in early 2001. These field notes indicate that the spring runs eel grass and tape grass community did not have visible accumulations of filamentous algae in the last week of January, when the water lettuce was harvested and deposited nearby on th e river bank (Figure 3-3). By February 13, it was observed that the spring run was being overw helmed by mats of brown and black algae growing amongst and topped out over the submersed grasses. A similar observation about filamentous alg ae rapidly overtaking submersed plants was also made following the removal and disposal of water lettuce at Devi ls Eye Spring in early spring of 2001. Although the Devils Eye field notes are not specifi cally dated, the two photographs dated December 2000 (Figure 3-2D) a nd May 2001 (Figure 3-2E ) respectively show the spring at times soon before and after the erad ication of water lettuce. In December 2000, little accumulation of filamentous is noticeable on su bmersed plants. By May 2001, after the removal and disposal of large amounts of water lettuce in an area directly adjacent to the spring boil (see Figure 3-3), large strands of filamentous alg ae are clearly apparent. Since May 2001, the eel grass community in Devils Eye Spring has almost completely disappeared due to displacement by filamentous algae (Hand 2007).

PAGE 69

69 Systems Model Like the observations about faunal utilization of water lettuce, my reports of rapid algal growth following water lettuce removal are, of course, fundamentally anecdotal. However, a review of scientific li terature can be used to coherent ly hypothesize a competitive relationship between water lettuce and algal growth in the Ic hetucknee River. The hypothesis, presented in Figure 3-7 as a systems ecology model using Odums (1994) network language suggests that the primary form of competition between water lettuce and algae is for sunlight, with water lettuce having a clear competitive advantage due to it s physiology as a floating plant (Attionu 1976). Nutrients are shown as a secondary source of competition in the model. This competitive relationship is suggested by a wide variety of scientific studies indicating that water lettuce is one of the most effective aquatic plants in uptake of nitrate-nitrogen (Nels on et al. 1980; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda and Kar 1996; Kao et al. 2000 ; Lopes-Ferreira 2000; Lin et al. 2002; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004), phosphorus (Tucker and Debusk 1981; Tripathi et al 1991; Panda and Kar 1996; Kao et al. 2000; Lopes-Ferreira 2000; Kent et al. 2000; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004), and iron and various other metals (Sharma 1984; Srid har 1986; Kao et al. 2000) thought to influence algal growth patterns in the Iche tucknee River and other springs (S tevenson et al. 2004). It is notable that pond culturalists throughout the world commonl y utilize water lettuce for suppression of algae based upon the sunlight competition and nutrient uptake mechanisms (Cohen 1993) suggested in this model. In addition, the model contains an additiona l feedback mechanism indicating that water lettuce biomass may serve as a further drain on algal growth beyond the direct competition for sunlight and nutrients. This relationship is s uggested by studies showing that water lettuce releases allelopathic chemical s that suppress some algae speci es (Aliotta et al. 1991; Gross 2003), can directly filter and reta in a large amount of algal bioma ss in its fibrous root mass (Kim

PAGE 70

70 et al. 2001), and is utilized as habitat by various bacteria, zooplankton, and other fauna that consume algae (Attionu 1976). A final relationship shown in the model is that the shoreline disposal of water lettuce likely resulted in a secondary pulsed rel ease of nutrients back into the aquatic ecosystem as the biomass decayed, perhap s serving as an additional catalyst for algal growth. Prevention of secondary nutrient loading through bioma ss management techniques that move harvested aquatic plant biomass well away from the shore of a water body is discussed by Shijun and Jingsong (1989) in relation to harv est and utilization of water hyacinth from a eutrophic Chinese river. Stakeholder Responses Conversational inte rviews and public communications with twenty-eight stakeholders were used to gather perceptions of the Ichetuckn ee Rivers ecological c onditions, and then, as described in Chapter 2, to introduce and disc uss the water lettuce/algae response hypothesis. Seven of these stakeholders were scientists an d/or managers directly employed by government agencies with ecosystem management responsibiliti es at the Ichetucknee River, six were private or university scientists with re search and/or management experi ence in the Ichetucknee River, and the remaining fifteen were non-scientists4 who have attended at least one meeting of the Working Group. As noted in Chapter 2, all interview informants were asked to describe their understanding of the problems currently facing the Ichetuc knee River system. Not surprisingly given the association of these stakeholde rs with the Working Group, the dominant themes discussed in 4 The descriptive term non-scientist is being used as shorthand to identify those stakeholders who are not currently employed as environmental scientists. This shorthand may, however, be a little misleading in the sense that some of the stakeholders may have advanced scientific training and/or are professionally employed in scientific professions. In any case, the distinction being made is between thos e stakeholders whose participation in the Working Group primarily is associated with their stat us as environmental/ecological scientists (both agency and non-agency) with professional expertise about the Ichetucknee River, and those stakeholders participating solely on the basis of being concerned citizens.

PAGE 71

71 relation to ecological conditions were concern about increasing al gal growth and nitrate-nitrogen contamination within the river. Almost all stakeholders (twentyseven) at some point mentioned that algal growth in the river has, in their view markedly increased since they first visited the river, and the unanimous consensus among these was that the problem continues to worsen. There was also a clear tendency to link this grow th with nitrate-nitrogen contamination, with twenty-two stakeholders and all fourteen non -scientists who noted in creased algal growth indicating that increased nitrate-nitrogen was the likely cause of the algal growth. However, three non-agency scientists and two agency scientists suggested that factors other than and/or in addition to nitrate-nitrogen coul d be triggering algal growth. Wa ter lettuce was cited by eighteen stakeholders (ten non-scientists, five agency scientists, and three nonagency scientists) as another primary concern within th e river, although the harvest pr ogram was cited by sixteen of these as being effective in ge tting the plant under control. Participants were then presented with info rmation suggesting that management of water lettuce may be linked to the pro liferation of nuisance algae in the Ichetucknee River. Although it must be cautioned that the non-random selection me thod prevents traditional statistical analysis, distinct response patterns were observed am ong the different informant groups after being introduced to this information, particularly to the following two questions: 1) Should the idea of invasive plant management being linked to proliferation of nuisanc e algae be investigated further by scientists? 2) Should ecosystem managers consider modifying the ways in which they manage water lettuce in Ichetucknee Springs? Twelve out of the fifteen non-scientist re spondents (80%) indicated that they both supported more research into th e hypothesized relationship and believed that managers should consider modifying plant management strategies based upon the results of scientific study. Six of

PAGE 72

72 these twelve additionally indica ted that their own observations about ecosystem response in the Ichetucknee were consistent with the informati on presented. While there is a danger that such a response could be an artifact of non-scientist respondents deferring to what they consider to be a more authoritative opinion, it is no table that, in the preliminary in terviews, only one of these six cited water lettuce as a primary concern within the river. In addition, fi ve out of six (83%) nonagency scientists a group who would not be exp ected to uncritically defer also indicated support for both additional research and consideration of alternativ e plant management strategies after being presented with the hypothesis. Among agency scientists and managers the response pattern was noticeably different, wi th five out of seven (71%) s uggesting that alternative plant management strategies should not be considered. Interestingly, while three of these five did suggest it was possible that removal of water lettu ce could have resulted in increased growth of algae, statutory mandates for controlling nonnative species and fears that water lettuce would quickly grow out of control abse nt aggressive eradication effort s both were cited in defense of continuing current management. Two additional evaluative themes were common ly raised by stakeholders in the interview process. The first major theme suggested by ma ny (twenty-two, or 79%) st akeholders (including most of those who supported more research in to the hypothesized relationship between water lettuce and algae growth) was that the expansion of native plant sp ecies particularly eel grass, wild rice ( Zizania aquatica ), and water hemlock ( Ciculata maculata ) as a result of water lettuce removal is an important benefit that shoul d also be considered in an overall evaluative framework. It is notable that tw o of the three non-scientist stak eholders who argued that there was no need to reconsider current management st rategies justified this stance by suggesting that nutrient filtration and faunal habitat values prov ided by the expansion of native plants greatly

PAGE 73

73 exceeded those formerly provided by water lettuce. A second major theme suggested by most stakeholders (twenty-three, or 82%) was pref erence for the harvest method over management strategies based upon herbicide usage, largely due to the belief that herbicides would pose a high threat of non-target damage to aquatic plants and animals. Adaptive Learning and Institutional Rigidity Norton (2005, 208) argues that a key component of adaptive management is to support a process of social learning in which members of communities, upon seeing the consequences of acting in pursuit of particular va lues, may come to question and re vise some of the values they have been acting upon. Using the conversations with stakeholders as a qualitative foundation, several points relevant to social learning within the management context at Ichetucknee River are suggested: 1) algal growth is currently viewed as a greater threat to the ri vers ecological values than water lettuce; 2) there is significant willingness am ong non-scientists and non-agency scientists to reconsider a comm only held value about water lettu ce (i.e., it should be eradicated) based upon information suggesting that it may help to suppress algae; 3) the spread of native plants is considered to be a benefit of suppressi ng water lettuce; and 4) ch emical control of water lettuce is considered to be a hi ghly undesirable management option. If these qualitative points are combined with both the scientific information suggesting that reduction of nitrate-nitrogen offers, at best, an uncertain and temporally distant method for controlling algal growth and the scientific hypotheses elaborated by the systems model, a very strong foundation for holistically reevaluating th e water lettuce eradic ation policy for the Ichetucknee River emerges. According to adaptive management theory, integral to this process of iterative social learning would be detailed monitoring efforts sp ecifically designed to detect and better understand unintended effects of ongoing management actions (Holling et al. 1998; Gunderson 1999), along with a discursive environmen t in which stakeholders have the ability to

PAGE 74

74 openly challenge the beliefs and evaluative stat ements that are given to explain and justify environmental policies (Norton 2005, 209). Based upon these prescriptive criteria, it is, howev er, apparent that th e current institutional framework governing ecosystem management in the Ichetucknee River provides for a rigid, nonadaptive approach towards the control of water lettuce. In terms of m onitoring, the progress of water lettuce eradication is being documented (Figure 3-2). However, the ecological effects associated with this eradication have not been rigorously studied either with regard to the hypothesized algae response relation ship suggested above, or to ch aracterize the colonization of native plant species following the removal of th e water lettuce since the programs inception. Thus, the original eradication policy continue s to be justified by tw o lines of reasoning conspicuously laden with questionable sc ientific and moral assumptions: 1) an a priori attribution of harm to water lett uce associated with its statutory status as an invasive nonnative species; 2) an accompanying assumption that eradi cation of the invasive nonnative species brings unambiguous benefits to the rivers ecological values. Ev en if questions about the nonnative/native origins of water lettuce (upon which the primary justifications behind current management policy are, however, cl early hinged) discussed above in footnote 1 are left aside, the apparent consensus among stakeholders that the rivers overall ecological condition has, over the time period of the water lettuce eradication effort s, increasingly deteriorated due to increased algal growth seems to offer a compelling ratio nale for a critical reassessment of these management assumptions and practices through a holistic monitoring program. In fairness, it could be argued that the lack of monitoring associated with the water lettuce eradication program was originally an epistemological issue, in the sense that scientific questions relevant for framing the monitoring program had not yet emerged. However, a secondary effect

PAGE 75

75 of discussing the hypothesis about water lettuce eradication and al gal response with stakeholders was that this idea was introduced into the discursive context of the Working Group. As indicated above, most agency scientists and managers interviewed for this dissertation expressed opposition to the idea of reconsidering the curren t eradication strategy, w ith this position often justified by reference to a stat utory directive in Chapter 369.22(1 )(d) of the Florida Statutes (2006b) that calls for maintenance of nonnative pl ants such as water le ttuce at the lowest feasible level. While there is little question that the goal of maintaining water lettuce at the lowest feasible level is standard among state agencies engaged in aquatic pl ant control activities, Chapter 369.22(4) contains an a dditional clause indicat ing that management of aquatic plants must also protect human health, safety, and r ecreation and, to the greate st degree practicable, prevent injury to plant, fish, and animal life (Florida Statutes 2006b). This latter clause, it would seem, provides an unambiguous basis for monito ring and reflecting upon the consequences of aquatic plant management, with the implication th at appropriate and itera tive adjustments should be made to both protect consensual public good s and prevent consensual public harms. Thus, specific aquatic plant management practices associ ated with the production of algal blooms that negatively affect public health, safety, recreation, fish, and/or wildlife presumably would be subject to review under the criteria set forth by the statute. The qualitative interview research indicates that there is signif icant interest among stakeholders for further inquiry into the benefits costs, and effects of aquatic plant management activities in the Ichetucknee Ri ver, and the stakeholder Working Group would seem to provide an appropriate forum for such discussions. Howe ver, public discussion of the management policy through the auspices of the Working Group so fa r has been discouraged through an apparent

PAGE 76

76 rigidity associated with the prevailing institut ional assumptions used to justify aquatic plant control. For example, my own request to ma ke a formal presentation to the Working Group raising questions about water lettuce eradicati on and algal proliferati on was denied in April 2004, with the stated rationale be ing that such a topic would fa ll outside of the Working Groups stated mission of improving water quality in the springshed.5 More recently, a non-scientist stakeholder made independent6 public comments during a Working Group meeting held on October 11, 2006, suggesting that potent ial linkages between increased algal growth in the river and the water lettuce eradication program should be a focus of monitoring and research activities. Although, as discussed above, the origin al scientific justification for initiating the water lettuce erad ication program in 2000 was based upon downstream impacts to the Suwannee estuary (DEP 2000), the official response given to this recent stakeholder concern was a pronouncement that agency biologists had come to the conclusion that water lettuce threatened to completely overtake the river. Citing dire consequences such as the complete destruction of submersed plant communities and cessation of recreational activities that would be associated with water lettuce completely covering the river, it was then stipulated that the eradication polic y was not an appropriate matter for public debate. This response clearly had the in tended effect, contra to what Norton (2005) recommends for facilitating an effective adaptive management program, of discouraging additional public challenges to the institutional beliefs being us ed to justify and explain an ongoing ecosystem management strategy. 5 Although I do not believe that most Working Group members would make this distinction between the mission of protecting water quality in the springshed and understanding ecological conditions in the river, I have respected this request by not publicly raising questions about water lettuce management within the context of Working Group meetings. 6 This is to clarify that there was no communication or coordination between myself and this stakeholder in relation to the public comments made at the Working Group meeting.

PAGE 77

77 Management Experimentation: Moving Beyond All or Nothing As generally suggested by Gunderson (1999), th e socio-ecological rese arch presented in this chapter suggests that two ma jor impediments to adaptive learning exist with relation to water lettuce management in the Ichetucknee River: 1) fear of a non-resilient eco system shifting to an unwanted stability domain (i.e., complete cove rage of the river by wa ter lettuce); and 2) inflexibility in the extant power relations am ong stakeholders (i.e., in stitutional rigidities organized around defense of current agency policie s). Underlying these fear s and rigidities are what philosophers commonly call all or nothing thinking, or, more technically, the fallacy of false alternatives. In other words, a wide vari ety of alternative scenarios exist between, on the one hand, current management goals and techniques (eradication and shoreline disposal of water lettuce) and, on the other hand, a cessation of aq uatic plant management that leaves the river recreationally unusable. For example, a logical re form to the current management strategy could be pursuit of alternative biomass disposal tec hniques, perhaps through utilization of bottom-lined composting facilities and/or mobile dumpsters, to prevent the risk of pulse d nutrient loading into the river. Another logical reform would be to specifically monitor the successional patterns observed after the removal of water lettuce. Leaving aside any ultimate determinations as to whether or not the increasing algal growth observed in the Ichetucknee River over recent years has any important ecological relationship with the water lettuce eradication program, there is clear social consensus that increased algal growth being observed in the river represents a highly undesirable shift in stability domain. Equally clear, as discussed above, from a scien tific perspective is that extant groundwater contaminant patterns, along with the apparent res ilience of the algal stab ility domain to lowered nutrient levels, make it highly unl ikely that current management strategies are sufficient for achieving consonance between the socially mediat ed values and management goals established

PAGE 78

78 for the ecosystem and the clear constraints posed by extant and emergent environmental conditions. Gunderson (1999) suggests that a pragmatic antidote for building resilience and flexibility into socio-ecological contexts char acterized by institutional rigidity and resource collapse is through small-scale pilot experiments7 designed to bring novel lines of inquiry into the management context. Ideall y, the socio-ecological informati on developed in this chapter could be used as the basis for such small scale experiments. For example, one logical management experiment would be to intentionally grow water lettuce perhaps in polyculture with native floating aquatic pl ants, such as water pennywort ( Hydrocotyl sp.) in certain areas of the river (e.g., spring runs) currently characte rized by high levels of algal growth. Such experiments could be used to better understand the effects of water lettuce and other aquatic plant species on algal production, faunal populations submersed and emergent plant species, and various physico-chemical variables (e.g., nitrat e-nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen) within the specific context of the Ichetucknee River. Any experiments for better understanding the ecological functions of water lettuce, however, need not supplant the overall management goal of minimizing the plant in most areas of the river, both to prevent dow nstream migration of the plant and encourage growth of more desirable native plants. In fact, it would be relatively straightforw ard to coordinate such a pilot experiment with the existing management infrastr ucture to test, as sugge sted by Lopes-Ferreira 7 Admittedly, a key practical barrier to such pilot experime nts is suggested in a more recent paper by Gunderson et al. (2006). These authors pointedly argu e that a lack of holistic learning ca pacity in the Florida Everglades is systemically perpetuated by a monolithic research funding apparatus, dominated by government agencies, that filters out integrative studies that could question existing policies in favor of those that reinforce existing dogma. While such an institutional consideration almost certainly hol ds for this case, it can be argued that the comparatively small scale of both the Ichetucknee ecosystem (relative to the Everglades) and studies being called for here leave open the possibility of non-traditional (e.g., private non-profit, independently funded graduate student, collaboration with volunteer organizations, etc.) means of supporting the recommended research. Obtaining necessary aquatic plant permits to conduct the recommended research, however, is another practical barrier that should be considered.

PAGE 79

79 et al. (2000), different water le ttuce growth and harvest methods for the purpose of identifying any specific strategies that may maximize contam inant removal and/or restoration of the overall ecological community in degraded areas. Inform ation gathered through such studies would not only make a valuable contri bution to overall eco logical knowledge, but the process of communicating and evaluating the results of th e experiments in public forums, whether in coordination with or independently of the Work ing Group, could help to invigorate and stimulate the overall process of adaptive learning.

PAGE 80

80 Figure 3-1. Map of Ichetucknee River and Springs

PAGE 81

81 A B C D E Figure 3-2. Time series phot ographs of Devils Eye Sp ring A) 1987, photograph by Johnny Dame. B) 1989, photograph by Johnny Dame. C) 1993, photograph by Johnny Dame. D) December 2000 (Follman and Buchanan 2004). E) May 2001 (Hand 2006).

PAGE 82

82 Figure 3-3. Map of water lettu ce removal at ISSP (Hand 2006)

PAGE 83

83 Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 1966 2006R2 = 0.86890 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 196519701975198019851990199520002005Nitrate (mg/L) Figure 3-4. Ichetucknee Springs nitr ate: 1966 2006 (Data from Hand 2006) Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 1985 2006R2 = 0.13690 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006Nitrate (mg/L) Figure 3-5. Ichetucknee Springs nitrat e: 1985-2006 (Data from Hand 2006)

PAGE 84

84 Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 2001 2006R2 = 0.72270.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 20002001200220032004200520062007Nitrate (mg/L) Figure 3-6. Ichetucknee River nitrat e: 2001 2006 (Data from Hand 2006) Table 3-1. T-test comparison of Ichetucknee River nitrate levels, 1985-1998 vs. 2001-2006 Nitrate (mg/L) 1985-1998 Nitrate (mg/L) 2001-2006 Mean 0.68650.775417 Variance 0.0139610.001951 Observations 56 Pooled Variance 0.007289 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 9 t Stat -1.71995 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.059777 t Critical one-tail 1.833113 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.119555 t Critical two-tail 2.262157

PAGE 85

85 Figure 3-7. Systems model of water lettuce and algae competition at Ichetucknee River

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 4 KINGS BAY/CRYSTAL RIVER Site Description Kings Bay/Crystal River is a freshwater springs and tidally-influenced river system located in Citrus County on the northwester n coast of the Florida peninsul a (Figure 4-1). The headwaters of Crystal River are formed by Kings Bay, a 600 acre open water area with depths generally ranging between 3 to 10 feet and containing at l east 30 artesian springs (Jones et al. 1998). The combined discharge of Kings Bays springs is approximately 630 million gallons per day (mgd), which comprises the vast majority of flow with in Crystal River and makes Kings Bay one of the worlds largest known artesian springs complexe s (Rosenau et al. 1977). The main channel of Crystal River emerges from the northwester n section of Kings Bay, and then flows approximately 6 miles to the west-northwest before discharging into the Gu lf of Mexico (Scott et al. 2002). Due to their position along the gulf coast, both Kings Bay and Crystal River are subject to periodic storm surge-dr iven inputs of saline water. This chapter focuses specifically on the Kings Bay headwater portions of the Crystal River ecosystem. The constant influx of artesian spring wa ter maintains a year round temperature of approximately 72 degrees Fahre nheit and provides for clear wate r conditions in many areas of Kings Bay. These ecological condi tions historically have sup ported the growth of highly productive submerged aquatic plant communities. This combination of warm spring water and lush plant growth have also made Kings Bay one of the worlds most important habitats for endangered West Indian manatees ( Trichecus manatus ) (Figure 4-2). Manatees are large, herbivorous marine mammals that take winter refuge in Florid a spring ecosystems due to their inability to survive extended exposure to wate r temperatures below 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and whose Florida population of approximately 3500 is pr imarily threatened by fatal collisions with

PAGE 87

87 boats and toxins associated with near shore algal blooms. The r ecreational desirability of clear water springs and the unique opportunity to vi ew large numbers of a charismatic endangered species serve as the foundations for an economica lly important nature-based tourism industry in the Kings Bay/Crystal River area. Over the past two decades there has been increasing concern among government agencies and local stakeholders about a perceived deterioration of ecosy stem conditions within Kings Bay. Much of this concern stems from increased coverage of filamentous cyanobacteria mats generally composed of Lyngbya wollei (Figure 4-3), decline of submerged macrophytes such as native eel grass ( Vallisneria americana ) and nonnative hydrilla, and a decrease in water clarity throughout Kings Bay (Munson 1999; SWFWMD 2004). The ongoing replacement of submerged macrophytes with L. wollei is considered problematic by most Kings Bay stakeholders for several reasons. Primary among these is that manatees feed extensively upon most aquatic macrophytes, incl uding preferentially upon nonnativ es such as hydrilla and Eurasian milfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum ) (Campbell and Irvine 1977; Silverberg and Morris 1987), but apparently find lit tle to no food value in L. wollei (Anonymous 2005). Therefore, it is feared that loss of submerged macrophytes in favor of L. wollei may directly threaten an important winter food source for the endange red manatee population. In addition, loss of macrophytes is correlated with decreased wate r clarity in Kings Bay (Munson 1999), a condition that is thought to adversely a ffect recreational enjoyment and tourism within the ecosystem. L. wollei s general unattractive appearance, foul odor, a nd emission of toxins that can cause some individuals to develop severe a llergic reactions are other probl ems often cited by managers and stakeholders (Gross and Martin 1996).

PAGE 88

88 Due largely to the growing problems a ssociated with the proliferation of L. wollei in 1988 the Kings Bay/Crystal River complex was liste d by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in its Surface Water Improve ment and Management (SWIM) priority list (SWFWMD 2004). Under the provisions of Ch apter 373.451 353.4595 in the Florida Statutes, the SWIM Plan serves as the operative research and planning document fo r setting and achieving ecosystem restoration and prot ection objectives with in Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2000). The first SWIM plan for Kings Bay was developed by SW FWMD in 1989, with exte nsive updates made in 2000. The most recent SWIM Plan document es tablishes the primary restoration goals for Kings Bay/Crystal River as impr oved water clarity, reduction of L. wollei prevention of sediment resuspension within the water column, re -vegetation of degraded areas with desirable submerged macrophytes, and protection of the endangered manatee population (SWFWMD 2000). But despite many years of scie ntific research and management effort associated with the SWIM Plan, the general consensus among managers and stakeholders is that the Kings Bay ecosystem continues to steadily decline. Watershed Context Contaminant loadings from land use activit ies and hydrologic alte rations within the watersheds of aquatic systems are widely rec ognized as two primary factors to consider in aquatic restoration projects. Th e Kings Bay/Crystal River waters hed is characterized by highly porous sandy soils that directly overlie and drain vert ically into the cavernous limestone and dolomite formations of the upper Floridan aquifer the source of the water that discharges from the springs within Kings Bay (Jones et al. 1998). Such subsurface drainage catchments that discharge into artesian springs are often referred to as sprin gsheds (Scott et al. 2004). Most Florida springsheds are known to be quite vulnerable to groundwater contamination from human landuse activities due to the por osity of surface soils, lack of significant confining layers over

PAGE 89

89 the Floridan aquifer, and the pr esence of many sinkhole features that can transport contaminated runoff directly into the groundw ater (Florida Springs Task Force 2000; Scott et al. 2004). Previous studies have found a variety of nutrients pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical residues, and other anthropogenic contaminants within Florida springs that ha ve large areas of agricultural and/or residential land usages within their spring shed (Katz and Bohlke 2000; Phelps 2004). However, nitrate-nitrogen, which can originate from fertilizer applications, discharge of human and animal wastewater, and atmos pheric deposition, is generally regarded as the contaminant of most concern in many Florida springs, both due to the precipitous increases in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations observed in sp rings throughout the state and the known potential of nitratenitrogen to cause rapid eutrophi cation once it reaches a quatic systems (Jones et al. 1998; Florida Springs Task Force 2000; Katz and Bohlke 2000; Phelps 2004; Scott et al. 2004). Most of the current land-use within the Kings Bay springshed is characterized by lowintensity timber, pasture, and agriculture that generally pose a low to moderate contamination risk. However, more intensive land usages such as domestic lawns, golf courses, commercial development, and municipal wastewater spray fi elds that pose greater contamination risks are present and quickly increasing throughout the springshed (Jones et al. 1998; SWFWMD 2004). Very little historic data have been collected fo r pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemical residues within Kings Bays springs, but quarterly nutrient samples for nutrients have been taken by SWFWMD since June 1989. Nitrat e-nitrogen concentrations within Kings Bays springs currently range from approximately 0.2 0.5 parts per million (ppm) (SWFWMD 2004). While relatively low in comparison to several other la rge Florida springs that often show nitratenitrogen levels well over 1 ppm (Jones et al. 1998; Scott et al. 2004), the nitrate-nitrogen concentrations within Kings Bay are thought to represent a twenty-fold increase over background

PAGE 90

90 nitrate-nitrogen concentrations found within unc ontaminated portions of the Floridan aquifer (Jones et al. 1998). Unfortunately, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in Kings Bays springs are expected to continue increasing for the fores eeable future due to a known plume of extant groundwater contamination and anticipated landuse intensification within the Kings Bay springshed (Jones et al. 1998). A lthough increased nitrate-nitroge n levels within springs are rightly viewed with great concer n by regulatory agencies, scientif ic studies to date have shown surprisingly little spatio-correlation or dire ct ecological relations hip between increased concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen and the increased L. wollei growth observed within Kings Bay and other Florida springs (Romie 1990; Hoyer et al. 1997; M unson 1999; SWFWMD 2000; Stevenson et al. 2004). Direct surface runoff into Kings Bay is limited to relatively small areas of land adjacent to the water body and is believed to contribute relatively minor amounts of contaminants on an annual, mass-balance basis (SWFWMD 2004). Ho wever, the relatively high density of commercial and residential land uses within this surface drainage basin and a drainage infrastructure that directly loads stormwater fr om many impervious surfaces directly into Kings Bay together indicate that lo calized pulses of heavy metals petrochemicals, herbicides, pesticides, and other anthropogenic contaminants from stormwater discharge points may play an important role in the degradation of the eco system (SWFWMD 2004). Othe r historic hydrologic alterations such as the dredging of numerous canals, filling and impoundment of fringing wetlands, and construction of hardened sea wall s along many areas of the shore are also thought to have had deleterious ecological effect s (SWFWMD 2004). Although some SWIM Plan resources are currently being put into restor ation projects aimed at improving stormwater infrastructure and replacing some failed sea walls with vegetative buffers, the vast majority of

PAGE 91

91 historic hydrologic altera tions in Kings Bay are regarded as permanent due to the substantial residential and commercial developments now located on filled lands as well as the scarcity and high cost of land that could potentially be us ed for mitigation projects (SWFWMD 2004). Participatory Methods The genesis of this research was my particip ation in a University of Florida Conservation Clinic (UFCC) project to assist the City of Crystal Rivers Ki ngs Bay Water Quality Subcommittee (KBWQS) in the de velopment of model stormwater and landscaping ordinances. The UFCC is a non-litigation based law clinic, hous ed in the Levin College of Laws Center for Governmental Responsibility, that utilizes team s of upper-level law and graduate students under the direction of law faculty mentors to devel op policy recommendations for private businesses, non-profit organizations, and government agencies who are pursuing projects that further the goals of environmental conservation. The KBWQS is a citizen-based group that advises the City of Crystal River on policies rela ted to improving water quality within Kings Bay, and is funded through grants provided by the Waterfronts Florid a Partnership of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The model ordinance project necessitated cl ose collaboration with citizen and agency stakeholders to rapidly develop working knowle dge of the issues of concern in Kings Bay. Stakeholders shared local knowle dge about Kings Bay through in -depth conversations, both in meetings of the KBWQS and through field trip s into Kings Bay and surrounding areas of the watershed. This collaborative process revealed that local citizens had a variety of different concerns and opinions about the overall manage ment of Kings Bay that went well beyond the specific concerns about stormwater contaminat ion, with many of these concerns focused on historic and ongoing management of a quatic plants in the ecosystem.

PAGE 92

92 After the completion of the UFCC project in December 2004, I continued to regularly attend and take detailed field note s of meetings held by the WQS. As described in Chapter 2, a formal qualitative research protocol for in depth stakeholder interviews approved by the University of Floridas Institutional Review Boar d was utilized in the Crystal River area from April August 2005. Due to the non-random selection methods use, the content of the interviews is not necessarily expected to be reflective of general beliefs held by the population at large within the Crystal River area. However, it is expected that the methodol ogy used for this study did provide a window into the lo cal knowledge of citizens most i nvolved and interested in the Kings Bay ecosystem, and that better understa nding of this local knowledge may provide important insight into deficien cies within the expert knowle dge of research and agency scientists (Fischer 2000; Norton 2005). Twenty-four stakeholders living in the Crys tal River area were in terviewed through the research protocol. As this interview research pr ogressed, it became clear that most local residents shared similar concerns about th e root causes of Kings Bays degr adation as those cited typically cited by agency managers and research scientis ts, including springshed contamination, historic hydrologic alterations, rapid development, and increased boat traffic (SWFWMD 2004). However, a clear divergence between the per ceptions of local resi dents interviewed and information presented by management agencies wa s the suggestion of many residents that past and present aquatic plant manageme nt activities were an important factor in the emergence and persistence of L. wollei Interest in better understanding this divergence prompted a review of scientific literature on both Kings Bay and i nvasive aquatic plants such as water hyacinth, hydrilla, and L. wollei Findings of this literature review were then supplemented by direct

PAGE 93

93 communications, public record e-mails, and conver sational exchanges in p ublic meetings with research and agency scientists, particular ly through participation in the KBWG. The content of these qualitative research findings and subsequent literature re view are used in this chapter to construct an ecological history that focuses largely on aquatic plant management activities in Kings Ba y and the role that these activi ties may have played in shaping and perpetuating the currently observed ecosystem state. The interview research presented as local knowledge in this chapter is constructed through a triangulation method, in the sense that independent verification of reported events a nd observations was made through discovery of supporting documentation, scientific literature, an d/or the consistency of multiple stakeholder accounts. It is also noted in th e chapter narrative whenever st akeholder accounts are the sole source of a given claim. The combination of local knowledge and supporti ng scientific literature is used as the foundation for developing two scientific hypothese s: 1) chemical control of aquatic plants, particularly through the usage of copper-herbi cides in the 1970s and 1980s, may have caused systemic disruptions of planktonic food chains, th ereby contributing to the selection of a resistant strain of L. wollei to become dominant among the phytopl ankton community; and 2) increased coverage and/or alternative management of nonnative macrophyte species, and particularly experiments based upon recent advances in wa ter hyacinth phytoremediation, may be more consistent with the functional re storation of Kings Bay than cu rrent management strategies. As described in Chapter 2, these hypotheses we re then communicated in public forums and public communications with agency stakehol ders. Although legitimate concerns and even cautious support regarding management experi ments using nonnative plants were found through public communications with agency personnel, si gnificant institutional rigidities apparently

PAGE 94

94 associated with non-contextual attributions of harm to nonnative species also were encountered. The chapter concludes by suggesting that resear ch and agency scientists should work closely with local citizens to set up controlled experiments in wh ich phytoremediation and alternative management approaches towards nonnative macr ophytes could be objectively evaluated as potentially useful tools in an overall ecol ogical restoration program in Kings Bay. History of Nuisance Aquatic Pl ants in Kings Bay: 1950 2005 Management of nuisance aquatic plants ha s been an issue of great controversy and central importance within the Kings Bay eco system for many decades. Although published literature on Kings Bay largely focuses on the in troduction of hydrilla in the early 1960s and persistent L. wollei blooms that began in the mid1980s (SWFWMD 2004), four long-time Crystal River residents gave very similar fi rst hand accounts indicati ng that aquatic plant problems actually began in the early 1950s with the proliferation of water hyacinth mats throughout many areas of Kings Bay and Crystal River. Water hyacinth is a free-floating macrophyte sp ecies native to South America that has become naturalized throughout many subtropical a nd tropical regions of the world over the past 100 years, and is commonly known as the worlds worst aquatic weed due to its ability to become invasive in waters with high levels of natural or anthropogenic nutrients (Gopal 1987). Before turning to the specific remembrances of water hyacinth management in Kings Bay, it is necessary to contextualize this management within the history of this plant and its control in Florida. Schmitz et al. (1993, 173) note that wate r hyacinth became the first serious plant pest in Florida soon after its introduc tion to the St. Johns River in 1880s, with its spread greatly aided by cattlemen who held the mistaken belief that it made good cattle feed. Large obstructions caused by hyacinths piling up aroun d bridges were noted as soon as 1895, and control operations based upon crushing, diversion, and removal of water hyacinth from the St.

PAGE 95

95 Johns River by the USACE began with the passa ge of the Rivers and Harbors Act in 1899 (Schmitz et al. 1993). By 1902, amendments to the Rivers and Harbors Act allowed for extermination of water hyacinths using a variety of chemicals such as sodium arsenite, sulfuric acid, carbolic acid, and kerosene (Schmitz et al. 1993). However, Buker (1982) notes that these control methods were soon rejected due to toxici ty to cows, and mechan ical harvest became the primary method of control thr oughout most of the early 20th century. The first trials of the herbicide 2,4-D began in the mid 1940s, and th e USACE began to employ 2,4-D against water hyacinth in Florida by 1948 (Schmitz et al. 1993). This new herbicide was seen as an important advance in the battle against water hyacinth due to its combination of str ong herbicidal properties and low acute toxicity to cattle and other anim als (Joyce 1982). At its peak in the late 1950s, water hyacinth was estimated to cover more th an 50,000 hectares in Florida (Schmitz et al. 1993). Since the late 1950s, water hyacinth has been progressively controlled in Florida over the past 50 years by federal, state, and local offi cials through treatment programs based largely upon 2,4-D and other aquatic herbicides. The water hyacinth growth throughout Kings Bay during the 1950s was described by all four informants as making navigation through so me parts of Kings Bay and Crystal River very difficult at times. Similar accounts among the inform ants suggest that thes e navigational issues triggered the onset of an a ggressive water hyacinth eradic ation program using broadcast herbicides in the mid to late 1950s, a control program that all informants described as being locally popular due to the various problems that came to be associated with hyacinth overgrowth. While it must be noted that no sp ecific records indicati ng the extent of the hyacinth coverage or the types and amounts of chemicals that may have been used at Kings Bay/Crystal River for hyacinth treatment in the 1950s have been locate d, common practice for this era indicates that

PAGE 96

96 one acre of water hyacinth would likely have be en treated with approximately 2 pounds of acidequivalent 2,4-D (Zeiger 1962). Informants also suggested that water hyaci nth had been known in Kings Bay and Crystal River for many years, but, unlike many other areas of Florida, was not considered a particularly invasive or nuisance species in Kings Bay before the 1950s. In fact, one of the informants, a retired fisher, indicated that he had always considered water hy acinth a very useful plant because of his contention that la rge concentrations of shrimp a nd other bait could reliably be found in the hyacinth roots (see Tilghman 1962, 1963; Maltby 1963 for similar historical accounts on the St. Johns River). Even after the wa ter hyacinth mats began to proliferate, the clear consensus among the four resi dents with recollection of this period is that the water clarity of the open water areas of Kings Bay was as high as it had been previously or has ever been since that time. In addition, all reported that the beginning of wa ter hyacinth control operations seemed to have undesirable impacts on the ecology of Kings Bay, including a perceived relationship between the loss of water hyacinth, a decline in wate r clarity, and the subsequent proliferation of another nuisance weed hydrilla. If these remembrances about water hyacinth in Kings Bay/Crystal Ri ver circa 1950s are an accurate representation of the ecological change s that occurred during this time, there would appear to be a fairly straight forward explanation for the change d growth behavior of the water hyacinth and the observed effects of its control. It is known that the 1950s marked the beginning of largescale shoreline and wa tershed development around Kings Bay, which is thought to have resulted in substantial increases of nutrient loadi ngs from wastewater and fertilizer sources into the water body (SWFWMD 2004). As can be visually deduced by comparing an aerial photograph of Kings Bay taken in 1944 (Figure 4-4) with one ta ken in 1960 (Figure 4-5), many

PAGE 97

97 shoreline alterations that destr oyed fringing wetlands and directly resulted in increased sediment loading into Kings Bay were associated with this development pe riod (SWFWMD 2004). The increased input of sediments and nu trients, disturbance of circulat ion patterns, and destruction of fringing marshes associated with this developmen t would be expected to provide ideal conditions for water hyacinth to enter into a period of exponential, or inva sive, growth (Gopal 1987; Odum 1994). Although this exponential growth clearly would be exp ected to cause navigational problems similar to those reported by interview informants, the ability of water hyacinth to sequester large amounts of solubl e nutrients (Agami and Reddy 1990; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda and Kar 1996; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004), filter algae and other particulates in its fibrous roots (Kim et al. 2001), and suppress phytoplankton bloo ms through allelopathy and other mechanisms (Jin et al. 2003) may have helped maintain mu ch of the water clarity and submerged aquatic vegetation in the remaining open water ar eas (Hu et al. 1998) of Kings Bay. While herbicides are quite effective in s uppressing problem water hyacinth populations, this control method also is known to release la rge amounts of nutrients and other contaminants from the dying plants into the water column and bottom sediments (Reddy and Sacco 1981). Thus, chemical control of water hyacinth partic ularly over large areas often can be followed by large algae blooms (Clugston 1963; Chesnut and Barman 1974; Brower 1980; Grimshaw 2002) and/or explosive growth of highly productive submersed plan ts such as hydrilla (USACE 1973), both of which may cause problems of a similar or even worse magnitude as those associated with the original water hyacinth growth. Such a general relationship appears to have he ld in Kings Bay as the successful control of water hyacinth was almost immedi ately replaced by explosive grow th of the submersed hydrilla. Hydrilla is a submersed macrophyte species native to Africa and Southeast Asia that spread

PAGE 98

98 throughout the world in the latter part of the 20th Century, largely due to its historic popularity within the aquarium trade and prolific growth cap abilities within a wide range of environmental conditions. The appearance of hydrilla within Ki ngs Bay/Crystal River circa 1960 marks one of the earliest of this invasive nonnative species within Florida (SWFWM D 2000). Since that time hydrilla has quickly spread to b ecome a severe nuisance species within many aquatic systems in Florida and the southeastern United States. Interview accounts indicate that the rapid grow th and great spatial ex tent of the initial hydrilla invasion within Kings Ba y quickly resulted in a range of environmental and navigation problems that dwarfed those previously associat ed with water hyacinth, thereby making hydrilla control the new aquatic plant management prio rity within the ecosyst em. Although the growth and spread of hydrilla within Kings Bay perhap s was inevitable after its introduction, work by Fontaine (1978) suggests that en riched sediments deposited by pr eviously treated water hyacinth mats would be expected to ex acerbate the subsequent problems posed by the growth of the submersed species. In addition, the extreme hydrologic disturbance and creation of bare aquatic habitat associated with the dredging of numerous canals in Kings Bay in the 1960s and 1970s (Figure 4-6) likely were add itional factors that facilitated th e rapid spread of hydrilla over this period. Early hydrilla control efforts in Kings Bay were varied and largely in effective, including a now notorious attempt to control hydrilla through the application of large amounts of sulfuric acid obtained from a nearby phosphate mine into several areas of Kings Bay. While an initial report indicated somewhat favorab le results from the sulfuric acid treatment method (Phillipy 1966), aquatic plant managers later suggested that this treatment had only temporary effects on hydrilla and severe detrimental effects on both fi sh and desirable aquatic vegetation (Friedman

PAGE 99

99 1987). A more long-term hydrilla treatment program using a combination of copper-based and several other types of herbic ide formulations was institut ed in the 1970s and continued throughout much of the 1980s (Halle r et al. 1983). However, this program also was considered by many citizens and managers to be ineffectiv e and counter-productive (Dick 1989), and copper herbicides eventually were discontinued as a hydr illa control strategy afte r elevated levels of copper were detected in Kings Ba ys sediments and the organs of deceased manatees (OShea et al. 1984; Facemire 1991; Leslie 1992; SWFWMD 2000). A hydrilla management program based upon shredding, mechanical harvest in navigation al trails, and limited application of non-copper containing herbicide formulations of diquat, endoth all, and flurodine was in stituted in the late 1980s (Dick 1989; Cowell and Botts 1994) and rema ins the foundation of the current hydrilla management plan within Kings Bay (Anonymous 2005). Noticeable blooms of filamentous algae such as L. wollei were first recorded in Kings Bay in the late 1970s and early 1980s (SWFWMD 2004) but, likely due to the continued dominance of hydrilla, the coverage and persistence of thes e blooms reportedly remained at low levels for several years (Dick 1989). Large scale L. wollei blooms throughout Kings Bay were first reported in September 1985, soon after temporary sa linity increases associated with the storm surge of Hurricane Elena reduced the hydrilla population in Kings Bay by over 90% (Dick 1989; SWFWMD 2004). Despite the historic problems associated with wa ter hyacinth and hydrilla, the emergent L. wollei invasion was almost universally regard ed as having even more deleterious effects on wildlife habitat, recreational desira bility, and overall aesthe tics within Kings Bay (Dick 1989). Almost all informants interv iewed indicated that hydrilla populations recovered and L. wollei blooms progressively lessened for several years after the 1985 storm surge (see also

PAGE 100

100 Cowell and Botts 1994). However, ongoing aquatic plant management activities (Cowell and Botts 1994) and additional storm su rges associated with the Sto rm of the Century in March 1993 resulted in further displacement of hydril la in Kings Bay (Bishop 1995; SWFWMD 2004). While the 1993 storm surge also reportedl y resulted in temporary declines of L. wollei and increased coverage of more salt-tolerant macrophyt es such as Eurasian milfoil and native tape grass throughout many areas of Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004), L. wollei quickly rebounded to become an almost complete monoculture th roughout the north centr al, northeastern, and southeastern portions of Kings Bay (Frazer and Hale 2001). Submersed macrophyte communities dominated largely by Eurasian m ilfoil with interspers ed hydrilla, tape grass, and small amounts of several other native species persist in the central, south central, southwestern, and northwestern sections of Kings Bay (Frazer a nd Hale 2001). However, almost all interview informants indicate that these macrophyte commun ities are increasingly im pacted by the effects of intensive manatee grazing throughout the wint er and smothering associated with ecosystemwide blooms of L. wollei in the spring and summer. Factors Related to Lyngbya wollei Dominance The underlying factors that resulted in th e establishment and persistence of the L. wollei community currently observed throughout many areas of Ki ngs Bay are not well understood. While some state agencies suggest that L. wollei is an invasive nonna tive species that was introduced into Kings Bay in the early 1980s (S WFWMD 2004), very little evidence to support this claim, aside from the i nvasive behavior exhibited by L. wollei currently exists. Whitfords (1956) work in which five specific Lyngbya strains and a general cate gory of undifferentiated Lyngbya sp. were identified within Florida spring s ecosystems, including Kings Bay/Crystal River, indicates that L. wollei is more likely an indigenous cyanobacteria species that has

PAGE 101

101 mutated and/or become invasive over time due to changing ecologica l conditions (Gross and Martin 1996). Although there has been much speculation that increased nutrient levels, particularly elevated nitrate-nitrogen concen trations, in Kings Bay may be responsible for the growth of L. wollei (Jones et al. 1998), studies attempting to co rrelate nitrogen (inclu ding nitrate-nitrogen) and phosphorus levels at Kings Bay with L. wollei have consistently found no significant relationship (Romie1990; Cowell and Botts 1994; Hoyer et al. 1997; Munson 1999). One exception is Hoyer et al.s (2001) suggestion that nitrogen could frequently be a limiting nutrient in Kings Bay. However, Stevenson et al. (2004) in a comprehensive study of algae within Florida springs ecosystems, found that L. wollei is not significantly correlated with concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen or other nitr ogen forms within spring water, likely because of L. wolleis ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere (Phlips et al. 1992). Cowell and Botts (1994) found that growth of L. wollei cultures was promoted by calcium and limited by phosphorus, and that the concentra tions of both calcium and phosphorus found in Kings Bay provide very favorable conditions for L. wollei to flourish. Substantial loading of anthropogenic phosphorus from the City of Crystal of Rivers wastewater treatment plant into a downstream area of Crystal River did occur throughout the 1970s a nd 1980s (Bishop 1995), and incoming tides are thought to have transported a portion of these nutrien t discharges throughout Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004). Because a paucity of water quality data for Kings Bay before 1989 prevents the detection of any significant up ward trends in phosphorus concentration that may have occurred in Kings Bay in the late 1970s and 1980s, phosphorus loading from municipal waste discharges certa inly cannot be discounted as a contributing factor in the emergence of the L. wollei community. However, while ambient phosphorus and nitrogen

PAGE 102

102 concentrations in Kings Bay do show a slight reduction since the wast ewater effluent was diverted to an upland disposal si te in 1992 (Figure 4-7), these dec lines are not necessarily related to the removal of the downstream effluent (Bis hop 1995) and have not been associated with any significant reduction of L. wollei in the Kings Bay ecosystem (SWFWMD 2004). Variables other than nutrients have, howe ver, been significantly correlated with L. wollei coverage in Kings Bay. Before th e 1993 storm, Romie (1990) found th at relative salinity levels and the presence of hydrilla were significantly correlated (negatively, in both cases) with coverage of L. wollei in Kings Bay. Frazer and Hales (2001) work suggests that the presence of macrophytes such as Eurasian milfoil and tape gr ass may also be negatively associated with L. wollei The findings of both Romie (1990) and Fr azer and Hale (2001) are used by SWFWMD (2004) to suggest that the presen ce of rooted aquatic vegetation a nd increased salinity levels may have the effect of suppressing L. wollei in Kings Bay. While there is additional literature support for the idea that rooted macrophytes reduce L. wollei in Kings Bay and other freshwater ecosystems (Doyle and Smart 1998; Munson 1999), L. wollei s apparent ability to adapt to elevated levels of salinity (Shannon et al. 1992 ; Gross and Martin 1996) raises considerable doubts about salinity acting as a permanent suppressive mechanism in the Kings Bay ecosystem. Twelve informants suggested th at the initial appearance of L. wollei in Kings Bay was correlated with an increased intensity in the hyd rilla herbicide program during the late 1970s and early 1980s an account that is also suggested by Cowell and Botts (1994). All of these twelve, as well as six more informants who moved to Crystal River after 1990 storm, indicated that current herbicide operations also seem to result in increased L. wollei (see also Spivey 2001). With the notable exception of Cowell and Botts (1994) and despite public concern that has been voiced for at least two decades before the onset of this dissertation research (Dick 1989), the

PAGE 103

103 potential linkage between herbic idal treatment of aquatic ma crophytes and the emergence of L. wollei monocultures has received little attention in previous Kings Bay research. A seemingly clear scientific justification for such a concern is that herbicides such as copper and endothall historically used for hydrilla control in Kings Bay are known to have significant control effects on many species of freshwater algae (Whitwor th and Lane 1969; Leland and Carter 1984; DuBose et al. 1997), while one of L. wollei s most distinctive ecological traits is its apparent resistance to endothall and most copper herbic ide formulations (Dyer et al. 1992; Gross and Martin 1996; Spencer and Lembi 200 5). Cooke et al. (2005) report th at negative side effects of copper herbicides typically include the preferentia l selection of copper-resi stant algal strains and severe impairment of benthic and planktonic f ood webs, along with th e type of sediment contamination that has been documented in Kings Bay (Facemire 1991; Leslie 1992). Given Kings Bays ecosystem management history and the kn own resistance of L. wollei to typical herbicidal control methods, a plau sible hypothesis implied by st akeholder accounts is that the ecological conditi ons currently observed in large parts of Kings Bay may be, at least in some part, a legacy of hydrilla treatment methods that secondar ily disrupted the structure of phytoplankton communities and faunal food chains in the aquatic ecosystem. Thus, an unintended consequence of herb icidal disruptions may have been selection of resistant L. wollei strains, much like overuse of antibiotics can lead to the development of resistant bacterial pathogens in human and animal populations. Asid e from the anecdotes given by local citizens and Cowell and Botts (1994) that link L. wollei with herbicidal control, the fact that the first noticeable blooms of L. wollei in the late 1970s and early 1980s (SWFWMD 2004) precisely correspond to the era in which copper herbicides were most extensively used in Kings Bay (Haller et al. 1983; OShea 1984; Leslie 1992) provi des an additional level of support for this

PAGE 104

104 hypothesis. An extension of this hypothesis that is consistent with the observed effects at Kings Bay is that L. wollei s exceptionally fast doubling capacity, which may be as little as 0.8 2 days in ideal conditions (Tubea et al. 1981), would have left this fi lamentous cyanobacteria species well-positioned to become comp letely dominant throughout those areas of the ecosystem in which its macrophyte competitors were subsequently destroyed through management actions, stochastic natural events, or other significant disturbances. As indicated by the apparent resilience of L. wollei to a wide range of nutrient c onditions (Cowell and Dawes 2004), the switch to L. wollei dominance in large areas of Kings Bay al most certainly represented a shift of stability domain from submersed macrophytes to filamentous algae that will prove extremely difficult to reverse through nutrient reductions al one (Blindow et al. 1993; Scheffer et al. 1993; Terrell and Canfield 1996). Current Restoration and Management Strategies The two major management plans currently in place for Kings Bay are the SWIM Plan (SWFWMD 2000) and an annual Aquatic Plant Mana gement Plan (APMP) put together by an Interagency Working Group composed of representa tives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Fish and Wild life Service (USFWS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Citrus County Aquatic Services (CCAS) (Anonymous 2005). Many complaints were voiced about the effectiveness of thes e plans throughout the stakeholder interview process, but consistent themes include: 1) SWIM Plan projects have so far resulted in little visible ecosystem improveme nt; 2) management activities are not wellcoordinated between the different agencies and often seem to ofte n be in conflict; and 3) most visible management activity in Kings Bay is associ ated with aquatic plant control activities that are viewed as ineffective and/or counterprodu ctive. The following review of these plans and

PAGE 105

105 associated management activities indicates that there are significant merits to these citizen complaints. SWIM Plan The SWIM Plan is a detailed technical docum ent that focuses the restoration goals for Kings Bay on increasing water clarity, reducing L. wollei and restoring desirable submerged aquatic plant communities (SWFWMD 2000). While the research and monitoring provided by the SWIM Plan have been critical in pr oviding a better understandi ng of the ecological conditions within Kings Bay, specific projects funded by SWFWMD to achieve the desired restoration goals have not, however, resulted in significant improvements in the ecosystem. For example, a dredging project to remove sediments and L. wollei from major springs was undertaken in 1997, but these springs were observed to quickly fill in with sediments and become covered with L. wollei soon after the project was co mpleted (SWFWMD 2004). More recently, a pilot project for replanting native tape grass in some areas of Kings Bay was attempted, but was almost wholly unsuccessful due to the effects of manatee grazing and competition with Eurasian milfoil and L. wollei (Hauxwell et al. 2004). Some improvements in the stormwater infrastructure in areas adjacent to Kings Bay ha ve been completed through joint funding from the SWIM Plan and the City of Crystal River (SWFWMD 2004), but the scarcity and high cost of available land have greatly limited the scope of these projects. SWFWMD has recently made watershed educat ion programs to reduce nutrient inputs into Kings Bay its priority management strategy for achieving goals outlined by the SWIM plan (SWFWMD 2004). While such a program may provide education materials about Kings Bay that are useful and valuable to the interested public, two factors make it doubtful that such a program provides a sufficient foundation for achieving significant water quality or ecosystem improvements. First, the fact that spring discharge is currentl y responsible for more than 94% of

PAGE 106

106 the ambient nitrogen and phosphorus in Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004) is likely to prevent the effects of even the most highly successful watershed nutrient reduction program from being observed for many years, if ever. In the case of nitrogen, a large plume of nitrate-nitrogen contamination is known to be moving through gr oundwater of the springshed and toward the springs of Kings Bay a situation that cannot be mitigated and may take several decades to resolve as the extant groundwater nitrogen is flushed through the ecosyst em (Jones et al. 1998). Reductions of ambient phosphorus levels in Kings Bays springs are even more unlikely because phosphorus that is loaded into sp ring recharge basins through fe rtilizer application or other sources is known to quickly bind to Floridas overlying mi neral soils and the limestone formations within the Floridan aquifer. Th is process generally prevents anthropogenic phosphorus enrichment of groundwat er in Florida, meaning that the phosphorus levels found within Florida springs, including those in Kings Bay, are a general function of the natural phosphorus content found within the hydrogeologic substrate (Jones et al. 1998). Second, and perhaps even more impo rtantly, the ability of L. wollei to persist as a dominant species under low nutrient conditions (Cowell and Dawes 2004; Steven son et al. 2004) and th e lack of any clear relationship between current L. wollei growth and nutrient levels in Kings Bay together suggest that nutrient reductions alone would not provide an effec tive means of achieving desired ecological restoration goals (Bishop 1995; Terrell and Canfield 1996; Munson 1999). Kings Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan Aquatic plant management activities within Ki ngs Bay and Crystal River are guided by an Aquatic Plant Management Plan (APMP) that is annually updated by the Interagency Working Group. The major goal of the APMP is to balanc e maintenance of navigation throughout Kings Bay with maintenance of an adequate food source for manatees (Anonymous 2005). The APMP specifically calls for selective herbicidal treat ment of hydrilla and immediate herbicidal

PAGE 107

107 treatment of any observed areas of free floating water hyacinth and water lettuce using diquat, endothall, and/or fluridone dur ing the summer period (April 1 September 30) in which manatees are less common within Kings Bay (A nonymous 2005). Mechanical harvest of hydrilla during the summer period is also listed as a management option. Herbicidal treatment or mechanical harvest of macrophytes during the wi nter period (October 1 March 31) must be first approved by USFWS to not significantl y diminish manatee f ood supply or otherwise threaten the manatee popul ation (Anonymous 2005). M echanical harvest of L. wollei however, is permitted and conducted throughout the ye ar (Anonymous 2005). Personal observations, stakeholder comments, and a review of records at CCAS indicate that L. wollei harvesting operations currently constitute the vast majority of the aquatic plant management activity and expenditure at Kings Bay. Figure 4-8 shows a picture of one harv ester machine currently used for control of L. wollei on Kings Bay. Several conspicuous conflicts between the management goals and methods set forth by the APMP and the ecological restoration objectives outlined by the SWIM Plan can be identified. First, the fact that the Interagency Working Group does not include a ny representatives from SWFWMD, the agency responsible for developi ng and implementing restoration efforts under the auspices of the SWIM Plan, seems indicative of an inherent lack of institutional coordination between aquatic plant management and ecologica l restoration activities in Kings Bay. Secondly, while records obtained from CCAS indicate that prescribed herbicides have been used in relatively small areas (approximately 25 acres) of Kings Bay macrophytes over the past several years, this management strategy st ill would be expected to have the general effect, as suggested above and reported by a number of stakeholders, of increasing L. wollei coverage through the direct suppression of targeted macrophytes a nd secondary impacts on herbicide-sensitive

PAGE 108

108 phytoplankton competitors. Several citizens sugges ted that, in their view, the mechanical harvesting methods employed for L. wollei control may at times be counter-productive due to observed decreases in water clarity through sedi ment suspension, the uprooting of submerged macrophytes, and the spread of L. wollei fragments not captured by th e harvester into other areas of the ecosystem. While monitoring efforts by SWFWMD did not support the contention that L. wollei harvesting has a significant impact on nativ e submerged macrophytes, the results did indicate that mechani cal harvesting is an ineffective method of L. wollei control within Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004). Cursory obse rvations of the harvester in May 2006 found that much of the harvested material was largely com posed of bottom sediment mixed with L. wollei and other plant material (Figure 4-9). Observations of significant uprooting of submersed macrophytes, particularly tape grass and Eurasian milf oil, were also recorded (Figure 4-10). Maintenance Control vs. Adaptive Management Aquatic plant management activities at Ki ngs Bay and other Florida waterways are founded in a provision of Florida la w that states that the goal of aquatic plant managers should be the establishment of maintenance control for invasive and nonnative species (Florida Statutes 2006b). The underlying premise behind main tenance control is that populations of these invasive aquatic species should be maintained at the lowes t feasible levels. Although maintenance control can include biological and mechanical manage ment strategies, herbicidal control is generally considered to be the most efficient means of achieving and maintaining low levels of targeted species in Florida (Ramey 2005). Once maintenance control is established within a given water body, the expected result is reduced coverage of targeted invasive plants, reduced usage of herbicides, reduced management costs, a nd restoration of native plant communities (Ramey 2005).

PAGE 109

109 While maintenance control may be an effective means of controlling invasive plant species and promoting ecological restora tion within some aquatic ecosyst ems, the history and current state of aquatic plant management at Kings Ba y has striking parallels with what Holling (1995) describes as a management pathology. Hollin gs (1995) work suggests that management pathologies often result when management instit utions achieve initial success in controlling a single target variable within an ecosystem. This initial success then generally results in a subsequent focus on increasing the operational efficiency of management operations, while efforts to monitor the ecosystem for other change s are lessened or even discontinued over time. The result of such narrow management, Ho lling (1995) argues, is often an unnoticed homogenization of critical com ponents within the ecosystem, wh ich consequently results in decreasing resilience within the ecological commun ity. This decrease in resilience is suggested to then make the ecosystem much more likely to be unexpectedly fli pped into a state of persistent degradation by the kinds of disturbanc es that could have been previously absorbed (Holling 1995). A condition of management pathology at Kings Bay regarding aquatic plant management appears to have begun with successful efforts to control water hyacinth, was then followed by less successful efforts to control the subsequent h ydrilla invasion; and is now mired in an almost entirely unsuccessful effort to control L. wollei Each flip of ecosystem state observed at Kings Bay over the past 50 years, potentially catalyzed in part by the side effects of previous management action, has been widely regarded as a condition of degradation worse than the one previous to it, leading to substa ntial frustration on the part of some aquatic plant managers (Dick 1989) and much of the local citizenry. Despite these changing ecological conditions, the current aquatic management strategy for Kings Bay indi cates that efficiently maintaining nonnative

PAGE 110

110 macrophytes at the lowest feasible levels conti nues to be one of the primary stated goals of aquatic plant managers within the Kings Bay ecosystem. With the possible exception of the USFWS mandate to maintain sufficient fodder for the wintering manatee population, there is also no apparent strategy for explicit ly monitoring the effects that current aquatic plant control operations may be having on other aspects of the ecosystem incl uding the possible spread of L. wollei and other undesirable algae, or even th e potential recovery of native submerged macrophytes. A first step towards a more adaptive approach to aquatic plant management in Kings Bay likely is the realization that the complete restor ation of pristine ecosystem conditions, including wholesale restoration of nativ e macrophyte coverage and exclus ion of nonnative macrophytes, is not realistically achievable in the near future, if ever. Wh ile many stakeholders, both nonscientist citizens and agency mana gers, with knowledge of the ecosy stem have made this general realization, this has yet to result in any coordinated effort by mana gers to critically evaluate and modify the efficacy of current management strate gies or to openly incorporate the ecological knowledge of local stakeholders for the purposes of establishing new goals and/or strategies based upon what is currently known about and desired for the ecosystem. The reasons for this institutional inertia ar e complex, but a policy discourse among aquatic plant managers that tends to both deny the validi ty of local knowledge which it regards as nonobjective, biased, or mere perception and whic h itself show an inhe rent bias that often prevents balanced consideration of the ecologi cal roles played by targeted plants and the secondary effects of management action is undoubtedly a key culprit (Gobster 2005; Sagoff 2005). If this policy myopia was overcome and stakeholder-suggested management experiments were embraced and considered objectively, it seem s clear that scenarios for utilizing invasive

PAGE 111

111 nonnative macrophyte species to assist in the achievement of desire d ecosystem restoration goals at Kings Bay would quickly come to the forefront. Adaptive Restoration Opportunities Pr ovided by Four Notorious Macrophytes Clearly, the suggestion that an ecological community could be restored through increased coverage by famously invasive specie s is almost completely incongruous with the normative assumptions of most invasion biologists and restoration ecologists. Recent ecological theorists have, however, made the observation th at restoration efforts focused wholly on the establishment of a pristine speci es assemblage are often ineffective and even counterproductive in ecosystems whose degradation is characterized by a qualitative shift in community type (Allen et al. 2003). Because the history of Kings Bay is consistent with this general observation, a more effective approach to ecological restoration for this ecosystem ma y be to identify and utilize feedback mechanisms that would tend to sustai n the desired functional st eady state (clear water macrophyte) and to relax the assumption that thes e feedbacks and functions can only be provided by native taxonomic species. If such a species-neutral approa ch for the restoration of a macrophyte steady state is utilize d, there is significant scientif ic literature to support the suggestion that nonnative macrophyte species cu rrently found and managed within Kings Bay provide functions that are consis tent with the achievement of ge neral ecological restoration goals such as suppression of L. wollei improved water clarity, protec tion of manatee populations, and perhaps even increased coverage by native submerged macrophyte species. Hydrilla As discussed in a previous s ection of this paper, hydrilla was introduced into Kings Bay circa 1960 and quickly became a severe nuisance sp ecies that dominated the ecosystem for well over two decades. Given this history, it may s eem surprising that stakeholders who well remember the problems caused by hydrilla in Ki ngs Bay would advocate increased coverage of

PAGE 112

112 this notoriously invasive nonna tive species. However, we found four consistent rationales offered by informants to justify their support of management efforts that would allow for increased hydrilla coverage w ithin Kings Bay: 1) hydrilla he lps maintain water clarity; 2) hydrilla suppresses the growth of L. wollei ; 3) hydrilla is a prefe rred manatee food; and 4) hydrilla provides good habitat and cover for desirable game fish species. A review of scientific litera ture finds that all of these rationales ar e well-supported and increasingly, if somewhat gr udgingly, acknowledged by management agencies in Kings Bay and throughout Florida. As discussed in a previous secti on, hydrillas role in maintaining water clarity and suppressing the growth of L. wollei within Kings Bay is well-established (Dick 1989; Romie 1990; Cowell and Botts 1994; Munson 1999; SWFWMD 2004). Due to these findings and previous failures to reestablish native macrophyte populations, SWFWMD has adopted a de facto policy of preferring any submerged macrophyte, including hydrilla, over L. wollei for the purposes of the SWIM Plan. Hydrillas importanc e as a preferred and nut ritious fodder for Kings Bay manatees is also well-documented (Campbe ll and Irvine 1977; Silverberg and Morris 1987), and has led the Interagency Working Group to acknowledge that maintenance control mandates to keep hydrilla in Kings Bay at the lowest feas ible level may often be trumped by the need to maintain an adequate winter food supply fo r the endangered manatee population (Anonymous 2005). Findings from a recent Hydrilla Summit that incorporated a wide range of professional expertise and stakeholder opinions throughout Florida are also very relevant to the situation within Kings Bay. An important conclusion fr om the summit is that the body of available research indicates that up to 85% hydrilla c overage in Floridas aquatic ecosystems does not significantly harm, and generally provides significant benefits to, fish and wildlife habitat

PAGE 113

113 (Netherland et al. 2005). In addition, the incr easing expense, difficulties, and negative side effects associated with current hydrilla manage ment techniques led su mmit participants to recommend that aquatic plant managers will of ten need to relax the traditional goals of maintenance control and recogni ze hydrilla as an important component of the remaining submersed plant habitats found w ithin many of Floridas aquatic ecosystems (Netherland et al. 2005). Due to the finding that hydrilla can often clarify water, suppress algae, and facilitate succession into a stability domain characterized by desirable native macrophytes within some aquatic ecosystems, Canfield et al. (2000) recent ly recommended utilizin g contained growth of hydrilla as part of an overall restoration st rategy for central Floridas hypereutrophic Lake Apopka. However, the most potentially far-reachi ng opportunity provided by hydrilla in Kings Bay may be efforts to better understand why this species has in large part ceased to be as invasive as it once so famously was within this ecosystem. While the after-effects of past storm surges, L. wollei smothering, aquatic plant management activ ities, slight increa ses in the ambient salinity of Kings Bay, and manatee grazing are al l potentially important variables to consider (SWFWMD 2004), another important key may lie in the 1992 discovery of Cricotopus lebetis subsequently given the common name hydrilla tip mining midge, within Kings Bay/Crystal River (Epler et al. 2000; Cuda et al. 2002). Biocontrol researcher s have found that the larvae of C. lebetis cause significant damage to the stems of hydrilla, which may have the effect of preventing hydrilla from topping out at the su rface of water bodies (Cuda et al. 2002). Aside from the concerns expressed in this paper about potential linkages between L. wollei and herbicidal control of aq uatic plants at Kings Bay, the recent fi nding that hydrilla itself is capable of developing herbicide resistan ce (Michel et al. 2004; Netherla nd et al. 2005) and the general

PAGE 114

114 difficulties associated with effectively using herbicides on submersed plants within flowing waters (Dick 1989) are also compelling reasons fo r better understanding th e potential role that bio-control agents such as C. lebetis may be able to play in fu ture hydrilla management. With these considerations in mind, we suggest that future hydrilla management plans at Kings Bay should at the very leas t be closely coordinated with biocontrol researchers to better understand the effects that C. lebetis has on hydrilla within field conditions and to ensure that herbicides are not needlessly used on plants being stressed by C. lebetis If C. lebetis is, in fact, effectively preventing Kings Bays hydrilla population from becoming a severe navigational nuisance, it is quite possible that the habitat and func tional benefits provid ed by hydrilla would justify the abandonment of efforts by aquatic plant managers to maintain this nonnative species at maintenance control levels within Kings Bay. Water Hyacinth According to a number of interview info rmants and comments recorded at public meetings, the idea of using increased coverage and harvest of water hyacinth in Kings Bay for the purpose of improving water quality and othe r ecosystem conditions has been advocated by some members of the local community for many years. However, these informants unanimously reported that this suggestion has been repeated ly dismissed by aquatic plant managers. In my own communications with eleven aquatic plant re searchers and ecosystem managers, the specific suggestion that increased amounts and selectiv e harvest of water hy acinth could potentially benefit Kings Bay by displacing L. wollei and providing additional grazing fodder for manatees produced mixed reactions. On the one hand, four agency managers indicated a belief that current management practices are not working, and thus expressed cautious support for experiments with water hyacinths. On the other hand, five agency managers and two aquatic plant scientists indicated categorical opposition to alternative management of water hyacinth. Statutory

PAGE 115

115 mandates and the long history of problems associ ated with water hyacint h in Florida waters typically were used as justific ation for continuing current mana gement practices. The depth of opposition is reflected in public comments8 by different officials th at described alternative management of water hyacinth in Kings Bay as counter-intuitive, shocking, environmentally unacceptable, contrary to science-based knowledge, a sign of desperation, and something that no agency or any scientist with an understanding of water hyacinth attributes would support. While concerns about water hyacinth are serious and understanda ble based upon the long history of problems associated with this nonnati ve species in Florida and other areas of the world, a large body of literature indicates that al ternative aquatic plant management strategies which acknowledge and utilize the functional benefits of water hyaci nth could be consistent with the achievement of ecosystem re storation goals within Kings Ba y. For example, water hyacinth is known to be one of the most effective aquatic plants at sequestering a wide range of pollutants known to be present within Kings Bay, including several types of heavy metals (Jamil et al. 1985; Lee and Hardy 1987; Shrivastava and Rao 2000; Lu et al. 2004), petroleum-based organic contaminants (Hu et al. 1998), and soluble n itrogen and phosphorus (Agami and Reddy 1990; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda a nd Kar 1996; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004). Water hyacinth is also known to greatly inhibit phytoplan kton and cyanobacteria production within waters that it is present, a phenomenon likely resu lting from a combination of th e direct reduction of ambient nutrients and sunlight available to algae (Ma hujchariyawong 2001), the emi ssion of allelopathic compounds that adversely affect algae and cyan obacteria (Gross 2003; Jin et al. 2003), and the ability of fibrous water hyacinth roots to directly filte r large amounts of algae cells from flowing 8 Public comments refers to comments in public m eetings, as well as public r ecord e-mail communications.

PAGE 116

116 waters (Kim et al. 2001). Wate r hyacinth is also known as a preferential food source for manatees (Lomolino and Ewel 1984), meaning that increased availabil ity of water hyacinth could potentially reduce manat ee grazing pressure on native su bmersed macrophyte populations (Lomolino 1977). Detailed ecological models and field-scale pr ojects further indicate that an integrated program of water hyacinth growth and sustaine d harvest in natural water bodies can be an effective tool for removing contaminants, grea tly improving water clar ity, suppressing bluegreen algae blooms, and encouraging re-growth of submerged macrophytes in open water areas (Hu et al. 1998; Mahujchar iyawong 2001; Mahujchariyawong and Ikeda 2001; RodriguezGallego et al. 2004). Utilization of harvested water hyacinth biomass for purposes such as livestock feed, nutrient-rich compost, biogas pr oduction, mushroom cultivation, and as a fiber for weaved furniture products has also been shown to be economically and soci ally beneficial in a growing number of cases (Mbendo and Thomas 1998; Lindsey and Hirt 1999; Schoeb and Singh 2000). While harvested biomass of benthic cyanobacteria such as L. wollei may also have some value for biogas and organic fertilizer producti on (Wilkie and Mulbry 2002), the high cost and ineffectiveness of current L. wollei harvest methods in Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004) together suggest that harvester resources would be more beneficially sp ent on targeted management of free-floating macrophytes for ecol ogical restoration purposes. Aside from the fact that floating macrophytes can be harvested much more easily and effectively than filamentous algae (Sooknah and Wilkie (2004), Scheffer et al .s (2003) finding that mass harv est of floating macrophytes can be followed by a rapid shift to a steady state of submersed macrophytes gives further support for consideration of such a management program at Kings Bay.

PAGE 117

117 As indicated more generally by Ewel and Putz (2004), efforts to ut ilize a nonnative species such as water hyacinth within any ecosystem rest oration project are, however, not without some risks. Significant risks commonl y identified by managers for incr eased water hyacinth coverage include crowding and/or shading out native submerged species, increased sediment deposition and suppression of dissolved oxygen caused by sene scing water hyacinth l eaves, and restriction of navigation. Although these con cerns cannot be dismissed out of hand and should be closely monitored as part of any altern ative aquatic management plan, sc ientific literature suggests that the potential severity of these problems at Kings Bay may not be nearly as extreme as aquatic plant managers often suggest. For exampl e, improved water clarity and reduction of cyanobacteria populations that can directly result from increased water hyacinth coverage has in some cases been found to substantially benef it submersed macrophyte populations within open water areas (Hu et al. 1998; R odriguez-Gallego et al. 2004). While the effect of reducing dissolved oxygen has been clea rly demonstrated in highly eu trophic conditions where water hyacinth densities are extremely high and cove r very large areas of an affected water body (Gopal 1987), more moderate wate r hyacinth coverage has actual ly been shown to result in increased levels of dissolved oxygen (Furch 1995) The flowing water conditions (Bartodziej and Leslie 1998) and unlikelihood that the low relative nutrient levels in Kings Bay would result in water hyacinth mats quickly overtaking large area s of the water body further suggest that largescale oxygen depletion and seve re navigational restrictions could be avoided with the implementation of a managed growth and sustained harvest program. Joyces (1985) finding that the organic sedi ment deposition rate of untreated water hyacinth mats is 4 times more than the rate of water hyacinth maintained at a 5% level by herbicidal control is ofte n used by Florida aquatic plant managers to justify a strict adherence to

PAGE 118

118 maintenance control strategies for water hyacint h. However, a close r eading of Joyces (1985) study suggests that due caution should be used when extrapolating these resu lts into typical field conditions, particularly in flowi ng water. First, Joyce (1985) give s no nutrient-input values that could be used to comparatively assess productivity and deposition rates of water hyacinths in his tank experiments with productivity and deposition rates of water hyacinths in a water body such as Kings Bay. Second, Bartodziej and Leslie (1 998) found that divers e and highly productive detritivore communities associated with water hyaci nth in the flowing conditions of the springfed St. Marks River prevented sediment accumula tion commonly attributed to water hyacinth in other ecosystem contexts. It is probable that water hyacinth communities in the flowing water conditions of Kings Bay would act more similarly to those describe d in the St. Marks River than in Joyces (1985) tank experime nts in terms of providing habi tat for diverse detritivore communities, with the likely effect being that sediment accumulation would be significantly less than predicted by Joyce (1985). In addition, Joyce (1985) clearly states that much of the deposition in his untreated water hyacinth tanks was the result of sediment measurem ents taken soon after th e historically severe winter freeze of January 1985. These unusual freeze conditions caused the formation of 3-4 inches of ice on the top of the experimental tanks killing most of the untreated water hyacinths outright and resulting in substant ial deposition of dead plant matter. The anomaly of this freeze may explain the discrepancy between Joyces (1 985) finding that untreated water hyacinths produced two times the organic deposition of wate r hyacinths treated by herbicides after 100% coverage was reached, and Browers (1980) finding th at herbicidal control of water hyacinths at a 100% coverage level produced over five times the organic sedimentation of untreated water hyacinths in the context of a highly eutrophic agri cultural pond in north Florida. While severe

PAGE 119

119 frost damage to water hyacinths would be a factor to consider in sedime nt deposition models and aquatic plant harvest schedules, it is safe to say that the icing conditions depicted in Joyces (1985) experiments are unlikely to happen in Ki ngs Bay due to the buffering effects provided by discharged spring water that mainta ins a year round temperature of 72oF. The effect of a mass export of organic matter through a harvest progr am was not evaluated by Joyce (1985), and would present an additional mitigating factor to consider when evaluating alternative water hyacinth management scenarios for Kings Bay. Eurasian Milfoil Eurasian milfoil is a submersed macrophyte nati ve to Europe, Asia, and northern Africa that is often considered one of the worst aquatic weeds within the United States due to its ability to become highly invasive over a wide range of environmental conditions and to create dense canopies at the water surface that can shade out native submerged species (Madsen et al. 1991). Although Eurasian milfoil has histor ically not attracted as much ci tizen or management attention as other nonnative macrophyte species, recent aquatic plant surveys indicate that Eurasian milfoil now maintains the largest coverage of any subm ersed macrophyte in Kings Bay (Frazer and Hale 2001; SWFWMD 2004). While there ar e indications that Eurasian milfoil may be having adverse impacts on native macrophyte populations (Hauxw ell et al. 2004), it may also be providing a buffer against the establishment of L. wollei monocultures in areas wher e it predominates due to its exudation of allelopathic chemicals that are inhibitory toward a wide variety of algal and cyanobacteria species (Gross 2003). Clearly, the poten tial of Eurasian milfoil control methods to have secondary impacts that may resu lt in the further proliferation of L. wollei monocultures that may almost entirely eliminate native macrophytes and the importanc e of Eurasian milfoil as a primary food source for the wintering manatee population (Campbell and Irvine 1977; Silverberg

PAGE 120

120 and Morris 1987) should both be taken into clos e account as future aquatic management and restoration plans are developed for Kings Bay. Water Lettuce Water lettuce is a free-floating macrophyte of pa n-tropical origin that, like water hyacinth, can become a severe nuisance species within subt ropical and tropical water bodies that have high nutrient levels ( Tucker and Debusk 1981; Sharma 1984; Sridhar 1986; Kent et al. 2000 ). Water lettuce is considered a nonnativ e species in Florida, although, as discussed in footnote 1 of Chapter 3, the botanical history of the species raises considerable doubt about this classification. For the purposes of ecological restoration with in Kings Bay, the functions and alternative management opportunities provided by water lettu ce are similar to those listed above for water hyacinth, with the notable exception that Flor ida manatees may not forage extensively upon water lettuce. Like water hyacinth, water lettuce is known to be one of most highly effective vascular plants for uptake of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus (Nelson et al. 1980; Tucker and Debusk 1981; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda and Ka r 1996; Kao et al. 2000; Lopes-Ferreira 2000; Lin et al. 2002; Wilkie and Sooknah 2004) and heavy metals (Sharma 1984; Sridhar 1986; Kao et al. 2000). Water lettuce may also help to di rectly control algae a nd cyanobacteria growth through allelopathic emissions (Aliotta et al. 1991 ; Gross 2003) and direct f iltration of algal cells in its fibrous roots (Kim et al. 2001). Optimal harvest of water lettuce from an aquatic system can also be expected to remove significant amounts of sequestered contaminants (Lopes-Ferreira 2000), and can potentially be followed by rapi d recovery of a submerged macrophyte steady state (Scheffer et al. 2003). Ideally, water lettu ce biomass harvested fo r ecological restoration purposes within Kings Bay could be utilized to produce benefici al products such as organic fertilizer (Reddy and Rao 1987).

PAGE 121

121 Recommendation: Participatory and Adap tive Management of Aquatic Plants Stakeholder interviews and a revi ew of scientific literature are utilized in this Chapter to suggest that past and current aqua tic plant management efforts may be a significant factor in the establishment of a cyanobacteria steady st ate characterized by filamentous mats of L. wollei throughout many areas of the aquatic ecosystem of Kings Bay. It is also suggested that an adaptive management approach that openly consid ers and attempts to utilize the ecological functions performed by invasive macrophytes such as hydrilla, water hyacint h, Eurasian milfoil, and water lettuce may be more consonant with th e achievement of stated ecological restoration goals, including increased water clarity, reduction of L. wollei restoration of submerged macrophytes, and protection of manatees, than th e current ecological re storation and aquatic plant management strategies be ing employed within Kings Bay. A potentially quite promising mechanism for facilitating adaptive management would be the utilization of partic ipatory methods in conjunction wi th geographic information systems (GIS) technology to create a more sophisticated aquatic plant management plan that is clearly integrated with the overall goals of ecological rest oration. As a preliminary step, a matrix system might be used to create a list of the various benefits and problems as defined through public conversations among agency and loca l citizen stakeholders associ ated with the aquatic plants currently managed in Kings Bay. Through a simila r stakeholder discussion process, maps of Kings Bay could also be used to identify the desired values and uses, as well as the current ecological condition, for different areas of th e water body. Based upon these aquatic plant and water body value maps, it is likely that more ge ographically strategic an d openly participatory decisions could be made about aquatic plan t management activities in Kings Bay (see Bojorquez-Tapia 2001).

PAGE 122

122 To start with one example, it might be dete rmined that manatee grazing is the primary desired use for a particular area. Although native tape grass might be the most desirable plant for overall restoration, hydrilla and Eu rasian milfoil presumably would be considered preferable to L. wollei in manatee grazing areas and, thus, aggressive control of these aquatic plants through chemical and/or mechanical means would not be favored in most circum stances. In other areas where navigation is the primary use, chemical and/ or mechanical control to maintain plants at low levels might be deemed the most appr opriate management st rategy. Areas in which restoration of tape grass or othe r native plants is viewed as the primary goal might, as has been discussed in some public meetings, be managed to prevent manatee grazing of transplants, with appropriate control measures also taken to restrict growth of hydr illa, Eurasian milfoil, and/or L. wollei in these areas. In addition, some isolated and easily contained area s that are currently impacted heavily by L. wollei might, as suggested by several citizens interviewed for this research, be utilized for e xperimental phytoremediation proj ects based upon growth and optimum harvest of water hyacinth, water lettuce and other floating pl ants. In all cases, designated management methods for all use areas should be monitored closely, results discussed among all stakeholders, and goals/methods annu ally reevaluated based upon new conditions associated with management experiments. L. wollei control proposals currently being researched and consid ered by state agencies for utilization in Kings Bay include direct algaecide applications as well emission of ultrasound waves into the water column for the purpose of rupturing algal and cyanobacteria cells. While these methods may prove useful and are dese rving of careful research and management experimentation, it is worth noting that deep co ncern has been publicly voiced by several citizens about programs designed to control L. wollei but that are perceived to lack a clear plan for filling

PAGE 123

123 the ecological void associated with the afterm ath of these control activities. One apparent worry is that the release of nutrients associated with chemical control of L. wollei may precipitate blooms of different types of algae and/ or cyanobacteria, or even mutation of L. wollei into a more resistant strain, making the water body in creasingly dependent upon chemical control methods. Cooke et al. (2005) report that water bodies treated with al gaecides typically will develop resistant cyanobacteria an d/or algal strains over time, indi cating that such concerns are warranted and worthy of close monitoring in Ki ngs Bay. Another potential risk that can be associated with chemical control (and perhaps ultrasound) methods of cyanabacteria is that the chemical stressor and subsequent rupturing of cells can often be associated with large releases of various cyanotoxins into the water body (Sivonen and Jones 1 999). Given emerging information about the potentially damaging effects of cyanotoxins from L. wollei on the endangered manatee population (Bledsoe et al. 2006), i ssues associated with contaminant and toxin release also should be closely monitored as part of all management experiments designed to control L. wollei Clearly, it will require careful researc h, management experimentation, and multistakeholder dialogue to develop a workable program of adaptive ecological restoration for Kings Bay. Ultimately, it is hoped that the informati on presented in this chapter will encourage productive dialogue and novel mana gement experiments that move beyond the stalemates and institutional rigidities that have too often characterized the restoration and management situation at Kings Bay over the past several years.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 4-1. Map of Kings Bay/Crystal River

PAGE 125

125 Figure 4-2. West Indian mana tees in Kings Bay, May 2006 Figure 4-3. Lyngbya wollei in Kings Bay, May 2005

PAGE 126

126 Figure 4-4. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1944 (Tomasko 2005). Figure 4-5. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1960 (Tomasko 2005).

PAGE 127

127 Figure 4-6. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1974 (Tomasko 2005). Figure 4-7. Kings Bay total nitrogen and tota l phosphorus, 1989-2002 (SWFWMD 2004)

PAGE 128

128 Figure 4-8. Harvester in Kings Bay, May 2006 Figure 4-9. Contents of harv ester in Kings Bay, May 2006

PAGE 129

129 Figure 4-10. Tape grass and Lyngbya wollei after harvester pass in Kings Bay, May 2006

PAGE 130

130 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Research Summary The following two sub-sections summarize how the research objectives and questions set forth in Chapter 2 were met and/or answered in this dissertation. Objectives 7. To participate actively in two collaborati ve conservation groups: the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group and the Kings Bay Water Quality Subcommittee. Most meetings held by these groups were atte nded over the dissertation research period. In addition, meetings of an additional collabora tive conservation group, the Kings Bay Working Group, were also regularly attended. Specific da tes of meetings attended and a summary of presentation given at thes e and other public meetings are given in Chapter 2. 8. To represent the targeted na tural systems through basic maps and textual descriptions. Basic GIS maps and textual descriptions of both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River are given in the resp ective case study chapters. 9. To outline the conservation problems facing the natural systems as typically defined in public discourse. In both ecosystems, groundwater contamination from human land uses and shifts in the ecological community characterized by increase d growth of nuisance algae generally are generally acknowledged as fundamental conservati on problems. Exotic plant species are also a concern in both ecosystems. In Ichetucknee, th e major concern is water lettuce. In Kings Bay, hydrilla, Eurasian milfoil, water hyacinth, and water lettuce are all of concern. Historic hydrologic alterations and direct stormwater loading from urbani zed waterfront areas also are

PAGE 131

131 identified as ecologically disruptive in Kings Bay. Government agencies and collaborative conservation groups for both ecosystems are fo cused on reducing nutrient inputs into the springsheds, with particular co ncern related to nitrate-nitr ogen. Ongoing changes to more intensive land use changes associated with popul ation growth in the re spective springsheds are also identified as a serious concer n in both case studies. 10. To describe past and present ecosystem management actions taken by management agencies within each of the case study systems. In the Ichetucknee case study, ecosystem manage ment actions by state agencies began with the purchase of the State Park in 1970. A recrea tional carrying capacity wa s established in the early 1980s to reduce impacts of tubing on aquatic plants. Due to concerns about declining water quality and algae growth, the Ichetucknee Springs Working Group was established in 1995. Water lettuce eradicatio n activities beginning in late 2000 are also described. In the Kings Bay case study, historical and ongoing mana gement of aquatic plants and algae is described in detail. Due to concerns about declining water quality and increasing algae growth, a SWIM plan was established for Kings Bay in 1989. Recent management activities such as dredging of sediments, replanting of eel grass, and harvesti ng of algae also are described. 11. To evaluate how conserva tion problems are being appr oached through ecosystem management and policy. In both case studies, scientific studies ra ise serious doubts about assumptions underlying current ecosystem management and policy. It is argued that the shifts toward increased algae growth may represent shifts in ecosystem stability domain, mean ing that reductions of nutrient loading may not be sufficient to achieve desired c onservation goals. It is al so noted that current entrainment of nitrate-nitrogen in the groundwater at both ecosystems effectively will prevent

PAGE 132

132 even the most successful nutrient reduction program s from being realized in terms of measurable water quality improvement for well over a decade For both ecosystems, it is hypothesized that minimization of nonnative plants may play a signif icant role in catalyzi ng growth of undesirable algae and/or cyanobacteria. 12. To make specific research recommendations for facilitating adaptive management in each of the case study systems. Problems that adaptive management principles are designed to overcome were identified in both case studies. Absence of holistic monitoring and institutional resist ance to open evaluation of aquatic plant management activities are key issues. In addition, management policies are not adjusted to account for emerging science that challenges key assumptions. The obvious example of this latter point is the fi nding by a number of researchers (Terrell et al. 1996; Cowell and Dawes 2004; Stevenson et al. 2004; Joyner and Paer l 2007) that nitrate-ni trogen reduction, while a necessary and important goal, likely is not a su fficient strategy for re ducing algae growth in springs ecosystems. It is argue d that more holistic monitoring and evaluation of aquatic plant management activities are necessary for better un derstanding and confronting changes within the case study ecosystems. At Ichetucknee, experiment al pilot studies that reintroduce contained areas of water lettuce into stretches of the ri ver currently dominated by algae are recommended. These pilot studies ideally w ould include measurement of th e effects of water lettuce reintroduction on faunal populations, contaminant uptake, submersed aquatic plant coverage, and algal biomass. It is also recommended that wa ter lettuce biomass harvested be disposed well away from the river. At Kings Bay, a similar recommendation is made for experimental pilot studies utilizing contained areas of water hyacinth in areas of th e water body currently dominated by cyanobacteria. These pilot studies ideally woul d include measurement of the effects of water

PAGE 133

133 hyacinth treatment areas on aqua tic invertebrate populations, c ontaminant uptake, submersed aquatic plant coverage, and algal biomass. Partic ipatory GIS to establish different zones for aquatic plant management based upon designated us es for theses zones is recommended. It is also argued that aquatic plant management should be explicitly monitored as a key variable in the structuring of the ecosystem. Research Questions 1. Are the principles of adaptive management being utilized in the conservation and management efforts within each of the case study springs? This research question is answered through the above re sponse to objective 6. b. What, if any, management practices may be inadvertently catalyzing observed degradation in the natural systems? It is argued that aquatic plant management ac tivities may be a key variable for catalyzing observed degradation in both of the case study springs. c. How open are managers to new hypotheses about the behavior of the natural systems? This question is complex in the sense that a number of individual managers were found to be very open to new hypotheses, while others te nded to dismiss hypotheses that run counter to prevailing management assumptions. A major fi nding of the dissertation research is that narrowly interpreted statutory directives and noncontextual assumption associated with current aquatic plant management practic es are key sources of instituti onal rigidity in both case study systems. 2. What research and policy priorities can be identified for facilitating the emergence of adaptive learning? This research question is answered in the above response to objective 6.

PAGE 134

134 a. What gaps in current research and monitoring efforts can be identified? Clearly, a key research and monitoring gap is associated with better understanding the secondary ecological effects of aquatic plant management. Other key gaps include detection of rapid pulses of discharged nutrients after st ormwater events (e.g., Ma rtin and Gordon 2000) and understanding the roles th at such pulses may play in ecologi cal change, as well as the possible food chain effects of chemicals such as DEET, atrazine, antibiotics, and potential synergies between contaminats detected in springs (Phelps 2004). Beyond Ideology in Aquatic Plant Management One of the key findings that emerged fr om both the Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River case study is that the manageme nt contexts are charac terized by an apparent a priori attribution of harmfulness to nonnative pl ant species, particularly on the part of management agencies statutorily charged with controlling these speci es. As Norton (2005, ix) writes in a preface titled B eyond Ideology, commitments made on an ideological, a priori basis profoundly influence the way people understand environmental problems, thereby shaping what people experience while addressing those problems. Ultimately, Norton (2005) argues at length, a primary goal of adaptive mana gement is to use participatory discourse and active management experimentation as means of openly challenging all a priori commitments to be sure that these commitments still confor m to the overall goals a community has for its environment. A prominent environmental philosopher, Mark Sagoff (2005), has specifically challenged invasion biologists, or those who study and attempt to mana ge nonnative species, to move beyond a priori attributions of harmfulness to justif y the continued management of nonnative species. Building upon the thoughts of both Sagoff ( 2005) and Norton (2005), what both of the case studies in this dissertation seem to demons trate is that the ideo logical commitment to

PAGE 135

135 minimize and/or eliminate nonnative plant species has led to a condition in which the goals and methods of aquatic plant manageme nt are not evaluated for costs a nd benefits in a participatory, adaptive manner. In essence, th e narrow goal among a quatic plant managers continues to be minimization of targeted plants, even as the expansion of undesi rable algae has clearly emerged as the ecological harm of most concern. Invasion Biology and Ecological Restoration In defense of agency managers and invasion biologists, minimization or elimination of invasive nonnative species for the purpose of recovering native pl ant and animal assemblages is not only implied by statutory directive (Florida Stat utes 2005b), but is also one of the traditional goals of ecological restorati on projects throughout the world (Jordan et al. 1988). Careful research has indeed shown that successful rest oration of native flora and fauna can, in some cases, be achieved through remova l of invasive nonnative species a nd reestablishment of historic abiotic conditions (Suding et al 2004; Gratton and Denno 2005). Furthermore, the empirical harms generally attributed to nonnative species ind eed are quite substantial, both in Florida and throughout the world. The specific ecological effects and manageme nt history of water hyacinth, hydrilla, and water lettuce in Florida are deve loped in great detail by Schmitz et al. (1993), while a broader review of plant and animal invasions throughout the state are explored throughout the lyrically titled volume Strangers in Paradise (Simberloff et al. 1997). More generally, Wilcove et al. (1998) suggest in a highly infl uential paper that nonnative species currently represent the second greatest threat, behind direct ha bitat destruction, to the worl ds endangered species. Another widely cited paper by Pimentel et al. (2000) ca lculates that nonnative species cause over $100 billion of annual economic damages in the United States alone. It is often argued by invasion biologists that such effects will continue to accelerate on a global scale unless strong regulatory

PAGE 136

136 measures to eradicate established invasive nonna tive species and preven t uncontrolled movement of species in the future are quickly enacted a nd strictly enforced (Sim berloff et al. 2004). But as the basic tenets of invasion biology have become normatively adopted by ecosystem managers and widely disseminated to the public through media and education programs, questions regarding the langua ge, assumptions, rationales, and management techniques associated with control of invasive nonnative species are increasingly emerging. For example, several scholars have recently argued that use of rhetoric such as alien invaders, noxious species, and biological pollution to describe invasive exotic species indicates that invasion biology much like the discredi ted field of eugenics is an extension of xenophobic, nationalistic, and even racist fear s of the other into biologic al science (Groning and WoschkeBulmahn 2003; Olwig 2003; Theodoropolous 2003). Theodoropolous (2003), in a controversial book titled Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience further argues that corporations who manufacture herbicides and pesticides are sy stematically nurturi ng a psychology of fear regarding nonnative species as a cynical means of increasing the market base for their products. Although the ecologist Daniel Simb erloff has largely rebutted these more inflammatory charges (2003, 2004), some supporters of nonnative species management recently have argued that the prevalent use of fear-based a nd/or militaristic language to ju stify management practices is unhelpful to the extent that it does both alienate the public an d prevent objective acknowledgement of positive ecological values that can in some circumstances be associated with established invasive nonnative species (Gobster 2005; Larson 2005). It has also been increasingly argued that invasion biologist s are both overly general and strikingly inconsistent in defining terms such as native, exotic, and invasive that are foundational to the sub-discipline (Helmreich 2003; Kirkham 2005), which often has the effect

PAGE 137

137 of preventing objective analysis of ecological relationships asso ciated with targeted nonnative species on a case by case basis (Shrader-F rechette 2001; Gobster 2005; Larson 2005). For example, Sagoff (2005) found that while the vast majority of biotic extinctions linked to nonnative species are associated with introductions (particularly ge neralist animals) into small islands and other isolated habitats populated by inherently extinction-prone endemic species, expensive control activities are most often focused on nonnative speci es (particularly plants in continental land masses) that do no t pose a severe survival threat to native species. Larson (2005) notes that most successful inva sions in continental areas ar e a direct function of nonnative species colonizing areas affect ed by severe habitat disrupti on (e.g., land clearing, nutrient enrichment), suggesting that spec ies invasions are generally a symp tom, not a primary cause, of ecological change. Odum and Odum (2003) go further by noting that introduced plants, including some of the most notorious invasive nonnative species, generally increase species richness and productivity within the highly disturbed areas in which they invade. Sagoff (2005) argues that such values are, however, typically missed because of biased ecological field metrics that include presence of certain nonnative species as an inherent form of ecological damage. As suggested in both case studies of this dissertation, an unfortunate result of such conceptual confusion is that management activities narrowl y focused on minimization and/or eradication of invasive exotic species may often have uni ntended, deleterious e ffects on native wildlife populations, community succession, and other de sirable ecological values (DAntonio and Meyerson 2002; Ewel and Putz 2004). Some restoration ecologists do, however, incr easingly recognize that abiotic and biotic conditions within some areas are so drastically altered from pristine conditions that restoration of native biota and/or elimination of established non native species may be cost-prohibitive or even

PAGE 138

138 impossible (DAntonio and Meyerson 2002; Ewel a nd Putz 2004; Suding et al. 2004). While the prevailing vocabulary of restorat ion ecology indicates that the mo re modest goals of ecosystem rehabilitation, which generally focus on rehab ilitating a highly degrad ed site to a more productive, appealing, and/or useful form, would become operative in these cases (Callicott et al. 1999), an increasing body of ecologi cal literature indica tes that nonnative species, particularly plant species, established within degraded ecosyst ems often provide functi onal services that are remarkably consonant with long-term conser vation and restoration goals (DAntonio and Meyerson 2002; Ewel and Putz 2004). For example, naturalized nonnative pl ants have in some cases been found to facilitate succession of plant communities in to a desired restoration state through mechanisms such as rapid fixation of ni trogen within depleted soils (Parotta 1992), establishment of a protective canopy for fo rest understory development (Lugo 2004), and phytoremediation of highly contaminated sites (Ma et al. 2001). In other cases, naturalized nonnative plants targeted for erad ication by ecosystem managers ha ve been shown to provide the primary feeding and breeding habitat for native fauna that these same managers may be trying to protect (Chen 2001; Shapiro 2002; Thacker 2004). These and other examples have led some ecologists to begin cauti ously suggesting that strict adhere nce to the principle of minimizing nonnative species within ecological restoration pr ojects may at times be unnecessary or even counterproductive (Ewel and Putz 2004; Foster and Sandberg 2004). Alternative Stability Domains Recent research concerning the hypothesis of alternative stability domains in aquatic systems adds further tension to the traditional relationship between invasive plant management and ecological restoration. This hypothesis s uggests that, over a wide range of nutrient conditions, many subtropical and tropical freshwater ecosystems can be equally stable as either a clear water macrophyte community or in a mo re turbid state dominated by algae and

PAGE 139

139 cyanobacteria (Blindow et al. 1993; Scheffer et al. 1993; Bachma nn et al. 1999). At least three important implications of this hypot hesis should be considered by restoration ecologists working in subtropical and tropical aquatic ecosystems, including Florida springs. First, the disruption produced by aquatic plant control activities that target large es tablished populations of exotic and/or invasive macrophyte specie s may in some circumstances be an important catalyst for a catastrophic shift in stability domain from macrophytes to algae. For example, large-scale chemical control of free-floating macrophytes su ch as water hyacinth and water lettuce likely played an important role in the establishment of algal-dominated st ability domains in at least two large Florida lakes: Lake Apopka (Clugst on 1963; Chesnut and Barman 1974) and Lake Okeechobee (Grimshaw 2002). Secondly, because signi ficant energy is generally required to produce a switch from one stability domain to the other, substantial reductions of external nutrient loading into a water body that has shifte d into cyanobacteria dominance often will not result in the straightforward recovery of a submerged macrophyt e community (Scheffer et al. 1993; Bachmann et al. 1999). Thirdly, and perhaps wh erein the largest tens ion between invasive plant management and restoration ecology may lie highly productive macrophytes such as water hyacinth, water lettuce, and hydrilla may in some cases provide tran sitional stability domains and buffering mechanism that can be managed to substa ntially reduce cyanobacter ia and facilitate the restoration of submerged macrophyte communities within subtropical and tropical freshwater ecosystems (Hu et al. 1998; Canfield et al. 2000 ; Scheffer et al. 2003; Ro driguez-Gallego et al. 2004). Three principles recently developed within the adaptive management literature are also implied by the consideration of alternative stability domains: 1) undesirable ecosystem surprises may often result from a management program focused narrowly on one variable (e.g.,

PAGE 140

140 minimizing invasive plants) (Holling 1995); 2) em ergent forms of degradation can potentially make allies out of even the most notorious inva sive plant species in the functional, if not taxonomic, restoration of some aquatic ecosystems (Walker 1992; Canfield et al. 2000; Allen et al. 2003); and 3) local knowledge can play an important role in both the development of new hypotheses of ecological change an d the introduction of eco logical restoration scenarios that may helpfully challenge management orthodoxies that have become dysfunc tional within a local ecosystem context (Fischer 2000; Norton 2005). Evidence that the alg ae communities in both Ichetucknee and Kings Bay are re silient to signific antly lower nutrient concentrations (e.g., Terrell and Canfield 1996; Cowell and Dawes 2004; St evenson et al. 2004) is highly suggestive that qualitative shifts in stability domain have o ccurred, or are in the process of occurring, within these ecosystems, meaning that creative and adaptive management experiments that go beyond calls to reduce springshed nutrient loading likely will be necessary if goals such as reduction of algal growth and recovery of submersed plant communities are to be achieved. It is hoped that the information developed in each of the case studies can help to facilitate the emergence of such adaptive management processes. Defining Harm Sagoffs (2005) diagnosis of invasion biologists tendency to attribute a priori harm to nonnative species clearly is utilized as a central philosophical point of departure throughout this dissertation. However, it should be pointed out that Sagoff (2005) ultimately goes too far in the other direction through his own use of all or no thing logic with regard to management of nonnative species. For example, Sago ff (2005) asserts a claim sugges ting that extinction is one harm of real concern in relation to nonnative spec ies, and then proceeds to argue that empirical evidence showing that extinctions as a result of nonnative species ar e only rarely associated with extreme cases of species invasions undermines the case against managing nonnative species in

PAGE 141

141 all but these most extreme cases But if one follows Norton (2005) in using a pragmatic, adaptive management line of reasoning for defining harm s, Sagoffs (2005) overall argument against the widespread management of nonnative species can be challenged. Under Nortons (2005) criteria, what counts as harm is ultimately a product of what the members of an open, discursive community define as being harmful. Thus, cha nges in ecosystem functi on other than extinction, adverse effects on economic activities, and even aesthetic and/or moral preferences for native landscapes associated with the spread of a nonnative species c ould all be counted as harms by members of the community, with consensual ag reement about these harm s providing a legitimate basis for control activities. It se ems clear that it is societal agr eement about such harms that has led to statutory and regulatory mandates aime d squarely at the cont rol of nonnative species. However, what the hypothesis of alternativ e stability domains, findings about wildlife utilization of nonnative plants, and even public apprehension about use of pesticides for controlling nonnative species all suggest is that th e consensual definition of harm is ultimately changeable and, within the context of a de mocratic society, should always be open for reinterpretation. Where the invasi on biologists go wrong is, as Sago ff (2005) implies, in their all or nothing ideological commitment that the presence of long-e stablished nonnative species is harmful by a fixed, stipulative definition. In terms of aquatic plant management, such a commitment may lead to an insular institutiona l culture that is narrowly focused on minimizing these species independently of the dynamic soci o-ecological contexts in which management is taking place. In both the Ichetucknee and Kings Bay case st udies, this ideological commitment has had the clear effect of subverting le gitimate debate and comparative re evaluation of harms in relation to changing ecological conditions characterized by significant increas es in consensually

PAGE 142

142 undesirable algal species. While continued manage ment of nonnative specie s in both case studies may be perfectly justifiable through any number of criteria, the problem from an adaptive management perspective is that aquatic plant managers are largely unw illing to openly debate and/or test these criteria, c hoosing instead to rely upon non-contextual statements about the assumed harms of targeted species and benefits of current management strategies. Unfortunately, loss of public confidence in management instituti ons is a seemingly inevitable outcome as stated assumptions about the benefits of management ac tivities increasingly bear little resemblance to both the experiences of citizen stakeholders and/or what mi ght be deduced through a more holistic reading of scientific literature. An additional distinction should clearly be made between preventive action to, on the one hand, prevent potential future harm s from newly introduced nonnativ e species, and, on the other hand, management of nonnative species that ha ve long-since invaded regional ecosystems and are permanently naturalized (G obster 2005; Larson 2005). For example, Simberloff et al. (2004) may be perfectly justified, from a precautionary principle of seeking to prevent and minimize potential harms, in both seeking regulation of futu re species transfers and attempting to eradicate potentially invasive nonnative species before wi despread establishment into new areas brings uncertain socio-ecological consequences. Howeve r, it is commonsensical to suggest that different management criteria should apply to no nnative species that are not likely to ever be eradicated entirely from an ecosystem, such as wa ter lettuce in Ichetucknee, or hydrilla and water hyacinth in Kings Bay, particul arly if increased coverage of these species beyond lowest feasible control levels might be associated with increased wildli fe habitat, reduced levels of potentially toxic cyanobacteria, an d/or other ecological effects th at society consensually deems as an improvement over current conditions. Stat utory directives to balance aquatic plant

PAGE 143

143 management with goals such as public welfare and maintenance of fish and wildlife clearly provide guidance for the pursuit of more adaptive aquatic plant ma nagement strategies that go beyond narrowly interpreted mandates to minimi ze nonnative species (Flo rida Statutes 2006b). Final Thoughts In a thought-provoking essay with the subti tle de-militarizing invasion biology, Larson (2005, 499) suggests that invasive species should no longer be c onceptualized as biological enemies to be combated through militaristic means, but rather as co-conspirators with us in our urge to consume, to progress, to spread, and to travel. Su ch a re-conceptualization, Larson (2005, 499) argues, would help further dissolve ill usory separateness from a natural world out there and force a direct confrontation with th e complex ways in which our modern activities have inexorably changed the planet and its ecosystems. Over the course of many long conversations and field visits with citizen stakeholders in Crystal River, the dissonant juxtaposition of modern realities with the romantic assu mptions of nonnative plant management often would come to the forefront. Smokestacks fr om a regional coal-fired power plant clearly visible to the north, sea walls protecting houses with perfectly manicured lawns along linear canals that drained and destroye d forested wetlands many decades ago, large stormwater pipes discharging unknown quantities of heavy metals and petrochemicals from a major highway directly into the water body, pa ssenger jets flying overhead, and, of course, endangered manatees feeding on exotic meals of hydrilla hyacinth, and Eurasian milfo il all of these are among the many reminders that the Kings Bay ecosystem is found squarely within the context of our modern society. In one memorable, and provocativ e, quote obtained from a long-time Crystal River resident during the course of a stakeholder interview, a feeling of profound dissonance is expressed through the knowledge th at, out of all these modern si ghts, it is the manatees food that ecosystem managers most commonly a nd visibly focus their control efforts:

PAGE 144

144 Of course its a dirty world, and Kings Bays a part of it. But where s the logic in how were dealing with it? We spend thousands of dollars using chemical s to kill a beautiful plant (water hyacinth) that cleans up polluti on and the manatees love. Then we spend hundreds of thousands more to stir up the bottom trying to grub (harvest) out muck and slime ( L. wollei ) that wouldnt be there if we hadnt sp rayed the hyacinths in the first place. And then we fret over having enough food to feed the manatees each year. Now theyre talking about spraying some new chemical to ki ll the muck that the other chemicals caused, and tell us that we cant grow more hyacint h to help clean up th e water and feed the manatees because it would be unnatural. As this comment implies, it seems apparent that the conflicts about aquatic plant management encountered in the two case studies are fundamentally rooted in competing, valueladen conceptions about what is meant by nat ural. Does water hyacinths pre-Columbian origin in South America (or wa ter lettuces uncertain origin) make it an unnatural part of Floridas aquatic ecosystems? Conversely, are these plants natural simply because they are able to thrive in todays prevai ling ecological conditions? Are L. wollei and other cyanobacteria natural because they have been present in sp rings throughout antiquity, or should their recent emergence as dominant species be regarded as an unnatural artifact of hu man contamination? Is it natural or unnatural to control plants and al gae using chemical herb icides invented and manufactured by modern humans? How shoul d determinations about unnaturalness and naturalness be weighed against the measurable value of some nonnative plants in providing habitat for native animals, reducing growth of algae, and/or mitigating the effects of anthropogenic contamination? While the measures of science can provide some guidance, the ultimate answers one might give to these and related questions clearly are hinged upon what values one chooses to use when de fining natural and unnatural. Thus, the primary lesson that emerges from the cas e studies in this disse rtation is that war against the invaders is not, as Floridas aquatic plant manage rs and researchers too often suggest, justified by settled scienc e, but, rather, is founded square ly upon the shifting sands of

PAGE 145

145 human values and uncertain science characteris tic of almost all other complex environmental problems. Following from this recognition, I have argued throughout this di ssertation, should be a pragmatic shift and holistic integration of aquatic plant management into an adaptive framework that includes vigorous reevaluation of ecosystem goals active experimentation with alternative management methods, careful mon itoring, open public discussion about what is learned in management experiments, and partic ipatory decisions about what the next round of goals should be. Getting to such a point in Florida will, however require overcoming institutional rigidities associated with nonnative plant management, which, as experiences gained through the participatory research processes of this disserta tion indicate, are often quite extreme. In one somewhat disconcerting personal example, my leg itimacy as a graduate student researcher was openly challenged by an aquatic plant manager in direct reaction to a presentation I gave about aquatic plant management altern atives in a public forum (alt hough, interestingly, the ideas put forth in the presentation were not specifically questioned). Wh ile the confusion behind this incident eventually was settled, a more seri ous and systemic problem was revealed in communications with a variety of ecologists and environmental scientists, several of whom expressed deep skepticism about the utility of current nonnative plant mana gement strategies in Florida, but also noted their unwillingness to make public statements or propose research consistent with this private skepticism due to fears that their professional careers would be harmed. A discursive atmosphere that promotes this kind of personal intellectual censorship, even if only subtly coerced in most cases, undoubtedly poses a severe barrier to the full development of knowledge and creativity nece ssary for confronting tomorrows uncertain environmental issues.

PAGE 146

146 Clearly, as our local, regional, and global ecosystems are increasingly impacted by the pressures of modern human society, it is inevitable that species assemblages will continue to shift in novel and unpredictabl e ways. Climate change, deforestation, eutrophication, soil depletion, species transfers both intentional and unintentiona l through global trade, and countless other human-derived impacts can all be expected to profoundly affect what the biotic communities of the future will look like. No ecosyst em prairies, lakes, rain forest, coral reef, or, as discussed in this dissert ation, Florida springs appears to be immune from reorganization through human-mediated processes, and the comp lex changes encountered will undoubtedly test the limits of socio-ecological adaptability a nd management ingenuity. In the face of such dynamism, classic natural scien ce research to detect and be tter understand changes as they emerge, social science research to better understand the human contexts in which these changes both occur and are confronted, a nd interdisciplinary research to better understand the everevolving interfaces between dynamic ecosystems and the equally dynamic human societies in which we live increasingly will be needed. But just as important in these uncertain times will be a commitment to uphold and continuously rene w the spirit of place -based dialogue and participatory learning, thereby, to paraphrase an old proverb, turn ing people into citizens and even, perhaps, strangers into friends.

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX Informed Consent Protocol Title : Evaluating Ecosystem Management and Collaborative Conservation at Three First Magnitude Springs in Florida: A Multi-Scalar Narrative Approach Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to gather and characterize perceptions of conservation and ecosystem management issues among stakeholder groups within the Ichetucknee and Kings Bay springs systems. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer a series of questions about your interest in and understanding of the problems facing the springs system in which you ar e a stakeholder. Some of these questions are intended to be open-ended, and will be followed with additional questions to facilitate full understanding of the information you offer. Yo u will also be presented with some new information pertaining to your springs system, a nd asked to respond to several questions related to this new information. You do not have to an swer any question you do not wish to answer. With your permission, the session will be taped usi ng an audio recording device. If you prefer to not be taped, your responses will be recorded by hand in a field notebook. Any responses that you do not wish to be recorded either by tape or through field notes will not be recorded and will not be used in the study. Time required: Approximately 1 hour Risks and Benefits: No more than minimal risk to you is expected fr om this research. No di rect benefits to you are expected through participation in this research. Compensation: You will not be paid for part icipating in this research. Confidentiality:

PAGE 148

148 Your identity will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. No name will be recorded on the audio tape or field notes and all responses will be characterized and reported anonymously in all reports. All audio tapes and field notes asso ciated with this research study will be available only to Jason Evans and R. Jeff Burkhardt. Audi o tapes and field notes will be transcribed by Jason Evans. The audio tapes and fi eld notes will be kept in a lock ed drawer in the home office of Jason Evans. When the responses have been analyzed and study is completed, all audio tapes will be broken with a hammer and discarded. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Jason M. Evans, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Na tural Resources and the Environment, 103 Black Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 466-4549, jevans75@ufl.edu R. Jeff Burkhardt, Ph.D., Food and Resource Economics Department, 1157 McCarty Hall A, University of Florida, Gainesv ille, FL 32611, (352) 392-1826 ext. 314 rburkhardt@ifas.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in this study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, (352) 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I volunt arily agree to pa rticipate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ______________________________________ Date: __________________ Principal Investigat or: ______________________________ Date: __________________

PAGE 149

149 LIST OF REFERENCES Agami, M. and K.R. Reddy. 1990. Competition for space between Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms and Pistia stratiotes L. cultured in nutrient-enriched Water. Aquatic Botany 38:195208. Aliotta G., P. Monaco, G. Pinto, A. Pollio, and L. Previterra. 1991. Potential allelochemicals from Pistia stratiotes L. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17:2223-2234. Allen, T.F.H., J.A. Tainter, and T.W. Hoekstra. 2003. Supply-side sustainability New York: Columbia University Press. Anonymous. 2005. Summer/Winter Aquatic Plant Manage ment Plan for the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers Copy obtained from Mark Edwards, Aquatic Services Director, Citrus County Aquatic Services. Lecanto, Florida. Argyris, C. and D.A. Schn. 1989. Participatory ac tion research and actio n science compared. American Behavioral Scientist 3(5):612-623. Attionu, R.H. 1976. Some effects of water lettuce ( Pistia stratiotes L.) on its habitat. Hydrobiologia 50(3):245-254. Bachmann, R.W., M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfiel d, Jr. 1999. The restoration of Lake Apopka in relation to alternative stable states. Hydrobiologia 394:219-232. Bartodziej, W. and A.J. Leslie. 1998. The aquatic ecology and water quality of the St. Marks River, Wakulla County, Florida, with emphasis on the role of water hyacinth: 1989-1995 studies Bureau of Invasive Plant Management TSS 98-100. Tallahassee: Department of Environmental Protection. Behnke, P.C. 2003. Old timers remember Ichetucknee Springs Tallahassee: Department of Environmental Protection. Bellamy, J.A., G.T. McDonald, G.J. Syme, and J.E. Butterworth. 1999. Evaluating integrated resource management. Society and Natural Resources 12:337-353. Berardi, G. 2002. Commentary on the challenge to change: Participatory research and professional realities. Society and Natural Resources 15:847-852. Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Pages 1-25 in F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.), Linking social and ecological systems: Management prac tices and social mechanisms for building resilience Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biggs, B.J.F. 2000. Eutrophication of streams a nd rivers: Dissolved nutrient-chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(1): 17-31.

PAGE 150

150 Bishop, J.H. 1995. Evaluation of the removal of treated m unicipal effluent on water chemistry and the abundance of submersed vegetation in Kings Bay Crystal River, Florida M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. Bledsoe, E.L., K.E. Harr, M.F. Cichra, E. J. Phlips, R.K. Bonde, and M. Lowe. 2006. A comparison of biofouling communities associated with free-ranging and captive Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ). Marine Mammal Science 22(4):997-1003. Blindow, I., G. Andersson, A. Hargeby, and S. Johansson. 1993. Long-term pattern of alternative stable states in two shallow eutrophic lakes. Freshwater Biology 30:159-167. Bojorquez-Tapia, L.A., S. Diaz-Mondragon, and E. Ezcurra. 2001. GIS-based approach for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographic Information and Science 15(2):129-151. Briassoulis, H. 1989. Theoretical or ientations in environmental planning: An inquiry into alternative approaches. Environmental Management 13(4):381-392. Brody, S.D. 2003. Measuring the effect of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of colla borative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:407-419. Brower, W.W. 1980. Biological and physical inve stigations of bodies of water beneath dense water hyacinth populations before and after chemical treatment Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida. Bruno, G.C. 2004, October 17. Algae in Ichetucknee causing itch. The Gainesville Sun Buker, G.E. 1982. Engineers vs. Floridas green menace. The Florida History Quarterly April: 413-427. Butt, P.L. and G. J. Murphy. 2003. Dyal and Black sinks dye trace, Columbia County, Florida: May September 2003 High Springs, FL: Karst Environmental Services. Callicott, J.B., L.B. Crowder, and K. Mu mford. 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13(1):22-35. Campbell, H.W. and A.B. Irvine. 1977. Feed ing ecology of the West Indian manatee Trichecus manatus Linnaeus. Aquaculture 12(3):249-251. Canfield, D.E., R.W. Bachmann, and M.V. Hoye r. 2000. A management alternative for Lake Apopka. Lake and Reservoir Management 16(3):205-221. Carr. A. 1994. A naturalist in Florida: A celebration of Eden New Haven: Yale University.

PAGE 151

151 Chambers, R. 1997. Relaxed and participatory appraisal. Notes on practical approaches and methods Brighton, UK: University of Sussex. Champion, K.M. and R. Starks. 2001. The hydrology and water quality of springs in west-central Florida Water Quality Monitoring Program. Br ooksville: Southwest Florida Water Management District. Chen, L.Y. 2001. Cost savings from properl y managing endangered species habitat. Natural Areas Journal 21:197-203. Chesnut, T.L. and E.H. Barman, Jr. 1974. A quatic vascular plants of Lake Apopka. Florida Scientist 37(1):60-64. Clugston, J.P. 1963. Lake Apopka, Florida: A changing lake and its vegetation. Quarterly Journal of the Flori da Academy of Sciences 26(2):169-174. Cohen, M.A. 1993. Pondscaping with aquatic and marginal plants. Tortuga Gazette 29(6):6-7. http://www.tortoise.or g/general/pondplan.html accessed February 2007. Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Pe terson, and S.A. Nichols. 2005. Restoration and management of lakes and rivers Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis. Cowell, B.C. and P.S. Botts. 1994. Factors in fluencing the distribution, abundance, and growth of Lyngbya wollei in Central Florida. Aquatic Botany 49:1-17. Cowell, B.C. and C.J. Dawes. 2004. Growth and n itrate-nitrogen uptake by the cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42:69-71. Cuda, J.P., B.R. Coon, Y.M. Dao, and T.D. Ce nter. 2002. Biology and labor atory rearing of Cricotopus lebetis (Diptera: Chironomidae), a natural enemy of the aqua tic weed hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae). Arthropod Biology 95(5):587-596. DAntonio, C.D. and L.A. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoratio n: A synthesis. Restoration Ecology 10(4):703-713. Dame, J. 2006, May 21. Time to addre ss level of nitrates in rivers. Gainesville Sun http://www.gvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20060521/EDITORIALS0101/2052 10331&SearchID=73260152360923 ; accessed February 2007. DCA and DEP. 2002. Protecting Floridas springs: Land use planning and best management practices www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications ; accessed January 2007. DEP. 2000, June 27. Water lettuce cleanup. Lette r to Ichetucknee homeowners and interested persons Lake City: Bureau of I nvasive Plant Management. __. 2004a. A strategy for water quality protection: Wast ewater treatment in the Wekiva study

PAGE 152

152 area http://www.dep.state.fl.us /water/wastewater/dom/doc s/WekivaReportDecember2004.pdf ; accessed February 2007. __. 2004b. Domestic wastewater http://www.dep.state.fl.us/s outhwest/water/DomWNar.htm ; accessed April 2007. __. 2005. Marion County awarded for land-use pl anning DEP recognizes county for commitment to the protection of springs http://www.dep.state.fl.us/s ecretary/news/2005/06/0621_02.htm ; accessed February 2007. __. 2006. Agreement reached to upgrade wastewater facilities, protect Wakulla Springs http://www.dep.state.fl.us/s ecretary/news/2006/12/1219_07.htm ; accessed February 2007. __. 2007a. Florida Springs Initiative achievements http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/initiative.htm ; accessed February 2007. __. 2007b. Florida Springs Task Force: Developing strategies to prot ect Floridas springs http://www.floridasprings.org/protection/taskforce/ ; accessed February 2007. __. 2007c. Drinking water: Standards for inorganic contaminants http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/drinkingwater/st_inorg.htm ; accessed April 2007. __. 2007d. The antidegradation polic y for reuse projects http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/antideg.htm ; accessed April 2007. Dick, T.H. 1989. Crystal Rive r: A no-win situation. Aquatics 11(2):10-13. Douthwaite, B., N.C. de Haan, V.M. Manyong, a nd J.D.H. Keatinge. 2003. Blending hard and soft science: The follow-the-technol ogy approach to cata lyzing and evaluating technology change. Pages 15-36 in B.M Campbell and J.A. Sayer, (eds.), Integrated natural resource management Cambridge: CABI. Doyle, R.D. and R.M. Smart. 1998. Competitive reduction of noxious Lyngbya wollei mats by rooted aquatic plants. Aquatic Botany 61: 17-32. Dray, F.A., Jr., and T.D. Center. 1989. Seed production by Pistia stratiotes L. (water lettuce) in the United States. Aquatic Botany 33:155-160. Dubose, C., K. Langeland, and E. Phlips. 1997. Probl em freshwater algae a nd their control in Florida. Aquatics 19(1):4,6,8-11. Duram, L.A. and K.G. Brown. 1999. Assessing public participation in U.S. watershed planning initiatives. Society and Natural Resources 12:455-467.

PAGE 153

153 DuToit, C.H. 1979. The carrying capacity of the Ic hetucknee Springs and River. M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. Dyer, J.R., D. Forgie, B.B. Martin, and D.F. Martin. 1992. Effects of se lected copper (II) chelate compounds on the rates of production of oxygen by filamentous algae. Biomedical Letters 47:363-369. Epler, J.H., J.P. Cuda, and T.D. Center. 2000. Redescription of Cricotopus lebetis (Diptera: Chironomidae), a potential biocontrol ag ent of the aquatic weed hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae). Florida Entomologist 83(2):171-180. Evans, J. 2002. Precaution to the wind: A local narrative on the permitting of the Ichetucknee cement plant M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. __. 2004. Case study analyses of DEPs wastewater program and associated challenges for groundwater protection in Floridas springsheds Conservation Clinic, Levin College of Law. Gainesville: University of Florida. www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/pdf/wastewater_springs.pdf ; accessed December 2006. Ewel, J.J. and F.E. Putz. 2004. A place for alien species in ecosystem restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(7):354-360. Facemire, C.F. 1991. Copper and other contaminants in King s Bay and Crystal River, Florida sediments: Implications for im pact on the West Indian manatee Publication Number VB89-4-109A. Arlington, VA: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Ferreyra, C. 2006. Practicality, positionality, and emancipation: Reflections on participatory action research within a watershed partnership. Systemic Practice and Action Research 19:577-598. Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge Durham: Duke University Press. Florida Administrative Code. 1993. Chapter 62-600. Domestic wastewater facilities http://www.dep.state.fl.us/le gal/Rules/wastewater/62-600.pdf ; accessed April 2007. __. 2005. Chapter 62-670. Feedlot and dairy wastewater treatment and management requirements http://www.dep.state.fl.us/leg al/Rules/wastewater/62-670.pdf ; accessed April 2007. __. 2006. Chapter 62-302.530. Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readF ile.asp?sid=0&type=1 &tid=3295010&file=62302.530.doc ; accessed April 2007. Florida Springs Task Force. 2000. Floridas springs: Strategies for protection and restoration Tallahassee: Department of Environmental Protection.

PAGE 154

154 Florida Statutes. 2006a. Chapter 163. Local government comprehensive planning and land development act http://www.leg.state.fl.us/s tatutes/index.cfm?App_mode=D isplay_Statute&URL=Ch0163/ ch0163.htm ; accessed February 2007. __. 2006b. Chapter 369.22. Non-indigenous plant control http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm ?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0369/c h0369.htm ; accessed February 2007. __. 2006c. Chapter 403.086. Sewage disposal facilities ; advanced and secondary waste treatment. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/s tatutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App _mode=Display_Statute&Search_S tring=403.086&URL=CH0403/Sec086.HTM ; accessed April 2007. Follman, J., and Buchanan, R. 2004. Springs fever: A field and r ecreation guide to Florida springs http://fn1.tfn.net/springs/ ; accessed February 2007. Fontaine, T.D. 1978. Community etabolism patterns and a si mulation model of a lake in central Florida Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville : University of Florida. Foster, J. and L.A. Sandberg. 2004. Friend or foe? Invasive speci es and public green space in Toronto. The Geographical Review 94(2):178-198. Frazer, T.K. and J.A. Hale. 2001. An atlas of submersed aquatic vegetation in Kings Bay (Citrus County, Florida) Final Report. Brooksville: Sout hwest Florida Water Management District.. Friedman, H.J. 1987. A watery jungle: Or why ther e is an aquatic plant management society today. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 25:70-73. Furch, B. 1995. The most notorious tropical weed s must not be in all respects extremely noxious. Tropical Ecology 36(2):221-226. Gobster, P.H. 2005. Invasive species as ecological threat: Is restoration an alternative to fearbased resource management? Ecological Restoration 23(4):261-270. Gopal, B. 1987. Water hyacinth New York: Elsevier. Gratton, C. and R.F. Denno. 2005. Restora tion of arthropod assemblages in a Spartina salt marsh following removal of the invasive plant Phragmites australis Restoration Ecology 13(2):358-372.

PAGE 155

155 Greenfield, B.K., N. David, J, Hunt M. Wittman, and G. Siemering. 2004. Review of alternative aquatic pest control methods for California waters Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program. Oakland: San Fran cisco Estuary Institute. http://www.sfei.org/apmp/repor ts/PestAlternat ives_review.pdf ; accessed January 2007. Grimshaw, H.J. 2002. Nutrient-release and detr itus production by herbicide-treated freely floating aquatic vegetation in a large, shallow subtropical lake and river. Archiv fur Hydrobiologica 153:469-490. Groning, G., and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn. 2003. The na tive plant enthusiasm: Ecological panacea or xenophobia? Landscape Research 28(1):75-88. Gross, E.D. and D. Martin. 1996. Iron dependence of Lyngbya majuscula Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34: 17-20. Gross, E.M. 2003. Allelopat hy of aquatic autotrophs. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 22(3 & 4):313-339. Grudens-Schuck, N. 2000. Conflict and engagement: An empirical study of a farmer-extension partnership in a sustaina ble agriculture program. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13:79-100. Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adap tive management antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1):7. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7/ ; accessed February 2007. Gunderson, L.H., S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, P. Olsson, and G. Peterson. 2006. Water RATs (resilience, adaptability, and transformability ) in lake and wetland social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):16. http://www.ecologyandsocie ty.org/vol11 /iss1/art16/ ; accessed February 2007. Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers broken and bridges built: A synthesis. Pages 489-532 in L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling and S.S. Light (eds.), Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions New York: Columbia University Press. Habermas, J. 1995. Moral consciousness and communicative action Translated by C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholson. Cambridge: MIT Press. Haller, W.T., J.V. Shirem an, and D.E. Canfield. 1983. Vegetative and herbicide monitoring study in Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida Contract No. DACW17-80-C-0062. Jacksonville, FL: United States Army Corps of Engineers. Hand, J. 2006. 17 Years of aquatic plant surveys in Ichetucknee River. Powe rPoint Presentation. Division of Water Resources, TMDL Section. Tallahassee/Gainesville: Department of Environmental Protection.

PAGE 156

156 __. 2007. Measuring obnoxious algal problems in Ichetucknee Springs. Power Point Presentation. Division of Water Resources TMDL Section. Tallahassee/Gainesville: Department of Environmental Protection. http://deepbluespring.com/ ; accessed February 2007. Hauxwell, J., C.W. Osenberg, and T.K. Frazer. 2004. Conflicting management goals: manatees and invasive competitors inhibit re storation of a native macrophyte. Ecological Applications 14(2):571-586. Hays, S. 1987. Beauty, health, and permanence: Environm ental politics in the United States, 1955-1985 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helmreich, S. 2003. How scientists think about n atives, for example. A problem of taxonomy among biologists of alie n species in Hawaii. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11:107-128. Herring, B.J. 1994. A floristic study of Iche tucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee and Columbia counties, Florida M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management New York: John Wiley. __. 1995. What barriers, what bridges? Pages 3-34 in L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (eds.), Barriers and bridges to the rene wal of ecosystems and institutions New York: Columbia University Press. Holling, C.S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1998. Scien ce, sustainability, and resource management. Pages 342-366 in F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.), Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoyer, M.V., L.K. Mataraza, A.B. Munson, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 1997. Water clarity in Kings Bay/Crystal River Final Report. Brooksville, FL: S outhwest Florida Water Management District.. Hoyer, M.V., T.K. Frazer, D.E. Canfield, Jr., and J.M. Lamb. 2001. Vegetation evaluation in Kings Bay/Crystal River Final Report. Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management District. Hu, W., J. Salomonsen, F.L. Xu, and P. Pu. 1998. A model for the effects of water hyacinths on water quality in an experiment of physico-bi ological engineering in Lake Taihu, China. Ecological Modelling 107:171-188.

PAGE 157

157 Hunter, J. 2006a, April 23. Grad st udent: Use hyacinth against lyngbya. Citrus County Chronicle http://www.chronicleonline.com/ articles/2006/04/23/news/news50.txt ; accessed April 2007. __. 2006b, April 23. UF graduate's paper suggests instigators, remedies for bay's chronic lyngbya problem. Citrus County Chronicle http://www.chronicleonline.com/articles /2006/04/23/columns/features/news965.txt ; accessed April 2007. Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group. 2006. Ichetucknees disappearing critters http://www.ichetucknee.info/saf eguarding/Disappearing_Critters ; accessed February 2007. Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group. 2000. Protecting the water quality of the Ichetucknee: A watershed working group process Tallahassee: Department of Environmental Protection. Jamil, K., M.Z. Jamil, P.V.R. Rao, and G. Thyagarajan. 1985. The role of water hyacinth in abating aquatic pollution. Pollution Research 4(2):67-75. Jin, Z.H., Y.Y. Zhuang, S.C. Dai, and T.L. Li. 2003. Isolation and identification of extracts of Eichhornia crassipes and their allelopathic effects on algae. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 71:1048-1052. Jones, G.W., S.B. Upchurch, and Kyle M. Champion. 1996. Origin of nitrate in ground water discharging from Rainbow Spri ngs, Marion County, Florida Tampa: Southwest Florida Water Management District. __. 1998. Origin of nutrients in ground water discharging from the Kings Bay Springs Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florid a Water Management District. Jordan, W.R., R.L. Peter, and E.B. Allen. 1988. Ecological restorati on as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environmental Management 12(1): 55-72. Joyce, J.C. 1982. Effect of gibberellic acid and 2,4 -dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on waterhyacinth, Eichhornia cr assipes (Mart.) solms. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida. __. 1985. Benefits of maintenan ce control of water hyacinth. Aquatics 7(4):11-13. Joyner, J. and H.W. Paerl. 2007. Assessment of Lyngbya spp. in Florida rivers and springs Institute of Marine Sciences. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. http://www.unc.edu/ims/paerllab/re search/cyanohabs/fdoh_text.htm ; accessed February 2007.

PAGE 158

158 Kao, C.M., H.Y. Lee, and C.K. Wen. 2000. Applic ation of a constructe d wetland for non-point source pollution control. Pages 1553-1560 in International Water Association 7th International conference on wetland systems for water pollution control Gainesville: University of Florida. Katz, B.G. and J. Bohlke. 2000. Monthly variability and possible s ources of nitrate in ground water beneath mixed agricultural land us e, Suwannee and Lafayette counties, Florida Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4219. Tallahassee, FL: United States Geological Survey http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PD F_files/wri00_4219_katz.pdf ; accessed February 2007. Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke, and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring wa ters, Suwannee River basin, Florida Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4254. Tallahass ee: United States Geological Survey. Kellert, S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources 13:705-715. Kent, R., H.T. Odum, and F.N. Scatena. Eutrophic overgrowth in the self-organization of tropical wetlands illustrated with a study of sw ine wastes in rainforest plots. Ecological Engineering 16:255-269. Keuchel, E.F. 1981. A history of Columbia County Tallahassee: Sentry Press. Kiker, C.F., J.W. Milon, and A.W. Hodges. 2001. Adaptive learning for science-based policy: the Everglades restoration. Ecological Economics 37:403-416. Kim, Y., W.J. Kim, P.G. Chung, and W.O. Pipes. 2001. Control and separation of algae particles from wsp effluent by using floa ting aquatic plant root mats. Water Science and Technology 43(11):315-22. Kirkham, W.S. 2005. Situating the Merremia peltata invasion in Samoa. The Geographical Review 94(2):218-228. Larson, B.M.H. 2005. The war of the rose s: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(9):495-500. Lee, T.A. and J.K. Hardy. 1987. Copper uptake by the water hyacinth. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 22(2): 141-160. Leland, H.V. and J.L. Carter. 1984. Effects of c opper on species of periphyton in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Freshwater Biology 14: 281-296.

PAGE 159

159 Leslie, A.J. 1992. Copper-herbicide use patterns in Florida waters Tallahassee, FL: Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dep.state.f l.us/lands/invaspec/2ndle vpgs/pdfs/cuconfnc.pdf ; accessed February 2007. Light, S.L., L.H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 1995. The Everglades: Evolution of management in a turbulent ecosystem. Pages 103-168 in L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling and S.S. Light, (eds.), Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions New York: Columbia University Press. Lin, Y.F, S.R. Jing, T.W. Wang, and D.Y. Lee. 2002. Effects of macrophytes and external carbon sources on nitrate removal from groundwater in constructed wetlands. Environmental Pollution 119:413-420. Lindsey, K. and H.M. Hirt. 1999. Use water hyacinth! A practica l handbook of uses for the water hyacinth from across the world Winnenden, Germany: Anamed. Lomolino, M.V. 1977. The ecological role of the Florida manatee (Trichecus manatus latirosis) in water hyacinth-dominated ecosystems M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. Lomolino, M.V. and K.C. Ewel. 1984. Digestive e fficiencies of the West Indian manatee ( Trichecus manatus ). Florida Scientist 47(3):176-179. Lopes-Ferreira, C., M.C. Calijuri, E.G. Espindola, a nd I. Bianchini, Jr. 2000. Identifying the best age for Pistia stratiotes to remove nutrients from a eutrophic river. Page 889 in International Water Association, 7th International conference on wetland systems for water pollution control Gainesville: University of Florida. Lovell, C., A. Mandondo, and P. Moriarty. 2003. The question of scale in integrated natural resource management. Pages 109-138 in B.M Campbell and J.A. Sayer (eds.), Integrated natural resource management Cambridge: CABI. Lu, X., M. Kruatrachue, P. Pokethitiyook, and K. Homyak. 2004. Removal of cadmium and zinc by water hyacinth. ScienceAsia 30: 93-103. Lugo, A.E. 2004. The outcome of alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:265-273. Lyotard, J.F. 1984. The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge Translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ma, L.Q., K.M. Komar, C. Tu, W. Zhang, Y. Cai, and E. D. Kennelley. 2001. A fern that hyperaccumulates arsenic. Nature 409:579.

PAGE 160

160 Madsen, J.D., J.W. Sutherland, and L.W. Bloo mfield. 1991. The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29:94-99. Mahujchariyawong, J. 2001. Modelling sustainabl e water quality improvement using water hyacinth and its app lication in Thailand. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 8:221-231. Mahujchariyawong, J. and S. Ikeda. 2001. Modell ing of environmental phytoremediation in eutrophic river the case of water hyacinth harvest in Tha-chin River, Thailand. Ecological Modelling 142:121-134. Maltby, H. 1963. Effects of erosion on farm lands and river front along th e St. Johns River. Hyacinth Control Journal 2:5. Martin, J.B. and S.L. Gordon. 2000. Surface and gr oundwater mixing, flow paths, and temporal variations in chemical compositi ons of karst springs. Pages 65-92 in I.D. Sasowsky and C.M. Wicks (eds.), Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in carbonate aquifers Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Mbendo, J. and T.H. Thomas. 1998. Economic utilization of water hyacinth from Lake Victoria Working Paper No. 51. United Kingdom: Warwick University. Michel, A., R.S. Arias, B.E. Scheffler, S. O. Duke, M.D. Netherland, and F.E. Dayan. 2004. Somatic mutation-mediated evolution of herbic ide resistance in the nonindigenous invasive plant hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata ). Molecular Ecology 13:3229-3237. Milanich, J.T. 1998. Florida's Indians from ancie nt times to the present Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Milanich, J.T. and C. Hudson 1993. Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman. Qualitative data analysis Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Munson, A.B. 1999. Water clarity in Kings Bay/Crystal River, Florida M.S. Thesis. Gainesville: University of Florida. Nelson, S.C., B.D. Smith, and B.R. Best. 1980. Nitrogen uptake by tropical freshwater macrophytes Technical Report No. 10. Guam: Wate r Resources Research Center. Netherland, M.D., M.V. Hoyer, M.S. Allen, a nd D. Canfield. 2005. A summary of future management recommendations from the December 2004 hydrilla summit in Florida. Aquatics 27(4):4-9.

PAGE 161

161 Norton, B.G. 2003. Integration or reduction: Two approaches to environmental values. Pages 240 259 in D. VanDeVeer and C. Pierce (eds.), The environmental ethics and policy book Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. __. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management Chicago: University Press of Chicago Odum, H.T. 1957. Trophic structure and produc tivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecological Monographs 27(1):55-112. __. 1994. Ecological and General Systems Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. Odum, H.T. and B. Odum. 2003 Concepts and methods of ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering 20:339-361. Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum. 2000. Modeling for all scales San Diego: Academic Press. Olwig, K.R. 2003. Natives and aliens in the nationa l landscape. Landscape Research 28(1):6174. OShea, T.J., J.F. Moore, and H.I. Kochman. 1984. Contaminant concentrations in manatees in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:741-748. Panda, A.K. and B.B. Kar. 1996. Efficacy of four common weeds in accumulation of mineral nutrients: A comparison. Journal of Industria l Pollution Control 12(2):119-122. Parotta, J.A. 1992. The role of plantation forests in rehabilitating degraded tropical ecosystems. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 41:115-133. Phelps, G.G. 2004. Chemistry in the ground water in th e Silver Springs Basin, with an emphasis on nitrate Scientific Investigations Re port 2004-5144. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5144/pdf/sir20045144.pdf ; accessed January 2007. Phillipy, C.L. 1966. A progress report on the use of sulphuric acid tr eatment for elodea control. Hyacinth Control Journal 5:15-17. Phlips, E.J., J. Inhat, and M. Conroy. 1992. N itrogen-fixation by the benthic freshwater cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei. Hydrobiologia 234: 59-64. Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Mo rrison. 2000 Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50(1):53-65.

PAGE 162

162 Pittman, C. 2006, August 24. Springs bring mystery illn ess: The state is investigating ailments that are afflicting swimmers. Pollution is suspected. St. Petersburg Times http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/24/S tate/Springs_bring_mystery.shtml ; accessed January 2007. Proctor, R.N. 1991. Value-free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ramey, V. 2001. Non-native invasive aquatic plants in the United States: Pistia stratiotes Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants and Sea Grant. Gainesville: University of Florida. http://plants.if as.ufl.edu/seagra nt/pisstr2.html ; accessed February 2007. __. 2005. Maintenance control of plants Center for Aquatic and Invasi ve Plants. Gainesville: University of Florida. http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/sup1herb.html ; accessed February 2007. Reddy, A.S. and P.N. Rao. 1987. The utility of water lettuce as a source of biogas. Research and Industry 32(2):79-81. Reddy, K.R. and P.D. Sacco. 1981. Decomposition of water hyacinth in agricultural drainage water. Journal of Environmental Quality 10:255-266. Ringle, K. 1999. Unlocking the labyr inth of north Florida springs. National Geographic March: 40-59. Ritchie, B. 2006, June 19. Ichetucknee Sp rings is the feeling the pain, too. Tallahassee Democrat http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?A ID=/20060619/NEWS01/606190304 ; accessed January 2007. Rodriguez-Gallego, L.R., N. Mazzeo, J. Gorga, M. Meerhoff, J. Clemente, C. Kruk, F. Scasso, G. Lacerot, J. Garcia, and F. Quintans. 2004. Th e effects of an artificial wetland dominated by free-floating plants on the restorati on of a subtropical, hypertrophic lake. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 9:203-215. Roling, N. and M. Maarleveld. 1999. Facing strate gic narratives: An argume nt for interactive effectiveness. Agriculture and Human Values 16:295-308. Romie, K.F. 1990. An evaluation of factors contributing to the growth of Lyngbya sp. in Kings Bay/Crystal River, Florida Report submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Brooksville, FL : Southwest Florida Water Management District. Rosenau, J.C., G.L. Faulkner, C.W. Hendry, Jr., and R.W. Hull. 1977. Springs of Florida Bulletin No. 31. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey.

PAGE 163

163 Ross, P.H., H.E. Freeman, and M.W. Lipsay. 1999. Evaluation: A systematic approach Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sagoff, M. 2005. Do non-native species threaten the natural environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:215-236. Scheffer, M., S.H. Hosper, M.L. Meijer, B. Mo ss, and E. Jeppesen. 1993. A lternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:275-279. Scheffer, M., S. Szabo, A. Gragnani, E.H. van Nes, S. Rinaldi, N. Kautsky, J. Norberg, R.M.M. Roijackers, and R.J.M. Franken. Floating plant dominance as stable state. 2003. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(7):4040-4045. Schmitz, D.C., J.D. Schardt, A.J. Leslie, F.A. Dray, Jr., J.A. Osborne, and B.V. Nelson. 1993. The ecological impact and management histor y of three alien aquatic plant species in Florida. Pages 173-194 in B.N. McKnight (ed.), Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species Indianapolis: Indiana Academy of Science. Schoeb, F. and H.J. Singh. 2000. Kinetic studies of biogas evolved from water hyacinth. In Proceedings of 2nd international symposium on new technologies for environmental monitoring and agro-applications Tekirdag, Turkey. http://www.greentrust.org/2000/biofuel/KineticStudies.htm ; accessed February 2007. Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.C. Means, and R.P. Meegan. 2002. First magnitude springs of Florida Open File Report No. 85. Tallaha ssee: Florida Geological Survey. Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E. Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. Willet. 2004. Springs of Florida Bulletin No. 66. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey. Shannon, K., E.D. Gross, and D.F. Ma rtin. 1992. Variation of growth of Lyngbya majascula as a function of salinity. Biomedical Letters 47:29-33. Shapiro, A.M. 2002. The California urban butterfl y fauna is dependent on alien plants. Diversity and Distributions 8:31-40. Sharma, B.M. 1984. Ecophysiological studies on water lettuce in a polluted lake. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 22:17-21. Shijun, M. and Y. Jingsong. 1989. Ecological engin eering for treatment a nd utilization of wastewater. Pages 185-217 in W.J. Mitsch and S.E. Jorgensen (eds.), Ecological engineering: An intr oduction to ecotechnology New York: Wiley. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2001. Non-indigenous species and ecological explanation. Biology and Philosophy 16:507-519.

PAGE 164

164 Shrivastava, S. and K.S. Rao. 2000. Observations on the experimental assessment of optimal exposure time for mercury detoxification by an integrated aquatic macrophyte based system. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 65:91-97. Silverberg, D.J. and J.G. Morris. 1987. The role of nutrients and energy in the diet selection of the West Indian manatee ( Trichecus manatus ) in the winter refuge at Homosassa Springs, Citrus County, FL. American Zoologist 27(4):44A (Abstract). Simberloff, D. 2003. Confronting introdu ced species: A form of xenophobia? Biological Invasions 5(3):179-192. __. 2004. Book review: Invasion biology: Critique of a pseudoscience Ecological Economics 48:360-362. Simberloff, D., I.M. Parker, and P.N. Windle. 2004. Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(1):12-20. Simberloff, D, D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown, eds. 1997. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida Washington: Covelo Press. Simpson, J.C. 1956. Florida place-names of Indian derivation Special Publication Number 1. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey. Sivonen, K. and G. Jones. 1999. Cyanobacterial toxins. Pages 55-124 in I. Chorus and J. Bartram (eds.), Toxic cyanobacteria in water: A guide to their public health consequences, monitoring, and management London and New York: E & FN Spon. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_hea lth/resourcesquality/t oxcyanobacteria.pdf ; accessed March 2007. Sneddon, C., L. Harris, R. Dimitrov, and U. Ozes mi. 2002. Contested waters: Conflict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Society and Natural Resources 15: 663-675. Sobel, A. 2004, December 8. Battle continues to rid river of life-sucking water lettuce. High Springs Herald http://www.highspringsherald.com/a rticles/2004/12/08/news/news03.txt ; accessed January 2007. Sooknah, R.D. and A.C. Wilkie. 2004. Nutrient re moval by floating macrophytes cultured in anaerobically digested flus hed dairy manure wastewater. Ecological Engineering 22(1):2742. Spencer, D. and C. Lembi. 2005. Spatial and temporal variati on in the composition of filamentous algae present in California rice fields Project No. 5325-22000-019-04. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. http://www.ars.usda.gov/researc h/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=408890 ; accessed February 2007.

PAGE 165

165 Spivey, H. 2001, January 12. We are loving manatees to extinction. St. Petersburg Times Sridhar, M.K.C. 1986. Trace element composition of Pistia stratiotes L. in a polluted lake in Nigeria. Hydrobiologia 131:271-276. Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, and Y.K. Wang. 2004 Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs Contract Number WM 858. Tallahasse e: Department of Environmental Protection. Stoddard, A.A. 1989. The phytogeogra phy and paleofloristics of Pistia stratiotes L. Aquatics 11:21-24. Stuckey, R.L. and D.H. Les. 1984. Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce) recorded from Florida in Bartrams travels, 1765-74. Aquaphyte 4(2):6. Suding, K.M., K.L. Gross, and G.R. Housema n. 2004. Alternative steady states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(1):46-53. Suman, D., M. Shivlani and J.W. Milon. 2000. Pe rception and attitudes regarding marine reserves: A comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management 42(12):1019-1040. SWFWMD. 2000. Crystal River/Kings Bay surface wa ter improvement and management plan Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florid a Water Management District. http://darla.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ppr /plans/crystal_river-kings_bay_2000.pdf ; accessed February 2007. __. 2004. Crystal River/Kings Bay technical summary Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management District. http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/com mdev/scc/cr_kingsbay_summary.pdf ; accessed February 2007. Taylor, P. L. 2002. Stepping back in time on the Ic hetucknee River. Tallaha ssee: Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.floridasprings.org/ expedition/dispatch4/page.php ; accessed February 2007. Terrell, J.B. and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 1996. Evaluati on of the effects of nutrient removal and the Storm of the Century on submersed vegeta tion in Kings Bay Crystal River, Florida. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 12(3):394-403. Thacker, P.D. 2004. California butterf lies: at home with aliens. Bioscience 54(3):182-187. Thiele, L.P. 1999. Evolutionary na rratives and ecological ethics. Political Theory 27(1):6-38. Theodoropolous, D.I. 2003 Invasion biology: Criti que of a pseudoscience Blythe, CA: Avvar Books.

PAGE 166

166 Thompson, F. G. 1968. The aquatic snails of the family Hy drobiidae of peninsular Florida Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Tilghman, N.J. 1962. The value of water hyacinth in the propagation of fish. Hyacinth Control Journal 1:8. __. 1963. The St. Johns River hyacinth story. Hyacinth Control Journal 2:13-14. Tomasko, D.A. 2005. Spring Protection Initiati ve. PowerPoint Presentation. Resource Management Division, Environmental Sect ion. Brooksville: Southwest Florida Water Management District. Tripathi, B., J. Srivastava, and K. Misra. 1991. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal capacity of four chosen aquatic macrophytes in tropical freshwater ponds. Environmental Conservation 18(2):143-147. Tubea, B., K. Hawxby, and R. Mehta. 1981. The eff ects of nutrient, pH, a nd herbicide levels on algal growth. Hydrobiologia 79:221-227. Tucker, C.S. and T.A. Debusk. 1981. Productivity and nutritive value of Pistia stratiotes and Eichornia crassipes Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 19:61-63. USACE. 1973. Final Environmental Statement, Aqua tic Plant Program, State of Florida EISFL-73-1488-F. Jacksonville: United St ates Army Corps of Engineers. USGS. 2007. Corkscrew swamp sanctuary United States Geological Survey. http://sofia.usgs.gov/vi rtual_tour/corkscrew/ ; accessed February 2007. VanDeVeer, D. and C. Pierce, eds. 2003. The environmental ethics and policy book Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. Walker, B.H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6(1):18-23. Wescoat, J.L. and G.F. White. 2003. Water for life: Water management and environmental policy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitford, L.A. 1956. The communities of algae in the springs and streams of Florida. Ecology 37(3):433-442. Whitworth, W.R. and T.H. Lane. 1969. Effects of toxicants on community metabolism in ponds. Limnology and Oceanography 14(1):53-58. Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillip s, and E. Losos. 1998 Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48(8):607-615.

PAGE 167

167 Wiley, C.J. 1995. Ballast water control: Overvi ew of the Canadian approach. Pages 489-494 in Proceedings of the fifth international ze bra mussel and other aqua tic nuisance organisms conference Toronto: Sea Grant. http://www.sgnis.org/ publicat/pro ceed/1995/489_494.pdf ; accessed February 2007. Wilkie, A.C. and Mulbry, W.W. 2002. Recove ry of dairy manure nutrients by benthic freshwater algae. Bioresource Technology 84(1):81-91. Woodhill, J. and N.G. Roling. 1998. The second wi ng of the eagle: The human dimension in learning our way to more sust ainable futures. Pages 46-71 in N.G. Roling and M.A.E. Wagemakers (eds.), Facilitating sustainable agricultu re: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Worth, J. 1992. The Timucuan missions of Spanish Florida and the rebellion of 1656. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida. Zeiger, C.F. 1962. Hyacinth obstruction to navigation. Hyacinth Control Journal 1:16-17.

PAGE 168

168 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jason Michael Evans was born in Orlando, Florida on July 18, 1975, and is a lifelong Florida resident. He graduate d from Orlandos Colonial High School in 1993. He attended Rollins College out of high school, but in 1995 tr ansferred to New College of Florida. He graduated from New College in 1998 with a b achelors degree in philosophy. At New College, he also met his future wife, Sharon Levine, w hom he finally married in March 2004. In August 2000, Jason began graduate school in the Univer sity of Floridas In terdisciplinary Ecology program. He lived on the Santa Fe and Ichetu cknee rivers from August 2000 August 2001, and experiences from this time formed the basis for his masters thesis and, ultimately, some of his doctoral dissertation. In Ma y 2002, Jason obtained his Master of Science through the Interdisciplinary Ecology program, and directly began a Ph.D. program in interdisciplinary ecology. After completing his Ph.D. qualifying exams in early 2005, he taught a course in geographic information systems (GIS) and worked as a GIS consultant for New College of Florida through a grant provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Jason received his Ph.D. in inte rdisciplinary ecology from the University of Florida in May 2007.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019675/00001

Material Information

Title: Algae, exotics, and management response in two Florida springs : competing conceptions of ecological change in a time of nutrient enrichment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Evans, Jason Michael ( Dissertant )
Burkhardt, Robert J. ( Thesis advisor )
Wilkie, Ann C. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Interdisciplinary Ecology
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida -- Fort White

Notes

Abstract: Interdisciplinary methods based upon principles of participatory action research, systems ecology, and adaptive management were used to create multi-scalar narratives of ecological changes associated with nutrient enrichment in two Florida springs ecosystems: Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River. Review of scientific literature, presentation of historic water quality data, qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and iterative public engagements with stakeholders about ecosystem management policy are integrated in both of the case studies. Patterns of management pathology, or the tendency of management institutions to rigidly adhere to policies that are inappropriate for the maintenance of desired socio-ecological values in the face of emergent environmental changes, were identified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River in relation to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is based upon the laudable goal of maintaining native biodiversity and ecological function, a holistic consideration of historical ecology, scientific literature, and stakeholder accounts indicates that emergent conditions associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant factors may make aquatic plant management practices an important catalyst in shifting springs ecosystems towards an undesirable stability domain characterized by dominance of filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Adaptive management experimentation based upon growth and optimum harvest of nonnative plants, particularly water lettuce in Ichetucknee River and water hyacinth in Kings Bay, is recommended as a potential means of facilitating recovery of more desirable stability domains.
Subject: adaptive, crystal, ecology, hydrilla, ichetucknee, interdisciplinary, invasion, kings, manatee, participatory, river, water
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 168 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019675:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019675/00001

Material Information

Title: Algae, exotics, and management response in two Florida springs : competing conceptions of ecological change in a time of nutrient enrichment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Evans, Jason Michael ( Dissertant )
Burkhardt, Robert J. ( Thesis advisor )
Wilkie, Ann C. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Interdisciplinary Ecology
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida -- Fort White

Notes

Abstract: Interdisciplinary methods based upon principles of participatory action research, systems ecology, and adaptive management were used to create multi-scalar narratives of ecological changes associated with nutrient enrichment in two Florida springs ecosystems: Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River. Review of scientific literature, presentation of historic water quality data, qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and iterative public engagements with stakeholders about ecosystem management policy are integrated in both of the case studies. Patterns of management pathology, or the tendency of management institutions to rigidly adhere to policies that are inappropriate for the maintenance of desired socio-ecological values in the face of emergent environmental changes, were identified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay/Crystal River in relation to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is based upon the laudable goal of maintaining native biodiversity and ecological function, a holistic consideration of historical ecology, scientific literature, and stakeholder accounts indicates that emergent conditions associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant factors may make aquatic plant management practices an important catalyst in shifting springs ecosystems towards an undesirable stability domain characterized by dominance of filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Adaptive management experimentation based upon growth and optimum harvest of nonnative plants, particularly water lettuce in Ichetucknee River and water hyacinth in Kings Bay, is recommended as a potential means of facilitating recovery of more desirable stability domains.
Subject: adaptive, crystal, ecology, hydrilla, ichetucknee, interdisciplinary, invasion, kings, manatee, participatory, river, water
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 168 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019675:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ALGAE, EXOTICS, AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE INT TWO FLORIDA SPRINGS:
COMPETING CONCEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL CHANGE INT A TIME OF NUTRIENT
ENRICHMENT




















By

JASON MICHAEL EVANS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































Copyright 2007

by

Jason M. Evans

































In memory of Ralph Frank Ashodian (1950 to 2006), beloved mentor and friend.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who made this dissertation possible. First of all, I sincerely thank

all of my committee members for the unique insights and contributions they provided throughout

the dissertation process, as well as my overall academic career at the University of Florida.

Former committee member Dr. Clyde Kiker helped get me through the proposal process through

long, entertaining conversations about interdisciplinary issues. Dr. Mark Brown provided

rigorous courses and excellent mentoring on systems ecology, geographic information systems,

and ecological engineering, while also helping me get over ecological bigotry. Dr. Richard

Hamann prodded me to j oin the Conservation Clinic's springshed protection proj ect, which,

along with his bonfire parties, was one of the most rewarding experiences of my graduate career.

Dr. Richard Haynes served as my advisor throughout my master' s thesis project, provided me

with the opportunity to work as a graduate teaching assistant in two courses, and, perhaps most

rewardingly, has served as my mentor for gardening in the Paynes Prairie corridor. Dr. Annie

Wilkie, my committee cochair, helped me appreciate the wonders of aquatic plants, develop a

deeper appreciation for the many facets of sustainability through the BEST society, and get on

with the business of writing. Dr. Jeff Burkhardt, my committee chair, gave me the freedom of

intellectual and philosophical exploration, while also patiently reining me in to produce

something that, hopefully, turned out to be somewhat coherent. While not on my committee,

Conservation Clinic Director Dr. Tom Ankersen played a key role in this dissertation by, among

other things, introducing me to the Crystal River area.

Next, I thank all of the stakeholders who participated in this research, whose commitment

to protecting springs ecosystems is truly an inspiration. Without their gracious help and time, this

dissertation certainly would not have been possible.










I also thank Julie Morris, Jono Miller, and Heidi Harley for giving me the opportunity to

work as an adjunct professor and environmental consultant at New College of Florida during

much of my Ph.D. candidacy period. Not only was the experience invaluable in itself, the

opportunity to present some of my preliminary dissertation results to students helped the

dissertation evolve in new directions.

My parents and other family have provided great love and support throughout my long

collegiate career. In particular, my wife, Sharon, has selflessly helped support me throughout

most of my graduate career. Her love and patience throughout this process are something that I

appreciate greatly, and will never forget through the rest of our lives.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES .........__.. ..... .__. ...............8....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


FI orid a' s Springs. ................ .............. ....................... ..........................12
Conservation and Protection Efforts ................. ...............13................
Florida Springs Task Force .............. ...............13....
Water Quality Working Groups .............. ...............14....
Model Land Use Codes .............. ...............15....
Other Regulatory Efforts ................ ...............16........... ....
Research Problem ................. ...............18.......... .....


2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................. ...............22........... ....


Introducti on ................. ...............22.................

Obj ectives .............. ..... ...............22.......... .....
Participatory Research ................. ...............24.................
Typologies of Participation ................. ...............25................
Participatory Methods .............. ...............29....
Problematizing Participation .............. ...............35....
Confronting Wicked Problems ............ ...... ._ ...............39...
Sy stems Ecology............... ...............40
Analytic Scales .............. ...............41....
Multi-scalar Narratives ................. ...............42.................

Adaptive Management............... ...............4

3 ICHETUCKNEE RIVER .............. ...............49....


Site Description .............. .. ...............49...
Socio-Ecological Background .............. ...............51....
Pre-H history .................. ... .......... ...........5
Spanish Invasion (1539 to 1708) ................ ...............52........... ..
Seminole Period (1708 to 1845) ................. ...... ........ ......... .......... .....5
American Settlement and Development (1845 to 1940) ............_...... ..__............53
Early Socio-Ecological Accounts (1940 to 1960) .............. ...............54....
Mass Recreation (1960 to 1980) ............_ ..... ..__ ...............55












Ecological Recovery (1980 to 1990) ................ ...............56........... ..
Water Quality Concerns and Springshed Research ............... ... ........... .. ............. .....57
Uncertain Science: Nitrate-Nitrogen and Algae Response in Springs Ecosystems ...............59
Water Lettuce Eradication ................ ...............64........... ....
Observed Ecosystem Response .............. ...............66....
Systems M odel .............. ...............69....
Stakeholder Responses .............. ...... ......... ...........7
Adaptive Learning and Institutional Rigidity ................. .............. ............... 73.....
Management Experimentation: Moving beyond All or Nothing ................. .....................77

4 KINTGS BAY/CRY STAL RIVER .............. ...............86....


Site Description .............. ...............86....
W atershed Context ................. ...............88.................
Participatory M ethods................... .. .. .... ...................9
History of Nuisance Aquatic Plants in Kings Bay: 1950 to 2005 .............. .....................9
Factors Related to Lyngbya wollei Dominance ................. ...._._ ....._._ .........10
Current Restoration and Management Strategies .............. ...............104....
SW IM Plan ........._..... ......_ ._ .... ...............105

Kings Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan ........._..._......_._ ........___.........0
Maintenance Control vs. Adaptive Management ............... ....... ......... ........0
Adaptive Restoration Opportunities Provided by Four Notorious Macrophytes .................11 1
Hydrilla ................. ...............111....._._. .....
W ater Hyacinth ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............114....
Eurasian M ilfoil ................. ...............119......... ......
W ater Lettuce ............... ... .. .. ........... .. ... .. .. .. ... .......12
Recommendation: Participatory and Adaptive Management of Aquatic Plants .................. 121

5 CONCLUSION............... ...............13


Research Summary .............. ...............130....
Obj ectives .....__ ................ .........__..........1 0
Research Questions ............... ......... ...........13
Beyond Ideology in Aquatic Plant Management ......__................. ............... 134 ...
Invasion Biology and Ecological Restoration ................ .....................__......13
Alternative Stability Domains ................. ...............1 8....__ ....
Defining Harm ................. ...............140....... ......
Final Thoughts ......__................. .........__..........14

APPENDIX ................. ...............147....... ......


LI ST OF REFERENCE S ....__. ................. .......__. .........14


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._.__............ ...............168....









TABLE


Table page

3-1 T-test comparison of Ichetucknee River nitrate levels, 1985-1998 vs. 2001-2006 ..........84











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1. Map of Ichetucknee River and Springs ................. ............. ......... ........ .......80

3-2. Time series photographs of Devil's Eye Spring A) 1987 B) 1989 C) 1993 D) December
2000 E) M ay 2001. ............. ...............81.....

3 -3. Map of water lettuce removal at ISSP ................ ...............82.............

3-4. Ichetucknee Springs nitrate: 1966 2006 .............. ...............83....

3-5. Ichetucknee Springs nitrate: 1985-2006 ................ ...............83..............

3-6. Ichetucknee Springs nitrate: 2001 2006 .............. ...............84....

3-7. Systems model of water lettuce and algae competition at Ichetucknee River.. ................... ...85

4-1. Map of Kings Bay/Crystal River ................. ...............124.............

4-2. West Indian manatees in Kings Bay, May 2006 .............. ...............125....

4-3. Lyngbya wollei in Kings Bay, May 2005 ................. ............... ......... ........ ...125

4-4. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1944 ................. ...............126.............

4-5. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1960 ................. ...............126........... .

4-6. Aerial photograph of Kings Bay, 1974 ................. ...............127.............

4-7. Kings Bay total nitrogen and total phosphorus, 1989-2002 ................ .......................127

4-8. Harvester in Kings Bay, May 2006 .............. ...............128....

4-9. Contents of harvester in Kings Bay, May 2006................... ......___ ........ ...........128

4-10. Tape grass and Lyngbya wollei after harvester pass in Kings Bay, May 2006 ..................129









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ALGAE, EXOTICS, AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE INT TWO FLORIDA SPRINGS:
COMPETING CONCEPTIONS OF ECOLOGICAL CHANGE INT A TIME OF NUTRIENT
ENRICHMENT

By

Jason Michael Evans

May 2007

Chair: Robert J. Burkhardt
Cochair: Ann C. Wilkie
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

Interdisciplinary methods based upon principles of participatory action research, systems

ecology, and adaptive management were used to create multi-scalar narratives of ecological

changes associated with nutrient enrichment in two Florida springs ecosystems: Ichetucknee

River and Kings Bay/Crystal River. Review of scientific literature, presentation of historic water

quality data, qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and iterative public engagements with

stakeholders about ecosystem management policy are integrated in both of the case studies.

Patterns of management pathology, or the tendency of management institutions to rigidly adhere

to policies that are inappropriate for the maintenance of desired socio-ecological values in the

face of emergent environmental changes, were identified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings

Bay/Crystal River in relation to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the

minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is

based upon the laudable goal of maintaining native biodiversity and ecological function, a

holistic consideration of historical ecology, scientific literature, and stakeholder accounts

indicates that emergent conditions associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant

factors may make aquatic plant management practices an important catalyst in shifting springs










ecosystems towards an undesirable stability domain characterized by dominance of filamentous

algae and cyanobacteria. Adaptive management experimentation based upon growth and

optimum harvest of nonnative plants, particularly water lettuce in Ichetucknee River and water

hyacinth in Kings Bay, is recommended as a potential means of facilitating recovery of more

desirable stability domains.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Florida's Springs

The artesian springs of Florida are among the world' s most unique and treasured natural

resources. These aquatic ecosystems are known to have served as centers of human culture in

Florida for thousands of years, with images such as the Fountain of Youth and biblical Eden

commonly used throughout historical times to describe the crystal clear water of springs and the

beauty of their surrounding landscapes (Scott et al. 2004). Today Florida' s springs continue to

serve as beloved oases that provide natural respite from the state's summer heat, critical habitat

for unique ecological associations, and important windows into the state's main drinking water

source the Floridan aquifer (Florida Springs Task Force 2000).

Like many of Florida' s ecosystems, alarming changes are being observed in the ecological

condition of springs throughout the state. The most common problems include decreased spring

discharge due to groundwater pumping for human usage, contamination of groundwater by

human land use activities, severe ecological shifts characterized by increased growth of

undesirable plant and algae species, and physical impacts associated with recreational activities

(Florida Springs Task Force 2000). Concern associated with such issues has come from a wide

variety of citizen stakeholders and public officials, with some scientists and policy-makers

suggesting that issues related to springs and groundwater conservation may become as prominent

(and difficult) for Florida in the 21st century as Everglades protection and restoration became in

the latter half of the 20th century. Given the vast ecological costs associated with years of policy

and management failures in the Everglades (Light et al. 1995) and the huge economic costs,

uncertainties, and controversies now associated with implementing the Comprehensive










Everglades Restoration Program, it is hoped that effective conservation and management

strategies will help avert a similar socio-ecological traj ectory for springs and groundwater.

Conservation and Protection Efforts

Several programs specifically dedicated to the conservation and protection of springs have

been initiated by government agencies in recent years. Some of the more notable programs

include 1) the formation of a statewide Florida Springs Task Force that collects information,

funds research, and advocates for the protection of springs statewide; 2) the establishment of

several local "water quality working groups" that collect information, facilitate collaboration,

and advocate for the better protection of individual springs systems and their associated

groundwater basins, or "springsheds," on the local scale; and 3) the development of model

springshed protection land use codes that local governments may incorporate within their growth

management plans.

Florida Springs Task Force

In 1999, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) formed the Florida

Springs Task Force as a multi-agency entity charged with recommending "strategies for the

protection and restoration of Florida's springs" (DEP 2007b). An initial report produced by the

Florida Springs Task Force (2000) has served as the primary foundation for springs protection

and restoration over subsequent years. The two maj or strategies suggested by the report for

fostering and promoting springs protection are education of the public and formation of

collaborative springshed working groups, with the hope being that "appreciation of Florida' s

springs" will "bring about cooperation and voluntary compliance" with springshed protection

efforts (Florida Springs Task Force 2000, 22). Examples of funded education efforts include

production of videos, outreach to public schools and local governments, and placement of signs

along highways to denote springshed capture areas. Significant research related to springs










hydrogeology and identifying groundwater contaminant sources has been performed through the

auspices of the Florida Springs Task Force and other government agency programs (e.g., Jones et

al. 1996; Katz et al. 1999; Champion and Starks 2001; Butt and Murphy 2003). Knowledge

developed through these studies has been critical for identifying ways in which current

regulatory programs might be modified and/or strengthened to better protect water quality in

springs.

Water Quality Working Groups

Formation of water quality working groups is promoted by the Florida Springs Task Force

(2000) as a means of expanding upon the educational and research missions of springs protection

on a local basis. Working groups have been formed for several large springs groups, including

Wakulla Springs, Silver Springs, Ichetucknee Springs, and the lower Santa Fe Springs.

Participants in the working group process typically include representatives from government

agencies, the local agricultural community, business groups, environmental organizations,

university researchers, and other members of the general public concerned about springs

ecosystems. Working group meetings generally are held on a quarterly or bi-annual basis, with

the stated intention of facilitating "a vigorous, collaborative process for identification and

resolution of spring problems" through discussion of research findings, creation of outreach

strategies, and making plans for meeting additional research and outreach needs (Florida Springs

Task Force 2000, 24-25). The ideal behind such a collaborative approach is to build upon local

and scientific knowledge to develop appropriate conservation goals, create research and

volunteer networks that can monitor progress towards conservation goals, and maintain a visible

political presence that helps to ensure the consistent pursuit of spring protection into the future.









Model Land Use Codes

Soon after the release of the Florida Springs Task Force report, an advisory committee

composed of representatives from several state agencies, local governments, business groups,

and environmental organizations was formed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs

(DCA) and DEP. The deliberations and recommendations of this committee were used to

produce a planning manual that recommends a series of land use policies and practices that can

be used by local governments, industries, and the general public to further the goal of protecting

water quality in springs ecosystems through the process of local comprehensive planning (DCA

and DEP 2002). Comprehensive planning is the general framework under which local

governments in Florida regulate growth and development in their communities, and the statutory

rubric of this process gives local communities the power "to articulate a vision of the future

physical appearance and qualities of its community" using a "collaborative planning process"

(Florida Statutes 2006a). Due to both the broad powers of local government to regulate

development and the impact that development can have on the water quality of nearby springs,

the manual suggests that local comprehensive planning represents one of the most powerful

instruments for developing long-terms springs protection strategies.

General guidelines as to how human impacts on springsheds can be mitigated through site

selection and development design are given in the planning manual, as are more specific best

management practices (BMPs) for large land usages that can be associated with large nutrient

loadings, such as golf courses, silviculture, and agriculture (DCA and DEP 2002). In addition, it

is suggested that local governments can utilize hydrogeologic information to create planning

maps that designate appropriate land uses based upon the risks of groundwater contamination

associated with geologic formations and connections with springs. Under these guidelines,

highly vulnerable areas geographically near and/or with direct hydrogeologic connections to









springs would be designated as "primary protection zones." Low intensity land usages such as

conservation land, open space, unimproved rangeland, and long rotation silviculture would be

considered appropriate for these primary protection zones. "Secondary protection zones" would

be established for those areas not as vulnerable as primary zones, but that are still important to

protect due to their function as treatment zones for water moving toward the spring from more

intensive land usages. Higher intensity silviculture, rangelands, low density rural residential, and

any of the primary protection land usages are considered appropriate for secondary protection

zones. "Tertiary zones" appropriate for more intensive land usages such as high density

residential, intensive agriculture, mining, heavy commercial, and golf course would be

established for all areas that do not pose a high risk of contaminating springs. While the

development and implementation of such planning regulations currently are at the complete

discretion of local jurisdictions, some communities near popular springs have recently begun to

adopt some of the recommended planning principles (DEP 2005).

Other Regulatory Efforts

One of the major regulatory impediments to springs conservation is the use of drinking

water quality criteria in the establishment of permitting standards for municipal and agricultural

wastewater discharged into groundwater (Evans 2004). Direct discharges of municipal and

agricultural wastewater into surface water are discouraged by DEP as a matter of explicit public

policy (DEP 2007d). Advanced wastewater treatment with minimum standards of 3 mg/L of

Total Nitrogen (TN) and 1 mg/L of Total Phosphorus (TP) typically is required of municipal

facilities that do discharge into state waters (Florida Statutes 2006c). However, municipal

wastewater facilities that discharge into groundwater typically only are required to meet a

secondary treatment standard of 10 mg/L for TN (Florida Administrative Code 1993) and not

result in violations of the 10 mg/L drinking water standard for nitrate-nitrogen within the










groundwater (DEP 2007c). In addition, large animal feeding operations are regulated by DEP

through its industrial wastewater program. Receipt of an industrial wastewater permit is

contingent upon determination by DEP that discharges will not adversely affect flora, fauna,

and/or beneficial uses or result in drinking water violations in the receiving water body (Florida

Administrative Code 2005). In practice, adverse ecological changes in surface waters occur at

nutrient levels well below numeric drinking water quality standards,' and nutrient management

plans designed to prevent such adverse effects are required of facilities that discharge

agricultural wastewater into state water bodies (Florida Administrative Code 2005).

These discrepancies between surface water permitting standards based upon ecological

criteria and groundwater permitting standards based upon less stringent human health criteria

likely have had the effect of spurring preferential construction of facilities designed to discharge

wastewater directly into groundwater, including springshed areas (Evans 2004). The

straightforward economic rationale for choosing groundwater discharge in such a regulatory

environment is that secondary treatment is significantly less expensive to achieve than advanced

treatment. However, studies increasingly suggest that permitted wastewater discharges from

municipal and agricultural sources may be a significant source of nitrate-nitrogen loading to

springs ecosystems such as the Wakulla River, Ichetucknee River (Ritchie 2006), and Wekiva

River (DEP 2004a). The process of groundwater discharges eventually affecting surface water

resources fed by groundwater, such as springs ecosystems, was not anticipated when current


SA serious problem with the overall regulatory system is the utilization of drinking water standards designed to
protect human health as the default water quality standard for water bodies that have primary ecological usages. For
example, Florida establishes no explicit numeric standard for nitrate in Class III surface water resources used for
boating, swimming, and fishing, but does state that nutrients must not cause an "imbalance in natural populations of
aquatic flora or fauna" (Florida Administrative Code 2006). Numeric standards for individual water bodies generally
are established as a mitigation tool after a water body is deemed "impaired," in the sense that an imbalance of flora
and fauna as a result of nutrient loading is documented. Establishment of numeric criteria for nutrients as a
preemptive means of avoiding impairment, while undoubtedly complex, clearly is needed if prevention of
impairment is a primary goal of clean water regulations.










regulatory frameworks were crafted (Evans 2004). To address such concerns, the DEP has

engaged in a thorough review of how groundwater quality permitting standards might be

modified for springsheds impacted by wastewater (DEP 2004a), and has also helped broker

agreements and secure financing for upgrades to advanced treatment for wastewater facilities

that discharge into springshed areas (DEP 2006). Additional measures such as the aggressive

development of BMPs for farmers within springsheds and, in some cases, establishment of total

maximum daily loadings (TMDLs) are being pursued for the purpose of reducing nutrient

loadings into groundwater from all sources, including wastewater, agriculture, and urban

stormwater (DEP 2007a).

Research Problem

While these education, regulatory, and planning efforts undoubtedly represent an important

step in springs conservation, little research attention, however, has been given to the socio-

ecological complexities associated with managing and/or restoring springs ecosystems through a

time of long-term nutrient enrichment. The rationale for such an ecosystem management concern

is fairly straightforward. Even if it is assumed that current conservation strategies are highly

successful in reducing the loading of contaminants (such as nitrate-nitrogen) into springsheds,

groundwater monitoring and hydrogeological research both indicate that extant contamination is

likely to take several decades to "flush" through springs ecosystems (Jones et al. 1996; Katz et

al. 1999; Champion and Starks 2001; Cowell and Dawes 2004). Consequently, the grim

prognosis is that, despite ongoing conservation efforts, water quality is likely to continue

declining in many springs ecosystems for at least the next two or three decades a condition

with profound and far-reaching implications that current management practices and policy

discussions have yet to reckon with in any holistic manner.










The primary obj ective of this dissertation research was to directly engage this major gap

through case studies of two popular springs ecosystems that are both affected by groundwater

contamination and have active cooperative restoration programs based upon the working group

model: Ichetucknee Springs and Kings Bay/Crystal River. Interdisciplinary methods based upon

principles of participatory action research, systems ecology, and adaptive management were used

to create multi-scalar narratives that discuss ecological changes associated with nutrient

enrichment in both of these ecosystems, as well as the ongoing management responses to these

changes. Review of scientific literature about springs and other aquatic ecosystems, presentation

of historic water quality data, qualitative interviews with stakeholders and ecosystem managers,

and iterative public engagements with stakeholders and ecosystem managers about ecosystem

management policy are integrated within both of the case study narratives.

What emerges from this broad approach is the identification of what recent natural

resource theorists have deemed "management pathologies" (Holling 1995; Gunderson et al.

2006). Management pathologies have their origin in management institutions rigidly adhering to

policies that are inappropriate for the maintenance of desired socio-ecological values in the face

of emergent environmental changes. A typical result of such static management is the

precipitation of a complex and nonlinear shift in ecological function and structure, which often is

expressed as the sudden collapse of the socio-ecological values that management policies

originally were designed to protect (Holling 1995). The shifts in ecological conditions

represented by the sudden collapse are generally referred to as alternative "stable states" or

"stability domains." Sudden switches in stability domain, particularly in aquatic ecosystems,

have proven extremely difficult to reverse through traditional management, conservation, and

restoration approaches (Scheffer et al. 1993; Gunderson 1999).










Patterns of management pathology were identified at both Ichetucknee River and Kings

Bay/Crystal River in relation to ecosystem management policies narrowly based upon the

minimization of nonnative plant species. While management of nonnative plants generally is

based upon the laudable goal of maintaining native biodiversity and ecological function, a

holistic consideration of historical ecology, scientific literature, and stakeholder accounts

indicates that emergent conditions associated with nutrient enrichment and other contaminant

factors may make traditional aquatic plant management practices an important catalyst in shifting

springs ecosystems towards an undesirable stability domain characterized by dominance of

filamentous algae and cyanobacteria.

Following and expanding upon a recent philosophical argument made by Sagoff (2005), it

is argued that the a priori attribution of ecological harm to targeted nonnative plants is a primary

factor driving the observed management pathologies, in regard to both moral and scientific

discourse. In terms of moral discourse, it was found that key institutional actors tend to conflate

the socio-moral attribution of harm into a technocratic conception of established scientific

knowledge, with this conflation then used as a basis for discouraging open reflection, public

debate, and/or experimental modification of current management policies.2 As a result, novel

assessments of ecosystem conditions and management activities become stunted at an a priori

level, to the detriment of both the advancement of scientific knowledge and the creation of


SPut another way, the "harmfulness" of nonnative species is thus mistakenly defined as an undisputable scientific
fact, rather than as a highly disputable socio-moral claim about what constitutes harm. Following Norton (2005) and
other pragmatist philosophers of science, the distinction between facts and values implied here can, however, also be
called into question. Through a pragmatist conception of truth, there ultimately are no "undisputed facts." Rather,
there are good arguments and bad arguments that can be used in support of claims, and it is based upon the strength
of these arguments whether moral, scientific, or both that provisional claims of truth emerge. However, all truth
claims, including scientific ones, are always open for dispute, modification, and/or refutation through the
development of strong alternative arguments. The irony of the conflation being described here is that a neo-
positivistic truth claim, which typically justifies its primacy based upon the assumed reliability of knowledge
established through scientific discourse, is actually, in this case, predicated on what appears to be a tautological
moral position of defining the presence of nonnative species as an inherent form of ecological harm (Sagoff 2005).










adaptive socio-ecological techniques that could be used to confront surprises posed by emergent

environmental conditions.

For both Ichetucknee River and Kings Bay, a likely implication of maintaining such a rigid

management framework towards nonnative species during this time of nutrient enrichment is a

continued shift towards stability domains characterized by increasing coverage of filamentous

algae and cyanobacteria. Qualitative research performed in both of these ecosystems indicates

that many stakeholders currently regard such a shift in stability domain to be more harmful than

increased coverage of nonnative plants. Increased monitoring, holistic evaluation of existing

aquatic plant control programs, and adaptive management experiments to better understand the

functional effects of alternative aquatic plant approaches are suggested for both ecosystems.









CHAPTER 2
CONCEPTUAL FRA1VEWORK

Introduction

An increasing amount of natural resource management and social scientist theorists argue

that broad, interdisciplinary frameworks provide a means through which the many different

factors relevant to complex environmental problems can be methodologically explored,

effectively integrated, and coherently analyzed (Gunderson et al. 1995; Fischer 2000; Allen et al.

2003; Norton 2005). Such an integration of perspectives from both the natural and social

sciences helps bring focus onto the complex ways in which human culture interfaces with

nonhuman nature, thereby overcoming artificially sharp distinctions, both epistemological and

ontological, that often are made between the realms of nature and society (Sneddon et al. 2002).

Objectives

Florida's springs ecosystems provide a clear opportunity for such interdisciplinary research

due to the wide range of geological, ecological, legal, political, and socio-moral issues associated

with their long-term management and conservation. Based upon this general premise, six specific

methodological and analytic obj ectives were established for this dissertation research:

1. To participate actively in two collaborative conservation groups: the Ichetucknee

Springs Water Quality Working Group and the Kings Bay Water Quality

Subcommittee.

2. To represent the targeted natural systems through basic maps and textual descriptions.

3. To outline the conservation problems facing the natural systems as typically defined in

public discourse.

4. To describe past and present ecosystem management actions taken by management

agencies within each of the case study systems.









5. To evaluate how conservation problems are being approached through ecosystem

management and policy.

6. To make specific research recommendations for facilitating adaptive management in

each of the case study systems.

The following research questions were then derived from these objectives:

1. Are the principles of adaptive management being utilized in the conservation and

management efforts within each of the case study springs?

a. What, if any, management practices may be inadvertently catalyzing observed

degradation in the natural systems?

b. How open are managers and stakeholders to new hypotheses about the behavior

of the natural systems?

2. What research and policy priorities can be identified for facilitating the emergence of

adaptive learning?

a. What gaps in current research and monitoring efforts can be identified?

The conceptual framework utilized for conceiving and addressing these research questions

is based upon three complementary foundations: the methodological principles of participatory

research, the analytic theories of systems ecology, and the normative criteria of adaptive

management. It was recognized from the outset of this proj ect that the stated obj ectives are

complicated in scope, fraught with a number of epistemological perils, and unable to address

completely the many different geologic, ecologic, legal, and socio-political factors that may be

relevant to springs protection. However, such difficulties are commonly associated with

interdisciplinary research on complex environmental problems that cover multiple temporal,

spatial, and epistemic scales. Following Sneddon et al. (2002, 666), an integrative approach was










adopted as a means for better understanding the "interplay between, on the one hand, physical

and ecological processes operating at certain scales and, on the other social processes that may

be constructed according to an entirely different scalar logic."

In this chapter, detailed explanations of the theoretical constructs underlying this

conceptual framework are developed. First, principles of participatory research are described,

problematized, and justified as an appropriate primary methodological approach for

understanding and confronting "wicked" problems that resist straightforward solutions based

upon existing ecosystem management paradigms (Fischer 2000). Second, principles of systems

ecology are presented as a holistic means by which information gathered from disparate

epistemological sources can be integrated into multi-scalar models and narratives, thereby

avoiding the traps of both crude reductionism and crude relativism. Third, it is argued that

principles of adaptive management, particularly as expounded by C.S. Holling, L.H. Gunderson,

and in a recent philosophical work by Bryan Norton (2005), provide clear epistemological,

discursive, and normative criteria by which ecosystem management can be both judged and

guided.

Participatory Research

Participatory research has been described as research that goes beyond "an effort to come

up with research findings" through a conscious attempt to provide communities with information

that is directly relevant to the problems that they face (Fischer 2000, 180). While there currently

are a variety of competing schools and conceptions bundled under the general term participatory

research (Berardi 2002), a unifying thread is that it offers an alternative to "top-down"

approaches, particularly those "carried out within centralized bureaucracies," that tend to

privilege expertise from natural resource sciences and economics over local knowledge (Ferreyra

2006, 577). It is generally argued that such an alternative is needed because the complex, value-









laden, and particularized natures of socio-ecological systems make traditional forms of scientific

expertise an insufficient albeit useful and necessary basis for making many natural resource

management decisions (Sneddon et al. 2002; Norton 2005). Participatory research is thus

fundamentally based upon both understanding and empowering local ecological knowledge,

which can be defined as the informal forms of experiential knowledge and narrative accounts

developed by members of a community through long-term utilization and/or observation of a

given natural resource.

As such, the typical participatory research project is characterized by a "bottom up"

engagement with community members, who are viewed as co-equal partners in identifying,

defining, and attempting to iteratively solve complex socio-ecological problems (Berardi 2002).

As described by Fischer (2000, 179), the ongoing dialogue between researcher and the

community creates a dialectical tension between "formal academic knowledge" and the "popular

knowledge of ordinary citizens," which can then be used to "enrich the standard quantitative

analyses of efficient means to given ends with a qualitative discussion of the ends themselves."

In other words, participatory research helps provide alternative perspectives on the management

techniques employed to achieve established goals, while also giving a holistic means by which

evolving opinions about what goals should be pursued can be iteratively discussed. Such an

approach often implies interaction of diverse methodologies from fields such as geography,

anthropology, sociology, philosophy of science, and environmental science, with the overall

purpose being an integration of informal local knowledge into the formal processes of both

analytic research and policy-development.

Typologies of Participation

In recent years, there has been an accelerating trend towards approaches that outwardly

encourage public participation in ecosystem management and research, particularly through the









creation of cooperative watershed initiatives that utilize communication among stakeholder

groups as a key tool for gathering information and managing aquatic ecosystems on a watershed

basis (Briassoulis 1989; Norton 2005; Ferreyra 2006). Many cooperative watershed initiatives

originally arose on a grassroots level through coalitions of environmental organizations and other

community activists unsatisfied with the progress of agency bureaucracies in solving issues such

as dwindling water supply, deteriorating water quality, and preservation of local landscapes

(Wescoat and White 2003). However, agency bureaucracies themselves have also increasingly

moved to create collaborative forums, such as watershed working groups, in which a key stated

goal is participation among a wide range of stakeholders for the development of more robust

ecosystem management plans. Springshed working groups in Florida are examples of

collaborative watershed initiatives that are established and institutionally coordinated through

government agencies.

One result of the increasing utilization of the collaborative watershed approach has been

the "buzzword," hence often equivocal, usage of terms such as "collaborative," "participation,"

and "participatory" to describe ecosystem research and management activities. Critics argue that,

in some cases, creation of a collaborative watershed group and/or labeling of an ecosystem

management process as participatory may be little more than a formal statutory requirement, a

public relations attempt, or even a cooptation tactic that masks a bureaucracy's continued use of

traditional expert-based research models and centralized decision-making structures (Sneddon et

al. 2002). In other cases, however, the turn towards collaborative and participatory approaches

may, in fact, produce a reworking of power relations between the wider stakeholder community

and bureaucracies, which is actualized through the direct utilization of local knowledge in the










production of future expert knowledge and evaluation of management techniques (Berkes and

Folke 1998; Fischer 2000).

Berardi (2002) helps to clarify these definitional issues by giving fiye typologies to

describe different ways in which the term "participation" is currently used, both in terms of the

institutional framework in which a collaborative watershed group is organized as well as the

principles under which local knowledge is employed within the ecosystem management context.

First, "manipulative participation" is defined as an extreme situation in which participation is

used primarily as a pretense for manipulating or confusing the public with respect to a

controversial issue. Second, "participation by consultation" is defined as a condition, commonly

encountered within the context of regulatory and/or permitting deliberations, in which citizens

are consulted and questions are answered by officials, but there is no obligation to accept and/or

act upon public comment. Third, "functional participation" is used to describe those situations

where participation is seen by agencies as a means of achieving pre-determined, but generally

non-controversial, goals at reduced cost, often through the use of volunteer labor. Fourth,

"interactive participation" describes situations in which local citizen intimately participate in

research, development, analysis, and implementation of management plans. The fifth typology is

"self-mobilization," or a condition in which participation and/or formation of collaborative

frameworks is initiated from a grass roots level that is independent of government bureaucracies.

While the buzzword process has to some extent muddied the waters of what is meant by

participatory research, academic researchers have tended to bring confusion from another

direction: overly pedantic distinctions and arguments about what constitutes "authentic"

participatory research. The wide array of acronyms used for approaches such as participatory

rural appraisal and participatory rural assessment (PRA), participatory action research (PAR),









participatory learning and action (PLA), rapid rural appraisal (RRA), grass roots environmental

management (GREM), participatory forest resource assessment (PFRA), participatory analysis

and learning methods (PALM), and participant observation research (POR) underscores the

diversity of participatory approaches being employed by different researchers and research

teams. Although each research methodology has some differences that may be more appropriate

for specific situations, Berardi (2002) notes that there has been an unfortunate tendency among

some practitioners to turn a style of research originally focused on empowering community

change into a technical academic problem characterized by debates about who is really doing

participatory research, or what is the proper "brand" description of a participatory research

project (Argyris and Schon 1989; Bellamy et al. 1999).

Chambers (1997), however, sidesteps such academic squabbles by arguing that

participatory research ultimately is characterized by the underlying "attitude" of engaging

community stakeholders in the production and utilization of knowledge, rather than through

strict, ideological adherence to a given set of favored methods. Development of a relaxed rapport

with community members through participation in local activities and workshops, conducting

conversational interviews with key informants, use of "triangulation" in which observations are

confirmed from multiple perspectives, and assisting community members with the translation of

local knowledge into forms relevant for utilization within the management policy and research

context are cited as key features common to all participatory research approaches (Chambers

1997; Fischer 2000; Berardi 2002; Ferreyra 2006). A general use of such guidelines, not strict

adherence to any of the acronym approaches, was employed in both the Ichetucknee River and

Kings Bay/Crystal River case studies.









Participatory Methods

Participatory research for this dissertation was conducted by engaging with stakeholders in

three collaborative conservation groups: the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group

(ISWG), the Kings Bay Water Quality Subcommittee (KBWQS), and the Kings Bay Working

Group (KBWG). While the term stakeholder is sometimes used to describe non-scientist, non-

agency, or other "non-expert" participants within a collaborative conservation process, a

stakeholder is more broadly defined in this dissertation to include all those who attended

meetings of the collaborative conservation groups, including research scientists, agency

scientists, and other government officials.

The ISWG is a stakeholder discussion group established in 1995 and funded through the

DEP. The maj or goals of the ISWG are to integrate knowledge about the Ichetucknee River,

educate the public about threats to the river' s water quality, and promote polices and voluntary

adoption of land use practices that can increase protection of water quality in the Ichetucknee

springshed. It includes representatives from environmental groups, agriculture and business

interests, all government agencies with jurisdiction in the Ichetucknee springshed, elected

officials, and other interested citizens. In 2005 and 2006, the ISWG met three times a year. I

attended at least some part of meetings held on February 15, 2005; May 24, 2005; October 1 1,

2005; February 8, 2006; and October 11, 2006. Due to a scheduling conflict, I did not attend a

meeting held on May 10, 2006.

The KBWQS is a stakeholder discussion group that advises the City of Crystal River on

policies related to improving water quality in Kings Bay, and is funded through grants provided

by the Waterfronts Florida Partnership of the DCA. Meetings were held monthly or, in some

cases, every other month. I attended ten meetings of the KBWQS from November 2004 through

March 2006: November 16, 2004; February 15, 2005; March 15, 2005; April 19, 2005; May 17,










2005; June 21, 2005; July 19, 2005; November 15, 2005; January 26, 2006; and March 15, 2006.

Core members of the KBWQS included a lead facilitator, a home builder, a restaurant owner, a

commercial fisher, a waterfront homeowner, a retired scientist from a federal environmental

agency, and two local vendors who cater to water-based tourism. Several meetings were attended

by one or more members of the Crystal River City Council, and two meetings included

presentations by representatives from government agencies with regulatory and management

jurisdiction over the Kings Bay water body. Stakeholder attendance, including myself, ranged

from four to sixteen at the meetings in which I was present. I gave a presentation about issues

associated with adopting a local fertilizer ordinance to the KBWQS on November 16, 2004,

which I gave as part of a course proj ect. I also gave a presentation showing examples of water

hyacinth phytoremediation and utilization to the KBWQS on January 26, 2006. By invitation of

the city manager, I gave a presentation about my work with the KBWQS and a review of recent

water hyacinth phytoremediation and utilization to the Crystal River City Council on June 26,

2006.

The KBWG is a stakeholder discussion group facilitated by the Southwest Florida Water

Management District. The maj or purposes of the KBWG are to integrate scientific knowledge

about Kings Bay, educate the public about voluntary actions that can be taken to improve water

quality, and achieve greater coordination between government agencies with management

jurisdiction over the water body. I attended KBWG meetings held on July 25, 2005; November

10, 2005; March 16, 2006; September 19, 2006; November 30, 2006; and March 7, 2007. I gave

a presentation about water hyacinth phytoremediation, utilization, and aquatic plant management

in Kings Bay to the KBWG at the meeting on November 10, 2005. I also gave a presentation to

the KBWG on November 30, 2006 about stormwater GIS mapping and landscaping outreach









work that I conducted in Sarasota over 2005-2006 through partnership with New College of

Florida, with a focus on benefits that a similar proj ect might have for Kings Bay/Crystal River.

Experiential knowledge formed through attendance at public meetings was used as a basis

for conversational interviews with key informants among stakeholders in both case study

ecosystems. The conduct of this interview research was based upon a protocol approved by the

University of Florida' s Institutional Review Board in April 2005. Key informants typically are

defined in qualitative research as those people who have intimate knowledge of the topic of

concern (i.e., conservation of the springs ecosystems), including holders of both informal local

knowledge and formal scientific knowledge (Ross et al. 1999). The key informants were

identified through "snowball" and "opportunistic" techniques, which commonly are used in

qualitative research for the purpose of locating members of the public likely to have a greater

knowledge of the topic of interest than the general public at large (Miles and Huberman 1994).

The snowball technique employed entailed soliciting nominations of knowledgeable individuals

from the lead facilitators of the ISWG and the KBWQS. Nominated individuals who participated

in the research then were asked for names of other knowledgeable individuals, with this process

repeated until at least 20 interviews were conducted. The opportunistic approach was used to

identify new key informants, particularly research and agency scientists met in public meetings,

not captured through the nominating process.

After potential interview informants were identified through either the snowball or

opportunistic approach, they were contacted by phone and/or e-mail and asked if they would be

willing to be interviewed for the purpose of dissertation research about the case study ecosystem.

If the potential informant agreed to be interviewed, a time and place was agreed upon for the

interview. Upon meeting the informant at the agreed upon time and place, a brief explanation of










the interview process was given. All informants then read and signed an informed consent form,

a copy of which is contained as an appendix in this dissertation. Field notes were taken during all

interviews, and a cassette tape recorder was used to record interviews of those who agreed to be

taped. Under the terms of the research protocol, all interview informants are kept strictly

anonymous in this dissertation.

The interview process utilized an open-ended, conversational approach to solicit

perceptions and information about conservation issues within the respective case study spring

system. All informants in both case studies were asked the following ten questions:

1. Please describe your career.

2. If you work for a government agency, please indicate your j ob title and the agency for

which you work.

3. Approximately what year did you first visit the spring system?

4. How close do you live to the spring system?

5. How often do you visit the spring system?

6. Why are you interested in conservation issues within the springs system?

7. Approximately what year did you become concerned about problems in the springs

system?

8. Please describe your understanding of the problems currently facing the springs

sy stem.

9. Where did you learn about problems currently facing the springs system?

10. What do you think are the most important conservation and management issues within

the springs system today?









For both case studies, the overall purpose of this basic interview questionnaire was to

develop a richer historical understanding of changes in the ecological systems and stakeholder

perceptions about these changes. Follow up questions and comments were added in the flow of

conversation, generally to be sure that I adequately understood informational points given by the

informant and also to encourage informants to go in more detail about their specific

remembrances and knowledge.

As discussed in more detail in both chapters, scientific and policy discussions in springs

ecosystems are largely focused on the role of increased nutrients, particularly nitrate-nitrogen, in

causing ecological changes observed over time. Based upon this focus, most policy-making and

education efforts undertaken by agencies for the purpose of maintaining and/or restoring

ecological communities are hinged largely upon the achievement of significant nutrient load

reductions into the spring ecosystems. For the purpose of novel hypothesis development,

particular attention was given to those understandings and perceptions among local knowledge

holders found to be qualitatively different from those official accounts highlighted in scientific

and agency discourse.

In the Ichetucknee case study, an additional interview research component was included.

Using my own observations of the ecosystem taken while living and working on the river in

2000-2001 and a review of scientific data and literature, a hypothesized relationship between

increased algae growth recently observed in the system and manual eradication of water lettuce

(Pistia stratiotes) was described to informants. After presentation of this information, the

following questions were asked:









1. Have you previously been presented with information suggesting that there may be a

relationship between invasive plant management and proliferation of nuisance algae in

the springs system?

2. Based upon your knowledge and experience, do you believe that there is any merit to

the idea that invasive plant management may be linked to proliferation of nuisance

algae?

3. Do you think that the idea of invasive plant management being linked to proliferation

of nuisance algae should be investigated further by scientists?

4. Do you believe that ecosystem managers should consider modifying the ways in which

they manage invasive plants in the springs system?

Because my involvement in the KBWG was subsequent to the approval of the interview

protocol, informants for interview research were not selected from this stakeholder group.

Instead, my own participation and subsequent public communications with agency

representatives in the KBWG were utilized as a means of more deeply exploring how different

conceptions of nature and values affect dialogue in ecosystem management at Kings Bay,

particularly in relation to nonnative plant species. Public comments from KBWG members to the

formal presentation given at the meeting on November 10, 2005 were recorded by field notes,

and discussed in more detail on an individual basis through follow up e-mail communications.

An additional round of public comments about issues related to water hyacinth phytoremediation

in Kings Bay was solicited from all KBWG members through an e-mail communication sent on

April 28, 2006. The solicitation of comments in April 2006 was associated with publication of a

front page article and accompanying editorial about my research in the Citrus County Chronicle

(Hunter 2006a, 2006b), the maj or local newspaper for Crystal River and surrounding areas of









Citrus County. The genesis of the Chronicle stories apparently came when I sent draft copies of

my findings in Kings Bay/Crystal River to several stakeholders whose interview accounts were

relied upon heavily in the construction of the ecological change narrative contained in Chapter 4.

The explicit purpose for sending the draft to stakeholders was to ensure that the narrative

representations were an accurate reflection of the information they had provided, but an

unintended consequence of this "confirmation" exercise was that the draft text was "leaked" to

the Chronicle. I agreed to do an interview when contacted by the newspaper for further comment

on my work. Although the newspaper stories were unplanned and, arguably, premature in terms

of disseminating dissertation research Eindings among the wider public, nine public e-mail

responses about water hyacinth phytoremediation among government agencies were recorded as

a direct result of this process. These responses were catalogued, and excerpts are reported

anonymously in Chapter 4. The specific results of the participatory methods described in this

section are embedded within and qualitatively discussed in each respective case study.

Problematizing Participation

A number of questions have been raised by critics, and even some practitioners, about the

obj activity and efficacy of participatory research methods. Perhaps the most fundamental charge

is that the up front commitment to utilize "value-laden" information gained through participatory

methods within the policy context can lead the researcher into a slippery slope of activism,

which, it is charged, inherently prevents the acquisition and transmission of reliable knowledge.

There are, however, two answers to this. First, some philosophers have noted that the prima facie

case against openly value-laden, and even activist, research can be dismantled through the

assertion of a straightforward distinction between "obj activity" and "neutrality" (Proctor 1991).

Through this distinction, obj activity is defined as the open search for reliable knowledge about

the world, while neutrality is defined as taking no normative position about a given condition of









the world. Thus, while the research and results of a participatory research proj ect may not be

neutral in the sense that specific positions are advanced through the inherently value-laden

discourse of ecosystem management, obj activity can still be maintained so long as any given

position is based upon interpretive reasoning that utilizes a transparent set of facts and defined

values (VanDeVeer and Pierce 2003).

A second line of defense is to question the very idea of any firm distinction between facts

and values in the conduct of the scientific enterprise (Norton 2005), particularly as characterized

within the politicized and uncertain context of complex environmental issues. For example,

Fischer (2000, 101) found that one of the "most important determinants" for characterizing the

different positions of scientists giving expert advice in the midst of complex environmental

issues are the moral commitments and institutional interests of the scientists. Such a relationship

appears to provide compelling empirical evidence of the interdependent, if unconscious,

relationship between facts and values in the production of scientific knowledge (Hays 1987).

When viewed in this way, it can be argued that participatory methods differ from traditional

expert discourse on environmental issues only because they consciously and, thereby, more

obj ectively bring this interdependence into the forefront of the research concern.

More problematic, however, are questions about the ultimate efficacy and/or usefulness of

participatory approaches in achieving the stated aim of producing meaningful and beneficial

socio-ecological changes. A number of researchers recently have utilized the rubric of

participation to generate models of inclusion and collaboration within the policy-making context,

and to identify the effects of these variables on the development of ecosystem management

plans. The results and conclusions of such studies are mixed, at best. For example, Brody (2003,

412) found that a wider breadth of participation in the development of local Comprehensive









Plans in Florida was not at all correlated with an increase in the protectiveness of ecosystems,

likely because the din of competing interests leads to a logic characterized by the "lowest

common denominator." Although Kellert et al. (2000, 709) did Eind success in meeting socio-

economic objectives through participatory approaches in both Alaska and Kenya, "conservation

and biodiversity protection goals" were significantly more difficult to achieve. The work by

Duram and Brown (1999) is more ambiguous in that participatory watershed planning across the

United States is not found to result in any significant improvement in environmental or social

conditions over other types of planning, although facilitators of watershed planning initiatives

generally believe that better participation does result in the production of better watershed plans.

However, Suman et al. (2000) concluded that the failure of the National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to foster public participation in the establishment of the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary clearly had a negative effect on ecosystem

management, largely because the backlash of stakeholders angered at being excluded from the

management process eventually led to the weakening of regulations critically important for the

sustainable management of Esheries.

What these studies demonstrate is that while public participation may be increasingly

recognized as a necessary political component of successful ecosystem management programs

(Lovell et al. 2003), it is erroneous to assume that even the best implemented strategies of

participation and the emerging consensus resulting from participation will be sufficient to

achieve successful ecosystem management (Wescoat and White 2003). For example, there is the

possibility of consensual management plans emerging that are not consistent with long-term

protection and/or restoration of environmental resources simply because the respective users

and/or managers of the resource determine that other political or economic values are more










important than environmental conservation. Alternatively, consensual plans for managing

environmental resources may fail because the participatory consensus and eventual plan

implementation are based upon fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of the targeted

ecological system.

As Fischer (2000, 33) writes, the recognition of such limitations within participatory

approaches is often used in support of the traditional argument that experts alone have "the

knowledge and skills needed to render the competent decisions required for effective social

guidance" in solving environmental problems. In this view, wider participation, as suggested by

Brody's (2003) work, offers little more than simplistic, self-serving information of little use for

tackling inherently complex issues over which the general public has little, if any, technical

competence .

But several interrelated answers can be given to this challenge. First, as suggested above,

there is the empirical evidence that expert discourses and scientific experts are not immune from

getting locked into simplistic, myopic, and even self-serving lines of reasoning, particularly

when deliberations and decisions about complex ecological issues are made in an insulated, non-

transparent, and/or mechanical fashion. Following from this is an argument based upon

democratic theory, which, as summarized by Grudens-Schuck (2000, 82), suggests that

participation goes beyond the goal of "producing smarter outcomes" and, instead, finds its

ultimate justification in an ethic of democratically respecting "people's accounts of the world" in

the process of open argumentation. A final epistemological justification for participatory

research is that, ideally, it helps to facilitate convergence between local expertise and scientific

expertise, thereby producing emergent forms of socio-ecological understanding that would not









have been achieved through strict reliance on traditional scientific methods (Fischer 2000;

Norton 2005).

Confronting Wicked Problems

The term "wicked problem" is often used to describe those problems that defy solution,

and often times become measurably worse, through traditional problem-solving tools,

particularly those locked within a narrow disciplinary perspective. Wicked problems are often

contrasted with what are called "benign problems." While benign problems can be exceptionally

complex, such as completion of a higher-level mathematical proof or construction of a

skyscraper, experience shows that these problems, as defined, can be reliably solved through a

given technical method. Environmental problems often are given as archetypal examples of

wicked problems, generally because most environmental issues are associated with, and cross,

many different boundaries of natural science, economics, politics, and human values. This

inherent interdisciplinarity has the effect of preventing resolution of many environmental

problems through prescribed technical approaches. Indeed, many environmental issues even defy

any sort of consensual statement about what the problem actually is due to incomplete

information, multiple analytic variables, and changeable, conflicting values. A key virtue of an

interdisciplinary, participatory approach is the explicit focus on both diagnosing those wicked

problems that may lie at the heart of a given environmental problem, and on utilizing the

dialectic between local knowledge and expert knowledge to develop novel lines of analysis that

can be used as the basis for experimentally confronting some aspects of the wicked problem

(Norton 2005).

Participatory methods in this dissertation are utilized in this dialectic spirit, in the sense

that local knowledge gained through attendance of public meetings, stakeholder interviews, and

direct observation of natural systems is not uncritically valorized as a panacea for solving the









wicked problems of ecosystem management in the two case studies. Rather, local knowledge

obtained through participatory methods is combined with expert knowledge obtained through a

review of scientific literature and application of systems ecology principles, resulting in the

construction of alternative ecological hypotheses and management scenarios relevant for both

further exploring and, ideally, experimentally confronting the wicked problems of ecological

change in springs ecosystems.

Systems Ecology

Environmental science and management can be loosely characterized by two streams of

thought and inquiry. The first stream is a reductionist "science of parts" in which "a narrow

enough focus is chosen to pose hypotheses, collect data, and design critical tests for the rej section

of invalid hypotheses." The other is an interdisciplinary "science of the integration of parts" that

"combines historical, comparative, and experimental approaches at scales appropriate to the

issues" (Holling 1995, 12-13). This second stream of thought is commonly referred to as the

science of systems.

Odum (1994, 4) defines a system as "a group of parts that are interacting according to

some kind of process," with "new properties 'emerging' from the interactive combination of

parts." A basic premise behind systems ecology is that the properties that "emerge" from the

interactions of constituent parts in any given ecological system are more functionally and

structurally complex than the simple sum of the parts. Systems ecology typically utilizes the

findings of reductionist science to build models that simulate linkages and identify emergent

properties, ultimately attempting to reveal causal processes that underlie "the complexity of time

and space behavior of complex systems" (Holling 1995, 13). Computer simulations that track

material and energy flows implied by modeled relationships are a key tool utilized by systems

ecologists for better understanding the behavior of ecosystems. More broadly, the use of systems









thinking can be used to help to facilitate the identification of knowledge gaps, development of

new hypotheses, and institution of integrated evaluative methods for better understanding the

effects of human actions on the structure and function of environmental systems. By extension,

the iterative models and theories of systems ecology provide an important tool by which logical

and interpretive reasoning about the interplay between moral values, management choices, and

ecological conditions can be deepened (Lovell et al. 2003).

Analytic Scales

Scales are defined the spatial and temporal dimensions associated with ecological and

social processes. Systems ecologists consider different scales to have characteristic orders of

analytic magnitude in both spatial extent and turnover time, or the time it takes for the system to

replace itself (Lovell et al. 2003). A basic premise behind systems ecology is that phenomena of

the world operate within and among a diverse range of analytic scales, and that robust models

should therefore "include all scales pertinent to the phenomena of interest" (Odum and Odum

2000, 14). The iterative process of relating the "transcending concepts that link processes and

actors at different levels in time and space" is often referred to as "scaling" (Lovell et al. 2003,

111).

One of the biggest challenges in the management of ecosystems is the common tendency

of researchers and management agencies to become "stuck" within one scale of analysis (Holling

1995). As Odum and Odum write,

There is a tendency, through long habit and the desire to simplify, to concentrate on
models of one scale. No scale is more basic than another, but people concentrating their
work think of their scale as special. However, limiting the scale of view limits
understanding, because every scale is part of the scale above and composed of the smaller
scaled items below. We cannot understand one scale without studying its relation to that
above and below (2000, 14).









An implication of scalar logic is that the results of a study that focuses on one scale in a

particular socio-ecological system will tend to be radically different from another study of that

same system that focuses on a different scale of analysis, meaning that choices about what

variables and scales are monitored ultimately have profound effects about the ways in which

knowledge about an ecosystem is both produced and interpreted (Norton 2005). With these

scaling issues in mind, participatory research with stakeholders emerges as having critical

linkages with system ecology in that it provides a means of both gathering information that

transcends scales of analysis normatively established through the oftentimes insular paradigms of

management institutions, and focusing new analyses onto those scales in which there is broader

social consensus that a problem exists (Gunderson 1999; Fischer 2000; Norton 2003).

Multi-scalar Narratives

Utilization of a narrative style is often used as a mechanism for integrating and analyzing

information collected across multiple scales of analysis (Berardi 2002; Sneddon et al. 2002;

Allen et al. 2003; Norton 2003). The stylistic approach adopted for both case studies in this

dissertation is deemed as "multi-scalar narrative." Multi-scalar is a term that denotes that the

research traverses a variety of different temporal, spatial, and ontological scales of analysis,

while the narrative form describes the packaging of the various scalar analyses into a unified

socio-ecological "story" interwoven with different empirical, theoretical, and moral

interpretations.

Most generally, narratives are the means by which humans communicate throughout the

bounded limits of language, perception, and imagination. Narratives have been said to comprise

"the quintessential form of customary knowledge" (Lyotard 1984, 19), "the banisters of ethical

life" (Thiele 1999, 9), and the fabric by which behavior, communication, and intellectual inquiry

are framed within shared discursive communities (Roling and Maarleveld 1999). All metaphors,










myths, fictional stories, historical accounts, scientific theories, institutional worldviews, and

philosophical axioms are thus narratives in the sense that all of these communicate a particular

story and/or account about some aspect of the world (Roling and Maarleveld 1999). Thus, Allen

et al. (2003, 232) suggest that narratives about complex environmental problems provide "a

serial arrangement for events that are very differently scaled" in ways that are consonant with

both "the human experience and the way humans remember and reflect on their experience."

From a systems perspective, narratives might be characterized as both an emergent property of

language and an organizing principle for epistemological, moral, economic, and political

constructs within human societies.

Less abstractly, systems ecology principles can provide the framework by which diverse

forms of data from "hard data," such as water quality, to "soft data" such as experiential

anecdotes can be integrated into iterative models, which then form the basis of testable

hypotheses about ecological behavior. In both case studies of this dissertation, a review of

scientific literature, communication with local and scientific experts, water quality data, and

personal observations are used to provide the foundation for the creation of aggregated

ecological systems diagrams (Odum 1994; Odum and Odum 2000), GIS maps, and rich textual

descriptions that generally characterize the hydrogeology and ecosystem structure. In addition,

management and ecological histories of the systems are constructed through a review of the

natural systems literature, policy literature, and interviews with public officials and long-time

local users of the systems. At both Ichetucknee and Kings Bay it was found that the ecological

dynamic currently commanding most social concern is an apparent shift in stability domain

towards increased dominance by filamentous algae and cyanobacteria. Therefore, the multi-

scalar narratives ultimately are organized around a description of various socio-ecological factors









thought to be driving the shift in stability domain, along with a presentation of the various

ecological, societal, and institutional pressures that currently constrain and/or prevent an

effective response to the emergent ecological conditions.

Adaptive Management

The term adaptive management is commonly used to describe the development of systems

approaches for the management of natural resources. The ideas behind adaptive management

were initially developed as a means of better managing forests and fisheries through the use of

systems ecology models and monitoring regimes that could be used to facilitate iterative

management and policy adjustments (Holling 1978), but have been greatly expanded in scope

and applied over a wide variety of ecological, social, and institutional settings (Wescoat and

White 2003).

The inherent uncertainty characterizing humans' ability to understand and predict the

behavior of natural resource systems is a key component of adaptive management. From this

recognition emerges the following six principles that underlie adaptive management: 1) natural

resources always change due to both human management actions and the inherent stochasticity

of nature; 2) some of these changes will be quite surprising; 3) new management uncertainties

are bound to emerge from these surprises; 4) all management policies should be treated as

experiments from which new observations, hypotheses, and knowledge about the managed

resource can be developed; 5) management policies should be continuously modified to reflect

newly understood realities within the managed resource; and 6) local citizens should be

intimately involved as partners in building basic knowledge and future goals for better managing

the resource, not just informed passively about agency actions through public information

programs (Holling 1995; Berkes and Folke 1998; Kiker et al. 2001; Norton 2005). The creation

of new ecological, social, and institutional understandings through the application of these










principles is often called "adaptive learning," while the socio-scientific feedbacks between

adaptive learning and the development of new management plans to reflect the new

understandings are often referred to as the "adaptive cycle" (Gunderson et al. 1995).

Proponents of adaptive management have found that failure to manage natural resources

with the recognition of inherent uncertainty in ecological systems and to adjust to this

uncertainty through adaptive learning may often be directly responsible for the destruction of the

very resource that managers are attempting to conserve and control. Situations in which static

institutional paradigms and assumptions within the applied management of a targeted natural

resource lead directly to the collapse of that same system have been termed "management

pathologies." Holling's (1995) work suggests that management pathologies often result when

management institutions achieve initial success in controlling a single target variable within an

ecosystem. This initial success then generally results in a subsequent focus on increasing the

operational efficiency of management operations, while efforts to monitor the ecosystem for

other changes are lessened or even discontinued over time. The result of such narrow

management, Holling (1995) argues, is often an unnoticed homogenization of critical

components within the ecosystem, which consequently results in decreasing resilience within the

ecological community. This decrease in resilience is suggested to then make the ecosystem much

more likely to be unexpectedly "flipped" into a state of persistent degradation by the kinds of

disturbances that could have been previously absorbed.

A maj or analytic goal of this dissertation was to identify and describe different types of

management pathologies that may exist within the two case studies. Ecological hypotheses

relevant to ecosystem management were developed integrating available scientific data,

stakeholder and personal observations, and scientific literature. While it is believed that these









models do represent important ecological relationships, it was not intended or proposed that

these ecological hypotheses would be tested using experimental, statistical, or other formal

means for this dissertation research. Such testing involved time scales and resources that were

beyond the scope of this proj ect. Instead, the process of hypothesis development in this proj ect

was viewed as a participatory contribution to the adaptive cycle (e.g., Woodhill and Roling

1998), with formal management experimentation contingent upon the interest, collaboration, and

resources of relevant stakeholder groups and/or regulatory agencies.

As Holling (1995, 13) argues, in an adaptive management framework there is considerably

"more concern that a useful hypothesis might be rej ected than that a false one might be

accepted." Thus, how ecosystems managers respond to hypotheses about ecological behavior

suggested by stakeholders becomes a variable of considerable interest when evaluating the social

capacity of adaptive learning, particularly when such hypotheses directly challenge the

assumptions of entrenched institutional and research paradigms (Douthwaite et al. 2003).

Habermas' s (1995, 44) influential principle of "communicative rationality" suggests that a

precursor to the emergence of morally and rationally legitimate solutions to difficult problems

involving a multitude of different interests is the presence of an "ideal speech situation" in which

all rational stakeholders are able to participate in deliberations that "result in agreement through

argumentation on practical questions" (see also Roling and Maarleveld 1999). Using Habermas's

(1995) criterion, the rej section of any well-reasoned hypothesis by managers would be socially

legitimate so long as it was based upon procedures of open and rational debate, but would be

illegitimate if based upon communicative restrictions or other modes of coercion that prevent

stakeholders from reaching a truly informed consensus. Under Holling' s (1995) stronger










adaptive management criteria, legitimate rej section would be contingent upon scientific studies

that clearly disprove a reasonable hypothesis.

Norton (2005), through the development of what he calls methodological naturalism, offers

a very detailed explication and philosophical defense of the position that the process of

hypothesis development in an adaptive management framework goes beyond natural science, and

enters into social processes of argumentation. This implies an "ongoing search for coalitions and

consensuses by studying actual citizens and stakeholder groups that participate in actual

processes in actual situations," with adaptive management emerging out of those deliberative

processes that regard no a priori principles, whether scientific or normative, as unchallengeable

(Norton 2005, 206). Experiences, values, data, and arguments can all be freely entered into the

wider discursive community, and, crucially, it is within those areas in which fundamental

disagreements are found between the interpretations of participants that scientific

experimentation is squarely aimed.

Through this process of shifting towards "an active experimental science of management"

policies become justified or discarded through the validation of shared experience, rather than

through arguments "about the correctness of general theories of value" (Norton, 208). As facts

emerge, Norton (2005, 210) continues, assumptions once comfortably held often are discarded as

"new and disturbing questions" are raised about the overall implications of these assumptions.

Using the criteria of Norton (2005) and Holling (1995), it can thus be deduced that management

pathologies may often emerge from an ecosystem management context in which a priori

principles stultify the discussion and, ultimately, testing of useful hypotheses put forth by

members of a discursive community engaged in a collaborative conservation process. This

principle of discourse provides the foundation for which participatory methods and systems









ecology can be used to make judgments about principles such as flexibility, open evaluation,

experimentation, and learning characteristic of an adaptive management process.









CHAPTER 3
ICHETUCKNEE RIVER

Site Description

Located near the town of Ft. White and forming the southernmost border between

Columbia and Suwannee counties, the Ichetucknee River is an approximately five mile long

spring-fed stream that discharges into the Santa Fe River with an average daily flow of 233 mgd.

The upper three miles and all eight maj or spring groups of the river are located within the

boundaries of Ichetucknee Springs State Park (ISSP), a designated National Natural Landmark

commonly described as one of the Florida State Park Service' s "crown j ewels" due to its

outstanding natural beauty. ISSP is a highly popular recreational area that annually attracts about

150,000 visitors, almost all of whom engage in river-based activities such as tubing, canoeing,

snorkeling, and diving. These visitors are thought to generate approximately $2 million in annual

economic activity in the rural area surrounding the park (Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality

Working Group 2000).

Ecologists, biologists, and other naturalists have long noted that the Ichetucknee River,

similar to other spring-fed rivers in Florida, supports a highly productive, diverse, and unique

aquatic ecosystem. The river's clear water historically has provided ideal conditions for a rich

submersed aquatic plant community composed of tape grass (Vallisneria amnericana), eel grass

(Sagittaria kurziana), water primrose (Luakuigia repens), two-leaf water milfoil (M~yriophylhtna

heterophyllunt), musk grass (Chara spp.), and several other less common species. A large variety

of aquatic invertebrates, fish, turtles, birds, and mammals are also found in the Ichetucknee

River, including rare, threatened, and endangered species such as wood storks (M~ycteria

amnericana), limpkins (Ara~nus guarauna), American beavers (Castor canadensis), Suwannee

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and West Indian manatees (Trichecus nzanatus). In









addition, the Ichetucknee River ecosystem contains at least one endemic species, the Ichetucknee

silt snail (Cincinnatia mica), which has a range that is entirely restricted to the small Coffee

Springs group.

In recent years, the ecological condition of the Ichetucknee River has been characterized

by increased growth of filamentous green and blue green algae (e.g., Vaucheria sp. Sprirogyra

sp., Oscillatoria sp., Lyngbya sp.) (Stevenson et al. 2004). The observed expansion of algal

biomass is widely regarded by ecosystem managers, scientists, and local citizens as having

negative impacts on the river's ecological communities and recreational appeal. Some of the

more commonly cited effects include smothering and even complete displacement of submersed

aquatic plants by algae, significant declines of aquatic fauna such as spring run crayfish

(Procamnbarus sp.) and loggerhead musk turtles (.Sillinotheins/ minor) (Ritchie 2006), and a

general loss of aesthetic beauty associated with the "slimy" appearance of the algal growth.

Highly publicized suggestions that contact with algae may be the cause of skin rashes and other

allergic reactions developed by swimmers at ISSP in the past several years have further

heightened the level of concern (Bruno 2004; Pittman 2006). It is widely suspected that

increased concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-) in discharged spring water are the primary

cause of the ecological changes observed in the Ichetucknee River (Ringle 1999; Bruno 2004), as

well as many other springs ecosystems throughout Florida (Jones et al. 1996; Florida Springs

Task Force 2000).

In this chapter, a social history and ecological narrative of the Ichetucknee River is

developed using published historical and scientific literature, scientific monitoring data, and

information gathered from communications with local citizens and agency officials. While

acknowledging that anthropogenic contamination of groundwater is a fundamental driving force









behind recent ecological changes documented in the river, it is argued that scientific studies

indicate that conservation strategies based solely upon reduction of nitrate-nitrogen are unlikely

to significantly reduce algae growth in the river in the foreseeable. Field note observations and a

review of scientific literature are then utilized to develop a systems model suggesting that

management activities associated with eradication of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) may have

exacerbated the recent shift towards algae dominance and loss of aquatic fauna in the ecosystem.

Discussions with citizen stakeholders, agency officials, and non-agency scientists in formal

interviews and public communications are then used as a means of exploring ways in which

normative and scientific disagreements associated with aquatic plant control are handled within

the ecosystem management context. Based upon these discussions, it is argued that institutional

rigidities associated with a priori attribution of harm to targeted plant species currently prevent

the types of scientific evaluation and open public discussion of ecosystem management

experiments that are necessary for adaptive learning. A holistic program of ecosystem response

monitoring, pilot experiments to test the effects of "reintroducing" contained water lettuce mats

into some areas of the river currently characterized by algal overgrowth, and periodic

communication and reevaluation of aquatic plant management techniques in public forums are

suggested as ways of introducing principles of adaptive learning into the management of water

lettuce in the Ichetucknee River.

Socio-Ecological Background

Pre-History

The Ichetucknee River has a rich archaeological and historical heritage dating back over

12,000 years, when the first humans arrived and settled in Florida. Early human tools made of

elephant ivory and high concentrations of bones from a large variety of Pleistocene animals have

been found in the Ichetucknee, providing some of the most important archaeological and









paleontological evidence that arriving humans likely played a determinate role in the extirpation

of North American mega-fauna (Milanich 1998). Despite the presumably quite severe socio-

ecological disruptions caused by the extinction of these animals, the archaeological record

suggests that the Ichetucknee River area was occupied and utilized by human cultures on an

almost continuous basis throughout the subsequent millennia.

Spanish Invasion (1539 1708)

An account by Milanich and Hudson (1993) indicates that Spanish conquistador Hernando

de Soto encountered Aguacaleyquen, a large village of indigenous Timucuan people with

bountiful agricultural resources, located near the Ichetucknee River in 1539. It is well-known and

documented that the Spanish invasion and subsequent settlement of Florida over the next several

decades had catastrophic effects on the Timucuan people, including those of Aguacaleygquen. In

1608, a Franciscan mission, San Martin, was founded at a site near Ichetucknee's Mission

Springs for the purpose of "Christianizing" the area' s surviving Timucuan people (Milanich

1998). The San Martin site is believed to have been abandoned or destroyed between the years of

1660 1675 due to rebellions by remaining Timucuan people (Worth 1992). Another mission,

called Santa Catalina, was built north of the San Martin site in approximately 1675, but was

destroyed by a confederation of Yamassee Indians and English colonial forces in 1685 (Milanich

and Hudson 1993). By the early 18th century, the Timucuan culture in Florida had effectively

vanished due to rampant warfare and disease (Milanich 1998).

Seminole Period (1708 1845)

Soon after the disappearance of the Timucua, Creek tribes began to permanently migrate

into Florida and came to be collectively referred to as the Seminoles (Milanich 1998). While

little is known about Seminole utilization of the Ichetucknee area, it is believed that the word

"Ichetucknee" was derived from a series of Creek words that loosely translate to "beaver pond"









(Simpson 1956). The American army outpost of Ft. White (located on the banks of the Santa Fe

River and several miles to the west of the present town of Ft. White) was established in 183 8

during the initial phases of the second Seminole War (Keuchel 1981). Written records from the

second Seminole War period provide the earliest documentation of the term "Ichetucknee River"

being used (Simpson 1956).

American Settlement and Development (1845 1940)

Florida became a state in 1845, soon after the conclusion of the second Seminole War.

Although little is known about the settlement of the Ichetucknee area from statehood through the

American Civil War period, several letters written by Ambrose Hart, an American settler who

lived on a plantation near the Ichetucknee, do provide valuable insight into years immediately

after the Civil War. Hart describes drying figs, eating fresh peaches at the plantation, and hunting

plentiful game in the rich "hummock" lands surrounding the Ichetucknee River (Herring 1994).

The river and its springs are described by Hart as being "clear as crystal" (Herring 1994; 39).

More intensive land use activities began to occur in the Ichetucknee area around 1890,

with phosphate mining and intensive logging of virgin timber along the river and in surrounding

uplands (Behnke 2003). The Dutton Phosphate Company acquired land surrounding the

Ichetucknee River around 1900, and used convict labor to hand extract phosphate rocks from

several small mines in the area from 1900 to 1920 (Herring 1994). The bases of cut cypress and

several depression features from abandoned phosphate mines in areas along and near the river

are obvious artifacts of this logging and mining era. In 1920, Loncala Phosphate Company

purchased from Dutton the 2,241 acres that later became ISSP (Behnke 2003). Mining activities

ceased soon after the Loncala purchase, largely due to the discovery of more highly concentrated

and extensive phosphate deposits in central Florida's Bone Valley district (Herring 1994).










Early Socio-Ecological Accounts (1940 1960)

Perhaps the first detailed descriptions of the Ichetucknee River from an ecological

perspective come from the famed Florida-based naturalist, Archie Carr. Carr first visited the

Ichetucknee in the 1940s, in a time that he describes as "before tubing; before the Crackers

starting storming up the spring runs in boats with ten-horse Johnsons; before Cousteau perfected

his first scuba regulator a time so far back that the face mask which I saw the things I told of

was only a circle of window pane in a headpiece cut from an inner tube" (1994, 60-61). Over

several pages in the book A Naturalist in Florida: A Celebration ofEden, Carr gives vivid,

literary descriptions of biota he observed in the Ichetucknee using this crude diving mask. A

colorful underwater landscape formed by aquatic plants such as elodea (Philotria densa), musk

grass (called stonewort by Carr), and eel grass is described, as are unusual fish such as the

endemic Suwannee bass (M~icropterus notius), hogchoker (Trinectes maculata), and a freshwater

pipefish (Syngna~thllinuel sp.) (Carr 1994). It is also reported that Carr enjoyed catching crayfish in

the Ichetucknee throughout the 1940s, and later described the crayfish population as sometimes

being from "wall to wall in the springs" (Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group 2006).

Similar to Archie Carr' s accounts are a series of "old-timer" remembrances of the

Ichetucknee River given by Behnke (2003). Crystal clear water, lush vegetation, bountiful fish,

incredibly large concentrations of crayfish, and a wide variety of ducks, reptiles, and amphibians

are all recalled in years spanning from 1925 to 1960. The river was also described as a center for

cultural activities such as baptisms, recreation, and family gatherings (Behnke 2003). Less

wholesome stories such as cars being driven into the river, common use of dynamite to catch

fish, and bulldozing of sediments and other land clearing debris directly into the river are also

recalled (Behnke 2003).









Mass Recreation (1960 1980)

In about 1960, the Ichetucknee was "discovered" by students from the University of

Florida located approximately 40 miles away in Gainesville (Behnke 2003). The river

reportedly was used by a large number of students as a weekend partying retreat throughout the

1960s, and, over time, these unrestricted recreational activities came to be associated with large

amounts of accumulated litter, rampant vandalism, and public drunkenness. There are also

consistent reports that some local people and/or Loncala officials, upset by the impact of the

student crowds, attempted to stop the flow of the river by loading large amounts of cement and

other debris into the Ichetucknee Head Spring area throughout the 1960s (Behnke 2003).

Although the spring was not stopped entirely, the accumulated debris did change the appearance

of the Head Spring area and may have significantly restricted discharge. In recent years, much of

this debris from the Head Spring has been removed through sustained volunteer clean up efforts

sponsored by ISSP.

In 1970, Loncala sold its 2,241 acre tract of land surrounding the upper three miles of the

Ichetucknee River to the State of Florida, which then developed and opened today's ISSP.

Although the advent of state management in the early 1970s quickly curtailed the party

atmosphere and led to the clean up of most accumulated litter, it soon became apparent to

managers and scientists that the throngs of visitors who came to tube and swim in the new park

were severely impacting the river' s aquatic plant community.

DuToit (1979) utilized detailed monitoring and experimental work to quantify the severe

impact of existing recreational activities on aquatic vegetation and faunal communities. This

study represents the first extensive ecological study available on the river, and is important for

several reasons. First, detailed accounts of submersed macrophyte coverage are given for 1977-

1978, with explicit measures for cover and standing crop bio-mass given. Second, a faunal









survey including mollusks, arthropods, and fish was also taken. Although the faunal surveys are

less detailed than the floral studies, they do correlate faunal decline with floral decline related to

recreational overuse. This ecological methodology was then used to determine a recreational

"carrying capacity" approach for both minimizing damage and allowing adequate time for

aquatic plants to recover.

Ecological Recovery (1980 1990)

ISSP quickly followed DuToit' s (1979) recommendations by establishing daily and

seasonal carrying capacities along various sections of the river in the early 1980s. The most

restrictive carrying capacity of 750 daily swimmers and tubers in summer months (between

Memorial Day and Labor Day) and a closed season for the remainder of the year is established

from a launch area immediately down river of the Head Spring to the Mid-Point dock, located

just past Mill Pond Spring. A less restrictive carrying capacity of 3,000 per day and no closed

season is established for the river reach from the Mid-Point dock to another dock referred to as

Dampier' s Landing. No limits are enforced for the river below Dampier' s Landing.

Several individuals interviewed for this dissertation report that the aquatic plant

community quickly recovered after the institution of the recreational carrying capacity -

observations that are supported by bi-annual scientific monitoring studies conducted by ISSP

(Hand 2006) and other accounts (Taylor 2002). Attracted by the river' s natural beauty, many

local artists and hobby naturalists began to visit the Ichetucknee River ecosystem in the early to

mid 1980s, and a popular lore referring to the Ichetucknee as "the most pristine river" in Florida

took hold as images of the river were produced and widely distributed. Time series photographs

of the eel grass community in Devil's Eye Spring run during the 1980s and early 1990s (Figure

3-2A, 3-2B, and 3-2C), provided by Melrose artist Johnny Dame, give an interesting

documentary reference of ecological conditions during this time. According to Dame, and as









indicated in the pictures, the aquatic plant community at Devil's Eye was characterized by dense

growth of submersed eel grass and a changeable fringe of water lettuce interspersed with other

emergent vegetation along the banks of the spring run throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Water Quality Concerns and Springshed Research

Beginning in the early 1990s, indications of ecological change apparently unrelated to

recreational impacts, such as increased coating of submersed plants by large strands of

filamentous algae, were detected by scientists, managers, and other concerned citizens. State

officials indicate that algal accumulations were first noticed within the Mission Springs run and

nearby areas (Ringle 1999). In 1995, mounting concern associated with the algal growth and

suspicion that declining water quality discharged from the springs was responsible for the

observed ecological changes led to the formation of the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality

Working Group (Working Group), which has spearheaded most conservation and research

efforts in the river and its springshed since that time.

The Working Group is a stakeholder discussion group composed of representatives from

environmental groups, agriculture and business interests, all government agencies with

jurisdiction in the Ichetucknee springshed, elected officials, and other interested citizens. The

stated purposes of the Working Group are essentially five-fold: 1) consolidate all research about

the river and springshed developed by different agencies and scientists; 2) identify gaps in

existing data and knowledge; 3) facilitate and coordinate studies for gathering new knowledge;

4) effectively communicate all gathered knowledge to local policy-makers and other

stakeholders; and 5) foster a sense of community stewardship that encourages citizens,

businesses, and governments to voluntarily adopt land use practices that better protect

groundwater resources. Facilitation and formal meetings of the Working Group are funded

through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), while the research,









monitoring, and outreach activities presented to the Working Group are supported through DEP

and a wide variety of other government agency, non-profit, and private sources.

Significant improvements in the understanding of the Ichetucknee springshed' s hydrology

have been made through research proj ects promoted through the Working Group process. Cave

diving and dye trace studies in sinkholes south of Lake City that serve as the primary outfall for

three creeks Rose Creek, Clay Hole Creek, and Cannon Creek have convincingly shown that

these sinkholes are hydrologically connected to the Ichetucknee River' s maj or springs through

large conduit systems, sometimes described as "underground rivers," in the limestone of the

upper Floridan aquifer (Butt and Murphy 2003). An important implication of these studies is that

the "creek to sink" systems, all of which are plagued by stormwater contamination from urban

and agricultural sources in the Lake City area, directly affect the water quality of both the

Ichetucknee River and domestic drinking wells. A recent state land purchase and retrofit

construction of a stormwater retention pond at Rose Creek sink near Columbia City were

expressly undertaken for the purpose of better protecting the groundwater sources leading into

the Ichetucknee River.

The Working Group has also attracted much public attention to elevated levels of

groundwater nitrate-nitrogen (Ringle 1999; Ritchie 2006), which is widely cited as the primary

suspected cause of increased algae growth and other ecological changes observed in the

Ichetucknee River and other Florida springs (Jones et al. 1996; Florida Springs Task Force

2000). Recent nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the Ichetucknee River average between 0.5 1.0

mg/L, or approximately 10 20 times over the estimated historic "background" concentrations

of 0.05 0. 1 mg/L (Florida Springs Task Force 2000). Porous overlying soils, lack of clay

confining layers, and large number of sinkholes with direct groundwater connections together









make the upper Floridan aquifer in the Ichetucknee springshed extremely vulnerable to nitrate-

nitrogen contamination (Katz et al. 1999).

Maj or identified sources of nitrate-nitrogen contamination are as follows: fertilizers

applied in agricultural fields and domestic landscapes, disposal of animal and human wastewater

effluents in spray fields and septic tank drain fields, emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and

land-clearing/deforestation that decreases the amount of soluble nitrogen absorbed by plants and

other organisms in surface soil layers (Jones et al. 1996). Efforts to reduce nitrate-nitrogen

loading into the Ichetucknee springshed include pursuit of funds to finance sewage treatment and

process upgrades for Lake City's municipal sewage treatment facility; expansion of sewage

service to areas currently served by septic tank systems; encouragement of stricter septic tank

performance and maintenance standards for homes and businesses located outside of the

municipal service area; and outreach to promote voluntary reductions in fertilizer usage by

homeowners, farmers, and landscaping professionals.

Uncertain Science: Nitrate-Nitrogen and Algae Response in Springs Ecosystems

Despite the attention given to water quality improvement at the Ichetucknee River since

the early 1990s, media reports (Bruno 2004; Ritchie 2006) and scientific data (Hand 2007)

indicate that the problem of nuisance algal growth continues to spread at an increasing rate

throughout the ecosystem. A consistent message given in media reports, suggested by many

members of the Working Group, and reported by most individuals interviewed for this research

is that "rising nitrate-nitrogen" is primarily to blame for these changes. Accompanying this

characterization is an apparent assumption that decreased concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in

the river would be expected to reduce growth of nuisance algae, thereby leading to the recovery

of desirable submersed plants and aquatic fauna.









These cause-effect characterizations about nitrate-nitrogen contamination and algal growth

are a fundamental driving factor in environmental policy discussions focused heavily on

reducing nitrate-nitrogen loading into springsheds for the purpose of protecting springs

ecosystems (DCA and DEP 2002). While reduction of nitrate-nitrogen loading or any other

human contaminant into groundwater may be inherently worthwhile from the perspective of

improving water quality, an obj ective look at recent data trends and scientific studies for

Ichetucknee and other Florida springs ecosystems suggests two interrelated points: 1) nitrate-

nitrogen may not offer a sufficient explanation for ongoing increases of nuisance algae growth;

and 2) reductions of this nutrient may not necessarily result in a corresponding reduction of

nuisance algae.

A review of water quality data in the Ichetucknee River obtained from the DEP (Hand

2006) helps to introduce these points. While long-term data (Figure 3-4) do clearly show that a

dramatic upward trend in the river's nitrate-nitrogen concentrations historically occurred from

mid 1960s through the mid 1980s, the data in Figure 3-5 suggest that ambient nitrate-nitrogen

concentrations in the river have only slightly increased since the mid 1980s, a time in which

there was little concern about water quality or ecological changes in the river. Furthermore, the

excerpted data shown in Figure 3-6 actually indicate a steady downward trend in nitrate-nitrogen

during the period from 2000 2006, while a t-test comparison between the data from 2000-2006

indicate no significant difference in nitrate-nitrogen levels over this period as compared to levels

measured from 1985-1998 (Table 3-1). If algal growth and biomass accumulation were to have a

simple linear relationship to nitrate-nitrogen concentrations, it seems to follow, based upon

available data, that algal growth and biomass accumulation would have either decreased or









remained stable since 2000. However, available data indicate that the biomass and coverage of

undesirable algae have greatly expanded during this time period (Hand 2007).

One possible explanation for this anomaly is that nitrate-nitrogen measurements at

Ichetucknee Springs have been shown to have extreme variability over very short periods of time

due to the flushing of stored contaminants during storm events and other stochastic processes

(Martin and Gordon 2000). High frequency sampling before and after storm events are

recommended by Martin and Gordon (2000) as a means of detecting important spikes and

"pulsed trends" within nitrate-nitrogen levels a recommendation that is not reflected in the

sampling performed by state agencies. Thus, it is conceivable that undetected pulses within

nitrate-nitrogen levels are occurring within the river and that these nutrient pulses might indeed

be a cause of the observed increases in algal growth. Clearly, this line of reasoning cannot be

dismissed and should be explored in more detail in future research. However, the fact that

extreme nitrate-nitrogen pulses were detected by Martin and Gordon (2000) before rapid

increases in algal growth were observed in many areas of the river also tends to support the

search for additional explanatory variables.

Field observations from 2000 2001 and cursory analysis of water quality data are used by

Evans (2002, 47) to hypothesize that algal growth in the upper Ichetucknee River likely is more

correlated with "elevated phosphorus concentrations than with nitrate." This observational

hypothesis is in agreement with subsequent statistical analyses of algal biomass and water

quality conducted by Stevenson et al. (2004) and Hand (2007), both of whom found that algal

biomass in the Ichetucknee River spatially correlates with phosphorus concentrations and shows

no direct statistical relationship with nitrate-nitrogen. On the one hand, a phosphorus relationship

with algal growth is not surprising given the primary role that phosphorus often plays in cultural









eutrophication of aquatic systems throughout the world. Furthermore, Biggs (2000) found

specific correlations between phosphorus and algal biomass accumulation in field studies of

stream systems in New Zealand, with much of this accumulation accounted for by Vaucheria sp.

similar to those found in the Ichetucknee.

But on the other hand, phosphorus enrichment does not seem to provide a coherent

explanation for observed ecological changes in the Ichetucknee River, largely because

phosphorus concentrations measured within springs are, unlike nitrate-nitrogen, not known to

have increased significantly over time. Geologists have found that phosphorus loaded into

springsheds from fertilizer applications and wastewater disposal is adsorbed to overlying soils

and carbonate rock before groundwater can be contaminated, meaning that differential

phosphorus concentrations among springs generally are a function of the natural phosphate

content of rocks being eroded by groundwater flow in areas of the Floridan aquifer near the

spring outfalls not anthropogenic contamination (Jones et al. 1996). A policy implication of

this geological finding is that reduction of phosphorus concentrations discharged from springs

likely is not a plausible ecosystem management strategy for reducing algal growth in springs

(Joyner and Paerl 2007).

Even if algal accumulation in the Ichetucknee River is phosphorus limited, it can be

coherently hypothesized, however, that algal growth may have been originally triggered by

nitrate-nitrogen contamination, with naturally available phosphorus in the spring water simply

limiting the extent to which the growth reaction can be expressed. While this hypothesis clearly

cannot be dismissed and should be researched in more detail, declines of submersed plants

associated with spread of nuisance algae recently have been recorded in Silver Glen Springs and

Alexander Springs, both of which have undeveloped springsheds contained almost entirely









within the Ocala National Forest and background concentrations of both nitrate-nitrogen (under

0. 1 mg/L) and phosphorus (Joyner and Paerl 2007). The importance of this finding is that

undesirable ecosystem changes associated with algal overgrowth in some cases can be triggered

by disturbance factors apparently unrelated to nitrate-nitrogen contamination.

In addition, Cowell and Dawes (2004) recently found that the biomass accumulation of

Lyngbya wollei, a cyanobacterium species that is increasingly displacing submersed plants at

Ichetucknee and other Florida springs, is only significantly reduced in spring water at nitrate-

nitrogen concentrations as low as 0.07 mg/L, or approximately 10 times lower than what is

currently found in the Ichetucknee. This finding suggests that, even in those cases where nitrate-

nitrogen may be a primary causal factor in triggering increased algal growth, the subsequent

changes in ecosystem function and corresponding autocatalytic feedbacks may represent a

nonlinear shift in ecosystem stability domain (Scheffer et al. 1993). An implication of such a

nonlinear relationship is that even a dramatic reduction of nitrate-nitrogen to levels (e.g., under

0.3 mg/L) historically not associated with high levels of algal biomass accumulation may be

insufficient for abating the continued accumulation and expansion of algal biomass in the future

(Cowell and Dawes 2004).

But even if these findings and suggested relationships are discounted and a simple linear

relationship between nitrate-nitrogen and algal growth is assumed, current management and

restoration strategies still are incomplete in the sense that they do not adequately account for the

long-term entrainment of nitrate-nitrogen in the groundwater from past and ongoing land use

activities. Given current contamination patterns and the travel times of groundwater in the

springshed, even the most successful conservation and/or water quality improvement programs

are not likely to result in significant reduction of the ambient concentration of nitrate-nitrogen










discharged in large springs ecosystems like Ichetucknee for at least two decades (Jones et al.

1996; Katz et al. 1999; Cowell and Dawes 2004). Taken together, all of these analyses suggest

that current ecosystem management and policy development strategies, which are hinged almost

entirely upon reduction of nitrate-nitrogen loading within the springshed, are unlikely to be

sufficient for the achievement of significant reductions in algal growth in the Ichetucknee River

for the foreseeable future.

Water Lettuce Eradication

In June 2000, DEP's Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM) announced plans to

begin herbicide applications on the Ichetucknee River to control water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes),

a floating aquatic plant found along the banks, snags, and stagnant areas throughout much of the

river at that time. According to aquatic plant control researchers at the University of Florida,

water lettuce is an invasive nonnative3 plant that can significantly reduce biodiversity in

Florida's aquatic ecosystems by shading out native submersed plants, destroying emergent

vegetation, and by "eliminating underwater animals" through oxygen depletion (Ramey 2001).


3 Although the ability of water lettuce to spread rapidly (i.e., invasively) in disturbed and nutrient-enriched aquatic
ecosystems in tropical and sub-tropical areas of the world is well-documented (Sharma 1984), the claim that water
lettuce is not native to Florida is a matter of considerable scientific controversy and inconclusive speculation
(Stuckey and Les 1984: Stoddard 1989: Ramey 2001). A major source of the controversy comes from the fact that
the explorer William Bartram, often used as a historical source for cataloguing the native flora of Florida, commonly
observed and made drawings of water lettuce on the St. John's River, Suwannee River, and several lakes in 1765
(Stuckey and Les 1984). Stuckey and Les (1984) argue that the best biological evidence for presuming that water
lettuce is exotic to Florida (i.e., introduced by human activity in the post-Columbian era) derives from an
assumption, commonly held at the time their paper was written, that water lettuce does not produce seeds in Florida
due to a lack of appropriate pollinators. Based upon this assumption, they speculate that the water lettuce observed
by Bartram may originally have been introduced from South America by 16th century Spanish settlers in St.
Augustine. This speculative introduction theory is, however, undermined to some extent by a later finding that seed
production is, in fact, an important source of reproduction for water lettuce in Florida (Dray and Center 1989). Some
aquatic plant researchers, perhaps through a misunderstanding of Stuckey and Les's (1984) original speculations,
currently suggest that water lettuce's most likely mode of introduction into Florida was through the "ballast water"
of Spanish ships (Ramey 2001). However, Spanish sailing ships in the 16th 18th centuries (and all other sailing
ships before the late 19th century) used non-water stone ballast (Wiley 1995), indicating that ballast water clearly
was not the mode of water lettuce's introduction into Florida before the time of Bartram. The primary source, other
than Bartram, suggesting that water lettuce may be native to Florida is Stoddard (1989), who uses paleofloristic and
ethnobotanical findings to make a speculative argument that water lettuce likely has been present in most tropical
and subtropical regions of the world, including Florida, "throughout antiquity" (Stoddard 1989, 23).









While acknowledging that water lettuce had been documented to create "only minor

problems on the Ichetucknee River," BIPM argued that the new control program was, however,

urgently needed to "help reduce environmental and economic losses" associated with water

lettuce in the tidal creeks of the lower Suwannee River estuary, located approximately 60 miles

downstream (DEP 2000). Likely in response to significant public opposition engendered by the

chemical control proposal, over the next several months BIPM agreed to indefinitely delay

herbicide applications and instead assisted ISSP with the institution of an experimental water

lettuce eradication program based upon hand harvest of the plant. A part-time employment

position at ISSP dedicated solely to removal of water lettuce was funded by BIPM, and plans

were initiated for up to 9 weekend water lettuce "round up" days each year that would utilize

community volunteers.

The water lettuce removal efforts began at the Ichetucknee Head Spring in late 2000, and

have progressively moved down river as the water lettuce in upstream areas is successfully

extirpated (Figure 3-3). The periodic volunteer events are used to quickly remove large water

lettuce concentrations from targeted areas of the river, while the ISSP employee, with periodic

assistance from volunteers, interns, and/or workers from service organizations such as

AmeriCorps, maintains a day to day focus on removing every visible piece of water lettuce from

the river bank and other hard to reach areas. The laborious process of removing even the smallest

fragments of water lettuce in the river is often referred to as "nit-picking." Once removed, the

water lettuce is deposited in disposal sites located along the river' s adj acent flood plain forest

(Figure 3-3).

Several years later, this effort has been a clear success in terms of almost entirely

eradicating water lettuce from significant stretches of the upper Ichetucknee River. The influence









of this management strategy has reached as far as California, where researchers recently cited the

Ichetucknee water lettuce eradication campaign as a primary example of utilizing a "strong sense

of stewardship" among a local community to effectively institute a non-chemical invasive plant

control program (Greenfield et al. 2004, 59). Local media also have given positive coverage to

the volunteer clean up days, with one representative story citing officials and volunteers who

argue that the water lettuce removal helps to "save the river" from an invasive exotic plant that is

"choking life" and reducing biodiversity in the aquatic ecosystem (Sobel 2004).

Observed Ecosystem Response

In January May 2001, I recorded a number of field observations while working as a

volunteer student intern at ISSP. My primary duty throughout this internship was hand removal

of water lettuce, which as discussed above had recently been initiated as a formal control

program. On most days I was the sole assistant to the ISSP employee recently hired for the water

lettuce removal program, although on some days small work crews from AmeriCorps and other

service organizations would also assist with harvesting and nit-picking activities. In addition, I

participated in several of the large volunteer work day events, which generally attracted 50 100

people, held during this time period. As shown in Figure 3-3, the water lettuce eradication

program during 2000 2001 covered the upper Ichetucknee River, with some gaps, from the

Head Spring to Devil's Eye Spring.

A consistent observation made throughout this experience was that, contrary to the

description of the plant' s adverse effects (e.g., oxygen depletion and faunal depopulation) given

by Ramey (2001) and largely adopted in public communications about the eradication campaign

at ISSP (Sobel 2004), water lettuce was being utilized as habitat by a large number of aquatic

fauna in the Ichetucknee River. In particular, I consistently observed that the fibrous roots of

harvested water lettuce plants often contained large populations of aquatic invertebrates such as










spring run crayfish, several types of mollusks and snails, and a wide variety of insects. While

limited effort was made to return some of the larger organisms back into the river, it seems fairly

safe to assume that most of the removed organisms perished.

Although these observations, and similar observations recently reported in a newspaper

editorial by Dame (2006), clearly are anecdotal, they also are consistent with better documented

accounts. For example, field measurements of oxygen levels under water hyacinth, which has

similar ecological functionality to water lettuce, in the spring-fed St. Marks River indicate that

flowing water conditions in spring-fed streams can be expected to prevent the large-scale oxygen

deficits and faunal depopulation commonly attributed to floating plant mats in other ecosystem

contexts (Bartodziej and Leslie 1998). The potential habitat value of water lettuce in spring runs

is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by Thompson' s (1968) description of the dense hydrobe

snail (Aphaostracon pycnum), a species endemic to Alexander Springs in the Ocala National

Forest and reported to be almost exclusively associated with floating mats of water lettuce and

water hyacinth. In addition, internal studies performed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission indicate that water lettuce is preferentially utilized as cover habitat by

several small fish species such as the least killifish (Heterandria formosa), pygmy killifish

(Leptolucania ommata), and an endemic topminnow (Fundulus seminolis) (D. Gallagher,

Environmental Specialist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, E-mail

Communication, May 8, 2006). Although somewhat different than springs ecosystem in terms of

water flow rates and chemistry, extensive mats of water lettuce found in the "Lettuce Lakes" of

south Florida' s Corkscrew Swamp are known to be characterized by very large populations of

crayfish, wading birds, turtles, alligators and other native animals (USGS 2007).









Another observation made at Ichetucknee was that eradication of water lettuce from a

section of the river was often followed by a rapid colonization and expansion of filamentous

algae. Although the colonizing algae tended to be most obvious and severe in the same low flow

velocity areas where the water lettuce had previously accumulated, substantial increases of

filamentous algal coverage on beds of submersed vegetation such as eel grass and tape grass

were also observed on several occasions after the eradication of adj acent water lettuce mats.

Such an observational relationship of filamentous algae quickly invading into adj acent

submersed plant communities was specifically recorded in field notes at Blue Hole taken in early

2001. These field notes indicate that the spring run' s eel grass and tape grass community did not

have visible accumulations of filamentous algae in the last week of January, when the water

lettuce was harvested and deposited nearby on the river bank (Figure 3-3). By February 13, it

was observed that the spring run was "being overwhelmed by mats of brown and black algae"

growing amongst and "topped out" over the submersed grasses.

A similar observation about filamentous algae rapidly overtaking submersed plants was

also made following the removal and disposal of water lettuce at Devil's Eye Spring in early

spring of 2001. Although the Devil's Eye field notes are not specifically dated, the two

photographs dated December 2000 (Figure 3-2D) and May 2001 (Figure 3-2E) respectively show

the spring at times soon before and after the eradication of water lettuce. In December 2000, little

accumulation of filamentous is noticeable on submersed plants. By May 2001, after the removal

and disposal of large amounts of water lettuce in an area directly adj acent to the spring boil (see

Figure 3-3), large strands of filamentous algae are clearly apparent. Since May 2001, the eel

grass community in Devil's Eye Spring has almost completely disappeared due to displacement

by filamentous algae (Hand 2007).









Systems Model

Like the observations about faunal utilization of water lettuce, my reports of rapid algal

growth following water lettuce removal are, of course, fundamentally anecdotal. However, a

review of scientific literature can be used to coherently hypothesize a competitive relationship

between water lettuce and algal growth in the Ichetucknee River. The hypothesis, presented in

Figure 3-7 as a systems ecology model using Odum' s (1994) network language, suggests that the

primary form of competition between water lettuce and algae is for sunlight, with water lettuce

having a clear competitive advantage due to its physiology as a floating plant (Attionu 1976).

Nutrients are shown as a secondary source of competition in the model. This competitive

relationship is suggested by a wide variety of scientific studies indicating that water lettuce is

one of the most effective aquatic plants in uptake of nitrate-nitrogen (Nelson et al. 1980; Tripathi

et al. 1991; Panda and Kar 1996; Kao et al. 2000; Lopes-Ferreira 2000; Lin et al. 2002; Sooknah

and Wilkie 2004), phosphorus (Tucker and Debusk 1981; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda and Kar

1996; Kao et al. 2000; Lopes-Ferreira 2000; Kent et al. 2000; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004), and

iron and various other metals (Sharma 1984; Sridhar 1986; Kao et al. 2000) thought to influence

algal growth patterns in the Ichetucknee River and other springs (Stevenson et al. 2004). It is

notable that pond culturalists throughout the world commonly utilize water lettuce for

suppression of algae based upon the sunlight competition and nutrient uptake mechanisms

(Cohen 1993) suggested in this model.

In addition, the model contains an additional feedback mechanism indicating that water

lettuce biomass may serve as a further drain on algal growth beyond the direct competition for

sunlight and nutrients. This relationship is suggested by studies showing that water lettuce

releases allelopathic chemicals that suppress some algae species (Aliotta et al. 1991; Gross

2003), can directly filter and retain a large amount of algal biomass in its fibrous root mass (Kim










et al. 2001), and is utilized as habitat by various bacteria, zooplankton, and other fauna that

consume algae (Attionu 1976). A final relationship shown in the model is that the shoreline

disposal of water lettuce likely resulted in a secondary pulsed release of nutrients back into the

aquatic ecosystem as the biomass decayed, perhaps serving as an additional catalyst for algal

growth. Prevention of secondary nutrient loading through biomass management techniques that

move harvested aquatic plant biomass well away from the shore of a water body is discussed by

Shijun and Jingsong (1989) in relation to harvest and utilization of water hyacinth from a

eutrophic Chinese river.

Stakeholder Responses

Conversational interviews and public communications with twenty-eight stakeholders were

used to gather perceptions of the Ichetucknee River' s ecological conditions, and then, as

described in Chapter 2, to introduce and discuss the water lettuce/algae response hypothesis.

Seven of these stakeholders were scientists and/or managers directly employed by government

agencies with ecosystem management responsibilities at the Ichetucknee River, six were private

or university scientists with research and/or management experience in the Ichetucknee River,

and the remaining fifteen were non-scientists4 who have attended at least one meeting of the

Working Group.

As noted in Chapter 2, all interview informants were asked to describe their understanding

of the problems currently facing the Ichetucknee River system. Not surprisingly given the

association of these stakeholders with the Working Group, the dominant themes discussed in


4 The descriptive term non-scientist is being used as shorthand to identify those stakeholders who are not currently
employed as environmental scientists. This shorthand may, however, be a little misleading in the sense that some of
the stakeholders may have advanced scientific training and/or are professionally employed in scientific professions.
In any case, the distinction being made is between those stakeholders whose participation in the Working Group
primarily is associated with their status as environmental/ecological scientists (both agency and non-agency) with
professional expertise about the Ichetucknee River, and those stakeholders participating solely on the basis of being
concerned citizens.









relation to ecological conditions were concern about increasing algal growth and nitrate-nitrogen

contamination within the river. Almost all stakeholders (twenty-seven) at some point mentioned

that algal growth in the river has, in their view, markedly increased since they first visited the

river, and the unanimous consensus among these was that the problem continues to worsen.

There was also a clear tendency to link this growth with nitrate-nitrogen contamination, with

twenty-two stakeholders and all fourteen non-scientists who noted increased algal growth -

indicating that increased nitrate-nitrogen was the likely cause of the algal growth. However,

three non-agency scientists and two agency scientists suggested that factors other than and/or in

addition to nitrate-nitrogen could be triggering algal growth. Water lettuce was cited by eighteen

stakeholders (ten non-scientists, five agency scientists, and three non-agency scientists) as

another primary concern within the river, although the harvest program was cited by sixteen of

these as being effective in getting the plant under control.

Participants were then presented with information suggesting that management of water

lettuce may be linked to the proliferation of nuisance algae in the Ichetucknee River. Although it

must be cautioned that the non-random selection method prevents traditional statistical analysis,

distinct response patterns were observed among the different informant groups after being

introduced to this information, particularly to the following two questions: 1) Should the idea of

invasive plant management being linked to proliferation of nuisance algae be investigated further

by scientists? 2) Should ecosystem managers consider modifying the ways in which they manage

water lettuce in Ichetucknee Springs?

Twelve out of the fifteen non-scientist respondents (80%) indicated that they both

supported more research into the hypothesized relationship and believed that managers should

consider modifying plant management strategies based upon the results of scientific study. Six of









these twelve additionally indicated that their own observations about ecosystem response in the

Ichetucknee were consistent with the information presented. While there is a danger that such a

response could be an artifact of non-scientist respondents deferring to what they consider to be a

more authoritative opinion, it is notable that, in the preliminary interviews, only one of these six

cited water lettuce as a primary concern within the river. In addition, five out of six (83%) non-

agency scientists a group who would not be expected to uncritically defer also indicated

support for both additional research and consideration of alternative plant management strategies

after being presented with the hypothesis. Among agency scientists and managers the response

pattern was noticeably different, with Hyve out of seven (71%) suggesting that alternative plant

management strategies should not be considered. Interestingly, while three of these Hyve did

suggest it was possible that removal of water lettuce could have resulted in increased growth of

algae, statutory mandates for controlling nonnative species and fears that water lettuce would

quickly grow out of control absent aggressive eradication efforts both were cited in defense of

continuing current management.

Two additional evaluative themes were commonly raised by stakeholders in the interview

process. The first maj or theme suggested by many (twenty-two, or 79%) stakeholders (including

most of those who supported more research into the hypothesized relationship between water

lettuce and algae growth) was that the expansion of native plant species particularly eel grass,

wild rice (Zizania aquatica), and water hemlock (Ciculata maculata) as a result of water

lettuce removal is an important benefit that should also be considered in an overall evaluative

framework. It is notable that two of the three non-scientist stakeholders who argued that there

was no need to reconsider current management strategies justified this stance by suggesting that

nutrient filtration and faunal habitat values provided by the expansion of native plants greatly









exceeded those formerly provided by water lettuce. A second maj or theme suggested by most

stakeholders (twenty-three, or 82%) was preference for the harvest method over management

strategies based upon herbicide usage, largely due to the belief that herbicides would pose a high

threat of non-target damage to aquatic plants and animals.

Adaptive Learning and Institutional Rigidity

Norton (2005, 208) argues that a key component of adaptive management is to "support a

process of social learning in which members of communities, upon seeing the consequences of

acting in pursuit of particular values, may come to question and revise some of the values they

have been acting upon." Using the conversations with stakeholders as a qualitative foundation,

several points relevant to social learning within the management context at Ichetucknee River are

suggested: 1) algal growth is currently viewed as a greater threat to the river' s ecological values

than water lettuce; 2) there is significant willingness among non-scientists and non-agency

scientists to reconsider a commonly held value about water lettuce (i.e., it should be eradicated)

based upon information suggesting that it may help to suppress algae; 3) the spread of native

plants is considered to be a benefit of suppressing water lettuce; and 4) chemical control of water

lettuce is considered to be a highly undesirable management option.

If these qualitative points are combined with both the scientific information suggesting that

reduction of nitrate-nitrogen offers, at best, an uncertain and temporally distant method for

controlling algal growth and the scientific hypotheses elaborated by the systems model, a very

strong foundation for holistically reevaluating the water lettuce eradication policy for the

Ichetucknee River emerges. According to adaptive management theory, integral to this process

of iterative social learning would be detailed monitoring efforts specifically designed to detect

and better understand unintended effects of ongoing management actions (Holling et al. 1998;

Gunderson 1999), along with a discursive environment in which stakeholders have the ability to










openly challenge the "beliefs and evaluative statements that are given to explain and justify

environmental policies" (Norton 2005, 209).

Based upon these prescriptive criteria, it is, however, apparent that the current institutional

framework governing ecosystem management in the Ichetucknee River provides for a rigid, non-

adaptive approach towards the control of water lettuce. In terms of monitoring, the progress of

water lettuce eradication is being documented (Figure 3-2). However, the ecological effects

associated with this eradication have not been rigorously studied either with regard to the

hypothesized algae response relationship suggested above, or to characterize the colonization of

native plant species following the removal of the water lettuce since the program's inception.

Thus, the original eradication policy continues to be justified by two lines of reasoning

conspicuously laden with questionable scientific and moral assumptions: 1) an a priori

attribution of harm to water lettuce associated with its statutory status as an invasive nonnative

species; 2) an accompanying assumption that eradication of the invasive nonnative species brings

unambiguous benefits to the river' s ecological values. Even if questions about the

nonnative/native origins of water lettuce (upon which the primary justifications behind current

management policy are, however, clearly hinged) discussed above in footnote 1 are left aside, the

apparent consensus among stakeholders that the river' s overall ecological condition has, over the

time period of the water lettuce eradication efforts, increasingly deteriorated due to increased

algal growth seems to offer a compelling rationale for a critical reassessment of these

management assumptions and practices through a holistic monitoring program.

In fairness, it could be argued that the lack of monitoring associated with the water lettuce

eradication program was originally an epistemological issue, in the sense that scientific questions

relevant for framing the monitoring program had not yet emerged. However, a secondary effect









of discussing the hypothesis about water lettuce eradication and algal response with stakeholders

was that this idea was introduced into the discursive context of the Working Group. As indicated

above, most agency scientists and managers interviewed for this dissertation expressed

opposition to the idea of reconsidering the current eradication strategy, with this position often

justified by reference to a statutory directive in Chapter 369.22(1)(d) of the Florida Statutes

(2006b) that calls for maintenance of nonnative plants such as water lettuce at the "lowest

feasible level."

While there is little question that the goal of maintaining water lettuce at the lowest

feasible level is standard among state agencies engaged in aquatic plant control activities,

Chapter 369.22(4) contains an additional clause indicating that management of aquatic plants

must also "protect human health, safety, and recreation and, to the greatest degree practicable,

prevent injury to plant, Eish, and animal life" (Florida Statutes 2006b). This latter clause, it would

seem, provides an unambiguous basis for monitoring and reflecting upon the consequences of

aquatic plant management, with the implication that appropriate and iterative adjustments should

be made to both protect consensual public goods and prevent consensual public harms. Thus,

specific aquatic plant management practices associated with the production of algal blooms that

negatively affect public health, safety, recreation, Eish, and/or wildlife presumably would be

subj ect to review under the criteria set forth by the statute.

The qualitative interview research indicates that there is significant interest among

stakeholders for further inquiry into the benefits, costs, and effects of aquatic plant management

activities in the Ichetucknee River, and the stakeholder Working Group would seem to provide

an appropriate forum for such discussions. However, public discussion of the management policy

through the auspices of the Working Group so far has been discouraged through an apparent










rigidity associated with the prevailing institutional assumptions used to justify aquatic plant

control. For example, my own request to make a formal presentation to the Working Group

raising questions about water lettuce eradication and algal proliferation was denied in April

2004, with the stated rationale being that such a topic would fall outside of the Working Group's

stated mission of improving water quality in the springshed.5

More recently, a non-scientist stakeholder made independent public comments during a

Working Group meeting held on October 11, 2006, suggesting that potential linkages between

increased algal growth in the river and the water lettuce eradication program should be a focus of

monitoring and research activities. Although, as discussed above, the original scientific

justification for initiating the water lettuce eradication program in 2000 was based upon

downstream impacts to the Suwannee estuary (DEP 2000), the official response given to this

recent stakeholder concern was a pronouncement that agency biologists had come to the

conclusion that water lettuce threatened to "completely overtake the river." Citing dire

consequences such as the complete destruction of submersed plant communities and cessation of

recreational activities that would be associated with water lettuce completely covering the river,

it was then stipulated that the eradication policy was not an appropriate matter for public debate.

This response clearly had the intended effect, contra to what Norton (2005) recommends for

facilitating an effective adaptive management program, of discouraging additional public

challenges to the institutional beliefs being used to justify and explain an ongoing ecosystem

management strategy.


5 Although I do not believe that most Working Group members would make this distinction between the mission of
protecting water quality in the springshed and understanding ecological conditions in the river. I have respected this
request by not publicly raising questions about water lettuce management within the context of Working Group
meetings.

6 This is to clarify that there was no communication or coordination between myself and this stakeholder in relation
to the public comments made at the Working Group meeting.










Management Experimentation: Moving Beyond All or Nothing

As generally suggested by Gunderson (1999), the socio-ecological research presented in

this chapter suggests that two maj or impediments to adaptive learning exist with relation to water

lettuce management in the Ichetucknee River: 1) fear of a non-resilient ecosystem "shifting to an

unwanted stability domain" (i.e., complete coverage of the river by water lettuce); and 2)

inflexibility in the "extant power relations among stakeholders" (i.e., institutional rigidities

organized around defense of current agency policies). Underlying these fears and rigidities are

what philosophers commonly call "all or nothing" thinking, or, more technically, the fallacy of

false alternatives. In other words, a wide variety of alternative scenarios exist between, on the

one hand, current management goals and techniques (eradication and shoreline disposal of water

lettuce) and, on the other hand, a cessation of aquatic plant management that leaves the river

recreationally unusable. For example, a logical reform to the current management strategy could

be pursuit of alternative biomass disposal techniques, perhaps through utilization of bottom-lined

composting facilities and/or mobile dumpsters, to prevent the risk of pulsed nutrient loading into

the river. Another logical reform would be to specifically monitor the successional patterns

observed after the removal of water lettuce.

Leaving aside any ultimate determinations as to whether or not the increasing algal growth

observed in the Ichetucknee River over recent years has any important ecological relationship

with the water lettuce eradication program, there is clear social consensus that increased algal

growth being observed in the river represents a highly undesirable shift in stability domain.

Equally clear, as discussed above, from a scientific perspective is that extant groundwater

contaminant patterns, along with the apparent resilience of the algal stability domain to lowered

nutrient levels, make it highly unlikely that current management strategies are sufficient for

achieving consonance between the socially mediated values and management goals established










for the ecosystem and the clear constraints posed by extant and emergent environmental

conditions.

Gunderson (1999) suggests that a pragmatic antidote for building "resilience and

flexibility" into socio-ecological contexts characterized by institutional rigidity and resource

collapse is through small-scale pilot experiments' designed to bring novel lines of inquiry into

the management context. Ideally, the socio-ecological information developed in this chapter

could be used as the basis for such small scale experiments. For example, one logical

management experiment would be to intentionally grow water lettuce perhaps in polyculture

with native floating aquatic plants, such as water pennywort (Hydrocotyl sp.) in certain areas of

the river (e.g., spring runs) currently characterized by high levels of algal growth. Such

experiments could be used to better understand the effects of water lettuce and other aquatic

plant species on algal production, faunal populations, submersed and emergent plant species, and

various physico-chemical variables (e.g., nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen)

within the specific context of the Ichetucknee River.

Any experiments for better understanding the ecological functions of water lettuce,

however, need not supplant the overall management goal of minimizing the plant in most areas

of the river, both to prevent downstream migration of the plant and encourage growth of more

desirable native plants. In fact, it would be relatively straightforward to coordinate such a pilot

experiment with the existing management infrastructure to test, as suggested by Lopes-Ferreira


SAdmittedly, a key practical barrier to such pilot experiments is suggested in a more recent paper by Gunderson et
al. (2006). These authors pointedly argue that a lack of holistic learning capacity in the Florida Everglades is
systemically perpetuated by a monolithic research funding apparatus, dominated by government agencies, that filters
out "integrative studies" that could question existing policies in favor of those that "reinforce existing dogma."
While such an institutional consideration almost certainly holds for this case, it can be argued that the comparatively
small scale of both the Ichetucknee ecosystem (relative to the Everglades) and studies being called for here leave
open the possibility of non-traditional (e.g., private non-profit, independently funded graduate student, collaboration
with volunteer organizations, etc.) means of supporting the recommended research. Obtaining necessary aquatic
plant permits to conduct the recommended research, however, is another practical barrier that should be considered.









et al. (2000), different water lettuce growth and harvest methods for the purpose of identifying

any specific strategies that may maximize contaminant removal and/or restoration of the overall

ecological community in degraded areas. Information gathered through such studies would not

only make a valuable contribution to overall ecological knowledge, but the process of

communicating and evaluating the results of the experiments in public forums, whether in

coordination with or independently of the Working Group, could help to invigorate and stimulate

the overall process of adaptive learning.





0O 0.5 1 2

CV R -


cli
/
"
i :
t

r.
.~"\ :I-



3,"
u ;~





I


Cu.I U I y





i~ ~ ~~~1 ....us pal;;: l~lr I nrll4111' -


'ri ; ~
"r~i~
1
"'
I


11


P


I' I:'
---.T-
r;
-


I_ _._1 _. __


I. 4

If n


ii'
:- s_-


-:C-

"50:
ir


!
i~ ~.i




-"


~ i.. -- ~ -1~ o'i~.t II'
-I U
.~-~c~

---~~---,~
.~ .I:' .:I.. _:


I'~


L


i



I

,,,..


Figure 3-1. Map of Ichetucknee River and Springs
















80


Ichetucknee River and Springs
















r rA ~C~;L


*C


Figure 3-2. Time series photographs of Devil's Eye Spring A) 1987, photograph by Johnny
Dame. B) 1989, photograph by Johnny Dame. C) 1993, photograph by Johnny Dame.

D) December 2000 (Follman and Buchanan 2004). E) May 2001 (Hand 2006).


rC
l~;uf~

'I~' ,-

';r
~JILCLII


-" 'i------
cc










IFii


ICHETUCKNTEE SPRINGS
STATE PAR~K
WATERLETTUC E REMOVA-L
PROGRAM
ANNUAL PROGRESS
2000 201
Composite Map



Key.


5~Fprmp-ld w.amrn (qrpl m..seT

SFleedphn~~plam~~ maon.archidelal

Fploaph swamp, los u*b readies
a of Fdlo ~lau omsr




't~ary Wb~d~y2005
Progrt55 m






Figure 3-3. Map of water lettuce removal at ISSP (Hand 2006)














Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 1966 2006


1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

- 2006 (Data from Hand 2006)


0.9-

0.8-

0.7-



0.5-

S0.4-

0.3 -

0.2-

0.1 -

0,
1965 1970 1975 1980


Figure 3-4. Ichetucknee Springs nitrate: 1966


R- = 0.8689


Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 1985 2006

0.0



0.7

S0.6 -



E 0.5*




S0.3

0.2

0.1R~ = 0. 1369
0.

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006


Figure 3-5. Ichetucknee Springs nitrate: 1985-2006 (Data from Hand 2006)





0.82-

i 0.8-

0.78-

S0.76-
Z

0.74-

0.72-

0.7
2000


R- = 0.7227


2001


2002


2003


2004


2005


2006


2007


Figure 3-6. Ichetucknee River nitrate: 2001


-2006 (Data from Hand 2006)


Table 3-1. T-test comparison of Ichetucknee River nitrate levels, 1985-1998 vs. 2001-2006


Nitrate
(mg/L)
1985-1998
0.6865
0.013961
5
0.007289


Nitrate
(mg/L)
2001-2006
0.775417
0.001951
6


Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail


-1.71995
0.059777
1.833113
0.119555
2.2621 57


Ichetucknee Springs Nitrate: 2001 2006


































Figure 3-7. Systems model of water lettuce and algae competition at Ichetucknee River









CHAPTER 4
KINGS BAY/CRYSTAL RIVER

Site Description

Kings Bay/Crystal River is a freshwater springs and tidally-influenced river system located

in Citrus County on the northwestern coast of the Florida peninsula (Figure 4-1). The headwaters

of Crystal River are formed by Kings Bay, a 600 acre open water area with depths generally

ranging between 3 to 10 feet and containing at least 30 artesian springs (Jones et al. 1998). The

combined discharge of Kings Bay's springs is approximately 630 million gallons per day (mgd),

which comprises the vast maj ority of flow within Crystal River and makes Kings Bay one of the

world's largest known artesian springs complexes (Rosenau et al. 1977). The main channel of

Crystal River emerges from the northwestern section of Kings Bay, and then flows

approximately 6 miles to the west-northwest before discharging into the Gulf of Mexico (Scott et

al. 2002). Due to their position along the gulf coast, both Kings Bay and Crystal River are

subj ect to periodic storm surge-driven inputs of saline water. This chapter focuses specifically on

the Kings Bay headwater portions of the Crystal River ecosystem.

The constant influx of artesian spring water maintains a year round temperature of

approximately 72 degrees Fahrenheit and provides for clear water conditions in many areas of

Kings Bay. These ecological conditions historically have supported the growth of highly

productive submerged aquatic plant communities. This combination of warm spring water and

lush plant growth have also made Kings Bay one of the world' s most important habitats for

endangered West Indian manatees (Trichecus manatus) (Figure 4-2). Manatees are large,

herbivorous marine mammals that take winter refuge in Florida spring ecosystems due to their

inability to survive extended exposure to water temperatures below 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and

whose Florida population of approximately 3500 is primarily threatened by fatal collisions with









boats and toxins associated with near shore algal blooms. The recreational desirability of clear

water springs and the unique opportunity to view large numbers of a charismatic endangered

species serve as the foundations for an economically important nature-based tourism industry in

the Kings Bay/Crystal River area.

Over the past two decades there has been increasing concern among government agencies

and local stakeholders about a perceived deterioration of ecosystem conditions within Kings

Bay. Much of this concern stems from increased coverage of filamentous cyanobacteria mats

generally composed ofLyngbya wollei (Figure 4-3), decline of submerged macrophytes such as

native eel grass (Vallisneria amnericana) and nonnative hydrilla, and a decrease in water clarity

throughout Kings Bay (Munson 1999; SWFWMD 2004). The ongoing replacement of

submerged macrophytes with L. wollei is considered problematic by most Kings Bay

stakeholders for several reasons. Primary among these is that manatees feed extensively upon

most aquatic macrophytes, including preferentially upon nonnatives such as hydrilla and

Eurasian milfoil (M~yriophyllum spicatum) (Campbell and Irvine 1977; Silverberg and Morris

1987), but apparently find little to no food value in L. wollei (Anonymous 2005). Therefore, it is

feared that loss of submerged macrophytes in favor of L. wollei may directly threaten an

important winter food source for the endangered manatee population. In addition, loss of

macrophytes is correlated with decreased water clarity in Kings Bay (Munson 1999), a condition

that is thought to adversely affect recreational enj oyment and tourism within the ecosystem. L.

wollei' s general unattractive appearance, foul odor, and emission of toxins that can cause some

individuals to develop severe allergic reactions are other problems often cited by managers and

stakeholders (Gross and Martin 1996).









Due largely to the growing problems associated with the proliferation ofL. wollei, in 1988

the Kings Bay/Crystal River complex was listed by the Southwest Florida Water Management

District (SWFWMD) in its Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority list

(SWFWMD 2004). Under the provisions of Chapter 373.451 353.4595 in the Florida Statutes,

the SWIM Plan serves as the operative research and planning document for setting and achieving

ecosystem restoration and protection obj ectives within Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2000). The first

SWIM plan for Kings Bay was developed by SWFWMD in 1989, with extensive updates made

in 2000. The most recent SWIM Plan document establishes the primary restoration goals for

Kings Bay/Crystal River as improved water clarity, reduction of L. wollei, prevention of

sediment resuspension within the water column, re-vegetation of degraded areas with desirable

submerged macrophytes, and protection of the endangered manatee population (SWFWMD

2000). But despite many years of scientific research and management effort associated with the

SWIM Plan, the general consensus among managers and stakeholders is that the Kings Bay

ecosystem continues to steadily decline.

Watershed Context

Contaminant loadings from land use activities and hydrologic alterations within the

watersheds of aquatic systems are widely recognized as two primary factors to consider in

aquatic restoration proj ects. The Kings Bay/Crystal River watershed is characterized by highly

porous sandy soils that directly overlie and drain vertically into the cavernous limestone and

dolomite formations of the upper Floridan aquifer the source of the water that discharges from

the springs within Kings Bay (Jones et al. 1998). Such subsurface drainage catchments that

discharge into artesian springs are often referred to as "springsheds" (Scott et al. 2004). Most

Florida springsheds are known to be quite vulnerable to groundwater contamination from human

land- use activities due to the porosity of surface soils, lack of significant confining layers over









the Floridan aquifer, and the presence of many sinkhole features that can transport contaminated

runoff directly into the groundwater (Florida Springs Task Force 2000; Scott et al. 2004).

Previous studies have found a variety of nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical residues,

and other anthropogenic contaminants within Florida springs that have large areas of agricultural

and/or residential land usages within their springshed (Katz and Bohlke 2000; Phelps 2004).

However, nitrate-nitrogen, which can originate from fertilizer applications, discharge of human

and animal wastewater, and atmospheric deposition, is generally regarded as the contaminant of

most concern in many Florida springs, both due to the precipitous increases in nitrate-nitrogen

concentrations observed in springs throughout the state and the known potential of nitrate-

nitrogen to cause rapid eutrophication once it reaches aquatic systems (Jones et al. 1998; Florida

Springs Task Force 2000; Katz and Bohlke 2000; Phelps 2004; Scott et al. 2004).

Most of the current land-use within the Kings Bay springshed is characterized by low-

intensity timber, pasture, and agriculture that generally pose a low to moderate contamination

risk. However, more intensive land usages such as domestic lawns, golf courses, commercial

development, and municipal wastewater spray fields that pose greater contamination risks are

present and quickly increasing throughout the springshed (Jones et al. 1998; SWFWMD 2004).

Very little historic data have been collected for pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemical residues

within Kings Bay's springs, but quarterly nutrient samples for nutrients have been taken by

SWFWMD since June 1989. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations within Kings Bay's springs

currently range from approximately 0.2 0.5 parts per million (ppm) (SWFWMD 2004). While

relatively low in comparison to several other large Florida springs that often show nitrate-

nitrogen levels well over 1 ppm (Jones et al. 1998; Scott et al. 2004), the nitrate-nitrogen

concentrations within Kings Bay are thought to represent a twenty-fold increase over background









nitrate-nitrogen concentrations found within uncontaminated portions of the Floridan aquifer

(Jones et al. 1998). Unfortunately, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in Kings Bay's springs are

expected to continue increasing for the foreseeable future due to a known plume of extant

groundwater contamination and anticipated land-use intensification within the Kings Bay

springshed (Jones et al. 1998). Although increased nitrate-nitrogen levels within springs are

rightly viewed with great concern by regulatory agencies, scientific studies to date have shown

surprisingly little spatio-correlation or direct ecological relationship between increased

concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen and the increased L. wollei growth observed within Kings Bay

and other Florida springs (Romie 1990; Hoyer et al. 1997; Munson 1999; SWFWMD 2000;

Stevenson et al. 2004).

Direct surface runoff into Kings Bay is limited to relatively small areas of land adj acent to

the water body and is believed to contribute relatively minor amounts of contaminants on an

annual, mass-balance basis (SWFWMD 2004). However, the relatively high density of

commercial and residential land uses within this surface drainage basin and a drainage

infrastructure that directly loads stormwater from many impervious surfaces directly into Kings

Bay together indicate that localized pulses of heavy metals, petrochemicals, herbicides,

pesticides, and other anthropogenic contaminants from stormwater discharge points may play an

important role in the degradation of the ecosystem (SWFWMD 2004). Other historic hydrologic

alterations such as the dredging of numerous canals, filling and impoundment of fringing

wetlands, and construction of hardened sea walls along many areas of the shore are also thought

to have had deleterious ecological effects (SWFWMD 2004). Although some SWIM Plan

resources are currently being put into restoration proj ects aimed at improving stormwater

infrastructure and replacing some failed sea walls with vegetative buffers, the vast maj ority of









historic hydrologic alterations in Kings Bay are regarded as permanent due to the substantial

residential and commercial developments now located on filled lands as well as the scarcity and

high cost of land that could potentially be used for mitigation proj ects (SWFWMD 2004).

Participatory Methods

The genesis of this research was my participation in a University of Florida Conservation

Clinic (UFCC) proj ect to assist the City of Crystal River' s Kings Bay Water Quality

Subcommittee (KBWQS) in the development of model stormwater and landscaping ordinances.

The UFCC is a non-litigation based law clinic, housed in the Levin College of Law' s Center for

Governmental Responsibility, that utilizes teams of upper-level law and graduate students under

the direction of law faculty mentors to develop policy recommendations for private businesses,

non-profit organizations, and government agencies who are pursuing proj ects that further the

goals of environmental conservation. The KBWQS is a citizen-based group that advises the City

of Crystal River on policies related to improving water quality within Kings Bay, and is funded

through grants provided by the Waterfronts Florida Partnership of the Florida Department of

Community Affairs (DCA).

The model ordinance proj ect necessitated close collaboration with citizen and agency

stakeholders to rapidly develop working knowledge of the issues of concern in Kings Bay.

Stakeholders shared local knowledge about Kings Bay through in-depth conversations, both in

meetings of the KBWQS and through Hield trips into Kings Bay and surrounding areas of the

watershed. This collaborative process revealed that local citizens had a variety of different

concerns and opinions about the overall management of Kings Bay that went well beyond the

specific concerns about stormwater contamination, with many of these concerns focused on

historic and ongoing management of aquatic plants in the ecosystem.









After the completion of the UFCC proj ect in December 2004, I continued to regularly

attend and take detailed Hield notes of meetings held by the WQS. As described in Chapter 2, a

formal qualitative research protocol for in depth stakeholder interviews approved by the

University of Florida' s Institutional Review Board was utilized in the Crystal River area from

April August 2005. Due to the non-random selection methods use, the content of the interviews

is not necessarily expected to be reflective of general beliefs held by the population at large

within the Crystal River area. However, it is expected that the methodology used for this study

did provide a window into the local knowledge of citizens most involved and interested in the

Kings Bay ecosystem, and that better understanding of this local knowledge may provide

important insight into deficiencies within the "expert knowledge" of research and agency

scientists (Fischer 2000; Norton 2005).

Twenty-four stakeholders living in the Crystal River area were interviewed through the

research protocol. As this interview research progressed, it became clear that most local residents

shared similar concerns about the root causes of Kings Bay's degradation as those cited typically

cited by agency managers and research scientists, including springshed contamination, historic

hydrologic alterations, rapid development, and increased boat traffic (SWFWMD 2004).

However, a clear divergence between the perceptions of local residents interviewed and

information presented by management agencies was the suggestion of many residents that past

and present aquatic plant management activities were an important factor in the emergence and

persistence of L. wollei. Interest in better understanding this divergence prompted a review of

scientific literature on both Kings Bay and invasive aquatic plants such as water hyacinth,

hydrilla, and L. wollei. Findings of this literature review were then supplemented by direct









communications, public record e-mails, and conversational exchanges in public meetings with

research and agency scientists, particularly through participation in the KBWG.

The content of these qualitative research findings and subsequent literature review are used

in this chapter to construct an ecological history that focuses largely on aquatic plant

management activities in Kings Bay and the role that these activities may have played in shaping

and perpetuating the currently observed ecosystem state. The interview research presented as

local knowledge in this chapter is constructed through a triangulation method, in the sense that

independent verification of reported events and observations was made through discovery of

supporting documentation, scientific literature, and/or the consistency of multiple stakeholder

accounts. It is also noted in the chapter narrative whenever stakeholder accounts are the sole

source of a given claim.

The combination of local knowledge and supporting scientific literature is used as the

foundation for developing two scientific hypotheses: 1) chemical control of aquatic plants,

particularly through the usage of copper-herbicides in the 1970s and 1980s, may have caused

systemic disruptions of planktonic food chains, thereby contributing to the selection of a resistant

strain of L. wollei to become dominant among the phytoplankton community; and 2) increased

coverage and/or alternative management of nonnative macrophyte species, and particularly

experiments based upon recent advances in water hyacinth phytoremediation, may be more

consistent with the functional restoration of Kings Bay than current management strategies.

As described in Chapter 2, these hypotheses were then communicated in public forums and

public communications with agency stakeholders. Although legitimate concerns and even

cautious support regarding management experiments using nonnative plants were found through

public communications with agency personnel, significant institutional rigidities apparently









associated with non-contextual attributions of harm to nonnative species also were encountered.

The chapter concludes by suggesting that research and agency scientists should work closely

with local citizens to set up controlled experiments in which phytoremediation and alternative

management approaches towards nonnative macrophytes could be obj ectively evaluated as

potentially useful tools in an overall ecological restoration program in Kings Bay.

History of Nuisance Aquatic Plants in Kings Bay: 1950 2005

Management of "nuisance" aquatic plants has been an issue of great controversy and

central importance within the Kings Bay ecosystem for many decades. Although published

literature on Kings Bay largely focuses on the introduction of hydrilla in the early 1960s and

persistent L. wollei blooms that began in the mid-1980s (SWFWMD 2004), four long-time

Crystal River residents gave very similar first hand accounts indicating that aquatic plant

problems actually began in the early 1950s with the proliferation of water hyacinth mats

throughout many areas of Kings Bay and Crystal River.

Water hyacinth is a free-floating macrophyte species native to South America that has

become naturalized throughout many subtropical and tropical regions of the world over the past

100 years, and is commonly known as the "world's worst aquatic weed" due to its ability to

become invasive in waters with high levels of natural or anthropogenic nutrients (Gopal 1987).

Before turning to the specific remembrances of water hyacinth management in Kings Bay, it is

necessary to contextualize this management within the history of this plant and its control in

Florida. Schmitz et al. (1993, 173) note that water hyacinth became the first serious plant "pest"

in Florida soon after its introduction to the St. John's River in 1880s, with its spread greatly

aided by "cattlemen who held the mistaken belief that it made good cattle feed." Large

obstructions caused by hyacinths piling up around bridges were noted as soon as 1895, and

control operations based upon crushing, diversion, and removal of water hyacinth from the St.









Johns River by the USACE began with the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act in 1899

(Schmitz et al. 1993). By 1902, amendments to the Rivers and Harbors Act allowed for

extermination of water hyacinths using a variety of chemicals such as sodium arsenite, sulfuric

acid, carbolic acid, and kerosene (Schmitz et al. 1993). However, Buker (1982) notes that these

control methods were soon rejected due to toxicity to cows, and mechanical harvest became the

primary method of control throughout most of the early 20th century. The first trials of the

herbicide 2,4-D began in the mid 1940s, and the USACE began to employ 2,4-D against water

hyacinth in Florida by 1948 (Schmitz et al. 1993). This new herbicide was seen as an important

advance in the battle against water hyacinth due to its combination of strong herbicidal properties

and low acute toxicity to cattle and other animals (Joyce 1982). At its peak in the late 1950s,

water hyacinth was estimated to cover more than 50,000 hectares in Florida (Schmitz et al.

1993). Since the late 1950s, water hyacinth has been progressively controlled in Florida over the

past 50 years by federal, state, and local officials through treatment programs based largely upon

2,4-D and other aquatic herbicides.

The water hyacinth growth throughout Kings Bay during the 1950s was described by all

four informants as making navigation through some parts of Kings Bay and Crystal River very

difficult at times. Similar accounts among the informants suggest that these navigational issues

triggered the onset of an aggressive water hyacinth eradication program using broadcast

herbicides in the mid to late 1950s, a control program that all informants described as being

locally popular due to the various problems that came to be associated with hyacinth overgrowth.

While it must be noted that no specific records indicating the extent of the hyacinth coverage or

the types and amounts of chemicals that may have been used at Kings Bay/Crystal River for

hyacinth treatment in the 1950s have been located, common practice for this era indicates that









one acre of water hyacinth would likely have been treated with approximately 2 pounds of acid-

equivalent 2,4-D (Zeiger 1962).

Informants also suggested that water hyacinth had been known in Kings Bay and Crystal

River for many years, but, unlike many other areas of Florida, was not considered a particularly

invasive or nuisance species in Kings Bay before the 1950s. In fact, one of the informants, a

retired fisher, indicated that he had always considered water hyacinth "a very useful plant"

because of his contention that large concentrations of shrimp and other "bait" could reliably be

found in the hyacinth roots (see Tilghman 1962, 1963; Maltby 1963 for similar historical

accounts on the St. Johns River). Even after the water hyacinth mats began to proliferate, the

clear consensus among the four residents with recollection of this period is that the water clarity

of the open water areas of Kings Bay was as high as it had been previously or has ever been

since that time. In addition, all reported that the beginning of water hyacinth control operations

seemed to have undesirable impacts on the ecology of Kings Bay, including a perceived

relationship between the loss of water hyacinth, a decline in water clarity, and the subsequent

proliferation of another nuisance weed hydrilla.

If these remembrances about water hyacinth in Kings Bay/Crystal River circa 1950s are an

accurate representation of the ecological changes that occurred during this time, there would

appear to be a fairly straightforward explanation for the changed growth behavior of the water

hyacinth and the observed effects of its control. It is known that the 1950s marked the beginning

of largescale shoreline and watershed development around Kings Bay, which is thought to have

resulted in substantial increases of nutrient loadings from wastewater and fertilizer sources into

the water body (SWFWMD 2004). As can be visually deduced by comparing an aerial

photograph of Kings Bay taken in 1944 (Figure 4-4) with one taken in 1960 (Figure 4-5), many









shoreline alterations that destroyed fringing wetlands and directly resulted in increased sediment

loading into Kings Bay were associated with this development period (SWFWMD 2004). The

increased input of sediments and nutrients, disturbance of circulation patterns, and destruction of

fringing marshes associated with this development would be expected to provide ideal conditions

for water hyacinth to enter into a period of exponential, or invasive, growth (Gopal 1987; Odum

1994). Although this exponential growth clearly would be expected to cause navigational

problems similar to those reported by interview informants, the ability of water hyacinth to

sequester large amounts of soluble nutrients (Agami and Reddy 1990; Tripathi et al. 1991; Panda

and Kar 1996; Sooknah and Wilkie 2004), filter algae and other particulates in its fibrous roots

(Kim et al. 2001), and suppress phytoplankton blooms through allelopathy and other mechanisms

(Jin et al. 2003) may have helped maintain much of the water clarity and submerged aquatic

vegetation in the remaining open water areas (Hu et al. 1998) of Kings Bay.

While herbicides are quite effective in suppressing problem water hyacinth populations,

this control method also is known to release large amounts of nutrients and other contaminants

from the dying plants into the water column and bottom sediments (Reddy and Sacco 1981).

Thus, chemical control of water hyacinth particularly over large areas often can be followed

by large algae blooms (Clugston 1963; Chesnut and Barman 1974; Brower 1980; Grimshaw

2002) and/or explosive growth of highly productive submersed plants such as hydrilla (USACE

1973), both of which may cause problems of a similar or even worse magnitude as those

associated with the original water hyacinth growth.

Such a general relationship appears to have held in Kings Bay as the successful control of

water hyacinth was almost immediately replaced by explosive growth of the submersed hydrilla.

Hydrilla is a submersed macrophyte species native to Africa and Southeast Asia that spread









throughout the world in the latter part of the 20th Century, largely due to its historic popularity

within the aquarium trade and prolific growth capabilities within a wide range of environmental

conditions. The appearance of hydrilla within Kings Bay/Crystal River circa 1960 marks one of

the earliest of this invasive nonnative species within Florida (SWFWMD 2000). Since that time

hydrilla has quickly spread to become a severe nuisance species within many aquatic systems in

Florida and the southeastern United States.

Interview accounts indicate that the rapid growth and great spatial extent of the initial

hydrilla invasion within Kings Bay quickly resulted in a range of environmental and navigation

problems that dwarfed those previously associated with water hyacinth, thereby making hydrilla

control the new aquatic plant management priority within the ecosystem. Although the growth

and spread of hydrilla within Kings Bay perhaps was inevitable after its introduction, work by

Fontaine (1978) suggests that enriched sediments deposited by previously treated water hyacinth

mats would be expected to exacerbate the subsequent problems posed by the growth of the

submersed species. In addition, the extreme hydrologic disturbance and creation of "bare"

aquatic habitat associated with the dredging of numerous canals in Kings Bay in the 1960s and

1970s (Figure 4-6) likely were additional factors that facilitated the rapid spread of hydrilla over

this period.

Early hydrilla control efforts in Kings Bay were varied and largely ineffective, including a

now notorious attempt to control hydrilla through the application of large amounts of sulfuric

acid obtained from a nearby phosphate mine into several areas of Kings Bay. While an initial

report indicated somewhat favorable results from the sulfuric acid treatment method (Phillipy

1966), aquatic plant managers later suggested that this treatment had only temporary effects on

hydrilla and severe detrimental effects on both fish and desirable aquatic vegetation (Friedman









1987). A more long-term hydrilla treatment program using a combination of copper-based and

several other types of herbicide formulations was instituted in the 1970s and continued

throughout much of the 1980s (Haller et al. 1983). However, this program also was considered

by many citizens and managers to be ineffective and counter-productive (Dick 1989), and copper

herbicides eventually were discontinued as a hydrilla control strategy after elevated levels of

copper were detected in Kings Bay's sediments and the organs of deceased manatees (O' Shea et

al. 1984; Facemire 1991; Leslie 1992; SWFWMD 2000). A hydrilla management program based

upon shredding, mechanical harvest in navigational trails, and limited application of non-copper

containing herbicide formulations of diquat, endothall, and flurodine was instituted in the late

1980s (Dick 1989; Cowell and Botts 1994) and remains the foundation of the current hydrilla

management plan within Kings Bay (Anonymous 2005).

Noticeable blooms of filamentous algae such as L. wollei were first recorded in Kings Bay

in the late 1970s and early 1980s (SWFWMD 2004), but, likely due to the continued dominance

of hydrilla, the coverage and persistence of these blooms reportedly remained at low levels for

several years (Dick 1989). Large scale L. wollei blooms throughout Kings Bay were first

reported in September 1985, soon after temporary salinity increases associated with the storm

surge of Hurricane Elena reduced the hydrilla population in Kings Bay by over 90% (Dick 1989;

SWFWMD 2004). Despite the historic problems associated with water hyacinth and hydrilla, the

emergent L. wollei invasion was almost universally regarded as having even more deleterious

effects on wildlife habitat, recreational desirability, and overall aesthetics within Kings Bay

(Dick 1989).

Almost all informants interviewed indicated that hydrilla populations recovered and L.

wollei blooms progressively lessened for several years after the 1985 storm surge (see also









Cowell and Botts 1994). However, ongoing aquatic plant management activities (Cowell and

Botts 1994) and additional storm surges associated with the "Storm of the Century" in March

1993 resulted in further displacement of hydrilla in Kings Bay (Bishop 1995; SWFWMD 2004).

While the 1993 storm surge also reportedly resulted in temporary declines of L. wollei and

increased coverage of more salt-tolerant macrophytes such as Eurasian milfoil and native tape

grass throughout many areas of Kings Bay (SWFWMD 2004), L. wollei quickly rebounded to

become an almost complete monoculture throughout the north central, northeastern, and

southeastern portions of Kings Bay (Frazer and Hale 2001). Submersed macrophyte communities

dominated largely by Eurasian milfoil with interspersed hydrilla, tape grass, and small amounts

of several other native species persist in the central, south central, southwestern, and

northwestern sections of Kings Bay (Frazer and Hale 2001). However, almost all interview

informants indicate that these macrophyte communities are increasingly impacted by the effects

of intensive manatee grazing throughout the winter and smothering associated with ecosystem-

wide blooms of L. wollei in the spring and summer.

Factors Related to Lynzgbya wollei Dominance

The underlying factors that resulted in the establishment and persistence of the L. wollei

community currently observed throughout many areas of Kings Bay are not well understood.

While some state agencies suggest that L. wollei is an invasive nonnative species that was

introduced into Kings Bay in the early 1980s (SWFWMD 2004), very little evidence to support

this claim, aside from the invasive behavior exhibited by L. wollei, currently exists. Whitford's

(1956) work in which five specific Lyngbya strains and a general category of undifferentiated

Lyngbya sp. were identified within Florida springs ecosystems, including Kings Bay/Crystal

River, indicates that L. wollei is more likely an indigenous cyanobacteria species that has