View
6
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
W t Q lit Water Quality
SKG report contentSKG report content Regulatory related issues Phosphorus criterion Phosphorus criterion Active lawsuits and resulting WQ actions
Numerous approaches for studying Numerous approaches for studying Surface water chemistry Soil nutrient conditions Soil nutrient conditions Periphyton responsesV t ti h Vegetation change And many others
“Methods for securing water quality conditions compatible with restorationgoals for a natural system that was inherently extremely nutrient poorgoals for a natural system that was inherently extremely nutrient poor,
particularly with respect to phosphorus.” (NRC Component 4).
Knowledge Gained Regarding Everglades Water Quality 3 1 Ecological Impacts of Water Quality 3.1 Ecological Impacts of Water Quality 3.1.1 Nutrients in Lake Ecosystems: Lake Okeechobee Sediments 3.1.2 Nutrients in Marsh Ecosystems: Phosphorus 3.1.3 Nutrients in Estuarine Ecosystems: Algal Blooms 3.1.4 Periphyton‐Water Quality Relationships
h l d h h l d l d l 3.1.5 Mercury in the Everglades: The South Florida Mercury Bioaccumulation Module and the Mercury Monitoring and Assessment Program
3.1.6 Sulfur in the Everglades 3.1.7 Copper in the Everglades 3 1 7 1 Copper Contamination in Florida Apple Snails (Pomacea paludosa) 3.1.7.1 Copper Contamination in Florida Apple Snails (Pomacea paludosa) 3.1.8 Other Contaminants in the Everglades
3.2 Technologies to Achieve Water Quality 3.2.1 Structural Technologies: Stormwater Treatment Areasg
4.1.1 Phosphorus‐related Biogeochemical Processes in Ridge and Slough Landscapes
Nutrient Thresholds Surface Water Chemistry
1 TP)
160
180
200
cattail becomes dominant
Surface Water Chemistry
horu
s (µ
g L-
120
140
160
cattail invasion of sloughs
cattail becomes dominant
umn
phos
ph
60
80
100- periphyton species composition
- plant and periphyton P content- microbial enzyme activity- invertebrate species composition
changes in:
Wat
er c
olu
20
40
60 - sediment phosphorus content
Distance from canal (km)-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
I di t f E t R t tiIndicators of Ecosystem Restoration
SKG t t t SKG report content
Level playing field with Conceptual Ecological p y g p gModels
Structured process to develop selection Structured process to develop selection criteria
Communication tools
Translation for management purposesTranslation for management purposes
“Retention, improvement, and expansion of the full range of habitats by preventing further losses of critical wetland and estuarine habitats and by protecting lands that further losses of critical wetland and estuarine habitats and by protecting lands that
could usefully be part of the restored ecosystem.” (NRC Component 5).
Ecological Indicators 4 2 1 CERP System‐wide Indicators 4.2.1 CERP System‐wide Indicators 4.2.1.1 Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) 4.2.1.2 Wading Birds 4.2.1.3 Oysters 4.2.1.4 Prey Fish 4 1 2 Tree Islands and Everglades Restoration 4.1.2 Tree Islands and Everglades Restoration 4.1.3 Oligohaline and Mesohaline Habitat, Southern Estuaries
CERP Module‐specific Ecological Indicators 4 2 2 1 Lake Okeechobee 4.2.2.1 Lake Okeechobee 4.2.2.2 Northern Estuaries 4.2.2.3 Greater Everglades 4.2.2.4 Southern Coastal Systems 4.1.3 The Significance of Oligohaline and Mesohaline Habitat in the Southern Coastal Systems 4 1 4 Ecological Implications of Restoring Freshwater Flows to Florida Bay 4.1.4 Ecological Implications of Restoring Freshwater Flows to Florida Bay
“What” and the “Why”
drivers
stressors
criticallinkageslinkages
ecologicalattributes
1 Is the indicator relevant to the ecosystem and does it respond to 1. Is the indicator relevant to the ecosystem and does it respond to variability at a scale that makes it applicable to the entire system or an important portion of it?
2. Is the indicator feasible to implement (i.e. is someone already doing it?)it?)
3. Is the indicator sensitive to system drivers?4. Is the indicator interpretable in a “common” language?5. Are there situations where an “optimistic” trend in the indicator
might suggest a “pessimistic” restoration trend?might suggest a pessimistic restoration trend?6. Are there situations where a “pessimistic” trend in the indicator may
be unrelated to restoration?7. Is the indicator scientifically defensible?8 Can clear measurable targets be established for the indicator to allow 8. Can clear measurable targets be established for the indicator to allow
for evaluation of success?9. Does the indicator have enough specificity to be able to be used to
correct or redirect restoration actions?10. Does the suite of indicators cover the critical range of ecosystem 10. Does the suite of indicators cover the critical range of ecosystem
“features” including processes and structures?11. Is the indicator integrative?
“System‐wide” (a spatial and temporal context)
Periphyton responds to environmental drivers very rapidly at both small and large spatial scales
Crocodilians respond more slowly to environmental drivers
d l i land at larger spatial scales
Report Card for the Evergladestranslating data into-translating data into
information into technically-sound stoplightsy p g
ManagementAction
OPTION 3
ManagementAction
OPTION 2
ManagementAction
OPTION 1TargetStressor
metric
Changeoperations to
meet flows
Salinityrange of 10-25 ppt
Salinity
Operationsto avoid toomuch or tooStock adultsStock larvae
PresenceAbsence
adults andRecruitment
Try differentAdd tAcres of
little flow inkey months
adults andlarvae
Dredge mucky
substratee.g., concrete
Add oystershell cultchSuitable
habitatSubstrate
Recommended