REPORT OF THE FLORIDA BAY SCIENCE OVERSIGHT PANEL

Perspectives from the 2001 Florida Bay Science Conference

Submitted to the

Program Management Committee of the

Interagency Florida Bay Science Program

 

 

By

 

John E. Hobbie, chair

Marine Biological Laboratory

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

 

William C. Boicourt

Horn Point Laboratory

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Cambridge, Maryland

 

Kenneth L. Heck, Jr.

Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory

Dauphin Island, Alabama

 

Edward T. Houde

Chesapeake Bay Laboratory

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Solomons Island, Maryland

 

Steven C. McCutcheon

Hydrologic and Environmental Engineering

Athens, Georgia

 

Jonathan Pennock

Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory

Dauphin Island, Alabama

INTRODUCTION

The Florida Bay Science Oversight Panel (FBSOP) is an independent peer-review group charged with providing regular, broad, technical, and management review of the Interagency Florida Bay Science Program (hereafter called the Florida Bay Program).  This panel was first convened August 17, 1993 at the request of George T. Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the U.S. Department of Interior.  The panel reviews agency plans, Program Management Committee (PMC) strategies for program development, scientific quality of research, modeling and monitoring, and research results (Armentano et al. 1994; Armentano et al. 1996).  The FBSOP consists of six senior scientists with significant experience in estuarine research and major estuarine restoration programs; they have no involvement in Florida Bay Program projects.  Since the 1999 review and report, Linda Deegan and John Milliman have resigned from the FBSOP and Edward Houde has joined the panel.  Following the initial August 17, 1993 evaluation, the PMC has requested reviews that have taken place October 17-18, 1995, December 10-12, 1996, May 12-14, 1998, November 1-5, 1999, and April 24-26, 2001.  Starting in 1995, the FBSOP has participated in the Florida Bay Science Conferences by formally leading question and answer sessions and by providing written reports to the PMC that present critical reviews and recommendations for advancing and coordinating the program.  The five previous reports are Boesch et al. 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1998 and Hobbie et al. 2000.  The five members of the FBSOP who were able to attend the 2001 Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Conference author this sixth report.  The sixth author is Jonathan Pennock, who substituted for Hans Paerl for this meeting.

At the request of the PMC, FBSOP members also suggest membership and chair ad hoc advisory panels of experts in specialized subject areas who participate in technical workshops where critical research issues, interagency coordination, and management alternatives are addressed.  These advisory panels also provide written recommendations that the PMC accepts as guidance in coordinating the interagency program (Armentano et al. 1997).  The Florida Bay workshops have included the Modeling Workshop (April 17-18, 1996), Nutrients (July 1-2, 1996), Design and Specification of the Florida Bay Water Quality Model (October 22-24, 1996), Higher Trophic Level Initiative (November 4-5, 1997), Seagrass Model Workshop (January 13-14, 1998), Paleoecology and Ecosystem History (January 22-23, 1998) and Progress Review of Florida Bay Models (May 11, 1998).  Other PMC workshops and research team meetings, at which members FBSOP were not present include the Physical Science Team Workshop (September 4-5, 1997), Hurricane Georges Retrospective (November 20, 1998), Physical Science Team meeting (March 22, 1999), Phytoplankton Bloom Workshop (May 25-26, 1999), Higher Trophic Level Team Planning Workshop (June 14, 1999), Florida Bay Salinity Modeling Workshop (August 30-31, 1999), and Florida Bay Water Quality Model (September 13, 1999).  In January 2000 the Higher Trophic Level Team met with new FBSOP member Ed Houde.

The 2001 Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Conference was held at the Westin Beach Resort, in Key Largo, Florida, on April 24-26.  As in past conferences, the five major questions (see below) were each taken up separately.  However, to allow more time for synthesis of the results, the investigators presented posters instead of talks.  A poster session for each question was followed by a single talk aimed at bringing together the results in a synthetic manner.  This talk was followed by a lengthy question and comment period.  There were 99 posters presented; abstracts of the posters were available for the Conference (Anonymous 2001).

On the afternoon of 26 April, several speakers took part in a discussion titled “So What?  Synthesis Wrap-up Session”.  This was, in effect, a report on the recently mandated federal-state programs for management of Bay resources.  Cheryl Ulrich of the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers presented the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which needs specific information from the Florida Bay Program about the impact on the Bay of various amounts and timing of Everglades freshwater, nutrients, and contaminants.  Deborah Peterson also of the Jacksonville District, introduced the Florida Bay and Florida Keys Feasibility Study.  The Feasibility Study is evaluating Florida Bay and connections to adjacent waters to determine the land use changes that are needed to successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions, and preserve the quality of the Bay in the future. 

Some of the members of the Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE), a committee of the National Research Council, attended the Conference.  After the Conference, on 26 April, the FBSOP and the PMC met with the CROGEE to answer questions about the science review and about the Florida Bay Program.

In response to the information presented during the Conference, and especially during the final afternoon, it is clear that the goal of the Florida Bay Program has moved in the direction recommended by the FBSOP in the last several reviews.  The provision of scientific information to restoration and resource managers has become an important part of the program.  A member of the PMC said, "Six years of the Florida Bay Program provided a wealth of information but had little connection to management questions.  This is the opportunity.”  The FBSOP continues to believe that this shift represents a proper change in direction .  However, the information provided still must be based on the best possible science.  We endorse the observations of the program managers that include (1) the necessary information has to arise from a scientific understanding about coastal waters and Florida Bay in particular, and (2) research and synthesis must continue in order to reach the appropriate level of understanding to manage impacts on the Bay by humans.

In this context of the maturing program, we would like to emphasize that the present function of the FBSOP is to review and advise on the quality and direction of the science completed and proposed.  It is still not in our purview to fully comment on the management and restoration of the Florida Bay resources, which the FBSOP hopes will be based on this scientific understanding, or the interactions of the program with the private, state, and federal organizations, agencies, taskforces, and plans.

Based on the information presented at the 1999 and 2001 Florida Bay Conferences, the FBSOP concludes that:

·        The goals of producing quality research information about the five central questions of the Florida Bay environment were appropriate and necessary during the first six years of the program, but now a revised strategic plan is necessary.

·        The program must continue the shift of  focus to scientific study that permits the timely delivery of appropriate information to restoration and resource managers.

·        The appropriate information must be based on scientific studies of Florida Bay as a system.  The information has to be derived from understanding synthesized from detailed knowledge of Florida Bay and of the processes and ecology of other marine ecosystems where appropriate.

Due to the limited time and different conference format, this report is not as comprehensive as the past reviews and may not cover all elements of the program as in past reports .

 

FINDINGS

 

1.      Quality and progress of the research.  Overall, the research being carried out through the Florida Bay Program is of good quality.  Many discipline-oriented papers and ideas have been produced.  As a result of the natural maturation, as well as the presence of managers, management programs, and looming deadlines there has also been strong interest in compiling the disparate bits of information into patterns and overarching concepts describing the environment of Florida Bay.  We found at this meeting that  there has been  progress in analysis and synthesis over the past 18 months.  The draft synthesis papers (where available) are concrete evidence of the progress.  However, as might be expected from the wide range of questions with various degrees of difficulty, synthesis was not uniformly successful across all five central questions.  The next step, the difficult task of iteratively and dynamically communicating with restoration and resource managers, must be mastered very quickly.  This step will be helped by the definition of a clear set of desired end points for the management of Florida Bay. (Typical desired endpoints for coastal waters include clear water, maximal fisheries production, phytoplankton blooms less than 10 µg chlorophyll L-1, maximum sea grass species diversity, and many others, but the FBSOP emphases these are to be selected by resource managers specifically for Florida Bay and will result from public comment and scientific guidance.)

2.      Response to previous comments.  The FBSOP noted case after case where the researchers have made real efforts to respond to comments from previous  reviews.  This was particularly noted for the Physical Science Team where an excellent data set of a single basin has been developed that can be used for evaluating models.  Except for the lack of progress in developing interior circulation modeling, efforts addressing Question No. 1 should be commended for both responsiveness and progress toward synthesis.  Other efforts that are moving more slowly are noted in the following discussion of the organizing five questions.

3.      Success in synthesis within the five question areas.  The FBSOP report on the 1999 Conference (Hobbie et al. 2000) challenged the PMC and teams to present synthetic views of the understanding of the various parts of the Florida Bay system.  We realized that this was a challenge but the values of synthesizing research are indisputable (see Hobbie, 2000, Estuarine Science, Island Press).  The results were both encouraging and discouraging.  Most teams brought together some of their results in a summary form.  Some were able to move beyond this beginning to synthesize results into a modeling framework. 

¨           The modeling group from Texas A&M presented one whole-system carbon model for the planktonic system.  This effort also highlighted and identified the missing pieces for a complete carbon flux model when Burd et al. noted the lack of information on microbial respiration and the microbial loop in general.

¨           Another advance was the model of turtle grass growth under development.  Here, the relationships between sea grass growth and control factors such as the concentration of hydrogen sulfide and temperature are incorporated into a single mathematical model that shows how these interactions change throughout the year and are affected by such things as circulation, salinity, and the buildup of plant biomass.  Some of the information comes from appropriate process studies in other estuaries and marine areas that must be confirmed for use in Florida Bay.  The model is nearly at the stage of having the capability to aid in addressing “what if” scenarios about effects of changes in temperature and salinity on the growth and survival of turtle grass beds.

¨           When these scientific efforts can be properly synthesized and integrated within the proposed operational water quality and seagrass model, the program will have a significant body of science that can not be ignored in resource and restoration management.

4.      Encouraging synthesis.  The FBSOP is concerned that the full scientific and management value of the extensive scientific efforts may not be realized if support and personnel are reduced. 

¨           The usual pattern in these large interdisciplinary programs is that disciplinary research is published first.  This consumes most of the time and funding with the result that there is little resource left for the synthetic work.  The PMC appears to share this concern and is considering measures to retain key investigators and to ensure continuation of these important efforts despite the decline of research funds.  But it is not clear to the FBSOP that the essential research efforts have been prioritized and protected in this process. 

¨           Another problem is there is a shortage of synthetic thinkers on the research teams.  This shortage is true of most research disciplines so it is unrealistic to expect that the leaders of synthesis in the research teams will automatically arise from within these projects.  It does require a special set of talents, interests, and skills to spearhead synthesis efforts.  And we should point out that modelers can be leaders in these efforts or modelers could be a part of a synthesis team led by a non-modeler.  In any case, there is a need for leaders who will provide a spark, a sense of urgency, and experience about what is the best way to go.  Selecting leadership for synthesis is the vital next step for the Program but seems to be lagging.

¨           The Florida Bay Program has a number of people capable of spearheading these synthesis efforts on the various teams and on the PMC itself.  There has to be a clear recognition of what it takes to lead a synthetic effort and identification of exactly who is to do this.  If no leaders can be identified or developed within a team, then someone from outside should be brought in by requests for proposals or direct hiring.

5.      Hydrodynamic modeling.  Modeling is crucial for scientific synthesis in this region for two obvious reasons: 1) the shallow, heterogeneous, and topographically controlled ecosystem is complex, and 2) accurate models are the only defendable mechanism for predicting the effects of man’s activity on Florida Bay.  Although the hydrodynamic modeling was in abeyance this past year, some of the efforts essential to modeling went forward. 

¨           In addition to the circulation studies in the interior of Florida Bay, observations and modeling of the sources and sinks (surface inflows, groundwater inflows, and evaporation) addressed some areas of concern. 

¨           A modeling workshop produced “Terms of Reference” that provides valuable guidance to both model construction and testing phases.  The FBSOP fully endorses these advances.  In other areas, opportunities were missed.  The Modeling Evaluation Group (MEG) was recommended at the last meeting by the FBSOP (Hobbie et al. 2000), but was not reconstituted during the past year .  Such a group can provide valuable expert review and guidance and should be considered.

6.      Community modeling: hydrodynamic and water quality models.  To break the circulation modeling deadlock, the FBSOP suggests a modified community modeling approach that has proven successful in other regions.  Within the past decade, the evolution of what is now called community modeling has fundamentally changed the manner in which hydrodynamic, water quality, and ecosystem models have been developed, applied, and tested.  Community models, constructed by a small team of developers, are made available to the community of users (with some reasonable restrictions) via downloading from the Internet.  These models are then further developed and tested by a distributed group of interested researchers, who then contribute experience and improvements to the larger community.  Examples of community hydrodynamic models are the Rutgers Ocean Modeling System (ROMS), the Princeton Ocean Model (POM), QUODDY, maintained by Dartmouth College, the Miami Ocean Model (MOM), and the Harvard Ocean Model.  A key element of these successful efforts has been the willingness of the host institutions to carry out the important functions of archiving, version-maintenance, and distribution.  But clearly, the most important aspect is that, in the face of the sometimes daunting complexity of three-dimensional modeling, these efforts bring a significantly broader development and testing capability than can be provided by any one institution.  And this wider experience contributes to a sense of trust and acceptance of model performance.  Based on the success of the community model approach, we recommend that the Florida Bay program consider seriously how to use this larger community approach. In any case, whether or not the community model is chosen, the FBSOP recommends proceeding boldly toward the development of an accurate hydrodynamic model to aid synthesis and prediction.

7.      Community modeling: water quality and ecosystem domains.  Community modeling efforts for water quality date to the 1970s for the U.S. EPA Center for Water Quality Modeling (several models), U.S. Geological Survey (several models), and the Storm Water Management Model, and are now beginning in ecosystem modeling.  The Florida Bay seagrass models, whether the two conceptual models or the Madden process model, have some of the essential attributes.  Regardless of the model type, the biological and chemical constructs should be extended to the crucial phase of testing.  Too often, model components, structure, and pathways were discussed for Florida Bay, but the vital testing was either neglected or insufficient.  Without engaging in the processes of calibration and quantitative skill assessment, modeling efforts are likely to produce erroneous or even misleading results. 

8.      In some senses, Larry Brand’s thought experiments are an appropriate testing of models, albeit conceptual ones.  Although this exercise may at times be vexing for its tendency to oversimplify or perhaps stretch meager evidence, it nonetheless challenges the collected expertise to focus and test ideas on the larger questions.  In this regard, it seems valuable to the Florida Bay Program.

9.      The 2001 Science Conference: suggestions for a future conference.  The plans for the 2001 Conference were based on a commitment to find the best manner in which to review the program. 

¨           Regrettably, the execution of the new format did not fully meet the needs of the PMC and FBSOP.  Several PMC members, team leaders, and synthesis reporters noted areas for improvement that included: (1) the final synthesis and review of other important programs should have been used to lead off the conference, and (2) the synthesis presentation should have preceded the poster sessions. 

¨           Although the move towards synthesis of the new venue was much appreciated by the FBSOP, we were still overloaded and found it impossible to obtain an overall view of the program results and of the synthetic understanding.  Members of the FBSOP were not able to review the entire draft syntheses document before the conference although some materials, such as the Sea Grant program and the annual State of the Bay report by Brock, were provided in plenty of time.  Further, some of the synthesis presentations dealt with the last six years while some focussed on recent progress.  The poster sessions were too short to see all the work and lacking an up front synthesis presentation it was difficult to prioritize review of the more important posters. 

¨     One member of the FBSOP believes that the time at the meeting was so short and that the level of synthesis was so uneven that there is some danger that this report does not reflect the true state of affairs of the program.  Thus, we have to put forth the caveat that the report represents the majority view of the FBSOP.

¨     We conclude that there needs to be a discussion between the PMC and the FBSOP about the format of the next Florida Bay Conference.  This could be in the form of a conference call between the PMC and FBSOP to take place approximately six months before the next conference.  One possible model is the site review of NSF-LTER (Long-Term Ecological Research program) projects.  A comprehensive documentation of goals and progress has to be in the hands of the review team one month before the date of the review.  While this solution is probably not practicable given the realities of the help available to the PMC, it would serve as a “straw man” for a model that would work.  See also the recommendation about the need for an executive officer.

10.  The need for a new strategic plan for the Florida Bay Science Program.  At the 2001 Florida Bay Conference, the PMC suggested that the Florida Bay Science Program needs to modify the strategic plan for research and support of resource management.  The FBSOP endorses modification of the strategic plan for a number of reasons as follows:

¨           Modification will reflect the maturation of the program from one meeting only scientific goals to one also meeting restoration and resource management objectives

¨           The program as it now exists with five central questions needs review to make certain that the relevant questions are being asked (e.g., paleoecology and sedimentology are no longer prominent in the program yet will be needed for the discussion of the target of the restoration)

11.  Designing a strategic plan.  The planning process proposed by the PMC should consider the following:

¨           Priority should be given to those scientific questions that will help meet restoration and resource management objectives.  In this regard, some of the five central questions need modification and redirection.

¨           A clear tactical planning process must be included to define specific schedules, objectives, and enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration.

¨           A PMC membership that mixes environmental scientists with scientists skilled in the application of science and engineering.

12.  Elements of a strategic plan.  For the sustainability of the Program, the new strategic plan should consider the following:

¨           Ecological history of the Bay to address issues such as restoration targets, management objectives, and the natural variability versus the perceived anthropogenic impact;

¨           Holistic ecological interaction between Florida Bay and the adjoining ecosystems, including the (1) Everglades, especially the dynamic freshwater, nutrient, and toxic chemical flux, (2) Gulf of Mexico, specifically the Shark River plume and recruitment, (3) Florida Current (inlet exchange), and (4) Keys terrestrial and wetland land uses;

¨           Circulation, fate, and transport within Florida Bay to define habitat and water quality;

¨           Models for (1) hindcasting to test models and determine causes of past problems, (2) simulating present and future anthropogenic effects, (3) investigating restoration and management options including at least causeway removal, Everglades hydroperiod management, wetland restoration, fisheries management, and tourism management), (4) forecasting global climate change impacts, and 5) preparing extreme events (hurricanes, and oil and chemical spills);

¨           Definition of current and future resources.

13.  Need for an executive officer.  Although the FBSOP is only aware of some of the activities carried out by a person in this position, an executive officer is clearly needed to provide the continuity, organization, and effort to coordinate the overall project.  This person will have to perform a complex balancing act of bringing together the needs, abilities, and funding opportunities of various agencies while keeping in focus the need for scientific understanding.  The FBSOP recommends that this hiring receive the highest priority; can the goals of the Program really be accomplished without this additional coordination?

 

PROGRESS IN ADVANCING THE EXISTING STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FLORIDA BAY

 

CENTRAL QUESTION #1:  How and at what rates do storms, changing freshwater flows, sea level rise and local evaporation/precipitation influence circulation and salinity patterns within Florida Bay and the outflow from the Bay to adjacent waters?

 

            At the time of the last conference, substantial progress had been made on establishing the (1) basic circulation on the periphery of Florida Bay, (2) transport through the Key passages, and (3) external boundary conditions.  In the opinion of the FBSOP, three primary areas need increased focus.  These focus areas include: (1) description of the circulation processes in the interior of Florida Bay,  (2) increased accuracy in estimates of freshwater surface inflows, groundwater inflows, and evaporation, and (3) circulation modeling.

            Through the auspices of NOAA/SFERPM, USGS, and SFWMD, new data-collection studies directed toward the first two issues were funded and carried out.  And although specific modeling projects were placed on hold (partly in response to FBSOP criticism), important related efforts went forward.  The Physical Science Team reviewed the RMA10 and FATHOM models, Modeling Terms of Reference were developed, and a Standard Data Set was established for model construction, calibration, and testing.

            The redirected focus of the observational group has spurred substantial progress toward understanding the crucial interior circulation of Florida Bay, where the shallowness and basin-bank-and-channel complexity challenges both observational and modeling approaches.  Through judicious concentration of limited observational resources on a few representative central basins, a complementary program of Eulerian and Lagrangian (drogue and dye tracers) studies are beginning to reveal the crucial flow details in this highly structured regime.  Essential quantitative estimates of fluxes through the Key passages have been constructed.  Furthermore, a basic climatology of seasonal and synoptic circulation patterns, both within the Bay and in the surrounding region, has been developed.  Most importantly, this knowledge of the climatology has been partitioned with respect to the forcing fields and incorporated into a basic dynamic description, complete with stated measurement uncertainties.  The next step in this effort is to exploit these results to calibrate and verify a numerical model, which then in turn can be used to aid quantitative interpretations of the data.  This need and the advantages of using the model in the analysis of observations are clearly recognized by the investigators .

            In the synthesis paper for Question No. 1, a list of important remaining questions and the appropriate research plans for developing answers are outlined.  The ongoing inner basin studies are essential, primarily for understanding these slow, topographically controlled flows and interbasin exchanges.  In addition, these flows and exchanges are essential for calibrating a numerical model and for constraining the groundwater flow estimates.  The forcing and variability of the low-salinity flow emanating from the West Florida Shelf is also an important question, and continued long-term measurements are suggested.  But answering this question might require an extended program.  Perhaps some prioritization is warranted.  For example, if research funds are limited and the needs of accurate modeling simulations are pressing, what would be the minimum array of monitoring sensors required for data assimilation?

            The difficult issue of ground water inputs to Florida Bay is being addressed by multiple efforts.  Of particular interest are the results of Price and Swart, indicating the combined freshwater and recirculated salt-water flow delivered to the Bay.  However, the present estimates of ground water flow are uncertain to the point where the best guesses are in conflict with the circulation water budget and salt balances.  The circulation information suggests that groundwater is not a major contributor to Florida Bay as a whole, but the low volumes and high residence times of the interior basins also indicate that freshwater flows are likely to be important to the local salinity regimes, especially in the northern basins.  Ongoing investigations are needed to bound and reconcile the widely varying groundwater estimates.  Inverse estimates from a calibrated numerical circulation model are needed to help determine when these estimates are accurate enough, especially because the phase of ground and surface water hydroperiods diverge.

            Surface inflow work appears to be on track to provide accurate estimates of freshwater inflows to Florida Bay.  The initial water budget (Nuttle et al., 2000, Water Resources Research 36:1805-1822) is a welcome benchmark for guiding research and focusing refinement efforts.  At present, the transfer function work is helpful in exploring simpler relationships between the freshwater flow and salinities in the nearshore basins in the Bay.  Ultimately, these relationships should be tested, and if necessary, supplanted when a verified circulation model is produced. 

            The efforts to improve estimates of amount and spatial structure of evaporation and precipitation over the Florida Bay system (Price, Swart, and Nuttle) are to be commended.  In addition, the previous work on the precipitation fields such as the use of NEXRAD data and the Advanced Regional Prediction System has been augmented by analysis of observations (Smith and Pratt) and the development of a real-time, high-resolution Regional Model Forecast System (Chen et al.).  Furthermore, the high-resolution rainfall and moisture transport simulations are being tested with radar and rain gauge measurements.  And finally, improved hurricane forecasts are being sought via improvements in forecast models; these include high-resolution, coupled atmosphere-ocean models with wave generation.  All efforts appear very relevant to the effort toward answering Question No. 1.  The FBSOP is somewhat uncertain as to the mechanisms for synthesizing and incorporating the results of this research into other modeling efforts for circulation, water quality, and biological resources.  What are the plans for using these promising new tools?  In light of impending management decisions, asking this question does not seem premature.

            The historical salinity work is an attractive complement to the circulation and source/sink investigations that provide crucial information on the longer-time-scale variability.  The retrospective reach of the historical salinity data is extended by paleoecology and paleochemistry work.  These studies can establish benchmarks for the analysis of shifts and trends and for testing the long-term accuracy of numerical models.  As stated earlier, there is a concern that the full value of these studies may not be realized if funding lapses.

            Finally, we have some comments on modeling.  Now that the detailed circulation work on the interior basin-and-channel circulation is being carried out, consideration should be given to reviving the box-modeling efforts.  Although the FATHOM model received due criticism, which led to the suspension of further development effort, such a construct may prove valuable as an interim tool during the development of a primitive-equation model of the Bay.  One of the failings of the FATHOM model was its obvious dependence on accurate interbasin exchanges, which lacked observational basis.  With the intensive basin studies underway, sufficiently accurate exchange estimates may be forthcoming to support the calibration of such a box-model approach.  The payoff would be the development of water and salt-balance estimates to provide best-guess guidance for the initial management decisions on water diversion.

            Regardless of the decision on reviving FATHOM, the need to proceed toward a fully resolved numerical model of the Florida Bay system is clear.  In light of the forthcoming observations on the interior basin-bank-and-channel circulation details, the decision for a two-dimensional model needs to be reexamined.  Despite the shallowness, extension to the third spatial dimension continues to seem warranted, especially with the evolving state of the art of high-resolution primitive equation modeling.  In addition, the choice between finite-element and finite-difference models should be revisited, especially in light of the needs of the dependent water-quality models.  Finite-element grids, while enabling efficient resolution of complex topography, have difficulties with conserving mass locally and cannot be practically linked to finite difference water quality and ecosystem models.  Regardless of the choice, the incorporation of a water quality model into a hydrodynamic model would be greatly facilitated if the gridding scheme were identical in both models.

Given the pressing need for a calibrated and verified circulation model for the Bay, significant time might be saved by adapting models that have proved themselves in similar shallow geometries, such as Biscayne Bay.  The use of a community model might preclude the participation of more proprietary institutions and operators in such an effort, but the gains in this approach far outweigh the losses resulting from such exclusions.  The choice of a model obviously should be made with the modeling proposed under the auspices of the RECOVER and Florida Bay/Florida Keys Feasibility Studies firmly in mind.  The task is far too great not to take advantage of a community approach. 

            A question remains about the adequacy of the present bathymetry to support a high-resolution circulation model.  At the time of the last meeting, the bathymetry employed by the RMA-10 model was deemed unacceptably inaccurate, but the FBSOP is not aware of the details, nor the availability of a better data set.

 

CENTRAL QUESTION #2:  What is the relative importance of the influx of external nutrients and of internal nutrient cycling in determining the nutrient budget of Florida Bay? What mechanisms control the sources and sinks of the Bay’s nutrients?

 

The nutrient dynamics team provided a synopsis of the nutrient/water quality research efforts in Florida Bay, which was good, if ad hoc.  The team should also be complimented for addressing previously outlined concerns about the lack of sediment nutrient/nutrient flux data within the mangrove creeks and open waters of Florida Bay. This team also responded to concerns expressed at the 1999 Conference  suggesting that water quality model development be paused to allow empirical data and hydrologic modeling efforts to become better synchronized. Is it now time to resume the model development?

            Clearly the water quality monitoring by Boyer and Jones continue to be a cornerstone of the Program.  These data are essential to most of the other investigators and the modeling effort, especially until a water quality model becomes available for extrapolations.  This monitoring program should be continued so as to have a continuous record of natural variation with which to compare the effects of future changes in freshwater discharge and nutrient loading.

Several important process studies have been undertaken during the past 18 months.  The initial efforts of Cornwell and Owens (which have now been funded for a longer period) provide an important extension of the efforts of Rudnick to understand the role of the sediments in regulating nutrient dynamics in Florida Bay.  These data are complicated by the large variation in the direction and magnitude of nutrient fluxes—in time, space and as a result of photic period—suggesting that successful modeling of nutrient dynamics and nutrient budgeting for Florida Bay will be difficult.  Likewise, the wetland exchange studies of Reyes et al. have provided understanding of nutrient dynamics and exchange between the mangrove systems of the southern Everglades and Florida Bay. 

            Several other studies remain on the periphery of the central research question.  The research of Agraz-Hernandez et al. (dendrochronology), Chambers and Fourqurean (iron availability), Coronado-Molina et al. (litterfall dynamics), Hiscock and Millero (carbonate system chemistry), and Dillon et al. (nutrient dynamics surrounding a sewage injection well) are all interesting individual studies.  However, these efforts are not adequately integrated into the overall research program and do not appear to be of high priority if the nutrient team is to focus future efforts on integrative science with a focus on management of the ecosystem.

            The modeling and synthesis efforts have not progressed significantly (in part as a result of the last recommendation of the FBSOP to suspend the water quality modeling. effort).  At this time, one of the most important steps is to develop a working water quality model for the Florida Bay system that incorporates the major pathways for nutrient movement and storage, phytoplankton, micro-phytobenthic and seagrass production and secondary production.  This model must be able to quantitatively incorporate the source, flux, and fate from various sources (e.g., the Everglades, groundwater, and the west Florida coastal currents) so as to be able to assess the effects of nutrients on the Florida Bay system.  This effort must be coordinated with other modeling efforts through the MEG.  It is clear from the 2001 Conference that gaps remain in the rate and process data that the PMC must move quickly to fill.

A major gap in the basic understanding of nutrient dynamics in the Florida Bay ecosystem seems to be a lack of knowledge of the bioavailability of dissolved organic nitrogen advected from the Everglades.  This source of nitrogen appears to be the major nitrogen input term from the Everglades system (after conversion from inorganic nitrogen in the mangrove ecosystem) and is a major unresolved term for modeling efforts.  There is also concern that many of the empirically derived rate functions (e.g., microzooplankton grazing, groundwater flux, benthic nutrient flux) are so highly variably that adoption of suitable coefficients for model development will be difficult.

 

CENTRAL QUESTION #3:  What regulates the onset, persistence and fate of planktonic algal blooms in Florida Bay?

 

The algal bloom research group made a good effort to summarize the research that has been carried out on phytoplankton processes in Florida Bay.  As with many of the components of the Florida Bay research, there are a large number of interesting projects that are being undertaken by this research group.  Similarly though, there is still a lack of integration of the individual projects into a synthetic conceptual model that can provide insight into the interactions between the algal community and other components of the ecosystem (e.g., seagrasses and higher trophic levels).

Of the ongoing studies, the research by Richardson on the light, salinity and nutrient requirements of two Synechococcus species and species of Chaetoceros and Cyclotella will be particularly useful for future modeling efforts designed to assess the factors that regulate phytoplankton growth and biomass accumulation in Florida Bay.  Similarly, the data on the growth and distribution of macro- and micro-zooplankton grazing communities by Brenner et al. are focusing on rate processes that should ultimately prove essential to model development (although the large variance over both space and time in micro-zooplankton grazing rate, <1% - 300%, will be difficult to model confidently).

            The research projects of Vargo et al. (phytoplankton growth and production in northwestern and South-Central Florida Bay), and Jurado and Hitchcock (silicate budget for northwestern Florida Bay) are addressing processes that should eventually help explain phytoplankton community composition differences between the western, central and eastern regions of the bay.  However, it is not clear how and when these studies will be integrated into the ‘big picture’ of how the Florida Bay ecosystem functions.  Richardson et al. failed to include this data in the synthesis modeling to contrast these rates with others measured in the Bay.

            The FBSOP remains concerned about the lack of integration of this group.  For example, the last FBSOP report directly suggested one scenario for how and why coccoid cyanobacteria such as Synecococcus might come to dominate the north-central region of Florida Bay (i.e., efficient nutrient uptake, adaptation to low light and long residence times).  Interestingly, one of the more notable integrative hypotheses discussed at the 2001 Science Conference [that of Brand, who postulated how gradients in light, nutrient (N & P), residence time and the timing of extreme events (e.g., drought, hurricanes, etc.) are qualitatively correlated with major phytoplankton bloom and community composition patterns] was more contentious than it was integrative within the group.  However, it is just this type of scenario development over large scales that is essential to the synthesis process and will ultimately help identify those factors that are critical regulators in the system.

The overview of Question #3 – Algal Blooms in the last FBSOP report (Page 20) ended with the statement that ‘This effort will require an individual or small group of individuals who can foster the development of a multidisciplinary conceptual framework, identify informational gaps, integrate with and complement modeling efforts, and create the essential informational exchange between researchers, managers and the FBSOP.  There does not appear to have been significant progress made in the area of synthesis and integration since that meeting.  The scenario of Brand (see above) and the EOF analysis of Burd and Jackson have remained independent of the other algal bloom studies.  Similarly, the inverse analysis of Richardson et al. concludes that the ‘biggest limitation while constructing these models was the lack of data for many of the interactions and flows’.  There is no indication that an integrated conceptual model that is acceptable to the algal bloom research group has been developed.  There is also little research/data in support of the original question concerning the ‘greening’ of Florida Bay as a result of the sea grass die-off (the timing appears wrong and the blooms have diminished in magnitude) or nutrient inputs from the land. 

The FBSOP again recommends that the algal bloom research group re-focus on developing an integrated conceptual model that will permit scenario testing for those questions that are central to understanding the role of algal blooms in the Florida Bay ecosystem.  Are the recorded blooms (about 10 ug chlorophyll/L) really a water quality or a habitat problem?  Has Florida Bay been experiencing larger algal blooms than in the past?  If so, are the blooms a result of increased nutrient inputs from land, recycling of seagrass detritus resulting from the die-off, a permanent switch in biomass production from sea grass to phytoplankton, or natural events?  What role do residence time and nutrient (N:P) stoichiometry play in the dominance of cyanobacteria in the northern central bay?  Can algal blooms of the magnitude that have been observed play a significant role in the light limitation of seagrasses in the bay?  What is the predicted effect of changes in freshwater discharge and nutrient loading on algal blooms in the bay?  A re-focusing on these questions is essential if research is going to be able to play a role in the successful management of the Florida Bay ecosystem.

 

CENTRAL QUESTION # 4:  What are the causes and mechanisms for the observed changes in the seagrass community of Florida Bay? What is the effect of changing salinity, light, and nutrient regimes on these communities?

 

Seagrasses continue to be a dominant biological feature of Florida Bay and surrounding waters.  This is documented by the fact that over 97% of the 14,000 bottom quadrats sampled between 1995 and 2000 contained seagrasses.  In addition, the entire South Florida coastal zone, including the area within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, is dominated by seagrass habitats. Therefore, as noted previously, the findings of seagrass researchers have special significance, and are of central importance, to attempts to elucidate the factors controlling the structure and function of south Florida coastal environments.

The new format adopted this year called for the seagrass team leaders (Durako and Zieman) to present a synthesis of the body of work related to question 4.  This required judgments regarding which studies to emphasize, and as it turned out, several important ongoing and planned studies received little emphasis (see below).  Among the topics that were emphasized was the web site organized by Durako, which he focussed on in the early portions of his presentation.  This web site contains a wealth of information relating to seagrass ecosystems of Florida Bay and a time line of events from the timing of the initial seagrass die-off in 1987 to the present.  Included are documents, both published and gray literature, as well as a variety of images and graphics.  This resource should be useful to any investigator wishing to learn about seagrass research during the last two decades, and as a readily available storehouse of reference information.

An overview of the conceptual models proposed to explain the seagrass die-off of the late 1980s was presented in some detail.  It was noted that there is substantial agreement among researchers on the major parts of each model.  For example, there is consensus that what has been termed “primary die-off” is restricted to dense turtle grass beds in Florida Bay, during late summer-early winter, and in clear water conditions.  Team leaders also discussed “secondary die-off,” believed to be primarily related to decreasing water clarity, which took place during the 1991 to 1997 (or 1998) period.  A subsequent recovery period, associated with increasing water clarity, ensued and continues to the present.  A recent, limited incidence of primary die-off occurred in 1999, which is being studied by a number of investigators, may shed light on the factors that initiated the large-scale primary die-off in the late 1980s.

In the period since the 1999 Florida Bay Conference, new information continues to be generated.  Included is the documentation of continuing change in Florida Bay seagrass communities, significant success in statistical modeling of the past relationships between physico-chemical variables and benthic habitats, and limited progress in testing alternative hypotheses proposed to explain primary seagrass die-off.  Somewhat surprisingly, investigations of the influence of nutrient supply on seagrass assemblages were notably absent.  This is one of the major components of question 4, but ongoing efforts are at a very low level.  This may reflect the fact that nutrients have been fully investigated and their importance (or lack thereof) adequately assessed.  If so, it makes sense to reformulate the question to reflect all the information that has been accumulated over the lifetime of the program.

With respect to species composition and abundance, seagrass cover has continued to increase during the past several years, although turtle grass has shown little net change and most of the increase continues to result from expanding shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii) coverage.  Thus, the dominance of turtle grass is declining as mixed turtle grass and shoalgrass stands become more common.  In addition, paddlegrass (Halophila decipiens) and star grass (H. engelmanni) have also continued to increase in abundance. In 1999, it was suggested that while the increases in seagrass cover were encouraging in some ways, as they may reflect improvements in water quality, shifts from turtle grass to shoalgrass often are associated with declining light availability, as is the appearance of the recently observed star grass.  However, the lack of turtle grass decline and the high incidence of turtle grass flowering reported indicate that this species is in good condition.  Supporting this conclusion are data from a PAR monitoring study at seven locations (implemented as a result of recommendations from the 1998 Seagrass Modeling Workshop and the FBSOP), which indicate improving water clarity at most locations during the past year.

The investigations of the recent die-off discovered north of Barnes Key in 1999, which had characteristics very similar to those observed during the initial seagrass die-off in 1987, include continuing assessments of the role of sediment sulfide and Labyrinthula infection in shoot death, and new investigation of the potential proximate cause of shoot death.  These investigations followed from the recommendations of an ad hoc workshop of investigators, convened during the 1999 Florida Bay Conference, which produced a plan for an important series of observations and experiments to test several of the remaining hypotheses that might explain seagrass die-off .  The FBSOP (Hobbie et al. 2000) commended this plan.  Unfortunately, only some of the planned work has been carried out.  Perhaps the biggest disappointment was the failure to mount an experimental investigation of the ability of Labyrinthula infection to produce shoot mortality.  Another correlative data set obtained instead does not allow robust conclusions to be drawn.  Lacking the relevant experiments it is unclear what more can be learned by additional sampling of Labyrinthula incidence.  Therefore, unless experiments are initiated in the near future, it appears that research on Labyrinthula incidence efforts has probably reached a termination point.

Experimental investigations of the potential links between elevated sediment sulfide concentrations and seagrass shoot mortality were not formally presented by the team leaders during their synthesis talk, although there was reference to some of this work in a poster presentation.  This work will be important in helping to resolve the conflicting data presented in 1999 by Koch et al. and Erskine and Koch, who suggested a more limited role for sulfide in producing significant seagrass mortality, even at highly elevated concentrations.  More details on this work would have been welcome.

Statistical modeling was initiated in response to recommendations from the 1998 Seagrass Modeling Workshop.  The goal of the statistical modeling (Fourqurean et al.) was to define past relationships between water quality variables and seagrass species, composition, and abundance. If these are sufficiently strong, the relationships can be used to investigate the effects of past alterations in Florida Bay salinity regimes.  The models developed describe very well the types of benthic habitats that can be expected to be found under the set of physical and chemical conditions monitored, and will be useful now and in the future, both as stand alone synthesis products and as the basis of future model development.

            Other modeling efforts are still in the early phases.  These include seagrass unit models as well as landscape models.  These modeling efforts still require varying amounts of new information that has yet to be obtained.  Although not covered in the synthesis presentations, there is a funded project that will experimentally investigate the effects of salinity fluctuations on turtle grass growth and survival.  This work will be critical for the modeling effort, as previous work that was funded to address the important issue of the impact of salinity fluctuations did not bear fruit.

At this stage in the Florida Bay Program, it seems most useful to focus resources in support of the modeling efforts.  This certainly does not mean that no other efforts should be supported, but, as noted above, additional information must become available before the modeling efforts can be completed.  The PMC should continue to allocate funding to provide the missing rates and kinetics information for the existing and expected grass communities.  It is also very important to realize the limitations of the modeling efforts.  While being developed for hindcasting and forecasting, it is noteworthy that there are precious few examples where seagrass models have simulated the future state of sea grass assemblages in the kind of detail that the FBSOP thinks would be most useful for Florida Bay managers.  At this time, the modeling state of the science is focused on one or two species of grass (mainly turtle grass).  This will continue to be so until aquatic succession models and algorithms for community effects (e.g., epiphyte grazers) are developed in Florida Bay or elsewhere.  Thus, it is important to realize that there will be limitations in what can be expected of these models, and the rapidity with which forecasts can be expected.

While not part of the seagrass research program, the paleoecological investigations continue to add highly relevant information for the understanding of how recent seagrass changes compare with the historical expansions and contractions of sea grass cover, and in reconstructing historical conditions of Florida Bay.  Data presented at the 2001 Conference provided more information on historical patterns of salinity throughout the Bay, which are useful in determining conditions of the Bay in times past.  As presented at the 1999 Conference, it appears that seagrass coverage as estimated both by the abundance of seagrass-associated microfossils and by chemical signatures in the sediments, has shown repeated cycles of expansion and contraction.  Thus, the recent changes in seagrass cover apparently are not unprecedented.  However, because the existing paleoecological data came from only a few selected locations, it is important that additional cores be taken from more sites throughout the Bay.  Fortunately there will be an additional series of cores taken in 2001 that will expand the spatial coverage in the Bay and the confidence that can be placed in the findings.

Finally, the seagrass team leaders and investigators should be commended for their attempt to synthesize the seagrass research program and in developing the web site of seagrass resources.  In addition, a general increase in the use of experiments by investigators is a welcome development that will add rigor to the science being done.  It is also noteworthy that the resources to initiate additional light measurements and to begin modeling efforts have been made available by the funding agencies.  It is, therefore, quite clear that during the past year steady progress in answering some of the major unresolved questions about the causes of seagrass die-off.

 

CENTRAL QUESTION #5:  What is the relationship between environmental and habitat change and the recruitment, growth and survivorship of animals in Florida Bay?

 

Program Accomplishments.  It is obvious that the Higher Trophic Level (HTL) team has worked effectively and productively during the past 18 months to address concerns that had been expressed by the FBSOP in previous reviews.  A conceptual model of the Florida Bay system emphasizing factors that relate to the HTLs was developed and has gone through several iterations and revisions over the past year.  The HTL group was criticized for not including benthic components in the research program, especially since this ecosystem averages only one meter in depth.  Significant benthic components were added that provide both historical perspective and information on present status of the molluscan and hard-bottom communities in Florida Bay.  The research on spiny lobster juveniles within the Bay had been praised but had not previously been a part of the Florida Bay Program.  That project is now in the HTL component of the Program and includes elements that broaden the project to include research and modeling on hard-bottom habitats and salinity tolerances for a variety of benthic organisms.  New emphasis on data management, multivariate statistical analysis, and development of energetics based modeling represent desirable areas of emphasis.

Focused research on key species in the system also has progressed significantly.  Research on pink shrimp, lobsters, and spotted seatrout recruitment processes is notable in this regard.  Analysis of the sponge die-off and partial recovery has provided important understanding of stressful environmental conditions, including salinities and temperatures that may have impacted the sponge community.  Analysis of zooplankton and forage fishes has produced two contrasting hypotheses related to bay anchovy recruitment levels and the relative dominance of pelagic vs. benthic production in the Bay.  These analyses should help focus ongoing and planned studies.  Several ongoing studies now explicitly address effects of salinity on recruitment processes, production, and tolerances of Bay organisms, which is a very desirable trend in the HTL research.

Modeling efforts are underway.  Bioenergetics models and spatially explicit individual based models are being developed or are promised in coming months.  Extension of the ATLSS model and the application in northern Florida Bay in the ALFISHES mode is promising and should be extended to other regions of the Bay.  The continuing recruitment studies that measure influx of larvae of shrimp, lobsters, and fishes from outside the Bay are advancing the understanding of how physical mechanisms promote retention and directed transport into the nursery habitats of the Bay.  Research on trophic relationships and habitat dependencies for wading birds, specifically roseate spoonbills, continues to be a highlight of the HTL program.  Inclusion of studies that utilize stable isotope approaches show promise in delineating trophic relationships that can be used for synthesis and integration .

Program Concerns/Issues.  Despite some excellent efforts in developing a conceptual model and beginning resource modeling, the individual studies are not yet synthetic.  And it was not clear how the move towards synthesis would be accomplished.  While there are now a multitude of excellent studies and results, there is too little synthesis.

It is not clear how much interaction there is between the HTL group and the other research groups.  The five overarching questions serve well to guide the research in the Florida Bay Program, but because groups are organized around the questions, interaction does not come naturally.  For example, there seems to be too little interaction between the HTL group and the Physical Science Team and perhaps not enough collaborative research between the HTL researchers and the Seagrass Team.

The Synthesis Science Plan for the HTL group still lacks a complete element #6, “Species Interactions and Effects on Ecosystems.”  It was apparent in the poster session that some of these issues are being addressed, but it is not clear that there is a strategy or plan for this element, which is obviously important for the overall HTL program to succeed. 

The status of some fish population and community studies is uncertain.  Some projects that were supported by the NOAA Beaufort Lab apparently are at risk.  In general, NOAA assignments of scientists and extramural funding are based on merit but focused on Florida Bay.  These resources are cornerstones of this Program.  It would be a serious mistake to divert this locally managed research funding to national NOAA programs, robbing the agency of a prime example of how place-based research can be rigorously pursued under merit selection to bring a host of outside investigators into this program of national importance.

The effects of fishing on resident populations seem underemphasized.  While many fish species apparently are doing quite well now in Florida Bay, there is only a small effort to carry out assessments that include determination of fishing mortality and the consequences to stocks or communities.

The conceptual model does not explicitly include seagrass or phytoplankton blooms.  The model does highlight habitats and water quality, which is good, but since problems in Florida Bay may include seagrass die-offs and phytoplankton blooms, explicit recognition of these issues in the conceptual model could sharpen the focus of the program and promote integrative and synthetic research on HTLs.

The long list of future HTL research needs in the Synthesis Report is too long, too broad, and not likely to generate the funding support that is possible for a shorter list of ‘critical’ studies identified by the group.  The long, unfocused list may have the undesirable effect of giving the appearance of a dispersed or poorly planned program.  Does the HTL group have a process by which strategies and plans can be developed in a consensus framework?

Need for Integration and Synthesis.  The FBSOP believes that there is an important need for integration and synthesis in  the HTL element because of the direct economic importance of many of the populations and species in an overall resource management plan for the Bay.  Four areas of research and knowledge that seem essential for an HTL synthesis include: (1) habitat structure and water quality, (2) effects of salinity, and (3) explicit role of sea grasses, and phytoplankton blooms.  It is no easy task to develop an integrated research program that can conduct synthetic research.  It is a goal that the HTL group should adopt.

Recommendations: 

·        The present conceptual model represents a good start.  The model should be an evolving entity (which the FBSOP thinks is the objective of the HTL group already).  The model now broadly recognizes many of the factors that must be important in controlling productivity and recruitment dynamics of Florida Bay HTLs, but is not especially helpful in directing research or identifying areas in critical need of research support.  The conceptual model is also not particularly helpful to resource managers who need to develop monitoring programs for status and trends or forecast problems.  Development of model components with explicit identification of issues that highlight concerns over the status of the Florida Bay ecosystem should be emphasized.  For example, neither seagrasses nor phytoplankton blooms are identified in the model, but issues related to these two ‘problems’ were at the heart of concerns for the future of Florida Bay’s fisheries and ecosystem.

·        There is a need for expanded application of multivariate statistical methods, some of which are now being applied by the HTL group in ongoing research.  By their nature, methods such as Principal Components Analysis, Correspondence Analysis, and GAM approaches will help to identify important factors and suites of factors that control recruitment and productive processes of HTLs in Florida Bay.  They will assist the HTL group in undertaking integrative and synthetic science.

·        It is useful to focus elements of research on key, representative species in Florida Bay.  Some of that is being done, but not always in an integrative way.  Species that represent a broad spectrum of organisms and diversity in the Bay should be included.  Some candidate species are pink shrimp, spiny lobster, and spotted seatrout.  Others might include bay anchovy and stone crab.  The HTL group already supports research focused on these species, but not always in a comprehensive way that includes all relevant life stages.  For example, the bioenergetics modeling on spotted seatrout larvae is important, especially if built into a spatially explicit model, but the scope should be expanded to include other life stages.  The present emphasis of HTL research on recruitment processes (the Question 5 major concern) perhaps diminishes emphasis on other processes and older life stages.  This should be considered in strategic re-planning.

·        There is a need to coordinate better the science of the HTL group with that of other groups, particularly Groups 1 (Physics) and Group 3 (Phytoplankton Blooms).  There may be collaborations and close working relationships between members of the groups, but it was not apparent in the HTL presentation.  How can interactions be bolstered?  Integrative and synthetic science requires cross-discipline interaction.  Is the present structure of the Program, with each group focused on its particular question, discouraging interactions?

·        The question (#5) guiding the HTL group’s research emphasizes recruitment and processes related to it.  Obviously, some ongoing research addresses other issues.  And, ‘growth and survivorship’ are included in the question.  Still, it would be beneficial to expand the question to include ‘production’ and ‘structure’ explicitly.  Doing so would recognize the broader issues in Florida Bay and would stimulate interaction with the other research groups.