The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Kathryn Irene Frank In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning Georgia Institute of Technology August 2009 Copyright © Kathryn Irene Frank 2009 The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration Approved by: Dr. Bruce Stiftel Dr. Michael L. Elliott, Advisor College of Architecture College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Bryan G. Norton Dr. Cheryl K. Contant School of Public Policy Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology and Dean University of Minnesota Morris Date Approved: August 21, 2009 Dr. C. Ronald Carroll School of Ecology University of Georgia THE ROLE OF COLLABORATION IN EVERGLADES RESTORATION VOLUME I By Kathryn Irene Frank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Elliott, for sharing his wide-ranging wisdom and helping me not get bogged down in the Everglades (data, that is). Dr. Elliott led me to question my assumptions and clarify my thinking, and, most importantly, reminded me of what I had set out to do. I am also indebted to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Cheryl Contant, Dr. Ron Carroll, Dr. Bruce Stiftel, and Dr. Bryan Norton, for lending their superb expertise. Together, the committee encouraged me to reach the dissertation’s full potential. Furthermore, this dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and organizations who provided the Everglades case data. I especially appreciate the governance leaders who generously agreed to be interviewed and welcomed me to observe their collaborative meetings. Most of all, I am eternally grateful to my husband, daughter, and friends for their support of my academic endeavors and belief in the mission of ecological sustainability. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix SUMMARY xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Everglades Governance: Progress Towards Sustainability? 1 1.2 Role of Collaboration in Improving Ecosystem Management 5 1.3 Research Question and Design 7 1.4 Summary of Cross-Case Findings 9 1.5 Overview of the Dissertation 12 1.6 Notes 14 CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW 16 2.1 Ecosystem Management 17 2.2 Collaborative Processes 20 2.3 Collaborative Process Impacts on Ecosystem Management 26 2.4 Implications for Research Design 32 2.5 Notes 38 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 42 3.1 Research Question and Case Study Design 42 3.2 Case Selection 45 iv 3.3 Case Construction and Analysis 48 3.4 Data Sources and Management 52 3.5 Research Ethics, Validity, and Limitations 57 3.6 Notes 62 CHAPTER 4: SOUTH FLORIDA WATERSHED AND THE EVERGLADES 64 4.1 South Florida Watershed and the Everglades 64 4.2 South Florida and Everglades Governance 71 4.3 Notes 85 CHAPTER 5: PHOSPHORUS CASE 89 5.1 Overview of Phosphorus Restoration Progress 89 5.2 Phosphorus Governance 92 5.3 Notes 115 CHAPTER 6: SHARK SLOUGH CASE 119 6.1 Overview of Shark Slough Restoration Progress 119 6.2 Shark Slough Governance 126 6.3 Notes 148 CHAPTER 7: INTEGRATIVE TENET 152 7.1 Process Characteristics 155 7.2 Outputs 168 7.3 Capacity Building and Political Restructuring 173 7.4 Notes 180 CHAPTER 8: ADAPTIVE TENET 182 8.1 Process Characteristics 184 v 8.2 Outputs 192 8.3 Capacity Building and Political Restructuring 199 8.4 Notes 202 CHAPTER 9: PROTECTIVE TENET 203 9.1 Process Characteristics 204 9.2 Outputs 210 9.3 Capacity Building and Political Restructuring 215 9.4 Notes 227 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 228 10.1 Review of Dissertation Question and Approach 230 10.2 Conclusions 231 10.3 Recommendations for Practice 242 10.4 Recommendations for Future Research 246 10.5 Notes 249 APPENDIX A: PHOSPHORUS CASE COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES 250 APPENDIX B: SHARK SLOUGH CASE COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES 259 APPENDIX C: ECOSYSTEM LEVEL COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES 270 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW RECRUITMENT SCRIPT AND CONSENT FORM 278 REFERENCES 283 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Case Construction and Analysis 52 Table 2 Interviewee Representation 54 Table 3 Chronology of Major Events for the South Florida Watershed 83 Table 4 Chronology of Major Events in the Phosphorus Case 112 Table 5 Chronology of Major Events in the Shark Slough Case 145 Table 6 Organization of Findings Chapters 153 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Conceptual Framework and Research Design 37 Figure 2 Historic South Florida Watershed 66 Figure 3 Current South Florida Watershed 69 Figure 4 Southern Everglades with Restoration Projects 121 Figure 5 Process and Philosophical Continuum 233 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 8.5 SMA 8½ Square Mile Area BMP Best Management Practice C&SF Central and Southern Florida CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CROGEE Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem CSOP Combined Structural and Operational Plan DAMP Decomp Adaptive Management Plan Decomp WCA 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheet Flow Enhancement DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection DER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation District South Florida Water Management District DOI United States Department of the Interior DOJ United States Department of Justice EAA Everglades Agricultural Area EE East Everglades EFA Everglades Forever Act EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENP Everglades National Park EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act ix FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service GCE Governor’s Commission for the Everglades GCSSF Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida IOP Interim Operational Plan ISOP Interim Structural and Operational Plan LEC Lower East Coast LNWR Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge LOTAC Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Council MWD Modified Water Deliveries NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service ppb parts per billion RECOVER Restoration Coordination and Verification RPMC Resource Planning and Management Committee SAGE Scientific Advisory Group for the Everglades SERA Southern Everglades Restoration Alliance SETC Southern Everglades Technical Committee STA Stormwater Treatment Area SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management TOC Technical Oversight Committee WCA Water Conservation Area WRAC Water Resources Advisory Commission x SUMMARY This dissertation examined the impacts of multiple collaborative planning and implementation processes on ecosystem management of the Everglades wetlands of South Florida. In particular, the research focused on collaboration’s role in (1) reducing phosphorus pollution in runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area in the historic northern Everglades and (2) improving the water flow regime in Shark Slough of the southern Everglades. Restoration of the greater Everglades watershed is the largest such initiative in the world, and it may also be the most collaborative, with scores of these processes used at various scales since the mid-1960s. Ecosystem management is the most advanced approach to environmental governance, and its three tenets of integrative, adaptive, and ecologically protective governance provide a framework for evaluating environmental planning processes. Proponents of collaborative processes believe they are exceptionally suited to promoting the tenets of ecosystem management. Critics of collaboration, however, are concerned with the potential for cooptation of environmental interests, among other issues. Using qualitative case study methodology, the research found that collaborative processes improved ecosystem management, but not to the degree expected by collaboration proponents. Collaborative processes were integrative of values, information, activities, and political support across the ecosystem, yet integration had biases and limits as a result of groups’ strategic behaviors and processes’ emphasis on reaching agreement rather than fully exploring the issues. Cooptation of environmental interests was not a significant problem. Collaborative processes promoted adaptation and social learning in specific cases, but at a macro level helped to maintain the status quo of xi the dominant water management agencies and technocratic paradigms. Process outcomes were protective of ecological health in that they made steady, incremental progress towards ecological restoration. Progress had significant setbacks however, because collaboratively developed policies were subject to capture by economic interests. Despite the collaborative improvements in ecosystem management, ecological health remains a distant and uncertain prospect for the Everglades. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Everglades Governance: Progress Towards Sustainability? In 1994, after five years of contentious lawsuits and mediated negotiations, the Florida Legislature signed into law the Everglades Forever Act, launching the world’s largest project of constructed wetlands to treat phosphorus laden runoff entering the Everglades from the Everglades Agricultural Area to the north.1 Florida Lieutenant Governor Buddy MacKay remarked, “This is the biggest test yet of the idea of sustainable development…. Can we solve this without having one side or the other totally defeated?”2 Environmentalists and scientists were skeptical of the state’s commitment to achieving the very low level of phosphorus, less