• No results found

Lake Okeechobee Stakeholder Interviews: Summary of Results

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Lake Okeechobee Stakeholder Interviews: Summary of Results"

Copied!
12
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Lake Okeechobee Stakeholder Interviews:

Summary of Results

Prepared by:

Chelsey Crandall

Center for Conservation Social Science Research

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders connected with Lake Okeechobee. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. A thematic content analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Responses were first analyzed using open coding and were then grouped thematically to identify broad themes and patterns in the data. Results are grouped by interview question(s) for reporting.

Results

How would they describe their connection or ties with Lake Okeechobee? How long have they been connected or tied with the lake?

Interview respondents included state and Federal agency and local government staff and business owners associated with the lake (Table 1). In addition, respondents across categories also mentioned personal connections with the lake (such as through personal recreation, for example, "whether it be fishing or frog hunting or whatever, or just riding in an airboat"), and one local government and one business respondent noted multi-generational connections. Most respondents had been connected with the lake for multiple years, with one agency, two local government, and three business respondents having been connected for all or most of their lifetimes. Only one agency and two business respondents were relatively new to the lake.

What changes have they seen on the lake?

Respondents had seen many changes on Lake Okeechobee (Table 2). Respondents across categories noted changes in habitat and vegetation (e.g., "loss of vegetation", "recovery of the submerged aquatic vegetation", or "more cattail invasion in the marsh”). In addition,

(2)

and that there are cyclical changes in public attitudes as new residents move in to the area over time. Less frequently cited were observed changes in endangered species such as the snail kite, impacts on nearby estuaries, changes with regard to the wake zone, and the establishment of nonnative fishes, each of which was noted by just one respondent. Finally, one business respondent indicated that they had not seen changes on the lake.

In addition to noting changes, a number of respondents also discussed what they perceived to be the causes of changes in the lake. Respondents across categories discussed the impacts of hurricanes (e.g., "when the hurricanes come through and turn the water upside down and we lose all the vegetation"). In addition, respondents across categories discussed the impact of herbicides; some perceived it to be the cause of change in the system, though others offered the counter perspective (e.g., “not convinced spraying is causing the problem”). In addition, changes in water levels, population growth, sediment/muck, invasive plants, lack of vegetation, and natural fluctuations were all cited as causes of observed changes in the lake.

What does their ideal Lake Okeechobee look like?

Respondents’ visions of their ideal lake varied (Table 3). Respondents across categories talked about their ideal lake in terms of water quality and clarity (e.g., "meets the TMDL" or "a little cleaner water"). In addition, respondents across categories focused on specific desired habitats or vegetation they would like to see, such as more submerged vegetation, more total and emergent habitat, a lake without any invasive species, or a lake with a healthy littoral zone. Other agency and business respondents’ ideal lake was more focused on a natural, healthy ecosystem. Some respondents across categories vision for an ideal lake included preferences for lake water levels (e.g., "lake that is constantly between a 12 to a 15 foot lake" or "lake levels as close to natural as possible"). Other respondents across categories focused on fishing and fisheries (e.g., "people lined up to come and fish"). One agency and four business respondents noted a specific point in the past as their ideal lake (e.g., "when I moved here 18 years ago" or "what it used to be back in the 70’s"). Other less cited elements of respondents’ ideal lake included a lake with less muck, changes in management actions (such as less spraying and more mechanical harvesting or changes in fishing regulations), fewer nonnative species, a change in public understanding, a lake with no harmful algal blooms, a lake that supports a clean water supply, and a lake that supports human uses.

What is their number one concern for the lake right now?

(3)

respondent in each category cited concerns about algae (e.g., "the number one concern I guess, that everybody's gonna say same thing, is the algae"). Other less cited concerns included

invasive plants and fish, outside influences on management decisions, concerns related to the local economy and businesses, and concerns about muck, a decline in snail kite nesting, competing demands on the system, the impact of smoke and its relation to public perceptions about burning, population growth, water releases, fishing regulations, and boating behavior. In addition, one business respondent had no concerns.

What is their favorite thing about the lake?

Respondents loved the lake for its intrinsic and natural qualities and for its ability to support human uses (Table 5). Respondents noted the beauty of the lake (e.g., "it's real pretty to watch the sun come up", "I think it's beautiful", "one of the most majestic places on the planet"), its wildlife (e.g., "the wildlife, all the bird species and stuff"), and its unique size and scale (e.g., "the pure scale of the lake is a wonder”). In addition, one agency and two business respondents focused on their own activities on the lake, and agency respondents noted its importance as a resource ("it's such an important water resource to South Florida for many different reasons" and "it is the water heart of Florida"). Less often cited were the lake’s resiliency (“she’ll bounce back”), its economic impact, its naturalness ("I love the naturalness of it, the fact that you know you go out there you look at it, it's not all built up"), access (“still very open to the public"), control of melaleuca ("that’s one of my favorite things you can see out in the lake is where I can see the result of all that effort that was done to get melaleuca out of the lake"), and its littoral zone.

How are they affected by FWC’s habitat/vegetation management on the system?

The majority of agency and business respondents noted that habitat and vegetation

management impacted their business and/or their ability to do their work. In addition, two local government and four agency respondents shared that habitat and vegetation

management impacts their constituents and/or stakeholders (for example, noting angry phone calls). One agency, one local government, and four business owners indicated that they were not impacted, and one agency and one local government respondent did not have an answer to this question.

What habitats do they want to see more of on the lake?

(4)

Other respondents were more specific in identifying the habitats and particular species they wanted to see more of on the lake. Local government and business respondents wanted more eelgrass and peppergrass in the lake as well as more shrimp grass. In addition, bulrush,

duckweed, hydrilla, cattails, Okeechobee Gourd, and sand bottom were all cited by one respondent each. Two business respondents had no habitats they wanted to see more of, and six respondents across categories did not have an answer to this question.

What habitats do they want to see less of on the lake?

There were also a number of plant species and habitats that respondents wanted less of on the lake (Table 7). Agency and local government respondents wanted less exotic/invasive plant species; however, it should be noted that two business respondents had nuanced attitudes about nonnative plants, with the perception that they can clean the water or can provide fishing habitat and the preference that current levels of nonnative plants be maintained. Some respondents across categories wanted to see less cattails on the lake. Agency and local

government respondents also shared a preference for less water hyacinth, less water lettuce, less hydrilla, and less Brazilian pepper. In addition, agency respondents wanted less torpedo grass, Melaleuca, Luziola, Cuban bulrush, and muck. One local government respondent wanted less cogongrass, and one local business respondent shared a preference for less cabbage (specifically, they have "some kind of cabbage plant growing" in their pond that they would like to see less of). One agency and one business respondent did not have an answer for this

question, and some local government and business respondents had no habitats they would like to see less of.

How are they affected by FWC’s fish regulations on the lakes?

Business respondents were most impacted by FWC’s fish regulations on the lake, with almost all noting the impacts on their business (e.g., "if FWC doesn't manage, again I have no

business"). One local government noted impacts on the local economy, and another stated that everyone is impacted ("I think all of South Florida is affected by it"). One agency respondent felt they were indirectly impacted in that related publicity affects all connected agencies. However, more than half of respondents felt they were not impacted (e.g., "I'm not really affected by it"), with one agency and one local government respondent unable to answer the question.

Do they have any concerns with invasive fish species like tilapia or armored catfish on the lake?

(5)

stinking up the place"). In addition, respondents were concerned about the impacts of tilapia on the ecosystem, including the concern that they are eating native plants and negatively impacting native species. One agency respondent was also concerned about carp ("carp and things that are feeding along the bottom and stirring up nutrients"). One local government and one business respondent did share some positive attitudes about tilapia (e.g., "at least tilapia can be a usable product"), and two agency and two business respondents had no concerns.

What are the top three fish/wildlife species that are most important to them or their work?

Many fish and wildlife species were important to respondents on the lake (Table 8). The fish species largemouth bass and crappie were cited by respondents across categories, with bream cited by local government and business respondents. In addition, business respondents noted catfish, nile perch, baitfish, and gamefishes in general, and agency respondents referred to recreational/sport fishes and general fisheries as well as gar. Snail kites were the most

frequently mentioned wildlife species. Wading birds, ducks, wood storks, migratory birds, white ibis, pelicans, turkeys, and little black hens were also cited, as were alligators, deer, manatees, panthers, and bears. In addition, endangered species, prey species, indicator species, wild game, and wildlife in general were noted. One agency respondent also cited Okeechobee gourd, and one business respondent said they would like to see more manatees and fewer water moccasins. Three agency and one local government respondent did not have an opinion.

Are there any other FWC management actions that they would like to see differently on the lake?

A variety of management actions were desired by interview respondents (Table 9). Respondents across categories wanted to see muck removal in the lake, and agency and business respondents wanted burning. In addition, respondents across categories wanted changes in spraying activities and more mechanical harvesting. One respondent in each category cited changes in fisheries management, including active management of invasive fishes and changes in regulations ("some allowance in different areas that we can fish because we're really limited"). Local government and business respondents wanted more education and communication about lake management, as well as changes in water level management.

Agency respondents also desired littoral zone restoration, science-based management (e.g., "more science based approaches rather than public based approaches"), shoreline vegetation management, research into the impacts of invasive fishes, reduction of nutrient inputs, maintenance control of invasive plant species, and coordination with other systems ("lessons learned in one system would be applied statewide"). Local government respondents also cited improvements to access for boaters and an artificial beach for recreation as desired. In

(6)

How do they prefer to receive communication from FWC? How would they like to communicate with FWC?

Almost all respondents cited email as a preferred method for communication. In addition, phone calls were preferred by almost half of respondents. Presentations to the local county board, interviews, mail, websites, handouts and printouts, meetings, Zoom calls, press releases, direct in person communication, and social media were also cited. One business respondent noted the importance of simplifying language in communication ("don't use words that a New York lawyer will only understand").

What does successful management by FWC look like to them/their agency?

Both agency and local government respondents viewed successful outcomes in terms of lake habitat and ecosystem health (e.g., "increase in vegetative community with fish habitat", "healthy, safe habitat for native species"). In addition, changes in management (e.g.,

maintenance management, coordination, or balance: "we get too focused on any one aspect of habitat management or species management, it seems too often to be at the expense of

others. So our primary focus would be on balance") were cited by agency and local government respondents. One agency and one local government respondents viewed success in terms of human use outcomes (e.g., "able to support the human use of the lake that has been going on for centuries there"), and one agency respondent viewed success in terms of stakeholder attitudes ("management where that you make everyone happy").

Will FWC having a published management plan help their agency’s mission/business in any way?

Most respondents saw positive impacts resulting from having a published habitat management plan. Some replied with a general “yes”, while others cited specific benefits, which included predictability, conflict reduction, communication, positive outcomes for the lake (e.g., "it will be better on the lake" and "keeping the lake healthy"), and improved coordination. However, two agency and one local business respondent had more qualified, mixed attitudes (e.g., "if it's not supported by the people above you and the businesses the local businesses around I think it's going to be a waste of your time"), and three business respondents saw no positive impacts (e.g. "no not in any way").

How do floating plants impact their agency’s mission?

(7)

How can FWC better connect fish and wildlife habitat to human health and safety?

Agency and local government respondents listed connections to water quality in general and drinking water quality in particular (e.g., "the more habitat you have the cleaner water you will have"), to mercury in food fish, to mosquitos and risk of disease, and to harmful algal blooms as ways to connect fish and wildlife habitat with human health and safety.

Do they have an opinion on the boating or shore access opportunities on lake?

Many respondents held negative opinions about boating or shore access opportunities on the lake. Though one local government and one business respondent felt positively about access (e.g., "Lots of access"), three agency and three local government respondents shared negative attitudes and saw room for improvement (e.g., "shore based access and boating are extremely limited along the Palm Beach county shoreline", "a lot of improvements needed”, and "wish there were more opportunities for people to access the lake from the shore").

How can the respective agencies work better together?

Partnering in projects and improving communication, coordination, and transparency were cited by both local government and agency respondents as ways to better work together. In addition, specific project ideas were mentioned (e.g., Moore Haven canal, benthic invertebrate work).

Can they support a management plan that produces long-term benefits to their business but may have short-term costs?

Responses were mixed with regard to business respondents’ support of a plan that produces long-term benefits but with short-term costs. Though two replied “yes” and none replied “no”, three were unsure (e.g., "that would depend on what the short term costs are" or "not

outrageous, you know I mean doable") and one did not know.

Other attitudes shared:

During the course of the interviews many respondents also shared their current attitudes about the lake in general as well as fishing and hunting opportunities. Though some respondents felt negatively about the current state of the lake (e.g., "and to see it the way it is today it's

heartbreaking compared to what it was" or "lake is struggling") others felt it was in a good state (e.g., "in as good as shape as possible with what we've been through", "no complaints").

Similarly, while some felt positively about current fishing (e.g., “all in all I think the fishing has remained pretty much intact", "I think the fishing is pretty good"), others perceived a decline in fishing on the lake ("not getting fished like it used to be"). In addition, two business

(8)

Table 1. Coded responses to the question: how would you describe your connection or ties with Lake Okeechobee? Given as number of respondents in each category (state or Federal agency, local government, or business).

Response Code Number of respondents

Agency 15

Local government 5

Business 9

Table 2. Coded responses to the question: what changes have you seen on Lake Okeechobee? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

Habitat/vegetation 5 4 4 Water levels 7 3 3 Water quality/clarity 2 2 3 Nutrients/algae blooms 6 1 0 Management 6 0 0 Fishing 1 2 2 Muck bottom 0 2 3 Public opinion 2 0 0 Endangered species 1 0 0 Population growth 1 0 0 Impacts on estuaries 1 0 0 Wake zone 0 0 1 Nonnative fishes 0 0 1 No changes 0 0 1

Table 3.Coded responses to the question: what does your ideal Lake Okeechobee look like? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

Water quality/clarity 7 3 4

Habitat/vegetation specifics 6 1 4

Healthy natural ecosystem 8 2 0

Water levels 5 2 2

Fishing 1 3 1

Historical reference point 1 0 4

Muck 0 1 1

Management actions 0 1 1

Fewer nonnatives 1 0 1

Public understanding 1 0 0

No harmful algal blooms 1 0 0

Water supply 0 1 0

(9)

Table 4.Coded responses to the question: what is your number one concern for Lake Okeechobee right now? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

Water levels 5 3 5 Water quality/nutrients 9 2 1 Herbicide use 0 1 3 Algae 1 1 1 Invasive species 2 0 1 Management influences 1 0 1 Economic 2 0 0 Muck 1 0 1

Snail kite nesting 2 0 0

Competing demands 1 0 0 Smoke impact 1 0 0 Population growth 1 0 0 Water releases 1 0 0 Regulations 0 0 1 Boating behavior 0 0 1 No concerns 0 0 1

Table 5. Coded responses to the question: what is your favorite thing about Lake Okeechobee right now? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

(10)

Table 6. Coded responses to the question: are there any habitats you would like to see more of on the lake? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

Submerged vegetation 5 2 2 Emergent plants 5 1 0 Peppergrass 0 2 4 Eelgrass 0 2 3 Wetland habitats 2 0 0 Fish habitat 0 2 0 Shrimp grass 0 1 1

Recover O Vegetation Metrics 1 0 0

Bulrush 1 0 0 Okeechobee gourd 1 0 0 Sand bottom 1 0 0 Vegetation 1 0 0 Trees 0 1 0 Hydrilla 0 1 0 Hunting habitat 0 1 0 Duckweed 0 1 0 Cattails 0 0 1 Don’t know 3 1 2 None 0 0 2

Table 7. Coded responses to the question: are there any habitats you would like to see less of on the lake? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

(11)

Table 8.Coded responses to question: what are the top three fish/wildlife species that are most important to you or your work? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Response Code Agency Local Government Business

Largemouth bass 4 4 5 Crappie 2 3 4 Snail kites 6 1 0 Bream 0 1 2 Wading birds 3 0 0 Catfish 0 0 3 Alligators 0 2 0 Deer 1 0 1 Ducks 0 1 1 Manatees 2 0 0 Endangered species 2 0 0 Wood storks 2 0 0 Recreational/sport fishes 2 0 0 Fisheries 1 0 0 Gar 1 0 0 Prey species 1 0 0 Migratory birds 1 0 0 White ibis 1 0 0 Okeechobee gourd 1 0 0 Panthers 1 0 0 Bears 1 0 0 Indicator species 1 0 0 Nile perch 0 0 1 Gamefishes 0 0 1 Pelicans 0 0 1 Baitfish 0 0 1 Wild game 0 0 1

Little black hens 0 0 1

Turkeys 0 0 1

Wildlife 0 0 1

(12)

Table 9. Coded responses to the question: are there any management actions that they would like to see differently on Lake Okeechobee? Responses given as number of respondents in each category citing each.

Action Code Agency Local Government Business

Muck removal 2 3 2

Burning 3 0 3

Spraying 1 1 3

Mechanical harvesting 1 2 1

Fisheries management 1 1 1

Education and communication 0 1 2

Water levels 0 2 1

Littoral zone restoration 2 0 0

Science based management 2 0 0

Shoreline vegetation management 1 0 0

Research into invasive fish impacts 1 0 0

Reduce nutrient inputs 1 0 0

References

Related documents

Avery Lake, Montmorency County 2019 Exotic Aquatic Plant Watch Results. The Exotic Aquatic Plant Watch was conducted on Avery Lake

The learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant clearly proves the solemnization of marriage between her and late Reghunathan on 30/5/1977

As a result, informa- tion security and other cyber risks increasingly are viewed as a significant threat by the European risk manage- ment community, and are becoming a specific

The STANEX diaphragm used for two- compartment ball mills is of a rigid design and is supported on a ring of cast steel segments that are bolted to the mill shell.. The

We find no difference in the overall risk preferences of men and women within our couples in our incentivised measures, which is consistent with recent evidence showing that

Archbishop Ambrose (von Sivers) writes: “Abstinence and virginity are the other side of the medal from marriage, for abstinence (monasticism) with virginity and living together

BLUEPRINT Breaking down the development of short sprints ensures that the project participants work on the same processes

The Landscape Institute presented a number of key characteristics, which are central to our understanding of green infrastructure: “Green infrastructure includes the network