Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-08-04

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

National Marine Sanctuary Program July 2008 

A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: 

The Islands in the Stream Concept 

Proceedings of the Forum: 

23 January 2008 

Keating Education Center 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Sarasota, Florida 
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) 

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). Its mission is to identify, 

designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, 

historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and 

marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and 

historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from 

less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp 

forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, 

segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks. 

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a 

forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may 

include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on resource management 

issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates 

integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and 

policy development to accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection 

mandate. 
A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: 

The Islands in the Stream Concept 

Kim B. Ritchie 

Center for Coral Reef Research 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Brian D. Keller 

SE Regional Science Coordinator 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

July 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (USN-ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Daniel J. Basta, Director 
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

DISCLAIMER 

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nor does the 

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from the 

following address: 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 National Marine Sanctuary Program

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

 Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

Gulf of Mexico image provided by Bill Kiene (NOAA) via ORBIMAGE. This image was 

acquired November 7th, 2004 by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, SeaWiFS Project. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Ritchie, K. B. and Brian D. Keller, eds. 2008. A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The 

Islands in the Stream Concept. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-08-04. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 105 pp. 

CONTACT 

Kimberly B. Ritchie, Ph.D. 

Staff Scientist and Manager 

Marine Microbiology Program 

Center for Coral Reef Research 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway 

Sarasota, FL 34236 

Phone: (941) 388-4441 x353 

fax: (941) 388-4312 

1
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Table of Contents 

Foreward (Ernest Estevez) ...........................................................................................................4 

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................6 

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................9 

Organizing Committee ................................................................................................................9 

Welcome and Introduction (Kumar Mahadevan and Daniel J. Basta) .....................................10 

Introduction to the Forum (Billy D. Causey)...........................................................................12 

Summary of Scientific Forum (John Ogden) ...........................................................................14 

Panel 1: The Geological Setting...............................................................................................17 

Geologic Underpinnings of the “Islands in the Stream”; 

West Florida Margin (Albert Hine and Stanley Locker)...............................................17 

Shelf Edge of the Northwest Gulf of Mexico (Niall Slowey).............................................22 

Panel 1 Discussion................................................................................................................28 

Panel 2: The Oceanographic Setting.......................................................................................30 

Physical Oceanography in the Gulf of Mexico: Connectivity of Coastal Ecosystems 

and Large Scale Flows (Villy Kourafalou et al.)...........................................................30 

Coastal Ocean Circulation, Observing and Modeling Systems for the West 

Florida Shelf (Robert Weisberg) ....................................................................................33

Panel 2 Discussion................................................................................................................35 

Panel 3: Benthic Characterizations.........................................................................................37 

Gulf of Mexico Initiative, Northwest Gulf of Mexico 

(Emma Hickerson and GP Schmahl) ...............................................................................37 

Long Term Monitoring at the Flower Garden Banks: 

Status, Stasis, and Change (William Precht et al.)........................................................41 

Pulley Ridge (Walter Jaap and Robert Halley).....................................................................45 

Panel 3 Discussion................................................................................................................47 

Panel 4: Fish and Fisheries Characterization/Spawning Aggregations...............................49

Fish and Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico (Jerald Ault)......................................................49 

Ecological Studies in the shelf-edge reserves Madison Swanson and 

Steamboat Lumps of the northeast Gulf of Mexico: A Summary of 

Research Studies (Chris Koenig and Felicia Coleman) .................................................52 

The Timing and Location of Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations in Belize 

and the Cayman Islands: Insights for the Design of a Protected Areas Network 

in the Gulf of Mexico (Will Heyman)............................................................................56 

Panel 4 Discussion................................................................................................................61 

2
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 5: Existing Legal Structure/Regulations in the Gulf of Mexico .................................63 

HAPC and Other Habitat or Area Based Regulations in the Gulf of

Mexico (Shepherd Grimes)..............................................................................................63 

Minerals Management Service: Protection of Sensitive Habitats on the Outer 

Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (James Sinclar).............................................64 

Panel 5 Discussion................................................................................................................69 

Panel 6: Connections with Mexico and the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System...............71 

Connectivity of the South Florida Coral Reef Ecosystem to Upstream Waters 

of the Western Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 

(Elizabeth Johns and John Lamkin).................................................................................71 

The Mexican Component of the Islands in the Stream Concept 

 (John Wes Tunnell).........................................................................................................74 

The Ocean Tracking Network and the Gulf of Mexico (Bob Hueter)..............................78 

Panel 6 Discussion................................................................................................................82 

Open Discussion (Frank Alcock) ...............................................................................................84 

Attendee List...............................................................................................................................90 

Appendix A: HAPC and Other Habitat or Area Based Regulations in the Gulf of

Mexico (Shepherd Grimes)....................................................................................................92 

3
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Foreward

“If the sea floor was writ in Braille the bumps on the 

bottom of the Gulf of Mexico would spell, ‘Gardens of Eden.’”

 E.D. Estevez 

Near the end of the last ice age, sea level was considerably lower because so much of Earth’s 

fresh water was locked in mile-thick glaciers. The shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico was on 

average about 100 miles seaward of its present location; the Yucatan and Florida peninsulas were 

twice their present size, and Florida’s coastal landscape was as arid as Mexico’s is today. At sea 

level’s lowest stand, the surface area and volume of the Gulf were substantially smaller than 

today, but due to the irregular bathymetry of the shelf, the ancient shoreline was approximately 

as long as our modern one. Early humans would eventually explore the Gulf shore as northern 

glaciers melted and sea level continued to rise. They used the changing shoreline as a corridor 

for exploration, gathering resources, and settling. The Gulf shoreline’s earliest value to humans 

was the role it played as a connector of people to people, and people to resources. 

As sea level rose, the transitions of shorelines and shallow waters to those we now see were 

continuous but not uniform. Rising and falling in fits and starts, the sea drowned coastal 

lowlands and deepened the waters over an expanding shelf zone. During this dynamic time, 

some short-lived barrier islands formed only to be destroyed; other, hardier islands were simply 

submerged. Continental rock formations near the surface of low uplands were first exposed, and 

then sculpted into submarine buttes and mesas by terrific tidal currents that ripped coastal land 

and seascapes. Shallow seafloors welled up into sun-bathed shallows as enormous geological 

pressure uplifted deeply buried salt deposits. And, as the waters of the Gulf warmed, yet other 

unusual oases of diverse and abundant marine life arose from the seabed as coral reefs. 

Today, these buttes and mesas and coral reefs make up dozens of seafloor habitat islands 

encircling the Gulf from the Campeche Banks to the Florida Keys. They lay an average of 70 

miles from today’s shoreline in depths averaging 200 to 300 feet — much like a bathtub ring left 

by former sea levels. Each feature is relatively small, ranging in size from one-fifth of a square 

mile to 460 square miles. The average size of the habitat islands is probably on the order of 

twenty square miles, with their combined area about one-third smaller than that of Mississippi 

Sound, and less than one-fifth of one percent of the Gulf of Mexico’s area. 

While small, these habitat islands show astonishing biological productivity, owing to the 

structure each provides, to summits at or above the penetration of useful sunlight, and to 

proximity to land and continental nutrient supplies. But two attributes are even more important 

for the islands’ evolutionary and ecological distinction — their connection through the ages, and 

their stepping-stone locations in the Gulf of Mexico’s major patterns of ocean circulation. For 

thousands of years until now, they have all endured together as refugia, feeding and breeding 

grounds, and epicenters of productivity. They have been connected in time. 

Their locations are of paramount significance for their roles as reservoirs, springboards, 

corridors, and destinations of marine life, including the Caribbean plants and animals swept into 

the Gulf through the Yucatan Strait. In U.S. waters, the habitat islands occur as elongated 

4
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

constellations within the western, northern, and eastern Gulf with names such as the South Texas 

Banks, the Pinnacles, and Pulley Ridge. Individual rises are very close together, on average only 

5 to 15 miles apart, with constellations farther apart, on the order of 100 to 150 miles. 

While 150 miles seems a formidable distance, it is easy work for oceanic and coastal-dwelling 

turtles, sharks, fishes, and mammals. In favorable currents, even passively drifting plankton can 

get from one to another in just a few days. And favorable indeed is the Gulf’s majestic Loop 

Current, with its attendant eddies and whirls and gyres that sweep across the shelf on each pulse 

of the tide and every press of the wind. So then, these habitat islands, these constellations of the 

Gulf of Mexico, are connected in ecological space. 

The winds and tides and currents and mounts will all endure. Whether the Gardens of Eden will 

is once again in human hands. 

 

 

Ernest D. Estevez 

Director, Coastal Ecology 

Mote Marine Laboratory

5
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Executive Summary 

Overview 

The Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The Islands in the Stream Concept took place in 

January 2008 in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together scientists 

and managers from around the Gulf of Mexico to discuss a range of topics on our knowledge of 

the Gulf of Mexico, from its geology to larger-scale connectivity to the Caribbean region, and 

their applications to the concept of a more integrated approach to area-based management. 

The forum included six panels of invited experts who spoke on the oceanographic and biological 

features in the Gulf of Mexico, including connections with Mexico and the Mesoamerican barrier 

reef system, and the legal and regulatory structure currently in place. The charge to the group 

was to share information, identify gaps in our knowledge, identify additional potential areas for 

protection, and discuss available science about connectivity and the potential value of 

establishing a marine protected area network in the Gulf of Mexico. 

What do we know about connectivity in the Gulf of Mexico? 

The basin-wide physical oceanographic processes in the Gulf of Mexico are dominated by the 

Loop Current and associated rings and eddies that not only dominate the Gulf interior, but also 

provide connectivity pathways among 

remote coastal and deep sea ecosystems. 

There are a number of ecologically vital, 

enormously productive, and scientifically 

interesting sites in the Gulf that are 

interconnected by ocean and currents and 

are dependent upon one another for 

biological recruitment and replenishment. 

The Gulf is also strongly linked 

“upstream” to the Caribbean and 

“downstream” to the Atlantic by the Loop 

Current, Florida Current and the Gulf 

Stream. 

Figure by S. Murawski, provided by J. Ault 

What do we know about unique habitats and associated marine life? 

Most reefs and hard-bottom areas in the Gulf of Mexico formed on relic shorelines and barrier 

islands that were above sea level at some point during the past 125,000 years. Some deep reefs 

found in the gulf were likely formed by other physical processes such as strong currents and by 

gas seeping through the sediment. These areas contain a diversity of marine life. Depending on 

the reef, the bottom is covered by encrusting algae, sponges, soft corals and hard corals in a few 

shallow locations such as the Flower Garden Banks. 

6
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Recent surveys have identified 

many unique habitats in the gulf. 

 For example, a survey at McGrail 

Bank resulted in the description of a 

unique Stephanocoenia intersepta 

(blushing star coral) coral reef. 

Pulley Ridge (eastern Gulf of 

Mexico) is found to the northwest of 

the Dry Tortugas and contains the 

deepest known coral reef on the 

continental shelf of North America. 

Some of these sites have already 

been designated as national marine 

sanctuaries or identified as areas of 

critical habitat. Most are currently afforded some degree of habitat protection by different 

management entities from one or more identified threats. A few areas are currently closed to 

fishing to protect spawning aggregations. 

Gaps in our knowledge 

Scientists know that there are diverse coral related resources very deep but we simply do not 

know if there are more “islands” out there in the stream. We should also consider the full range 

of biodiversity and habitats found in the region. This includes animals like seabirds and habitats 

such as undersea canyons. In addition, scientists need a better understanding of the complex 

phenomena associated with the interactions between coastal and offshore flows in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Having a detailed understanding of circulation patterns will help us determine how 

connected habitats are with one another. It will also help in understanding how adults and larvae 

move into, within, and out of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Scientists are also still discovering new species. 

Cataloguing the diverse marine life found in these 

habitats is critical to understand how they different 

banks in the gulf are connected. Some locations of 

multi-species reef fish spawning aggregations are 

known but their may be other undiscovered 

aggregations contributing to fish populations 

downstream. Lastly, we need a detailed accounting 

that shows where human activity is occurring throughout the Gulf of Mexico. 

The potential value of a marine protected area network 

We know more about the ecology and biological diversity of the Gulf of Mexico than any other 

comparable body of water on the planet. The scientific forum participants concluded that there 

was sufficient science to support the implementation of a marine protected network in the Gulf 

7
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

of Mexico. There are a number of ecologically vital and enormously productive sites in the Gulf 

that are interconnected by currents and are dependent upon one another for there well-being. 

Some of these sites have already been designated as marine sanctuaries or identified as areas of 

critical habitat. Most are currently afforded some degree of protection by different management 

entities. However, we currently lack a comprehensive management approach that recognizes the 

interdependence of these sites across the entire Gulf of Mexico and its broader connections with 

the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. By implementing an ecosystem-based management 

approach to the larger area of the Gulf of Mexico, a marine protected area network will be 

greater than the sum of its parts for two main reasons. 

First, the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is under significant human-caused and environmental stress. 

We must protect habitats that support the breadth of marine life found in the Gulf and also serve 

as refuges that can replenish other areas after significant natural or human disturbances. These 

places are our insurance policy to maintain the important commercial and recreational activities 

that depend on a healthy Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Second, the network will enhance 

administrative coordination and focus additional resources to support science and management 

activities across the entire Gulf of Mexico. It will also facilitate increased international 

collaboration with our regional partners whose activities directly impacts the health of the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

The Gulf of Mexico is a special place. It is unlike any other place on the planet and is one of the 

driving forces in the United States economy. It is also one of the most highly shared ocean places 

in the world when one considers all of the economic, recreational and scientific activities 

conducted within its waters. The Gulf’s oil and natural gas fields support our U.S. economy. The 

Gulf also supports important commercial and recreational fisheries. The decline of snapper, 

grouper, and shark populations has had a major economic and ecological impact. The states 

around the Gulf of Mexico, particularly Florida, are economically dependent upon tourism, clean 

beaches and unpolluted waters. Now is the time to start doing things differently in marine 

resource protection and the Gulf of Mexico is the place where we need to start. There is an 

opportunity to lead the nation in terms of how we think about ocean space and how we sustain 

ocean ecosystems and our nation’s economic vitality. 

 

 

 

8
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

 

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank Sarah Fangman for compiling meeting transcripts. We thank John 

Armor, Donna Basso, Paula Clark, Ernie Estevez, Sarah Fangman, James Green, Rusty Holmes, 

Bill Kiene, Sean Morton, Joe Nickelson, Vicky Wiese, Fiona Wilmot and Trisa Wintringham for 

their support before, during, and after this forum. We thank Michael Murphy for drafting the 

executive summary. Special thanks go to Lori Arguelles with the National Marine Sanctuary 

Foundation, who provided material support for this scientific forum and to the many participants 

who contributed to discussions and scientific content of the forum outcome. 

The Editors, 

Kim B. Ritchie 

Center for Coral Reef Research 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Brian D. Keller 

SE Regional Science Coordinator 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Organizing Committee 

Kimberly B. Ritchie (Co-chair); Mote Marine Laboratory 

Brian D. Keller (Co-chair); Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Region; 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

Frank Alcock; Director, Mote Marine Policy Institute 

Kumar Mahadevan, President and CEO, Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium 

Billy D. Causey; Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Region; 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

9
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Welcome and Introduction

Kumar Mahadevan 

President, Mote Marine Laboratory 

We are honored to host this forum and to provide this opportunity to such a distinguished group 

of scientists and stakeholders to discuss the concept for the Islands in the Stream initiative in the 

Gulf of Mexico. There are a number of ecologically vital, enormously productive, and 

scientifically interesting sites in the Gulf that are interconnected by ocean and currents and are 

dependent upon one another for biological recruitment and replenishment. Some of these sites 

have already been designated as marine sanctuaries or identified as areas of critical habitat; most 

are currently afforded some degree of protection by different management entities from one or 

more identified threats. However, we currently lack a comprehensive management plan that 

recognizes the importance of a broader portfolio of sites in the Gulf as well as their 

interdependence. 

The Islands in the Stream concept paper proposes the establishment of a robust network of 

marine protected areas throughout the Gulf of Mexico that will raise awareness of our “jewels of 

the Gulf”, stimulate research, education and outreach, allow for a more comprehensive 

management process and strengthen some of the baseline protections that should exist 

throughout the network. This is an excellent opportunity to bring science into the marine policy 

arena and we are pleased to have our Marine Policy Institute hosting this event. I would like to 

recognize Dr. Frank Alcock and others in the policy program. 

Mote Marine Laboratory is one of the prominent independent marine research organizations in 

the Gulf of Mexico region. We are dedicated to advancing marine and environmental sciences 

through scientific research, education and public outreach, leading to new discoveries, 

revitalization, and sustainability of our oceans, and greater public understanding of our marine 

resources. Here at Mote Marine Laboratory, the trustees, staff, volunteers and I believe that the 

time is ripe for a bold initiative to better protect the Gulf of Mexico’s critical marine habitats and 

improve the management of human activities that affect them. We encourage scientific debate 

and discussion on the Islands in the Stream concept and stand ready to help implement a 

constructive initiative. Please accept my heartfelt thanks for your participation in this very 

important forum for our region and the nation. 

10
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Daniel J. Basta 

Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

We know a lot about the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The GOM is one of the most well-studied and 

documented marine ecosystems in the U.S. For example, the GOM Atlas Project resulted in our 

mapping wetlands, assessing shellfish growing areas, locating the oil and gas infrastructure, and 

other important achievements. It is, therefore, not by happenstance that we chose it as a place to 

consider a network of marine protected areas. 

The GOM is a special place – it is unlike any other place on the planet. It has been a driver in 

the evolution of the U.S. in the 20th century. If you look closely at the economic activity in the 

Gulf you see it is one of the driving forces in the US economy. It is also one of the most highly 

shared ocean places in the world when one considers all of the activities conducted in the GOM. 

Now is the time to start doing things differently in marine resource protection – and the GOM is 

the place where we need to start. There is an opportunity to lead the Nation in terms of how we 

think about ocean space and how we sustain ocean ecosystems. The GOM is the place where 

this leadership will benefit the country the most. 

Science has to connect the dots. If this idea does not have scientific voracity, it won’t pass 

muster. It is, therefore, about the facts. We also need to determine how much information we 

need. What level of certainty is the scientific community willing to accept regarding 

connectivity? How much information do we need to “prove” that these areas are connected? 

Are there other areas? Are these even the right areas? 

Please note, there is no official position in the Administration on this. If the Administration 

decides to move forward with this idea, there will be more opportunities for stakeholder 

involvement. 

11
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Introduction to the Forum 

The Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The Islands in the Stream Concept took place in 

January 2008 in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together a range of 

topics on our knowledge of the Gulf of Mexico, from its geology to larger-scale connectivity to 

the Caribbean region, and their applications to the concept of a more integrated approach to areabased management: the “Islands in the Stream” concept. Parts of this proceedings volume were 

summarized from notes taken during the forum; these sections are self-evident. The rest of the 

sections are manuscripts submitted by the presenters; three presenters were unable to submit 

contributions, but we thank them for their presentations. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries is developing a proposal, in conjunction with a number of partners, which is 

considering the concept of establishing an international network of Marine Protected Areas 

(MPA) around the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). The Gulf is one of the most scientifically 

investigated bodies of water in the world, yet there is still much to learn and gaps to fill 

regarding our scientific knowledge of the area. 

Figure 1. A map of the Gulf of Mexico, showing the proposed sites for Marine Protected Areas being assessed and considered in 

the Islands in the Stream: Gulf of Mexico Initiative. 

Previous successful processes to establish MPAs have been those that are guided by the very best 

science available. This does not to imply that all of the scientific questions must be answered 

first, but it does recognize that science should be a major tool in citing and establishing MPAs. 

12
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Originally, the forum organizers planned to keep the invitee list to roughly three dozen scientists, 

but the enthusiastic interest in the topic made it necessary to include more participants. It is 

estimated that over 100 scientists and managers from around the Gulf of Mexico attended the 

science forum. The charge to the group was to share information, identify gaps in our 

knowledge, identify additional potential areas for protection, and discuss available science about 

connectivity and the potential value of the Islands in the Stream concept. Outcomes of the forum 

are this summary report, which includes research priorities that were identified, opportunities for 

collaborations and improvement to the concept documents. 

The forum included six panels of invited experts who spoke on the geological and oceanographic 

features, benthic, fish and fisheries characteristics and spawning aggregations, the existing legal 

structure and regulations currently in place in the Gulf of Mexico, and connections with Mexico 

and the Mesoamerican barrier reef system. Following the panel presentations, Frank Alcock, 

Director of the Marine Policy Institute for Mote Marine Laboratory, facilitated an open 

discussion by all the attendees on information gaps, research opportunities, opportunities for 

collaborations, internal and external management processes, and how what is known about the 

Gulf supports or does not support establishment of an MPA network. This discussion was 

recorded and has been incorporated into this summary report. 

 Billy D. Causey 

SE Regional Director 

 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

13
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Summary of the Scientific Forum 

John Ogden 

Director, Florida Institute of Oceanography 

The concept of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) emerged in the latter half of the 20th century 

from the perception, backed by decades of scientific studies, that the marine environment was 

under threat and increasingly in decline from human disturbances. A MPA as defined by 

Presidential Executive Order 13158 is “any area of the marine environment that has been 

reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting 

protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” Thus, the MPA is one 

type of marine managed area-- a broader category including everything from seasonal fisheries 

area closures to legislated marine reserves from which all take is prohibited. MPAs, belying 

their name, include protection but are more about governance of significant marine areas. Unlike 

the current fragmented, overlapping, and redundant management of marine areas by sectoral 

interests, such as fishing, minerals interests and recreation, the MPA broadens governance to 

encompass the regional marine environment, the multiplicity of human uses, and the ecosystem 

services which it provides to human society. The current accepted and most effective model for 

MPAs in the U.S. is the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

National Marine Sanctuaries are normally established by bottom up (stakeholder-driven) and 

occasionally by top down (legislation) policy processes. Islands in the Stream (IIS) is a special 

case, similar to the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument which was established 

through the unique power of the Office of the President. The IIS proposal links nine marine 

managed areas, all previously established and vetted by sectoral interests, into a network. By 

encompassing the larger area of the Gulf of Mexico, the network will be greater than the sum of 

its parts for two main reasons. First, it is interconnected by physical, chemical and biological 

processes, building potential resistance and resilience to regional ecosystem responses to future 

disturbances. Second, the network will have administrative and regulatory uniformity, 

minimizing sectoral conflicts and administrative duplication and overlap. 

The Scientific Forum was charged to analyze and discuss the biophysical background of the Gulf 

of Mexico with special attention to whether or not IIS was representative of the physical and 

biological diversity of the shallow coastal shelf. It is particularly important to understand if our 

knowledge of ocean currents provides sufficient evidence of the potential connectivity of the 

nine units of the network. 

Arguably, we know more about the ecology and biological diversity of the Gulf than any other 

comparable body of water on the planet. The Forum emphatically concluded that there was 

sufficient science to support the implementation of IIS as a network of MPAs. Thanks largely to 

the enormous presence of the oil industry and the many universities and research institutions 

ringing the Gulf, there is a rich scientific background on the geological history and underlying 

structure, general ecological setting, and the biological diversity of the region. Much of this 

information can be made available in detailed, multi-layered maps of the region, providing 

dramatic visualization of the biophysical characteristics of the Gulf and the developing human 

disturbances. The sites of the Islands in the Stream rise above the sediment-dominated coastal 

14
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

shelf and, like islands everywhere, are refuges for biological diversity which can replenish other 

areas after significant natural or human disturbances. In addition to its biologically rich regional

setting, the Gulf exerts a more global influence as it is strongly linked to the Atlantic by the Loop 

Current, the Florida Current and the Gulf Stream and is seasonally used by wide-ranging, 

migratory fishes and turtles as a spawning and nesting area. 

The Gulf has the largest oil and natural gas fields in the world supported by huge refining and 

transport capacity along the coast and in major ports. The West Florida Shelf and the relatively 

wide shallow rim of the Gulf support important commercial and recreational fisheries and the 

decline of snapper, grouper, and shark populations has had a major economic and ecological 

impact. Florida, particularly among the Gulf states, is economically dependent upon tourism, 

clean beaches, and unpolluted waters. The Mississippi River, draining almost 50% of the U.S. 

land area, delivers sediments and pollutants originating in the grain belt to the Gulf. The “Dead 

Zone” an annual development of hypoxia from senescing phytoplankton blooms off the mouth of 

the Mississippi has increased in size and influence. The Loop Current carries these pollutants to 

the coral reefs of the Florida Keys and hence to the north along the east coast. 

The large human presence in the Gulf suggests that the social sciences must play a strong role in 

the implementation of IIS. We humans are political animals who don’t like surprises, tend to 

distrust government, and we treasure our constitutional right to make our points of view heard. 

Economics is the underlying driver of our society and marine governance, conservation, and 

sustainability must be shown to serve our needs for economic opportunity and growth. The Gulf 

of Mexico Alliance established by the governors of the 5 Gulf states in 2004 following the report 

of the Commission on Ocean Policy recognizes the importance of the Gulf and has been working 

effectively since then to integrate political and management efforts and focus them on the major 

environmental problems of the Gulf. 

The IIS proposal coincides with the publication of the Framework for Developing the National 

System of Marine Protected Areas1

by the NOAA MPA Center. The Framework, developed over 

4 years by the MPA Center in consultation with the MPA Federal Advisory Committee (MPA 

FAC) is a guide to the scientific and social requirements for linking MPAs into a network. It 

outlines in detail the collaborative processes required for MPA network development across all 

levels of government with public participation to achieve common conservation and 

management objectives. It specifies the importance of clearly stated goals and objectives for 

MPAs and the requirements for planning, monitoring, science and adaptive management to 

assure stewardship and effectiveness. The IIS provides an unprecedented opportunity for the 

approaches developed under the MPA Executive Order to be applied to the first regional MPA 

network in the U.S. 

The Scientific Forum concluded that implementation of IIS is urgent, given the tiny ocean area 

that is presently managed for conservation and sustainability and has the potential to pioneer the 

scientific, social and political inputs required for the implementation of MPA networks. Future 

large geographic scale, integrated scientific studies will bring new understanding of the 

ecological functioning of large marine regions. For example, as ambitious and innovative as it 

is, IIS is too small to encompass the life cycles of many key Gulf species which spend their 

juvenile lives in inshore habitats such as seagrasses and mangroves. The regional approach 

15
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

described in the National System Framework supports such a broader approach, outlining a 

process that integrates the authorities and capabilities of state and federal agencies, along with 

those of the private and academic sectors to help undertake a truly ecosystem approach to 

management. It is clear that new approaches and techniques will be needed to address future 

problems in management and mitigation of human impacts to the oceans. 

I am reminded of the creation of the National Wildlife Refuges by President Teddy Roosevelt at 

the beginning of the last century. By enlisting hunters and fishermen as allies in this effort, he 

was successful in beginning a process that, including National Parks, National Forests, and 

Bureau of Land Management, protects and manages a total of almost 30% of the land area of the 

U.S. We stand at a point in time where our oceans, approximately 120% of the U.S. land area2, 

demand similar attention to management and protection and it will require similar coalitions of 

interest groups to achieve success. 

 

References 

1

 Framework for Developing the National System of Marine Protected Areas (in press). National 

Marine Protected Areas Center, NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, Silver Spring, MD www.MPA.gov

2 U.S. ocean area may be defined as the area of the Exclusive Economic Zone, from the 

shoreline to 200 nautical miles. 

16
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 1: The Geological Setting

Moderator: Brian Keller 

Geologic Underpinnings of the “Islands in the Stream”; West Florida Margin 

Albert C. Hine and Stanley D. Locker 

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 

Hard Substrate--The “Islands of the Stream” concept is entirely appropriate in that much of the 

substrate supporting relict and modern coral reefs are drowned shorelines and barrier islands. 

Multiple paleo-shorelines on the west Florida shelf formed as a result of: (1) carbonate sediment 

production in the nearshore environment, (2) stable sea-level (stillstand), and (3) rapid 

cementation. During sea-level stillstands, carbonate skeletal sediments produced by the 

nearshore benthic community were transported by shoaling waves to build beaches and subaerial 

dunes. Carbonate sediments, particularly those made of aragonite and high Mg calcite, are 

chemically reactive subject to dissolution and precipitation both in the marine and fresh 

groundwater environments. As a result, relatively newly-deposited carbonate sediments became 

cemented by interstitial carbonate crystals forming erosionally-resistant limestone. 

When sea-level began to rise after a stillstand, the migrating surf-zone did not erode the 

shorelines, but inundated them thus leaving a marine hardbottom available for colonization of 

benthic organisms. In the southern Pulley Ridge area, in particular, the deep (60-70 m) living 

reef community is clearly situated on a 30 km long, 5 km wide, and 2-3 m high beach ridgedominated barrier island. Since the barrier-island morphology is so clearly imaged, we conclude 

that this deep reef is very thin (~.5 m) and forms a geologic horizontally-distributed biostrome 

rather than a vertically-erect bioherm. 

The linear reef-like features at Madison Swanson and maybe Steamboat Lumps also occupy 

paleo-shorelines. Madison-Swanson, in particular, is situated on a sea-level lowstand river deltas 

the top of which probably began to produce carbonate sediments when sea-level started to rise 

thus shutting down fluvial influence. However, the geologic underpinnings of other reefs such as 

the Florida Middle Ground, Howell Hook, or the outlier reefs are not well known since the 

appropriate rock cores have not be obtained. 

The newly discovered Sticky Grounds (Figure 1) form a narrow band (2 km) of “seismic” patch 

reefs (~5 m relief) that must have initiated growth on a nearshore hard substrate. High-resolution 

seismic reflection data clearly show water-column acoustic anomalies that may be gas bubbles 

escaping from many of the individual rocky structures. They do not appear to be fish. If so, we 

speculate that methane seeps might have played a role in carbonate cementation and hard 

substrate generation. A “seismic” reef is a feature seen in acoustic remote sensing that very 

closely resembles reefs seen in other remote sensing data that have proven to be reefs through 

ground-truthing and direct sampling. If this hypothesis is proven, it would be the first example of 

a reef system on the west Florida margin that owes its origin to gas seeps. 

17
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Figure 1. Side-scan sonar and high resolution seismic images of the seismic patch reefs at the Sticky Grounds. These features are 

a new discovery. We do not know what benthic or fish communities are supported, although dredge hauls indicate that no living 

corals exist. But, the mounds are indeed rocky. Water column anomalies seen in seismic data suggest that gas seeps might be 

present.

Sea Level--The distribution of hardbottoms and reefs is dependent upon sea-level history—at 

least for the past 125 thousand years ago and perhaps even further back in time. The islands 

forming the upper Florida Keys are coral reefs that grew during the last interglacial event when 

sea level was ~6 m higher than today. The outlier reefs that lie seaward of the main Keys reef 

tract and extend west beyond the Dry Tortugas formed ~85 thousand years ago when sea-level 

was ~10 m lower than today. Possibly, the Florida Middle Ground complex formed at this time, 

but absence of rock coring and appropriate age-dating precludes a definite age determination. 

During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; marine isotope stage 2) at ~18ka when sea level was 

~125 m lower than today, the Sticky Grounds probably formed in the nearshore. We have 

named this zone of many dozens of seismic patch reefs the “Sticky Grounds” since fisherman 

frequently have had their gear stick to the bottom due to the obvious roughness (Figure 1). 

We speculate that seismic reefs formed southern Howell Hook during the LGM as well, but we 

have no samples to date (Figure 2). These seismic reefs are enigmatic in that they extend down to 

-165 m. If they, indeed, formed during the LGM, they must have formed in at least 35 m of water 

suggesting extreme water clarity at that time. These features and the surrounding margin appear 

to have been severely eroded by the Loop Current impinging upon the upper slope. 

At the end of the LGM rapid melting of continental ice sheets forced global sea level to rise 

rapidly after ~18 ky. During this deglaciation, there were short periods of sea-level stillstand 

followed by rapid melt-water pulses causing sudden rises in sea-level—all indicating the nonlinear manner in which the ice sheets disintegrated. It was during these multiple stillstands that 

shorelines and barrier islands were formed on the west Florida shelf. Age dating of a series of 

18
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

shorelines seaward of Key West reveals three periods of fluctuations between 14 and 13 

thousand years ago. It was during this time we suggest (jump correlation) that the Pulley Ridge 

barrier island formed. Pulley Ridge is at the same depth as these features off Key West, but we 

do not have the appropriate samples to date. So, we make the tentative assumption that they are 

same age. 

By ~9 ka many of the other reefs in south Florida outside of the Islands in the Stream area such 

as the small reef banks at Riley’s Hump, Tortugas Bank, Dry Tortugas, and the Florida Keys reef 

tract started to form. 

 

Figure 2. High-resolution image of seismic reefs at Howell Hook. This is also a new discovery. We know very little of these 

features and if they support some benthic and fish community. It appears that erosion, perhaps by the Loop Current, has been 

pervasive in the past.

Oceanography--In addition to hard substrates formed by carbonate sedimentation/cementation 

spatially and temporally distributed by sea-level history, favorable water column conditions for 

coral reef growth are required. 

The 30 m deep Florida Middle Ground reef structures must have been formed when favorable 

water conditions bathed this area since no reef framework is being constructed presently. 

Perhaps, these reefs formed during marine isotope stage 5a (~80 thousand years ago) when sealevel was somewhat lower than today’s highstand. These features seem too well developed and 

19
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

too extensive to have formed during the very late Pleistocene/very early Holocene (~10 

thousand years ago). 

During the LGM (~18 thousand years ago) sea level stood ~125 m lower than today and 

oceanographic conditions were favorable for reef development at the Sticky Grounds and 

southern Howell Hook. If confirmed by rock sampling and drilling, this would be a new 

discovery suggesting that reefs could grow in the eastern Gulf of Mexico during at this time. 

The deep, light-dependent coral reef at southern Pulley Ridge exists because of being bathed by 

persistently clear and warm water over century if not millennial time scales. At some point in 

time after inundation of the cemented barrier island some 13 thousand years ago, the Loop 

Current began to intrude up onto the margin as a result of deepening water due to sea-level rise. 

When this occurred, we speculate that more turbid and more nutrient rich shelf waters were 

replaced by clearer, oligotrophic waters of this component of the western boundary current. For 

sure, modern oceanographic measurements illustrating the 3D structure of the water column are 

essential. The hardgrounds at Madison Swanson and Steamboat Lumps may have formed in this 

time frame as well (14-13 thousand years ago). 

What’s next?--We will not be able to understand the earth better until we can image it better. 

The space program, using the Hubble Telescope and the satellite probes to planets and their 

moons in our Solar System, clearly demonstrates this point. We propose more extensive seafloor 

mapping using side-scan, swath bathymetry, high-resolution seismic reflection profiling, bottomclassification geoacoustics and appropriate bottom camera/TV imagery and direct sea-floor 

sampling in strategically selected areas. We simply do not know if there are more “islands” out 

there in the stream. 

 

20
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

21

References 

Hine, A.C., and Locker, S.D., in press, The Florida Gulf of Mexico continental shelf—great 

contrasts and significant transitions, in, Holmes, C.E., ed., Gulf of Mexico—Geology: 

Fisheries Volume Bulletin 89, Harte Institute, Texas A&M University Press. 

Hine, A.C., Halley, R.B., Locker, S.D., Jarett, B. D., Jaap, W.C., Mallinson, D. J., 

Ciembronowicz, K.T., Ogden, N.B., Donahue, B.T., and Naar, D.F., in press, Coral reefs, 

present and past, on the West Florida Shelf and platform margin, in Riegel, B., and Dodge, 

R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Coral Reef Symposium. Springer Verlag. 

Jarrett, B.D., Hine, A.C., Halley, R.B., Naar, D.F., Locker, S.D., Neumann, A.C., Twichell, D., 

Hu, C., Donahue, B.T., Palandro, D., and Jaap, W.C., 2005, Strange bedfellows—a deep 

hermatypic coral reef superimposed on a drowned barrier island; southern Pulley Ridge, SW 

Florida platform margin: Marine Geology. v. 214, p. 295-307. 

Lidz, B. H., Shinn, E.A., Hine, A.C., and Locker, S.D., 1997, Contrasts within an outlier-reef 

system: evidence for differential Quaternary evolution, south Florida: Journal of Coastal 

Research. v. 13, p. 711-731. 

Locker, S.D., Hine, A.C., Tedesco, L.P., and Shinn, E.A., 1996, Magnitude and timing of 

episodic sea-level rise during the last deglaciation: Geology. v. 24, p. 827-830. 

Mallinson, D. Hine, A.C., Hallock, P., Locker, S.D., Shinn, E.A., Naar, D.F., Donahue, B., and 

Weaver, D., 2003, Development of small carbonate banks on the south Florida platform 

margin: response to sea level and climate change: Marine Geology. v. 199, p. 45-63.
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Habitat Islands along the Shelf Edge of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

Niall C. Slowey1

, Troy Holcombe1, Mark P. Betts2, and William R. Bryant1

1

Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 

2

Devon Energy Corporation, Houston TX 

Numerous reefs and banks occur along the edge of the continental shelf of the northwestern Gulf 

of Mexico. Investigations have shown that these seafloor features contain significant marine 

resources. Several banks, including the East and West Flower Gardens, possess some of the 

healthiest coral reef communities in the United States. All of these features provide crucial 

habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrate species of commercial and recreational importance. 

Recently collected data suggests that the marine habitats situated at these reefs and banks are not 

completely isolated from each other; rather, a network of seafloor ridges and outcrops, which act 

as physical links and provide additional valuable habitat, connects these important marine areas. 

To understand how these "islands" of habitat originated and how they are influenced by 

environmental processes today, it is necessary to consider the geologic setting of the seaward 

edge of the continental shelf and the upper continental slope. 

The continental shelf of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (named the Texas-Louisiana Shelf) 

extends nearly 1000 km from the delta of the Mississippi River westward to the Rio Grande 

River. It is quite broad and gently sloping; its width ranges from about 100 km at its eastern and 

western ends to nearly 200 km at its center, and the boundary between the seaward edge of the 

shelf and the upper edge of the continental slope occurs between 120 and 200 m water depth. A 

number of banks occur on the seafloor along the length of the shelf edge (Figure 1). Depending 

Figure 1. Locations of the larger “banks” occurring along the seaward edge of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf in the northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico. They are comprised of two types of physiographic features, banks (red) and ridges (blue), which are identified 

based upon patterns of seafloor bathymetric relief. 

22
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

on what criteria are used to classify these features, various compilations have counted from 65 to 

over 200 shelf edge banks. Their dimensions are quite variable; their maximum vertical relief 

may range from a few to over 100 m and their area may be as great as many 10’s of km2

. These 

physiographic features and the corresponding occurrence of coral reefs and other habitat types 

reflect several primary geological influences. 

Sometime between the last glaciation and today (i.e., the past 20 kyr), seafloor environmental 

conditions at these banks allowed biological communities to become established and sustain 

steady growth. A number of environmental conditions must exist for this to happen, including 

the following: (1) The seafloor must offer the organisms a firm substrate for attachment. (2) 

Seawater circulation must be vigorous so the physical parameters of the environment meet the 

needs of the organisms. (3) The turbidity of the seawater must be sufficiently low. These 

conditions can occur when the seafloor exhibits bathymetric relief and sites are raised above the 

surrounding seafloor. The geologic processes that create seafloor physiographic features with 

bathymetric relief often expose stiff, partially-lithified sediments or rocks at seafloor, providing 

firm substrate for benthic organisms. Raised sites are exposed to the stronger circulation that 

occurs in the water column and may avoid the higher levels of turbidity that occur at relatively 

flat areas of the seafloor due to the influx of terrigenous sediments via rivers and the interaction 

of waves and the seafloor. 

Many of the banks and other seafloor features that exhibit bathymeric relief exist as a 

consequence of the movement of allochthonous salt within the seabed (Figure 2). It is generally 

thought that as the Gulf of Mexico basin opened during the Late Triassic and Early to Middle 

Jurassic periods (over 160 million years ago), the passages between the basin and the adjacent 

Figure 2. Locations of bodies of allochthonous salt in the seabed that occur close to the seafloor of the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. 

23
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Pacific Ocean were restricted so that the seawaters within the basin were in only intermittent 

communication with those outside of it. Under the prevailing warm and dry climatic conditions, 

evaporation of seawater led to the precipitation and accumulation of the Louann Salt and other 

age-equivalent salt deposits on the floor of the north region of the basin. Over time this salt was 

buried beneath great sequences of sediments; when exposed to high pressure and temperature 

upon burial, the salt has acted in a plastic fashion and flowed both upward and laterally in a 

seaward direction. These salt deposits are in places several km thick and span a vast area that 

today underlies much of the coastal plain, continental shelf, continental slope, and continental 

rise of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Along the seaward edge of the continental shelf and the upper continental slope, discrete stocks 

and plugs of rising allochthonous salt have pushed overlying sediments upward, creating domes 

that rise above the surrounding seafloor (Figure 3). Analyses of the features of shelf-edge banks 

along the eastern and central portions of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf (e.g., direct observations, 

seafloor bathymetry, gravity anomalies, heatflow values, sub-seafloor seismic reflection data, 

rock samples, etc.) indicate that such salt diapirism is the process by which most of these banks 

originated. Several examples of salt-related bank features are presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 3. Schematic illustration showing how stocks and plugs of allochthonous salt 

rise upward from underlying massive salt deposits, pushing seabed sediments upward 

in a domed fashion to create the seafloor relief that defines many banks along the 

seaward edge of the eastern and central portions of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf. 

a 

 b

Figure 4. (a) The radial pattern of ridges evident in the seafloor bathymetry of Bright Bank is consistent with the radial 

faulting and uplifting/down-dropping of blocks of the seabed that are characteristics of salt diapirism. (b) The near 

circular outline of the Alderdice Bank and the partially-eroded, exposed layers of concentrically-domed seabed 

sediments [i] along with the occurrence of basalt spires [ii] indicate that Alderdice Bank formed as allochthonous salt 

rose and moved laterally over 100 km carrying entrained Cretaceous igneous material to the seafloor. 

24
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

By creating banks, rising allochthonous salt certainly plays a crucial role in creation of valuable 

seafloor habitat in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Bright Bank, East Flower Garden Bank, 

West Flower Garden Bank, Stetson Bank, are among the banks that have living hermatypic 

corals, and many banks now support communities fish and invertebrate species. 

Rising allochthonous salt can also play a secondary role in habitat formation. Salt dissolves when 

it comes into contact with seawater circulating along fault planes or when it is exposed to 

ambient seawater at the seafloor. East Flower Garden Bank illustrates two ways that salt 

dissolution affects seafloor habitat (Figure 5). Loss of salt from the seabed can alter the seafloor 

by causing overlying sediments to collapse and depressions to form in the seafloor. The presence 

of dense brine produced via dissolution can create a local environment where communities of 

organisms relying on chemoautotrophic processes thrive. If the brine pools in seafloor 

depressions, anoxic conditions can also become established. 

Figure 5. Seafloor features of East Flower Garden Bank reflect the dissolution of allochthonous salt: (a) Seafloor bathymetry of 

the bank. (b) Large depression at the southeastern portion of the bank due to dissolution of salt in the seabed. (c) Small 

depressions along southeastern edge of the bank where brine from the seabed exits onto the seafloor. (d) Geomorphologic 

features associated with brine exiting onto the seafloor and then flowing off of the bank. 

Unlike the banks on the eastern and central edges of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf, shallow salt 

bodies do not occur beneath banks on the western edge of the shelf (compare Figures 1 and 2). 

Other geologic processes must therefore be responsible for the formation of these banks. 

Important clues about the origins and histories of the banks are provided by samples collected 

from the seafloor and seismic profile images of the banks and surrounding seabed. Material 

dredged from the surface of several banks shows that they are covered by calcium carbonate 

25
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

derived from reef-dwelling organisms, including coral skeletons and coralline algae nodules. A 

seismic reflection profile across Baker Bank (Figure 6) shows the bathymetric relief associated 

with the bank at the top of the profile, which corresponds to the present-day seafloor, and the 

mass of carbonate comprising the bank is evident as chaotic seismic reflectors just below the 

seafloor. The existence of laterally continuous seismic reflectors underneath the bank indicates 

that seabed upon which the bank formed was not deformed significantly by shallow salt 

diapirism (as is the case for eastern and central portions of shelf edge). Faulting of the seabed has 

caused some relative vertical motion of portions of the seabed, though these effects are most 

apparent deep within the seabed and minimal near the seafloor. Nevertheless, subtle bathymetric 

relief (perhaps created by faulting, differential compaction/erosion of subaerially exposed river 

delta sediments during the glaciation, or erosion/mass-wasting at the seafloor) must have been 

sufficient for reef organisms to become established. 

Figure 6. Seismic profile of Baker Bank, illustrating several features of the banks that occur along the seaward edge of the 

western portion of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf. Note that the vertical scale of the profile is exaggerated relative to the horizontal 

scale and acoustic shadowing can make sediment horizons that are continuous appear distorted. 

Several samples of reef-derived calcium carbonate dredged from the surfaces of banks on the 

western edge of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf were radiometrically dated. The most recently formed 

material was a Siderastrea siderea coral from Dream Bank that yielded a calibrated age of about 

12 kyrs before present. This time corresponds to the early portion of the transition from the last 

glaciation to today when sea level was about 60 m lower than it is today (during the last glacial 

maximum sea level was about 120 lower than it is today). The western-shelf edge banks are 

about 60 to 80 m deep now so the organisms that formed these banks lived within a few 10’s of 

m of the sea surface. However, while communities of reef organisms once grew on these banks, 

they failed to survive the changes in local environmental conditions that occurred as sea level 

rose to its present position. Sediments deposited since the reefs stopped growing are draped onto 

the side of Baker Bank (Figure 6). Presumably, the either the growth of the reef organisms could 

not keep pace with the rise of sea level, or the turbidity of the water became too great for the reef 

organisms as sea level rose and flooded the continental shelf. 

26
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

References

Beaudoin, J., J. Gardner and J. Hughes Clarke, 2002, Bathymetry and acoustic backscatter of 

selected areas of the outer continental shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico, Cruise report R/V 

Ocean Surveyor O1-02-GM, U. S. Geological Survey open-file report OF02-410. 

Fairbanks, R., 1989, A 17000-year glaciao-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting 

rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation, Nature v. 342, p. 637-642. 

Holcombe, T., L. Holcombe, W. Bryant, and S. Bednarz, 2006, Northwest Gulf of Mexico 

Continental Slope and Shelf Edge Banks, Bathymetric Imagery from Multibeam Surveys, 

College Station, TX, Texas Sea Grant College Program, CD-ROM, 5p. text, 52 images, index 

map, gazetteer. 

Holcombe, T., L.Holcombe, W. Bryant, and S. Bednarz, 2007, Bathymetry of the Northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, Including Topography of Adjacent Coastal Land Areas of 

Texas and Louisiana, College Station, TX, Texas Sea Grant College Program, CD-ROM, 8p. 

text, 38 images, index map. 

Martin, R., Jr., 1980, Distribution of salt structures in the Gulf of Mexico, U. S. Geological 

Survey, Map MF-1213.

Rezak, R., T. Bright, and D. McGrail, 1983, Reefs and banks of the Northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 256 pp.

Salvador, A. (editor), 1986, The Gulf of Mexico Basin, The Geological Society of America, 

Boulder, 568 pp. 

Winker, C., and J. Booth, 2000, Sedimentary dynamics of the salt-dominated continental slope, 

Gulf of Mexico: integration of observations from the seafloor, near-surface, and deep 

subsurface, Proceedings of the GCSSEPM Foundation 20th Annual Research Conference 

Deep-Water Reservoirs of the World, 3-6 December 2000, p. 1059-1086, CDROM 

publication. 

27
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 1 Discussion 

Al Hine (University of South Florida) – presentation/ panelist 

Niall Slowey (Texas A&M University) – presentation/ panelist 

Gene Shinn (University of South Florida) – panelist

(from meeting transcripts) 

Billy Causey: The “moat” effect at Pulley Ridge – could that be causing what you saw at Hollow 

Hook? 

Al Hine: I don’t think so. I think it is erosion. 

Niall Slowey: Could it be like what is happening on the Great Bahama Bank? 

Al Hine: (not captured) 

Gene Shinn: You said the Florida Middle Grounds are being degraded? 

Al Hine: In terms of being eroded. Sediments are being generated and then being carried in a net 

southeast flow – that net flow can bury the lower relief features. All the multibeam evidence 

shows that they are shrinking. There is stuff growing on them, but they are being eroded away. 

They formed around 80 or 90 million years ago. The Florida Middle Grounds are enigmatic. 

Tony Grogan: What period of time was the degradation and did human activity have anything to 

do with it? 

Al Hine: No. 

Question: Are the salt diapirs influencing the benthic habitat? 

Niall Slowey: (not captured). 

Andy Shepard: Are we missing any geologic features that we should consider adding to the 

network? 

Al Hine: I have restricted my remarks to 160 meters or less, however there are deeper features. 

The Lophilia/Dendrophilia reefs. The “Sticky Grounds” was a surprise. We didn’t predict that 

at all. Same with Pulley Ridge – we wanted to see where the Florida Reef Tract ended and we 

found Pulley Ridge. The West Florida Shelf is a huge area – bigger than the state of Florida. 

We need more imagery. We are in reconnaissance mode and have been for some time. 

Ian MacDonald: There are very productive areas in the deeper regions of theGulf of Mexico – 

how deep do we want to go? 

Niall Slowey: You could go to 3000 meters. 

28
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

29

Ian MacDonald: There is no geologic reason to cut off? 

Niall Slowey: There are diverse coral related resources very deep; it becomes a question of 

practicality. 

Jim Culter: The proprietary information – will the public have to recreate the information that is 

already there? 

Niall Slowey: Most information the oil industry has doesn’t have great financial information. So 

it is available. 

Steven Atran: (The Gulf of Mexico/Florida Middle Grounds) Last year we had a few events in 

the gulf referred to as earthquakes. Are these things that can be predicted or monitored? 

Al Hine: The US Geological Survey explanation was that it was 3200 meters of water, sediment 

cover was very thick; it occurred off here, and the epicenter was right at the bottom of the 

sediment column and on ocean crust. There are old faults that traverse thru the crust. Here you 

have a huge weight on these old faults. This has happened in the past. 

Niall Slowey: There are always earthquakes in the Gulf of Mexico – they just aren’t big enough 

for you to notice. They are due to the salt movements. Very difficult to model and predict. 

Steven Atran: Is there any danger that some of our reefs will collapse on us? 

Gene Shinn: There was an earthquake that was felt from Key West to Tampa. These have 

happened before. 

Dan Basta: Great interest today is climate change. Relic shorelines are useful to look at climate 

change. Are there relic shorelines in the Gulf of Mexico that are well defined? 

Al Hine: We have shown how the sea level rose – but in a series of jerks. It created a shoreline 

every time and we can date them. There is a clear record of something about ice dynamics that is 

non- linear. It won’t occur on a straight line – geology clearly shows that you can have rapid sea 

level rise – could go into a runaway mode for a hundred years. 

Niall Slowey: The Gulf of Mexico is one of the best places you can do this. Listed three ways 

(not captured). Looking at changes in the bathymetry related to seafloor.... 

Walt Jaap: I have a question about Lophelia pertusa: Is there any uniqueness to the places 

where it is found in the Gulf that suggest that it needs protection? 

Al Hine: Based on what I know on the lithoherms in the Straits of Florida, it seems they need the 

hard substrate. Not always have seeps but the seeps can be important for sure. 
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 2: The Oceanographic Setting 

Moderator: Kim Ritchie 

Physical Oceanography in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Connectivity of Coastal Ecosystems and Large Scale Flows 

Villy Kourafalou1,*, George Halliwell1, Patrick Hogan2 and Ole-Martin Smedstad3

1

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL 

2

Naval Research Lab, Stennis Space Center, MS 

3

QinetiQ North America, Technology Solutions Group – PSI, Stennis Space Center, MS 

The basin-wide physical oceanographic processes in the Gulf of Mexico are dominated by the 

Loop Current and associated rings and eddies that not only dominate the Gulf interior, but also 

provide connectivity pathways among remote coastal and deep sea ecosystems. Depending on 

the dominant circulation conditions, various shallow and deep reefs can be connected to each 

other and to upstream ecosystems and neighboring sources of larvae and nutrients. For instance, 

coral reefs in the Northern Gulf are subject to influence from waters of low salinity and high 

nutrient content of river origin, mainly from the Mississippi, but also from additional rivers. 

Mechanisms of offshore removal of these coastal discharges that can impact the deep reefs 

include shelf processes (mainly wind and buoyancy driven currents), interaction with an 

extended Loop Current, or the presence of counter-rotating eddies in the vicinity of the river 

plumes. In addition, observational and numerical studies suggest that a mechanism of advection 

of plume waters toward the Gulf interior and toward the Straits of Florida exists, thus effectively 

connecting Northern and Southern Gulf of Mexico ecosystems (Ortner et al., 1995; Morey et al., 

2003; Hu et al., 2005). Furthermore, the large scale current system offers connectivity pathways 

between ecosystems in the Gulf and the Caribbean at large. 

Numerical models aid the understanding of the processes that control transport and the 

connectivity rates and pathways and allow the development of predictability skill that can be 

used in forecasting. Such an activity has been undertaken in the Rosenstiel School of Marine and 

Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami, in collaboration with the Naval Research Lab 

at Stennis Space. A regional model has been developed for the Gulf of Mexico, based on the 

Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) and named GoM-HYCOM. The model has a 

resolution of 1/25 degree (averaging ~3.5 km) and is nested within a coarser model of the entire 

North Atlantic, so that the larger scale current system impacting the Gulf of Mexico is well 

represented, while several coastal models are nested within (Kourafalou et al., 2008). Data 

assimilation of along track satellite altimeter observations and satellite Sea Surface Temperature 

(SST) retrievals directly from the orbital data is implemented through the Navy Coupled Ocean 

Data Assimilation scheme (NCODA, Cummings, 2005). The near real-time SST’s are derived 

from the NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) with the use of the 

Multichannel Sea Surface Temperature algorithm (MCSST). The surface atmospheric forcing is 

provided by the three-hourly 1o horizontal resolution NOGAPS reanalysis product. 

30
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

An example of fields predicted by the Regional Gulf of Mexico GoM-HYCOM model are shown 

in Fig. 1. The Sea Surface Height depicts the Loop Current during a phase that precedes ring 

shedding, along with several cyclonic and anticyclonic eddies in the basin. The Loop Current 

front and the eddies traveling around it are clearly seen to connect the Yucatan Strait with the 

Straits of Florida passing through the Northern Gulf, thus providing pathways that can connect 

larval spawning grounds and settlement sites, sources of nutrients or land drained pollutants and 

reef habitats. The Sea Surface Salinity field exhibits the interaction between the basin wide flows 

and the low salinity waters or river origin that dominate the Northern Gulf. The study of the 

complex phenomena associated with the interactions between coastal and offshore flows in the 

Gulf of Mexico and the ability to predict the connectivity pathways are essential components on 

the understanding of the ecosystem dynamics in shallow and deep reefs and the development of 

ecosystem based management scenarios. 

Fig. 1: Sea Surface Height (left) and sea Surface salinity (right) computed by the Gulf of Mexico Hybrid Coordinate Ocean 

Model (GoM-HYCOM) for May 29, 2004. 

31
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

References

Cummings, J.A., 2005. Operational multivariate ocean data assimilation. Journal of the Royal 

Meteorological Society, 131, 3583 – 3604. 

Hu, C. J.R. Nelson, E. Johns, Z. Chen, R. Weisberg, F. Muller-Karger, 2005. Mississippi River 

water in the Florida Straits and in the Gulf Stream off Georgia in summer 2004, Geophysical 

Research Letters, Vol. 32, L14606, doi:10.1029/2005GL022942. 

Kourafalou V.H., G. Peng, H. Kang, P.J. Hogan, O.M. Smedstadt, R.H. Weisberg, M.O. Baringer 

and C.S. Meinen, 2008. Evaluation of Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment products 

on South Florida nested simulations with the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model. Ocean 

Dynamics (Submitted). 

Morey, S.L., P.J. Martin, J.J. O’Brien, A.A. Wallcraft and J. Zavala-Hidalgo, 2003. Export 

pathways for river discharged fresh water in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, 108, 3303, doi:10.1029/2002JC001674. 

Ortner, P.B., T.N Lee, P.J. Milne, R.G. Zika, M.E. Clarke, G. P. Podesta, P.K. Swart, P.A. 

Tester, L.P. Atkinson, and W. R. Johnson, 1995. Missisippi River flood waters that reached 

the Gulf Stream. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100 (C7): 13,595-13, 601. 

32
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Coastal Ocean Circulation, Observing and Modeling Systems for the West 

Florida Shelf, and Applications to the 2005 Red-tide 

Robert H. Weisberg 

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

The continental shelf is defined as the shallow, coastal ocean region linking the shoreline with 

the abyssal ocean. Florida has a broad, gently sloping West Florida Shelf (WFS), which receives 

its nutrients and other water properties through upwelling across the shelf break and 

communication with the major estuaries and other land drainage sources. Through such deepocean and estuarine interactions conditions are determined which control the ecology of the 

WFS, including productive recreational and commercial fisheries and blooms of K. brevis red 

tide. An underlying physical oceanographic goal is understanding the workings of the coastal 

ocean in uniting nutrients with light and promoting the conditions that lead to such rich 

ecological interactions. 

To achieve this goal, the CMS-USF, in collaboration with various agencies and institutions, has 

developed a coordinated program of coastal ocean observing and modeling. Observations 

consist of: 1) moored buoys for surface meteorology, water column currents, T, S, and eventually 

other measures of ecological importance; 2) profiling floats and gliders for similar in-water 

variables; 3) HF-radar and surface drifters for surface currents; 4) and various satellite derived 

data products. Models consist of numerical circulation models that link the WFS with the deepocean and with the estuaries, along with higher resolution models of the estuaries themselves. 

Public domain codes are applied. The model linking the WFS with the deep-ocean is a regional 

adaptation of ROMS (e.g., Shchepetkin and McWilliams, 2005) nested in HYCOM (e.g., 

Chassignet et al., 2007); the estuarine models are adaptations of the FVCOM (Chen et al, 2003). 

The WFS regional model operates in an automated, nowcast/forecast mode, with results 

available on the internet at http://ocgweb.marine.usf.edu. Observations are also available at that 

web site. The FVCOM is also being used as a regional model to be nested into either ROMS or 

HYCOM. 

A review of WFS circulation is provided by Weisberg et al. (2005). Highlights are that the Gulf 

of Mexico Loop Current is an important determinant of the water properties on the WFS, but that 

the manner in which this occurs is quite complex. For instance, remote forcing in the vicinity of 

the Dry Tortugas can cause upwelling onto the shelf near DeSoto Canyon followed by advection 

to the near shore within the bottom Ekman layer. This, along with anomalous upwelling 

favorable winds, accounted for the high nutrient and primary productivity states in 1998 

(Weisberg et al., 2003 and Walsh et al., 2003). Such interannual variability greatly affects the 

ecology of the WFS. Seasonal variability is also documented, with a fairly regular annual cycle 

of preferentially upwelling circulation in fall through spring months, versus downwelling 

circulation in summer months. Whereas the Loop Current impacts the WFS, it is isolated from 

the shelf itself via the Taylor-Proudman theorem (He and Weisberg, 2003). 

Other recent accomplishments include the characterization of the 2005 red tide bloom through 

advection from offshore to the near shore region, again via the bottom Ekman layer. We used 

the regional ROMS/HYCOM model formulation to demonstrate these pathways and to account 

for the evolution of the red tide observations. We also demonstrated, using profiling floats along 

33
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

with the model, the origin of water that led to strong stratification and the associated benthic dieoff that occurred during the 2005 red tide event, and on the basis of these successes we initiated a 

red-tide tracking tool in the model. An outgrowth of these activities is a new, Center for 

Prediction of Red tide (CPR) joint between USF and the FWC. CPR will be coupling the 

physical with biological models and intends to advance the predictive capabilities of these 

coupled models through data assimilation. 

Some additional lessons learned are that long time series are essential in describing the workings 

of the WFS circulation. We are attempting to acquire these through the maintenance of a coastal 

ocean observing system. Observations alone, however, are insufficient, and models alone are 

fraught with error. It is through the close coordination of these two activities that advancements 

in understanding and prediction of ecologically important processes on the WFS will be 

achieved. 

References 

Chassignet, E. P., Hurlburt, H. E., Smedstad, O. M., Halliwell, G. R., Hogan, P. J., Wallcraft, A. 

J., Baraille, R., Bleck, R. (2007). The HYCOM (Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model) Data 

Assimilative System. Journal of Marine Systems 65 (1-4), 60–83. 

Chen, C., H. Liu, and R.C. Beardsley. 2003. An unstructured grid, finite volume, threedimensional, primitive equations ocean model: Applications to coastal ocean and estuaries. 

J. Atm. Ocean Tech., 20, 159-186. 

He, R and R.H. Weisberg (2003). A Loop Current intrusion case study on the West Florida 

Shelf. J.Phys. Oceanogr., 33, 465-477. 

Shchepetkin, A. and J. McWilliams (2005). The Regional Oceanic Modeling System: A splitexplicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate ocean model. Ocean Modelling, 9, 

347–404. 

Walsh, J.J., R.H. Weisberg, D.A. Dieterle, R. He, B.P. Darrow, J.K. Jolliff, K.M. Lester, G.A. 

Vargo, G.J. Kirkpatrick, K.A. Fanning, T.T. Sutton, A.E. Jochens, D.C. Briggs, B. Nababan, 

C. Hu, and F. Muller-Karger (2003). The phytoplankton response to intrusions of slope 

water on the West Florida Shelf: models and observations. J. Geophys. Res., 108, C6, 21, 

doi:10.1029/2002JC001406. 

Weisberg, R.H. and R. He (2003). Local and deep-ocean forcing contributions to anomalous 

water properties on the West Florida Shelf. J. Geophys. Res., 108, C6, 15, 

doi:10.1029/2002JC001407. 

Weisberg, R.H., R. He, Y. Liu, and J.I. Virmani (2005). West Florida shelf circulation on 

synoptic, seasonal, and inter-annual time scales, in Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico, W. 

Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez, eds., AGU monograph series, Geophysical Monograph 161, 

325-347. 

34
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 2 Discussion 

Villy Kourafalou (University of Miami/RSMAS) –presentation/ panelist 

Bob Weisberg (University of South Florida College of Marine Science) – presentation/panelist 

Libby Johns (NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Lab) –panelist 

Liz Williams (University of Miami/RSMAS) - panelist

(from meeting transcripts) 

Andy Shepard: Are internal waves a factor we need to think about as well? 

Bob Weisberg: Yes, I think all these models have to be complete enough. Most of the models 

probably don’t account for what you are talking about. They may not have the internal waves in 

them, but if they can get the stratification right, they probably are capturing them. 

Jerry Ault: What about the contribution of the Cuban Shelf that is huge and has many of the 

same species? 

Villy Kourafalou: Quite a few studies have been done - some with collaborations with Cuba – 

looking at how larvae would be entrained and carried across. We went to Cuba for a conference 

a few years ago – but it was very difficult for people to get visas, etc. Depending on the position 

of the Florida current, I don’t think that north Cuba would be much of a source. More 

collaboration would be needed. South Cuba models show connections to loop currents. Loop 

current provides connectivity. 

John Ogden: To what extent does existing understanding of oceanography demonstrate that these 

areas are linked and are there knowledge gaps identified? 

Bob Weisberg: It is clear that we don’t have a good handle on what determines a loop current 

shedding event. The loop current is what provides the connectivity. The whole process of loop 

current penetration into the Gulf of Mexico, the maintenance of the Gulf of Mexico and the 

eventually shedding the eddies is a major gap. Every year is unique – there are long term secular 

variations. In recent years the loop current has penetrated farther into the Gulf of Mexico and 

has sustained for longer and we don’t understand why. 

Villy Kourafalou: One of the main problems is the type of data that go in to the models. There is 

a lot of information that we use for the models, but that isn’t necessarily good enough. There are 

no profiles in terms of what is happening underneath the surface – we need that information. 

Doing some work to find out where the gaps are that would be most important. 

Bob Weisberg: We have these different habitats, and we’d like to know if they are connected. 

There is a geological basis for connection. But what makes them a suitable habitat. And for 

that, circulation has to play a role. These are the questions that we have to address? It may not 

be as simple as Islands in the Stream. 

35
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

36

Gene Shinn: Regardless of what the models say, there has to be some connectivity given all the 

studies that have been done showing direct connectivity. 

Libby Johns: I am going to talk later today about some new, direct data that show that the models 

are correct. 

Steve Altran: How much bottom data systems to we have compared to the surface and are we 

attempting to get more coverage? 

Bob Weisberg: Very few are getting information on the water column at all. Until recently there 

haven’t been in water sensors on the NOAA buoys. Most of the work on that has been by 

academics. Your observation is a good one. 

Paul Sammarco: Should be interesting to meld data on circulation patterns and coral genetics. 

Eleven species of tropical corals are on oil platforms. Molecular data (have been/are being) 

collected to study genetic relationships of these corals. 

Ian MacDonald: High temperature and lower pH are two stressors on corals – are there models 

to predict the effects of those on corals? 

Bob Weisberg: I haven’t seen a compelling change in temperature from my geological 

colleagues. pH may be another story. 

Libby Johns: Jim Hendee has been working on temperature plus UV really correlates with how 

well the coral reefs are doing. 

Paul Sammarco: Large scale eddies – don’t tend to shift onto the shelf – is it possible to get the 

top of the eddy to get wind sheared onto the shelf? 

Bob Weisberg: It occurs on a pressure scale – can have penetration on a certain scale. You can 

get deep water properties permeating across the shelf. It draws down to a matter of scale. 

I want to make one comment on connectivity – obviously there is connectivity. The issue of 

larval recruitment: there is a lot of inter annual variability. We have to look at the details of it, 

not the generalities. 

Liz Williams: There are also wind events – where you have a southwest wind impinging on the 

topography. Not just the eddies, it’s also the wind events interact with coastal waters. 
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 3: Benthic Characterizations

Moderator: Brian Keller 

Gulf of Mexico Initiative 

Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

Emma L. Hickerson and G.P. Schmahl 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, Galveston TX

The reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico have been the focus of investigations by 

the research team from the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary for the past ten 

years. Since 1997, collaborative efforts between NOAA, USGS, and the University of New 

Hampshire have resulted in the collection of close to 4000 square kilometers (1525 sq. miles) of 

high-resolution multibeam bathymetry, detailing thirteen different banks, and some areas 

connecting various locations. 

37
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Various levels of management and protection are in place in this region. The East and West 

Flower Gardens and Stetson Banks are the three areas within the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS), and carry a Sanctuary protection through Sanctuary regulations. 

Anchoring is illegal throughout the Sanctuary through the International Maritime Organization 

No Anchor Regulations. Commercial and recreational hook and line fishing are allowed. There 

is an active gas platform, HIA389A, within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, at East Flower 

Garden Bank. All reefs and banks in the region are protected from direct impacts from oil and 

gas activities through regulations placed on the industry through Minerals Management Service 

(MMS). The following banks are designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC’s) 

by NOAA Fisheries: Stetson, East and West FGB, MacNeil, 29 Fathom, Rankin, 29 Fathom, 

Bright, Geyer, Sonnier, McGrail, Bouma, Rezak, Sidner, Alderdice, and Jakkula. This 

designation does not carry any protective regulations in itself, however, when fisheries of species 

are evaluated, these areas must be taken into consideration. Three of these locations do carry 

regulations as part of the HAPC designation, due to the presence of coral reefs: East and West 

FGB, and McGrail Bank. At the request of the FGBNMS, Stetson Bank was also afforded the 

additional regulatory requirements. The following activities are prohibited by fishing vessels 

through this additional HAPC regulatory measures: bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, 

dredge, pot, or trap, and bottom anchoring. 

The earliest explorations of the Flower Garden Banks were led by Dr. Thomas Pulley, then 

Director Emeritus of the Houston Museum of Natural Science, during the early 1960’s. These 

investigations continued under the auspices of Flower Gardens Ocean Research Center 

(FGORC), founded by Robert Alderdice and James Covington in the late 1960’s. Texas A&M 

University led the science expeditions during the 1970’s, under the guidance of researchers 

including Drs. Thomas Bright, Richard Rezak, and David McGrail. Their investigations, funded 

primarily by the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM), now Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) covered the geographic area of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, and was driven for the 

need to characterize the reefs and banks in the face of advancing oil and gas exploration and 

extraction activities. Their efforts resulted in volumes of BLM reports covering oceanography, 

geology, and biology of features in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. A comprehensive book 

entitled Reefs and Banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico continues to be an outstanding 

reference for this region (Rezak et al. 1985). One of the outcomes of this research era was the 

development of Ecological Zonation description of each of the reefs and banks based on their 

observations to each of the banks. This exceptional wealth of baseline information has guided 

the current investigations by the Flower Garden Banks research team. 

Since 1998, the Flower Garden Banks NMS has led twelve expeditions to further characterize 

the reefs and banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, building upon the knowledge gained by 

the early investigations by Bright, Rezak, and McGrail. These expeditions have utilized both 

manned submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s). These cruises have resulted in 

over 218 hours of survey time, 177 ROV surveys, the collection of approximately 250 directed 

samples, and the collection of close to 8500 high resolution digital still images. The majority of 

the surveys have taken place within the boundaries of the FGBNMS, however some surveys 

have been conducted at other NW GOM locations: Bright (3 surveys), Sonnier (1 survey), 

McGrail (20 surveys), Alderdice (3 surveys), Pinnacles (5 surveys). The surveys typically 

ranged between 50m to 150m depth. 

38
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Real time annotations of the ROV surveys were produced for the majority of the ROV surveys, 

detailing fish species and number estimates, benthic community, and geology. An inventory of 

the biology in all of the digital still images has been developed – all of the images are 

georeferenced, so can be visualized through GIS applications. 

A series of reference posters have been developed, depicting the major biological components 

encountered during the surveys – antipatharians, octocorals, fishes, sponges, and algae and 

invertebrates. Many of the images used in the posters were taken of samples in situ, prior to 

collection. Taxonomy experts are collaborating with the FGBNMS to identify the samples. In 

many cases when high resolution images of the biology were provided to experts, identification 

was not possible due to the fact that the taxonomists had only seen preserved specimens. This is 

the reason behind the development of the posters depicting the in situ organisms before they 

become specimens to be identified. We believe that these posters can be useful reference 

material on a regional level. High resolution versions of the posters can be downloaded at: 

http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/document_library/sci_documents.html. Some of the specimens are 

yet to be identified. 

The surveys have prompted the FGBNMS to update the Biological Habitat Classification 

Scheme, based on higher resolution capabilities, sampling, and observations. A workshop was 

held to assist in guiding this effort. Biological Habitat Classification Maps for the East and West 

Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank were developed, based on the updated Classification 

Scheme. This updated scheme is presented in the 2008 releases of the publications, Coral Reefs 

of the U.S.A, and in the State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson 

Bank, and Other Banks in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, which is a section in the State of the 

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. We feel 

that the updated scheme is applicable in all of the outer and mid-shelf reefs and banks in the 

Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Of note is the updated information pertaining to McGrail Bank, which contains a unique 

Stephanocoenia intersepta coral reef. This reef was granted regulatory protection through the 

HAPC designation, and was featured in a paper by Schmahl and Hickerson (2006). 

Approximately 28% coral cover was measured during ROV surveys in areas dominated by large 

Stephanocoenia colonies – upwards of 3-4m across. 

Limited surveys have also been conducted at the Alabama/Mississippi Pinnacles area by the 

FGBNMS research team. High resolution multibeam bathymetric data was obtained in 2000 by 

Dr. J. Gardner (University of New Hampshire), in cooperation with USGS. 

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/pacmaps/pn-index.html. Minerals Management Service have funded 

several investigations targeting this region. 

The Flower Garden Banks is currently undergoing a review of the Sanctuary Management Plan. 

The top issues identified through the public scoping process were boundary expansion, fishing 

impacts, visitor use, water quality, education/outreach, and enforcement. A ranking process was 

undertaken for the boundary expansion issue, and a list of locations were submitted to the 

FGBNMS by the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) to move forward through a boundary 

expansion process. The recommendation by the SAC was to adjust the boundaries for Stetson 

39
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Bank and East and West Flower Garden Banks, to better encompass the existing biological and 

geological features, and to expand the boundaries to encompass the following banks: Horseshoe, 

MacNeil, Rankin, 28 Fathom, Bright, Geyer, Sonnier, Alderdice, and McGrail Banks. The 

FGBNMS is in the process of drafting the EIS for these areas. In addition to the boundary 

expansion activities, the SAC recommended that the FGBNMS conduct an Experimental 

Research Closure to assess the affects of fishing and diving at the FGBNMS. A Research 

Closure Workshop is scheduled to be held in April, 2008, to design the closure and subsequent 

monitoring. 

The FGBNMS acknowledges the following people who have contributed their time, ideas, 

expertise, and encouragement for the research conducted in deepwater habitat of the 

Northwestern Gulf of Mexico since 1998: 

Dr. Sylvia Earle (National Geographic, DOER Marine, Inc.) 

Dr. Jim Gardner (University of New Hampshire, formerly USGS) 

Lance Horn (NURC-UNCW) 

Steve Cairns (Smithsonian Insitute) 

Dennis Opresko (Smithsonian Institute) 

Klaus Ruetzler (Smithsonian Institute) 

Mary Wicksten (Texas A&M University) 

Doug Weaver (Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, formerly FGBNMS) 

Absent from these acknowledgements is an extensive list of collaborators who have participated 

in the cruises, and assisted with identification of specimens. 

References 

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1985. Reefs and Banks of the Northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico: Their Geological, Biological, and Physical Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New 

York, 259 pp. 

Schmahl, GP and EL Hickerson. 2006. McGrail Bank, a deep tropical coral reef community in 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef 

Symposium, 1124-1130. Japanese Coral Reef Society, Tokyo, Japan. 

40
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Long-Term Reef Monitoring at the Flower Garden Banks: 

Status, Stasis and Change 

W.F. Precht1, R.B. Aronson2, K.J.P. Deslarzes3, L.S. Kaufman4, 

M.L. Robbart5

, E.L. Hickerson6, G.P. Schmahl6, J. Sinclair7

1

Battelle Memorial Institute, Miami FL 

2

Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, AL 

3

Geo-Marine, Inc. New Iberia, LA 

4

Biology Department, Boston University, Boston, MA 

5

Dial-Cordy & Associates Inc. 

6

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, Galveston, TX 

7

Gulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management Service, Metairie, LA

History 

The coral reefs of the Flower Garden Banks (FGB) are among the most sensitive biological 

communities in U.S. federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973, the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) established a program of protective activities at those reefs. Two sites, each 100 

m x 100 m and 17–26 m deep, have been monitored since 1988: one on the East Bank and the 

other on the West Bank. MMS has been monitoring these sites on a long-term basis to detect any 

changes caused by oil and gas activities. 

The current monitoring effort represents a whole-ecosystem approach to assessing these sensitive 

and valuable coral-reef resources. Included in the monitoring program are: (1) assessments of 

water quality; (2) fish and sea-urchin surveys; (3) benthic surveys from videotapes of randomly 

located, 10-m transects; (4) surveys of coral populations in repetitively photographed, 8-m2

quadrats; (5) quantification of lateral growth of individual colonies of the brain coral Diploria

strigosa; and (6) sclerochronology of cores taken from colonies of Montastraea faveolata. These 

measures provide an integrated picture of stability and incipient change at the FGB. The salient 

results presented here help explain, largely by counterexample, the rampant degradation of reef 

ecosystems observed in the wider Caribbean region over the last few decades. 

Current Status 

Monitoring results for 2002-2006 highlighted the continued health of these reefs, expressed as 

consistently high coral cover, ranging from 50% coral cover to 64%. These results are consistent 

with past monitoring results showing no decline since coral cover was first monitored at the FGB 

in 1978–82. The Montastraea annularis complex persists as the dominant species complex from 

2002-2006 (27%-40%), and Diploria strigosa (3%-13%) continues to be the second most 

prevalent species at both banks. Other coral species are represented at the East and West Banks, 

including Porites astreoides (3%-8%) and Montastraea cavernosa (2%-8%). After these top four 

coral species, ten species make up the remainder of coral cover within the random transects 

(Precht et al. 2006; Precht et al. in press). 

41
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Macroalgae ranged from 4% to 34% from 2002-2006, with a high occurring at the East Bank in 

2005. It should be noted that in 2005 and 2006 monitoring took place in June, while past 

monitoring events took place in the fall months (September-November). Seasonal variation in 

macroalgal populations is well documented. From 2002-2004 macroalgal cover ranged from 4%-

19% across both banks and from 2005-2006 macroalgal cover ranged from 13% to 34%. When 

comparing macroalgae estimates between banks, West Bank results were consistently lower than 

East Bank values from 2003, 2005, and 2006. 

Crustose coralline, turf and bare space (CTB) showed a reciprocal relationship with macroalgae 

in all years at both banks. Between 2002 and 2006, CTB ranged from 12%-37%, with the low 

occurring at the East Bank in 2005 and the high at the East Bank in 2002. CTB was higher at the 

West Bank than at the East Bank from 2003-2006. These complementary fluctuations were 

probably generated by differences in the time of sampling in 2004 (fall) as compared to 2005 

(spring). Sea urchins occurred at low densities as in the past, and herbivorous fishes continued at 

high densities compared to Caribbean reefs that are heavily fished. 

The tight, reciprocal relationship between macroalgae and CTB at the FGB, in the absence of 

any complementary fluctuation in coral cover, highlights the control that coral cover exerts on 

the cover of other benthic components. The balance of coral growth, recruitment and mortality 

determines the availability of space for algal growth. At the FGB, continuing low levels of coral 

mortality result in persistently high coral cover. Short-term fluctuations in the balance between 

macroalgae and CTB are secondarily driven by seasonal changes in water temperature, and 

possibly also by transient fluctuations in herbivory and other factors. 

The Role of Hurricanes, Bleaching and Disease 

New threats to coral populations at the FGB from bleaching, hurricanes and disease could drive 

those reefs in the direction of lower coral cover and higher macroalgal cover, which would make 

them increasingly similar to Caribbean reefs. As Aronson et al. (2005) noted "The high coral 

cover of reefs at the FGB contrasts markedly with the degraded state of reefs throughout the 

southern Gulf of Mexico, Florida, the Bahamas and the Caribbean." However, in that same 

paper it was noted, "due to ... the recent occurrence of hurricanes and bleaching events, these 

coral reef ecosystems could change in the future." Dismally, these words would prove prophetic 

within the same year. 

Hurricane Rita made landfall on the Texas/Louisiana coast on 24 September 2005. The storm’s 

track took the eye to within 48 km of the East Flower Garden Bank. Waves were projected to be 

as high as 18 meters (m) in advance of the storm for the FGB, and sustained wave heights of 5 to 

6 m for almost 24 hours were recorded at the closest monitoring buoy some 153 km due west of 

the West Bank (and well west of the storm track). Hurricane Rita was a Category 5 hurricane on 

the Saffir-Simpson Scale with sustained winds of 140 mph prior to approaching the Gulf of 

Mexico shelf break on Friday, 23 September. 

While there have been a number of small hurricanes to pass within 100 miles of these 

topographic features in recent years, Hurricane Rita was the first major hurricane (Category 3 or 

larger) to pass over (within 80 kilometers [km]) the reefs of the Flower Garden Banks (FGB) 

42
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

since the passage of Hurricane Allen in 1980 (Alexis-Lugo personal communication). Hurricane 

Allen, a Category 5 storm, is known to have caused localized physical impacts such as displacing 

Volkswagen-size reef substrate and coral heads (up to two tons in weight) on the reef cap of the 

FGB. Unfortunately, the continuous, long-term monitoring effort of MMS and NOAA at the 

FGB was not ongoing at the time, so most of the reports of reef damage from that storm are 

purely anecdotal. 

Sanctuary personnel made it out to the reefs approximately two weeks after the passing of the 

hurricane to document the effects of the storm. Large colonies of coral and pieces of reef rock 

with many corals had been plucked out the reef, overturned, and tossed around. The wave energy 

must have been quite significant as about meter of sand had been scoured out from the sand flats. 

Large barrel sponges had been “topped,” and those that were close to sand patches and survived 

the storm were filled with sand. Although random transect data was not taken during a posthurricane assessment data collection cruise in November 2005, random transect data was taken 

in June 2006. June 2006 random transect data revealed high CTB levels at East and West Bank 

(23% and 25%). Unexpectedly, macroalgae showed disparate patterns at East (21%) and West 

Bank (13%) in 2006. 

Coral cover and changes in community structure were measured in November 2005 using 

repetitive quadrat images and perimeter video at the East Bank long-term monitoring site. 

Hurricane waves were responsible for overturning large coral colonies, scouring, gouging, and 

the removal of sand from sand flats, as well as bending stainless steel rods on the reef cap (65-75 

FSW). Although there were dramatic effects of the hurricane at the East Bank, coral cover was 

not appreciably affected according to repetitive quadrat results. 2% of coral colonies were 

missing in the 40 repetitive quadrat photographs taken on the coral cap (70-85 FSW), while only 

0.5% of colonies were missing at 9 deep repetitive quadrat stations (105-131 FSW). Levels of 

coral bleaching were relatively high for the FGB (~6% on the coral cap), but bleaching had been 

observed before the hurricane (NOAA cruise August 23-27), and it is not known whether the 

hurricane exacerbated bleaching or whether it may have brought relief in the form of cooler 

water temperatures. Water quality data results showed that the passage of Hurricane Rita brought 

cooler water temperatures to the banks after 50 days of elevated temperatures. 

In addition, during the early months of 2005, researchers were alarmed to find widespread 

plague-like coral disease affecting multiple colonies and multiple species, reef wide. This was 

the first time on record of such an occurrence of this magnitude at this site. It was an unusual 

event, as typically, coral disease strikes during the warmer, summer months whereas this 

outbreak occurred during the winter months. As the summer of 2005 progressed and water 

temperatures increased, the corals started to expel their zooxanthellae, which are symbiotic algae 

that live in the coral tissues and provide the coral with nutrition through the process of 

photosynthesis. By October, approximately 45% of the colonies of the corals on the coral cap, 

down to a 29 m water depth, or so, were affected by bleaching to some extent. This was the 

worst coral bleaching event on record at the FGB. Initial observations in mid-October, 2005, 

indicated between 35% and 40% of the colonies were bleached to some extent - partially or fully. 

The bleaching appeared to be affecting 100% of the fire coral (Millepora alcicornis) and great 

star coral (Montastraea cavernosa), and affecting at least eleven other species to varying 

degrees. In follow-up surveys conducted in March 2006, approximately 4% to 5% of the coral 

43
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

colonies still exhibited various levels of bleaching. By June 2006 the bleaching event was over. 

Analysis is ongoing to document the level of coral mortality associated with this event. 

Despite the hardships placed on the coral reef during 2005, the corals mostly recovered from the 

2005 disease event, although a second event was documented during the winter months of 2006. 

As the waters warmed, the progress of the disease slowed down. The reef recovered from the 

severe bleaching event, although it is suspected that a substantial amount of fire coral was lost. In 

August and September 2006, as testament to the resiliency of the reef, two spectacular spawning 

events took place—new life begins. Unfortunately, future disease, bleaching, and hurricane 

events may not be so easily overcome and survived. 

Recent Discoveries 

The first living colonies of Acropora palmata were discovered on the FGB in 2003 and 2005 

(Zimmer et al. 2005). Those discoveries, coupled with a known history of bank flooding since 

the last glacial maximum, led our team to predict that Acropora-dominated reefs underlie and 

form the structural foundation of the living reef community at the FGB. In June 2006, while 

Precht and Deslarzes were scuba diving on the southeast corner of the East FGB, they examined 

an open cave at 21 m depth, which exposed a 3-m vertical section of the reef subsurface just 

below the living community. Within that exposure we discovered large branches and trunks of A. 

palmata (>1 m in height) in growth position. Radiocarbon dating of a branch from a colony at 

the top of the section yielded a conventional date of 6330 ± 60 14Cyr (radiocarbon years before 

1950), corresponding to a calibrated age of 6780 calbp. Follow-up surveys by our team in June 

2007 revealed an A. palmata dominated under story dating between 10-6 thousand years on both 

banks. The discovery of fossil Acropora has profound implications for understanding the history 

of reef development at the FGB. The banks supported a shallow, warm-water, reef-coral 

assemblage up until ~6000 years ago. This community lagged behind rapidly rising sea level in 

the middle Holocene. As sea temperatures cooled in the late Holocene the reef was capped by a 

temperature variable deeper-water assemblage dominated by massive corals, which persists to 

this day. 

During our 2007 surveys our team also found the first fossils of Acropora cervicornis on the East 

FGB. This species appears to have persisted until the Little Ice Age in deeper water on the 

flanks of the Bank. Follow-up studies are proposed to document and explain the turn-on and 

turn-off mechanisms through time and space for Acropora reef development on these isolated 

reef complexes. 

44
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Pulley Ridge 

Walter C. Jaap1 and Robert Halley2

1

Present address: Florida Institute of Oceanography, St. Petersburg FL 

2

US Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL 

Pulley Ridge (eastern Gulf of Mexico) is composed of coastal carbonate deposits; it is 

approximately 300 km long (24° 40’N to 26° 40’ N), north-south alignment, width is up to 15 

km wide; depth ranges from 60 to 90 m. It was named in the 1950s after the famous 

malacologist E.T. Pulley. Recent expeditions to the area employing modern seismic tools, ROVs, 

submersibles, towed camera sleds, and mixed gas diving has revealed a unique reef system. The 

southernmost 30 km is a drowned barrier island, including dunes, spits, tidal inlets, and cat’s eye 

ponds. The island became a submerged shoal following 

rising sea level caused by glacial melting. After flooding, 

the shoal was colonized by corals and other reef organisms. 

Seismic data indicate that the coral structure atop the shoal 

is 1 to 2 m thick, formed at about 6 to 14 thousand years 

ago; vertical growth rate is estimated at 14 cm/thousand 

years (see Jarrett et al., Strange bedfellows – a deep 

hermatypic coral reef superimposed on a drowned barrier 

island; southern Pulley Ridge, SW Florida platform margin. 

Mar Geol 214 (2005): 295–307). 

 

Although the southern portion of Pulley Ridge is a somewhat unique coral reef system, there are 

similarities to deeper (>60 m) reefs and banks in Jamaica, Bahamas, Belize, and off Texas. 

Autotrophic organisms (coralline and green algae, and zooxanthellate corals) are very common 

in the southern 30 km of Pulley Ridge, while to the north, it is composed of rocky outcrops 

colonized by heterotrophic organisms (sponges, octocorals, azooxanthellate solitary and colonial 

Scleractinia, and crinoids). The southern area is considered the deepest zooxanthellate coral reef 

on the continental shelf of North America. Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) reaching the 

reef was 5 to 30 microEinsteins/m2 sec-1; one to five percent of the surface PAR. In this very low 

illumination, autotrophic organisms flourish including several species of crustose coralline algae 

encrusting rocks and gravel plus the leafy green alga (Anadyomene menziesii). This alga was 

very abundant during DeepWorker submersible investigations. The sunray lettuce coral 

(Leptoseris cucullata) is the most commonly seen of the 

zooxanthellate Scleractinia. In many cases the reef 

structure is composed of multiple layers of L. cucullata 

and other lettuce coral species (genus Agaricia), it 

resembles stacks of potato chips. Coral laminations are 

loosely connected and easily moved; we observed grouper, 

moving the stack to find refuge. There are at least seven 

species of zooxanthellate Scleractinia on Pulley Ridge. 

Cover analysis based on 1000 photos from 14 towed 

SeaBoss photo transects reported that coralline algae 

45
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

contributed 5 to 43% of benthic cover, the green alga Anadyomene menziesii provided 0.3 to 

24% of cover, and zooxanthellate Scleractinia (mostly Agariciidae) were responsible for 0 to 

23% of cover (Hine et al., Coral Reefs, Present and Past, on the West Florida Shelf and Platform 

Margin, in press, Springer, in United States Coral Reefs). 

As previously mentioned, the vast majority of Pulley Ridge is 

composed of rock features, some with steep escarpment faces 

that suggest they were formed by erosion. There are 

numerous undercut ledges typical of the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico shallow hard bottom communities. These ledges and 

depression features provide refuges for fish. The tops of the 

ridge are colonized by Ellisellid and and Nicellid octocorals 

(sea fans and sea plumes). The ledge promontories had 

moderately strong bottom currents. We observed that the 

down current sides of the structures attracted multitudes of small fish and attached invertebrates 

that were foraging on the plankton carried in the currents. Sponges, crinoids, azooxanthellate 

solitary Scleractinia were sparsely distributed on the rocky horizontal surfaces. Oculina tennela

(an azooxanthellate colonial scleractinian coral) was moderately common as were stylasterine 

hydrocorals. 

Pulley Ridge is a significant commercial fishing area. Grouper, snapper, and amberjack are the 

focus of this fishing. The reef structure and resident fauna provide refuge and food for higher 

trophic level fish. There are approximately 90 species of fish; shallow and deep reef species are 

represented in the fauna. 

Pulley Ridge has not suffered from major disturbances either 

natural or anthropogenic. The remoteness and depth offer 

natural protection. Southern Pulley Ridge reef is susceptible 

to degradation due to its fragile structure. If illegal anchoring, 

traps, or trawls were used on the southern reef area, the 

structure would collapse. Because of the extremely low levels 

of light and coincident reef growth rates, recovery would be 

very slow. 

46
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 3 Discussion 

Emma Hickerson (NOAA Flower Garden Banks NMS) – presentation/panelist 

Bill Precht (Battelle, Inc.) – presentation/panelist 

Walt Jaap (present address: Florida Institute of Oceanography) – presentation/panelist

Billy Causey: The boundary between a more subtropical and tropical environment – you have a 

greater number of species because you have both tropical and subtropical species. Would you 

agree with that kind of assessment? Do you see Pulley Ridge as a healthy area? 

Walt Jaap: The Pulley Ridge area and the Florida Middle Grounds area are healthy. The 

complexities of the system where the Tortugas are located make it a nice settling ground. The 

temperate areas are important. 

Letise Houser: How well are the corals recovering from the “triple punch”? How well do you 

think the introduced coral might thrive or how will it impact the structure of the system? 

Bill Precht: With the triple punch, while there was mortality from the hurricane; the bleaching 

had little impact on mortality. The disease event stopped when the temperatures went up. So 

some of that has recovered. The numbers seem to be staying the same in terms of coral cover. 

The reefs still look really good. As far as the Acropora – there seem to be range expansions of 

the Acropora species. Interesting about FGB – one of the reasons the coral cover is so high, the 

other reefs in the Caribbean were dominated by the Acropora species. So one of the reasons the 

coral cover at the Flower Gardens was so high is that they didn’t have the Acropora. If the 

Acropora starts dominating in the FGB and then is ephemeral due to these other diseases, it 

could result in less coral cover. 

Emma Hickerson: Regarding bleaching at Stetson, which is dominated by Millepora. We did see 

a loss of coral cover there. We are seeing some recovery, but there was loss. Regarding the 

disease – it affected 7 species. The first major event was in 2005. But we’ve seen it since in 

2006 & 2007 as well, but not as significant. If it continues to peck away at the reef every winter, 

it may lead to declines over time. The Flower Garden Banks has prolific spawning events. We 

haven’t seen a significant drop in spawning since these events. 

Andy Shepard: One of the functions of a network of areas would be to sustain productivity. 

Again – how does the network look? Are there other areas? 

Walt Jaap: It looks good for the eastern gulf. Might consider one of the Lophelia areas because 

there is a lot of research being done with Lophelia. Don’t know if there are separate species or 

not. Between the Florida Middle Grounds and Pulley Ridge there are some nice hard bottom 

habitat. You might want to consider one of them. Maybe one of the old Hourglass stations 

would be good. 

Emma Hickerson: We haven’t talked about the South Texas Banks. Wes Tunnell is here and can 

talk about that. In the Flower Garden Banks & the NW Gulfs we’ve gone through a ranking 

47
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

system and some of the banks didn’t make the list because we didn’t have the information and 

we need to put more effort into understanding. 

Villy Kourafalou: Are there data available on some of these locations and is there data on the 

correlation between what you see on these reefs (freshwater) 

+ We have cores thru coral heads and look at signatures from terrestrial runoff. The question is: 

does that have impacts on the reef in a negative way? Does any of that runoff when combined 

with bleaching, does that make the corals more susceptible, did it increase the bleaching event or 

decrease? These things raise more questions than we have answers. Also, we have to have by 

off from the Mexicans for this. There are no shallow reef communities in the Gulf. They are 

getting larvae from Mexico or Cuba or other places. Have to have other areas part of this – 

talking about involving Mexico. 

Walt Jaap: There was an event in 1977 that extirpated everything. The community was still like 

that a few years ago. 

Paul Sammarco: What are the temperatures like at Pulley Ridge? 

Walt Jaap: Similar to what you see in Tortugas Bank – 29 or 30 degrees in the summer maybe 

down to 23 degrees in the winter. 

Bob Weisberg: Is there seasonality in the corals? 

Walt Jaap: There is a spawning event in September and October. Some of the other corals may 

be doing it more frequently. 

Emma Hickerson: At the Flower Garden Banks we are dominated by Montastraea species; The 

majority of live cover are mass spawning species. The timing of spawning here is very 

predictable: 7-10 days after the full moon in September. This is an extremely prolific event. 

Julie Morris: Can you talk more about the importance of the hard bottoms of the West Florida 

Shelf? 

Walt Jaap: Very significant area. One graduate student is looking at recovery from the red tide 

from a few years ago. Taken 1-2 years to see the recovery of coral recruitment. The hard 

bottom communities in the eastern gulf are islands separated by sediment areas; somewhat 

ephemeral – getting covered by sediments. Recommend that hourglass series of taxonomic 

studies in the eastern gulf. 

48
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 4: Fish and Fisheries Characterization/ 

Spawning Aggregations

Moderator: Kim Ritchie 

Fish and Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico 

Jerald Ault 

University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, FL 

In assessing the potential to reach the goal of sustaining key regional fisheries in the context of 

the ‘Islands in the Stream’ initiative, it is incumbent upon us to evaluate whether there are 

appropriate data and a conceptual framework adequate for the mission that we have in mind? 

The Gulf of Mexico fishery ecosystem 

spans a wide range of habitats and 

biogeographical environments, from tropical 

to subtropical marine in the south, to 

temperate-estuarine in the north. These 

environments are connected by the very 

energetic physical oceanographic current 

systems that regulate the biological and 

fisheries productivity of the ecosystem. The 

fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico are greatly 

influenced by exploitation, habitat 

degradation, hurricanes and pollution. To 

sustain these economically- and 

ecologically-important resources, it is critical that we develop a system science perspective when 

tackling such an enormous and complex problem. This would entail linking the dynamics of the 

ocean environment with range of uses and drivers of systems productivity. The goal would be to 

develop an integrated information management system that successfully links assimilation of key 

data on population dynamics, habitats and 

bioeconomics to a range of modelbuilding activities that link fisheries 

biology, ocean physics, habitats and 

humans, which would provide the basis 

for fishery resource risk assessments to 

policy alternatives. This will be a 

challenge, because for many important 

resources data have not been collected 

until very recently, limiting our 

understanding of what were the historical 

limits of ecosystem productivity. 

49
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

A very important forward-looking component of monitoring, data assimilation and modeling are 

maps of the resources to ocean environments. In the Florida Keys we have relatively good maps 

that define habitats, circulation dynamics, bathymetry and rugosity, for example, but a major 

limitation is that not all areas are mapped. For example, the West Florida shelf is not well 

mapped. This will have to be a priority mission as the GOM IITS initiative moves forward. 

The economics and ecology of the Gulf of Mexico have been historically dominated by large 

commercial fishery enterprises. This is not surprising since there is prodigious shrimp and 

“baitfish” production associated with the Mississippi River plume dynamics and the substantial 

reef fisheries on coastal shelf areas around the Gulf. For example, Gulf menhaden currently 

produces the second largest annual tonnage of fish catches in the entire United States, while Gulf 

shrimp are number one nationally in economic value. While the Gulf is famous for its extensive 

red snapper and reef fish fisheries, it is also an important natal ground for sailfish, marlins and 

tunas. But that seascape is rapidly changing due to explosive growth of recreational fishing 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico and its enormous economic impacts. Currently, recreational 

tarpon fishing alone is a $5-7 billion annual industry in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the worldfamous Florida marine recreational fishing industry is now 10 times more valuable than 

commercial fishing, and now more valuable than the historically dominant Florida citrus 

industry! 

So, management for sustainability of the Gulf’s 

precious fishery resources will take new perspectives. 

For example, the concept of “connectivity” needs to be 

considered from a much broader perspective, not only 

in terms of larval transport – but also that of adults that 

can actively move relatively great distances around the 

region. Recent satellite-based PAT (passive archival 

transmitting) tagging studies have shown that tarpon 

move widely throughout the Gulf of Mexico and 

southeast US region. Fish appear to spawn off of 

Mexico, feeding off of Louisiana, and tarpon also 

spawn off of the West Florida shelf. Seasonally fish move north to US waters from Veracruz, 

Mexico, and the Gulf of Campeche to off Galveston, Texas, then on to Louisiana and Mississippi 

from the west; and up along the Florida Keys and west Florida shelf to Alabama, Mississippi and 

Louisiana from the east. So the real question is “are our tarpon their tarpon?”, and what specific 

management regimes will sustain this multibillion-dollar industry? A sad related story about the 

unquantified killing fields is reflected in the observation that, in May 2007, a Veracruz, Mexico, 

fishing tournament killed 73 large tarpon in about 3 fishing days, amounting to 10,243 pounds 

(or > 5 tons) of large, mature tarpon! These are fish that to live to very old ages (>80 years) and 

are highly vulnerable to precipitous stock declines with fishing The result is a very substantial 

impact on the spawning stock of such a old and highly vulnerable fishery resource of substantial 

economic value to the region The Gulf of Mexico initiative to sustain the economically- and 

ecologically-valuable fisheries must recognize all solutions run through Mexico! 

50
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

In summary, the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is a highly dynamic coupled biophysical 

environment. Shelf waters <30 fathoms account for >70% of the fishery landings, and these are 

highly susceptible to human and natural impacts. The regional ecosystem is under significant 

anthropogenic & environmental stresses. Management strategies for sustainability of this 

valuable ecosystem requires development of a systems approach that also protects habitats that 

support a broad range of fisheries productivity. Ensuring sustainable fisheries and economics 

will require strategic inter-state and international cooperation and partnerships in both science 

and management. 

51
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Ecological Studies in the Shelf-Edge Reserves Madison Swanson and 

Steamboat Lumps of the Northeast Gulf of Mexico: 

A Summary of Research Studies 

Christopher Koenig and Felicia Coleman 

Florida State University, Coastal and Marine Laboratory, St. Teresa, FL 

The experimental marine reserves Madison Swanson (coordinates of corners: NE, N27o

 17’ 

W085o

 38’; NW, N29o 17’ W085o 50’; SE, N29o 06’ W085o 38’; SW, N29o 06’ W085o 50’) and 

Steamboat Lumps (coordinates of corners: NE, N28o

 14’ W084o 37’; NW, N28o 14’ W084o 48’; 

SE, N28o

 03’ W084o 37’; SW, N28o 03’ W084o 48’) are located on the shelf edge (50 – 120 m 

deep) of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, an area of high reef fish fishery production with 

abundant gag spawning aggregations (Koenig et al. 1996). These reserves were closed to all 

bottom fishing in June 2000 primarily to allow the study of fishing-induced sex ratio alteration in 

gag (Mycteroperca microlepis). (Gag males were shown by multiple studies (e.g., Coleman et 

al. 1996, McGovern et al. 1998) to decline from 20 to 25% of the adult population in the 1970s 

to 2 to 5% in the 1990s both in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions of the SE United 

States.) Important priorities in these reserves, in addition to gag sex ratio studies, were to 

evaluate the demographics, and the behavioral and reproductive ecology of dominant fishery 

species, including scamp (M. phenax), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), and red snapper 

(Lutjanus campechanus). An initial closure period of four years was recommended by the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council, but commercial and recreational fisher support 

prompted the Council to close the reserves for an additional 6 years. Sunset is now scheduled for 

2010. 

Our first objectives within the reserves were to map and characterize spawning habitat for gag 

and the other fishery species. Kathy Scanlon (USGS-Woods Hole; Scanlon et al. 2001) 

produced sidescan sonar images of both reserves in 2001 and Jim Gardner, then of USGS, 

produced high-resolution multibeam images in the following years. We used the geo-referenced 

sidescan images to conduct submersible surveys of the benthic habitat on the Sustainable Seas 

Expedition aboard the R/V Gordon Gunter. Commercial fishermen showed us the locations of 

gag spawning sites and red grouper habitat within and outside of the reserves. We mapped these 

sites and characterized the habitat. 

We focused our studies in Madison Swanson because the major gag spawning habitat occurred 

there; Steamboat Lumps contained primarily red grouper habitat. We selected 15 gag 

aggregation sites within the reserve and compared these with 15 outside in terms of 

demographics and movement patterns. Home ranges were evaluated inside through the use of 

acoustic telemetry tags. Densities within and around Madison Swanson was estimated with an 

ROV (support from NOAA NURC-Wilmington). The reproductive behavior and excavating 

behavior of red grouper was studied in Steamboat Lumps aboard the R/V Bellows (FIO support). 

To meet our objectives we first had to develop methods to capture the reef fish at shelf-edge 

depths and bring them to the surface for sampling, tagging, and release. We developed a method 

of trapping and venting the fish at depths of about 40% of depth of capture (i.e., before any 

damaging effects of gas expansion could occur), then slowly bringing them to the surface. 

52
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Various samples were taken from captured fish including gonads for determination of 

reproductive state and sex, tissue samples for ongoing genetic studies, and fin rays for age 

determination. Fish were measured, then tagged and released. Tagging involved both 

conventional dart tags and acoustic telemetry tags (Vemco). 

Results of our three-year study showed low rates of movement by gag and red snapper and 

extremely low rates of movement by red grouper. The sedentary nature of red grouper is 

undoubtedly related to their investment of considerable energy in habitat construction (Coleman 

et al. in preparation). We continued our demographic studies for 3 years using commercial and 

charter vessels. During this work we observed poaching by commercial and recreational vessels 

nearly every trip and these vessels were often fishing on our research sites. The primary target of 

commercial fishermen was gag, as know poachers were observed by several honest fishermen 

unloading mostly gag at the docks. According to these honest fishermen, the catch rate of the 

commercial poachers was over 1000 lb per day. Clearly, the accuracy of our data, especially for 

gag, has been compromised. 

The intensity of poaching increased as hurricanes in the Gulf increased in frequency, with 

hurricane Ivan in 2004 and hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Coast Guard officials admitted 

that they had to divert nearly all of their assets to the sites of storm destruction and neglected 

surveillance and enforcement of the reserves. As a result of this intense poaching we could not 

show any significant differences in size or age for gag inside relative to outside the reserves, but 

population densities were significantly higher inside. The percentage of males was significantly 

higher (at 8% males) inside the reserve than outside only in 2003, but rapidly declined to 

background levels, as poaching intensity increased. The other three species, scamp, red grouper, 

and red snapper all showed a significant greater size and age inside relative to outside. These 

results combined with data showing relatively small home ranges in all these species indicate 

that the size of these reserves (about 10 x 10 nm each) is sufficiently large to protect the size and 

age structure of the spawners. Now that commercial vessels are being continuously tracked with 

VMS (vessel monitoring systems; i.e., satellite tracking) commercial poaching has fallen to near 

zero. Our present work will evaluate the reserve effect on gag in the absence of poaching. 

Telemetry data indicated male gag remained within close proximity of the spawning sites year 

round. This behavior makes males more vulnerable to fishing after the spawning season when 

most females have traveled from shelf-edge spawning sites to shelf habitat. This is because 

males make up a greater proportion of the gag population on the aggregation sites after the 

spawning season. This information, combined with the timing of sex change, provides the basis 

for our conceptual model of fishing-induced sex ratio alteration (Koenig et al. in preparation). 

Historical data on the occurrence of transitionals (individuals in the process of sex change) 

indicate sex change is initiated during the spawning period (i.e., transitionals appear in the 

months after spawning). Because fishers fish spawning sites year round (Koenig personal 

observation) they catch males and transitionals mostly after the spawning period, which is 

reflected in the historical catch data. Therefore the appropriate management action to protect 

males is to close an area, not a season. 

Large male and female red snapper appear to behave similar to male gag in that they remain 

around their spawning sites year round. Although our telemetry sample size is small and tagged 

53
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

fish were likely lost to poaching, we found one individual remaining around the same spawning 

site for over 2 years and two others remaining for about a year. These data suggest that shelfedge spawning of red snapper could be protected my marine reserves of the size of Madison 

Swanson. In our ongoing studies we are using acoustic telemetry to further evaluate spawning 

aggregation formation by red snapper on the shelf edge. 

Red grouper spawning behavior was observed and recorded in Steamboat Lumps using an ROV 

outfitted with a hydrophone. We found that red grouper exhibit a lek-like mating system; 

females swim into male territories and spawning ensues. During courtship males and females 

adopt distinctive color patterns and males produce a specific spawning sound just prior to 

spawning. We are continuing this work on a NOAA NURC-Wilmington-sponsored cruise 

scheduled for May 2008. Specific spawning sounds open the possibility of locating dominant 

spawning areas through the use of towed listening arrays. In addition, specific spawning sounds 

of commercially important species could provide NMFS stock assessment with direct estimates 

of spawning frequencies in fished relative to the unfished populations within the reserves. 

The most interesting behavior we discovered is red grouper excavating behavior. It is interesting 

because it casts them in the role of keystone species (a species whose ecological position is 

heavily supportive of other species within that ecosystem). That is, they create reef habitat that is 

used by many other species. Our experiments (mostly on juveniles in Florida Bay) and 

observations on the shelf edge show that red grouper expose habitat (or substrate) for many other 

reef species, including other fishes, motile invertebrates, and sessile invertebrates such as corals 

and sponges (Coleman et al. in preparation). We found that red grouper begin to dig soon after 

metamorphosis (Colin et al. 1996) and continue that behavior throughout their lives. 

Historically, before they were overfished, red grouper were likely responsible for exposing 

extensive ledge and other rocky habitat after major storms occluded them through siltation. To 

evaluate the importance of their role as habitat engineers on shelf habitat it would require 

additional experimental reserves in shallower areas where storms have a significant effect on 

sediment movements to evaluate their impact on the exposure of reef habitat and the use of that 

habitat by other species. It is ironic that we spend considerable funds constructing artificial 

reefs, yet we decimate the very species that exposes and maintains reef habitat. 

We are presently evaluating the connectivity of shelf-edge habitat of the NE Gulf of Mexico with 

adjacent systems, such as the Big Bend seagrass and saltmarsh habitat and the Apalachicola 

drainage, which contributes nutrient-rich water along the shelf edge known as the “Green River 

Phenomenon”. Trophic subsidies from the Big Bend estuaries arrive in the grouper’s territory in 

the form of small fishes, especially pinfish. Through the use of stable isotopes we are evaluating 

the contribution of these estuarine species to grouper production and reproduction. Nutrient rich 

Apalachicola water extending out onto the shelf edge may be contributing to benthic production 

through benthic—pelagic coupling mechanisms, but the details are unknown at this time. We 

also suspect that nutrient rich Apalachicola water delivered to the shelf edge during gag 

spawning may contribute to larval survival. We suspect that these adjacent ecosystems are 

strongly interdependent and that fishery production relies on external subsidies. That is our 

working hypothesis. 

54
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

References

Coleman, F. C. , C.C. Koenig, L. A. Collins. 1996. Reproductive styles of shallow-water 

grouper species (Pisces: Serranidae) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the consequences of 

fishing spawning aggregations. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47, 129-141. 

Colin, P.L., C. C. Koenig, & W. Laroche. 1996. Development from egg to juvenile of the red 

grouper, Epinephelus morio, in the laboratory. In F. Arreguin-Sanchez, J. L. Munro, M. C. 

Balgos & D. Pauly (eds.). Biology, fisheries & culture of tropical groupers and snappers. 

ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48, 449 p. 

Koenig, C. C., F. C. Coleman, L. A. Collins, Y. Sadovy, P. L. Colin. 1996. Reproduction in 

gag, Mycteroperca microlepis, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 307-323. In F. ArreguinSanchez, J. L. Munro, M. C. Balgos & D. Pauly (eds.). Biology, fisheries & culture of 

tropical groupers and snappers. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48, 449 p. 

McGovern, J. et al. 1998. Changes in sex ratio and size at maturity of gag, Mycteroperca 

microlepis, from the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States during 1976 – 1995. 

Fish. Bull. 96: 797-807. 

55
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

The Timing and Location of Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations in Belize and 

the Cayman Islands: Insights for the Design of a Protected 

Areas Network in the Gulf of Mexico 

Will Heyman 

Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 

Introduction 

This brief paper provides a summary of a talk presented at the Mote Marine Laboratory on 23 

January 2008, within a NOAA-sponsored symposium called, Islands in the Stream. The concept 

behind this symposium was to evaluate the existing scientific evidence and support for the 

possible development of a bi-national system of marine protected areas spanning the Gulf of 

Mexico that together confer resilience to this valuable system, in the face of localized, regional, 

and global threats. The Islands in the Stream concept is that topographic highs that rise abruptly 

and significantly above the otherwise relatively flat coastal margin within the Gulf, e.g. shelf 

edges, sea mounts, salt domes, ridges, and pinnacles are likely important for both fisheries 

productivity and marine biodiversity conservation and should therefore be seriously considered 

as core areas within a proposed network of marine reserves within the Gulf of Mexico. While my 

work has not taken place within the Gulf of Mexico, recent findings from Belize and the Cayman 

Islands may provide corollary support to the Islands in the stream concept. 

Multi-species Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations in Belize 

Spawning aggregations serve as source sites for eggs and larvae of most reef fishes and are 

therefore considered essential life habitat and critical conservation targets. The Belize Spawning 

Aggregation Working group, a consortium of government and non-government and educational 

institutions and organizations, evaluated several known or historical Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) spawning aggregation sites with similar geomorphology for the presence 

of Nassau grouper (and other species’) spawning aggregations between 2001 and 2004. A 

standard monitoring protocol and database were used to collect and compile the data form at 

least 13 sites throughout Belize (Heyman and Adrian, 2006) (Figure 1). These data were 

collected in part to test the following hypothesis (Heyman, 2004). 

Hypothesis: Transient multi-species reef fish spawning aggregations occur at locations with the 

following characteristics: 

 Reef promontory (inflections on the reef) 

 Shelf edge 

 25 – 50 m depth 

 Adjacent to deep waters (> 500 m) 

 Windward facing 

56
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Figure 1. Reef fish spawning aggregation sites in Belize.

57
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

The best-studied spawning aggregation site in Belize is Gladden Spit, a reef promontory on the 

Belize Barrier Reef (Figures 1 and 2). The site provides habitat for transient spawning 

aggregations for at least 17 species from 6 families throughout all times of year. Aggregating 

species that have been documented to spawn at the site include some of the most commercially 

important reef fish in the Caribbean including Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), Black 

grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), Cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus), and Mutton snapper 

(Lutjanus analis) (Heyman et al. 2001; 2005; in press). Each species aggregates with striking 

site and temporal fidelity within a 6 ha area at the tip of the Gladden Spit reef promontory. The 

geomorphology of the spawning site was evaluated using a detailed bathymetric map (Figure 1) 

(Heyman et al., 2007). The spawning aggregations form in 25 – 40 m water depth, at the tip of a 

windward facing reef promontory, on a shelf edge, adjacent to deep (> 500 m) water. Data 

collected at Gladden Spit are consistent with and provide support for the conceptual hypothesis 

presented above. 

Figure 2: Gladden Spit in Belize illustrating the relationship between the multi-species spawning aggregation sites and the reef 

crest, shelf break and deep waters. The deepest area is indicated by the darkest color and is approximately 700 m.

Several other sites in Belize have geomorphology that is similar to Gladden Spit, and also harbor 

multi-species spawning aggregations (numbered sites in Figure 2). Based on data collected by 

the Belize Spawning Aggregations Working Committee, and with the support of local fishermen, 

the Minister of Fisheries declared a closed season for Nassau grouper and declared 11 of the sites 

as new marine reserves (Government of Belize 2003a; 2003b). Data collected at these other sites 

are largely consistent with and provide additional support to the conceptual hypothesis. 

58
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Five historical Nassau grouper spawning aggregation sites have been identified in the Cayman 

Islands and each of these sites occur near reef promontories, shelf breaks, and adjacent to deep 

water, though some of these sites are windward, others are leeward. Though full 

characterizations have not been completed at any of the sites, the Department of Environment 

indicates that West End, Little Cayman harbors spawning aggregations of various grouper and 

snapper species throughout the year (P. Bush personal communication) and spawning was 

documented for several transient spawning species at the site (Whaylen et al., 1994). 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, there is a growing body of evidence from Belize, the Cayman Islands, and other 

sites in the Caribbean that at least some portion of transient multi-species reef fish spawning 

aggregations occur at the shelf break of windward facing reef promontories. Additional examples 

of spawning aggregations at similar abrupt changes in slope are found in other parts of the 

Caribbean (e.g. Cuba and Puerto Rico), Florida (e.g. Riley’s Hump) and the Gulf of Mexico 

(Koenig et al., 2000; Koenig, this symposium). The location of multi-species reef fish spawning 

aggregations may be similarly focused around the Islands in the Stream of the Gulf of Mexico. 

59
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

References

Government of Belize (2003a) Statutory instrument no. 161 of 2003. Fisheries (spawning 

aggregation site reserves) order, 2003. 161:1-8 

Government of Belize (2003b). Statutory instrument no. 162 of 2003. Fisheries (Nassau grouper 

protection) regulations, 2003. 162:1-2 

Heyman, W.D. 2004. Conservation of multi-species spawning aggregation sites. Proceedings 

of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 55:521-529. 

Heyman, W.D. and G. Adrien. 2006. A protocol and database for monitoring transient multispecies reef fish spawning aggregations in the Mesoamerican reef. Proceedings of the Gulf 

and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 57:445-462. 

Heyman, W.D., J-L.B. Ecochard, and F.B. Biasi. 2007. Low-cost bathymetric mapping for 

tropical marine conservation – a focus on reef fish spawning aggregation sites. Marine 

Geodesy. 30(1): 37-50. 

Heyman, Ezer, T., D.V. Thattai, B. Kjerfve and W.D. Heyman. 2005. On the variability of the 

flow along the Meso-American Barrier Reef System: A numerical model study of the 

influence of the Caribbean Current and eddies. Ocean Dynamics. 55:458-475. 

Heyman, W.D., B. Kjerfve, and T. Ezer. Mesoamerican Reef spawning aggregations help 

maintain fish populations: a review of connectivity research and priorities for science and 

management. NOAA Marine Conservation Science Series. In press. 

Heyman, W.D., B. Kjerfve, R.E. Johannes, R. Graham. 2001. Whale sharks, Rhincodon typus,

aggregate to feed on fish spawn in Belize. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 215: 275-282. 

Heyman, W.D., B. Kjerfve, K.L. Rhodes, R.T. Graham, and L. Garbutt. 2005. Cubera snapper, 

Lutjanus cyanopterus, spawning aggregations on the Belize Barrier Reef over a six year 

period. Journal of Fish Biology 67(1):83-101. 

Koenig, C. C., F. C. Coleman, C. B. Grimes, G. R. Fitzhugh, K. M. Scanlon, C. T. Gledhill, and 

M. Grace. 2000. Protection of fish spawning habitat for the conservation of warm-temperate 

reef-fish fisheries of shelf-edge reefs of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science. 66(3):593-616. 

Whaylen L., C.V. Pattengill-Semmens, B.X. Semmens, P.G. Bush, M.R. Boardman. 2004. 

Observations of a Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus, spawning aggregation site in Little 

Cayman, Cayman Islands, including multi-species spawning information. Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 70(3):305-313. 

60
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 4 Discussion 

Jerry Ault (University of Miami/RSMAS) – presentation/panelist Chris Koenig (Florida State University) – presentation/panelist

Will Heyman (Texas A&M University) – presentation/panelist

Jim Bohnsack (NOAA National Marine Fishery Service) - panelist

Doug Weaver (Texas A&M University) – panelist

(from meeting transcripts) 

Jim Hendee: Have you noted specific physical cues besides lunar periodicity that influences 

them to spawn? 

Chris Koening: Spawning site selection appears to be dominated by shelf edge precipices or 

breaks. If there are rocks along those breaks they’ll be there. These are consistent sites. They 

are consistent over long periods of time. Madison Swanson was pretty much fished out when it 

became a reserve. The fish reestablished within a short period of time. With regard to the 

spawning timing, we don’t know. Gag grouper appear to spawn late in the afternoon. 

Jerry Ault: Black grouper are known to spawn in West Florida Shelf like clockwork. Tarpon 

periodicity was 3-4 days prior to the new and full moon. Diving to 150 meters. Lunar and 

thermal events help cycle it. Go back to relatively the same area as it facilitates survivorship. 

Will Heyman: Seeing fidelity to sites – geomorphologic cues, as well as seasonal and lunar and 

diel cues. We’ve looked at the currents in some of these locations. Thinking some of the 

currents may be different at these promontories. Currents faster and more variable than in other 

areas. 

Andy Shepard: Valuable fisheries are coastal. How important will these areas that are offshore 

be to these coastal fish? 

Jerry Ault: May be complementary to some of the areas we need to protect to capture important 

areas of the life history. Important to protect representative habitats for different aspects of the 

life history. 

Lori Arguelles: For the proposed sites under consideration for this effort – is it adequate? Is it 

less than what is needed? Can you give context for this? 

Jerry Ault: Jim Bohnsack proposed about 20% of available habitat ought to be protected. That 

was just a guess. It’s not clear – comes down to winnowing down the objectives. It’s a good 

start. 

Chris Koenig: Requires an understanding of the species life history. We have a number of 

spawning aggregations being protected, but no one is protecting the pre spawning population. 

They are completely unprotected and they are getting hammered. 

61
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Jerry Ault: Won’t sustain the productivity because they won’t protect the smaller animals that 

are getting targeted as they cross the shelf. We need to attend to the cross shelf issues. 

Doug Weaver: the list of candidate sites is very inclusive and covers most of the spectacular sites 

in the Gulf. We are comprehensive in scope – it’s just a matter of what “MPA” means – it’s not 

all going to be no-take. Not just large predators – we’ve focused on some of the large predators, 

etc. These other categories of species are important, too. There are connections with the 

planktivores and the top predators, too. 

(Speaker Not Identified, addressed to the Panel): Why hasn’t the Elbow, just south of the Florida 

Middle Grounds, been included in this concept? 

Kim Ritchie: We will have time to cover this type of information as a group in the final 

discussions. 

Dan Basta: We are changing the landscape of how you look at your data. We’re looking for 

those special places where the you get the most bang for your buck. In order to do that you have 

to do this one species at a time (understand the life history). Takes a lot of time. We don’t have 

time to do all of that to bring an idea forward with the “Islands in the Stream”. So where do you 

start and where does it have to go? These kinds of networks can be established with guidance 

regarding where we need to go. 

Jerry Ault: There are data that exist that can help us to begin to paint out where those should be. 

There needs to be a feedback mechanism to help refine those data. This is an iterative process 

that closes in on reality. 

Al Hine: Are fish using seafloor cues to find spawning sites? 

Will Heyman: I have a student starting to look at that. 

Walt Jaap: fish use electromagnetic cues, too. 

62
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 5: Existing Legal Structure/ 

Regulations in the Gulf of Mexico

Moderator: Brian Keller 

HAPC and Other Habitat or Area Based Regulations 

(January 17, 2008) 

Shepherd Grimes 

NOAA General Council, NMFS, St. Petersburg FL 

Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), is a concept created in the regulatory guidelines 

required pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Manuson-Stevens Act. 

The concept is intended to encourage fishery management councils to create subsets of EFH, 

which are comprised of habitat areas that generally have some exceptional characteristics. While 

the HAPC designation itself carries no additional legal protection, conceptually the designation 

indicates a need for some additional consideration. In the Gulf, additional protection afforded to 

HAPC is variable, and based on a case-by-case determination by the fishery management 

councils and NMFS. HAPC is only one example of potential area based protective measures that 

may be implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). There are numerous such 

measures in the current federal regulations applicable to the Gulf exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ), and they have been implemented to achieve a variety of objectives, many of which do not 

relate specifically to habitat protection. In addition, there are other federal statutes, including the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which may be used either in conjunction with the MSA, or 

separate from the MSA to create area based restrictions. 

The regulatory provisions specific to HAPC designation, as well as other area based fishing 

restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico, are available in Appendix A. 

63
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Minerals Management Service: 

Protection of Sensitive Habitats on the Outer Continental Shelf 

of the Gulf of Mexico 

James E. Sinclair 

Minerals Management Service, Metairie, LA 

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) has protected 

sensitive offshore habitats from potential impacts by oil and gas activities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) since the early 1970’s. Decades of research and monitoring provide the 

scientific basis for protection of these biologically important ecosystems. Current regulations 

include lease stipulations, with specific details in official Notices to Lessees and Operators 

(NTL’s) and other documents (http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntlltl.html). 

Much of the current MMS environmental regulations are described in NTL’s 2004-G05

(Biologically Sensitive Areas), 2000-G20 (Chemosynthetic Communities), and 2003-G03

(Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys). This document is a brief summary of the regulations 

designed to protect sensitive habitats in U.S. Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). For a 

full description, refer to the appropriate regulatory documents. 

There are four general categories of sensitive habitats protected by MMS in the Gulf of Mexico: 

live bottoms, topographic features, potentially sensitive biological features (PSBF’s), and 

chemosynthetic communities. 

LIVE BOTTOMS include two subcategories: low-relief and the Pinnacle Trend. Low-relief 

live bottoms include seagrass meadows and hard-bottom areas of about 1-2 m (3-6 ft) or less 

relief in the Eastern GOM. Small hard-bottom features support various invertebrate fauna and 

fish communities. Many areas of the west Florida shelf are composed of flat limestone substrate 

with a veneer of sand. These areas support ephemeral algae communities that come and go as 

the sand shifts locations. Many of these areas support invertebrates that persist by growing tall 

enough to stand above the shifting sand. 

The Pinnacle Trend is an area of widely scattered features ranging from low-relief rocky areas to 

major pinnacles, as well as ridges, scarps, relict patch reefs, fields of low mounds, and fields of 

shallow depressions. Seventy MMS lease blocks (3 mi x 3 mi square) carry the Live Bottom 

(Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation. This area is about 65 km (40 mi) east of the mouth of the 

Mississippi River. 

No bottom-disturbing activities may cause direct impacts to live-bottoms features. Proposed 

activities in blocks with the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation require a live-bottom 

survey report that contains detailed bathymetry of the area out to 1,000 m (3,280 ft) beyond the 

proposed activity. If activities are near live bottoms, the operator must submit a map with 2-ft 

contour intervals, the delineation of live bottoms, the height of seafloor features, the location of 

proposed wells, and the location of anchors, cables, chains, etc. Operators may be required to 

use a remotely operated vehicle for the clearance of anchor or pipeline positions. The MMS will 

require measures to protect live-bottom areas including, but not limited to, the following: (a) 

relocation of operations; (b) shunting of all drilling fluids and cuttings; (c) transportation of 

64
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

drilling fluids and cuttings to approved disposal sites; and (d) monitoring of live bottoms. After 

the activity, operators must submit a map showing the locations of bottom disturbances. 

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES are hard banks in the GOM formed by the uplift of rocks by salt 

diapirs. These habitats are elevated above surrounding soft bottoms into less turbid mid-waters 

with greater penetration of sunlight. As a result, reef communities develop that include many of 

the more sensitive species associated with Caribbean waters. 

Lease stipulations establish five categories of protection zones. The MMS protects 37 banks in 

the Central and Western GOM. The Biological Stipulation Map Package includes drawings of 

each bank with its associated zones. The five protection zones are the No Activity Zone, 1,000-

Meter Zone, 1-Mile Zone, 3-Mile Zone, and the 4-Mile Zone. Regulations for each of these 

banks include the No Activity Zone and up to two of the other zones. The No Activity Zone 

follows the largest closed depth contour of the seafloor around a bank. The others are 

boundaries around the No Activity Zone that protect a minimum of the stated measure beyond 

the bank: 1,000 meters or 1, 3, or 4 miles (Figure 1). 

The No Activity Zone is an area prohibiting the placement of structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, 

anchors, anchor chains, wire ropes, or any other bottom disturbance on a bank within the listed 

isobath, which is generally the largest closed contour line. NTL 2004-G05 further specifies that 

no such activity shall occur within 500 ft (152 m) of the No Activity Zone. 

The 1,000-Meter Zone requires shunting all drill cuttings and drilling fluids to the bottom 

through a downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but no more than 10 m (33 ft), from 

the bottom. Claypile Bank has the 1,000-Meter Zone but requires monitoring instead of 

shunting. 

The 1-Mile Zone requires shunting all drill cuttings and drilling fluids to the bottom through a 

downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but no more than 10 m (33 ft), from the 

bottom. 

The 3-Mile Zone requires shunting all drill cuttings and drilling fluids from development 

operations to the bottom through a downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but no 

more than 10 m (33 ft), from the bottom. If more than two exploration wells are to be drilled 

from the same surface location, drill cuttings and drilling fluids from the exploration drilling 

operations are to be shunted. 

The 4-Mile Zone is in effect only at the East and West Flower Garden Banks. Its requirements 

are the same as the 1-Mile Zone. 

65
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Figure 1. Protection zones stipulated by the MMS on offshore leases near topographic features include the No Activity Zone, 

1000-Meter Zone, 1-Mile Zone, 3-Mile Zone, and the 4-Mile Zone. No Activity Zones (red shading) are based on a particular 

isobath (listed) rather than a map polygon. The No Activity Zone at the Flower Garden Banks is defined by the 1⁄4 1⁄4 1⁄4 line that 

encompasses the 100-m (328-ft) isobath. The 1000-Meter, 1-Mile, and 3-Mile Zones are defined by a radius from a biological 

centerpoint, as for MacNeil Bank above. The 4-Mile Zone is a specified buffer of at least four miles around the Flower Garden 

Banks. 

POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES (PSBF’s) are features not 

protected by a biological lease stipulation that are of moderate to high relief (about 8 ft (2.4 m) 

or higher), provide surface area for the growth of sessile invertebrates, and attract large numbers 

of fish. No bottom-disturbing activities may cause direct impacts to potentially sensitive 

biological features. If activities are near PSBF’s, the operator must submit a map with 2-ft 

contour intervals, the delineation of PSBF’s, the height of seafloor features, the location of 

proposed wells, and the location of anchors, cables, chains, etc. After the activity, they must 

submit a map showing the locations of bottom disturbances. Figure 2 shows numerous small 

features outside the No Activity Zone of Bright Bank that would qualify as PSBF’s. 

66
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Figure 2. High-resolution multibeam bathymetry reveals numerous small features outside the No Activity Zone of Bright Bank 

(Gardner et al., 2002). These features would qualify for protection by MMS as potentially sensitive biological features. Oil and 

gas activities are prohibited from causing physical impacts to these features. 

CHEMOSYNTHETIC COMMUNITIES occur in water depths over 400 m (1,312 ft) at seeps 

of oil, methane, and sulfide. Chemotrophic bacteria colonize these sites, producing food and 

precipitating carbonate substrate that supports colonies of mussels, clams, and giant tubeworms. 

These keystone species create the structure that harbors a significant community of other 

organisms such as crabs, shrimp, anemones, echinoderms, and a variety of fish species. The 

MMS protects these communities with regulations that restrict wells, cuttings, and drilling fluids 

to at least 450 m (1,476 ft) away. No bottom disturbances are allowed within 75 m (246 ft). If 

areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are present, MMS could 

require the operator to relocate the proposed activities, provide additional information about the 

seafloor (video surveys), use a remotely operated vehicle to place anchors precisely, monitor 

impacts, or any other condition deemed necessary to protect the environment. 

67
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

These rules also protect other deep hard-bottom communities. In some locations, stony corals 

colonize the hard-bottom substrate created by chemosynthetic communities, forming deep coral 

reef communities. Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata can form dense thickets on the 

periphery of chemosynthetic communities or on defunct sites that no longer have active seeps. 

The conditions observed with remote-sensing techniques appear the same for both 

chemosynthetic communities and deep coral communities. Therefore, the regulations for 

chemosynthetic communities also protect corals. 

Reference 

Gardner, J.V., J.D. Beaudoin, J.E.H. Clarke, and P. Dartnell. 2002. Multibeam mapping of 

selected areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico — Data, images, 

and GIS. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open-File Report 02-411. Internet 

website: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-411/index.html. 

68
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 5 Discussion 

Shepherd Grimes (NOAA General Council) – presentation/panelist 

Jim Sinclair (Minerals Management Service) – presentation/panelist

(from meeting transcripts) 

Barbara Lausche: Does the gulf have any special designation under IMO? (for James Sinclair): 

my impression is that you have a massive job with all these areas you are trying to deal with. 

What capacity do you have for monitoring? How are you able to monitor? Have you had to deal 

with many enforcement actions? 

James Sinclair: Yes it is a big job. We have some capacity for monitoring. We have recently 

acquired a small remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) to inspect some of these areas that 

are below diving depths. We plan to do more of that. As far as enforcement: that’s outside my 

bailiwick. We have a large group (1/3 of MMS field operations folks) that is there function. 

They have routine inspections and surprise inspections. They have regular oil spill response 

exercises. 

Shepherd Grimes: I don’t know regarding IMO question. I don’t think there is an agreement 

between us and Mexico. 

John Ogden: One of the strong arguments for “Islands in the Stream” would be to bring the 

regulations into some harmony. It’s mind boggling how effective it could be – strong argument 

for uniform administration. 

Shepherd Grimes: You don’t have statutory authority to do that at this point. If you were going 

to do this under Magnuson you could do this in terms of fisheries. 

John Ogden: The end result could be something more cohesive. 

James Sinclair: There are activities out there that no body regulates. That’s the whole idea here 

is to establish a system that can protect the habitats from all comers. 

Frank Alcock: Shepherd – the report you refer to raised some interesting questions regarding 

jurisdiction – specifically the Antiquities Act. No precedent regarding the application of the 

Antiquities Act to areas that don’t come above the sea surface. 

Shepherd Grimes: The Antiquities Act hadn’t until recent times been used as it is now. Wasn’t 

designed to do something as comprehensive as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act for example. 

Frank Alcock: There has been a gradual expansion of the use of the act that has been endorsed by 

Congress and that the Supreme Court have backed up. 

69
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Shepherd Grimes: No court as far as I know has decided that yes, this is something that can be 

done under the Antiquities Act. The Department of Justice has recently opined that it can be 

done and the Administration has done it. 

Frank Alcock: Do you think there will be (lawsuits)? 

Shepherd Grimes: My impression is yes. 

Tony Grogan: What advantage is there of having the NMS program do this? 

Shepherd Grimes: (not captured) 

Peg Brady: Can you talk about the range of activities MMS regulates? 

James Sinclair: MMS has a lease sale. Before that sale, the industry decides what they want to 

bid on. There will be stipulations on that lease. They make plans on how they will operate on 

that lease. They have to submit proposals to MMS which we review thoroughly. They create a 

plan for developing it, and that goes thru another review. They run pipeline and that process is 

elaborate – sometimes they share resources. There are routine activities for support activities. 

Peg Brady: You are looking at a complete spectrum of activities? 

James Sinclair: Yes. 

Peg Brady: Are they seeing any of the data that are available to you in terms of biological 

features? 

James Sinclair: The data they have comes mostly from them. 

Billy Causey: The idea of having this panel – a lot of people are asking what would this initiative 

give us that we don’t already have? Shepard hit on it early – the Magnuson Stevens Act gives us 

certain authority, whereas the National Marine Sanctuaries Act has different authorities. 

Together we’re a lot better equipped to accomplish a greater level of conservation. 

Ian MacDonald: Incredible infrastructure that the industry provides offshore. All of these 

structures are potential data gathering nodes. Is there any regulation or legislation that would 

encourage or require data gathering from these? 

James Sinclair: There is some of that – about a year, year and a half ago. MMS requires oil 

companies to use Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCPs) on their structures to gather data. 

There is some of that at least. 

70
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 6: Connections with Mexico and the 

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System

Moderator: Kim Ritchie 

Connectivity of the South Florida Coral Reef Ecosystem to Upstream Waters 

of the Western Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 

Elizabeth Johns1 and John Lamkin2

1

Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL 

2

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL 

The coastal waters of southeast Florida, including the coral reefs of NOAA's Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), are directly connected by means of strong ocean currents 

with upstream waters of the western Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, the 

Caribbean Current and the Loop Current provide a rapid conduit for transport from the Mexican 

and Belizean coral reefs, located on the eastern shore of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the coastal 

zone bordered by northern Cuba, south Florida, and Bahamian coral reef ecosystems. 

 

Interdisciplinary cruise data collected in August 2002, March 2006 and January 2007 aboard the 

NOAA Ship Gordon Gunter, in combination with satellite-tracked surface drifter trajectories and 

remote sensing imagery, clearly show the highly variable and dynamic nature of the regional 

current structures, and provide a means of quantifying the potential pathways and rates of transit 

of the coastal waters and their biological and chemical constituents from one region to another. 

Figure 1 

Figure 1 shows the trajectories of surface drifters deployed during the March 2006 

interdisciplinary cruise along the Mexican Yucatan coastline at 18 to 20 N. Two of the drifters 

(shown in red and green) became entrained in 

eddies in the western Gulf of Mexico, one drifter 

(shown in orange) took a fairly straightforward 

trip around the Loop Current, through the Straits 

of Florida and off to the North Atlantic in the 

Gulf Stream, and one drifter (shown in 

turquoise) spent several months meandering 

around the reef areas of southern Cuba before 

finally rejoining the Loop Current and rapidly 

exiting out of the area. These drifter trajectories 

show dramatically the modes of physical 

connectivity between the coral reef areas of the 

region. 

71
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Figure 2 

Figure 2 shows results from another set of surface drifters deployed during the January 2007 

cruise. A large cyclonic eddy was discovered in the southern part of the study area offshore of 

Belize (shown in blue). The rest of the drifters show somewhat simpler paths than last time, all 

taking the Loop Current pathway into the Florida Straits. One of these drifters (shown in green) 

made a number of transits around the Tortugas 

Gyre, south of the lower Florida Keys. The 

drifters also showed a very interesting pattern of 

lateral dispersion within the Florida Current/Gulf 

Stream system: The drifter farthest inshore 

(shown in green) grounded north of Key Largo 

near the Ocean Reef Club, and the one in the 

middle (shown in red) grounded to the north near 

Fort Pierce, while the one closest to the Bahamas 

(shown in turquoise) actually made a right turn 

and grounded off Andros Island, thus 

demonstrating direct connectivity with the 

Bahamian reefs as well. 

 

Finally, additional drifter trajectories were obtained from the Global Ocean Observing System 

(GOOS) center, which is based at AOML. The database was searched for all drifters that passed 

through the box shown in Figure 3 in blue, and the time that it took each drifter to transit from 

the top of the box at 22 N, to the longitude of the Dry Tortugas at 83 W, was calculated. 

Quantifying the timing of such transits is important, because larval fish and other creatures have 

a finite amount of time to travel with the ocean currents before their settlement phase, and the 

distance and direction that they travel may be critical to their long-term survival. 

Figures 3a-3d show examples from this analysis. The drifter shown in Figure 3a, for example, 

took over three months to make the trip. The drifter shown in Figure 3b took 20 days, and the 

drifter shown in Figure 3c took only 6 days. The drifter shown in Figure 3d made the fastest 

transit through the area, traveling from 22 N to the Dry Tortugas in exactly 3 days, at an average 

speed of 185 cm/s or 3.2 kts. 

Results from these cruises, along with ancillary data, show that the study areas are definitely 

connected to each other with fairly rapid time scales of transport, and furthermore that eddies and 

gyres play an important role in establishing the relevant time and length scales of connectivity. 

Such direct physical connectivity by means of strong ocean currents between the coral reef biota 

of the geographically separated spawning grounds may have an important influence on the 

degree of biological connectivity between regional larval populations. 

72
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

 Figure 3 

a b

c d

73
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

The Mexican Component of the Islands in the Stream Concept 

John W. Tunnell, Jr.

Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX 

The Gulf of Mexico should be considered as a natural Large Marine Ecosystem, not influenced 

by political boundaries. Therefore, to be fully effective, the Islands in the Stream, Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Network should include upstream sites in the southern 

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Mexico is the nearest and most likely partner in an 

international component of the extended network. Beyond Mexico to the south, the network 

could also include the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System countries of south of Mexico into 

Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras. 

There are 46 named coral reefs in the southern Gulf of Mexico, 31 in the southwestern Gulf off 

the state of Veracruz, and 15 on the Campeche Bank to the west and north of the Yucatan 

Peninsula. The majority of the southern Gulf reefs are emergent platform-type coral reefs. In 

the Mexican Caribbean the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System starts just south of Cancun and 

runs as an almost continuous fringing-barrier reef along the entire state of the Quintana Roo, the 

eastern side of the Yucatan Peninsula. 

Preliminary discussions with Dr. Ernesto Enkerlin, Director, and other personnel, of the 

Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP, National Commission of Natural 

Protected Areas) within the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT, 

Secretariat of Environmental and Natural Resources) focused on five potential sites in the 

Mexican component of the MPA network (Figure 1): 

APFF Arrecife Lobos-Tuxan 

(future location) 

Figure1. – Potential Mexican sites of the Gulf of Mexico Islands in the Stream MPA Network. Blue marks potential sites (see text 

for details).

74
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Gulf of Mexico Sites – 

1. Lobos – Tuxpan Reefs (Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna [APFF] Arrecifes 

Lobos-Tuxpan) – six emergent platform coral reefs in northern Veracruz state, 

currently rated as protected areas for fauna and flora only, but in declaration 

process for MPA status, perhaps by April 2008. 

2. Veracruz Reef System National Park (Parque Nacional [PN] Sistema Arrecifal 

Veracruzano) – existing MPA/National Park off the city of Veracruz and fishing 

village of Anton Lizardo in southern Veracruz state; includes 25 coral reefs total, 

including 3 fringing, 19 emergent platform reefs, and 3 submerged reef banks. 

3. Alcaran Reef NP (PN Arrecife Alacranes) – existing MPA/National Pak 90 km 

north of Progresso, Yucatan, northwestern Yucatan Peninsula; very large, atoll-like, 

emergent platform reef with five islands with extensive seabird colonies and 

nesting sea turtles. 

4. Yum Balam (APFF Yum Balam) – existing MPA that will be expanded to include 

the whale shark area and reclassified as the Biosphere Reserve Yum Balam 

(Reserva de la Biosfera Yum Balam in 2008); located at far northeastern corner of 

Yucatan Peninsula in the northernmost part of the state of Quintana Roo. 

Caribbean Sea Site – 

1. Sian Ka ́an Biosphere Reserve (Reserva de la Biosfera Sian Ka ́an) – existing 

MPA/Biosphere Reserve with three planned no-take marine reserves within the 

northern, central, and southern portion of the Biosphere Reserve; the current 

Biosphere Reserve includes the fringing-barrier coral reef system, as well as 

extensive seagrass beds, mangroves, two bays, and upland areas. 

Southern Gulf of Mexico coral reefs are typical Caribbean reefs (Tunnell et al. 2007); however, 

they do have slightly reduced, and decreasing, numbers of purely tropical species as you move 

further away geographically from the Caribbean. Unlike northern Gulf sites proposed in the 

Islands in the Stream MPA network, southern Gulf reef sites include emergent reefs and many 

coral cays or islands. Some of the islands include significant seabird rookeries and sea turtle 

nesting sites (Figure 2). 

75
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

A. B.

F.

C.

D. E.

A. B.

F.

C.

D. E.

Figure 2. – Colonial seabird rookeries on Campeche Bank reef islands: A. Sooty Tern, Isla Perez, Alacran Reef; B. Masked 

Boobies, Cayo Arenas; C. Red-footed Booby, Isla Desertora, Alacran Reef; D. Brown Noddy, Isla Perez, Alacran Reef; E-F. 

Magnificent Frigate Birds, Isla Desertora, Alacran Reef, and Cayo Centro, Cayos Arcas, respectively. 

A.

G. H. I.

D. E. F.

A. B. C.

G. H. I.

D. E. F.

B. C. 

 

Figure 3. – Number of species associated with taxa from southern Gulf of Mexico coral reefs: algae, 305 species; sponges, 28 

species; coral, 46 species; gorgonians, 38 species; polychaetes, 41 species; crustaceans, 238 species, mollusks, 555 species; 

echinoderms, 49 species; and fish, 369 species. 

76
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Marine biodiversity on reefs of the southern Gulf of Mexico has been inventoried at over 2000 

species (Figure 3), and island biota consists of almost 300 species (Tunnell et al. 2007). 

 

Southern Gulf of Mexico coral reef threats include typical Caribbean-wide threats, such as 

bleaching, disease, Diadema die-off, development, etc.; however, areas closest to population 

centers and heavy run-off have suffered the most (Table 1). 

Table 1. – Status of southern Gulf of Mexico coral reefs by location and major influences. 

 Veracruz (SW) Campeche 

Bank 

 South North (SE) 

Rain/Runoff high moderate low 

Location nearshore mid-shelf offshore 

Population high low low 

Condition Poor Okay Good 

Working cooperatively and collaboratively with Mexico on the proposed Islands in the 

Stream MPA Network is imperative for long-term success and connectivity. The upstream 

reefs serve as sources of larval distribution for U.S. network sites, and they serve as 

reservoirs for restoration should impacts disturb or affect U.S. sites 

Reference 

Tunnell, J. W., Jr., E. A. Chavez, and K. Withers. (2007). Coral Reefs of the Southern Gulf of 

Mexico. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, Texas. 256 pp. 

77
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

The Ocean Tracking Network and the Gulf of Mexico 

Robert E. Hueter 

Director, Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 

The Ocean Tracking Network (OTN, http://www.oceantrackingnetwork.org) is a global initiative 

designed to comprehensively monitor ocean conditions, and marine life response to those 

conditions, by using “curtains” of underwater sensors and acoustic receivers deployed at onekilometer intervals along the sea floor in key areas of the world’s oceans (Figs. 1 and 2). The 

sensors measure oceanographic conditions (conductivity, temperature, depth, current) and the 

receivers collect acoustic information from transmitters attached to a diversity of marine animals 

including: migratory fishes such as sharks, tunas and billfishes; sea turtles; marine mammals; 

and large invertebrates such as cephalopods and crustaceans. With this approach, the 

movements and biology of thousands of marine creatures can be simultaneously monitored and 

studied in concert with oceanographic measurements. Results will significantly improve our 

understanding of the biology and behavior of migrating marine life, ocean physics modeling, and 

effects of climate change, and will advance resource management and international social and 

legal frameworks for ocean science. 

Fig. 1. Shore-to-slope “curtains” of acoustic receivers detect the 

passage of migratory fish. The fish can carry tags that archive 

information on past movements and oceanographic conditions, 

and the data can be downloaded to the receivers on acoustic 

contact. (Figure courtesy OTN) 

Fig. 2. Continuous “curtain” of 

receivers and samplers to 

simultaneously detect presence of 

tagged animals, download archived 

data from animals tags to array, and 

collect physical data. Data are 

retrieved by acoustic modem 

through the water column to a 

research vessel, by ARGOS satellite 

uplink, and/or by relay to shore 

station. (Figure courtesy OTN) 

78
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

This worldwide initiative is spearheaded by Dalhousie University, which is securing the 

necessary equipment from Canadian manufacturers with approximately CAN$45M from the 

Canada Foundation of Innovation and Canada’s National Science and Engineering Research 

Council (NSERC). Approximately 60 listening lines comprising 5,000 receivers are planned for 

14 key ocean regions around the globe (Fig. 3). Included in these is a curtain crossing the Straits 

of Florida from Florida to Cuba, and an additional line crossing the Yucatan Channel from 

Mexico to Cuba (Fig. 4). Mote Marine Laboratory is the designated coordinating partner for 

deployment and operation of the Florida-Cuba OTN curtain and is also involved in helping to 

facilitate the Mexico-Cuba line. 

Fig. 3. Projected locations of OTN curtains in the world’s oceans. 

Red dots = existing lines; orange = Phase 1 by 2009; yellow = 

Phase 2 by 2011; white = Phase 3 by 2012. (Figure courtesy OTN.)

For the Florida-Cuba curtain, a line of acoustic receivers and benthic pods will be deployed from 

the Florida Keys southward across the Straits of Florida. When complete, this sensory array will 

detect the presence of any acoustically tagged animal moving through the Straits of Florida, 

either out of or into the Gulf of Mexico. Data recorded include the presence of the individual 

animal, archived data from the animal’s tag, and oceanographic measurements at the time of 

animal detection. Data accumulated by receivers will be uploaded to a shore-based station in one 

of three ways: 1) by acoustic modem through the water column on quarterly research cruises 

over the array; 2) by radio transmission to the ARGOS satellite system via surface transmitter; or 

3) by “daisy-chaining” of receivers along the curtain to a landside receiving station in the Florida 

Keys. In this way, the array will not have to be pulled to the surface to retrieve archived data. 

Battery life of the receivers is approximately 4-7 years and the life expectancy of the overall 

array is projected to be 20 years. All data go to a centralized database where they are made 

freely available for all researchers involved. Proprietary nature of publishing rights for projectspecific data is protected. 

79
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Gulf of Mexico 

STRAITS OF 

FLORIDA 

YUCATAN

CHA EL NN

Caribbean Sea 

Fig. 4. The Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea region showing the Straits of 

Florida, where the Florida-Cuba OTN line will be located, and the Yucatan 

Channel, where a Mexico-Cuba OTN line will be located. Primary current flow is 

northward through the Yucatan Channel from the Caribbean into the Gulf, and 

eastward through the Straits of Florida from the Gulf into the Atlantic Ocean. 

80
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Fig. 5. OTN curtain off Florida 

Keys is projected to span the 

Straits of Florida, possibly 

running first to Cay Sal Bank in 

the Bahamas (arrow). Planning 

process currently underway will 

determine actual track.

The OTN approach provides a powerful tool for any scientist studying the movement of animals 

with acoustic transmitters, as well as for physical oceanographers interested in ocean dynamics. 

Once the Florida-Cuba and Mexico-Cuba lines are in place (projected to be by 2011), the two 

gateways to/from the Gulf of Mexico will be acoustically monitored at all times. This will 

provide a unique “front door, back door” array of biophysical sensors to detect upstream 

(through the Yucatan Channel) and downstream (through the Straits of Florida) conditions for 

the Islands in the Stream within the Gulf. 

Challenges remaining for the deployment and operation of the Florida OTN include: 1) final 

identification of partners involved in the Florida curtain; 2) procurement of funds for deployment 

and operation (estimated to be $4M over five years of operations, to match $1.7M in equipment 

provided by OTN); and 3) political challenges of brokering the placement of sensors in Cuban 

territorial waters. These challenges are daunting but not insurmountable, and the enormous 

payoff of successful OTN operation at the Gulf’s front and back doors will greatly benefit the 

state of ocean science in the region 

81
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Panel 6 Discussion 

Libby Johns (NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Lab) – presentation/panelist 

John Wes Tunnell (The Harte Research Institute) – presentation/panelist 

Bob Hueter (Mote Marine Laboratory) – presentation/panelist

(from meeting transcripts) 

Al Hine: Any lingering effects from the big oil spill in the late 1970s? 

Wes Tunnel: Yes you can see them but I’m not sure if there are any biological effects left. Took 

three months for it to get from the Bay of Campeche to the Texas gulf coast. Gave chance for 

studies before it got there. Can still see the oil line from the original spill. Tropical storm 

occurred and brought the oil over the reefs. 

Liz Williams: OTN – Any analysis on how many species and seasonal coverage for the species 

you might be tagging? 

Bob Hueter: Our role as coordinators is to get this tool in the water. This will be available to 

anyone doing acoustic tagging in the area. It’s not necessarily our responsibility to coordinate 

the science. Dalhousie has worked out the details on the proprietary nature of the data. The sky 

is the limit. It’s a completely open tool for everyone to use. We will want to coordinate 

regarding the physical dynamics as well. We’re planning a workshop in the next couple of 

months. We have a little money from the state to get this going. Any one that has interest in this 

please let me know. I need to know what the interest is out there. 

Julie Morris: What do we know about the connectivity about the currents in the Gulf? 

Libby Johns: I don’t know. 

Wes Tunnel: I can give some anecdotal biological information. We have found 50 spiny lobsters 

on the jetty in Brownsville Texas – never there before, never there again. Some of this stuff is 

sporadic. It would be really neat to do the genetics on these things to find out where they are 

coming from. 

Barbara Lausche: The Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve would pull in the reserve going down the 

chain? Are we going to get a multiplier effect here? 

Wes Tunnell: Potentially. There are a few protected areas spread out. The no-take reserves are 

segments within the Sian Ka’an biosphere reserve. We need to be concerned about making it a 

broader network. 

Tony Grogan: Were the Mexicans already doing this, or were they sparked to do more along 

with Islands in the Stream? 

82
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Wes Tunnell: They had already been doing this. The time is just right for making these work 

together. 

Bob Hueter: The Mexican areas also include large tracts of land and have been in existence for a 

long time (20 years). They started as land protected areas with coastline and they are expanding 

the protection. 

Jerry Ault: How far afield do those feeding/spawning aggregations go? 

Bob Hueter: It’s about 1000 sq km area total. It’s a feeding area – no sign of spawning. They 

come there from May-September estimate ~1500 animals. Tagging shows they go all directions 

- into the gulf, into the Straits of Florida and into the Caribbean. The oceanography drives all of 

this. Libby’s drifter data is very interesting – sometimes the sharks follow those same tracks, 

sometimes they go in their own direction. 

83
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Open Discussion 

Moderator: Frank Alcock 

Director, Mote Marine Policy Institute 

(from meeting transcripts) 

Five questions to toss out for the group to consider: 

1. What do we know about the Gulf of Mexico as a Large Marine Ecosystem (in particular 

the sites identified)? What makes these sites ecologically unique? 

2. Are we missing anything? Is there anything on that list that perhaps shouldn’t be there? 

3. What connects these sites? Do we know enough to say there is a robust inter-linkage 

with these areas? 

4. What are the threats? Threats that aren’t being adequately addressed in the existing 

governance structure? 

5. What type of designation are we talking about here? What would that mean? What type 

of value added would we get from that designation? Some discussion possibly on 

process – although this admittedly was not the intention of this workshop. 

Laura Geselbracht: I think this concept is a great one in terms of protecting biodiversity. We 

shouldn’t limit ourselves to just fish and coral – we should expand the concept to include the full 

range of biodiversity – e.g. birds. The DeSoto Canyon is a unique feature – we have focused on 

things that stick up. 

Ian MacDonald: I think we are missing deep water high productivity areas. The Gulf of Mexico 

is rich with deep-water resources. Same fauna in the deep area seep communities. There is 

connectivity demonstrated. There is connectivity in low energy environments. 

Steve Atran: Hoping this concept will concentrate on – mentioned in earlier discussion – need 

long time series of data, limited data stations. We need to get out of this a data collection plan. 

We should ensure coordinated and ongoing data collection. 

John Ogden: There is a sense of urgency that we shouldn’t lose track of. These areas are 

essentially operating as refugia. Fishing, land based pollution and global climate change issues 

are making their way into these areas. If we think our own behavior is going to have an effect – 

“Islands in the Stream” is going to do that. It is happening out there, and it seems like it’s going 

to get to these areas as well. Let’s not monkey around with this. 

Bob Weisberg: Having a set of these areas protected is a wonderful thought, but I think we 

should understand how these areas really work. If we are going to put together a science 

program – I want to see it aimed at that. We need to better understand these sites, a scientific 

program should be focused on them. All these efforts (e.g. the International Ocean Observing 

System [IOOS]) and none are making much progress. We are spinning our wheels. How do we 

simply not just put one more thing on the table? We need focus. 

John Ogden: Want to respond to that from the MPA Advisory Committee and the Florida Keys. 

84
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

This is a political activity and we need to put our resources into that. The science will get done if 

we have the focal areas. “Islands in the Stream” would provide this focus. These are previously 

vetted areas – these are our shot at getting something going and then building it. We’re not 

going to get a science program to look at connectivity in the GOM. Place-based management 

can help focus science. 

Billy Causey: We’re talking about a MPA network – this is the broadest definition. We need to 

acknowledge the broadest definition of “marine protected area”. We haven’t decided whether 

this is no take. That will be done with other stakeholders involved too. Let’s focus on what Bob 

said – we need the monitoring. That has to be ongoing. We have to know how we detect 

change. Take the physical and natural sciences and integrate them. We give you the rationale. 

Jim Sinclair: What we are looking at here is the goal of trying to create a new entity to lead in 

this process. The idea is not to have an entity to sit inside all these others and do more different 

things. Instead to serve as a lead for these other groups that can be brought in as partners to 

support research and management. The idea should be to create a new entity to coordinate 

management and protection of the areas. 

Barbara Lausche: I’m an Environmental Lawyer. I’ve worked on Protected Areas law all my 

life. My perspective – listening to scientists all day is half of what I do. I can’t do my job unless 

I understand what is out there so I can understand what needs to be done. The US Legal system 

is the next step to take a breather and to be able to work thru your questions (the three John 

listed). We need to use the best legal instrument we have to protect these areas and to use that to 

let things slow down. As a political process – you throw in more than less, because you 

negotiate. Put it in and have it be part of your negotiating process and your filtering process until 

you get to the final product. Need a chance to use the best legal instrument (MPA) and use it. 

Also should be more inclusive. 

Laura Geselbracht: We didn’t hear a lot about socioeconomics today. But you are going to need 

that to understand what is at stake. What are the costs? What are the benefits? Need to 

understand these better. 

Frank Alcock: I had a chance to speak with Billy & Dan about that, and agree that this aspect is 

important. A MPA will speak to regulating humans. We need a map that shows where human 

activity is occurring. Need as strong an effort on the social science side. 

Tony Grogan: One of the premises is that this is a monument for George W. Bush. If he doesn’t 

sign off on it, would it be carried over to the next administration? 

Dan Basta: This is about you – it isn’t about GW. It’s up to you all to decide what needs to be 

done. If you leave it to the politicians, you are going to be unhappy. Interesting fact: many folks 

have said they’ve been doing what they’ve been doing for 35 years – meantime the US 

population has increased by 100 million people. So the world you started working in is very 

different from today. Can’t develop strategies that are out of sync with time. US citizens are 

looking to the best and brightest, you, to tell them what to do. You have to decide how much 

info you need to step off the curb. 

85
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Ian MacDonald: Where are the nodes, where does the recruitment come from that would 

replenish these sites? Recruits from one spot could potentially replenish these areas – those 

potential seedbeds should be put at the top of the list. 

Gene Shinn: (not entirely captured – related to the table created on size comparisons. Possibly a 

question about the size of the initiative.) 

Wes Tunnell: The “Islands in the Stream” represents about 1/5 of 1% of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Would add .00196 sq miles of protected areas in the GOM. 1176 (Bill had 1136 sq mi) square 

miles. 35% smaller than all Texas bays and estuaries. 

Wes Tunnell: We need to protect the ocean, what Billy & Dan are asking is: What are the areas 

that need to be protected? Years ago, Sylvia Earle went to some conference and reported that 

12% of land is protected. Less than 1% of ocean is protected. We need to get more protection 

for the ocean. 

Billy Causey: The point is, this is really small. We’re not trying to have a large footprint – we’re 

trying to protect the jewels around the gulf. 

Villy Kourafalou: From the presentation and discussion we know enough to know that there is 

connection and that there is a need for action. It is clear that is a lot left to be learned. If you 

have a patient with a rare diseases, you don’t wait, you do as much as you can and continue you 

research to see what more you can figure out. Enlarge the research to increase understanding. 

Although there is a lot to be learned and we need to do more research about the ecosystem and 

potential management activities, we still need to act now. 

Paul Sammarco: We’ve talked about a lot of things today. One of the things I’ve learned in the 

last 7 years of working with gas platforms in the FGB area – spatial scale is important and 

effective conservation is important. Different organisms have different reproductive biology. 

More islands is better for starters. We can’t declare too many islands, we can only define too 

few. We should be considering all potential sites at this early stage and (if necessary) narrow 

down the list following negotiation. Target organisms of concern must be taken into account in 

determining sites. 

Jerry Ault: I’ll preface my remarks by staying that I support any effort to enhance economic 

sustainability. However I’m stuck with the title of the document. Creating a network requires 

more meat in the process. Up front needs to be some level of risk analysis regarding the cost of 

not doing it. Need to conduct a risk analysis to determine value and benefits of the sites. Also 

understanding the efficacy of the process. Need to ensure follow-through to test results of 

protection. Needs some level of adaptivness. Hate to get into another conundrum that would 

undermine the science. Going to need science to support this proposal. 

Dennis Heinemann: Commend Billy and the gang for what I think is a visionary proposal. We 

need to trust the science that we have and not worry so much about what we don’t have. We 

know enough to get started. There are at least five reasons to do this: just protecting the areas 

themselves; we know at least from good theory that putting together a network will enhance 

86
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

ecological integrity at the gulf level; can help fisheries production; whether these small areas can 

do those or not, but the substance of the science is good enough. We are all committed to trying 

to do ecosystem-based management. And this is an opportunity to do that on a large scale. 

Finally this is the opportunity to do some international leadership on MPA networks. There is 

plenty of scientific reason to do this. 

Mimi D’Iorio: Seawall issues in California – in hindsight we’re taking these down – should have 

done some science before. There is a slew of georeferenced information – if we overlayed the 

data and allowed the computer to tell us the 15 best places – we would have the visual to make 

the case. If you overlay all these data, it makes it very clear to the non-scientists. This proposal 

is awesome, but if we could show what we know and what we are going to do next – it will look 

forward in filling the gaps that we already know are there. Proposal lacks demonstration of what 

we are going to do next. 

Will Heyman: Functionality – I think what you are saying is absolutely so. This is ambitious, but 

it’s not the first time people have gone about this. What people have learned is that management 

is not about the science, it’s about changing behavior. We need to get the opposition on this on 

board ASAP. Having fishermen in Belize on board with protecting the aggregating fish – their 

voice is more powerful than the scientists. 

Tony Grogan: I want to jump on that comment. I think this is what is missing here. I am from 

the fishing community. If it was done like Ducks Unlimited – where the hunters help make these 

decisions. Which of those areas is going to cause the biggest fight – I think it’s going to be the 

Florida Middle Grounds. You’re right – we have to get the fishermen on board. Need to include 

stakeholders in this process. 

Dan Basta: How you have described that is exactly the way this needs to go. The process hasn’t 

really started. The process is about people. That’s what this is about. We’re not going to 

influence the behavior of basking shark – it’s to influence human behavior. But we haven’t been 

given the green light to go ahead. If we get the green light to take this forward, we will have to 

slow them down so we can do the robust process. We can’t let this go on the fast track. We 

have to be clear minded about how far we can take it – this is a continuous process. It becomes a 

social process of ownership. That ownership is key. 

Bob Hueter: My interpretation is that the cart may be before the horse. Looking for scientific 

validation. We should provide scientific validation of this concept and no more. If we go this 

alone and this is a US initiative only – we’ve cut off the source. We really need to include those 

other places. Need to have a vision of an international effort from the very start. The scientific 

validity [of taking action] is weakened if Mexico and Belize are not included in the effort. 

Julie Morris: Just based on today I don’t think we’ve established the connectivity between the 

western Gulf and the rest of the area. I also want to plug for the hard bottom and live bottom on 

the West Florida Shelf. I think they are an important component of the stream that we’re talking 

about. 

87
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Dennis Heinemann: Madison Swanson & Steamboat Lumps were established to look at the idea 

of protecting spawning males. That experiment hasn’t worked as well as they wanted apparently 

due to poaching. A lot of people misunderstood the goals of those areas. It’s important to 

recognize that this effort is about protecting the jewels – they can’t exist in a vacuum. If we get 

any fishery benefit, that will be icing on the cake. These are too small. You’d need much larger 

areas to protect fisheries. 

Lori Arguelles: Question regarding the Ducks Unlimited reference – what are the elements that 

can be translatable and can be used in this regard? 

Tony Grogan: The strongest argument I heard today was what is going on in Mexico. Because 

that is downstream. I disagree with Julie about not enough connectivity – I learned about a lot of 

connectivity, and I was pretty skeptical. A lot of guys attack Billy & Chris Koenig – and I tell 

them these aren’t bad people. I go out and work with Chris. We have to go out and work with 

the fishermen. We need to communicate better with fishermen about the international aspect of 

the project and the benefits to them (i.e., protecting sites “upstream”) 

Lori Arguelles: Are there any specific ways you would suggest that would help align fishermen 

and scientists? 

Tony Grogan: The subject is complex about how to communicate and get people on board – and 

how to get other stakeholders to be communicating about a common goal of a sustainable 

environment. 

Will Heyman: We work intimately with lots of commercial fishermen, and it seems to make a 

huge difference. You can watch a presentation, but a lot of people learn hands on. If you spend 

time in the field, there is a great exchange – fishermen have enhanced my science. Idea that it is 

really difficult to understand this type of thing unless they’ve seen this before – idea of exchange 

between fishermen from different sites to exchange of information. Detailed interviews of 

fishers. 

Barbara Lausche: Heard today that there appears to be support for the concept in principle. 

There is support for the concept plus additional sites. It is important for us to come out with 

“something”. If we are going to move in a process oriented way, need a schematic of best 

possible proposed selection as a base, from which there can be a discussion. How fast do NOAA 

and Dan need to have a recommendation from this meeting? Need to have the “best map” 

available before starting stakeholder process. 

Andy Shepherd: This is big and important. We need to have faith in Sanctuary program. Don’t 

forget Fisheries Management Council. 

Steve Atran: You have to engage stakeholders and address their concerns. If not get support. 

86,000 square miles of Gulf of Mexico already restricted but not coordinated. Draft discussion 

paper needs to be more explicit on goals and objectives, and how a coordinated system will reach 

these. Madison Swanson had enormous opposition. Once in place, once described clearly, a lot 

of opposition dropped away. Renewal supported almost by all. 

88
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Billy Causey: In 1992 I was hung in effigy, John’s tires were slashed. Mistakes were made. We 

struggled in the mid 90’s. We learned from that, and made adjustments to the final Management 

Plan based on public input. We came back in 1998 and started a new process to go forward and 

establish the Tortugas Ecological Reserve – we worked with 4 jurisdictions, any of which could 

have stopped the process. We started working with the commercial and recreational fishermen 

and went through the process. Four months before finalizing, Governor Bush said that if one 

commercial fishermen opposes, this won’t happen. The program learned. The Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries believe in people. 

Frank Alcock: Has there been a lot more thought in the process, other than the brief 4 pager? 

Dan Basta: Yes. Every time you do things like this, will be like it has never been done before. 

Creation process. 

Dennis Heinemann: Try to learn what other people have done. Could learn what Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park has done, and the California Marine Life Protection Act process. “How do 

you create array along coast that is ecologically connected?” asked. Can guarantee that this is 

connected, and also guarantee that it is not connected, based on the species. Interconnections 

based on the connections are going to ecological connect many species. Connection between 

sites may be stronger for some species than others. 

Laura Geselbracht: Orders of magnitude and scale – differences between GBR and CA. 

Understand need to get “cream of crop”, perhaps objectability of sustainability of ecosystems 

should be identified. Sustainability should be an objective 

Emma Hickerson: We need a stand-alone document answering the questions of connectivity and 

representing a compilation about the state of existing knowledge. 

89
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Attendee List 

This list of 84 attendees is incomplete and contains only speakers and invitees, and attendants 

who signed-in during the meeting: 

Alcock Frank Mote Marine Laboratory alcock@mote.org 

Arguelles Lori National Marine Sanctuary Foundation lori@nmsfocean.org

Armor Jon NOAA/NMS Headquarters John.Armor@noaa.gov

Atran Steven Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Council steven.atran@gulfcouncil.org

Ault Jerry University of Miami, RSMAS jault@rsmas.miami.edu

Bailey Michael NOAA SE Regional Recreational Fisheries Michael.Bailey@noaa.gov 

Basta Dan NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program Dan.Basta@noaa.gov

Beaver Joel Pritzker Marine Lab, New College of Florida beaver@ncf.edu

Blaire Jay University of Miami, RSMAS jblaire@rsmas.miami.edu

Borden Larry Manatee County Marine Advisory Board radicalinc@aol.com

Brady Margaret (Peg) Council on Environmental Quality mbrady@ceq.eop.gov

Brennan Nate Mote Marine Laboratory nbrennan@mote.org

Burns Karen University of South Florida k.burns@mote.org

Calderon Rafael The Nature Conservancy rafael_calderon@tnc.org

Callahan Mike Fish and Wildlife Research Institute michael.callahan@myfwc.com

Carollo Cristina Florida Institute of Oceanography cristina.carollo@myfwc.com

Causey Billy NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program billy.causey@noaa.gov

Cole Brandon Pritzker Marine Lab, New College of Florida bcole@ncf.edu

Cozzi COZ Mote Marine Laboratory coz@mote.org

Crabtree Roy NMFS, St. Petersburg roy.crabtree@noaa.gov

Croom Miles NMFS Southeast Region miles.croom@noaa.gov

Culliton Tom NOS/NOAA Special Projects tom.culliton@noaa.gov

Culter Jim Mote Marine Laboratory jculter@mote.org

Cunning Ross Mote Marine Laboratory ross.cunning@gmail.com

D'Iorio Mimi NOAA/MPA Science Institute mimi.diorio@noaa.gov

Estevez Ernie Mote Marine Laboratory estevez@mote.org

Gannon Janet Mote Marine Laboratory jangann@mote.org

Geselbracht Laura The Nature Conservancy lgeselbracht@tnc.org

Grimes Shepherd NOAA General Council shepherd.grimes@noaa.gov

Grogan Tony Spearboard.com enter@bellsouth.net 

Heil Cindy Fish and Wildlife Research Institute cindy.heil@myfwc.com

Heinemann Dennis Ocean Conservancy Dheinemann@oceanconservancy.org

Hendee Jim NOAA/AOML Jim.Hendee@noaa.gov

Hueter Bob Mote Marine Laboratory rhueter@mote.org

Heyman Will Texas A&M University wheyman@tamu.edu

Hickerson Emma FGBNMS Emma.Hickerson@noaa.gov

Hine Al USF Marine Sciences hine@marine.usf.edu

Hogarth Bill USF Marine Sciences Bill.Hogarth@noaa.gov

Houser Letise National Marine Sanctuary Foundation letise@nmsfocean.org

Jaap Walt University of South Florida CMS wjaap@tampabay.rr.com

Johns Libby NOAA/AOML libby.johns@noaa.gov

Keller Brian NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program brian.keller@noaa.gov

Kiene Bill NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program William.Kiene@noaa.gov

Koenig Chris Institute for Fishery Resource Ecology, FSU koenig@bio.fsu.edu

Kourafalou Villy University of Miami RSMAS Vkourafalou@rsmas.miami.edu

90
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Kuffner Ilsa USGS, St. Petersburg FL ikuffner@usgs.gov

Lausche Barbara Mote Marine Laboratory blausche@mote.org

Lorenzen Kai Imperial College London k.lorenzen@imperial.ac.uk

Mahadevan Kumar Mote Marine Laboratory kumar@mote.org

McDonald Ian Harte Research Institute, TAMUCC ian.macdonal@tamucc.edu

Morris Julie New College of Florida morris@ncf.edu

Morton Sean NOAA/NMS Headquarters sean.morton@noaa.gov

Ogden John Florida Institute of Oceanography jogden@seas.marine.usf.edu

O'Mara Dana Mote Marine Laboratory danaomara@mote.org

Palandro David Fish and Wildlife Research Institute david.palandro@myfwc.com

Pierce Richard Mote Marine Laboratory rich@mote.org

Ponwith Bonnie NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center bonnie.ponwith@noaa.gov

Precht Bill Battelle Memorial Institute PrechtW@battelle.org

Reed Dave Florida Institute of Oceanography DaveReed@myfwc.com

Reich Christopher USGS, St. Petersburg FL creich@usgs.gov

Ritchie Kim Mote Marine Laboratory ritchie@mote.org

Rogers Alice Imperial College London a.rogers07@imperial.ac.uk

Sammarco Paul Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium psammarco@lumcon.edu

Score Dave NOAA/FKNMS David.A.Score@noaa.gov

Shen Glen Mote Marine laboratory glenshen@mote.org

Shepard Andrew NURC/UNCW sheparda@uncw.edu

Shinn Gene University of South Florida CMS eshinn@marine.usf.edu

Sinclair Jim Mineral Management Services James.Sinclair@mms.gov

Slowey Niall Texas A&M University slowey@ocean.tamu.edu

Stevely John Sea Grant Marine Extension jmstevely@ifas.ufl.edu

Struve Juliane Mote Marine Laboratory juliane_struve@yahoo.co.uk

Sutter Buck NMFS, St. Petersburg Buck.Sutter@noaa.gov

Tanner Brad Mote Marine Laboratory brad.tanner@mote.org

Thurmond Joel Mote Marine Laboratory thurmond@mote.org

Tunnell Wes Harte Research Institute, TAMUCC wes.tunnell@tamucc.edu

Vaughan Dave Mote Marine Laboratory dvaughan@mote.org

Weaver Doug Flower Garden Banks NMS doug.weaver@noaa.gov

Wedel Jim Manatee Sea Grant Advisory Committee vitsea@earthlink.net

Weisberg Bob University of South Florida CMS weisberg@marine.usf.edu

Wells Martha Mote Marine Laboratory mwells@mote.org

Wetzel Dana Mote Marine Laboratory dana@mote.org

White David Ocean Conservancy dwhite@oceanconservancy.org

Williams Liz AOML/RSMAS ewilliams@rsmas.miami.edu

Wilmot Fiona Keys Connectivity Inc. fionawilmont@earthlink.net

91
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Appendix A: HAPC and Other Habitat or Area Based Regulations 

(January 17, 2008) 

Shepherd Grimes 

NOAA General Council, NMFS, St. Petersburg FL 

§ 600.810 Definitions and word usage. 

(a) . . . 

Habitat areas of particular concern means those areas of EFH identified pursuant to 

§600.815(a)(8). 

§ 600.815 Contents of Fishery Management Plans. 

 (a) Mandatory contents- . . . 

 (8) Identification of habitat areas of particular concern. FMPs should identify specific types or 

areas of habitat within EFH as habitat areas of particular concern based on one or more of the 

following considerations: 

(i) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat. 

(ii) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation. 

(iii) Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat 

type. 

(iv) The rarity of the habitat type. 

§ 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. 

Gulf and South Atlantic prohibited coral means, in the Gulf and South Atlantic, one or more of 

the following, or a part thereof: 

(1) Coral belonging to the Class Hydrozoa (fire corals and hydrocorals). 

(2) Coral belonging to the Class Anthozoa, Subclass Hexacorallia, Orders Scleractinia (stony 

corals) and Antipatharia (black corals). 

(3) A seafan, Gorgonia flabellum or G. ventalina. 

(4) Coral in a coral reef, except for allowable octocoral. 

(5) Coral in an HAPC, including allowable octocoral. 

92
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

HAPC means habitat area of particular concern. 

§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures. 

(a) Alabama SMZ. The Alabama SMZ consists of artificial reefs and surrounding areas. In the 

Alabama SMZ, fishing by a vessel that is operating as a charter vessel or headboat, a vessel that 

does not have a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish, as required under §622.4(a)(2), or a vessel 

with such a permit fishing for Gulf reef fish is limited to hook-and-line gear with three or fewer 

hooks per line and spearfishing gear. A person aboard a vessel that uses on any trip gear other 

than hook-and-line gear with three or fewer hooks per line and spearfishing gear in the Alabama 

SMZ is limited on that trip to the bag limits for Gulf reef fish specified in §622.39(b) and, for 

Gulf reef fish for which no bag limit is specified in §622.39(b), the vessel is limited to 5 percent, 

by weight, of all fish on board or landed. The Alabama SMZ is bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 30°02.5' 88°07.7' 

B 30°02.6' 87°59.3' 

C 29°55.0' 87°55.5' 

D 29°54.5' 88°07.5' 

A 30°02.5' 88°07.7' 

(b) Florida middle grounds HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or 

trap is prohibited year round in the area bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 28°42.5' 84°24.8' 

B 28°42.5' 84°16.3' 

C 28°11.0' 84°00.0' 

D 28°11.0' 84°07.0' 

E 28°26.6' 84°24.8' 

A 28°42.5' 84°24.8' 

(c) Reef fish longline and buoy gear restricted area. A person aboard a vessel that uses, on any 

trip, longline or buoy gear in the longline and buoy gear restricted area is limited on that trip to 

the bag limits for Gulf reef fish specified in §622.39(b)(1) and, for Gulf reef fish for which no 

bag limit is specified in §622.39(b)(1), the vessel is limited to 5 percent, by weight, of all fish on 

board or landed. The longline and buoy gear restricted area is that part of the Gulf EEZ 

shoreward of rhumb lines connecting, in order, the points listed in Table 1, in Appendix B of this 

part. 

(d) Tortugas marine reserves HAPC. The following activities are prohibited within the Tortugas 

marine reserves HAPC: Fishing for any species and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels. 

(1) EEZ portion of Tortugas North. The area is bounded by rhumb lines connecting the following 

points: From point A at 24°40'00" N. lat., 83°06'00" W. long. to point B at 24°46'00" N. lat., 

93
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

83°06'00" W. long. to point C at 24°46'00" N. lat., 83°00'00" W. long.; thence along the line 

denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 

11434, to point A at 24°40'00" N. lat., 83°06'00" W. long. 

(2) Tortugas South. The area is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°33'00" 83°09'00" 

B 24°33'00" 83°05'00" 

C 24°18'00" 83°05'00" 

D 24°18'00" 83°09'00" 

A 24°33'00" 83°09'00" 

(e) Shrimp/stone crab separation zones. Five zones are established in the Gulf EEZ and Florida's 

waters off Citrus and Hernando Counties for the separation of shrimp trawling and stone crab 

trapping. Although Zone II is entirely within Florida's waters, it is included in this paragraph (e) 

for the convenience of fishermen. Restrictions that apply to Zone II and those parts of the other 

zones that are in Florida's waters are contained in Rule 46–38.001, Florida Administrative Code. 

Geographical coordinates of the points referred to in this paragraph (e) are as follows: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 28°59'30" 82°45'36" 

B 28°59'30" 83°00'10" 

C 28°26'01" 82°59'47" 

D 28°26'01" 82°56'54" 

E 28°41'39" 82°55'25" 

F 28°41'39" 82°56'09" 

G 28°48'56" 82°56'19" 

H 28°53'51" 82°51'19" 

I1 28°54'43" 82°44'52" 

J2 28°51'09" 82°44'00" 

K 28°50'59" 82°54'16" 

L 28°41'39" 82°53'56" 

M3 28°41'39" 82°38'46" 

N 28°41'39" 82°53'12" 

O 28°30'51" 82°55'11" 

P 28°40'00" 82°53'08" 

Q 28°40'00" 82°47'58" 

R 28°35'14" 82°47'47" 

S 28°30'51" 82°52'55" 

T 28°27'46" 82°55'09" 

U 28°30'51" 82°52'09" 

1Crystal River Entrance Light 1A. 

2Long Pt. (southwest tip). 

3Shoreline. 

94
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

(1) Zone I is enclosed by rhumb lines connecting, in order, points A, B, C, D, T, E, F, G, H, I, 

and J, plus the shoreline between points A and J. It is unlawful to trawl in that part of Zone I that 

is in the EEZ from October 5 through May 20, each year. 

(2) Zone II is enclosed by rhumb lines connecting, in order, points J, I, H, K, L, and M, plus the 

shoreline between points J and M. 

(3) Zone III is enclosed by rhumb lines connecting, in order, points P, Q, R, U, S, and P. It is 

unlawful to trawl in that part of Zone III that is in the EEZ from October 5 through May 20, each 

year. 

(4) Zone IV is enclosed by rhumb lines connecting, in order, points E, N, S, O, and E. 

(i) It is unlawful to place a stone crab trap in that part of Zone IV that is in the EEZ from October 

5 through December 1 and from April 2 through May 20, each year. 

(ii) It is unlawful to trawl in that part of Zone IV that is in the EEZ from December 2 through 

April 1, each year. 

(5) Zone V is enclosed by rhumb lines connecting, in order, points F, G, K, L, and F. 

(i) It is unlawful to place a stone crab trap in that part of Zone V that is in the EEZ from October 

5 through November 30 and from March 16 through May 20, each year. 

(ii) It is unlawful to trawl in that part of Zone V that is in the EEZ from December 1 through 

March 15, each year. 

(f) Southwest Florida seasonal trawl closure. From January 1 to 1 hour after official sunset on 

May 20, each year, trawling, including trawling for live bait, is prohibited in that part of the Gulf 

EEZ shoreward of rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

B1 26°16.0' 81°58.5' 

C 26°00.0' 82°04.0' 

D 25°09.0' 81°47.6' 

E 24°54.5' 81°50.5' 

M1 24°49.3' 81°46.4' 

1On the seaward limit of Florida's waters. 

(g) Reef fish stressed area. The stressed area is that part of the Gulf EEZ shoreward of rhumb 

lines connecting, in order, the points listed in Table 2, in Appendix B of this part. 

(1) A powerhead may not be used in the stressed area to take Gulf reef fish. Possession of a 

powerhead and a mutilated Gulf reef fish in the stressed area or after having fished in the 

stressed area constitutes prima facie evidence that such reef fish was taken with a powerhead in 

95
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

the stressed area. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to the following species: dwarf 

sand perch, hogfish, and sand perch. 

(2) A roller trawl may not be used in the stressed area. Roller trawl means a trawl net equipped 

with a series of large, solid rollers separated by several smaller spacer rollers on a separate cable 

or line (sweep) connected to the footrope, which makes it possible to fish the gear over rough 

bottom, that is, in areas unsuitable for fishing conventional shrimp trawls. Rigid framed trawls 

adapted for shrimping over uneven bottom, in wide use along the west coast of Florida, and 

shrimp trawls with hollow plastic rollers for fishing on soft bottoms, are not considered roller 

trawls. 

(3) A fish trap may not be used in the stressed area. A fish trap used in the stressed area will be 

considered unclaimed or abandoned property and may be disposed of in any appropriate manner 

by the Assistant Administrator (including an authorized officer). 

(h) Texas closure. (1) From 30 minutes after official sunset on May 15 to 30 minutes after 

official sunset on July 15, trawling, except trawling for royal red shrimp beyond the 100-fathom 

(183-m) depth contour, is prohibited in the Gulf EEZ off Texas. 

(2) In accordance with the procedures and restrictions of the Fishery Management Plan for the 

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, the RA may adjust the closing and/or opening date of the 

Texas closure to provide an earlier, later, shorter, or longer closure, but the duration of the 

closure may not exceed 90 days or be less than 45 days. Notification of the adjustment of the 

closing or opening date will be published in theFederal Register. 

(i) Tortugas shrimp sanctuary. (1) The Tortugas shrimp sanctuary is closed to trawling. The 

Tortugas shrimp sanctuary is that part of the EEZ off Florida shoreward of rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

N1 25°52.9' 81°37.9' 

F 24°50.7' 81°51.3' 

G2 24°40.1' 82°26.7' 

H3 24°34.7' 82°35.2' 

P4 24°35.0' 82°08.0' 

1Coon Key Light. 

2New Ground Rocks Light. 

3Rebecca Shoal Light. 

4Marquessas Keys. 

(2) The provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this section notwithstanding— 

(i) Effective from April 11 through September 30, each year, that part of the Tortugas shrimp 

sanctuary seaward of rhumb lines connecting the following points is open to trawling: From 

point T at 24°47.8' N. lat., 82°01.0' W. long. to point U at 24°43.83' N. lat., 82°01.0' W. long. (on 

the line denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters); thence along the seaward limit of 

96
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 11439, to point V at 24°42.55' 

N. lat., 82°15.0' W. long.; thence north to point W at 24°43.6' N. lat., 82°15.0' W. long. 

(ii) Effective from April 11 through July 31, each year, that part of the Tortugas shrimp 

sanctuary seaward of rhumb lines connecting the following points is open to trawling: From 

point W to point V, both points as specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section, to point G, as 

specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. 

(iii) Effective from May 26 through July 31, each year, that part of the Tortugas shrimp 

sanctuary seaward of rhumb lines connecting the following points is open to trawling: From 

point F, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, to point Q at 24°46.7' N. lat., 81°52.2' W. 

long. (on the line denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters); thence along the seaward limit 

of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 11439, to point U and north 

to point T, both points as specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section. 

(j) West and East Flower Garden Banks HAPC. The following activities are prohibited yearround in the HAPC: Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, dredge, pot, or trap 

and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels. 

(1) West Flower Garden Bank. West Flower Garden Bank is bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°55'22.8" 93°53'09.6" 

B 27°55'22.8" 93°46'46.0" 

C 27°49'03.0" 93°46'46.0" 

D 27°49'03.0" 93°53'09.6" 

A 27°55'22.8" 93°53'09.6" 

(2) East Flower Garden Bank. East Flower Garden Bank is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, 

in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°59'14.4" 93°38'58.2" 

B 27°59'14.4" 93°34'03.5" 

C 27°52'36.5" 93°34'03.5" 

D 27°52'36.5" 93°38'58.2" 

A 27°59'14.4" 93°38'58.2" 

(k) Closure provisions applicable to the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps. (1)(i) 

The Madison and Swanson sites are bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 29°17' 85°50' 

B 29°17' 85°38' 

C 29°06' 85°38' 

D 29°06' 85°50' 

A 29°17' 85°50' 

97
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

(ii) Steamboat Lumps is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 28°14' 84°48' 

B 28°14' 84°37' 

C 28°03' 84°37' 

D 28°03' 84°48' 

A 28°14' 84°48' 

(iii) The provisions of paragraphs (k)(2) through (6) of this section apply within the Madison and 

Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps through June 16, 2010. 

(2) Possession of Gulf reef fish is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in 

transit with fishing gear stowed as specified in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. 

(3) During November through April, all fishing is prohibited, and possession of any fish species 

is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear stowed as 

specified in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph, (k)(3), do not 

apply to highly migratory species. 

(4) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, transit means non-stop progression through 

the area; fishing gear appropriately stowed means - 

(i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks are disconnected and stowed 

below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, 

buoys may remain on deck. 

(ii) A trawl net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be disconnected from the trawl gear 

and must be secured. 

(iii) A gillnet must be left on the drum. Any additional gillnets not attached to the drum must be 

stowed below deck. 

(iv) A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed securely on or below deck. 

Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) must be disconnected and stowed 

separately from the rod and reel. Sinkers must be disconnected from the down rigger and stowed 

separately. 

(5) During May through October, surface trolling is the only allowable fishing activity. For the 

purpose of this paragraph (k)(5), surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines trailing behind a 

vessel which is in constant motion at speeds in excess of four knots with a visible wake. Such 

trolling may not involve the use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices. 

(6) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, fish means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. Highly 

98
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

migratory species means tuna species, marlin ( Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira spp .), oceanic 

sharks, sailfishes ( Istiophorus spp .), and swordfish ( Xiphias gladius ). 

(l) [Reserved] 

(m) Closures of the recreational fishery for red snapper. The recreational fishery for red snapper 

in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 through April 20 and from November 1 

through December 31. During a closure, the bag and possession limit for red snapper in or from 

the Gulf EEZ is zero. 

(n) Seasonal closure of the commercial fishery for vermilion snapper. The commercial fishery 

for vermilion snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from April 22 through May 31, each 

year. During the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit 

for Gulf reef fish has been issued may fish for or possess vermilion snapper in the Gulf, 

regardless of where harvested. However, a person aboard a vessel for which the permit indicates 

both charter vessel/headboat for Gulf reef fish and commercial Gulf reef fish may continue to 

retain vermilion snapper under the bag and possession limits specified in §622.39(b)(1)(v) and 

(b)(2), respectively, provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. During the 

closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper is prohibited as specified in §622.45(c)(5). 

(o) Seasonal closure of the commercial fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper. From 

February 15 to March 15, each year, no person aboard a vessel for which a valid Federal 

commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued may possess gag, red grouper, or black 

grouper in the Gulf, regardless of where harvested. From February 15 until March 15, each year, 

the sale or purchase of gag, red grouper, or black grouper is prohibited as specified in 

§622.45(c)(4). 

(p) Closures of the Gulf group king mackerel gillnet fishery. The gillnet fishery for Gulf group 

king mackerel in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed each fishing year from July 1 until 6:00 a.m. on 

the day after the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal holiday. The gillnet fishery also is closed during 

all subsequent weekends and observed Federal holidays, except for the first weekend following 

the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday which will remain open to the gillnet fishery provided a 

notification of closure of that fishery has not been filed under §622.43(a). Weekend closures are 

effective from 6:00 a.m. Saturday to 6:00 a.m. Monday. Holiday closures are effective from 6:00 

a.m. on the observed Federal holiday to 6:00 a.m. the following day. All times are eastern 

standard time. During these closures, a person aboard a vessel using or possessing a gillnet with 

a stretched-mesh size of 4.75 inches (12.1 cm) or larger in the southern Florida west coast 

subzone may not fish for or possess Gulf group king mackerel. 

(q) [Reserved] 

(r) Pulley Ridge HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap and 

bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the area of the HAPC bounded 

by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°58'18" 83°38'33" 

99
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

B 24°58'18" 83°37'00" 

C 24°41'11" 83°37'00" 

D 24°40'00" 83°41'22" 

E 24°43'55" 83°47'15" 

A 24°58'18" 83°38'33" 

(s) Stetson Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap 

and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 28°10'38.3" 94°18'36.5" 

B 28°10'38.3" 94°17'06.3" 

C 28°09'18.6" 94°17'06.3" 

D 28°09'18.6" 94°18'36.5" 

A 28°10'38.3" 94°18'36.5" 

(t) McGrail Bank HAPC. Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy gear, pot, or trap 

and bottom anchoring by fishing vessels are prohibited year-round in the HAPC, which is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°59'06.0" 92°37'19.2" 

B 27°59'06.0" 92°32'17.4" 

C 27°55'55.5" 92°32'17.4" 

D 27°55'55.5" 92°37'19.2" 

A 27°59'06.0" 92°37'19.2" 

(u) Seasonal closure of the recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper. The 

recreational fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed 

from February 15 to March 15, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for 

gag, red grouper, and black grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. 

100
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Currently proposed regulatory changes

622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures. 

(l) Closures of the Gulf shrimp fishery to reduce red snapper bycatch. During a closure 

implemented in accordance with this paragraph (l), trawling is prohibited within the specified 

closed area(s). 

(1) Procedure for determining need for and extent of closures. Each year, in accordance with the 

applicable framework procedure established in the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico (FMP), the RA will, if necessary, establish a seasonal area closure for the shrimp fishery 

in all or a portion of the areas of the Gulf EEZ specified in paragraphs (l)(2) through (l)(4) of this 

section. The RA’s determination of the need for such closure and its geographical scope and 

duration will be based on an annual assessment, by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, of the 

shrimp effort and associated shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper in the 1030 fathom 

area of statistical zones 1021, compared to the 74-percent target reduction of shrimp trawl 

bycatch mortality on red snapper from the benchmark years of 20012003 established in the FMP. 

The framework procedure provides for adjustment of this target reduction level, consistent with 

the red snapper stock rebuilding plan and the findings of subsequent stock assessments, via 

appropriate rulemaking. The assessment will be based on shrimp effort data for the most recent 

12-month period available and will include a recommendation regarding the geographical scope 

and duration of the closure. The Southeast Fisheries Science Centers assessment will be provided 

to the RA on or about March 1 of each year. If the RA determines that a closure is necessary, the 

closure falls within the scope of the potential closures evaluated in the FMP, and good cause 

exists to waive notice and comment, NMFS will implement the closure by publication of a final 

rule in the Federal Register. If such good cause waiver is not justified, NMFS will implement the 

closure via appropriate notice and comment rulemaking. NMFS intends that any closure 

implemented consistent with this paragraph (l) will begin on the same date and time as the 

Texas closure. 

(2) Eastern zone. The eastern zone is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 29° 14' 88° 57' 

B 29° 24' 88° 34' 

C 29° 34' 87° 38' 

D 30° 04' 87° 00' 

E 30° 04' 88° 41' 

F 29° 36' 88° 37' 

G 29° 21' 88° 59' 

A 29° 14' 88° 57' 

101
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

(3) Louisiana zone. The Louisiana zone is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 29° 09.1' 93° 41.4' 

B 29° 09.25' 92° 36' 

C 28° 35' 90° 44' 

D 29° 09' 89° 48' 

E 28° 57' 89° 34' 

F 28° 40' 90° 09' 

G 28° 18' 90° 33' 

H 28° 25' 91° 37' 

I . 28° 21.7' 93° 28.4' 

A 29° 09.1' 93° 41.4' 

(4) Texas zone. The Texas zone is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 29° 09.1' 93° 41.4' 

B 28° 44' 95° 15' 

C 28° 11' 96° 17' 

D 27° 44' 96° 53' 

E 27° 02' 97° 11' 

F 26° 00.5' 96° 57.3' 

G 26° 00.5' 96° 35.85' 

H 26° 24' 96° 36' 

I . 26° 49' 96° 52' 

J . 27° 12' 96° 51' 

K 27° 39' 96° 33' 

L 27° 55' 96° 04' 

M 28° 21.7' 93° 28.4' 

A 29° 09.1' 93° 41.4' 

(m) The recreational fishery for red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 

through May 31 and from October 1 through December 31, each year. 

102
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

NMSP CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All publications 

are available on the National Marine Sanctuary Program website (http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). 

M/V ELPIS Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-03) 

CONNECTIVITY Science, People and Policy in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-08-

02) 

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-01) 

Automated, objective texture segmentation of multibeam echosounder data - Seafloor survey and 

substrate maps from James Island to Ozette Lake, Washington Outer Coast. (NMSP-07-05) 

Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 

Washington (NMSP-07-04) 

A Bioregional Classification of the Continental Shelf of Northeastern North America for Conservation 

Analysis and Planning Based on Representation (NMSP-07-03) 

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2006 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-07-02) 

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat 

classification of side scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-07-01) 

2002 - 03 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: An Ecosystem Report Card After 

Five Years of Marine Zoning (NMSP-06-12) 

Habitat Mapping Effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Current Status and Future 

Needs (NMSP-06-11) 

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-010) 

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-09) 

 

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral Reef Restoration Baseline Monitoring Report - 2004 Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-08) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan 

sonar data from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01 (NMSP-06-07) 

A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef 

Research Only Area (Northern Florida Keys) (NMSP-06-06) 

103
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam 

Sounding Data Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05) 

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments 

(ONMS-06-04) 

Normalization and characterization of multibeam backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03) 

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca 

bonaci Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic 

telemetry (MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MSD-05-3) 

An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River 

Estuary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-2, 

MSD-04-3) 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, 

Washington (MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2) 

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(MSD-01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae Using 

the AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two National 

Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

104
Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum 

105

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program 

(MSD-00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo 

opalescens) Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)