DETERIORATION OF THE FLORIDA BAY ECOSYSTEM:

AN EVALUATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Report to the Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay

by

Donald F. Boesch, Neal E. Armstrong, Christopher F. D'Elia,

Nancy G. Maynard, Hans W. Paerl, and Susan L. Williams

Sponsored by

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

National Park Service

South Florida Water Management District

15 September 1993
2

Florida Bay Scientific Review Panel

Donald F. Boesch, Chair

Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies

University of Maryland System

Cambridge, Maryland

Neal E. Armstrong

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Texas, Austin

Austin, Texas

Christopher F. D'Elia

Maryland Sea Grant College

College Park, Maryland

Nancy G. Maynard

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

Hans W. Paerl

Institute of Marine Sciences

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Morehead City, North Carolina

Susan L. Williams

Department of Biology

San Diego State University

San Diego, California
1

Executive Summary

This report to the federal-state Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay was 

prepared by a panel of scientists invited by the Assistant Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior to provide an objective analysis of the deterioration in the Florida Bay 

ecosystem to help guide management and research priorities. 

Florida Bay has undergone changes during the past decade which have been 

unprecedented within the period of recorded observation and reflect a degradation of the 

ecosystem, in terms of its productivity of living resources, biodiversity and stability. 

Seagrasses have died over large areas and blooms of microscopic algae have occurred 

with increasing frequency and intensity, turning the once clear waters a turbid green. 

Populations of water birds, forage fish, and juveniles of game fish species seem to have 

been significantly reduced, catches of pink shrimp have declined, and many sponges have 

died, potentially threatening a significant decline in the catch of spiny lobsters. Because 

the freshwater flow through the Everglades into Florida Bay has been greatly reduced by 

consumptive use and drainage out of the watershed, much concern has been directed to 

this as the root cause of the deterioration of the Bay ecosystem.

The Panel examined the evidence (published and presented in oral testimony) to 

support 11 hypotheses stated or implied in the explanations of the degradation of the 

Florida Bay ecosystem offered by various scientists and concluded the following:

1. Significant reductions in the amount of fresh water entering Florida Bay through the 

Everglades have occurred and the timing of delivery has been altered, affecting the 

salinity in areas of northeastern Florida Bay. However, based on the evidence 

available, hypersaline conditions (salt concentration higher than that of seawater) in 

the remainder of Florida Bay do not seem to have intensified as a result of these 

reductions in freshwater inflow. 

2. Qualitative observations suggest that the lack of major storms in the region over the 

last 30 years may have resulted in significant accumulation of calcareous muds and 

entrained nutrients. 

3. Flushing of the waters has probably decreased by some unknown amount as a result of 

land filling along the Keys and mudbank shoaling. Except for the northeastern Bay, 

reductions of freshwater flows probably had no significant impact on the flushing rate 

of Florida Bay.

4. High salinity in central and western Florida Bay could have contributed to seagrass 

mortality by adding additional physiological stress to the dense beds of turtle grass, but 

salinity in the affected areas was not observed to exceed that in similar dry periods in 

the past.
2

5. There is no evidence to suggest that disease was the cause of seagrass mass mortality 

except possibly as a secondary contributing factor to other stressors. 

6. A reported increase in seagrass density prior to the die-offs could have made the plants 

more susceptible to metabolic stress from high temperatures, high salinity and low 

oxygen levels. 

7. Light limitation by algal growth was not the likely cause of the early mass mortality of 

seagrasses, but, as phytoplankton blooms intensified and spread, may have contributed 

to the further mortality and reduced growth of seagrasses. 

8. There is a lack of scientific consensus that increases in Bay salinity are responsible for 

the observed mangrove die-off.

9. The most likely source of nutrients stimulating blooms of blue-green algae in central 

and eastern Florida Bay is release from sediments (phosphorus and nitrogen) following 

mass mortality of seagrasses. Of particular concern is phosphorus enrichment, because 

the supply rate of this nutrient may control microalgal growth in this area. Long water 

retention time and high concentrations of dissolved and particulate organic matter may 

also contribute to conditions which favor such blooms. Algal blooms to the west, 

however, seem to have predated the seagrass die-off and may be stimulated by longterm increases in land-based inputs of nutrients (especially nitrogen). 

10. Changes in salinity seem to have had major effects on the distribution and productivity 

of organisms of the coastal transition zone along northern Florida Bay, but there is 

little evidence that these effects extend into the open Bay. 

11. The combined effects of seagrass die-off, phytoplankton blooms, and changes in low 

salinity transition habitats on the living resources of the Bay have been substantial and 

should continue until these conditions are reversed.

The Panel believes that the dichotomy erected between reduction of freshwater 

inflows and nutrient enrichment by human activities as the causes of ecosystem 

deterioration is oversimplified and interferes with full understanding and effective solution 

of the problems. Elements of both "theories" may be in operation as may other factors 

such as occlusion of water flow by construction of the Flagler railway and climatic 

variations. Furthermore, both the level and coordination of research and monitoring have 

been insufficient for comprehensive decision making for this nationally and regionally 

important natural resource. 

Although the preponderance of evidence indicates that the ecosystem of 

northeastern Florida Bay would benefit by restoring the amount and timing of freshwater 

flow through Taylor Slough and the Eastern Panhandle/C-111 basin, the benefits to the 

entire Bay (i.e., in allowing seagrasses to recover and eliminating plankton blooms) are 

uncertain. It is unlikely that this action would eliminate western Bay algal blooms, for 
3

example. Nonetheless, there are many compelling reasons to believe that such a strategy 

would improve wetland conditions in the Everglades and restore the ecological 

functioning of the coastal transition zone. Incremental restorations of flows can be treated 

as experiments (reversible if necessary) which, with careful monitoring of effects, could 

guide future management of the Bay. 

The ecosystems from the Kissimmee River, through the Everglades and the Bay 

and onto the barrier reefs off the Keys are, in fact, connected and constitute an 

interdependent landscape-seascape, but have been viewed and managed as if they were in 

isolation from one another. What is now needed is a broader ecosystem perspective which 

integrates the watershed, the Bay, and the Keys and reef. The consequences of flood 

control, agriculture and Everglades wetlands management on delivery of fresh water and 

nutrients to the Bay and the interrelationships between the portion of Florida Bay within 

Everglades National Park and the adjacent Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

illustrate the need for this broader ecosystem perspective in science and management.

Critical information needs and suggested approaches in research, monitoring and 

modeling are identified for water flow and characteristics; nutrients, plant growth and 

blooms; seagrasses and mangroves; and living resources. Many of these needs and 

approaches are similar to those included in a recent research program plan by National 

Park Service and in recommendations from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration workshop. These agency plans have been uncoordinated and are not 

organized around tests of critical hypotheses to the degree the Panel feels is necessary. 

The next step in developing a more comprehensive, objective, focused and coordinated 

science strategy, which could gain governmental and public support, should be an 

integration and honing of the Panel's recommendations and those of the NPS plan and 

NOAA workshop report. The resulting science strategy should be appropriately balanced 

among research, monitoring and modeling; should provide for sustained support; and 

should involve the coordinated contributions of state and federal agencies and regional 

universities.
4

Reasons for Concern

Florida Bay is the large (2200 km2), shallow (average depth less than 1 m) coastal 

lagoon lying between the southern tip of the mainland of Florida and the Florida Keys 

(Figure 1). It is of great national significance for several reasons. Florida Bay, the nearby 

terrestrial and wetland environments of southern Florida, and the Florida Keys and 

associated coral reefs together constitute the only tropical environments in the continental 

United States. Essentially the entire Bay is under direct management responsibility of the 

Federal Government, either the National Park Service, as part of the Everglades National 

Park, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as part of the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. This ecosystem also harbors various threatened or 

endangered plants, fishes, birds, mammals and reptiles. 

Florida Bay is a dynamic ecosystem and has undergone great natural variation over 

the past thousands of years due to long-term changes in climate and sea level[1]and during 

this century as a result of climatic cycles and storms[2]. Substantial disturbance, both 

from hurricanes and variations in freshwater inflow, is, in fact a natural part of the ecology 

of Florida Bay. However, the changes that have been observed in Florida Bay from at 

least the late 1980s have been unprecedented within the period of recorded observation 

and reflect a degradation of the ecosystem, in terms of its productivity of living resources, 

biodiversity and stability.

Beginning about 1987, seagrasses, large vascular plants rooted in bottom 

sediments which carpet the bottom of most of the Bay, began to die[3]. This die-off 

continues and has now affected an area as large as 100,000 acres (40,000 hectares or 

about 18% of the total area of the Bay)[4]. Blooms of microscopic algae suspended in the 

water have occurred with increasing frequency and intensity, extent and duration, turning 

the once clear waters a turbid green[5]. Populations of water birds, forage fish, and 

juveniles of game fish species seem to have been significantly reduced in the eastern 

portions of the Bay where fresh water flowing from the Everglades is normally mixed with 

saline Bay water[6]. Catches off the Tortugas of pink shrimp, which spend their early life 

in Florida Bay and other shallow water regions, have declined dramatically[6]. Many large 

sponges attached to the Bay bottom died, potentially threatening a significant decline in 

the catch of spiny lobsters, the juveniles of which use the sponges as critical habitat[7]. 

Several scientists and other observers have argued that most of these changes are 

related, one causing another, and have as a root cause changes in the freshwater flow--

both its quantity and timing--through the Everglades into Florida Bay[3,6,9]. Other 

scientists have suggested that the changes may be manifestations of natural cycles, 

including the frequency of hurricanes[9, 10]; may be related to filling in and development 

of the Florida Keys[10]; or are caused by greater infusion of plant nutrients, particularly 

forms of nitrogen and phosphorous, from the watershed[11, 12]. Understanding the 

causes and relationships of these various changes in the ecosystem is, of course, key to 

determining how to protect the Bay from further deterioration and how to restore its 

characteristics and productivity. In specific, would restoration of freshwater flows 

through the Everglades reverse the deterioration of the Bay?
5

Nature of This Evaluation

This evaluation was conducted at the request of Mr. George T. Frampton, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

who appointed the authors of this report as the Florida Bay Scientific Review Panel. The 

goal of the Panel was "to provide an unbiased and credible analysis of the deterioration in 

the Florida Bay ecosystem to help guide management and research priorities...by 

reviewing the body of scientific, historical and anecdotal literature on Florida Bay and 

receiving oral testimony about the causes of the current decline." Specifically, the Panel 

was asked to review the evidence on the degradation of the Bay ecosystem, including, but 

not limited to: the decline in seagrass communities; increases in algal blooms; die-off of 

sponges; increases in nutrient levels; and the decline of aquatic organisms, including the 

pink shrimp. Further, the Panel was asked to review the relationship between these events 

and the freshwater inputs to the Bay and review the draft research plan developed by the 

Everglades National Park and the Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay. Mr. 

Frampton charged the Panel with producing a report of our findings and recommendations 

to the Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay; this is that report.

The time available to the panel for this evaluation was very short. We received an 

assortment of background publications on Florida Bay in early August, 1993; participated 

in an overflight and small boat tour of the Bay and adjacent wetlands; received one day of 

testimony from scientists, managers and members of the public on August 17; and 

prepared this report over the following four weeks. Consequently, the depth of our 

evaluation has been commensurably limited. We could not analyze or reanalyze data. We 

could not read and critique all of the scientific literature. Our evaluation is shaped by our 

collective scientific judgment and experience as well as the literature and presentations we 

have been able to assimilate. As a result of our time constraints, predictably it will emerge 

that we did not take into account certain data or did not seem to understand someone's 

explanation. For this we apologize.

We have approached the scientific and anecdotal evidence made available to us 

skeptically, for this is an attitude demanded by the scientific method. Furthermore, much 

of the scientific information and interpretations concerning recent phenomena were 

available only in unpublished manuscripts or from oral presentations and have not 

undergone rigorous peer review. We have tried to dissect the sometimes complicated 

scientific explanations into their component assumptions, inferences and beliefs and to 

state them as 11 simple hypotheses against which we could critically weigh the evidence. 

But mindful of the risk of paralysis which can result from extreme scientific uncertainty, 

we have attempted to draw conclusions to guide environmental managers which are both 

based on evidence and reasoning and averse to risking further deterioration. Finally, 

because much of the intended audience of the report is comprised of non-scientists, we 

have attempted, to the extent practicable, to state and evaluate phenomena, evidence and 

research in a non-technical fashion, but with extensive technical references provided as 

endnotes following the report narrative. 
6

Evaluation of Scientific Hypotheses

For each of 11 hypotheses stated or implied in the explanations of the ecosystem 

deterioration offered, we below briefly evaluate the existing information, including 

quantitative data, qualitative observations often passed on anecdotally, and interpretations 

inferred by scientists who have studied Florida Bay. Although interpretations based on the 

analysis of quantitative data are generally more readily accepted, long-term, qualitative 

observations by Park managers, fishermen and fishing guides often provide very 

convincing evidence. 

Freshwater Inflow, Water Circulation and Salinity

1. Reduced freshwater flows through the Everglades have elevated the salinity of 

Florida Bay and reduced the extent of low-salinity, estuarine conditions. 

Freshwater is delivered to Florida Bay through Taylor and Shark River Sloughs and 

coastal drainage outside of these sloughs. Consumptive uses of water and the 

diversion of flows by the network of water supply and flood control canals across the 

Atlantic Coastal Ridge and out of Taylor Slough and into Barnes Sound via the C-111 

canal have resulted in a significant reduction of the pre-development flows of fresh 

water into Florida Bay. For example, models have been used to estimate that less than 

one-fifth of the "natural" surface water flow through Taylor Slough and into Florida 

Bay is now discharged under "managed" conditions (31,500 ac-ft/yr versus 162,500 

ac-ft/yr or 4 million versus 20 million m3) [13]. At least for the Taylor Slough system, 

actual surface flow measurements seem to track the model predictions under presentday conditions, but few data are available on groundwater flows--an important 

component of freshwater delivery in this region of porous limestone subsoil. In 

addition to reductions in the total freshwater flow though the Taylor Slough system 

into eastern Florida Bay, there have been changes in the timing of this delivery.

The extent to which changes in freshwater delivery from the Shark River Slough have 

affected Florida Bay is much less well known. The flow of the Shark River has been 

significantly reduced from "natural" conditions due to water consumption and 

diversion upstream, but flows during 1991 and 1992 were nearly three times the 

annual average for the 1980s[12]. This fresh water (an order of magnitude greater in 

volume than the natural flow through Taylor Slough) enters the coastal zone to the 

north of Cape Sable, is mixed with saline waters and is transported into Florida Bay 

via tidal action through Whitewater Bay or, more significantly, through the coastal 

flow of somewhat brackish water around Cape Sable and into Florida Bay. This net 

current has been estimated at 2.5 to 3.0 cm/sec through an approximately 1 km wide 

channel, 1.5 to 2 m deep[14]. Thus, the net flow of water from the inner Gulf shelf 

through this one channel alone would be approximately 48 m3/sec or about 1.2 million 

acre-ft/yr (about 40 times the present flow of fresh water through Taylor Slough into 

the northeastern Bay). Evidence for long-term changes in the freshening effect of 
7

Shark River discharges is indirect and includes lessening of the inclusion of humic 

substances into coral skeletons in southern Florida Bay since the early 1930s[15]. 

Salinity records, anecdotal evidence from fishing guides and Park personnel, and 

predictive models linking groundwater levels in northern Taylor Slough to salinity in 

Little Madeira and Joe Bays [16] provide convincing evidence that salinity in the 

"upper estuary" of northeastern Florida Bay has increased as a result of reductions in 

freshwater inflow. While under "natural" conditions, these regions would be expected 

to experience salinity usually less than 20 o/oo, salinity has usually been above 20 o/oo

since at least the mid 1960s and has commonly been significantly hypersaline (40-50 

o/oo compared to the salinity of the open sea of about 35 o/oo ). 

The relationship between salinity levels in the open central Bay, which typically show 

the most hypersaline conditions, and reductions in freshwater discharge is much less 

obvious. Discontinuous salinity measurements made in the more open eastern, central 

and western Florida Bay from 1955 through 1990 show no obvious changes in salinity. 

Hypersaline conditions have characterized the central and western Bay at least since 

the mid 1950s [17]. Yet unpublished analyses of the oxygen isotopes in a coral 

skeleton in southwestern Florida Bay have been interpreted as showing no evidence of 

changes in salinity over longer time scales[10], but additional measurements and 

scrutiny of the assumptions on which this interpretation is based are required. 

Interannual variations in freshwater flow do, on the other hand, indicate that large 

increases in freshwater inflow during extended periods of heavy rainfall (e.g. during 

1983) can eliminate hypersaline conditions in the eastern and central Bay [17], but 

hypersaline conditions still developed during dry years before most of the flow through 

Taylor Slough was diverted down the C-111 canal. 

In summary, significant reductions in the amount of fresh water entering Florida 

Bay through the Everglades have occurred and the timing of delivery has been 

altered. Moreover, there is convincing evidence that this has affected salinity levels 

and variations in Joe and Little Madeira Bays and the nearby areas of 

northeastern Florida Bay. However, there is presently a lack of unambiguous 

evidence that the development of hypersaline conditions in the remainder of 

Florida Bay has intensified as a result of these reductions in freshwater inflow. 

2. The relative lack of storms over the past three decades have caused a buildup of 

sediments, nutrients and organic material in the Bay.

There have been relatively few hurricanes and other storms impacting Florida Bay 

since 1965. Such storms may be a major factor in that they resuspend and transport 

sediments and organic detritus out of the shallow Bay. Absent such erosional events, 

the prodigious production of calcareous sediments by organisms and the efficient 

trapping of these sediments by seagrasses and mangroves may effectively choke up the 

Bay reducing water circulation and thereby affecting salinity distribution, water 

temperature, nutrient supply, and movement of marine organisms and their larvae. 
8

This is of particular concern in Florida Bay because it consists of a number of basins 

which are to varying degrees isolated by mud banks which form on top of underlying 

limestone deposits. Accretion of sediments on these very shallow and nearly 

continuous mud banks further isolate the basins. 

There is much anecdotal evidence, mainly based on the difficulties of small boat access 

and observations of fishing guides [18], of shoaling of portions of the Bay, but few 

quantitative measurements of accretion. The frequency of hurricanes impacting the 

area has been clearly less over the last 30 years than earlier in the century[2, 10]. Even 

Hurricane Andrew which struck in 1992 had little disruptive effect on the sediments of 

the Bay because it was so compact and fast moving and crossed the Florida Peninsula 

well north of Florida Bay. The "storm of the century" which struck the Florida and the 

U.S. East Coast in March, 1993, reportedly had a greater impact on Florida Bay than 

Andrew[17].

Although quantitative evidence is lacking, qualitative observations suggest that the 

reduced occurrence of major storms in the region over the last 30 years has 

resulted in significant accumulation of calcareous muds and entrained nutrients. 

There is no direct evidence that unusual amounts of undecomposed organic 

detritus also accumulated during this period. 

3. Retention time for water flowing through the Bay has been increased (decreased 

flushing rate) by restrictions to flow through channels between the Keys, 

shoaling of the Bay, and reduced freshwater inflows. 

A decrease in the flushing rate of the Bay could have widespread consequences to this 

ecosystem. This could increase the Bay's salinity by allowing more evaporative 

concentration of Bay water, especially if this is coupled with decreased freshwater 

inputs. The greater stagnation could also result in greater temperature extremes as a 

result of heating on bright summer days or cooling during cold frontal passages during 

the winter. Increased retention time would also have consequences to the supply and 

recycling of plant nutrients and the movements of marine organisms such as the larvae 

of fish and shrimp in the Bay. 

Water exchanges among the Gulf of Mexico, Florida Bay and Hawk Channel, which 

runs between the Keys and the barrier bank reef on the Atlantic side, are very poorly 

understood, but undoubtedly play a very important role in the salt balance, nutrient 

dynamics and ecology of Florida Bay[19]. Water circulation in Florida Bay is 

characterized by persistent flows around Cape Sable and into the Bay from the west. 

For most of the western half of the Bay, currents are presumed to move southerly, 

although there are few, if any, direct measurements to support this pattern. The 

presence of extensive mud banks should restrict this flow from influencing the eastern 

Bay. Currents on the Bay side of the Upper and Middle Keys are presumed to flow to 

the southwest. These flows toward and along the Keys set up a strong net flow from 

the Bay toward the Atlantic side through the channels between the Keys[14]. Thus, 
9

constrictions of the channels between the Keys could reduce this flow through the 

Bay. The chronology of oxygen isotope ratios in the coral skeleton in the 

southwestern Bay has been interpreted to represent a major change in retention time of 

water in the Bay as a result of construction of the Flagler railway around 1910[10]. At 

this time, there was extensive filling for construction of the railbed, closing some 

channels and narrowing others. 

Circulation could also be inhibited by the aforementioned shoaling due to sediment 

accretion on the mudbanks, while it may have been facilitated to some degree by cuts 

through the banks for small boat passage. This could have a very great effect on the 

flushing rates for basins in the central and eastern Bay, but his effect has not been 

measured or estimated.

A third possibility is decreased flushing rate by decreased freshwater inflow. If one 

assumes that flow through Taylor Slough has been reduced by 130,000 ac-ft/yr or 16 

million m3[13] and that the average depth of the Bay is somewhat less than 1 m, the 

total diverted flow during a full year would, on the average, be sufficient to replace 

only about 10% of the volume of the Bay. Tidal and wind driven flows surely 

exchange far more of the Bay's volume, probably on the scale of days. Also, because 

the Bay is shallow and well mixed vertically, there should be no appreciable gravity 

flows of the type found in deeper, stratified estuaries through which the flushing effect 

of freshwater inputs is greatly magnified.

Some increase in water retention time in Florida Bay as a result of land filling 

along the Keys is likely. Mudbank shoaling may also have further decreased 

flushing of isolated basins in the Bay. But the extent to which flushing may have 

been decreased by channel constriction or shoaling is unknown. Except for the 

regions of the northeastern Bay directly affected by the Taylor Slough discharge, 

reductions of freshwater flows probably had little impact on the flushing rate of 

the Bay.

Seagrass Mortality

4. High salinity was and is the primary cause of seagrass mass mortality.

The first noted, extensive mortality of seagrasses occurred in Rankin Basin in central 

Florida Bay, the region of most hypersaline conditions[3]. Salinities averaging about 

50o/oo and as high as 70o/oo (i.e. up to twice the concentration of salts as sea water) 

are characteristic of this area. Although the dominant seagrass species, Thalassia

testudinum, commonly known as turtle grass, can tolerate some hypersaline 

conditions, it has been suggested that the extreme salinities in central Florida Bay, 

perhaps in combination with high temperature and other physiological stresses, caused 

the observed mortalities. Temperatures in excess of 32oC have been shown to 

interfere with Thalassia's ability to maintain ionic conditions within its cells[20]. Such 
10

osmoregulation is a critical physiological function for an organism confronted with 

hypersaline conditions. 

It should be noted that mass mortality of seagrass reportedly continued after the end of 

the long-term drought in 1990 brought somewhat lower salinities[21]. Furthermore, 

salinity levels in central or western Florida Bay during the late 1980s and early 1990s 

were not observed to be higher than those observed during periods in the 1950s, 

1960s and 1970s[17], despite the increasing diversion of freshwater from the Bay and 

the drought in effect during the 1980s. The reportedly higher standing crop of 

Thalassia which had developed by the late 1980s--perhaps as a result of the lack of 

storms--may have created a condition wherein the metabolic demands 

(photosynthesis>respiration) of the seagrass could not be sustained when confronted 

with the additional burden of high salinity and temperature[9]. This explanation 

evokes a complex interplay of factors, which while consistent with the observed 

patterns of mortality, has not been experimentally demonstrated.

High salinities in central and western Florida Bay could have contributed to 

seagrass mortality. However, less dense beds did not seem to have been affected 

by comparably hypersaline conditions. Furthermore, mortality in some dense 

beds was observed after hypersaline conditions abated in 1990. Furthermore, 

salinity in the affected areas was not observed to exceed that in similar dry 

periods.

5. Disease organisms were and are the primary cause of mass mortality of 

seagrasses.

A pathogenic slime mold, Labyrinthula, was presumably the cause of widespread 

epidemic which decimated eelgrass in the temperate waters of Europe and North 

America in the 1930s. Labyrinthula has been isolated from seagrasses in the affected 

area of Florida Bay, raising the possibility that this pathogen is the primary cause of 

Thalassia mortality. But Labyrinthula commonly occurs in healthy seagrasses and it 

did not cause plant death in laboratory experiments[21]. There is no evidence to 

suggest pathogens as the cause of seagrass mass mortality in Florida Bay except 

as a secondary contributing factor to other stressors. 

6. Conditions allowed for dense growth of Thalassia beds which created a situation 

in which the large biomass could not be physiologically sustained. 

Turtle grass (Thalassia) may have become more prevalent and occurred in denser beds 

in the 1980s than in the previous period, ostensibly as a result of higher and less 

variable salinity (at least in the northeastern Bay) and the lack of storms[9], although 

nutrient enrichment has also been proposed as a cause of the observed increase in 

biomass[12]. It has been widely observed that Thalassia will out compete other 

seagrasses, particularly shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), if the salinity conditions are 

not below its tolerance limits and disturbances are infrequent. However, a significant 
11

increase in Thalassia biomass would probably also require some alleviation of nutrient 

limitation[22]. If the Thalassia bed is the disturbed or dies off, Halodule colonizes 

and the successional sequence begins again. Both the Halodule to Thalassia

succession and the Halodule recolonization have been observed in the Bay. But the 

biomass of Thalassia in areas which experienced mass mortality was well within the 

range of biomass for other beds in Florida, beds which sustain themselves for decades 

without die-offs. 

It was argued that biomass, particularly of below-ground rhizomes, had grown to a 

point wherein the respiratory demands (R) of the plant tissue could not be met by 

photosynthetic production(P)[9]. However, below-ground biomass cannot develop 

unless there is a positive carbon balance from photosynthesis. Seagrasses have a 

number of adaptations to metabolic stresses, including food storage in rhizomes, 

defoliation without death of the plant when confronting a significant deficit of P 

compared to R, and fermentation of carbohydrate stores in the rhizomes when 

confronted by anoxic conditions. Explanation of the observed mass mortality would 

seem to require additional external stressors (temperature, salinity, etc.) as well as 

dense plant growth. 

A reported increase in seagrass density prior to the die-off could have made the 

plants more susceptible to metabolic stress from high temperature, high salinity 

and low oxygen.

7. Lack of sufficient light because of the growth of epiphytic and planktonic algae 

is the principal cause of mass mortality of seagrasses.

Studies in other parts of the world have demonstrated that nutrient enrichment from 

human activities frequently results in the loss of seagrasses. The nutrients stimulate 

the growth of both microscopic plants in overlying waters and algae attached to the 

blades of the seagrass and, in the process, absorb light needed for photosynthesis by 

the seagrass. In the case of Florida Bay, however, the first observations of heavy 

mortality of seagrasses in 1987 preceded the observations of dense phytoplankton 

blooms in those areas[3,21]. Also, the heavy fouling of the seagrass by attached or 

drifting algae typical in overenriched conditions has not been observed except near the 

Keys inhabited by humans[9,7]. 

There is no evidence that light limitation by algal growth was the cause of the 

mass mortality of seagrasses observed in the open Bay during the late 1980s, but 

as phytoplankton blooms have been intensifying and spreading, they may be 

contributing to the further mortality and reduced growth of seagrasses. 
12

Mangroves

8. Increases in salinity have resulted in mortality of mangroves. 

The numerous washover isles in Florida Bay are vegetated with species of mangroves 

and frequently have barren areas in their centers (salt pannes) where evaporation from 

infrequently flooded soils increases soil salinity to a level not tolerated by the 

mangroves. Mortality of mangroves around these interior zones has been observed 

and it has been posited that higher salinities of ambient Bay water were resulting in 

increasing soil salinity and, thus death, of mangrove trees. Other long-time observers 

discount this explanation, suggesting that high salinity conditions have long been 

existent in these mangrove soils[23]. Some suggest that the infrequency of hurricanes 

over the past 30 years has not allowed thinning of the mangroves and has allowed 

sediment to accumulate on the islands decreasing soil drainage. There is a lack of 

scientific consensus that increases in Bay salinity are responsible for the 

observed mangrove die-off.

Nutrients and Algal Blooms

9. Nutrients released from sediments after the die-off of seagrasses were and are the 

principal cause of algal blooms rather than increased nutrient inputs from land.

Based on limited research and monitoring efforts, recent publications[11,22,24] and 

testimony [15,12,21] linking production and nutrient cycling dynamics to water quality 

and trophic state, Florida Bay appears to be experiencing increasing frequencies and 

intensities of phytoplankton blooms. Nonetheless, despite this growing scientific and 

public consensus surprisingly little quantitative historic information exists on the Bay's 

water quality.

Enhanced bloom activity is suspected of being linked to increased loads of plant 

nutrients, primarily forms of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), a theme all too familiar 

in other coastal waters where light is not limiting to primary production. Scientists 

and managers are, however, remarkably uninformed of the sources, cycling and 

assimilatory dynamics of enhanced loading, because these aspects of Florida Bay 

simply have not been studied adequately. A basic issue of contention is the source of 

the increased nutrient loadings responsible for the more frequent and persistent 

blooms. Do the nutrients emanate from the massive seagrass die-off, both from the 

decay of the seagrass and from release of nutrients which have built up in now more 

erodable bottom sediments? Or is an infusion of nutrients from land-based sources, 

either from the Everglades watershed or from sewage on the Florida Keys the primary 

culprit?

The notable lack of information available to us regarding specific nutrient sources, 

nutrient fluxes to the Bay, and nutrient concentrations within the entire Bay made 

these questions impossible to answer at this point. However, based on the limited 
13

evidence available (water quality monitoring data collected over the past three years 

were not available to the Panel in a form which allowed interpretation of patterns and 

trends), both of these sources may be important. There may in fact be two contrasting 

(in terms of nutrient-production relationships), yet contemporaneous, bloom 

phenomena taking place with increasing frequency and intensity in Florida Bay. This is 

consistent with differences in the location, timing, and plankton composition of the 

blooms. The intense blooms of cyanobacteria (blue-green "algae") in the central and 

eastern Bay may be more closely related with events associated with the massive 

seagrass-die offs, including the release of "internal" sources of nutrients which 

resulted[8,9]. On the other hand, blooms such as those observed in the western and 

southern Bay which are dominated by diatoms (microalgae with silica shells) may have 

resulted from gradual (years to decades) increases in nutrient loading from a variety of 

external, anthropogenic sources. Such "chronic" blooms would manifest themselves 

over a large region and might contribute to an elevated background level of 

phytoplankton over much of Florida Bay. In either case, restricted intra- and 

interbasin circulation and increased water retention times (Hypothesis 3) may have 

affected the bloom potential by playing a critical synergistic role in promoting the 

establishment, proliferation and persistence of blooms throughout the Bay. 

The central and eastern Bay blooms may be characterized as acute and more localized 

in nature than the western Bay blooms. This does not imply, however, that such 

blooms could not affect large tracts of the Bay. This "acute" type of bloom appears to 

be supported by sudden (days to weeks), relatively high nutrient loading events in 

some of Florida Bay's shallow sub-basins experiencing restricted water exchange with 

the rest of the Bay and coastal waters. The most notable example is the recent 

emergence of planktonic cyanobacterial (Synechococcus sp.) blooms, which has been 

closely linked in time and space to seagrass die-off events in the eastern and central 

Bay [8,9,21]. The release of large quantities of P from the sediments is probably 

particularly important because water in these parts of the Bay are already rich in N 

compared to P and it is assumed that plant productivity is therefore P-limited [23,24]. 

The following speculative scenario, based on knowledge of similar systems rather than 

direct observation, could be developed to describe processes linking the seagrass dieoffs to blooms of cyanobacteria:

• The massive die-off of Thalassia in these regions leads to sudden, large releases of 

both nutrients and dissolved and particulate organic matter (DOM, POM) in 

isolated sub-basins, both via decay of biomass and destabilization of sediments. 

• High DOM and POM concentrations, coupled with long retention, fuels enhanced 

sediment and water column nutrient (N and P) regeneration and efficient nutrient 

exchange between benthic and planktonic habitats. The attendant microbial 

activity reduces oxygen availability to the bottom sediments, further enhancing 

nutrient (PO4

3-

, NH4

+) release into the water column.
14

• The synergistic effect of high water retention time and elevated DOC 

concentrations in combination with the released nutrients favors the establishment 

and proliferation of cyanobacteria [25]. 

• Environmental extremes including wide swings in oxygen concentration, sulfide 

release into the water column, light reduction caused by the bloom, high 

temperature and high salinity act to favor the highly tolerant Synechococcus.

• Blooms persist because the limited flushing in affected sub-basins allows effective 

nutrient regeneration to continue without a significant net loss of either biomass or 

products of its decay. 

In a broad sense, these cyanobacterial blooms are strikingly reminiscent of classic 

examples of bloom phenomena in nutrient-enriched, shallow lakes exhibiting periodic 

(summer) long water retention times (> 100 days). Examples include Clear Lake, 

California, Lake Washington, Washington, Lake Erie during the 1950s and early 

1960s, and Lake George, Uganda [26]. 

Anecdotal evidence from lobster and stone crab fishermen working to the west of 

Florida Bay suggests that the current western Bay diatom blooms may have been 

presaged by changing water color noted in that area in the late 1970s[27]. The first 

algal blooms were noted by fishermen in 1979, well before massive seagrass die-offs 

were first observed, and proliferating drifting macroalgae began advancing 

southwestward toward the Keys in 1983. In the instance of these increasinglyprevalent diatom blooms in the western Bay (near Cape Sable) as well as blooms near 

the Florida Keys, natural and anthropogenically enhanced nutrient loading from 

sources external to the Bay, originating from freshwater inputs along the Florida Gulf 

Coast (e.g. Shark River Slough and rivers to the north), from the West Florida Shelf, 

or from on-site sewage disposal systems could supply the needed nutrients. Blooms in 

these regions were reported to be dominated by diatoms (Rhizosolenia was 

mentioned). Remobilized nutrients released from sediments resuspended by wave 

action along the western margin of the Bay (the region of "chalky" blooms) could also 

contribute to these blooms. 

Nutrient inputs stimulating blooms in the western Bay could result from increased 

nutrient loading in the Shark River Slough discharge or from discharges by rivers and 

coastal drainage to the north. Rivers to the north (e.g. Peace River) carry high

loadings of phosphorus as they drain areas containing phosphatic rock formations and 

phosphate mining activities may further increase P loadings to the sea. Drainage from 

the Everglades, including from Shark River Slough, has characteristically low 

phosphorus concentrations, because P, but not N, tends to be taken up by wetland 

plants whose growth is highly P-limited. Thus, waters from the Everglades drainage 

has very high concentrations of total nitrogen and, particularly, of ammonium but very 

little phosphorus[12, 28]. Although some denitrification (conversion of nitrate to 

gaseous nitrogen which returns to the atmosphere) takes place in Everglades wetland 

soils, most of the nitrogen taken up by plants and microbes appears to be converted to 

ammonium and exported[29]. 
15

Given such a scenario, western Florida Bay may be a mixing pot for shelf waters which 

have high concentrations of available P (in which the phytoplankton may be N-limited) 

and coastal waters into which the N-rich Everglades water is mixed. Although the 

volume of flow through Shark River Slough is now lower that "natural" levels, the 

concentration of nitrogen may be much higher as a result of the heavy use of fertilizer 

in agricultural areas to the north, waste disposal and atmospheric deposition. 

Furthermore, freshwater flow through the Shark River Slough greatly increased in 

1991 and 1992 compared to the 1980s, potentially increasing N-loading to the coastal 

zone three-fold[12]. At the same time, potentially diminished flushing rates of the Bay 

may have intensified conditions which increase the recycling of nutrients and intensify 

bloom conditions(Figure 2).

It is widely assumed that both phytoplankton and seagrass production in Florida Bay is 

always P-limited based on the relative concentrations of N and P in Bay waters. There 

are typically 16 N atoms for every P atom in living phytoplankton. Thus it is assumed 

that if the molar concentration of available forms of N is more that 16 times that of 

available forms of P, phosphorous should be the nutrient limiting plant growth. Total 

N:P ratios for central and eastern Florida Bay waters were found to be in excess of 50 

and were as high as 140 in the most hypersaline parts of the Bay, suggesting that 

phytoplankton growth in these portions of the Bay (e.g. the regions of the 

cyanobacteria blooms) is strongly P-limited[24]. However, in the western Bay this 

ratio was 20 or less, indicating that--especially when considering the fact that not all 

forms of N or P can be used by the algae and that the required nutritional ratios of N:P 

vary among algal types [30]--either N or P may be limiting to the western, diatomdominated blooms. Also, silicon (Si) may limit the growth of diatoms, which require it 

for their siliceous shells, under N- and P-rich conditions. But, because even the 

simplest of experiments involving the addition of N, P or Si to Bay water (bioassays) 

have not been conducted, there exists a great deal of uncertainty as to which nutrients 

are in fact "limiting" and hence controlling bloom development and proliferation. 

The western Bay blooms may be characteristic of a troublesome and growing trend of 

coastal eutrophication, the symptoms of which range from incipient stages of bloom 

development (barely perceptible increases in chlorophyll accompanied by losses in 

transparency) to more obvious massive, and problematic concentrations of nuisance 

taxa (e.g. dinoflagellate "red tides"). The frequency of such blooms seems to be 

increasing worldwide in response to increased human development of coastal 

areas[31].

In conclusion, the most likely source of nutrients, especially phosphorus, 

stimulating cyanobacterial blooms in central and eastern Florida Bay is released 

from sediments following mass mortality of seagrasses. The presumably long 

water retention time and high concentrations of dissolved and particulate 

organic matter may also contribute to conditions that favor such blooms. Algal 

blooms to the west, however, seem to have predated the seagrass die-off and may 
16

have been stimulated by long-term increases in land-based inputs of nutrients 

(particularly nitrogen). However, knowledge of the causes and dynamics of these 

blooms is yet rudimentary and awaits experimental determination.

Effects on Living Resources

10. Changes in salinity have resulted in changes in the composition and productivity 

of the biota.

Particular attention has been paid to how long-term changes in salinity may have 

affected the biota of the freshwater-marine transition zone along the mainland shore in 

northern Florida Bay. As discussed under Hypothesis 1, this is the region which has 

clearly been experiencing higher salinity under the present water management scheme. 

Also the transition zone provides an important nursery habitat for sport fish, such as 

spotted sea trout, red drum and snook, and for the endangered American crocodile 

and is a critical foraging area for wading birds, ospreys and eagles. 

The evidence that increased salinity has affected the distribution and productivity of 

this biota is indirect and less than complete, but nonetheless makes a credible case. 

Differences in the seasonal succession of submerged aquatic vegetation have been 

observed between areas subjected to freshets and those influenced by freshwater 

diversion; few juveniles of sport fish have been collected in mangrove edge habitats in 

the northeastern Bay; annual catches of spotted seatrout and red drum and recruitment 

of snook are correlated with rainfall during postlarval periods; crocodile nesting 

patterns have changed; nesting colonies of several wading birds have collapsed and 

been relocated to the north; and nesting pairs of ospreys have been reduced from 200 

to 70 between the 1970s and 1990s[6]. Also, catches of pink shrimp on the Tortugas 

fishing grounds have been shown to be highly correlated with freshwater inflow as 

reflected by water level in the Shark River Slough[32]. Pink shrimp landings have 

dramatically declined since 1980, dropping below 5 million pounds per year during 

1988-1991 from the average of 10 million pounds during 1963-1980[7]. However, it 

is thought that the primary nursery of juvenile pink shrimp is in the seagrass beds of 

the western Florida Bay rather than the coastal transition zone. Thus, the recent 

decline of shrimp catches may be more directly related to the loss of seagrass habitat 

(but see below). 

In summary, changes in salinity (increased incidence of hypersalinity and 

decreased extent of brackish conditions) seem to have had major effects on the 

distribution and biota of the coastal transition zone along northern Florida Bay, 

but there is little evidence that these effects extend into the open Bay. 
17

11. Loss of seagrass and the proliferation of algal blooms have adversely affected 

living resources, including pink shrimp, spiny lobsters, and sponges.

Several important living resources of the Florida Bay seem to be affected by the 

complex ecosystem deterioration observed over the past decade and perhaps even 

earlier. As mentioned above, pink shrimp catches have declined dramatically and 

because juvenile pink shrimp seem to especially utilize the seagrass habitats of western 

and central Florida Bay, the massive die-off of seagrass in these regions may seem a 

likely cause. But the decline in the shrimp catch seemed to precede the first 

observations of mass mortality of seagrass in 1987 by at least two years[7]. Areas 

which have experienced significant seagrass die-off also support lower densities and 

fewer species of fishes[7].

Large mortalities of a number of species of sponges along southern Florida Bay have 

been observed immediately following dense phytoplankton blooms in 1991 and 1992-

1993[8]. Because several species of sponges were similarly affected and the 

mortalities were so coincident with cyanobacterial blooms, it is highly likely that the 

blooms were the cause of mortality, either through clogging of the filtering 

mechanisms of the sponges or through the toxic effects of the cyanobacteria. It was 

also observed that the sponge die-off resulted in reduction of refuge habitat used by 

juvenile spiny lobster and, therefore, fewer juvenile lobsters[8]. It is still too early to 

say whether this will translate into lower catches of spiny lobsters, but lobster 

fisherman have reported that they must avoid bloom areas to trap lobsters successfully 

in creels[27]. Algal blooms, even those not toxic, could also negatively affect living 

resources by decreasing clarity, and hence visibility, thus affecting the ability of 

predatory fish to recognize and capture prey. Also, the phytoplankton although far 

more concentrated in the blooms, may consist of forms of poor food quality for 

animals living in the plankton or on the bottom or may clog their feeding apparatus. 

Lastly, localized sags and large oscillations in dissolved oxygen resulting from 

increasing concentrations of bloom organisms may negatively affect physiological and 

environmental (habitat) requirements/tolerances of a vast variety of tropical fauna and 

flora. Such an explanation of "cascading" effects (seagrass mortality affecting blooms, 

in turn affecting sponges, which in turn affect lobsters) must be regarded as 

speculative until more information can be obtained.

In summary, there is considerable evidence that the combined effects of seagrass 

die-off, phytoplankton blooms, and changes in low salinity transition habitats on 

the living resources of the Bay have been substantial and are likely to continue 

until these conditions are reversed.

Multiple of Causes of Deterioration

The explanations of the causes of the deterioration of the Florida Bay ecosystem 

have been simply cast and polarized in the technical media as well as the popular press. 
18

For example, a briefing report prepared for the Governor of Florida and his Cabinet[36] 

stated: 

"Two theories exist to explain the problems in Florida Bay. The first identifies 

the ecosystem collapse as the ultimate result of our long-term Everglades 

water management regime associated with some recent natural events. An 

alternative theory supported by a few scientists has been postulated that states 

that the die-off and blooms have occurred through addition of external, mostly 

anthropogenic nutrients."

This Panel believes that the dichotomy so erected is oversimplified, if not 

false, and interferes with full understanding and effective solution of the problems. 

Elements of both "theories" may be in operation and other factors and interactions 

may be overlooked. 

Florida Bay has been affected by humans in many ways. Flow from the Bay 

through the channels between the Keys has been partly occluded. The flow of fresh water 

entering the Bay through the Everglades has been greatly reduced and the seasonal timing 

of the flow has been altered. The concentration of nutrients and other contaminants has 

probably been increased in this flow and such materials have also been introduced through 

waste disposal practices on the Florida Keys. The exploitation of living resources also has 

almost certainly not been without its effects. In addition, there are natural phenomena 

such as climatic cycles, droughts, and storms (or lack thereof) which act on the Bay 

ecosystem. All of these may contribute to the degradation (seagrass and mangrove dieoffs, algal blooms, and declines in living resources) observed within the past decade. 

Management Implications

Restoring the Linkage Between the Bay and the Upland Hydrologic Cycle in South 

Florida

This is the restoration goal which has been proposed by the Everglades National 

Park[33]. The focus on attaining this goal would be "the restoration of natural flows and 

hydroperiods in the headwaters of Florida Bay, Taylor Slough and the Eastern 

Panhandle/C-111 Basin." Thus the primary, if not exclusive, focus of this Florida Bay 

restoration approach, would deal with freshwater inputs from the eastern side of the 

Everglades. The freshwater flows from the upper Everglades and the watershed to the 

north through the Shark River Slough system are not specifically addressed, nor or any 

other remedial actions, such as increasing the flushing rate of the Bay. 

Long-term changes in salinity in the estuarine transition zone in northeastern 

Florida Bay have certainly occurred as a result of a reduction of natural flows. The 

restoration of natural flows and hydroperiods would undoubtedly lower salinity within the 

transition zone and affect the plant and animal life which inhabit this region of the Bay. 
19

Recovery of affected fish and bird populations could reasonably be expected to occur. 

However, there is not yet compelling evidence to be even modestly certain that increasing 

the discharge through Taylor Slough will alleviate the hypersaline conditions in the central 

and western Bay during dry periods; prevent further seagrass mortality; promote recovery 

of the seagrass beds in the regions most affected by die-offs; or alleviate the cyanobacteria 

blooms in the central Bay. Moreover, there is little reason to believe that restoration of 

natural flows into northeastern Florida Bay would reduce or eliminate the plankton blooms 

in the western Bay, especially if nutrient levels in these fresh waters have increased in the 

last several decades. 

Although the effects on the open Bay of restoration of the flow and hydroperiod 

through the Taylor Slough-Panhandle region of the Park cannot be predicted with great 

confidence, there are many compelling reasons to believe that such a strategy would 

improve wetland conditions in the Everglades and restore the ecological functioning of the 

coastal transition zone. Furthermore, there seems to us little likelihood of negative effects 

of increasing flow as long as freshets are not exaggerated by the new management scheme, 

because plant growth in eastern Bay appears to be strongly phosphorus limited and these 

discharges are relatively P-depleted. 

Although the preponderance of evidence indicates that the ecosystem of the 

northeastern Bay would benefit by restoring the flow and hydroperiod, the benefits 

to the entire Bay are uncertain. Incremental restoration of flows can be treated as a 

potentially reversible experiment which, with careful monitoring of effects, can 

produce results that would be very effective in guiding future management. 

The South Florida Landscape-Seascape

Florida Bay is affected by flow along the coast from the north, including the 

entrained discharge from Shark River Slough, and from the Southwest Florida shelf to the 

west. It further experiences some impact from development on the Florida Keys. At the 

same time, the Bay affects both the coastal margins of the Everglades and the Keys, Hawk 

Channel and the barrier reefs along the Atlantic side. The ecosystems from the Kissimee 

River, through the Everglades and the Bay and onto the barrier reefs off the Keys 

are, in fact, connected and constitute an interdependent landscape-seascape. Yet, to 

the extent that these environments have been purposefully managed at all, they have 

been managed as if they were in isolation from one another. It is clear that what is 

now needed is a broader ecosystem management perspective which incorporates the 

watershed, the Bay and the Keys and reef.

Two sets of present management challenges are particularly illustrative of the need 

for such a broader perspective. The first deals with the objective of restoring water levels 

and water quality in the more northerly portions of the Everglades and potential 

ramifications to Florida Bay. Agreements for increased water delivery and reductions in 

phosphorous loadings from agricultural areas to the north have recently been negotiated. 

This might mean increased discharges of nitrogen through the Shark River Slough as 
20

flows increase without any limitation on N loading from agricultural practices. Thus, 

under such a scenario algal bloom conditions in the potentially N-limited western Florida 

Bay may worsen (undesirable effect) as a result of greater freshwater delivery to the 

Everglades (desirable effect). If this happened, the consequences could even extend 

through the Keys out to the reef as plumes of algae are transported from the Bay through 

the channels offshore. 

The second management challenge concerns the relationships between objectives 

of those two adjacent special reserves, the Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary. Florida Bay, most of which lies in the Park, has a significant 

influence on the Sanctuary, both along the Bay side of the Keys and as a result of offshore 

flowing Bay water. A restoration activity which may offer some benefits to the Bay 

ecosystem, such as "reopening" channels through the Keys may have deleterious effects on 

patch and barrier reefs within the Sanctuary if the transport of harmful algal blooms or 

water of high nutrient content and excessively high or low salinity offshore is increased. 

Research, Monitoring and Modeling Needs

On the basis of its assessment of the causes of the deterioration of the Florida Bay 

ecosystem and the requirements for its restoration, the Panel identified the following 

information needed to determine causes and effectively guide restoration. We also offer 

some suggestions for research, monitoring and modeling to address those needs. 

Water Flow and Characteristics

Knowledge of water flow, both within the watershed (hydrology) and with and 

within the Bay (coastal hydrodynamics) is essential both to understanding changes in the 

delivery of fresh water and the nutrients it contains to the Bay and to understanding the 

distribution and dynamics of salinity, nutrients, and organisms within in the Bay. It is the 

lynchpin on which the capability to predict future conditions and the effects of 

management actions on them will be based. Specific information needs include 1) the 

quantification of the effective flow of fresh water into estuarine transition zone, including 

both surface and groundwater flows; 2) the relationship of water stage and timing of 

release on effective flow both in the nearfield (below Tamiami Canal) and the farfield 

(above the Canal); 3) exchanges between the Bay and Gulf of Mexico to the west and the 

Bay and Hawk Channel; and 4) circulation within the Bay and exchange rates among its 

basins. Appropriate approaches toward developing this information include

• Devise ways to measure the actual freshwater flows (surface and groundwater) into 

the Bay, estimate the monthly inflows from both sources, and determine the points of 

entry for these flows.

• Extend present hydrologic modeling efforts to include the entire watertershed and 

provide realistic predictions of the location and rates of freshwater delivery to the Bay 

as a function of rainfall and water levels.
21

• Develop an accurate and up-to-date bathymetry of the Bay.

• Develop and verify a two-dimensional hydrodynamic/water quality model of the Bay 

into which boundary currents, tides, surface and groundwater flows, precipitation, 

evaporation, and winds are incorporated to create a tool capable of predicting 

circulation, residence time, salinity and water quality under different flow and climatic 

conditions. 

• Apply sufficient in situ meters for continuous measurement of salinity, temperature, 

and currents at selected locations to characterize flow throughout the Bay and aid in 

verifying hydrodynamic/water quality models. 

• Apply aircraft and satellite remote sensing for periodic synoptic measurements, 

particularly of salinity and blooms in the Bay, on the southwestern Florida coast and 

shelf, and in the Keys and adjacent reefs. 

• Continue and, where necessary, expand water quality monitoring in Florida Bay, the 

coastal waters of southwestern Florida and the inflows into the Bay, including the 

Taylor and Shark River Sloughs and drainage canals. Current investigations should be 

reviewed to ensure they are providing the necessary scope of measurements, adequate 

spatial and temporal coverage, and effective quality assurance and control. 

Ultimately, a predictive understanding of both the effects of freshwater delivery to the Bay 

and changes in the Bay's channels and shoals will require effective hydrologic models of 

the watershed coupled with hydrodynamic coastal circulation models. 

Nutrients, Plant Growth and Blooms

We emphasize the potential differences in the causes, phytoplankton responsible and 

ecological manifestations of different bloom events in the Bay. Nonetheless, information 

and research needs addressing physical, chemical and biotic cause and effect relationships 

generally apply to the various bloom dynamics. The information needs and scientific 

approaches recommended are itemized below; the first four needs are absolutely essential 

to clarify the heretofore poorly studied nutrient-bloom dynamics in Florida Bay.

• Determine which nutrients currently control (limit) phytoplankton production and 

bloom formation. In terms of nutrient supply rates, what are the nutrient-production 

thresholds and assimilative capacities of Florida Bay? Efforts should include in situ 

nutrient addition bioassays, using multi-parameter (chlorophyll, photosynthetic 

production-using either 14C uptake or O2 evolution measurements) approaches. 

These assays should compliment ongoing stoichiometric evaluations of nutrient 

limitation. 

• Characterize and quantify the supply and fluxes of nutrients. These determinations 

should include land-based (channelized discharge, surface runoff and groundwater) 

and atmospheric nutrient loadings; advection of nutrients from the West Florida shelf 

into Florida Bay; and within-Bay water exchange and residence time characteristics.

• Determine the relative importance of "external" (i.e. origin outside of the basin) vs. 

"internal" (regeneration, N2 fixation, denitrification) nutrient (N and P) inputs and 

losses in Florida Bay. What proportions of primary and secondary production are 
22

based on external ("new production") vs. regenerated sources? Simple box models 

should be constructed as a first step in understanding nutrient budgets.

• Identify, monitor and characterize (in terms of physical, chemical and biotic controls) 

phytoplankton and epiphyte communities in Florida Bay and immediate surroundings 

on appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Characterization by the primary producers 

by microscope, pigment analysis (fluorometry, spectrophotometry, HPLCmultispectral analysis), and immunoassays (whenever and wherever appropriate 

immunoprobes are available). Relate the primary producers to the dynamics of bloom 

formation and the physical conditions at the initiation and during blooms.

• Determine the specific nutritional requirements (i.e. autotrophy vs. heterotrophy) of 

nuisance bloom organisms. What is the functional role of organic matter enrichment in 

Florida Bay with respect to production and nutrient cycling dynamics?

• Determine routinely planktonic primary production in relation to nutrient inputs and 

regeneration rates and physical conditions. 

• Determine the trophic (food web alterations, toxicity) and biogeochemical (nutrient 

cycling) structure of Florida Bay; specifically, how are blooms altering trophic and 

biogeochemical characteristics of Florida Bay and what are the ramifications for higher 

trophic level resources.

Seagrasses and Mangroves

The following are information needs and recommended research and monitoring 

approaches attendant to determining the causes of seagrass die-off and enhancing seagrass 

restoration:

• Determine experimentally the effects of prolonged high salinity and temperature on 

survival of Thalassia and mixed species seagrasses (2-way experiments). Emphasize 

survival estimates and not just photosynthesis and growth.

• Monitor light conditions and develop extinction coefficients appropriate to predicting 

light conditions at seagrass canopy. Fairly good light criteria for seagrass growth exist 

for extrapolation. This information is necessary to predict the recovery potential for 

seagrasses and the effects of plankton blooms on yet unaffected seagrasses.

• Monitor epiphyte abundance and composition as an "indicator" of eutrophication and 

to understand the potential competitive effects on seagrasses.

• Develop through remote sensing and other appropriate means a complete spatial 

depiction of the distribution, composition and relative density of seagrasses in the Bay 

and place this information in a geographic information system for future analyses of 

trends and environmental relationships.

• Assess the incidence of disease pathology (Labyrinthula and other pathogens) and 

determine its dependence on seagrass density and salinity regime.

• Determine the effects of salinity and temperature on seagrass re-establishment 

(particularly on Halodule germination and seedling growth).

• Determination of the extent of nitrogen versus phosphorus limitation on seagrass 

biomass accumulation to resolve questions remaining from inferences based solely on 

nutrient ratios or measured responses to both N and P additions.
23

• Determine the dependence of seagrass growth and survival on plant density and 

explore the causes of any density dependency (light limitation, detritus loading, oxygen 

availability, etc.).

• Estimate and where possible measure the nutrient release rates from seagrass detritus 

decomposition, sediments and sediment resuspension.

• Examine the seagrass-nutrient-epiphyte-grazer relationships, including top-down vs. 

bottom-up controls[34], in order to understand better nutrient enrichment and other 

environmental stresses in the context of the whole seagrass community.

• Determine the relationship between seagrass biomass accumulation, sediment 

deposition and shoaling, and resultant changes in water circulation in the Bay.

The recent history of mangrove mortality is not very well known, thus it is difficult 

to focus research to test hypotheses regarding the causes of mangrove die-off. As a first 

step, historical aerial imagery should be analyzed to document the patterns and rates of 

mangrove losses. On the basis of that information specific hypotheses may be tested 

observationally or experimentally.

Living Resources

A complex nexus of critical information must underpin effective environmental and 

resource management of living resources. There is a need to move beyond correlative 

relationships (e.g. the statistical relationship between freshwater flow and shrimp landings) 

to a more mechanistic understanding (e.g. physiological effects, growth, habitat 

availability, food, predation, etc.). Generally these information needs all require much 

better understanding of the role of habitat quality and quantity on population success and 

of food chains. The following are but a few of the more compelling needs:

• Determine the post-larval recruitment of pink shrimp and estuarine dependent game 

fish as it relates to environmental conditions and transport; the most important habitats 

for juvenile survival; and the relationship of habitat quality (food and refuge) to 

environmental conditions, including seagrass cover, salinity and freshwater inflow. 

This will require a three-pronged approach involving observations (field sampling), 

field and laboratory experiments, and spatially-explicit, population dynamic models.

• Resolve the assumed critical linkages between wading bird and osprey nesting and 

food availability and quality and relate this to environmental conditions, including 

salinity and vegetation.

• Quantitatively determine the effects of habitat modification resulting from the mortality 

of sponges and other refuge forming organisms on spiny lobsters. Do these losses 

make a difference to the adult populations and sustainable harvests?

Historical Analysis

In addition to monitoring carefully existing conditions and trends, great insight can 

frequently be gained through retrospective analyses. These may include more thorough 

analyses of existing data, such as salinity, water levels in the Everglades, and Bay water 
24

levels measured by tide gauges; assembling and analyzing aircraft and satellite imagery; 

structured surveys of lay observers; and more extensive analyses of "paleoindicators" 

(isotopes, chemical markers, microfossils) in sediments, shells and skeletons. In particular, 

we got the impression that not much effort has been spent assessing archived remote 

imagery (e.g., Landsat thematic mapper) and suspect that such imagery may hold many 

clues about what has happened in Florida Bay.

National Park Service and NOAA Research Plans

The National Park Service's South Florida Research Center has recently produced 

A Research Program for Restoration of Florida Bay[33] which commands our respect, if 

for no other reason, because this small group of dedicated scientists are among those with 

the most experience on the Bay. The NPS plan addresses many of the information needs 

we have identified above and has the advantage of tightly linking scientific research, 

monitoring, modeling and integration to management actions. However, the NPS plan 

seems to take as a fundamental premise that problems of the Bay are all linked in one way 

or another to changes in the delivery of freshwater from the northeast, and as a 

consequence has relatively little emphasis on nutrient inputs and chronic algal blooms, 

circulation within the Bay and between the Gulf and the Bay, and interactions with the 

Keys. The NPS plan describes the research, monitoring and modeling that should be 

conducted with rather broad brush strokes and seems to rely heavily on extensive surveys 

and monitoring. In our view, a comprehensive science strategy should be more organized 

around testing critical hypotheses as we have attempted to do above. This would naturally 

place greater emphasis on experimental approaches focused on specific questions and not 

just the "whole ecosystem" experiment (change freshwater flow and observe what 

happens) which the NPS plan emphasizes. 

Also recently, NOAA held a workshop on the restoration of Florida Bay for the 

purpose of developing a science plan which includes retrospective analyses, monitoring, 

modeling and research[7]. It appears to us that there was little coordination between the 

NPS and NOAA efforts. For example, none of the three authors of the NPS plan 

participated in the NOAA workshop. The NOAA workshop report does, however, 

include a critique of the NPS plan. 

As with the NPS plan, the NOAA workshop recommendations identify many of 

the information needs and research, monitoring and modeling approaches that we have 

listed above. NOAA's recommendations place greater emphasis on areas of NOAA 

capability and responsibility, including meteorology, hydrodynamics of the Bay, 

contaminant studies, commercial fisheries and endangered marine mammals and turtles and 

are less directly focused on freshwater inflows as the grand regulator of the Florida Bay 

ecosystem. But, like the NPS plan, the NOAA science plan places great emphasis on 

extensive survey, monitoring and modeling and does not focus on testing critical 

hypotheses to the degree to which the Panel feels would be most effective. Also the 

workshop recommendations read, with its frequent references to NOAA's mission and 
25

capabilities, more like a NOAA science initiative than a comprehensive plan to understand 

and manage Florida Bay. 

As the next step in developing a more comprehensive, objective, focused and

coordinated science strategy which could gain governmental and public support, we 

recommend that the Interagency Working Group on Florida Bay undertake a 

comparison, amalgamation and honing of our recommendations with those 

contained in the NPS plan and NOAA workshop report. 

Focused, Sustained and Coordinated Research, Monitoring and Modeling

The primary responsibility of our review panel was to evaluate existing information 

and recommend research needs that will provide the knowledge necessary to manage 

Florida Bay and the adjacent ecosystems that affect the Bay. However, we also feel a 

responsibility to communicate our conclusions and concerns that existing information is 

greatly inadequate for making such major policy and management decisions. Further we 

are struck that both the level and the coordination of research and monitoring have been 

insufficient for comprehensive decision making for this nationally and regionally important 

natural resource.

We realize that many agencies and institutions have responsibilities and interests in 

Florida Bay, as well as neighboring South Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Florida 

Keys. Major managerial and scientific roles are played by numerous federal agencies and 

subagencies including the Department of the Interior (National Park Service, U.S.G.S., 

National Biological Survey, and Fish and Wildlife Service), the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, including the National Marine Fisheries Service), the Department of 

Energy, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense (Army Corps of 

Engineers). State and local agencies are also involved such as the South Florida Water 

Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (formerly, the 

Florida Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Regulation), and Dade, 

Monroe, Broward and other counties.

Although many local universities and research organizations have developed a 

recent interest in promoting research in Florida Bay and surrounding environs, we think it 

remarkable that only a few institutions and researchers have had much historical 

involvement in "local" problems. This is, in part, certainly a consequence of inadequate 

investment in research. Nonetheless, it is a sad indictment of local management 

agency/university relations that perhaps the most widely recognized expert on Florida Bay 

is a University of Virginia researcher who struggled to piece together support for longterm research in the Bay.

We clearly recognize that the understanding and management of Florida Bay are 

extremely complex, involving not only the multiple jurisdictions and responsibilities 

alluded to above, but more importantly, very intricate relationships between unique and 
26

complex ecosystems. Given the difficult problems and the institutional relations involved, 

not to mention the contentious environmental history of the region, it is hardly surprising 

to us that research has been poorly coordinated or that information has been poorly 

communicated among interested parties. This predicament is all too commonplace in 

comparable environmental management situations. However, this situation must be 

rectified if the problems of the region are to be understood and managed properly.

Above, we have listed in some detail a series of hypotheses relating to the Florida 

Bay ecosystem. We have also listed some specific research objectives to address these 

hypotheses. However, it would be useful to provide some general guidance on research 

and monitoring management. 

In our experience, a major challenge is the integration of research, monitoring and 

modeling. Emphasis on monitoring is often favored by practically minded managers who 

see the results as realistic and useful. But, unsupported by a vibrant research program and 

vigorous on-going scientific analysis, monitoring may constrain one to simply describing 

phenomena and not understanding them. Overemphasis on research, on the other hand, 

may lead to lots of interesting facts but without a phenomenological (monitoring) or 

conceptual (modeling) basis to extend their meaning. Putting all one's eggs in the basket 

of numerical simulation models risks oversimplification and overconfidence. Often simple 

box models of such processes as nutrient dynamics are more instructive than complex 

physical models. They can be refined as research advances and be used to direct research 

toward the most critical questions. Balance and interplay among research, monitoring 

and modeling and interaction of these technical elements with management are the 

keys. 

Secondly, we cannot overemphasize the need to provide sustained support for 

research, monitoring and modeling activities to provide managers proper 

information. The piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can approach by which most environmental 

research seems to be conducted is not only slow and inefficient, but is bound to lead to 

understanding which is replete with uncertainty and lead to decisionmaking fraught with 

error.

Finally, in this era of reinventing government, interagency rivalries, duplications, 

and omissions in pursuit of environmental science are no longer excusable. Strides are 

being made at the national level to better coordinate coastal research among federal 

agencies under the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and 

Technology. There are also many regional programs where some successes in 

coordination across state, federal and academic lines have been met and from which 

lessons for Florida Bay can be learned (e.g., the National Estuary Program estuaries and 

Chesapeake Bay Program). The National Park Service's Research Program[34] plan 

contains a reasonable proposal for coordination via the Interagency Working Group, a 

Policy Oversight Committee, a Technical Working Group, a Research Committee for peer 

review, and a Modeling and Integration Working Group. Surely, the problems of the 

Florida Bay are so severe and the difficulties in understanding them so challenging 
27

that Interior, NOAA, EPA, the Corps, Florida DEP, the South Florida Water 

Management District and Florida universities can find a way to make 

complementary contributions and encourage synergy in the scientific enterprise.

Acknowledgments

The Panel members especially thank the many scientists and citizens who shared their data and 

their insights with us. Dr. John Ogden of the Florida Institute of Oceanography acted as our facilitator, 

arranging presentations and providing information we needed. He and his staff were particularly helpful 

in seeing that we had access to the relevant literature. We were greatly assisted by the following 

representatives of sponsoring agencies: Whit Fosburgh and Amos Eno of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Tom Armentano of the National Park Service and Susan Olson of the South Florida Water 

Management District. Kristin Boesch assisted in the preparation of this report. 

Technical Notes and References

[1] Enos, P. and R.D. Perkins. Evolution of Florida Bay from island stratigraphy. Bulletin of the 

Geological Society of America 90:59-83.

[2] Meeder, J.F. and L.B. Meeder. 1989. Hurricanes in Florida Bay: a dominant physical process. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 44:518.

[3] Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean, M. Robblee, M. Durako, P. Carlson, D. Porter, R. Aieman, L. 

Muhelstein and G. Powell. 1988. A catastrophic die-off of seagrasses in Florida Bay and 

Everglades National Park. Eos, Transactions of American Geophysical Union 69:1111.

Robblee, M. B., T. B. Barber, P. R. Carlson, Jr., M. J. Durako, J. W. Fourqurean, L. M. Muehstein, 

D. Porter, L. A. Yabro, R. T. Zieman and J. C. Zieman. 1991. Mass mortality of the tropical 

seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay (USA). Marine Ecology -Progress Series 71: 297-

299.

[4] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1993. The Status of Florida Bay: a Brief for the 

Governor and Cabinet, August 1993. 6 p.

[5] Virtually nothing has been published on Florida Bay algal blooms. Presentations to the Panel by 

Dr. Michael Robblee (Everglades National Park), Paul Carlson (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection), and Ronald Jones (Florida International University) and Mr. Karl 

Lessard on August 17, 1993 provided the source of knowledge of the extent, composition and 

history of algal blooms. 

[6] McIvor, C. C. , J.A. Ley and R.D. Bjork. Manuscript. A review of the changes in freshwater 

inflow from the Everglades to Florida Bay including effects on biota and biotic processes. This 

paper includes a review of the effects on fish, birds, and reptiles. More detailed information on 

birds, reptiles, and mammals was provided in unpublished summaries by R. J. Mazzotti (reptiles), 

S. Snow (manatee and marine turtles), J.C. Ogden (osprey, roseate spoonbill, brown pelican, and 

wading birds) and W.B. Robertson (bald eagle and great white heron), and E.B. Thue (marine 

recreational fisheries). These individuals ase associated with the South Florida Research Center, 

Everglades National Park, with the exception of F.J. Mazzoti, who is associated with the University 

of Florida,
28

[7] Ortner, P.B., D.E. Hoss and J.A.Browder. 1993. NOAA Workshop on the Restoration of Florida 

Bay. Miami, July 14-16, 1993. Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory and 

Southeast Fisheries Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida. 

89 p.

[8] Butler, M.J., IV., J.H. Hunt, W. F. Herrnkind, T.R. Matthews, M. Childress, R. Bertelsen, W. C. 

Sharp, J.M. Field and H.G. Marshall. Manuscript. Cascading disturbances in an ailing marine 

ecosystem. 

[9] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Joseph Zieman (University of Virginia), August 17, 1993. Dr 

Zieman distributed to the Panel a diagram entitled "Conceptual Model of Processes Leading to 

Seagrass Dieoff" which was referenced J.C.Zieman, J. W. Fourqurean and M.B. Robblee. 1992. 

The Panel has not seen the cited publication. 

[10] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Peter K. Swart (University of Miami), August 17, 1993.

[11] Lapointe, B.E. and M.W. Clark. 1992. Nutrient inputs from the watershed and coastal 

eutrophication in the Florida Keys. Estuaries 15: 465-476. 

[12] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Brian Lapointe (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution), 

August 17, 1993; letter from Dr. Lapointe to Ms. Susan Olson (South Florida Water Management 

District), August 30, 1993.

[13] Van Lent, T.J., R. Johnson and R. Fennema. 1993. Water Management in Taylor Slough and 

Effects on Florida Bay. Report to South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, 

Homestead, Florida. 67 p.

[14] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Ned Smith (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution), August 17, 

1993.

[15] Smith, T.J., III, J.H. Hudson, M.B. Robblee, G.V.N. Powell and P.J. Isdale. 1989. Freshwater flow 

from the Everglades to Florida Bay: A historical reconstruction based on fluorescent banding in 

the coral Solenastrea bournoni. Bulletin of Marine Science 44: 274-282.

[16] White, D. 1983. Oceanographic monitoring study 1980-1983. Report to South Florida Research 

Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 144 p.

[17] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Michael Robblee (Everglades National Park), August 17, 1993.

[18] Presentation to the Panel by Mr. Michael Collins (Florida Fishing Guides and member, Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council), August 17, 1993.

[19] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Spatial Framework for Water-Quality 

Management in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Physical Environments. Strategic 

Environmental Assessments Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, MD. The following summary 

of circulation in the area is based on this publication and references cited therein:

The circulation of the outer part of Florida's southwest shelf is influenced by the Loop Current 

which enters the Gulf of Mexico through the Yucatan Straits and loops in a clockwise direction to 

the south, paralleling the edge of the West Florida Shelf before turning eastward, southwest of the 

Dry Tortugas. Continuing as the Florida Current, it meanders through the Florida Straits confined 

by the 250 m and 500 m isobaths. The current pinches landward, south of the Marquesas Keys and 

is then deflected seaward by the Pourtales Terrace. Near the Middle Keys, the Florida Current 
29

turns northeasterly, proceeding as the Gulf Stream. Periodic changes in current locations result in 

the formation of circulation gyres affecting both transport and entrainment of waters along the 

outer shelf. Such cold cyclonic features may move at speeds ranging from 2 to 20 km per day along 

the landward boundary of the Loop Current. Off the Dry Tortugas, at the Straits of Florida, a gyre 

can grow to 100 by 200 km in size and can become quasi-stationary and elongated to the southwest. 

It may then move easterly along the northern boundary of the Florida Current, decreasing in size to 

about 50 by 100 km over the Pourtales Terrace, before decaying near the Middle Keys. A gyre has 

been observed to upwell and trap nutrients along the bank reefs near the Lower Keys. A mean 

westward countercurrent, located just seaward of the Lower Keys, has been observed as part of the 

gyre positioned over the Pourtales Terrace, potentially enhancing mean westerly transport within 

Hawk Channel. Near the Upper Keys, landward deflection of the Florida Current sets up small 

frontal eddies (10-30 km in diameter) just seaward of the reef tract. These disturbances occur, on 

average, once a week and provide cool, nutrient-enriched water to the reef tract due to upwelling at 

the eddy's core. In contrast to the sluggish Dry Tortugas Gyre, these features move quickly, 

requiring only 1-2 days to pass a fixed point. Hence, the area along the Atlantic side of the Upper 

Keys is relatively well-flushed and has limited capacity to retain nutrients.

Circulation and transport occurring landward of these regional boundary currents are dominated by 

wind. A mean westward current is setup in Hawk Channel, due to the prevailing southeasterly 

winds caused by the persistence of the Azores-Bermuda atmospheric high, and is most pronounced 

during the spring and summer. The current conveys waters from the Middle to Lower Keys and 

enhances exchanges between the Gulf and Atlantic through the large channels between the Middle 

Keys. Within the Lower Keys, surface waters are forced onshore due to the earth's rotation and 

shoreline orientation, causing an offshore movement of water at depth. Transport processes 

occurring on the southwest Florida shelf are complex and relatively unstudied, but are particularly 

important for exchanges throughout the Middle and Lower Keys. Prevailing trade winds dominate 

most of the region, forcing water in a westerly direction. Other processes, however, appear to 

control shelf-water movement along the western boundary of Florida Bay. The net transport 

appears to be north-to-south or Gulf-side to Atlantic-side. A weak along-shore current in the lee of 

south Florida peninsula potentially transports near-coastal waters of southwest Florida toward the 

Middle and Lower Keys. This effect appears to be further enhanced during the fall months when 

an atmospheric high develops over the southeastern U.S., producing southward winds that persist 

for 5 to 10 days. In the extreme, frontal passages occurring during the winter and spring can 

change flow direction over the entire shelf region, resulting in significant fluxes from the Gulf to 

the Atlantic Ocean.

Circulation within Florida Bay appears to be easterly along the south shore of Cape Sable turning 

southerly after short penetration in the Bay. For most of the western half of the Bay, currents are 

presumed to move southerly although there is little, if any, information from current measurements 

to support this pattern. The eastern half of the Bay, however, is effectively shielded from this flow 

by shallow mudflats. Currents on the Bay side of the Upper and Middle Keys are presumed to 

move southwesterly. 

[20] Schroeder, P.B. 1975. Thermal stress in Thalassia testudinum. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of 

Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 157 p.

[21] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Paul Carlson (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 

August 17, 1993.

[22] Fourqurean, J. W., J.C. Zieman and G.V.N. Powell. 1992. Phosphorus limitation of primary 

production, in Florida Bay: Evidence from the C:N:P ratios of the dominant seagrass Thalassia 

testudinum. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 162-171.

[23] Presentation by the Panel by Dr. Eugene Shinn (U.S. Geological Survey), August 17, 1993.
30

[24] Fourqurean, J.W., R.D. Jones and J.C. Zieman. 1993. Processes influencing water column 

nutrient characteristics and phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton biomass in Florida Bay, FL, 

USA: Inferences from spatial distributions. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 36: 295-314.

[25] Pearsall, W. H. 1932. Phytoplankton in English lakes. 2. The composition of the phytoplankton 

in relation to dissolved substances. Journal of Ecology 20:241-262.

Fogg, G. E. 1969. The physiology of an algal nuisance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

London. Ser. B 173:175-189.

Paerl, H. W. 1988. Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal, estuarine and inland waters. 

Limnology and Oceanography 33:823-847.

[26] Horne, A. J., J. E. Dillard, D. K. Fujita and C. R. Goldman. 1972. Nitrogen fixation in Clear 

Lake, California. 2. Synoptic studies on the autumn Anabaena bloom. Limnology and 

Oceanography 17:693-703

Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology, Saunders, Philadelphia.

Edmondson, W. T. 1970. Phosphorus, nitrogen, and algae in Lake Washington after diversion of 

sewage. Science 169:690-691.

Ganf, G. G. and A. J. Horne. 1975. Diurnal stratification, photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation in a 

shallow equatorial lake (Lake George, Uganda). Freshwater Biology 5:13-39.

[27] Presentation to the Panel by Mr. Karl Lessard (commercial fisherman and member, Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council), August 17, 1993.

[28] Presentation to the Panel by Dr. Ronald Jones (Florida International University), August 17, 1993; 

letter from Dr. Jones to Dr. John Ogden (Florida Institute of Oceanography), August , 1993.

[29] Gordon, A.S., W.J. Cooper and D.J. Scheidt. Denitrification in marl and peat sediments in the 

Florida Everglades. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 52:987-991.

[30] Atkinson, M. and S. Smith. 1983. C:N:P ratios of benthic marine plants. Limnology and 

Oceanography 28: 568-574.

Fong, P., J.B. Zedler and R.M. Donohoe. 1993. Nitrogen vs. phosphorus limitation of algal 

biomass in shallow coastal lagoons. Limnology and Oceanography 38: 906-923. 

[31] Smayda, T. 1990. Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence for a global 

epidemic, p. 29-40. In E. Graneli et al. (editors) Toxic Marine Phytoplankton. Elsevier, London. 

[32] Browder, J. A. 1985. Relationship between pink shrimp production on the Tortugas grounds and 

water flow patterns in the Florida Everglades. Bulletin of Marine Science 37: 839-856.

[33] Robblee, M.B., T.V. Armentano and R.W. Snow. 1993. A Research Program for Restoration of 

Florida Bay. Draft Report. National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades 

National Park, Homestead, Florida. 11 p.

[34] Williams, S.L. and M.H. Ruckelshaus. 1993. Effects of nitrogen availability and herbivory on 

eelgrass (Zostera marina) and epiphytes. Ecology 74: 919-934.