Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-08-02

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

NNECTIVITY

Science, People and Policy in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

 

CO

Insert cover photo here

National Marine Sanctuary Program March 2008
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

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

National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). Its mission is to identify, designate, protect and manage the 

ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally

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

historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 

5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine 

habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwreck

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, e marine sanctuary has a tailo

management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. 

The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a forum for publication 

and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of

published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on 

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

integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate. 

s. 

ach red
CONNECTIVITY 

Science, People and Policy in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

ilver Spring, Maryland 

arch 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

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

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator 

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Daniel J. Basta, Director

Brian D. Keller and Fiona C. Wilmot, eds. 

S

M
DISCLAIMER 

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

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

ention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

commendation for use.

Electronic copie e Sanctuary

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov.

R

S

m

re

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

s of this report may be downloaded from the National Marin

 Hard copies may be available from the 

following address: 

National

National Marine Sanctuary Program

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

SeaWiFS image on 28 July 1999 shows a plume from the Mississippi River and northern 

Gulf of Mexico meandering toward the Florida Keys. Image provided by Dr. Chuanmin Hu, 

University of South Florida. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Keller, B.D., and F.C. Wilmot, eds. 2008. Connectivity: science, people and policy in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Colloquium proceedings, 19-21 August 2004, 

Key West, FL. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMS

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis

Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 263 pp. 

CO

rian D. Keller, Ph.D.

ational Marine Sanctuary Program

/o Florida Institute of Oceanography

h

rg, FL 33701

(727) 553-1100 

Brian.Keller@noaa.gov

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

P-08-02. U.S. Department

tration, National Marine

NTACT

B

N

c

830 First Street Sout

St. Petersbu
of the

, from

edited from transcripts prepared by Fiona Wilmot from tape recordings 

f many of the sessions; these ical difficulties prevented recordings 

of the sessions on resource condition

ction on

d at

Preface 

The Connectivity Colloquium was held in August 2004 in Key West, Florida. The purpose

meeting was to bring together a range of perspectives on the concept of connectivity

scientific to human dimensions, and their applications to management and policy. Parts of this

proceedings volume were

o sections are self-evident. Techn

s, water quality, and coral and seagrass habitats as well as the 

plenaries by Terry Done, Steven Miller, and Rod Salm and the ensuing discussions. The se

shifting baselines is an op-ed piece by Dr. Randy Olson, which is poste

http://www.shiftingbaselines.org. The rest of the sections are manuscripts submitted by the 

presenters; Mark Eakin (NOAA) and Bob Ginsburg (U. Miami/RSMAS) were not able to submit 

nk Bob as well for leading a

auses.

ring data have been

en still apply. The ideas and concepts are still as 

esh and relev just after the passage of Hurricane Charley, when the 

of relief about f storms affecting Key West in 2004.

, and

a Keys, with characteristic prescience, ensured

material support early in the or We also thank Dr. Carl Safina for a 

oughtful and moving evening

ting,

The

The

contributions, but we thank them for their presentations. We tha

memorable Coral Polyp Dance during one of those unpredictable p

In the three years it has taken to complete these proceedings, the monito

supplanted, but most of the patterns evident th

fr ant today as they were

organizers breathed a sigh the timing o

Our thanks go to Joanne Delaney, Nancy Diersing, Erskine Robinson, Heidi Schuttenberg

Carolina Sullivan for their support before and during the meeting. Monroe County Commissioner 

George Neugent of Sanctuary Friends of the Florid

ganizing stages of the meeting.

th presentation based on his work with albatross. Finally, we thank

Ted and Diana Wilmot for providing a quiet space amenable to several periods of intense edi

without which this volume most likely would not have been completed. 

Editors, September 2007 

Malt House, Barford, Warwick, England

i
Organizing Committee 

lly D. Causey; Southeast Atlantic, Gulf o

tal States Organization,

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 322, Washington, DC, 20001. E-mail: cso@sso.org

Bi f Mexico, and Caribbean Region; National Marine 

Sanctuary Program 

Brian D. Keller, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Nancy Klingener, The Ocean Conservancy 

Bill Kruczynski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Fred McManus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jody Thomas, The Nature Conservancy 

Fiona C. Wilmot, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Chair) 

Contributors 

Katharine (Kacky) Andrews, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Florida Department

of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Present address: Coas

. 

Dr. Jerald S. Ault, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: ault@rsmas.miami.edu. 

Dr. Carl R. Beaver, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife

Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. E-mail: 

Carl.Beaver@MyFWC.com. (Sadly, Carl died in a tragic accident in 2007) 

Dr. Donald C. Behringer, Jr., Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, 

Norfolk, VA, 23529. Present address: Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,

University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32653. E-mail: behringer@ufl.edu. 

Dr. Rodney D. Bertelsen, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife

Research Institute, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 119, Marathon, FL, 33050. E-mail:

rod.bertelsen@myfwc.com. 

Dr. James A. Bohnsack, NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia

Beach Drive, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: jim.bohnsack@noaa.gov. 

Dr. Joseph N. Boyer, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, 

Miami, FL, 33133. E-mail: boyerj@fiu.edu. 

Dr. Mark J. Butler IV, Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, 

VA, 23529. E-mail: mbutler@odu.edu. 

Michael Callahan, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. 

Billy D. Causey, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 500368, Marathon, FL, 33050. 

Present address: Southeast Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Region; National Marine 

Sanctuary Program; 33 East Quay Road; Key West, FL, 33040. E-mail: billy.causey@noaa.gov. 

Mark Chiappone, Center for Marine Science Research, University of North Carolina at 

Wilmington, 515 Caribbean Drive, Key Largo, FL, 33037. E-mail: chiapponem@uncw.edu. 

Joanne Delaney (moderator), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, Key 

West, FL, 33040. E-mail: joanne.delaney@noaa.gov. 

Gabriel A. Delgado, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife 

Research Institute, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 119, Marathon, FL, 33050. E-mail: 

gabriel.delgado@myfwc.com. 

Dr. Terry Done, Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville MC, Townsville 4810,

Queensland, Australia. E-mail: t.done@aims.gov.au. 

ii
Dr. James W. Fourqurean, Dep and Southeast Environmental

Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL, 33199. E-mail: 

artment of Biological Sciences

fourqure@fiu.edu. 

Stephen Frink, Stephen Frink Photographic, MM 102.5 Overseas Highway, P.O. Box 2720, Key 

Largo, FL, 33037. E-mail: info@stephenfrink.com. 

Robert A. Glazer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 119, Marathon, FL, 33050. E-mail:

bob.glazer@myfwc.com. 

Douglas R. Gregory, University of Florida/IFAS Extension, 1100 Simonton Street #2-260, Key 

West, FL, 33040. E-mail: drg@ufl.edu. 

r. Lara Hansen, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th D Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC, 20037. 

E-mail: lara.hansen@wwfus.org. 

Dr. Chuanmin Hu, Institute for Marine Remote Sensing, College of Marine Science, University of

South Florida, 140 Seventh Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. E-mail: 

hu@seas.marine.usf.edu. 

er Ilchuk, Florida Keys & Key West Lodging Association, 3152 Northside Drive, Suite 101, 

Key West, FL, 33040. E-mail: president@keyslodging.org

Pet

. 

Walter C. Jaap, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. Present address: Florida Institute

of Oceanography, 830 First Street South, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. E-mail:

wjaap@tampabay.rr.com. 

Dr. Elizabeth Johns, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, 4301 Rickenbacker

Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: libby.johns@noaa.gov. 

stin Johnson, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. 

Du

Dr. Brian D. Keller (editor and moderator), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 

500368, Marathon, FL, 33050. Present address: c/o Florida Institute of Oceanography, 830 

First Street South, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. E-mail: brian.keller@noaa.gov. 

Doug Kelly, Bonefish & Tarpon Unlimited, 24 Dockside Lane, PMB 83, Key Largo, FL, 33037. 

E-mail: dkelly@tarbone.org. 

James Kidney, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 2796 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL, 33050.

Selena Kupfner, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701.

Dr. Thomas N. Lee, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: tlee@rsmas.miami.edu. 

Elizabeth Mcleod, Global Marine Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, 923 Nu’uama Avenue,

Honolulu, HI, 96817. E-mail: emcleod@tnc.org. 

Dr. Steven L. Miller, Center for Marine Science Research, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, 515 Caribbean Drive, Key Largo, FL, 33037. E-mail: millers@uncw.edu. 

Martin A. Moe, Jr., Green Turtle Publications, 222 Gulfview Drive, Islamorada, FL, 33036. Email: martin_moe@yahoo.com. 

Sandy Moret, Florida Keys Outfitters, PO Box 603, Islamorada, FL, 33036. E-mail: 

info@floridakeysoutfitters.com. 

Frank E. Muller-Karger, Institute for Marine Remote Sensing, College of Marine Science,

University of South Florida, 1

Dr.

47. E-mail: fmullerkarger@umassd.edu

40 Seventh Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. Present 

address: School of Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,

285 Old Westport Road, North Dartmouth, MA, 027 . 

iii
Ken Nedimyer, SeaLife, 212 Silver Palm Avenue, Tavernier, FL, 33070. E-mail:

sealifefl@bellsouth.net. th Dr. Elliott A. Norse, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2122 112 Avenue NE, Suite B-300, 

Bellevue, WA, 98004. E-mail: Elliott@mcbi.org. 

Dr. Peter B. Ortner, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, 4301 Rickenbacker

Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. Present address: University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of

Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149.E-mail: 

portner@rsmas.miami.edu. 

Dr. James W. Porter, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602. E-mail: 

jporter@uga.edu. 

Dr. Cheri A. Recchia, The Ocean Conservancy, Washington, DC. Present address: California 

Marine Protected Areas Monitoring Enterprise, California Ocean Science Trust, 1330 

Broadway, Suite 1135, Oakland, CA, 94612. E-mail: cheri.recchia@calost.org. 

Kimberly B. Ritchie, Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL,

34236. E-mail: 

Dr.

ritchie@mote.org. 

-mail: ruttenl@uncw.edu

Leanne M. Rutten, Center for Marine Science Research, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, 515 Caribbean Drive, Key Largo, FL, 33037. E . 

Dr. Rodney V. Salm, Global Marine Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, 923 Nu’uama Avenue,

Honolulu, HI, 96817. E-mail: rsalm@tnc.org. 

idi Schuttenberg (moderator), National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. Present 

address: James Cook

He

University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. E-mail: 

heidi.schuttenberg@jcu.edu.au. 

Dr. Jeffrey Shields, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, 23062. E-mail:

jeff@vims.edu. 

Manoj Shivlani, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600

Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: mshivlani@rsmas.miami.edu. 

Daniel Suman, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149. E-mail: 

Dr.

d.suman@miami.edu. 

ity of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149. 

Dione W. Swanson, Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and 

Atmospheric Science, Univers

E-mail: dswanson@rsmas.miami.edu. 

Cecelia Torres, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602.

xas.edu

Dr. Tracy A. Villareal, Marine Science Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, 750 Channel 

View Dr., Port Aransas, TX, 78373. E-mail: tracy@utmsi.ute . 

ersburg, FL, 33701.

E-mail:

Shannon Wade, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701. 

Jennifer Wheaton, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife 

Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Pet

Fiona C. Wilmot (editor), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 500368, Marathon, 

FL, 33050. Present address: 2513 Granada Circle East, St. Petersburg, FL, 33712.

fionawilmot@earthlink.net. 

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic Page

Pre

Tab ........................... v 

Exe ........................................................................................................ 1 

We ............. 17 

Key ur Ocean’s Future? 

Reg

63 

69 

........................... 71 

............................................................................................................... 110 

Plenary Presentation: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef: 

Sister System of the Florida Keys (T. Done) ................................................................................... 113 

Resource Conditions................................................................................................................................... 122 

Corals and Microbial Power Shifts ... What Does It Mean? (K. Ritchie)................................... 123 

face ................................................................................................................................................................i 

Organizing Committee....................................................................................................................................ii 

Contributors......................................................................................................................................................ii 

le of Contents ................................................................................................................

cutive Summary ................................

lcome and Introduction (B. Causey and K. Andrews)..........................................................

note Address: Do the Keys Hold the Keys to O

Insights from a 57-year Transect (E. Norse)...................................................................................... 21

ional Connections................................................................................................................................... 36 

Regional Connections and the Coastal Ocean 

Observing System (F. Muller-Karger et al.)................................................................................. 37 

On the Connectivity and “Black Water” Phenomena near the FKNMS: 

A Remote Sensing Perspective (C. Hu and F. Muller-Karger)................................................. 47 

East-West Connections in the Gulf of Mexico (T. Villareal) .......................................................... 56 

Connectivity of the Coastal Waters Surrounding the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary (E. Johns et al.) ................................................................................

Panel Discussion ....................................................................................................................................

Connectivity between People and Marine Fishery Resources (J. Ault et al.) ............

Panel Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 76 

Plenary Presentation: Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities: 

The Perspective of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (F. Muller-Karger).................... 91 

Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................... 105 

Rethinking Conservation to Increase Coral Reef Resilience 

in the Face of Climate Change (L. Hansen) .............................................................................. 106 

Panel Discussion ...................

v
Resource Conditions: Discovery of a Viral Disease Infecting Lobster and 

Impact of Sponge Fishing on Hoard-bottom Communities (M. Butler et al.) .................... 126 

The Tropical Fish Reso

(M. Moe and K ......................................... 130 

Presentation: Shifting Baselines (S. Miller)................................................................................

ater Quality............................................................................................................................................... 138 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (J. Boyer) ................................................................. 139 

Florida Keys Waters? (B. Glazer and G. Delgado) .................................................................. 145 

EPA/NOAA Coral Reef Evaluation & Monitoring Project (C. Beaver et al.)........................... 154 

Hard-bottom Habitats (S. Miller et al.) ...................................................................................... 157 

Human

............................................ 218 

National Marine Sanctuary (C. Recchia) .................................................................................... 231 

on

............................... 261 

is

urces of South Florida’s Coral Reefs

. Nedimyer) ................................................................

Plenary 135

W

What We Know About the Water Quality of the 

Why Don’t Queen Conch Reproduce in Nearshore 

Episodic Nutrient Transport to Florida Coral Reefs (S. Miller).................................................... 150 

Coral and Seagrass Habitats....................................................................................................................... 153 

Assessment and Monitoring of Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas Coral Reef and 

Status of Seagrass Beds in South Florida (J. Fourqurean).............................................................. 183 

Plenary Presentation: Building Resilience into Coral Reef Management 

(R. Salm and E. Mcleod) ..................................................................................................................... 192 

Perspectives................................................................................................................................... 208 

Connections between the Tourism Industry, the Environment, and 

Society in the Florida Keys (D. Suman)..................................................................................... 209 

Remarks: The Lodging Association of the Florida Keys and Key West (P. Ilchuk).................. 213 

Diving and Snorkeling in the Florida Keys (M. Shivlani)...................

Per

Panel Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 224 

sonal Reflections and Underwater Images of the Florida Keys (S. Frink) ............................ 222 

Management Tools ..................................................................................................................................... 230 

No-take Marine Reserves: Science, Values and Choices for the Florida Keys 

Marine Zoning: A Management Tool in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary (B. Causey)...................................................................................................... 235 

How Acoustic Telemetry Might Be Used in MPA Design (R. Bertelsen)................................... 242 

Connecting Microbes to Management (K. Ritchie) ........................................................................ 247 

Panel Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 250 

C cluding Remarks (B. Keller and F. Wilmot) .................................................................................... 258 

References.....................................................................................................................

L t of NMSP Conservation Series Publications.................................................................................... 262 

vi
Executive Summary 

The

Marine Sanctuary Program, to come together an

natu

management from an emphasis on documentation to a nexus for action. This purpose in some ways

refl

an a

three m

NOAA o

for the

Florida

Key

 

Do the K

Threats

alteratio

by five 

don h. Many people do not

asso

ecosystems a

fish

hab

some so

Trawler

comple

Coral r

the problem

inte

have

have be

we have

structur

the reco

ship gro

synergis

algal-dominated ecosys

Marine reserves are not always the answer because small, fast-maturing organisms can recover 

quic

must be managed comprehensively; we have to take all the things that are forcing the system and

alle

decades

zoning. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is the largest comprehensively zoned piece of

Connectivity Colloquium evolved from an exhortation by Dan Basta, Director of the National

d assess what we know about the condition of our 

ral resources, identify information gaps and how to fill them, and transform science and

ects the initiation of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary itself, which was designated by 

ct of the U.S. Congress in 1990 in the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and 

ajor ship groundings on the Florida Reef Tract in late 1989. Over the next seven years 

worked with federal, state, and local partners to devel p a comprehensive management plan

Sanctuary implemented under a co-trustee partnership between NOAA and the State of

.

note Address and Plenary Presentations 

eys Hold the Keys to Our Ocean’s Future? Insights from a 57-year Transect 

to the ocean may be categorized as proximate threats including over-exploitation, physical 

n, marine pollution, alien species, and global atmospheric change, which in turn are driven 

ultimate threats: there are too many of us, we consume too much, we don’t know enough, we 

’t care enough, and as a result our institutions aren’t effective enoug

ciate physical alteration with marine systems, but there has been an appalling destruction of

t the interface of land and water. Offshore, the biggest threat to the marine world is

ing: we kill fish faster than they can replace themselves and we have altered and destroyed 

itats where fish live, diminishing the capacity of the ocean to produce fish. In addition there is

rt of interaction between killing fish and destroying the habitats upon which they depend.

s are ubiquitous agents of physical disturbance to the sea floor, and the loss of structurally 

x habitats likely reduces fish diversity and abundance. 

eef ecosystems are particularly complex because they are spectacularly diverse, and some of

s are that we do not know what all the parts are. There are species that are strong 

ractors, which include sea turtles, big fish, and the sea urchin Diadema, and their populations

crashed in many places. Structure formers in the ecosystem such as elkhorn and staghorn coral

en dramatically reduced in many places around the world, including in the Keys. As a result

flipped from one state of an ecosystem to another state in what we call “regime change.” If

e formers are removed, fish habitat is eliminated, and if the strong interactors are removed, 

very of structure formers is prevented, especially after a major disturbance such as localized

unding or a widespread hurricane or bleaching event. If both are removed, then there are 

tic effects, and that caused the phase change we have seen from a coral-dominated to an

tem. 

kly, but large, slow-reproducing organisms take a long time. Ecosystem-wide impacts of humans 

viate all the forcings so that the system can recover, and that is not simple. In the next few 

 the best way to comprehensively manage human impacts is place-based anagement: ocean

1
underwater real estate on Earth nly if there is the support of

people pushing leadership to do

th of coral reef ecosystems is decreasing at an alarming rate. It is clear that human activities

ave and will continue to adversely impact the environment if we do not manage these activities. It 

eneath the surface of the ocean, and this makes 

Policy delivered its final report on 20 

rastructure. A high priority is to implement an Integrated Ocean

without commensurate investment. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy outlines the costs

. The Florida Keys has potential, but o

better.

Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities: The Perspective of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

The value of coral reefs can be evaluated in several dimensions. From an ecological point of view, 

they house tens of thousands of species of plants and animals, making them among the world’s most 

diverse and productive habitats. They have significant tourism and recreation, as well as shoreline 

protection value. Globally, it is estimated that the value of reefs approaches ~$375 billion per year

and they support 500 million people. The Florida Keys generated ~$105 million in income and 

supported 8,000 jobs in 2001. Finally, the cultural and aesthetic value of reefs is really enormous and 

hard to calculate. 

The heal

h

is particularly difficult to see what happens b

management of resources like coral reefs and fish very complicated. It should be obvious that we 

can’t manage resources without understanding them. Yet we regularly under-invest in science,

technology, and education. Managing marine resources is also difficult because of an intricate system 

of state and federal government jurisdictions seaward of the coast. 

 

Congress and the President recognized the staggering problems we face and mandated the creation 

of a new U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy through the Oceans Act of 2000. The objective was to 

study the state of our ocean knowledge and governance, and to recommend a national ocean policy.

The Commission embarked on what became 15 public meetings and additional site visits around the 

country, including various sites around Florida in February of 2002. In parallel to this process, the 

Pew Oceans Commission carried out its own assessments and published its findings in June 2003. 

Both commissions’ findings are essentially the same; the point is that the oceans are in trouble and

we need to make changes. The U.S. Commission on Ocean

September 2004, which may be found at the Commission’s web site. 

Addressing the myriad problems affecting oceans and their resources cannot be done without 

having a clear and visionary ocean policy, a blueprint for managing the oceans. The U.S. desperately 

needs a new integrated management mechanism to treat ocean resources as interrelated and

interdependent ecosystem components, rather than as a collection of isolated fragments managed

independently from each other, as practiced today. The Commission recommends a National Ocean

Policy Framework that creates a more effective and coordinated federal management system. A core

element is the creation of a National Ocean Council (NOC), housed within the Executive Office of 

the President. Effective ocean policy should be based on unbiased, credible, and sufficient scientific 

information, and the Commission recommends that significant attention be put into reviving our 

research and technology inf

Observing System based on a backbone of coordinated, linked regional monitoring systems and

strong connections to Global Ocean and Earth Observing Systems. 

The Commission supports a national ocean policy founded on high-quality, effective education that 

promotes lifelong learning, an adequate and diverse workforce, informed decision making, science 

literacy, and stewardship. In addition, the Commission dedicated one full chapter to

recommendations on coral reef management. Significant change, however, cannot be achieved

2
associated with making improvements to our ocean policy, and presents a proposal for meeting

those costs through the establishment of a new “Ocean Policy Trust Fund.” High tides raise all

ats. It is our collective task to make sure everyone understands that the oceans are both a public 

on

eat Barrier Reef (GBR), in some ways, a sister to the Florida Keys. The GBR

orld Heritage Area is an area of ocean and reefs the width of Florida that, if transplanted to the 

the FKNMS and the effort to

ore the Everglades is evidence that the great value and importance of the linked ecosystems of 

orking groups orchestrated by 

e GBR Marine Park Authority that produced the Twenty-five Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier 

d fishing, and to rebound from

advertent and natural disturbances. Zoning of access and use has been the major management

bo

resource and a public trust, and that conservation for future generations is critical for our survival

Earth. This can only be done by working together. 

 

Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef: Sister System of the Florida Keys 

The theme of this public meeting about conserving and using the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (FKNMS) stresses the importance of building connections among scientists, the general 

public, and policy-makers. In Australia, these same players have also made good connections in 

relation to the Gr

W

U.S. east coast, would stretch the 1,200 miles from Key West to Baltimore. Like the Florida Keys,

the GBR is managed as a multiple use marine management area, with goals of balancing use,

production, and access, while protecting its economic and natural values. 

There are important and striking differences between the GBR and the FKNMS apart from sheer 

size. Whereas the Keys loom small in the consciousness of the American general public, “Our Reef” 

looms large in the consciousness of Australians. The creation of

rest

the Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys are clearly recognized. In Australia, it was in the 

1960s and 70s that public groundswell to “Save the Reef” came to the consciousness of generations 

to come. There were shortcomings and delays in the transfer of the considerable science knowledge 

that was relevant to policy and management. Also, there was inadequate engagement between 

scientists and would-be users of science – not only the managers and policy makers, but also the 

traditional, commercial, and recreational users of the GBR. 

Two concrete initiatives to redress these shortcomings had their genesis in the 1990s. The first was a 

two-year, skillfully facilitated process of extensive workshops and w

th

Reef. The second concrete initiative was the Australian federal government’s Cooperative Research 

Center (CRC) Program. Over 12 years, it provided billions of dollars a range of Centers, and in 

particular, about $90 million of new money to coral reef science with important strings attached:

interest groups must be involved in the identification of issues, the allocation of research funds, and 

where possible, the logistic support of the research.

Like the Florida Keys, the ecology and economy of the GBR are subject to the same set of pressures 

as have been enumerated for tropical coastal systems the world over. Given the huge size of the 

GBR, there is enormous variability in the extent to which these pressures have caused damage, and 

to which they represent ongoing threats. Overall, the Great Barrier Reef is considered to be in

relatively good condition, and current management is a mix of reducing manageable pressures, and 

improving the system’s capacity to accommodate effects of runoff an

in

action for almost two decades, along with management of fisheries in that section of the area that is 

open to fishing (> 90% until 2004), regulation of reef-based tourism, restriction of large shipping to 

designated lanes, and initiatives to maintain or where necessary, restore, good water quality. These 

strategies, collectively and adequately applied and targeted, should lay the groundwork for

3
improvement in what has become the Holy Grail for managers of all sorts of natural and managed 

systems: ecological resilience. 

Two pieces of science – the quantification of land-based inputs and the demonstration of a

detrimental effect on coral reefs – have provided scientific support and impetus for the introduction

a major regional water quality rehabilitation program. In addition, in July 2004 the Great Barrier 

of the GBR that increased the level of 

from the disappearance of

irds and frogs in the countryside to the increased drive time from L.A. to San Diego. Among 

uilding Resilience into Coral Reef Management 

trategies, or MPAs may not be able to safeguard 

iodiversity effectively. Networks of MPAs, including no-take areas, have been identified as a critical 

and funds. 

of

Reef Marine Park Authority implemented a revision of zoning

no-take protected areas from 4% to 33%. The rezoning has enhanced protection of the region’s 

biodiversity by introduction of a network of highly protected areas typical of all the different habitats

and communities. That we now have a zoning plan that can do great good for the people and “Our 

Reef” is perhaps one of the world’s best examples of science-people-policy connections. This is big 

sister’s lesson for little sister. 

Shifting Baselines 

Shifting baselines are the chronic, slow, hard-to-notice changes in things,

b

environmentalists, a baseline is an important reference point for measuring the health of ecosystems. 

If we know the baseline for a degraded ecosystem, we can work to restore it. But if the baseline 

shifted before we really had a chance to chart it, then we can end up accepting a degraded state as

normal – or even as an improvement. Data from around the world show that overfishing has been

the most important alteration to the oceans over the past millennium. Humans have had such a

strong effect on the oceans for so long that, in many locations, it is difficult to even imagine how full

of life the oceans used to be. Without knowledge of the past, it is easy for each new generation to

accept baselines that have shifted and make peace with empty kelp beds and coral reefs. That is why 

it is so important to document how things are – and how they used to be.

B

Large-scale coral bleaching events have increased in intensity, frequency, and geographic distribution 

in the last two decades; the 1998 El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event and 1999 La Niña

caused mass coral bleaching of unprecedented proportions worldwide and near complete loss of live 

coral at some sites. We now recognize that climate-related bleaching events pose a serious global 

threat to coral reefs, raising concerns about appropriate response strategies. Marine Protected Areas 

(MPAs) have been identified as one of the most effective tools for conserving reefs and related

marine systems. However, protected area managers must incorporate climate change as well as 

increasing human pressures into their conservation s

b

way to protect coral reefs from human stresses. 

Despite the widespread bleaching-related mortality of coral reef organisms, it is rare for living corals 

to be completely eliminated from a section of reef. Even in the most severe cases, some coral

communities appear to be more resistant (i.e., they don’t bleach) or more resilient (i.e., they bleach 

and may die but recover quickly) to bleaching. A variety of environmental and biological factors 

appear to influence the differences in responses to bleaching among various coral communities. 

These include factors that: 1) reduce temperature stress; 2) increase water movement and flush

harmful toxins; 3) decrease light stress; 4) harden corals to adverse conditions and develop stress

tolerance; and 5) favor conditions that enhance recovery potential. Sites where these factors reliably 

occur would make good candidates for MPA selection and the investment of conservation effort 

4
MPA managers, accustomed only to addressing direct and usual threats related to fishing and 

urism, for example, find it difficult enough to address the impacts of coastal development and

d sites in places that maximize their potential contribution to the 

recovery of damaged or vulnerable reefs that are connected through larval dispersal 

rch and monitoring in the

lorida Keys and the high levels of public visitation have generated a vast body of knowledge from 

of coral community types, which ones bleach and which

stems across a range of time and space scales. It is 

creasingly clear that different regions separated by great distances are connected through physical

(http://seacoos.org) and the GCOOS (http://gcoos.org) regional associations of the 

to

inland activities, and may consider climatic sources of environmental stress totally beyond their

sphere of influence. This perception is reinforced when even well managed reefs in the remotest 

MPAs succumb to a climate related bleaching event. However, there are some direct actions that 

MPA managers can take immediately, even as the scientific understanding improves. It might be 

possible to mitigate the negative impacts of bleaching on coral reef biodiversity in two broad ways: 

1. Identify and protect from direct anthropogenic impacts, specific patches of reef where local

conditions are highly favorable for survival generally, and that also may be at reduced risk of 

temperature-related bleaching and mortality 

2. Locate such protecte

The Nature Conservancy has developed a “Resilience Model” to assist conservation planners and 

managers build resilience into coral reef MPAs. The most effective configuration would be a 

network of highly protected areas nested within a broader management framework. Such a

framework might include a vast multiple-use reserve managed for sustainable fisheries as well as 

protection of biodiversity. The ideal MPA system would be integrated with coastal management

regimes to enable effective control of threats originating upstream, and to maintain high water

quality. 

There are compelling reasons for conserving the reefs in the Florida Keys and for selecting the 

FKNMS as a place to develop our global understanding of resilience and how to apply it to MPA 

design and management across the U.S. and the world. The extensive resea

F

which to draw information on the location

do not, and possibly even why the communities respond differently. So there is the opportunity to 

make quick progress on application of all elements of the resilience model to protection and

management strategies in the Keys. The Sanctuary is well placed to play a leading role in developing

practical application tools and approaches both locally and globally to build resilience into coral reef

management. 

Regional Connections

Regional Connections and the Coastal Ocean Observing System 

A variety of processes influence coral reef ecosy

in

processes of ocean and atmospheric circulation, which carry nutrients, pollutants, pathogens, larvae 

of coral reef organisms, weather, and heat and salinity. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) experiences the influence of riverine discharge from the Everglades as well as rivers 

emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. It also feels significant impacts of water and other materials

carried from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic by the Loop Current, as well as 

local circulation features. Significant knowledge, experience, and infrastructure exist in South Florida 

and in the Intra-Americas Sea region to assist in linking science and ecosystem management efforts 

in the FKNMS. The FKNMS should engage the Coastal Ocean Observing Systems of the region to 

address the issues of monitoring and scientific observation in the Florida Keys, including both the 

SEACOOS

5
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). This effort needs to include satellite remote sensing to 

l

Isla

field sa

materia m more remote sources, such as the Mississippi

Riv

Current r toward

e Keys. The connectivity of the FKNMS to local and remote systems requires an integrated

the complexities inherent in the Keys ecosystem and its connections to the world around 

. Examples include complex linkages between the influx of African dust and red tide and coral 

downstream connection of the FKNMS with the U.S. east coast via the Loop 

urrent/Gulf Stream system. Real-time observations are critically important for monitoring the

r-related oceanographic and meteorological events that occur in South

lorida marine ecosystems and for assisting with NOAA’s goal of science-based resource 

th Florida Program will include increased 

achieve repeated and synoptic views of factors affecting the FKNMS and changing conditions 

within the FKNMS. 

On the Connectivity and “Black Water” Phenomena near the FKNMS: A Remote Sensing Perspective 

Satellite color images from SeaWiFS and MODIS for 1997-2004 show dark water plumes and 

patches in coastal waters off southwest Florida including the FKNMS that appeared to originate 

with coastal runoff from the Everglades and from the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor and Sanibe

nd. Because the FKNMS is located downstream of these areas, the dark water patches, which 

mpling confirmed may contain elevated nutrients and both colored living and non-living 

ls, lead to stress to the ecosystem. Waters fro

er and the Caribbean, routinely affect this region via ocean circulation patterns (e.g., the Loop 

). Florida’s red tides, which occur every year along the west coast, may also meande

th

observing system to better understand the effects of these dark patches on the coral reef ecosystem. 

East-West Connections in the Gulf of Mexico

The FKNMS is part of the continuum of global and regional processes that affect the biology and 

chemistry of the Gulf of Mexico. Some of these processes influence events well upstream of the 

Keys and operate indirectly through biological cascades. The linkages are often indirect, but 

highlight

it

disease outbreaks, Loop Current eddies that introduce a common flora and fauna into the eastern 

and western Gulf, and the large number of oil production platforms in the northwestern Gulf that 

may influence barracuda movements and the spread of ciguatera. 

Connectivity of the Coastal Waters Surrounding the FKNMS 

Cruises conducted by the NOAA South Florida Program have mapped reduced salinities along the 

southwest Florida coast and in Florida and Biscayne Bays that are indicative of freshwater sources in 

the Everglades. Trajectories of satellite-tracked surface drifters demonstrate the direct upstream

connection between the coastal waters of the southwest Florida shelf, Florida Bay, and the FKNMS, 

as well as the

C

often complex and inte

F

management of the FKNMS. Evolution of the Sou

capabilities for real-time observations and rapid response to unusual events. 

Connectivity between People and Marine Fishery Resources 

The connection between people and fishery resources has a very long history and is a value system

and a focal point for energy consumption and sustainability. The issue comes to numbers: the South 

Florida coral reef generated 71,000 jobs and $6 billion in economic activity in 2001, which

contributed to the designation of Florida as “Fishing Capital of the World” by the State legislature. 

A problem to discuss is the goods and services that we derive from the system; ecosystem goods and 

services are threatened by increased exploitation and environmental changes from a rapidly growing 

human population. The physical environment of the South Florida system, which includes the Loop 

Current that comes around the Tortugas, is very rich and productive (session on Regional

Connections}. 

6
An interesting aspect of connectivity in addition to physical transport of larvae, which we tend to 

overlook, is adult migration. For example, the tarpon fishery has been focused in Florida, but in fact 

lorida is a stop-over in a larger circuit that includes the Carolinas, Louisiana, and Veracruz, with

m is serial

se we do. What is it, what is it going to be? Whatever it is, it 

e should be a concerted effort to

eate epiphanies, through education, recognizing that education is an ongoing, cumulative process

awareness. Education is the only means of

ity between fish habits, 

here they migrate, where they spawn, is directly relevant to the health of those fisheries and what

ch fish, all those things you do for your self-interest – you are going to do the right 

F

tagged tarpon swimming speeds of 30 miles per day. A different connectivity proble

overfishing, in which people first fish-out the longest, largest, most vulnerable animals and then

move down the resource chain, e.g., from grouper to snapper to grunts. 

Over the years, people have found out about sight fishing; many of the techniques and methods that

are used throughout the world were discovered here in the Florida Keys on the flats. There probably 

are 500 skiff guides who pole shallow-draft boats up and down the Florida Keys. There may be $40-

50 million in guide fees a year, as well as income for hotels, motels, airfares, restaurants, and stores. 

There is a corresponding fishery offshore for sailfish part of the year. Most of the guides and 

captains involved in the industry have taken it upon themselves over the years to do a lot of things

to steward the resource, for example switching to an all-release format. 

Do we need a new ocean ethic? Of cour

needs to be communicated. It needs to be communicated with the public if we are planning to talk 

about anything more than speeding up the ongoing evolution of awareness among the fishing 

public, of the need to be more civil to the environment, particularly of the need to take a personal

responsibility for protecting our marine resources. The connectivity between people and marine 

resources is most obvious to those who make their living from the ocean; they know how complex it

is. We need the marine community to go beyond simple compliance; which is but an interim goal. 

We need the fishing public to develop a personal sense of responsibility toward stewardship of our 

marine resources. To instill a new ethic in the fishing public ther

cr

that helps individuals increase their knowledge or

guaranteeing a permanent, sustainable result, and is the only means for implementing any new ethic. 

There is an estimate of $6-10 billion in the state of Florida just concerning bonefish and tarpon use.

So, it is important for fisheries managers and the government to realize that even though certain

fisheries do not end up on a plate, they may still be important to the economy. If in fact the tarpon 

that we catch at certain times of year off of the Gulf Coast or the east coast of the United States 

around Florida are the same fish that are migrating at certain times of the year to Mexico,

Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and those areas, there are implications for resource management. 

Many of those countries unfortunately are not as enlightened about catch-and-release as we are in

Florida, and as a matter of fact many of those fish are killed. So connectiv

w

we can do about it. 

Hopefully, we have learned from the connections of the past, and how things have changed, and

how they will connect to things of the future. To paraphrase Aldo Leopold, what we are working 

toward is a state of harmony between man and the ocean. Leopold developed what is called the Biotic 

Ethic, under which humans are part of the ecosystem, and part of his idea was that some areas

should be set aside with minimum human disturbance. The connection to people that Leopold 

developed is that of self-interest. You do this not because you have to, but through self-interest. If

you want goods and services, if you want jobs, if you want employment, if you want recreation, if 

you want to cat

7
thing for your self-interest. An alternative to single-species fisheries management is ecosystem-based 

get the Aldo Leopold idea

eographically specified. It is adaptive, takes into account ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties,

ethinking Conservation to Incorporate Coral Reef Resilience in the Face of Climate Change 

eef communities of the Caribbean. The current thinking on coral diseases is 

redominantly single pathogen-based, but there are likely to be more interesting and complex 

management, under which we need to balance our activities within the system’s capabilities. The 

emphasis becomes long-term persistence of a system, not short-term economics. The result is 

sustainable fisheries, and in this case no-take reserves have an essential role that allows us to 

understand how the system works. The word “beauty” is a word that scientists abhor because it is

subjective. But beauty is the human hook – that is why you are in this room, that is why fishermen

are fishermen. An ecosystem approach to fisheries is essentially trying to

g

considers local and external influences, and strives to balance different social objectives. That is the 

beauty of the human connection. We cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of our 

resources, Leopold pointed out. We do affirm a right to their continued existence and the continued

existence of natural systems. 

Climate Change 

R

The composition of the Earth’s atmosphere has been changing since the beginning of the industrial 

revolution owing to the emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Projections

for the next century are that greenhouse gas concentrations could increase by two to three times 

above pre-industrial levels. This has implications for coral reefs around the world, including Florida. 

Increasing temperatures are expected in increase the incidence of coral bleaching. This may also 

affect harmful algal bloom frequency. Sea level rise and associated land-use change will further 

exacerbate damage to reefs relating to climate change. These changes will require that we change our

approach to conservation in the face of climate change. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has

created guidelines for developing conservation strategies to respond to climate change that are based

on four tenets: 1) protect adequate and appropriate space, 2) limit all non-climate stresses, 3) use 

adaptive management and start testing strategies now, and 4) reduce greenhouse gas emissions to

slow the rate and extent of climate change. 

Resource Conditions 

Corals and Microbial Power Shifts ... What Does It Mean? 

Bacteria associated with the surface mucus layer of corals form diverse communities that differ 

significantly from communities in the surrounding water mass and among different coral species. 

Bleaching is the loss, or degradation, of carbon-fixing zooxanthellae from otherwise healthy coral 

tissue; there is a significant shift in microbial community structure when corals become bleached. It 

is likely that many different microbial species, both marine and land-based, can become pathogenic

once environmental stressors have compromised the coral host. There is a range of disease assaults

recorded for coral r

p

processes at work. For example, the microbial “power shift” from Pseudomonas to Vibrio may 

compromise coral primary immune responses, as normal associates that produce protective

compounds are compromised. This may leave the coral animal open for opportunistic infection.

Known coral diseases for which pathogens have been identified range from terrestrial fungi to 

marine bacteria. This suggests that the putative causative agents of marine diseases are much more 

complicated than just new invasive species. Bacteria may not be the problem, but a symptom of a 

change in an environment more conducive to bacterial overgrowth, or microbial processes that

trigger a chain of environmental effects. 

8
Resource Conditions: Discovery of a Viral Disease Infecting Lobster and Impact of Sponge Fishing on Hard-bottom 

Communities 

Spiny lobsters support one, if not the, most economically valuable fisheries within the FKNMS, the 

State of Florida, and indeed the entire Caribbean. Commercial sponges, on the other hand, are 

targeted by a much smaller and largely artisanal fishery that operates within the FKNMS. However, 

both fisheries depend on healthy, shallow hard-bottom areas that provide habitat for commercial 

sponges and serve as nurseries for lobster. In 2000, a lethal virus was discovered that infects 

Caribbean spiny lobster. It is the first viral disease known for any lobster, and it alters the behavior 

and ecology of this species in fundamental ways. Infected juvenile lobsters have been identified from 

sites throughout the Florida Keys and from a few other locations in the Caribbean. The prevalence 

of infection varies with age; most infections occur within the smallest lobsters. Healthy individuals, 

hich are normally social, detect and avoid diseased conspecifics – the first report of such behavior 

es in the wild. Surveys of hard-bottom areas provide a spatio-temporal record of 

ommunity structure for a modeling framework and for commercial sponge population assessment 

ys including species 

and their living resources have been under great stress

decline since the 1970s. The small and colorful tropical fish of these reefs

the marine aquarium trade since the 1960s, and with the great increase in

90s, collection of marine tropical fish and

w

in any animal speci

c

and detection of habitat change. Common large sponges found in the Florida Ke

that are commercially fished grow slowly, their fecundity generally scales linearly with size, and they 

die when exposed to atypical salinities. Natural mortality of sub-legal sized commercial sponges (< 5 

inch diameter) is approximately 7% of the population annually, with little difference among species. 

The fishery appears to operate legally with minimal impact on non-targeted species. About 40% of 

the fishable area during a six-month study period was never visited or fished. In areas that were 

fished, fishers removed 33% of the legal sized sponges, 3% of the sub-legal sponges, and virtually 

none of the non-commercial species. Experiments designed to assess the impact of sponges on 

planktonic water column communities confirm that all seven species tested consume primarily 

bacteria rather than larger planktonic size fractions. 

The Tropical Fish Resources of South Florida’s Coral Reefs 

Coral reefs of the tropical Western Atlantic

and have been in steep

have been collected for

popularity of marine aquariums in the 1980s and

invertebrates in South Florida has grown into a significant fishery. The fishery is now well managed

and rules and regulations are in place to protect populations of the most popular species and to 

restrict the fishery as necessary to protect the environment. Nevertheless, without ecological 

restoration of coral reef environments of South Florida, the value of coral reefs and the fisheries that 

depend upon them, including the marine ornamental fishery, will continue to decline. Restoration of 

coral reefs, however, is not an easy or uncomplicated task. One of the strongest possibilities is 

restoration of herbivory on certain reefs through re-establishment of populations of the keystone 

herbivore, the long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum. 

Water Quality 

What We Know About the Water Quality of the FKNMS 

Several important results have been realized from monitoring water quality over the past decade in

the FKNMS. First, there are spatial differences in water quality across the Sanctuary. Second, is 

documentation of elevated dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the inshore waters of the Keys, but not in 

a comparison transect in the nearly uninhabited Dry Tortugas. This type of distribution implies an

9
inshore source, which is diluted by low nutrient Atlantic Ocean waters, and the presence of a similar

. Another observation is that the “Backcountry” north of the Lower Keys exhibits

aters

f

as.

n. The

a

e

y

f

.

e

shore 

e surveys of conch populations throughout the 

lorida Keys have shown no spawning occurring nearshore even though anecdotal accounts indicate 

0s. In South Florida, queen conch exist in two

endocrine disrupting compounds) and to

ironmental conditions. Man-made chemicals may enter Florida Keys nearshore 

e discharges and surface water runoff, vessel discharge and oil spills, fish house

land, and mosquito pesticide application. The 

gradient in total organic carbon and decreased variability in salinity from land to reef also support

this concept

elevated levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total organic carbon, turbidity, total phosphorus, and

chlorophyll-a. Most of these distributions are probably driven by the Southwest Florida Shelf w

moving through this area. In addition to this Shelf influence, elevated nitrate is a regular feature o

Backcountry waters, where some of the highest concentrations are observed in non-populated are

This is probably the result of the benthic flux of nutrients in this very shallow water colum

third important result is that the highest chlorophyll-a concentrations occur on the Shelf and show

strong N-S gradient toward the Marquesas and Tortugas. This is because of higher total phosphorus

concentrations on the Shelf as a result of southward advection of Gulf of Mexico waters along th

coast with entrainment of coastal rivers and runoff. The fourth result is that trends in water qualit

showed most variables to be relatively consistent from year to year. Clearly, there have been large

changes in FKNMS water quality over time, and some sustained monotonic trends have been

observed; however, we must always keep in mind that trend analysis is limited to the window o

observation. This brings up another important point: when looking at what are perceived to be local

trends, we find that they seem to occur across the whole region but at more damped amplitudes

This spatial autocorrelation in water quality is an inherent property of highly interconnected systems

such as coastal and estuarine ecosystems driven by similar hydrological and climatological forcings.

It is clear that trends observed inside the FKNMS are influenced by regional conditions outsid

Sanctuary boundaries. 

Why Don’t Queen Conch Reproduce in Nearshore Florida Keys Waters? 

Both adult and larval conch may be affected by declines in water quality associated with near

environments. In the case of adult conch, extensiv

F

that this was once common as late as the mid-198

spatially distinct regions: nearshore and offshore, and there has been a cessation of spawning in adult 

queen conch inhabiting the nearshore region. The offshore population continues to spawn with 

regularity. Histological examinations of gonadal tissues from nearshore adult conch indicate that 

gametogenesis is deficient in nearshore females and males relative to their offshore counterparts. 

Reciprocal transplant studies demonstrated that the gonads of conch transplanted from offshore to 

nearshore degraded, whereas those transplanted from nearshore to offshore regenerated gonads

after about six months. Additionally, collaborative research between the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection and the Caribbean Marine Research Center indicated that larval

abundance was significantly lower in Florida than in an analogous location in the Bahamas. Thus it 

now appears certain that conch larvae obtained in nearshore plankton tows originated from either

offshore breeding aggregations or from other upstream sources. These deficits in reproduction and

larvae are consistent with exposure to man-made chemicals in the environment that simulate 

naturally occurring, biologically active compounds (i.e.,

sub-optimal env

waters via sewag

discharges, discharges from the South Florida main

lack of reproductive development in nearshore conch coupled with these widespread sources of

pollutants suggests that there may be a linkage between water quality and reproductive development

in Florida’s conch population. 

10
Episodic Nutrient Transport to Florida Coral Reefs 

Changes in nutrient fluxes associated with internal tidal bores arriving on Florida Keys coral reefs 

suggest biological use of nitrate brought onshore by this mechanism. Internal bores on Conch Reef, 

Florida Keys, are associated with 10–40 fold increases in nutrient concentrations and 1–2 orders of

magnitude increases in nutrient flux relative to ambient, non-bore conditions. The magnitude and 

duration of cool-water nutrient transport events increases significantly with increasing depth on reef 

slopes. In June 2001, the gradient of increased exposure to subsurface water with depth

corresponded to increased percentage of N and δ15N and decreased C:N ratio in a common benthic 

macroalga. Internal tidal bores are widespread throughout the Florida Keys reef tract, with coolwater episodes influencing reefs up to 10%–25% of the time during summer months and with 

significant variability among years. Estimated inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus by internal tidal

bores to Florida Keys reef slopes are as much as 40-fold larger than published estimates of inputs to

near-shore waters from waste water and storm water runoff. Internal tidal upwelling represents an

important, previously underestimated, episodic source of nutrients on the Florida Keys reef tract. In

order to assess nutrient availability in this system accurately it is esential to understand natural 

sources of high-frequency variability. 

Coral and Seagrass Habitats 

 

EPA/NOAA Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

Between 1996 and 2003, for a total of 105 stations at 40 sites Sanctuary-wide, the number of stony 

oral species declined at 76 stations (72%), increased at 15 stations (14%), and remained unchanged 

ies was recorded in all habitat types.

lly protected zones there was substantial variability in coral cover, 

ranging from ~4% to ~16%. Overall coral cover in this habitat type was relatively low compared to 

coral cover historically, probably the result of storms, disease, and bleaching. Also, most of the 

c

at 14 stations (13%). A decline in the number of stony coral spec

In 2003, offshore deep and patch reef stations had the greatest numbers of stony coral taxa with 17 

and 16 species, respectively. Hard-bottom stations had the fewest number of stony coral species,

averaging nine species per station. In 1996, coral disease was observed at only five stations

Sanctuary-wide. By 2002 coral disease was observed at 102 stations; incidences of stony coral disease 

were reported for 95 stations in 2003. Sanctuary-wide, mean percent stony coral cover declined from 

11.9 in 1996 to 7.4 in 1999, a decline of 38%. Stony coral cover has not changed significantly since 

1999; in 2003, mean stony coral cover Sanctuary-wide was 7.2%. In 2003, functional group data 

showed the benthic community was composed of 64.5% substrate, 12.6% octocoral, 11.1 % 

macroalgae, 7.2% stony coral, 2.2% sponge, 2.0% zoanthids, and 0.5% seagrass at the 40 coral reef 

and hard-bottom sites. 

 

Assessment and Monitoring of Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas Coral Reefs and Hard-bottom Habitats 

The UNCW assessment and monitoring program measures a suite of variables to determine the 

abundance, size, and condition of benthic coral reef organisms. Sampling sites are stratified across a 

range of habitat types, among regions of the Florida Keys, and between fully protected marine zones

and reference areas. Most of the information and data are collected underwater on pre-formatted

slates, allowing for relatively rapid data entry and summary analysis once each year’s fieldwork is 

completed. Habitat types include mid-channel and offshore patch reefs, low-relief hard-bottom, 

high-relief spur and groove, rubble, and low-relief spur and groove. Several patterns were evident

from data collected during 2001 in high-relief spur and groove. Fully protected marine zones had 

greater coral cover than corresponding reference areas open to fishing. This is the result of the nonrandom placement of the zones that encompass some of the best shallow-water coral areas along the 

main reef tract. Even among fu

11
corals were no longer Acropora palmata, but instead smaller colonies of the “weedy” coral species

.4% and 13.2%, respectively, again with large error terms. 

ensities of the urchin Diadema antillarum still remain about an order of magnitude lower than 

3-84 mortality event. Despite this pattern, we have found several

tions, including the Dry Tortugas, with large (3.5-5 cm test diameter) D. antillarum, with clear

ave relatively high densities of other urchin

s communities are being assessed. A mix of site types is utilized to monitor 

ds through quarterly sampling at a few permanent locations and to annually characterize the

locations.

Porites astreoides and Agaricia agaricites. Algae were the dominant components of the sea bottom in this

habitat type, covering as much as 90% of the available substratum at some sites. Most algal cover in 

this habitat type consisted of filamentous algal turfs, crustose coralline algae, and calcareous algae 

such as Halimeda, all of which are generally indicative of relatively high grazing intensity and low 

nutrients. Juvenile coral densities varied greatly among individual reefs, with no clear pattern relative 

to protection level. Densities in this habitat were relatively low compared to other habitat types and

especially compared to other areas in the wider Caribbean. Most of the juvenile corals were small 

colonies of species that brood their larvae, such as Porites, Favia, and Agaricia, instead of the massive

reef framework builders. A regional pattern was evident for gorgonian density: gorgonians were 

dominant on upper Keys reefs, but appeared to be replaced by the colonial zoanthid Palythoa on 

lower Keys reefs. Relative to elkhorn coral, staghorn coral was more abundant, occurred in more 

diverse habitats such as patch reefs and low-relief hard-bottom, and appeared to be less affected by

disease-like symptoms. Between Key Largo and Key West, the population estimate for staghorn was 

approximately 13,200,000 colonies compared to 400,000 for elkhorn, with large error terms for both 

estimates; disease prevalences were 0

D

historical data prior to the 198

loca

effects of grazing on the substratum. Many other sites h

species. We were surprised at the amount of marine debris, represented mostly by hook-and-line 

gear that was recovered, even within the fully protected zones. From all 86 sites representing a total

survey area of only 25,200 m2

 during the summer of 2001, we recovered more than 0.5 km of hookand-line gear and trap rope. Of the 349 m of hook-and-line gear recovered from the fore reef, 112 m 

(32%) was recovered from fully protected zones. We recognize that lost fishing gear and other

debris is probably a relatively minor factor affecting Florida Keys reefs; however concerted efforts 

need to continue to remove this material due to the cumulative biological impacts that may occur. 

Status of Seagrass Beds in South Florida 

The general objective of seagrass monitoring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) is to measure the status and trends of seagrass communities to evaluate progress toward

protecting and restoring the living marine resources of the Sanctuary. Both inter-annual and intraannual trends in seagras

tren

broader seagrass population through less intensive, one-time sampling at many more

Observations of the spatial pattern of changes in seagrass communities and the agreement of these 

changes with models of the system suggest that there is regional-scale change in nutrient availability 

that is causing changes in seagrass beds over a wide portion of the FKNMS. In 2004, resurveys of 

251 stations that were last visited during the summer of 1997 indicate that there were no large-scale 

spatial trends in the abundance of the dominant benthic plant types between the two years.

Monitoring data indicates a large spatial gradient in the N:P ratios of Thalassia testudinum across the 

Sanctuary, with N:P ratios predicting nitrogen limitation in the offshore parts of the Sanctuary and

predicting phosphorus limitation in nearshore areas. At four nearshore sites there has been an 

increase in the relative abundance of macroalgae over the period 1995 - 2004 that is consistent with

increased nutrient availability. At none of these has there yet been a decrease in seagrass abundance,

but a conceptual eutrophication model predicts that increases in fast-growing macroalgae should 

precede decreases in seagrass abundance. The lack of any such changes in the Upper Florida Keys 

suggests that the factor driving these observed changes is not present across the entire Sanctuary, so 

12
factors acting at the global scale (like global warming or coastal overfishing) are not likely 

responsible for the observations. These surveys have provided clear documentation of the

distribution and importance of seagrasses in the FKNMS. The seagrass bed that carpets 80% of the 

FKNMS is part of the largest documented contiguous seagrass bed on earth. These extensive 

meadows are vital for the ecological health of the FKNMS and the marine ecosystems of all of 

South Florida. 

Human Perspectives 

 

Connections between the Tourism Industry, the Environment, and Society in the Florida Keys 

The tourism that we see in the Florida Keys is really a type of sun and sand and beach tourism

similar to what we see throughout the Caribbean. The differences, of course, are that in the Keys

there is a road and a lot of mainland visitors as well as cruise liners and air traffic. The tourism 

pressure in the Florida Keys is greater, perhaps, than in other island destinations, or even mainland 

destinations around the wider Caribbean. Tourism is perhaps one of the world’s largest industries. In 

the Florida Keys there are about 4 million visitors now because of the dramatic increases in cruise 

passengers over the past few years in Key West. In the Caribbean, tourism is a major economic 

player, contributing heavily to the economies of Caribbean islands, and to our economy, providing a

lot of jobs, as well. Throughout the area, despite the setback of a few years ago, we see a rapidly 

growing industry that is threatening the resource base. Tourists are involved in water–based activities

– snorkeling, diving, recreational fishing, spending time on the beaches, and viewing nature and 

wildlife. The number of people snorkeling and diving on Florida Keys reefs ranges between 600,000 

and 800,000 people per year. Tourism is the major economic engine of the Florida Keys, accounting

for over a million dollars spent and about half of the employment in the county; reef activities

themselves are responsible for creating 10,000 jobs. The potential environmental impacts of tourism

are great, including problems of anchoring, groundings, and diver contacts. The increase in tourism 

may have led to an increase in demand for local seafood products, which in some situations can lead

over-fishing. The infrastructure for hotels and resorts results in major land-use changes and 

tion phase and the operation of these facilities. Some of these

to

habitat damage during the construc

operations also generate large amounts of solid waste. Social impacts may be great, as well. We see 

some decrease in satisfaction with the environmental product, with the environmental amount of 

use, and certainly throughout the Caribbean and here in the Florida Keys an increase in mass

tourism. Of course this inevitably leads to decreased and diminished environmental amenities, and 

could result, has resulted in some places in the Caribbean in a tourism spiral, the tourism death spiral. 

The tourism industry and local policy makers, local decision makers, and local governments need a 

recipe for suitable policies for sustainable tourism development. There needs to be an integration of 

tourism and tourism planning into the broader sector of planning, through integrated coastal

management, or applying more aggressively restoration and environmental mitigation. Another

approach is increasing the effectiveness of coastal and marine protected areas and adopting or

recommending best management strategies for the tourism sector. We can see coastal resources as 

“capital” that will provide interest through rational use and interest that benefits the tourism

industry. Without a wise and rational use of the resources, we will begin to erode the capital base, 

which will diminish the interest that the county and the Caribbean region as a whole obtain from the 

resource base. 

13
Remarks: The Lodging Association of the Florida Keys and Key West 

Unlike the rest of Florida, we cannot advertise fabulous Keys beaches. We are on top of an old coral 

rock formation. We do, however, have great year-round sun in a tropical environment and America’s

only living coral reef six miles off shore. In the late 1980s, the lodging industry was among the first 

to raise concerns over the growth of visitor numbers. In the early 90s, we fought the trend toward

attracting spring breakers in March, at that time the biggest month of the year for lodging. Also in 

e early 90s, the cruise industry started to grow exponentially. We have not been successful at 

rea and today we see a million or more cruise passengers enter our port; we 

ntinue to urge limits on this market. We also fought to prevent large numbers of day trippers

attraction on view

necessary to ask whether the Sanctuary appears effective in achieving conservation

oals. For example, is there evidence that, overall, ecosystems are healthier inside the Sanctuary than

outside? The answer appears to be no; threats to marine ecosystems of the Florida Keys are 

numerous, and include several operating at regional, hemispheric, and global spatial scales, and none 

of these can be addressed directly through actions taken within the Sanctuary. However, there is 

th

limiting growth in this a

co

coming to the Keys, particularly on day bus tours converting Key West to an

from a bus window. The City of Key West has wisely put limits on that activity. A growing threat is 

the increasing residential population in the southernmost part of peninsular Florida, which is 

projected to expand by an order of magnitude by 2050. Another major threat is the increasing 

numbers of people who are buying homes in the Keys as a second or vacation home. While this 

might seem at first an attractive prospect, it is an insidious threat to the well being of the Florida 

Keys and all its resources. 

Diving and Snorkeling in the Florida Keys 

The importance of diving and snorkeling in tourism cannot be understated; it is one of the fastest 

growing sectors. In 1996, 31.3% of 3 million visitors to the Florida Keys entered the water via a dive

or snorkel trip, and 80-85% of all divers and snorkelers visited one of the 18 Sanctuary Preservation 

Areas. The use we found in the FKNMS is variable – it is not the same throughout – and that makes

a big difference in terms of how to manage the resource. In 2001, visitors to natural and artificial

reefs spent 2.5 million person-days in the Keys, which comes to an impact of $1.7 billion on the 

economy. Looking at diver and snorkeler resource perception, there are positive views in terms of

how well the zones have performed in terms of the number of fish, the type of fish, the size of fish, 

and other resource indicators. They have positive views on social crowding issues, even in the most 

heavily dived sites, and this is a credit more to the operators than the users themselves, who tend to

space out effort accordingly. Water clarity is an emerging and important issue. In two recent studies, 

experienced residents reported declining water quality and visitors reported that water clarity

conditions did not meet their expectations. The dive industry on the whole supports the Sanctuary, 

and is strongly behind its management plan. There also is industry-wide recognition that diving and 

snorkeling are indeed not non-consumptive activities, i.e., do have some impacts, and therefore 

there is strong support for mooring buoys. Recommendations to FKNMS management include: 1) 

involve the dive and snorkel community more in research, 2) involve the industry more in selfpolicing and management, 3) consider limited entry to the industry to increase stability, 4) consider 

reef rotations, and 5) develop an integrated policy to manage reefs that can minimize environmental

damage and maximize economic benefits. 

Management Tools 

No-Take Marine Reserves: Science, Values, and Choices for the FKNMS 

Despite the relatively short period since implementation of the Sanctuary’s management plan, it is 

reasonable and

g

14
reason to believe that the Sanctuary’s ecosystems and the resources they sustain would be healthier if 

t Tool for the FKNMS

he Sanctuary is managed through a co-trustee partnership with the state of Florida’s Department 

e Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. It is a marine 

e questions about which we may be able to provide some 

formation that managers want are: How many marine protected areas should we have? How large 

e should we put them? What shape should they be? What we have found, 

oking at size structure of spiny lobster across the Keys over the past few years, is that we are 

cted areas, and this is probably the 

the Sanctuary included adequate no-take marine reserves. Less than 6% of the Sanctuary is

designated as no-take reserves, and there is good reason – based on a considerable and growing 

body of scientific evidence - to believe this is woefully inadequate if the Sanctuary is to conserve the 

resources it was designated to protect. Although some controversy remains, common sense, theory,

and increasing scientific evidence point to beneficial effects beyond reserve boundaries. Establishing 

additional no-take reserves in the Sanctuary would incur both costs and benefits. In the Florida Keys 

as elsewhere, it is really a question of values and choices. How do we want these world-famous reefs,

the ecosystems of which they are a part, and the resources that are so critically important both

ecologically and economically, to look and to function in 10 years, or in 50? There is no question: 

enforced, no-take reserves work. The best scientific information clearly points to the conclusion

that, although no-take areas are by no means a silver bullet, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

will not succeed in halting further species and ecosystem decline without additional, adequate 

reserves. 

Marine Zoning: A Managemen

T

of Environmental Protection, and th

protected area that covers 2,900 square nautical miles. One of the Sanctuary’s mandates is to

facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and

private uses of the resources. That is quite a challenge. It took from 1991 to 1996 to develop a 

comprehensive management plan to manage the Sanctuary, which consists of 10 different action

plans. Marine zoning is a key element of the management plan. It is a concept that has been used

around the world, and met with considerable controversy in the Florida Keys. In the final plan that

came out in 1997 there was one nine-and-a-half square-nautical-mile area zoned as an ecological 

reserve, but with a promise to come back and do something more in the future. Tortugas 2000: we 

promised to come back and do something, but we promised to come back and do it right.

Participation was the key; we involved the general public more, we maintained an integrated group, 

and we tried to include all fisheries managers up front. We asked that they use an ecosystem

approach, and we tried to make the process open and flexible. Science was an important part of this, 

and it was science really that helped everyone including socioeconomic research. We had to work

with seven different jurisdictions, but we succeeded and reached consensus. We have used zoning 

on land for a long time, we are just starting to do it in the ocean, and we need to do more of it. 

How Acoustic Telemetry Might Be Used in MPA Design 

Managers usually want something very concrete and specific, yet scientists tend to couch their

findings with lots of caveats. What we may be able to do with sonic technology is to provide 

something a little more specific. Some of th

in

should they be? Wher

lo

starting to see some large males showing up in some small prote

reason why: their movements are very localized. Another thing that we found out about inner

channel patch reefs is that the females that live in here, if they are reproductive age, go charging off 

to the reef when they are getting ready to release eggs. Using a benthic habitat map we can correlate 

movements and home ranges with different habitat types, and once we understand that, at least for

lobsters, we can provide information to managers, specifically what they need to do in order to 

protect them. 

15
Connecting Microbes to Management 

Marine microbial processes are important to the overall health of the global ecosystem, but are 

largely underestimated. Bacteria associated with the surface mucus layer of corals form diverse 

communities that differ significantly from communities in the surrounding water. This mucus layer

is populated with numerous commensal microbial species that appear specific to each host,

reflecting the phylogenetic relationships among corals. Bleaching is the loss, or degradation, of 

carbon-fixing zooxanthellae from otherwise healthy coral tissue. There is a significant shift in

microbial community structure to opportunistic bacterial species when corals become bleached. 

Inshore patch reefs and mid-channel reefs show higher resistance and/or resilience to bleaching and 

diseases compared to offshore shallow bank reefs and spur-and-groove reefs in the Florida Keys. An 

important research question concerns the role bacteria play in normal host resistance to stress and 

disease. 

16
Welcome and Introduction

Billy Causey and Katharine (Kacky) Andrews 

Billy Causey 

Connectivity: Science, People and Policy, and it is incredible that we have this great opportunity this

morning. We have so many people from all around the world together to talk about some of the 

issues here in the Florida Keys and actually around the globe. I am Billy Causey, the superintendent 

of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and I want to welcome each and every one of you to

this meeting. I want to thank the steering committee, and I want to start with the primary person 

that pulled this together, Fiona Wilmot. Everyone has been pressed by Fiona once or twice in the 

last couple of months, using her incredible skills at pulling people together. Also I want to thank 

rian Keller, Kacky Andrews, my state partner, Nancy Klingener with The Ocean Conservancy, 

ill Kruczynski and Fred McManus with EPA. All

of them helped organize and pull together what you’re going to see today. 

I want to give you a little bit of history about the Florida Keys. In 1990 President George Bush 

signed into law the first congressionally designated national marine sanctuary. On November 16, 

1990, there were a number of firsts that came with that, but it was on the heels of declining 

resources here in the Florida Keys: declining water quality, declining coral reef resources, and overfishing issues. A number of factors were affecting the health of the Florida Keys. The culmination – 

probably the last straw – consisted of three major ship groundings on our coral reefs within a 17-day 

time frame, all on the heels of the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska. It prompted the Congress to 

take action. Congress realized that this is a very special place, here in the Florida Keys, and

Congressman Dante Fascell who was the sponsor of the bill in the House knew that if you were 

going to do anything in the Florida Keys, you had to include the people and you had to include the 

agencies that were working here. It was going to take a very special effort. 

Congressman Fascell and his aides started drafting the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Protection Act. Senator Graham very quickly picked it up on the Senate side and we started seeing a 

piece of legislation move through Congress like nothing we had ever seen. George Miller in 

California was supporting it and everyone was really pushing it along, and yet Fascell and Graham in 

their wisdom realized there were three things they had to put in the act that people would agree on

immediately. That was a permanent ban on oil drilling in the Florida Keys, establishing an Area To

Be Avoided to keep ships greater than 50 m in length off of our reef tract, and third, they authorized

EPA to develop a water quality protection program for the sanctuary. It was the first water quality 

protection program established for any national marine sanctuary. They directed NOAA to work

with all of our federal, state, and local partners and start developing a comprehensive management 

plan. 

It was at that time that we started working with community leaders and elected officials, different 

community leaders and the agencies that were down here. It was people who stepped up early on, 

people like Mayor Jimmy Weekley, who recognized the importance of working on water quality 

issues here in the Florida Keys, and it was people who started working with the high level Water 

Quality Steering Committee, working with people like Fred McManus, Bill Kruczynski, and others, 

and started looking at ways to address our water quality problems here in the Keys. The EPA has

made a major commitment to this – to the water quality efforts here in the Keys, and they started

B

Jody Thomas with The Nature Conservancy, and B

17
immediately pulling toget l levels to start working 

a very integrated way t identified in the Water

uality Protection Program along with the technological solutions. The EPA also made a major 

t to monito PA has been funding 

onitoring projects here in the Sanctuary: water quality as well as seagrasses and corals. NOAA has

ted this conference. He 

at-out daunting. As I was learning about the magnitude of the problem here, I also came to

her high level officials at the local, state, and federa

in o come up with solutions. First, the problems were

Q

commitmen

m

ring the resources, and for over eight years E

joined them in funding part of the coral and seagrass monitoring over the last few years, while EPA 

has continued to have a major commitment toward that effort. 

It was just not too long ago, in January 2004, that the Water Quality Steering Committee was

meeting here in the Florida Keys. My boss, Dan Basta, had spent about four or five hours of 

listening to the tremendous science that was coming from the scientists that were monitoring the 

resources. It was late in the afternoon, I don’t know if it was the tardiness of the day or the heat or

what, but he all of a sudden just threw a skunk into the room. He said, “Look, these resources are 

going to hell in a hand-basket; you’re doing a fabulous job at monitoring them. We’re monitoring 

the decline of corals, you’re doing a great job, yet we’re not seeing progress, we’re not seeing

movement. We need to do something about it.” And that’s what promp

really charged us to go out and do something. First, he said we want you to develop a white paper.

We really thought that to develop a white paper we had to come together as a group and start doing 

some assessments about what we know about our resources, what are the gaps, and how do we fill 

those gaps, and how does the science and management start turning from just documentation to 

action. That is what this conference is about. 

Now I am going to turn things over to my state partner. The Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary is managed through a co-trustee partnership between NOAA and the State of Florida. 

Kacky Andrews is the Director of DEP’s Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas for the State of

Florida. 

Kacky Andrews

Good Morning. As Billy said, I am Kacky Andrews and I’m with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. I was appointed about two and a half years ago by Governor Bush and

the cabinet to be Florida’s co-trustee with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary with Billy. I 

grew up in Ft. Myers, Florida, and I’ve been coming to the Keys since the early seventies. I did my 

check-out dive in the Keys and I’ve spent a lot of time down here and I’ve always appreciated the 

resources of the Keys. I have been in the environmental arena in Florida for nearly the last decade, 

so I knew that the Keys had problems. But it was when I got this job two and a half years ago that I

truly learned about the magnitude of the problem, when I would go to Sanctuary Advisory Council 

meetings every couple of months and go to conferences on coral reefs. I was quite stunned to learn

about the magnitude of the problem facing the Keys, and the threats to the survival of the coral

reefs in the Keys. It is daunting. Every time you try to get your head around the problem, and it’s

just fl

understand the level of commitment to the resources of the Keys. It is nothing short of 

extraordinary. It’s at all levels of government – the federal agencies, through NOAA and EPA, the 

State through DEP and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the county commissioners,

city officials, and the Sanctuary Advisory Council members, who give up a lot of their time to

represent interests and to help make sure that the public is engaged in management. In addition, 

there are non-governmental organizations, the World Wildlife Fund, The Ocean Conservancy, The 

Nature Conservancy, and Reef Relief. There are recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and

charter fishermen, along with the boating industry, the tourism industry, and dive shop operators, all 

18
of whom are engaged and committed to saving the reefs of the Florida Keys. That is what gives me 

so much hope – that we are going to get our hands around these problems and we’re not going to 

just monitor the death of the Florida Keys – that we are going to turn a corner. It is absolutely 

amazing what can happen when failure is not an option. Failure is not an option here, and so we will 

pull together, we will find new ways of doing things, and we will turn the corner. But I do think that 

we have to start moving now, and I know that the phrase “redoubling your efforts” is often a cliché, 

but that’s about the truth. We have to redouble our efforts. So thank you all for coming and I look

rward to working with you over the years to protect these remarkable resources. 

think that you are also going to see some common-sense things that we should be doing now, and

he marine environment. We are just starting to touch on the marine environment by setting

reas aside as special areas, to even understand what’s going on. A lot of our dilemma right now is

know what is going on. When there are scientists with different ideas, different 

fo

Billy Causey 

Thank you, Kacky. The goal of the conference is to connect science, people, and policy, and those 

of you who have worked in coastal environments know that certainly this is a very difficult

challenge. It is something that we have been working on here in the Keys. In order to move things

forward, you can have the very best science, you can have the very best goals, but you really need to

have the policy makers working there with you, and you need to have the elected officials helping 

you implement that policy. Today and tomorrow and Saturday, we are going to be presenting a wide 

range of panels – from the most remote monitoring technology that we have down to monitoring

the microscopic communities that make up this environment. We hope that by connecting these 

threads, we will start seeing what some of the problems are, what some of the gaps are, and what we

need to come back with, with our information, and fill those gaps. 

I

I hope, without giving you any preview, that it becomes clear that we have not been managing our 

marine resources as we have been managing our land. The National Park Service has been setting

areas aside on land for dozens of years, and we have a different ethic on land as opposed to what we 

have in t

a

that we just don’t

concepts – that’s good – science is to open up the debate, and it’s to open it up and go through the 

scientific process to determine what the cause and results are. But when that debate continues to 

distract, then that gives decision makers a reason to not make a decision. And that’s where we are 

right now – we need to get a focus on them. 

A lot of you know that I’m from Texas, and I see this conference as drawing a line in the sand, and I 

can’t help but think of the Alamo when I say that [laughter]. For one, here in the Keys, I think we 

need to draw a line in the sand. We cannot shift backwards, we need to step forwards and we need 

to take action, we need to stop passively watching the coral reefs decline, and we need to move 

forward. 

With that, I get to introduce our first speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce an old-time friend who 

has been around awhile – he’s not old [laughter] – but I get to introduce Elliott Norse, who is the 

president of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Elliott was an early visitor to the Keys. He 

came down in 1972 and spent some time doing his dissertation research on blue crabs, including the 

Keys in part of his research. He also spent about a month or so as a resident in the Keys, enjoying 

the resources around Pigeon Key, and then in the early eighties he became the chief scientist for the 

Center for Marine Conservation, which today is The Ocean Conservancy. Elliott became affiliated

with; in fact organized and started the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in 1996, but I need to 

tell a little bit about Elliott’s background. He is going to get into some detail about the Florida Keys 

19
National Marine Sanctuary, but during the latter part of the Carter administration, many people 

don’t know – but in one of his last acts as president, President Jimmy Carter signed the designation 

documents for the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, the Gray’s Reef National Marine

Sanctuary, and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Elliott was instrumental in 

putting those papers in front of the president at that time, and having the right documents for him 

to sign. Elliott, welcome to the Florida Keys. [applause] 

20
Keynote Address: 

Do the Keys Hold the Keys to Our Ocean’s Future? 

Insights from a 57-year Transect

Elliott Norse

I want to thank you for your gracious introduction. I want to talk with you today about connections.

They are connections among things in nature, connections between nature and policy, and personal

connections for me. I titled this “Insights from a 57-year Transect,” and I want it to become clear

that this is about personal connections in my case. This is a really important place to me and I am

really glad to be here. I have a sense that the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is a microcosm 

of all of the problems we are facing and it will be – or it might be – the place where we come up 

with the solutions. I have a feeling that at least we have a fighting chance. 

I am a biologist, and biologists are people who are fascinated with, enraptured with, life. I am going 

to “out” myself – I am not going to apologize for it, and as we discuss things further, that is the 

context in which I am going to give my talk. I am interested in not only the individual pieces, but 

how the pieces fit together, and we have been blessed with a phenomenal piece of real estate in this

country. Unfortunately, as time has passed, more and more of that piece of real estate has been

altered. I am using a neutral word – altered, like when you get hit by a car and then run over by a 

couple of cars behind it, you’ve been “altered” [laughter] – just keep that in mind. And that evokes

some personal reactions in me. I have to tell you, I have these fantasies, and when I talk with them 

to biologists and they come out of the closet, they tell me the same thing. If I could have any gizmo

at all, I would want a time machine because I want to know what the biota was like, what the world

was like before it was – “altered.” 

If you want to know what makes my heart sink, this makes my heart sink. I want to conceal this

scene. Now this happened a long time ago. This happened before I was born [laughter] but it seems 

like this wasn’t so ancient. The population of bison in North America in the year 1830 was estimated

at between 30 and 60 million. That’s a lot of bison. That’s a lot of influence on the ecology of North 

America. You may know that the bison populations were reduced to somewhere around 600 by the 

early 1900s. They mostly existed as scattered herds in the wild or as herds in feedlots. 

The passenger pigeon was the most abundant bird in 

North America, perhaps the most abundant bird in the 

world. Estimated population – five billion. One flock 

alone was two miles wide, 300 miles long in the 1840s. It

was driven to extinction in one human lifetime, in 1914. 

21
Fortunately that doesn’t happen

These are Atlantic cod. They

abundant that

mountains. The way people c

off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and 

Maine and Massachusetts was by lowering

basket and by pulling it up. Today the 

rouper (Fig. 1). I saw two of them yesterday,

Figure 1. Photograph of a black grouper at Looe Key

e and I poled

myself up and down the canal and caught blue

things – I had to be self-taught and it’s been a continuing process. While I

was growing up, things were happening. This is my hero, Rachel Carson, the 

marine biologist who said something that our country, intoxicated with postwar optimism, the kind of optimism that only has forward gears, no reverse,

no brakes. Rachel said that progress has its price, and that we may find the 

price, in some cases, higher than we are willing to pay. That was a message 

 Americans really needed to hear, and we got that message driven

home to us in 1969 when a Union Oil blow out in the Santa Barbara channel

dumped a lot of oil. The reason that was important was that we had entered

the television age, and the news reporters from Los Angeles sped up to Santa 

in the sea.

were so

their schools were called

ould collect cod

a

populations of this fish are much less than 

1% of what they originally were. Ecological 

extinction. Commercial extinction. How 

could this be? 

Here is one that is more recent. This is a fish

I photographed a long time ago: black 

g

and I appreciate it, Billy. But I don’t know if 

they were the size of this grandma or 

grandpa, because that is a male. When they 

get to that size, they are males. So this sweep

of history, this sweep of time, and the phenomenal changes we have seen in our biota gets me to 

thinking. So what I am going to ask you to do is permit me to do something unusual for a scientist. I 

am going to get personal, and since I don’t know all of you, I can’t get personal with all of you, I’m 

going to get personal with me, and I’m going to ask you to fasten your seat belts [laughter], adjust 

your tray tables and make sure they’re in the locked and upright position, and I’m going to take a 

little transect through my life, because my connection with this issue is personal. 

that we as

Reef, 1977. [Credit: E.A. Norse] 

I was born in Brooklyn, and I grew up on a little 

canal, like that. On my fifth birthday my parents

gave me a boat, and it was a rowboat. They didn’t 

give me oars, they gave me a pol

crabs. At the age of five I decided I knew what I

wanted to be. I wanted to be what they called an

ichthyologist. I didn’t know that marine organisms

were called invertebrates, I mean, nobody told me 

22
Barbara and took the most appalling pictures.

the naked girl running down the street ended th

of Bull Connor siccing the dogs on people in

this changed things. This was a time when all

the visual media. And it changed our consciousn

At the time, I was working on blue crab ecology

in the Caribbean and tropical east Pacific, and i

you that collecting blue crabs is hot, mucky wo

it’s hot and it’s humid and stuff like that. Blue c

found it is a lot

Just as the pictures of napalm and 

e Vietnam War, just as the pictures

Alabama changed things there, so 

of a sudden we could be reached by

ess.

. I studied the ecology of Callinectes 

t took me a lot of places, including here. I have to tell

rk, especially if you’re doing it in the mangroves, and 

rabs were really big in my life for a long time, and I 

easier to collect blue crabs, not by hand netting, or not by trapping, but by going on

trawler and in 1971 I did that for the first time. There are a lot of blue crabs in there; in fact there 

you all these things because they are going to affect 

Figure 2. Photograph of divers and Acropora palmata at

Looe Key Reef, 1977. [Credit: E.A. Norse]

d States had 

passed the Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act a few years before, in 1972, and 

t pieces of legislation

affect a lot of what I am going to be discussing with you today. 

My first conservation job happened in 1978. I

ivy-covered walls of academia, and I went to th

where my job was to be the hotshot marin

working to push the oil and gas industry away fro

coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico called the Flo

Banks. I worked with a young woman at NO

Nancy Foster. She was just a sprout, and so wa

didn’t know what we were doing very well, but in

 one eye is king [laughte

kept one step ahead

fought and we fought,

Exxon, against Shell an

[laughter]. Flower Gard

or 1979, I got my nose

[laughter] I got anothe

staff ecologist, and that

I have to tell you. I w

speak my truth. And I d

a

are more blue crabs than shrimp. I am telling

what you will see later. 

When I first took my trusty Nikonos II and started

snapping pictures in Looe Key, if you look in the 

background, there was lots of Acropora palmata. At the 

time, although I didn’t know it, because I was in the 

cloistered world of academia, two things happened

that were really important. The Unite

Australia had passed the Great Barrier Reef Pro ection Act in 1975. These two

had left the

e U.S. EPA,

e ecologist,

m two little 

wer Garden

AA named

s I, and we

the land of

r] and if we

of everybody else we were OK. We 

back-to-back against Interior, against 

d we lost. We got beaten pretty badly

en Banks was not designated in 1978 

bloodied, but fortunately, fortunately 

r job at the President’s Council on Environmental Quality and became the 

was exciting. That’s intoxicating! Working for a president is like nothing else,

as working on national policy! I had a bully pulpit, a place to stand on and 

id.

the blind, the man with

23
I did two things of consequence while I was in that job. One, was I develope

biological diversity. That is the most important thing I have ever done or ever

biological diversity has become the driving force in conservation world-wide. It i

looking at life. It means not just saving things because they are useful. It means

things because t

d a concept of

will do because

s a new way of

not just saving

hey’re about to disappear. It means saving the parts and the processes – the integrity 

f nature. And that is a completely new way of looking at Nature. That means even if something

es up again and again in my thinking.

 little bit more on biographical stuff and then I will

u

1989/1990 and it came out in 1993. It was part of the Process for 

the Earth Summit, and in pulling this thing together with folks at 

the World Ban

Fund, it becam

what is happen

them into prox

with you abou

over-exploitati

and global atm

ultimate threat

gh.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Protection Act said “No Oil.” I fought the oil and gas industry. The 

o

isn’t as abundant as were the bison or the passenger pigeon, or the Atlantic cod, you don’t destroy 

them. It’s a different way of thinking. The other thing that I did that was useful, relevant here, is I

got my boss, Jane Yearn [?], to get her boss, Jimmy Carter, to sign Looe Key, Gray’s Reef, Channel

Islands, and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries into being at the end of 1980 and 

early into 1981. This was really great, because this is the only real estate on earth that I feel – other

than my backyard – that I feel that I helped contain and nurture and I feel guilty about that, that 

there’s a lot more out there that’s in trouble that needs protection. But these are good ones, and

Looe Key com

Now, just a

explain to yo why I am doing this. I was asked to write a book in 

k and World Conservation Union and World Wildlife

e clear to me that we needed to have a taxonomy of

ing to the ocean, what are the threats, and I divided

imate threats and ultimate threats and I want to talk

t the proximate threats – some of them. They are:

on, physical alteration, marine pollution, alien species,

ospheric change. They in turn are driven by five

s: there are too many of us, we consume too much,

we don’t know enough, we don’t care enough, and as a result our 

institutions aren’t effective enou

We are going to hear more later today about global

atmospheric change and its effects on coral reefs, and I

don’t have to say a whole lot except that this is one that

keeps me up at night sometimes. Coral bleaching is but 

one manifestation of this. Another manifestation of this 

is the weakening of coral skeletons in an ocean that has

more dissolved carbon dioxide and so it goes. I don’t 

know if any of you have seen this yet, but “coming soon 

to a theater near you” we have turkey fish, flying fish, 

zebra fish, whatever you call them [lion fish]. Terrible. 

They are coming up all over the eastern United States and I sus

[laughter]. 

Marine pollution. A lot of people think of marine pollution as – if you look at the polling – as Oh 

My God! Oil spills. And spilled oil is bad enough; don’t get me wrong, I don’t like spilled oil at all. 

pect this was not a natural migration 

24
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary says “No Oil.” But the biggest problem isn’t oil. The 

biggest problem is nutrients. Nutrients. Too much of a good thing.

It’s a good thing I am not a 

k

populations – in all different re

Washington, DC, but I would as

would you have reason to be c

subtexts I would love to leave yo

alluded to it when he said “We’v

would say that is true. I would say with the land we have earned ourselves a sound D+ and with the 

sea we are at D/D-. And this is an indication of that. This is considered ideal portfolio management 

by agencies such as the Departm

ximum sustainable yield. I

is. This shows the biomass

lors over there are a lot of 

Fig. 4). I am proud to say

ughter]

Physical alteration is something that a lot of people don’t think a whole lot of in marine systems, but 

I’m going to talk with you about a kind of physical alteration that is even worse than this one – the 

appalling destruction of ecosystems at the interface of land and water. The biggest threat to the 

marine world offshore is fishing. That said, I can tell you, I have been here in the Keys and I eat 

fish. I’m an avid sport fisherman. I don’t do it much, but Carl Safina and I went fishing just two 

weeks ago. Caught a bunch of blue fish. I love it. But I also recognize that too much of a good thing 

is a not good thing [laughter]. Carl also got this. [laughter] 

Figure 3. Declines in long-line 

catches in various parts of the 

world (from Myers and Worm

2003). 

sea turtle, because I would 

be taking grief for this.

Jeremy Jackson drew the

cover on this one with this 

remarkable paper (Jackson et 

al. 2001). Similarly, Ransom 

Myers and Boris Worm

produced these graphs (Fig. 

at these. These are the fish populations – large predatory fish 

gions of the oceans. Now this isn’t very alarming to our leaders in 

k you, if this was your stock portfolio [laughter] if it looked like this,

oncerned? My guess is the answer is yes, so one of the important 

u with is – we have different ethics for different things. Billy Causey 

e done a better job with the land than we have with the sea,” and I

3). I want you to take a loo

ent of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada,

Service here, etcetera. This is – the agencies are keeping fish at their ma

guess that’s what that is. And that bothers me a lot. 

Daniel Pauly, mega-thinker, compiled a database that allows him to do th

of large, predatory fishes in 1900 and 1999 and you can see the warm co

fish, and the cool, light colors are where there are hardly any fish at all (

that there have been changes. We have gotten rid of those pesky fishes. [la

National Marine Fisheries 

25
In 1900 In 1999

Figure 4. Distribution of fish biomass in the North Atlantic in 1900 (left) an

McLean 2003). 

Now, the straight, plausible explanation for why this is happening. One

they can replace themselves. The second is we have mucked up the pla

have diminished the capacity of the ocean to produce fish. The third

interaction between these two. I became really interested in the habitat

when I started the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, the first

workshop. It was the first workshop anybody had done on the effec

world’s marine ecosystems, and we came up with some interesting s

derful scientist from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, pulled 

gether this study called “Shifting Gears.” It is the first comprehensive look at the impacts, the 

e one on the right

you can see what a trawler does – strikes along the sea floor, and you can see the doors, disturbing 

the sea floor, the foot rope, and [...] are all agents of physical disturbance to the sea floor. Trawlers 

are ubiquitous. There are many tens of thousands of them in the world. They operate from the 

Arctic Ocean to the sub-Antarctic and the continental shelves and slopes and seamounts all around

the world. They leave their signatures. 

d 1999 (right) (from Pauly and 

is that we kill fish faster than

ce where the fish lived, so we

is that there is some sort of

part of the equation, and so

thing I did was hold a little

ts of bottom-trawling on the

tuff. We published it in the

journal Conservation Biology and had the cover paper which was really nice. What we found was that

bottom-trawling is a lot like forest clear-cutting. Since I worked for about five years on forests in 

between my marine gigs, I felt pretty comfortable saying that, and I did a comparison on the ecology 

of forest clear-cutting and bottom-trawling. I found out that there is one big difference, and that is

the area swept by trawlers on a day-to-day basis is about 150 times the area that is clear-cut 

worldwide. Let me give you that in a graphic term. The area that is clear-cut worldwide on an annual

basis is about the size of the state of Indiana. The area trawled on an annual basis is about twice the 

size of the lower 48 states, or about half the continental shelf of the world. That doesn’t mean that

every spot gets trawled evenly, some do a thousand times in that period, and some don’t at all. 

Our chief scientist, a won

to

collateral damage from different kinds of commercial fishing gears and their findings reinforced 

what we had thought. Independent fisheries experts come up with the same idea. Trawling is really, 

really rough. I am talking about bottom-trawling because to me that is my entry into the habitat 

issue. That is what I work on the most. Trawlers – the big one on the left, the littl

–

26
You can

eutian

Lophelia 

s of stony and gorgonian

corals and hun reds and hundreds of invertebrates and fishes and on the right you

can see with the trawl trap running right through it, what trawling does. On the left are the deep

Oculina reefs of the east coast of Florida (Fig. 5), in an area that used to be fairly extensive, compared 

t. Most of what it is looks like what is on the right. 

 see trawl tracks all around the world (Fig. 5). This just gives examples from five places, but 

you can see there are lots more, and I want to show you what trawling does to marine ecosystems. I

am going to give you five examples because some of you folks probably don’t believe me. You

probably think since I work for a conservation organization I’m probably a little bit of an alarmist.

So, use your own eyes. On your left is a hexactinellid reef (Fig. 5). Hexactinellids have been around

since the Cambrian Period. There are hexactinellid reefs in Hecate Strait of British Columbia. They 

are, to our knowledge, unique in the world, and they are fast being destroyed by bottom trawling.

On the right is a trawled hexactinellid reef. On the left are the deep coral forests of the Al

Islands of Alaska (Fig. 5). These are prime fishing grounds, so they are being discovered and they are 

being trawled for fish that are used in cat food and you can see on the right, after they have been 

trawled. On the left, northwest coast of Australia, photos by Keith Sainsbury, untrawled and trawled 

(Fig. 5). I can tell I am not making a convincing case yet. On the left, Norway, these are 

reefs; monospecific stands of stony corals and many associated specie

dreds and hund

to what it is today, because legally and illegally they have been trawled into oblivion. Now, there is a 

tiny bit of it lef

So, I don’t know if I have made my case – I can’t do it any better. The Pew Oceans Commission

was convened as an effort to take a comprehensive look at policy regarding living marine resources

in the United States for the first time since 1969. The Pew Oceans Commission said we must stop 

doing this on hard bottoms – it’s disastrous, it’s not a good thing. And I am saying to them “Hear, 

Hear.” Our chief scientist Lance Morgan and I drafted a little statement on deep sea corals and

sponges. We said that we are really concerned about this, and it was signed by the world’s leading 

scientists, 1,136 of them from 69 countries from around the world, including Jamaica, Samoa, and 

lots and lots of folks you know from here, including our dinner speaker Carl Safina. We have now 

gotten legislation introduced in both the Senate and the House by Senator Frank Lautenberg and 

Representative Jim Greenwood in the House, to get trawlers away from places where there are 

corals and sponges. And this leads me to what I think you guys wanted me here for, and that is

“What is the nexus between the fishes and the structure and form of the sea floor?” How does this

make something greater than the whole, and how is what we do changing this relationship. 

27
Figure 5. Pairs of photographs of untrawled (left) and trawled (right) habitats at various locations around the 

world. Top, left pair: hexactinellid (glass sponge) reefs off British Columbia, Canada. Top, right pair: deep 

coral forests off the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Middle, left pair: coral-sponge forests off northwestern

Australia. Middle, right pair: deep coral reefs (Lophelia) off Norway. Bottom: deep coral reefs (Oculina) off

eastern Florida. 

28
Figure 6. Stand of Acropora palmata at Looe Key Reef, 1977. [Credit: 

First of all my buddy and fellow graduate student Mike Risk 

published this in 1972, and I don’t know if you know this 

paper. It tends to get lost in the Atoll Research Bulletin, but to 

me it is earth-changing. Mike said that the more rugose the 

e more structurally complex, the higher the diversity 

of fish. I took this photograph in 1977 (Fig. 6) and as far as I 

can tell, he was right. Looe Key had a lot of fish. 

It had a lot of vibrancy, it had a lot of diversity, it was

impressive, and it had a very rugose habitat of Acropora 

corals (Fig. 7). That is n

yesterday is more like this (Fig. 7). The coral cover

– maybe 80% to maybe somewhere between 5 and 10%,

zoanthids, which look like dandelions on a lawn, an

the Looe Key I knew in 1977, and I was shocked. 

igure 7. Stand of Acropora Norse] 

olks at the Shifting Baselines website say this is what has happened. We have gone from coral reefs 

ith lots of fishes, to just the remnants, and I am afraid to say that their vision, however stark and

orrisom

Now, what is a complex system? I have a definition up there that seems to work pretty well, and I 

am going to give you some examples of complex systems. I choose five of them. Our national sport. 

How are the Marlins doing this year? [laughter] Didn’t they win the World Series last year? Well, 

what’s different? Interesting. What about the stock market? How high was it in January? Well, not 

what it used to be. Climate: 2001, Florida was fighting wildfires all across the state. 2004, rainfall is

above normal. What’s that all about? Elections – Florida [laughter] 2000 versus 2004 [laughter]. We 

E.A. Norse]

habitat, th

cervicornis (staghorn coral) and other species of corals, diverse 

ot what I saw yesterday. What I saw 

 is much, much lower, gone from – I don’t know 

 from what I saw. The reef is covered with 

d I have a feeling their ecology is similar. It is not 

F cervicornis at Looe Key Reef, 1977 (left) and 2004 (right). [Credit: E.A. 

F

w

w e, is too optimistic, because we don’t have Acropora cervicornis at Looe Key anymore. I didn’t 

see any yesterday. The reason, I think, will become clear to us if we understand that ecosystems are 

complex. They have lots of components, and actually all these are aggregates. There are many, many 

more components than this, and we have to start thinking of these ecosystems as complex systems

in general. 

29
don’t even want to talk about that o

because there are two sets of folks w ng right now, and nobody knows who is going to 

win. Nobody. You can’t tell. Now there is polling, there are millions and millions of dollars being

spent on polling, including here in Fl

three months from now. I know wh

you’re going to do, but we don’t kno

Ecosystems are a lot more complicate

I am going to give you an example o

and Julia Baum and Ransom Myers h is shark has

diminished more than 99% since the 1950s. Carcharhinus longimanus. If we pull this out of the 

ecosystem, the population of prey is

down? I know the answers, I know a

system, you’re supposed to be gettin

system and Diadema became more

arts are. We don’t know how the parts work, and

e especially don’t know how the parts interact with one another. So, in other words we’re shooting 

some things with confidence, right? We can be pr

one another and they interact with one another, an

understand are positive, not negative. We’ve got 

reduces the ability of others to either resist stress

yesterday in Looe Key! We know that there are sp

they include sea turtles, big fish, and Diadema and

in many places. We know that the structure-for

reduced in many places around the world, including 

we have flipped from one state of an ecosystem to

hange,” right? [laughter] Oh, boy. Well we need to have another regime change. 

remy Jackson, my old buddy – we’ve worked together since 1970, when we 

at reef rock is, of course, if you think about it, the kind of habitat 

at’s important for recruitment of certain benthic organisms – structure 

ne. Ecosystems. I have to use this as an example [laughter]

ho are runni

orida, and we don’t know what’s going to happen in less than 

at I’m going to do, but you know – I hope you know what

w what’s going to happen less than three months from now.

d than that. 

f what I am saying. If we pull this shark out of the ecosystem, 

ave a paper that shows in the Gulf of Mexico, th

going to go up or down, up or down? Up or down? Up or

simple trophic model, I know if I pull your predator out of the 

g more abundant. But when we pulled triggerfish out of the 

abundant, now where are the Diadema? So it’s not simple. 

Ecosystems are complex systems. 

Coral reef ecosystems are particularly complex because they are spectacularly diverse, and some of

the problems are that we don’t know what all the p

w

in the dark here, folks. We know some things. We are not totally without knowledge, but we don’t 

know all the things we need to know, and we need to know an awful lot more, fast. So we can say

etty sure that we know the components are tied to 

d some of these interactions we are beginning to 

both. We know that eliminating some components

 or to recover from stress. Boy, did I see that 

ecies that are strong interactors, and in this system

 their populations have crashed in many cases and

mers in the ecosystem have been dramatically 

in the Keys. And so what we see, I think, is that 

 another state. That is what we call “regime 

c

Je

were graduate students at the Discovery Bay Marine Lab – he says that the 

reefs throughout the western Atlantic have catastrophically dropped since 

the 80s and the main agent of that is overgrowth by algae following the 

removal of the herbivorous organisms in that system. Felicia Coleman has 

found – you may not have seen this paper – you’ve got to read this one, this

is a honey. She found that red groupers keep spots clear of sediments on reef 

rock, and th

th

forms, right? So, my summary of the situation is: if you take out the structure 

formers, you eliminate the fish habitat. If you take out the strong interactors, you prevent the

recovery of structure formers, especially after you have a major disturbance, whether it’s a local one 

like a ship grounding, or a big one like a hurricane or a bleaching event. If you remove both of them, 

then you have synergistic effects, and that caused the phase change we have seen from a coraldominated (in many places, at least) to an algal-dominated ecosystem. And the darn thing is, it’s like 

30
Humpty Dumpty; it is much easier to break the egg than it is to put it back together because you

don’t know the assembly rules for eggs. You don’t know how to do it. We have boxing gloves and 

we have spit, and we can’t do the fine job of reassembling that egg, and that’s what we’ve got here. 

Organisms in many cases have disappeared from our system or are much less abundant than they 

used to be or their behaviors have changed. My buddy Callum Roberts also points out that marine 

reserves aren’t always the answer. If you protect one quarter of a square mile some place in the 

cean, you can’t expect that it is going to replenish the system, even if that piece of ocean is 

 reproduce. You can’t just have one and say “Oh, we’ve done it

ow.” That means fishery management isn’t going to do it on its own. It hasn’t done it, it has failed.

Reef Marine Park

nd the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, so I think we should talk about these for a little bit. 

h and kind enough to

eal wisdom, and their

tecting the resource. I

o, and 

o

nowhere else, and here’s the reason: because the small fast-maturing organisms come back fast, but

the big, slow-reproducing organisms take a long time. The failure of groupers to come back

probably happens because we have eliminated them in so many places that we’ve lost our 

recruitment sources. In other words, we have taken our seed stock and we have gotten rid of it.

Anybody who bakes bread knows that you always keep your sourdough culture. You’ve got a good 

culture, you nurture it. We miss that point. So that means if you want to protect the system and you

want to bring the system back, you have to have a good, thick distribution of places where these 

things are safe and where they can

n

Stopping nutrient pollution is not enough. If you have small and widely scattered reserves, that’s not 

going to do the job. You have to manage the ecosystem-wide impacts of humans comprehensively. 

You have to take all the things that are forcing the system and alleviate the forcing so that the 

system can recover, and I’m not telling you that it is simple. 

In the next few decades the best way to comprehensively manage human impacts is place-based

management: ocean zoning. I am going to talk about zoning for a little bit. It is a framework that

allows us to reduce the endless competition and the uncertainty and the costs by separating people 

whose activities are incompatible with what we value, whatever that is. The reason it is necessary and

important is because it protects the parts and the processes. What Aldo Leopold called the “land

ethic.” It says we do this in the sea, and if you protect the parts and the processes, then you will get

what you want from Nature. Again, I quote the Pew Oceans Commission, since their vision has 

impressed me greatly. They said that Congress should establish regional ecosystem councils, and 

there should be comprehensive zoning to improve resource conservation and reduce user conflicts. 

Makes it better, not worse. Two early examples of zoning are the Great Barrier

a

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Fig. 8) is the largest comprehens

underwater real estate on Earth. The Australians [laughter] were humble enoug

ask for outside experts to say “What should we be doing?” And they got r

principles were: First, protect the resource. Everything else comes from pro

traveled up and down the highway between here and Islamorada a few days ag

ively zoned piece of

31
Figure 8. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. 

You know what I saw painted on all the businesses, all 

the stores? I saw pictures of fish and dolphin. I saw 

oncrete manatee sculptures, I mean, all the people here 

ears, so soon we forget the lesson, I’m Spiderman from Gotham and I want to tell you what that 

n I love, with

% of our population and 5% of our gross domestic product has done such a – such a beautiful job 

of protecting its Great Barrier Reef. It has protected 80 times as much – fully protected – as we have 

in the Florida Keys and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries. Those are no-take zones.

It bothers the hell out of me that Australia has leaped way ahead of us. Not because I don’t want 

them to do brilliantly – I do, but because we have lagged so much and that’s a shame. I think our 

country needs to establish real sanctuaries, in the religious sense of the word sanctuary. A place 

where one is safe. Where the grouper and the Acropora and the Diadema and all the little 

c

directly or indirectly are making their living from a 

healthy marine ecosystem. Either one that exists now or 

one that used to exist, but the rubes haven’t figured it out 

yet, and they are going to figure it out and they are going 

to go some place else if you don’t bring it back to health.

So protect the resource first, protect a good bit of it, and

we don’t know how much, but 20% is a good minimum 

estimate. Get the full range from north to south, from 

onshore to offshore. Get all the different kinds of 

bioregions and the ecosystem types in the bioregions and 

make sure the public is intimately and integrally involved 

from the beginning to the end. Don’t spring it on them,

don’t surprise them, don’t hand it down from the top of 

Olympus, but get the folks who care about this issue –

and it worked, Australia upgraded full protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from 5-33%

this year, and increased the area where there is no trawling from 50-67%. It works. [lengthy 

applause] It works. 

Now we have two partly zoned national marine sanctuaries, but they are much smaller and they have

proportionately much less no-take area the Florida Keys and the Channel Islands. Our vicepresident, Bill Chandler, has done an extraordinarily thoughtful analysis of the history of the

National Marine Sanctuary Program since the 1960s before the Act was actually passed, and his 

conclusions are important and worth noting. First, its purpose was to preserve or restore areas for 

their values. Second, Congress has really interfered with the program, and third, the program has 

therefore, and I hate to say this, kids, fallen way short of delivering what it was intended to do. As 

far as we can tell there isn’t yet a plan to change that, 32 years after the inception of the program, a

time during which we have seen marine ecosystems and populations collapsing. 

So, as an old guy, I would say, oh this is killing me, [laughter] this is a part that I have been for 26

y

lesson is. Because I think pop culture is important and because not very many people read 

Conservation Biology or Atoll Research Bulletin [laughter]. A lot of people saw this, and they saw 

Uncle Ben, with his dying words, say: “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.” I love my 

country and I want to see my country grow up and realize that we have big biceps and we have big 

pockets, and that gives us special responsibility. It humiliates me that Australia, a natio

5

32
microorganisms that Kim Ritchie works on so effectively, all of these things can work as they 

evolved to work.

your leaders to lead. Leaders follow. We

nt to tell you about these eight people.

on. He is the founder of the Society for

the people in this room have never heard 

eches. He inspires us to think bigger, on 

m played the role of Mother of the Great 

ll extremely actively involved in getting

eas. Jane Lubchenco. Jane is the most

eas. She sees the big picture and has it

, not now unfortunately, heads the Pew 

ssociated with decision-making. Teddy 

ational Park system. Jimmy Carter, who

number of national marine sanctuaries.

t from dismantling the environmental laws that protected our landscape. We

eed visionary thinkers like these people. Now we have a chance to make up for it a little bit. Right 

ader, it is going to

appen because that brilliant leader is going to have the support of people pushing him to do better.

To mis-quote Shakespeare, the answer to this, Dear Friend

only going to happen if we make it happen. Don’t expect

need a new kind of leadership. These are rare people. I wa

Michael Soulé is the inventor of continent-scale conservati

Conservation Biology. I will bet that a sizeable fraction of

his name. Meet Michael. Read his works. Listen to his spe

bigger spatial and temporal scales. Graham Kelleher. Graha

Barrier Reef Marine Park for several decades, and is sti

people to think of new ways about marine protected ar

visionary scientist I have known working on protected ar

together. Josh Riker. Josh, my friend, my sometimes funder

Charitable Trusts. Josh gets that fishing is the driving force.

People on the bottom are people traditionally more a

Roosevelt, who oversaw the dramatic expansion of the N

doubled the size of the park system and nearly tripled the

Mo Udall who got the Alaska Land Act passed. Bob Stafford, who in the darkest days of the Reagan 

administration, as the Republican head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

stopped James Wat

s, isn’t in the stars, it’s in ourselves. It is 

n

now, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary is just a concept, and it is a 

concept that is going to become a reality shortly in 2005. We can either get a little protection in

limited areas and keep falling short, as we have been for 32 years, or we can take a great leap

forward. The question involves nine fishing boats that fish the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and 

bring in a total of $700,000 a year from the fish they catch, versus the full protection for an area that 

is bigger than the entire U.S. National Park system. 

The Florida Keys is a place that gives me hope, because we have leadership in this place. I think it

has the potential, but it is not going to happen because we have a brilliant le

h

This is what I want to leave you guys with: a picture of Looe Key in the year 2100 looking as I saw it 

in 1977. Now I am not going to be here because I am an old guy. I am not going to see this happen

in my lifetime. I want you, or your children, or your grandchildren to see this happen, and my 

organization is going to devote all of its resources to helping make it happen here and make it 

happen in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and happen around the country and around the world,

and we need your help. It is only going to happen if we make it happen, and so I want to thank all 

these people who have provided guidance for this presentation, images or inspiration and let’s have 

great time. Thank You. [thunderous applause] 

33
Literature Cited

Jackson, J.B.C., and 18 co-authors. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal 

ecosystems. Science 293: 629-638. 

n I say this is funny, is because – have

y of you heard of Dan Simberloff? Dan Simberloff went to Florida Bay and fogged little, tiny 

ouldn’t designate him as the winner because he

asn’t willing to cut the trees. Only if he was willing to cut the trees would they give him a license.

u have to go for what you really want, but there are

any interim steps. If somebody gave me the opportunity of diminishing the nutrient input to the 

Keys, even if we didn’t get full protection, I would say “I’ll take it. If somebody said “Get trawling 

out of our deep coral reefs in waters all around the United States and in international waters,” even 

if we didn’t get our full marine reserves, I’d say “I’ll take it.” What we want is full protection and I

think what we can have is zoning: places where people can fish anyway and can do any legal activity 

and other places where people can only fish with certain kinds of gears, but do not harm habitat, 

whether they are recreational or commercial or subsistence, and other places that are fully protected.

Myers, R.A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature

423: 280-283. 

Pauly, D., and J. McLean. 2003. In a perfect ocean: the state of ecosystems and fisheries in the 

Atlantic Ocean. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Risk, M.J. 1972. Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 153: 1-6. 

Discussion

Kelly Rankin: Hi, is there any work on spatial scales with sanctuaries with rates of recovery, getting 

a handle on the spatial scales? 

Norse: That’s an obvious, great question, and I never thought of it, and I don’t know if anybody 

else has thought of it. I haven’t seen any here, and the reaso

an

mangrove islands, and studied the recovery of the insect and spider communities on those little 

islands, miles from here. He did that when he was a student in the 1970s or 1960s, so it was done in 

the terrestrial realm, decades ago, and I don’t think that anybody has thought to ask that question. 

It’s brilliant, it’s obvious, and we should do that. 

Phil Frank: Do you think we – non-government – do you think we should be buying commercial

fish licenses, is that significant, and taking them out of circulation? 

Norse: [bellows] OK, I’m going to show my ignorance here. I live in Washington State, and the 

Forest Service sells timber lease sales to the highest bidder. My friend, Mitch Freedman, of the 

Ecosystem Alliance had your idea, and he said “We’re going to bid for a patch of forest, and we’re 

going to take it out of circulation and not cut it.” Anyway, he submitted the highest bid, but the 

Forest Service wouldn’t give him the winning, they w

w

So preservation – our country operates on the principle that capitalism works except if it doesn’t 

agree with our policy, and our policy in this case was logging, it was not preservation. It might work

here, making Fish and Game different from the Forest Service, I can’t tell you. Great idea! 

Cheri Recchia: Elliott, you talked about commercial logging and obviously that constitutes a

problem. No-take reserves are opposed to all fishing, including recreational fishing. Why isn’t that as

big a problem as commercial fishing? 

Norse: I am really glad you asked that question, because Cheri, as The Ocean Conservancy and

everybody else here should know, the Perfect is the enemy of the Good, and when you think about 

what is harming marine ecosystems, I think yo

m

34
I think as a society we have enough smarts, and enough decency to do what Billy let people do in

and rational and makes sense, because we have a lot of legitimate

quic am going to tell a very quick story. What we are

es we are

oing to stand up and start shuffling about and being rather obnoxious, at 15 minutes we’re going to 

ght. Our first speaker, and I know Brian is going 

down in St. Vincent and the Grenadine Islands, working with the 

rganization of American States in establishing a marine protected area around St. Vincent and the 

me across.” The lower Caribbean, he explained the 

hole thing to me. I got back and I called John Ogden at FIO, and I said “John, do you know

me some satellite images of the 

ork he was doing in that area. At that time, mind you, I was managing the little, tiny, five-and-at panel is

oing to be discussing various aspects of these regional connections, and our first speaker is Dr. 

the Florida Keys, and that is to say, “This we want to use for this, and this we want to use for that,” 

come up with something that is

interests in society, not just one. [applause] 

Causey: As our next panel comes up and Dr. Brian Keller is our facilitator, I will explain very

kly, Brian, you want to start coming forward. I

going to be doing is that we are going to give each speaker 15 minutes, but after 12 minut

g

yank them off the podium. We’ve got to keep it ti

to say some more, but I want to give you some perspective. I first heard of, or met, Dr. Frank 

Muller-Karger in 1988. I was

O

Grenadine Islands, actually around the lower Grenadines, Tobago Cay. After about two weeks, in 

October of 1988, of being down there, the water was pea soup green. This was an area that was east

of everything, I expected to have crystal clear blue water, and I expected beautiful corals and fish. I 

expected a tremendous coral reef environment, yet we had pea soup green water. It looked like Looe 

Key on a day when the tide is flooding offshore. While I was there I asked the captain of the boat,

“Captain, why is the water so green?” He said “It’s Orinoco, mon.” I said “The Orinoco? That’s in 

Venezuela.” He said “Yah, mon, every year it co

w

what’s happening down in the lower Grenadine area?” And I explained it, and he said “You need to 

call this gentleman,” so I called Frank, and Frank immediately sent

w

half square-mile Looe Key Sanctuary that I could get my arms around. And I realized – I was in 

deep trouble – and I realized that what I was looking at, that little postage stamp of a site didn’t 

really match up to the impacts that were coming from all over the region. Brian, I’ll let you... 

Keller: Well, Elliott, you said that you would knock people’s socks off, and I’m pleased to see that 

you knocked your own off and Terry’s lost his socks, even Frank has lost his socks, so thank you 

very much. We are going to have a series of panels, and this is our first attempt at bringing together

a set of presenters. Billy laid out the ground rules. The Florida Keys receives an enormous volume 

of water that flows past it, through it, and into it from the Gulf of Mexico, and our firs

g

Frank Muller-Karger from the University of South Florida. [applause] 

35
Regional Connections

Moderator: Brian Keller 

36
Regional Connections and the Coastal Ocean Observing System 

Frank Muller-Karger, Chuanmin Hu, and the IMaRS Team

Abstract 

A variety of processes influence coral reef ecosystems across a range of time and space scales. It is 

increasingly clear that different regions separated by great distances are connected through physical

processes of ocean and atmospheric circulation, hich carry properties like nutrients and other

chemicals including pollutants reef organisms, weather, and

heat and salinity. The Florida S) experiences the influence

of riverine discharge from the Everg vers emptying into the western and

orthern Gulf of Mexico. It also feels the significant impact of the water and other materials carried 

om the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic by the Loop Current, as well as local

irculation features.

It is therefore important to move toward an ecosystem-based approach to address the problems of 

urban growth, coral reef decline, pollution, fishing, and connectivity in the FKNMS. Significant 

knowledge, experience, and infrastructure exist in South Florida and in the Intra-Americas Sea 

region to assist in linking science and ecosystem management efforts in the FKNMS. 

The FKNMS should engage the Coastal Ocean Observing Systems of the region to address the 

issues of monitoring and scientific observation in the Florida Keys, including both the SEACOOS 

(http://seacoos.org) and the GCOOS (http://gcoos.org) regional associations of the Integrated

Ocean Observing System (IOOS). This effort needs to include satellite remote sensing to achieve 

repeated and synoptic views of factors affecting the FKNMS and the changing conditions within the 

FKNMS. 

Introduction 

Coral reef ecosystems support a wide range of organisms, control water flow and protect the 

shoreline, play an important biogeochemical role, and offer significant cultural, recreational, and

economic value. In general, the value of coral reef ecosystems is estimated at about ~$5,978 per 

hectare per year (Costanza et al. 1997). In Florida, coral reefs generate between $1.2 billion (Causey 

2002) and $2.5 billion per year (Birkeland 1997), with $105 million per year in income and 8,000 jobs

(U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy). 

Of key interest in the last decade has been the apparent sensitivity of coral reef ecosystems to

climate variability and to various types of pollution. This has raised concern about our poor 

understanding of pathways that connect coral reefs with possible threats. Specifically, it is of great 

interest to understand “connectivity” patterns that define the transportation of pollutants and 

pathogens to a reef, and of larvae between reefs and across a region such as the Intra-Americas Sea

(the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico). This realization comes along with increased emphasis

on the need to implement “ecosystem-based” management of coastal and ocean resources, and to

base such management on scientific information. 

w

, pathogens in addition to larvae of coral

Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNM

lades as well as various ri

n

fr

c

37
A Matter

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS; Fig. 1) is affected by phenomena occurring 

at local, regional, ogenic forcings.

may be viewed as part of a larger ecosystem that includes the deep ocean, land, and the 

e, all connected through various processes including ocean circulation, terrestrial 

s (seasonal to many years). Similarly, brief events like ship groundings, other 

pes of traffic, and dumping can be instantaneous but have long-lasting effects. 

of Scales

and global scales (Lee et al. 2002), and by both natural and anthrop

It

atmospher

discharge, and atmospheric deposition (the “Three Screen Doors,” Jameson et al. 2002). The

FKNMS is located in close proximity to an ever-growing urban South Florida environment and to 

the pollutant source of the commercial agriculture interests of central Florida. 

As a coastal ecosystem, short (sub-millimeter to hundreds of meters) and event-scale (seconds to 

days) phenomena affect the reef. These include physical processes like variability in currents, 

turbulence, weather, and also biological productivity, and the spawning and survival of larger

organisms. Fishing and local nutrient inputs may be event-scale phenomena, but they may occur 

over long time scale

ty

Figure 1. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). 

38
Other phenomena tend to act over seasonal and regional scales. The FKNMS is repeatedly affected

nter-time winds, with 

ronger mixing and cooling of Gulf of Mexico surface waters, and rains with higher discharge from 

ears ago, was about

by freshwater discharge from the central western Florida coast (Hu et al. 2004) and from the 

Everglades (SWFDOG 2002), which are “dark water events” that have been associated with damage

to benthic reef communities (Hu et al. 2003; Neely et al. 2002). Further, oceanic circulation may 

bring Mississippi River water to the Keys (Ortner et al. 1995). We are just beginning to realize the 

connections between different parts of the Intra-Americas Sea (Fig. 2; see also Andréfouët et al. 

2002). Hurricanes and tourism have significant seasonal impacts, while even interannual phenomena 

such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation on average leads to stronger wi

st

South Florida rivers. The effects of what we are generally calling climate change are unclear at this

time, but may include sea level rise (now rising at approximately 1 mm per year), continuing 

warming of ocean waters and the air, and changes in the frequency of storms. 

Global temperatures have been changing over the past few thousands of years (Fig. 3). This has

affected sea level. Sea level during the last glaciation, which ended some 15,000 y

120 m below present sea level. Warming of the atmosphere and the ocean since then led to a rise in 

sea level. While this rate of sea level rise had leveled off in the last couple thousand years, it seems to

have accelerated again in the last 100 years. South Florida seems to have one of the slowest sea level

rise rates, relative to land, in the Intra-Americas Sea (Fig. 3). 

Possible Connectivity Assessment Priorities 

The examples of processes and scales mentioned above are not intended to be comprehensive; they 

just give a general sense of the depth and breadth of scientific issues that need to be considered in

addressing ecosystem management. It is of primary concern to understand processes acting across a 

wide range of time and space scales. A list of areas where management efforts may focus includes: 

At the local level (FKNMS and adjacent continental shelf): 

-Pollutant dispersal : septic tanks, non-point, point sources 

-Eutrophication at bottom of food web 

-Overfishing at top of food web and bycatch 

-Larval dispersal 

-Conditions that lead to bleaching 

-Human health and safety 

-Relation to urbanization 

-Relation to industrialization 

At the regional level (Gulf of Mexico, Mesoamerica, and Caribbean): 

-Larval dispersal patterns

-Forcing of circulation 

At the global level: 

-Weather and climate and forcing/feedbacks 

39
Figure 2. The FKNMS in relation to the 

Intra-Americas Sea, (above left) as land

and ocean plant biomass derived using

ellite data. In the ocean, clear water is

shown in blue colors and turbid waters are

shown as green, yellow, or red. On land, 

higher biomass is shown as deeper tones 

of green. The satellite image of south 

Florida and the Florida Keys (lower left) is

shown in “true color” where colors

approximate what a person would see 

pace. The panel on the right shows 

ematic of the flow of the major Loop 

Current along the FKNMS.

sat

from s

a sch

40
tide gauges around the United States (reproduced from Maul et al. 200

change in the Intra-Americas Sea (reproduced from Hanson and Maul

The Role of Ocean Observing Systems 

Research, monitoring, and ecosystem management therefore requ

that span range of space and time scales, and a system to integrat

into products useful to managers as well as the public in general. 

Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (COOS) are being developed

COOS are components of “Regional Associations” (RA’s) that f

Observing System (IOOS). The FKNMS is covered by two nasce

SEACOOS: Southeast Atlantic COOS (http://sea os.org) 

GCOOS: Gulf of Mexico COOS(http://gcoos.org) 

ach COOS has a series of basic elements, namely:

Observing elements Modeling 

Data Management Product dissemination 

Outreach and Education

Figure 3. Left: Global air temperatures (reproduced from Maul 1993). Right top: Sea level measured at select

1). Right bottom: the rate of sea level 

1993).

ire observing and monitoring tools

e similar and different observations 

to address these requirements. The

orm the national Integrated Ocean 

nt COOS:

co

E

41
Data are integrated from a variety of established or new programs, including satellite data. Figure 4 

the needs of a specific user.

t this time, a variety of satellite-based measurements can be obtained concurrently and in real-time. 

atellites provide synoptic and repeated views of the areas of interest. They allow for spatial as well

temporal context for point measurements obtained by buoys, drifting platforms, or ships, and 

ey help validate model results. Since satellite data are inherently observations of only the surface of

e ocean, the other datasets are critical to understand the three-dimensional nature of the ocean.

mong the observations that can be made from satellite are sea surface temperature (SST) and

igment concentration (a measure of phytoplankton biomass, river plume dispersal patterns, or 

ther turbidity events (Fig. 5). Several satellites provide synoptic wind speed and direction 

easurements as well as a measure of the sea surface height. We are all familiar with how satellite 

ata can help track hurricanes and their impacts on the coastal ocean (Fig. 6). 

gives an example of a web-enabled mapping system which displays a variety of data layers according

to

A

S

as

th

th

A

p

o

m

d

Figure 4. Sample screen from a web-deployed observing system, namely the Southeast Coastal Ocean

Observing System (COOS).

42
Figure 5. Left: Satellite-derived seas surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, derived with the AVHHR 

sensors. Right: Satellite-derived pigment concentration derived with the SeaWiFS. 

Figure 6. SeaWiFS image sequence showing Hurricane Charley, which affected Florida and the West Florida

Shelf in August 2004. 

43
Important contributions from satellites are hig

d s like coral reefs. In particular, the Landsat,

POT, IKONOS and other high resolution images can help managers get very detailed spatial maps 

f coral reefs (Andréfouët et al. 2004a, b; Andréfouët and Riegl 2004). 

xamples of the application of high resolution satellite data to assess change in coral reef

mmunities over time are presented in Palandro et al. (2003a, b). A relevant example is shown in 

igure 7, which depicts a decrease in live coral reef cover in Carysfort reef since 1984, from about 

0% to less than 10% in the year 2000.

onclusions 

is important to move toward an ecosystem-based approach to address the problems of urban 

rowth, coral reef decline, pollution, fishing, and connectivity in the Florida Keys National Marine 

anctuary (FKNMS). Significant knowledge, experience, and infrastructure exist in South Florida 

The FKNMS should engage the Coastal Ocean Observing Systems of the region to address the 

issues of monitoring and scientific observation in the Florida Keys, including both the SEACOOS 

h spatial resolution images, which are useful to map

an monitor coastal zones and shallow submerged area

S

o

E

co

F

3

1984

N

1990 1994 1999 2000

1984

Coral Cover for Carysfort Reef

0

10

20

30

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Percen

Figure 7. Change in live coral reef cover in Carysfort Reef sine 1984. 

C

It

g

S

and in the Intra-Americas Sea region to assist in linking science and ecosystem management efforts 

in the FKNMS. 

40

50

60

t Coral

Landsat In Situ

KEY:

‘sand’

‘covered substrate’

‘bare substrate’

‘coral-dominated’

100m 1984

N

1990 1994 1999 2000

1984

Coral Cover for Carysfort Reef

0

10

20

30

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Percen 40

50

60

t Coral

Landsat In Situ

KEY:

‘sand’

‘covered substrate’

‘bare substrate’

‘coral-dominated’

KEY:

‘sand’

‘covered substrate’

‘bare substrate’

‘coral-dominated’

100m

44
(http://seacoos.org) and the GCOOS (http://gcoos.org) regional associations of the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS). This effort needs to include satellite remote sensing to achieve 

repeated and synoptic views of factors affecting the FKNMS and the changing conditions within the 

FKNMS. 

Acknowledgments 

This work was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAG5-10738). 

SeaWiFS data are property of Orbimage Corp., and their use here is in accordance with the SeaWiFS 

Research Data Use Terms and Conditions Agreement of the NASA SeaWiFS project. We thank the 

OAA/Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Elizabeth Johns) and University of 

ydrography data in this study.

eferences

ndréfouët, S., and B. Riegl. 2004. Remote sensing: a key-tool for interdisciplinary assessment of

coral reef processes. Coral Reefs 23:1-4. 

ndréfouët, S., P.J. Mumby, M. McField, C. Hu, and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2002. Revisiting coral reef

connectivity. Coral Reefs 21: 43-48. 

ndréfouët, S., E.J. Hochberg, C. Chevillon, F.E. Muller-Karger, J.C. Brock, and C. Hu. 2004a. 

Multi-scale remote sensing of coral reefs. In R.L. Miller, C.E.D. Castillo, and B.A. McKee, eds., 

Remote sensing of coastal aquatic environments. Springer, NY, pp. 297-315. 

ndréfouët, S., C. Payri, E. J. Hochberg, C. Hu, M.J. Atkinson, and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2004b. Use

of in situ and airborne reflectance for scaling-up spectral discrimination of coral reef macroalgae 

from species to communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 283: 161-177. 

irkeland, C. 1997. Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman & Hall, NY. 

ausey, B.D. 2002. The role of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. In J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, eds., The Everglades, Florida Bay,

and coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem source book. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 883-894. 

ostanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. deGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V.

O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. VanDenBelt. 1997. The value of the world’s 

ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. 

u, C., K.E., Hackett, M.K. Callahan, S. Andréfouët, J.L. Wheaton, J.W., Porter, and F.E. MullerKarger. 2003. The 2002 ocean color anomaly in the Florida Bight: a cause of local coral reef 

decline? Geoph

u, C., F.E. Muller-Kager, G.A. Vargo, M.B. Neely, and E. Johns. 2004. Linkages between coastal

runoff and the Florida Keys ecosystem: a study of a dark plume event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, 

L15307, doi:10.1029/2004GL020382. 

meson, S.C., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley. 2002. The three screen doors: can marine “protected” 

areas be effective? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44:1177-1183. 

ohns, D. Wilson, E. Williams, and N. Smith. 2002. Transport processes linking south 

dinger, J.H. Landsberg, C.R. Tomas, and G.A. Vargo, eds., Harmful algae 2002. 

Proceedings of the Xth International Conference on Harmful Algae. Florida Fish and Wildlife 

N

Miami/Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (Thomas Lee) for providing field 

h

R

A

A

A

A

B

C

C

H

ys. Res. Lett. 30(3): 1151, doi:10.1029/2002GL016479. 

H

Ja

Lee, T.N., E. J

Florida coastal ecosystems. In J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, eds., The Everglades, Florida Bay, and 

coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem source book. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 309-342. 

Neely, M.B., E. Bartels, J. Cannizzaro, K.L. Carder, P. Coble, D. English, C. Heil, C. Hu, J. Hunt, J. 

Ivey, G. McRae, E. Mueller, E. Peebles, and K. Steidinger. In press. Florida’s black water event.

In K.A. Stei

Conservation Commission, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO,

Florida Institute of Oceanography. 

45
Ortner, P.B., T.N. Lee, P.J. Milne, R.G. Zika, E. Clarke, G. Podesta, P.K. Swart, P.A. Tester, L.P.

Atkinson, and W.R. Johnson. 1995. Mississippi River flood waters that reached the Gulf Stream. 

J. Geophys. Res. 100: 13595-13601. 

Palandro, D., S. Andréfouët, P. Dustan, and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2003a. Change detection in coral 

reef communities using the Ikonos sensor and historic aerial photographs. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 24(4): 

873-878. 

Palandro, D., S. Andréfouët, F.E. Muller-Karger, P. Dustan, C. Hu, and P. Hallock 2003b. Detection

of changes in coral communities using Landsat 5/TM and Landsat 7/ETM+ data. Can. J. Rem. 

Sens. 29(2): 201-209 

SWFDOG. 2002. Satellite images track “black water” event off Florida coast. EOS, Trans. AGU 83: 

281, 285.

46
On the Connectivity and “Black Water” Phenomena near the FKNMS:

A Remote Sensing Perspective

Chuanmin Hu and Frank Muller-Karger 

tract

plum

FKNMS is located downstream of these areas, the dark water patches, which field sampling

confirmed may contain elevated nutrients and both colored living and non-living materials, lead to 

stress to the ecosystem. Waters from more remote sources, such as the Mississippi River and the 

Caribbean, routinely affect this region via ocean circulation patterns (e.g., the Loop Current). 

Florida’s red tides, which occur every year along the west coast, may also meander toward the Keys. 

The connectivity of the FKNMS to local and remote systems requires an integrated observing 

system to better understand the effects of these dark patches on the delicate coral reef ecosystem. 

Introduction 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is one of the nation’s premier marine 

protected areas, and it annually attracts 3 million tourists who spend $1.2 billion (Causey 2002). It is 

home to a major coral reef ecosystem and many important commercial and recreational fisheries, 

and it is a critical location for early larval development of a number of marine species. 

Similar to many other delicate marine ecosystems, the FKNMS is not isolated, but connected to the 

deep ocean, land, and the atmosphere through various processes including ocean circulation, 

terrestrial discharge, and atmospheric deposition (the “Three Screen Doors,” Jameson et al. 2002). 

The FKNMS is located in close proximity to an ever-growing urban South Florida environment and

to the pollutant source of the commercial agriculture interests of Central and South Florida. 

Therefore, this ecosystem is under significant environmental stress. Further, water-circulation brings 

other fresh water, such as that from the Mississippi River, to the Keys (Ortner et al. 1995). 

Recently, some “black water” events have been reported in the vicinity of the FKNMS (Hu et al.

2003, 2004; Neely et al. 2002; SWFDOG 2002). These are characterized as dark colored waters with

high concentrations of unicellular marine plants (phytoplankton) and yellow substance (colored

dissolved organic matter, CDOM) where fish seem to be absent according to numerous accounts. 

Adverse impacts on benthic habitats also seem to occur after a prolonged “black water” event, even

though the mechanism is not very clear (Hu et al., 2003). 

The cause of “black water” is still a research topic and requires an integrated study that combines 

multi-disciplinary observations and modeling. Because the FKNMS is located downstream of the 

Everglades, its discharge, and that from several other major rivers, a reasonable hypothesis is that 

“black water” is related to coastal runoff. Remote sensing is a powerful tool to study large-scale 

connectivity (Andréfouët et al. 2002), and we use it to examine how the FKNMS is connected to

other ecosystems. Specifically, we study the frequency of the dark water events and discuss future 

directions for an improved observing system. 

Abs

Satellite color images from SeaWiFS and MODIS for 1997-2004 were examined for dark water 

es and patches in coastal waters off southwest Florida including the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Most of these dark features appeared to originate with coastal runoff 

from the Everglades and from the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor and Sanibel Island. Because the

47
Meth

We used operationally availa ng data from the Moderate

esolution Imaging Spectrorad

f-View Sensor (SeaWiFS; rature (SST) data are from

ODIS and the Advanced

and archived in near real-time at the University of South Florida with standard algorithms 

ollection) to date. Some examples are shown here, and a complete series is available 

igure 1 shows some images where dark water plumes or patches can be found near the Florida 

all make

ater appear dark (their shades may be different). It is often possible to trace the dark water’s origin 

ods

ble ocean color satellite remote sensi

R iometer (MODIS; Esaias et al. 1999) and the Sea-viewing Wide Fieldo McClain et al. 1998), and sea surface tempe

M Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). These data were captured, 

processed,

as well as software developed in house, and broadcast via the internet to the public. Of particular 

interest were the color data, which yield information on water constituents including phytoplankton

abundance (through chlorophyll concentration), CDOM (through its absorption), total suspended 

sediment concentration, and bathymetry. As the algorithms to retrieve these parameters from 

satellite measurements are not robust in the complex coastal environment, products were used in a

relative sense. Specifically, coastal features were examined through three separate color bands (555 

or 551, 490, and 443 nm) after atmospheric effects were removed. Sun-stimulated phytoplankton

fluorescences from MODIS were also examined to determine whether features that absorbed blue 

light were phytoplankton blooms or not. SST data were used mainly to see if a feature was

associated with coastal upwelling. 

We examined the daily color imagery (1-km resolution) from September 1997 (beginning of 

SeaWiFS data c

upon request. 

Results and Discussion

F

Keys. The colors do not reflect the real colors when viewed with a human eye, but were manipulated

by computer to enhance the contrast between various features. For example, the dark color indicates

high concentrations of phytoplankton and/or CDOM. Further, the various colors can be used as

effective tracers to monitor water movement. 

The images show the complexity of the water environment and that dark water plumes or patches

are not uncommon off the South Florida coast. Coastal runoff, upwelling, and red tides can

w

to the coast following its distinctive color. For example, the images of 11/27/1997, 12/9/1997, 

10/28/2000, and 11/30/2002 show that the dark/brownish “streamers” originated from Everglades 

outflows. The images of 10/30/1998, 8/30/2001, 2/15/2003, and 10/21/2003 show the dark water 

flowed from the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor to the Dry Tortugas. The movement can be better

visualized if a series of images is animated. 

48
49
50
51

the dark water is not clear. For example, the early 2002 dark water event, as shown in the 2/4/2002

Figure 1. SeaWiFS images showing dark water plumes or patches near the Florida Keys. The RGB images

were constructed using water-leaving radiance at 555 nm (red), 490 nm (green), and 443 nm (blue). Land was

masked as grey and clouds white. The RGB data were stretched to show various features in the water, 

therefore the appearance does not represent the real color of water when viewed with a human eye. The

offshore blue color represents the dark blue ocean. The nearshore white color (except for clouds) shows

shallow water where bottom can be seen or also where high concentrations of suspended particles are present

in the water. The brown-red color represents high concentration of phytoplankton or non-living particles 

(this type of water often carries high amount of CDOM). Dark color indicates high concentrations of

phytoplankton and/or CDOM. In reality the dark color may appear as dark greenish or dark brownish water,

depending on the relative amount of the two substances. The images were arranged in the order of 3

panels/year from 1997 to 2003. See text for more details. 

The imagery illustrates the complexity of coastal circulation in the FKNMS region. For example, the 

4/20/2002 image shows that there is a wide band of dark water along the southwestern Florida 

coast. The image series shows that the water originated from the south, near the Florida Keys and

that the water moved from south to north, compared with the north-south water movement

direction usually seen in this area. 

Coastal runoff alone can result in dark water patches, as shown in Hu et al. (2004). Extreme climate 

conditions, such as higher than normal rainfall or heavy storms like hurricanes, may cause excessive 

coastal runoff from either river discharge or land drainage. This runoff may contain high 

concentrations of CDOM that strongly absorb sunlight, and high concentrations of nutrients that 

may stimulate phytoplankton blooms. For example, the dark water patches of 10/24/1999 and 

11/22/1999 were a result of excessive discharges from the Everglades after Hurricane Irene. The 

image of 6/17/1998 was a result of higher than normal discharge of the Suwannee River due to high

rainfall in the 1997-1998 El-Niño period (upwelling on the West Florida Shelf during the late spring 

and summer 1998 also likely contributed to this dark plume). 

The complete series showed that most of the dark patches occur in the fall, after the wet season of

Florida, and they clearly show the coastal origin. However, there are some cases when the origin of 
image, may be at least in part due to an earlier extensive red tide along the southwestern Florida

ep waters to the surface and stimulate 

hytoplankton blooms. Further, the Loop Current can advect waters of the Mississippi River plume 

coast (SWFDOG 2002). Indeed, red tide can appear dark in satellite color images, and it looks 

similar to water that contains non-toxic phytoplankton blooms and/or high concentrations of 

CDOM (Hu et al. submitted). It is presently very difficult to differentiate what substance(s) dark

color patches contain due to technical difficulties in satellite data processing (i.e., the algorithms to

obtain meaningful parameters from satellite measurements). Hu et al. (2004) showed that the 

MODIS fluorescence data helped identify a phytoplankton bloom in a dark patch (Fig. 2). However,

it is currently impossible to tell whether a bloom is toxic (red tide) or not. Certainly, field samples

under these circumstances are of great help to understand the composition of the water.

Figure 2. MODIS color imagery shows dark water plume from Charlotte Harbor to Dry Tortugas. (a)

Enhanced RGB composite showing the plume; (b) Fluorescence data showing high concentration of

phytoplankton in the upstream of the plume. Fluorescence increases from dark blue, light blue, green, yellow,

to red. 

In addition to local connectivity, ocean circulation brings “alien” waters to the Florida Keys. The 

Loop Current (Fratantoni et al. 1998) may bring waters from the Caribbean to the Florida coasts and

it may also create local eddies that “pump” nutrients from de

Charlotte 

Harbor 

p

to the Keys (Fig. 3). Similar river plume features were seen in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 

2004, respectively. The year 2002 was the only year between 1997 and 2004 that did not appear to 

feature a river plume that reached the Florida Keys, but during spring-summer, eastward and

Dry 

Tortugas 

Florida Keys (a) (b)

 25o

N 26o

N

26

No 2

5

No

 83oW 82oW 83oW 82oW

Oct. 20, 2003

MODIS/Aqua

Oct. 20, 2003

MODIS/Aqua

Fluor Line 

Height

Enhanced

RGB

83oW 82oW 83oW 82oW

52
southeastward movement of the Mississippi plume near the Mississippi Delta was observed. This

plume entered the West Florida Shelf and dissipated gradually. We believe it reached the Florida

Keys eventually. 

Episodic dark water events may be of no harm to the Florida Keys ecosystem, but prolonged events,

such as the one in early 2002 (Hu et al. 2003), seems to have been the cause of stress. For example, 

coral reef decline and benthic degradation followed the 2002 “black water” event. 

Figure 3. SeaWiFS color imagery on 4 August 2004 shows the Mississippi River plume that reaches the 

Florida Straits, following the path of the Loop Current.

Remote sensing cannot provide all the information needed to understand this complex ecosystem.

This requires an approach that integrates various observing technologies. Of particular importance is

field sampling, which can be used to study the vertical structure of the water mass, hydrography, 

composition of various phytoplankton species, and nutrient availability. Hu et al. (2004) illustrated 

how field information can be used to verify whether a dark patch is from coastal runoff

(characterized by low salinity) or generated by local upwelling. These observation/modeling efforts 

should be an integrated component in an effective management plan for coastal resources. This is 

particularly important for the FKNMS and also for the entire southwestern Florida ecosystem, as in 

53
the next 10 to 20 years Everglades restoration has the potential to impact the entire South Florida

coastal ecosystem, including coral reefs and fisheries. 

Conclusions 

oncentrations of

phytoplankton and/or colored dissolved organic matter, rich in coastal runoff. 

e 

e 

cosystem Restoration Initiative. In J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, eds., The Everglades, Florida Bay,

, J.W. Campbell, K.L. Carder, D.K. Clark, R.H.

Evans, F.E. Hoge, H.R. Gordon, W.M. Balch, R. Letelier, and P.J. Minnett. 1998. An overview 

We examined the complete daily image series from SeaWiFS and MODIS covering the period of

September 1997 – September 2004 looking for dark water patches in southwestern Florida coastal 

waters near the Florida Keys. The dark color is an indication of high c

Dark water patches in this area are not uncommon, as revealed by the satellite imagery. Their 

appearance, frequency, timing, duration, and spatial extent vary. Generally, more dark patches ar

found in the fall than in the spring, likely resulting from coastal runoff after the rain season.

However, Florida’s late summer/fall red tides, which occur every year (although their intensity and

coverage vary from year to year), may also contribute to the dark color. The situation is further

complicated when discharges from remote rivers such as the Suwannee and the Mississippi may 

reach the Florida Keys. 

Clearly, the FKNMS is not isolated, but connected to other ecosystems (Lee et al. 2002). An 

integrated observing system that combines remote sensing, field observation and modeling is 

important to understand the various processes that may affect the FKNMS. In particular, a fast 

response team to study anomalous events is required to better understand the nature, origin, and 

impact of these events on the local ecosystem. 

Acknowledgments 

This work was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAG5-10738). 

SeaWiFS data are property of Orbimage Corp., and their use here is in accordance with the SeaWiFS 

Research Data Use Terms and Conditions Agreement of the NASA SeaWiFS project. We thank th

NOAA/ Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Elizabeth Johns) and University

of Miami/Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (Thomas Lee) for providing field 

hydrography data in this study.

References 

Andréfouët, S., P.J. Mumby, M. McField, C. Hu, and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2002. Revisiting coral reef

connectivity. Coral Reefs 21: 43-48. 

Causey, B.D. 2002. The role of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the South Florida 

E

and coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem source book. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 883-894. 

Esaias, W.E., M.R. Abbott, I. Barton, O.B. Brown

of MODIS capabilities for ocean science observations. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 36: 1250-

1265. 

Fratantoni, P.S., T.N. Lee, G.P. Podesta and F. Muller-Karger. 1998. The influence of Loop Current 

variability on the formation and evolution of cyclonic eddies in the southern Straits of Florida. J. 

Geophys. Res. 103: 24759-24779. 

Hu, C., K.E., Hackett, M.K. Callahan, S. Andréfouët, J.L. Wheaton, J.W., Porter, and F.E. MullerKarger. 2003. The 2002 ocean color anomaly in the Florida Bight: a cause of local coral reef 

decline? Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(3): 1151, doi:10.1029/2002GL016479. 

54
Hu, C., F.E. Muller-Kager, G.A. Vargo, M.B. Neely, and E. Johns. 2004. Linkages between coastal

runoff and the Florida Keys ecosystem: a study of a dark plume event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, 

L15307, doi:10.1029/2004GL020382. 

rssen, F.E. Muller-Karger, K.L. Carder, and C.A. Heil. Submitted. In search of red 

ocesses linking south 

Florida coastal ecosystems. In J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, eds., The Everglades, Florida Bay, and 

th International Conference on Harmful Algae. Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, 

ater” event off Florida coast. EOS, Trans. AGU 83: 

281, 285.

Hu. C., R. Lue

tides: observations on the west Florida shelf. Cont. Shelf Res.

Jameson, S.C., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley. 2002. The three screen doors: can marine “protected” 

areas be effective? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44: 1177-1183. 

Lee, T.N., E. Johns, D. Wilson, E. Williams, and N. Smith. 2002. Transport pr

coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem source book. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 309-342. 

McClain, C.R., M.L. Cleave, G.C. Feldman, W.W. Gregg, S.B. Hooker, and N. Kuring. 1998. Science 

quality SeaWiFS data for global biosphere research. Sea Technol. 39: 10-16. 

Neely, M.B., E. Bartels, J. Cannizzaro, K.L. Carder, P. Coble, D. English, C. Heil, C. Hu, J. Hunt, J. 

Ivey, G. McRae, E. Mueller, E. Peebles, and K. Steidinger. In press. Florida’s black water event.

In K.A. Steidinger, J.H. Landsberg, C.R. Tomas, and G.A. Vargo, eds., Harmful algae 2002. 

Proceedings of the X

Florida Institute of Oceanography. 

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

Atkinson, and W.R. Johnson. 1995. Mississippi River flood waters that reached the Gulf Stream. 

J. Geophys. Res. 100: 13595-13601. 

SWFDOG. 2002. Satellite images track “black w

55
East-West Connections in the Gulf of Mexico 

Tracy Villareal

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary lies at the easternmost reaches of the Gulf of Mexico, 

and is influenced by the continuum of global and regional processes affecting the biology and 

chemistry of the Gulf. Some of these processes influences are well upstream of the Keys and

operate through biological cascades. The linkages are often indirect and highlight the complexities

inherent in the Keys ecosystem and its connections to the world around it. 

accu

orig

spe

con

to b

inputs. In the Gulf of Mexico, dust inputs 

are now suggested to be linked to blooms 

of the fish-killing dinoflagellate, Karenia

brevis (Walsh and Steidinger 2001). The links

are complex and require iron to stimulate 

nitrogen fixation in the cyanobacterium

Trichodesmium (Fig. 1 [= Fig. 5]). 

Figure 1. Dust cloud inputs and outbreaks of

red tides. Figure 5 from Walsh and Steindinger 

(2001). 

This nitrogen is then made available to 

Karenia to support the annual blooms that 

often cover hundreds to thousands of km2. 

Such blooms also occur along the Texas 

coast, and in at least one case where data is

available, followed dust inputs (Biegalski 

and Villareal 2005). 

The Keys lie in a latitudinal band of prevailing westerly winds and are downwind of the North 

Atlantic Ocean. Vast dust clouds from Africa (Sahara dust) are transported across the Atlantic

Ocean annually and can produce spectacular sunsets from Florida to Texas. Darwin noted dust

mulation on the H.M.S. Beagle during his voyage, and correctly speculated that it was of African 

in (Darwin 1860). These dust inputs are linked to both global climatological events and regioncific biological responses. Ice core records note dust concentration is inversely related to CO2

centrations suggesting a linkage between global temperature, climate properties, and aeolian

transport. These planetary-scale events have direct relevance to the Gulf of Mexico through the 

potential for changing heat balances, wind fields, and current flow. In addition, iron is now known 

e biologically available at only vanishingly low concentrations, and climatological changes in

recent years have led to elevated inputs into the ocean that may be related to biological changes 

(Hayes et al. 2001). Dust inputs provide iron to the ocean, and in many places, are the dominant

56
Karenia blooms rarel reported. There is

much speculation in the harmful algal bloom literature that ocean warming will lead to altered 

current patterns (Tester 1993; Zingone a 00). When presented with a scenario of

a level rise, it is reasonable to consid

ust (Hayes et al. 2001). 

 historical outbreaks of coral disease 

y penetrate the Keys, although limited fish-kills have been

nd Enevoldsen 20

se er that current patterns off south Florida could alter

considerably as well and lead to increased exposure of the FKNMS to icthyotoxic dinoflagellate 

blooms. 

Recent work has suggested that these dust clouds also carry pathogens that are linked to coral 

diseases (Shinn et al. 2000; Fig. 2). While there is a climatological link to dust inputs in the geological

record, it is also apparent that human activity has a direct link to d

Desertification, both as a result of poor agricultural practices and global climate change, can be 

expected to lead to increased dust inputs in the future. While the consequences cannot be predicted

clearly, the evidence suggests that these global scale phenomena will provide great challenges for the 

management of the FKNMS. 

Figure 2. Dust cloud inputs and

(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Dust). D

Prospero. 

Even in the absence of climate change, currents of th

ust input data provided to this link by Dr. J. 

e

between the various regions. The Loop Current sweeps

Yucatan and exits as the Florida Current south of the

path while in the Gulf of Mexico. As noted elsewhere in

penetration of the Loop Current into the Gulf can ch er time, and significant 

changes in phytoplankton are noted as a result. Meanders pinch off to form mesoscale rings and 

eddies with lifetimes of months to years (Fig. 3B). These eddies drift westward across the Gulf and

eventually dissipate in the eddy “graveyard” of the northwestern Gulf. In their wake, cyclonic eddies 

spin up and produce doming on isotherms, nutrient injection into the euphotic zone, and greater 

biological production (Biggs and Müller-Karger 1994). In a manner analogous to the warm-core and

Gulf of Mexico provide hydrographic links

into the Gulf of Mexico between Cuba and 

Keys (Fig. 3A), but covers a highly variable

this volume by Drs. Muller-Karger and Hu, 

ange dramatically ov

57
cold-core rings of western boundary currents, the eddies of the Gulf of Mexico transport areas of 

distinct biological production across the Gulf. Unlike the rings of western boundary currents, the 

cores of the eddies are probably not transporting a flora and fauna from a different biological region 

into another. However, they do introduce a common flora and fauna into the eastern and western 

Gulf. 

The Gulf of Mexico produces nearly one-quarter of the U.S. output of petroleum. Over 95% of 

nation’s pr

Figure 3. Average currents and

mesoscale features. 

A. “Average” circulation in the

Gulf of Mexico. Modified 

from Tester and Steidinger

(1997). 

B. Snapshot of sea surface

height showing the complex 

pattern of highs (anticylonic

circulation) and lows

(cyclonic circulation). Data

from CCAR, published in

Quarterdeck 

(www.ocean.tamu.edu/Quart

erdeck/QD6.1/spin.html). 

A 

B 

oduction on the outer continental shelf comes from the Gulf of Mexico. This activity 

requires the placement of oil production platforms (OPPs) along with a complex network of

pipelines. At present, approximately 4,000 platforms are located in the Gulf of Mexico with the 

majority of these platforms located off Louisiana and Texas (Dauterive 2000). In addition, several 

hundred artificial reefs are distributed from Florida to Texas (Fig. 4). Both OPPs and artificial reefs 

are known as sites of enhanced fish populations. In addition, OPPs provide hard substrate in a 

region (the northwestern Gulf) noted for soft bottoms, and can notably alter the surrounding 

benthos independent of pollution effects (Montagna et al. 2002). The increase has been dramatic

since the first rig was placed in 1942 (Pulsipher et al. 2001). Systematic surveys funded by the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) have found a variety of species commonly associated with

coral reef systems. While not all OPPs are located in regions favorable for coral reef species, there 

58
clearly is now a subset of coral reef species, both invertebrate and vertebrate, in a region where they

would previously have been very rare or non-existent. 

Figure 4. Coral reefs, oil production platforms and artificial re f data from ReefBase, oil

production platforms from MMS, and artificial reef data from state rated using 

PANMAP. 

There are biological consequences that stem from this habitat alteration. Tagging data available from 

Fishtrackers, Inc. (Corpus Christi, TX) indicate that barracuda can traverse the entire width of the

Gulf of Mexico. While only 4 of 432 fish were recovered, three of these fish had migrated from 

Texas to Florida waters, or vice versa (Fig. 5). Barracuda are structure-oriented species that migrate 

efs. Coral ree

websites. The map was gene

in response to seasonal warming (De Sylva 1963). While they are reported from the older literature 

from Texas and Louisiana (Colby 1943), OPPs are remarkable for the size and number of barracuda 

around them. Spearfishers regularly report dozens of fish around rigs. Given the natural history of

barracuda and the tagging data, it is reasonable to conclude that OPPs have provided a novel means

(“stepping stone”) for barracuda to easily move in the waters of the western Gulf of Mexico. It is 

likely that other large, mobile predators do the same. With eddies introducing flora and fauna, 

coastal currents moving species from rig to rig, and fish migrations, it is hard to ignore the potential

for OPPs to provide significant genetic exchange with regions as far away as the FKNMS. The MMS 

has called the oil fields of the northwestern Gulf the largest artificial reef complex in the world

(Dauterive 2000). The artificial reefs in the Gulf expand this complex even further and provide a 

ring of structures around the Gulf (Fig. 4). 

59
Fi onal

t

s

, 

(1992). 

e east (Florida), it is clear that new habitats of man-made 

gure 5. Movement of tagged barracuda across the Gulf of Mexico. Tags were implanted by recreati

fishers. Data from Steve Qualia, FishTrackers, Inc.

There are implications for human health from these east-west linkages. Ciguatera is a disease tha

occurs when humans consume fish containing ciguatoxin and is endemic in coral reef system

throughout the world (Lewis 2001). Ciguatoxin is produced by the dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus toxicus

a tropical species that occurs in coral reef ecosystems, and is concentrated in upper level predators 

by food-web amplification (Fig. 6). 

Figure 6. Ciguatera food web showing the 

food web amplification of ciguatoxin from 

the source dinoflagellate. After Kelley et al. 

There is no clear historical record of

ciguatera in the northwestern Gulf,

although early workers were aware of 

the disease (Colby 1943). The disease

has been reported from the tropics for 

centuries and the temperature range of 

the northwestern Gulf falls within a

moderate risk category (Pottier et al.

2001). Both Texas and Louisiana have reported cases of ciguatera in the past 20 years (Inst. of 

Medicine 1991), although only the Texas case is known with certainty to have originated from an 

OPP (Bogart and Perrotta 1989). Several additional cases have surfaced recently and were associated

with locally caught fish (Villareal et al. 2006). In a recent survey for ciguatoxin in Texas barracuda 

(Villareal et al. 2007), 2 of 20 barracuda tested positive for ciguatoxin at trace levels (< 0.15 ppb). G. 

toxicus has been found on all OPPs examined. While it cannot be said with certainty whether the 

species came from the south (Mexico) or th

60
origin are spreading components of coral reef species around the Gulf of Mexico in ways that did

 of Mexico. 

 Ocean to 

clear how th

References 

 Nuclear 

Chem.

 99: 

. 

tural History Library edition (1962), L. Engle, ed. 

itchell, J.M. Prospero, E.A. Shinn, R.F. Van Dolah, and R.T. 

Barber. 2001. How are climate and marine biological ou

y

Kelly, A.M., C.C. Kohler, and D.R. Tindall. 1992. Are crustaceans linked to the ciguatera food 

chain? Environ. Biol. Fish. 33: 275-286.

Lewis, R.J. 2001. The changing face of ciguatera. Toxicon 39:

Montagna, P.A., S.C. Jarvis, and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2002. D

reef effects on meiofauma near offshore hydrocarbon

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 1584-1592. 

Pottier, I., J.P.Vernoux, and R.J. Lewis. 2001. Ciguatera fish

western Atlantic. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toixicol. 168: 99-1

Pulsipher, A.G., O.O. lledare, D.V. Mesyanzhinov, A. dupo

numbers of offshore platforms on the Gulf of Mexico

not exist a century ago. 

In summary, a variety of global and regional processes link the FKNMS and the Gulf

These range from global scale phenomenon such as dust clouds traversing the Atlantic

fish movements around the Gulf. The Sanctuary exists in the broader environment of the Gulf of 

Mexico and is not independent of this larger regional context. For many of these linkages, it is not 

ey affect the Keys, or whether the Keys are source or sink. 

Biegalski, S.R., and T.A. Villareal. 2005. Correlations between atmospheric aerosol trace element 

concentrations and red tide at Port Aransas, Texas on the Gulf of Mexico. J. Radioanal.

 263: 767-772. 

Biggs, D.C., and F.E. Müller-Karger. 1994. Ship and satellite observations of chlorophyll stocks in 

interacting cyclone-anticyclone eddy pairs in the western Gulf of Mexico. J. Geophy. Res.

7371-7384. 

Bogart, J.N., and D.M. Perrotta. 1989. Ciguatera intoxication from Texas gulf coast fish [letter]

Texas Medicine 85: 15. 

Colby, M.C. 1943. Poisonous marine animals in the Gulf of Mexico. Trans. Texas Acad. Sci. 26: 62-69.

Darwin, C. 1860 The Voyage of the Beagle, Na

Doubleday, New York. 

Dauterive, L. 2000. Rigs-to-reefs policy, progress and perspective. OCS Report, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA: 1-8. 

De Sylva, D.P. 1963. Systematics and life history of the Great Barracuda Sphyraena barracuda

(Walbaum). Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. Miami 1: 1-179. 

Hayes, M.L., J. Bonaventura, T.P M

tbreaks functionally linked? Hydrobiologia

Press, Washington, DC.

460: 213-220. 

Institute of Medicine. 1991. Seafood safety. National Academ

97-106.

istinguishing between contaminant and

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Can. J. 

poisoning in the Caribbean islands and

41.

nt, and Q.L. Zhu. 2001. Forecasting the

OCS to the year 2023. OCS Report MMS 

2001-013, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. 

Shinn, E.A., G.W. Smith, J.M. Prospero, P. Betzer, M.L. Hayes, V. Garrison, and R.T. Barber. 2000. 

African dust and the demise of Caribbean coral reefs. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27: 3029-3032. 

Tester, P.A. 1993. Gymnodinium breve and global warming: what are the possibilities? In T.J. Smayda 

and Y. Shimizu, eds. Toxic phytoplankton blooms in the sea. Elsevier, NY, pp. 76-82. 

Tester, P.A., and K.A. Steidinger. 1997. Gymnodinium breve red tide blooms: initiation, transport, and

consequences of surface circulation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 1039-1051. 

61
Villareal, T.A., G. Luber, and L. Backer. 2006. Surveillance for ciguatera fish poisoning in

recreational fishers utilizing Texas Gulf Coast oil rigs. In C. Scholin, ed. Third symposium on 

Harmful algae in the U.S., Oct. 2-7, 2005, Pacific Grove, CA, p. 152. 

lgal blooms: a challenge for

science and management. Ocean Coast. Manage. 43: 725-748. 

Villareal, T.A., S. Hanson, S. Qualia, and R.L. Dickey. 2007. Petroleum production platforms as sites

for the expansion of ciguatera in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 6: 253-259. 

Walsh, J.J., and K.A. Steidinger. 2001. Saharan dust and Florida red tides: the cyanophyte

connection. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans 106: 11597-11612. 

Zingone, A., and H.O. Enevoldsen. 2000. The diversity of harmful a

62
Connectivity of the Coastal Waters Surrounding the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Elizabeth Johns, Peter B. Ortner, and Thomas N. Lee 

NOAA’s South Florida Program (SFP) has provided sustained interdisciplinary observations of the 

interconnected marine ecosystems of South Florida since 1995. The scientific goals of the SFP are:

• To yield greater insight into the complex coupled ecosystems of South Florida coastal waters 

• To provide real-time current and water quality data to support and validate regional 

circulation models 

• To monitor and understand the causes of physical/chemical/biological “event scale”

variability in South Florida coastal waters 

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the major regional currents, the Loop Current/Gulf Stream and the 

Tortugas Gyre, as well as the SFP sampling regime as of 2005. The regional scale bimonthly survey 

track, conducted using the University of Miami’s larger coastal research catamaran the R/V F.G. 

Walton Smith (Fig. 2), is shown in black. Monthly survey tracks for Florida and Biscayne Bays,

conducted using the University of Miami’s small research catamaran the R/V Virginia K (Fig. 3), are 

shown in blue and red. Shipboard measurements include temperature, salinity, chlorophyll

fluorescence, light transmittance, and nutrients. 

Figure 1. Diagram of major regional currents, the Tortugas Gyre, and instrument locations and cruise tracks. 

63
Figure mith.

ern coast of Florida Bay. Figure 6 shows a similar 

alinity map 2002. The freshwater 

fluence of the numerous canals transporting water from the South Florida peninsula into the Bay 

apparent in this map. Maps such as these shown, as well as data files, are posted regularly to the 

FP web site at www.aoml.noaa.gov/sfp/data.shtml

2. R/V F.G. Walton S

Figure 3. R/V Virginia K. 

Figure 4 shows a representative salinity map from a survey conducted in February 2004. Lower 

salinities along the southwest Florida coast and in Florida and Biscayne Bays are indicative of

freshwater sources in the Everglades. A direct connection between the mouth of the Shark River

and western Florida Bay is evident in the salinity pattern. Figure 5 shows a salinity map from a 

Florida Bay survey conducted in October 1999 after the passage of Hurricane Irene. Point sources

of freshwater are evident along the entire north

s from a monthly survey of Biscayne Bay, conducted in July

in

is

S . 

igure 4. Surface 

alinity measured using 

 flow-through 

ermosalinograph 

uring the February

004 bimonthly 10-day

urvey. Fresh-water

ources along the

outhwest Florida

oast and in northern

lorida Bay are

vident.

F

s

a

th

d

2

s

s

s

c

F

e

64
Figure 5. Monthly,

two-day interdisciplinary surveys of 

Florida Bay, initiated

in 1996, provide a 

history of inputs to the

Bay. This survey

revealed low-salinit

areas following the

passage of Hurricane

Irene.

y 

presentative drifter trajectories, indicative 

hese trajectories

upstream connection

ters of the southwest 

ay, and the FKNMS, 

eam connection of the 

. east coast via the 

ream system. Figure 9

at a drifter that was

mp in the Dry

in August 2002. This trajectory

learly shows the Tortugas Gyre. Gyres such 

this are believed to be very important for

e retention and dispersal of larval fish, 

iny lobster, and shrimp because they allow

e larvae to remain in the vicinity of the 

ursery grounds for longer than they would if they were entrained directly into the Gulf Stream. 

rifter data and trajectory maps are posted automatically in near real-time to the SFP web site at

ww.aoml.noaa.gov/sfcoo/SFP_drifters

Figure 6. Similar monthly interdisciplinary 

surveys of Biscayne Bay were initiated in the 

summer of 2002. The one-day survey track is

designed to resolve all significant freshwater 

inputs along the western shoreline of the Bay.

In addition to the hydrographic cruise data,

satellite-tracked surface drifters (Fig. 7) are 

deployed at three locations marked on 

Figure 1. Figure 8 shows a set of seasonally 

re

of the predominantly win

currents in the region. T

demonstrate the direct

between the coastal wa

Florida shelf, Florida B

as well as the downstr

FKNMS with the U.S

Loop Current/Gulf St

shows a closer look

deployed at Riley’s Hu

Tortugas

d-driven subtidal

c

as

th

sp

th

n

D

w . The accumulated data set provides a clear demonstration

of the connectivity of the waters of the FKNMS with remote upstream and downstream regions. 

65
Figure 7. Satellite-tracked surface

deployed during bimonthly cruises off

coast near the mouth of the Shark Rive

in the Tortugas South Ecological Res

deployed during events such as red t

Florida coast.

Observing System is a network of real-time, in situ

s. As part of the South Florida Program, several realrecently been added to the existing array of

the FKNMS, and more are planned. Real-time data

d on the SFP project web site listed above. 

drifter. Drifters are

the southwest Florida

r and at Riley’s Hump,

erve. Drifters are also

ides off the southwest

F

Figure 8. Representative seasonal trajectories

of satellite-tracked surface drifters 

Finally, a key element of any Coastal Ocean

oceanographic and meteorological instrument

time moored oceanographic stations have

meteorological and oceanographic sensors in

from the moored array are automatically poste

Figure 9. This drifter was 

deployed at Riley’s Hump,

in the Tortugas South

Ecological Reserve. After

slowly drifting to the 

northwest, the drifter

became entrained in the

Loop Current, made one 

transit in the Tortugas Gyre,

and then rapidly exited the

area in the Florida Current.

66
The real-time moored array consists of several elements: 

(

records current profiles over the water co

well as surface and bottom temperat

surface salinity. The location of the Lo

station is ideal for monitoring the Florida

as it meanders closer to the reef, and also for 

monitoring reverse (westward) flows associated

with eddies and countercurrents. Extreme events 

such as the passages of tropical cyclones are also

clearly evident in the Looe Key record. 

(2) A station at Moser Channel under the Seven-Mile

and water quality parameters such as light transmit

critical to monitoring any flows of southwest Fl

es toward the coral reefs of the FKNMS. When coupled with estimates of 

urrent direction and magnitude through the passages derived from sea level and wind data from 

nearby C-MAN stations after calibration using current m

tool for monitoring these possibly harmful flows in real-t

milar to that located in Moser Channel is planned for Long Key Channel and will be used to 

mperature,

conductivity, and

s. 

(1) A spar buoy located at Looe Key Fig. 10)

lumn as

ure and

oe Key

Current

F

Figure 10. Spar buoy at Looe Key.

 Bridge (Fig. 11) records temperature, salinity, 

tance and chlorophyll fluorescence. This station is 

orida shelf and/or Florida Bay waters as they move 

through the Keys passag

c

eter and shipboard data in the passages, a

ime becomes a possibility. Another station

si

examine any significant differences between the flows through the two passages. 

Figure 11. The Seven-Mile

Bridge location for realtime te

fluorometry sensor

Communications are via

cellular phone technology, 

with data delivered directly 

to a web server at AOML.

These observations

provide continuous water

quality data to be used in 

conjunction with real-time,

sea-level-derived transport

through Keys passages. 

67
(3) In collaboration with NOAA’s National Undersea Research

Center (NURC) and the University of North Carolina at 

off Key Largo, Florida (Fig. 12) will be 

emperature, salinity, water quality, dissolved 

and directional wave sensors. Data from the 

ll be made available to the numerous coral reef 

duct studies in the area. The data will also be 

nded web site that takes into consideration the 

of the commercial and recreational fishing, 

dustries, educators, and the general public.

Figure 12. NOAA’s A rius buoy and underwater laboratory. 

onitoring the often

omplex and inter-related oceanographic and meteorological events that occur in South Florida

of the FKNMS. 

Wilmington (UNCW

in the coral reefs

instrumented with t

oxygen, and current

Aquarius station wi

researchers who con

presented at an expa

needs and interests

diving and boating in

), the undersea laboratory “Aquarius” located

qua

Recognizing the importance of real-time data availability, future plans for the evolution of the SFP 

into the South Florida Regional Observing System (SF-ROS) include: 

• Additional water quality and wave height instrumentation at existing real-time locations 

• An expanded network of real-time oceanographic moorings in the Dry Tortugas, in the 

FKNMS, along the lower southwest Florida shelf, and in Florida and Biscayne Bays 

• Increased rapid-response event sampling cued by real-time mooring/platform data and 

satellite sea surface temperature, ocean color, and altimetry 

Real-time observations such as those described here are critically important for m

c

marine ecosystems, and also for assisting with NOAA’s goal of science-based resource management 

68
Panel Discussion

i

is quite clear that this is a datadata are becoming more and m

would like to do now is have a

panelists. Richard. 

Richard Grathwohl: Dr. Johns

take a lot of customers from u

water released from Lake Okeec

die, mangroves die, and they ha to

be able to monitor these pulses when they come out of Okeechobee? 

Johns: Yes, we do have plans to do that. We have done one or two follow-up event cycles, maybe 

two years ago, when there was a vel of the

lake. We took a small boat up there, did some surveying, and put a drifter in there. We thought we 

con few

extr

ought t ey have

som h

to meet ing able to do that.

Johns: That is a great idea and in several areas it has been successfully used, and we do collaborate 

with the University of Miami on a cruise ship, the Explorer of the Seas, which has a full suite of 

oceanographic and meteorological instrumentation. But I am not aware of any ships of opportunity 

in the area that we are talking about that could be used that way, like a ferry or anything like that. 

Muller-Karger: Yes, definitely. In the New England area they have done this a lot more, we are 

now taking advantage of this, too. The Explorer of the Seas is one example and there are several

gambling boats [laughter] that go out in federal waters every day, and they spend quite a good part 

of the day there. We are trying to work with them and see if we can use them as a platform. 

Rankin: We just found it was a really good control for capturing events, and that it was easier than

using fishermen. 

Muller-Karger: What we need, of course, is a sponsor, and we are hoping that the gambling

industry themselves [tittering] will help. 

Keller: Thank you very much L bby. I would like the four panelists to please come up to the table. It

rich area, just from this first panel, and furthermore, a lot of those 

ore publicly accessible, which I think is really significant. What we 

bout 15 minutes where the floor is open for any questions for the 

, I am Richard Grathwohl from the Marathon Guides Association. I 

p around Ft. Myers and Naples, and they say that when pulses of 

hobee flow down the Caloosahatchee River, they have seen seagrass 

ve also seen manatees die in the river. I wonder if – are we going

planned release because they were concerned about the le

had the timing right, when the water was going to come out. This is kind of a tricky business; there 

is a lag, of course. We had been working with the people in the South Florida Water Management 

District and also USGS, and we all thought – it was a little bit disappointing that one time – but the

cept is definitely to be able to go out and respond to exactly that type of event. We have a

a drifters sitting in the warehouse, so we are able to throw one in unexpectedly. Perhaps we 

o get into communication with a wider group of people who can call us up if th

et ing. We want to get a shorter time frame for the alert part of this whole business. We all go 

ings about this constantly. I think we are getting closer to be

Kelly Rankin: Kelly Rankin from the Stevens Institute. We were going for New York Harbor, and 

we initialized some modeling, collecting data, trying to get it real time. What we found was really 

helpful, and that was putting instruments on ferries, doing transects across the Hudson. Is there any 

effort to do that?

69
Keller: I wanted to ask, I’m not sur fact that apparently there have been

lackwater events going on – we knew about the one that occurred more than a century ago with

w – and that was one that caught a lot of public attention – we know we have 

en dark water patches even before that, but they are so short-lived and they are not usually that 

ing. Is there anything in place 

perhaps get more tagging for barracuda, or something, to find out more about that extreme eastt question. I

anted to ask you – this is for the Gulf of Mexico – about the connectivity issue for larval transport,

can’t give you a short answer to that. There are some efforts going on. The

esoamerican Barrier Reef is the focus of at least a couple of very large World Bank funding efforts 

tal

cean Commission has tried to do this for many, many, many years. The IOC, the IFRE, the 

ther the 

hiteWater2BlueWater effort. That is exactly the kind of thing that WW2BW should do, but I have 

e their mouth is.

ear a tarpon story that matches the barracuda story, so we 

ill welcome you back in about 10 or 15 minutes.

e, maybe Dr. Hu: the

b

reports from the Dry Tortugas. Why such a massive, in-your-face phenomenon, occurred for so 

long with not much public notice until just a couple of years ago? Any ideas?

Hu: I cannot say for sure, but I believe that one of the reasons that we didn’t see this event as

intense up until no

se

intense and that big. We have a time series from 1978 to 1986, and I think the answer is that people

saw this earlier, and it will happen offshore. 

Keller: That was probably an unfair question [laughter], but I also wanted to ask Tracy – the 

information on the movements of those three barracuda was fascinat

to

west exchange? 

Villareal: No, I think these were largely fortuitous data. This is a program sponsored by the Texas

Department of Wildlife, mostly looking at the important recreational fisheries, red drum and the 

local fish. The fishermen enthusiastically just tagged everything that they could catch [laughter]. I 

think that for this to be replicated you would need a lot more training and specific handling 

techniques for these large fish, because they don’t like being caught, they don’t deal with it very 

gracefully. The short answer is no, there’s nothing else in place.

Roger Griffis: I am Roger Griffis with the NOAA Coral program. I was fascinated to see these 

regional connections with the imagery there – it is so powerful, but that’s a differen

w

which is so important. Are there similar regional efforts south of here? You have mentioned the

Gulf and the Atlantic, but are there other comparable efforts going on in other nations? 

Muller-Karger: I

M

in trying to develop monitoring systems, and at least a modeling system that Libby talked about for 

that area between Jamaica and Honduras and the Yucatan peninsula, and there are other models. In 

terms of having an observing system that has physical and especially publicly available real-time

information outlets, that doesn’t exist right now. We are trying to get – the Intergovernmen

O

regional entity – they have been talking about doing this for at least 10 years, and it has been very

difficult to organize the region into doing this. We are making some progress, but we are not there 

yet, by a long shot. I think also, one of the two things that needs to happen, and is actually

happening, at least in words, is that NOAA and EPA and the State Department put toge

W

no idea what has happened since that meeting in Miami. They have the right idea; they need to put 

their money wher

Keller: Alright, thank you very much to all the panelists [applause]. The next panel, on fishing, will 

occur right after the break. We might h

w

70
Connectivity between People and 

Marine Fishery Resources

Moderator: Joanne Delaney
Connectivity between People and Marine Fishery Resources

Jerry Ault, Sandy Moret, Doug Gregory, Doug Kelly, and Jim Bohnsack 

anne Delaney 

onnectivity between people and the marine fishery resource. I just want to note that we have had a 

ouple of speaker changes, so please note that you’ll be hearing from Dr. Jerry Ault, who is going to

earhead things during this session, and then we’ll hear from Mr. Sandy Moret. After that Doug 

Gregory is here fro r. Tom Davidson,

representing Bonef m Bohnsack with 

NOAA Fisheries. 

Jerry Ault 

hank you. I’m Jerry Ault. I thought it was a great prelude to talk about the physical and early 

rganic interconnections that exist in the Keys. What we really want to talk about today is the higher 

order of organization of connectivity, and it involves people – humans, who think we are the most

organized of all, and marine resources, which have a base of understanding that has existed in time 

and space much longer than any of us can think about. Fishes appeared over 300 million years ago 

in the geological record. Our scientific sampling of an entire year is like a speck of dust, and so 

gaining perspective about resources is a challenge. 

I am going to draw on human connections through time, that is, reef fishery use. Exploitation of the 

reef fishery ecosystem goes back at least to Native Americans, the oldest records we have, so

thousands of years of use that are beyond our direct knowledge. Secondarily, within the last few 

hundred years, folks came down to the Keys from New York, Chicago, etc. in the 1800s, writing 

about how beautiful this resource was – the first intrepid explorers. Flagler and his friends made sure 

that we had access to it. The other thing is the connections that have been written about by some of

the most famous writers of all times, Zane Grey, Ernest Hemingway, etc. really extolled the virtues

of this place. So the connection between people and resources goes a long way back and it is a value

system. It is a system that is valued not only around the local region, but around the U.S. and around

the world. It is a focal point for energy consumption and sustainability. 

The issue comes to numbers. An earlier speaker talked about the numbers. These are real numbers 

generated by the NOAA economics group that looked at the reef fishery – reef system, and of 

course it involved fisheries, tourism, etc. The South Florida coral reef generated 71,000 jobs and $6 

billion in U.S. economic activity in 2001. That’s a mind-blower – these are large numbers and they

are significant. They also contributed to the designation of Florida as “Fishing Capital of the World” 

by the State legislature for very obvious reasons. There is a rich mix of species across a broad range 

of habitats within the ecosystem that generates significant social and economic well-being that the 

State thinks is a big deal. But the problem I think that we are going to be talking about in this 

session is the goods and services that we derive from the system. I think that Elliott did a very nice 

job of laying out problems – ecosystem goods and services are threatened by increased exploitation 

and environmental changes from what we perceive and realize are a rapidly growing human

population that loves Florida as much as we do. 

Jo

C

c

sp

m Sea Grant, then Mr. Doug Kelly is here on behalf of M

ish & Tarpon Unlimited, and lastly we’ll hear from Dr. Ji

T

o

72
Now I have my Reader’s Digest version of

everything we have heard [laughter] so I am 

different. 

There is a little bit of something for 

everybody – the geologists, the physicists, the 

living coral reef system starts near Miami and 

runs all the way to the Tortugas. For the 

coral reef ecosystem everything is 

ecosystem that we have modulated over the 

last hundred years is an essential part of why 

onnection from inshore to offshore – when we think about most of 

greater Miami area to the

southeast. 

going to do something a little bit

biologists, the anthropologists. But one is the 

geology of Florida, which is very unusual and

very steep (Fig 1). We are basically up on an

escarpment as the ocean flows around us and 

it is not always intuitive that is the case. The

interconnected, the nexus of physics, biology, 

chemistry, etc. The physical environment for 

this system, which includes the Loop Current 

that comes around the Tortugas, is very rich, 

for reasons that Frank and others talked

about. The dynamics of this major reef

we have such incredible productivity.

Nutrients coming off the land side and

mixing with coastal waters along with

abundant and diverse habitats for animals 

together create a luxuriant environment that extends all the way from land through the deep coral

reef. The wildlife includes everything from largemouth bass to billfish. South Florida is an incredible 

place. 

The physical environment itself, of course, sets up the conditions, and

animals know when and where to spawn and ensure survivorship. The

c

the biomass on the reef – the reality is that this loop, this conveyor belt 

of biology that sends things, particles down the system, back to the 

inshore areas where they mature to come back to the reef system, and

the cycle goes on and on. So breaking that down is a big problem for 

the fisheries, and here is the wall of humanity (Fig. 2), the concrete 

jungle that exists, one of our big problems, 6 million people (Fig. 3), 

probably going to double in 17 years. This is South Florida. The

population is 16 million state-wide. There are a million vessels statewide, a quarter of those in South Florida (Fig. 3). Big problem, big 

issues. 

Figure 2. Satellite image of 

South Florida showing the

Figure 1. Vertically exaggerated bathymetry of South

Florida, showing the Florida Reef Tract (red) 

extending from the Dry Tortugas to south of Miami. 

73
Figure 3. Growth in 

Florida: the human

population statewide

(upper left) and in 

South Florida (upper

right), and the

recreational and

commercial fishing

fleets in South Florida

(bottom).

What we are going

to talk about today,

having said all this is 

really think about the 

ethic that is required 

to move forward – 

to sustain resources, 

to sustain the use,

not to exclude the 

use, but to sustain 

re going to cite the Keys, and I am going to

animals and the people to the environment. 

es, and those approaches are going to ensure 

y it is so important to build our knowledge,

going to try to bring those ideas forward. We

are also going to explore the interconnections between these valuable fisheries resources both within 

the South Florida marine system itself and within the broader Gulf of Mexico and northern 

Caribbean, at leas

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year

Registered Vessels

Recreational

Commercial

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1930 1940 1950 196

S. FL Population Size

0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

the use that connects people to those resources. We a

s he

W h

a wh

both ecologically and economically, and our speakers

t.

ey are still around. There is

permit, and others – all of

. An interesting thing about 

keep forgetting that larvae 

nter” of the fishery, but in 

en doing satellite archival

municates with a satellite 

iting recent pop-off, this is 

lk a lot about it [laughter],

t is that this is not cheap work. It costs about $1300 a tag, but the information you get is 

extraordinary. The tag archives data, by the minute, on temperature, depth

put other sensors on the device. What I want to point out to you is the co

is the Carolinas are connected to Florida, on this side, Florida is con

Veracruz, it turns out. We just had an animal swim from Veracruz tha ed in May that

popped off last week in Pine Island, LA [wows]. That’s a long distance, about 1200 miles. We also 

how you a bunch of beautiful slides that connect t

hat we really are trying to focus on are new approac

state of sustainability. I want you to understand

First, I wanted to stop and say “Elliott, you had a big black grouper,

[manic laughter] and that was actually just a couple of months ago, so th

an incredible group of fish – grouper, hogfish, jewfish (goliath grouper),

which are highly sought after, and form the economic basis of the system

connectivity – we keep thinking about physical transport of larvae and we

turn into adults, and it’s all about migration. 

The tarpon fishery for two centuries has been focused in Florida, the “ce

fact Florida is a kind of stop-over in a larger circuit. We have be

transmitting tagging, in which we basically put a small computer that com

when it pops up off a tarpon, or at least you get a point. Our most exc

where funding, funding, funding is so important, Brian, I’ve heard you ta

the poin

but I’ve seen bigger ones”

, and position and you can

nnections. The short story

nected to Louisiana, and 

t was tagg

2000 2005

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

1830 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010

Year

Population Size

Florida South Florida

South Florida Fishing Fleet

Florida’s Human Population Growt

Ault et al. 2005. Bulletin of Marine Science

h Dynamics

Dade, Broward, Palm Beach,

Monroe, Collier,

74
recorded an animal that swam about 700 miles from Veracruz to Padre Island

28 days. That is 30 miles a day, ladies and gentlemen [wows], so when animals

connect. 

The other point I want to make is that the only place in U.S. waters where we f

in Florida. No other place in the U.S., but we do find them in Mexico. The con

and release tarpon in Florida, they catch and consume tarpon in Mexico, Cuba

an industry is at risk in the Keys by these interconnections between them. 

Another problem we 

have documented is

serial overfishing, in

which people first 

have taken the 

longest, largest, most 

vulnerable animals 

and wiped them out 

and then have 

moved down the 

resource chain (Fig. 

nappers. We are

and therefore need to be part of the solution. I hope 

at we uncover some of those issues that allow ourselves to understand more completely how 

National Seashore in

want to connect, they

ind juvenile tarpon is

undrum is – we catch

, and other places. So

4). Black grouper, 

for example are at 

least 5-10” short of 

the size they could 

reach, red grouper 

are at about 40%, 

and then we basically 

move into the 

s

fishing down the 

food chain if we 

continue this exploitation rate. This is an issue. So the fish and I are both asked, is it primarily the 

responsibility of people to maintain the systems, and the connections and the functionality of the 

process? That is really what our speakers are going to go through today: perspectives on that 

process, where we are all part of the problem

0

10

20

BlackConeyGagGoliathGraysbyNassauRedRed HindRock HindScampSpeckled HindYellowedgeYellowfinYellowmouthBlackBlackfinCuberaDogGrayHogfishLaneMuttonRedSchoolmasterSilkVermillionYellowtailMargateBluestripedCottonwickFrenchSailorsTomtateWhite

Exploited Coral Reef Fishes

%

S

Ault, J.S,, Bohnsack, J.A., and G.A. Meester. 1998. Fishery Bulletin 96:395-414

eef Fish Community

GRUNTS

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

pawning Potential Ratio

(Best Publication Award in Fishery Bulletin & NOAA Certificate of Achievement 2002)

Ault, J.S., Smith, S.G., and J.A. Bohnsack. 2005. ICES Joournal of Marine Science 62:417-423

Current Management Benchmarks: FL Keys Multispecies R

GROUPERS SNAPPERS

Overfishing (30% SPR)

Figure 4. Serial overfishing in the Florida Keys, where most grouper and 

snapper species are heavily overfished. 

th

humans and resources are connected together. So our speakers, basically in order: Sandy Moret will 

represent the recreational/industrial side, Doug Gregory will talk about commercial points of view, 

commercial fisheries, Doug Kelly will represent the public perspective, and then Jim Bohnsack will 

really define the environmental ethic/ocean ethic we have been groping for. 

Our first speaker, Sandy Moret – probably everybody knows that Sandy is the most famous fly 

fisherman in the world, an international celebrity, who is shown on just about every Saturday TV 

show you have ever seen about fly fishing. He runs Florida Keys Outfitters in Islamorada, which is

the center of global bone fishing, where 75% of the world records come from. Sandy really has great 

respect for fishing. [applause] 

75
Panel Discussion

Sandy Moret 

Thank you, Jerry. Has everybody been bone fishing in the Florida Keys and caught bonefish on a fly 

d? Has everybody caught one? [no] I moved to south Florida in 1972 and had no idea what a 

ake a push pole, and pole 

d stall on the flats to look for fish. You see a fish, probably 30 feet away, 40 feet away, you take a

make the fish bite. It blew my mind when I saw the opportunities here. 

everywhere that are involved in fishing or have an interest in fishing have

hing. It is unique, and many of the techniques and methods that are used

 in South Florida, in the Florida Keys on the 

are 500 skiff guides; when I say skiff guides, I mean the guys that go out 

nd down the Florida Keys. Th e $40-50 million in guide fees a year, 

e hotels, motels, airfares, restaurants, and my fly shop, where we have tackle

hing now that’s associated with being on the flats, being out in the heat. We 

eople come from all over the planet, right here in the Keys, to learn how to 

wherever they have come from. 

e have such a unique situation, and the culture that has developed around the fly fishing

dustry – I don’t just use a fly rod – you can use a spinning rod, and I’m talking mainly about the 

ro

resource that we have here, and in fact it was a secret, actually. There weren’t a lot of people doing

what is called sight fishing, and there were not a lot of people who knew about bonefishing, tarpon 

fishing, which was such a unique situation. With the clear water in South Florida and the Keys, you 

can position yourself, or get on a boat, take the motor out of the water, t

an

fly rod, make a cast to

manipulate the lure to

Over the years, people

found out about sight fis

throughout the world today were discovered right here

flats here. There probably

and pole the boats up a

not to even mention th

and equipment and clot

have a school, where p

do this and take it back to

So w

it and throw a “chicken and feather” on a hook, and then you have to light it,

ere may b

in

inshore fishery here. Besides fishing, there ate other things here that are very unique, found nowhere 

else on the planet. This is the only place where bonefish are so large. Everywhere else – the 

Seychelles, Yucatan, the Bahamas – there is great bonefishing wherever there are flats with waters at 

this temperature, but there is nowhere that has bonefish the size of bonefish in the Florida Keys. I 

76
think at some point Jerry is going to figure out why, but we haven’t figured it out yet. So, there are 

two giant fish – most of the world records are from here in the Florida Keys. 

There is a corresponding fishery offshore; a group of guys that run big charter boats, and they fish 

offshore, sailfishing is a high-end activity here for part of the year. We are catching a few sailfish 

now with fly rods, which is a hoot [laughter], get them behind the boat and pull the teaser away with 

the hook in it, throw a fly out there and maybe he’ll bite it and maybe he won’t. They are sporty fish,

too. 

Most of the people that are involved in the industry, the guides, the captains, they have taken it upon

themselves over the years to do a lot of things to steward this industry, or steward the resource.

Back in the late seventies, early eighties, things here were just like they are in Mexico. We would

have tarpon tournaments where a guide would take a charter out and catch a tarpon, kill the tarpon, 

and put it up on the dock at night, and that would be good advertisement to take your clients 

fishing. The next day you would have a tournament and bring it in and weigh it. All those things 

changed; we changed when we realized we couldn’t do that and didn’t want to do that. This beast is 

too magnificent, and all the tournaments now in the Keys, and most of the state, have gone all 

release format. It is very rare that anybody kills a fish. I think at one point, there were 5,000 tarpon 

killed a year in the state of Florida and last year there were maybe three and those were all world 

records. You have to buy a tag in advance, and that was put through and pushed through by the 

guides in the Florida Keys fishery. These people were very influential in pushing for a fishing license 

in the state of Florida – saltwater fishing license! 

We always want to have more enforcement and more education and apply them; also in outreach

and restoration. We started in outreach, with a protection association in the early seventies and

merged later with the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida. We worked very hard on the 

regulations and with the Everglades National Park. So this fishery, this resource, is precious not only 

to people who come from all over the world, but to the people who live right here and work here 

and have stewarded it, and it’s just a great thing. And if you haven’t caught bonefish on a fly or a

shrimp, you ought to try it. Thank you. [laughter, applause] 

Jerry Ault 

The next speaker will be Doug Gregory. He will represent the commercial perspective on fisheries. 

Doug is the Sea Grant extension agent for the Florida Keys, which represents the commercial 

industry in South Florida. They have made some significant strides to move things forward and 

Doug has been, I think, a real stalwart to connect education to the commercial industry. 

Doug Gregory 

Thank you, Jerry. I am glad to be here. I hope I don’t disappoint you. I am not a representative of

the commercial fishing industry, in fact I am the best proxy Jerry could find at the last minute, so..

[laughter]. One of the problems, I think, is that this year happens to be one of the best lobsterfishing years in the last five years, and we just had a hurricane pass through, so everybody is out 

tending their broken traps and emptying their full traps. I can, however, provide my views based on

my experiences working with various fishing industries. 

Do we need a new ocean ethic? Of course we do. What is it, what is it going to be? I think that is 

what you are trying to define here, at least for the Florida Keys. But whatever it is, it needs to be

communicated. It needs to be communicated with the public if we are planning to talk about 

77
anything more than speeding up the o areness among the fishing public, of

e more civil to the environment, particularly of the need to take a personal 

ci are

quired to construe the longer term sustainability of resources, and to particularly look at the 

g needs to be tightly controlled. That is 

hy we have a myriad of size limits, bag limits, closed seasons, etc. So what we need is management,

d w

o beyond simple compliance. Compliance is but an interim goal. We need the fishing public to 

evelop a personal sense of responsibility toward stewardship of our marine resources.

hat are the problems in achieving that? Management is one of those problems. Management is a 

hange in status quo. Human beings, human nature tends to resist that change, especially if the 

asons and causes for those changes are not well understood. Compliance and understanding can

so be more difficult to attain in a rapidly changing regulatory environment. You may not be aware 

f this, but it should be recognized that here in the southeast United States the last 10 or 12 years

ave been a period of the most intense and rapid regulatory change in history, for the southeastern

nited States. For example, no less than 13 fishery management plan amendments have been

plemented or discussed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and no less than 16

y the Gulf of Mexico Council, and that’s on reef fish alone. We are not talking about king 

ackerel, lobster, shrimp, or the other species. So we have had this intense regulatory environment. 

he new focus I see as the primary mechanism for increasing the involvement of fishermen and 

proving the sustainability of our resources is education. What may be needed are new approaches 

community education. It is certainly not easy. For those of you who have tried it, it is not easy. I 

father of wildlife management in this country, and he had a close connection with nature from 

childhood. He enjoyed going out into the woods. He enjoyed studying nature. But it took him half a 

ngoing evolution of aw

the need to b

responsibility for protecting our marine resources. That is what I see as a major thing that could be

accomplished here. 

The connectivity between people and marine resources is most obvious in a place like the Florida 

Keys, and it is most obvious when you work with, and get to know the fishermen who make their

living from the ocean, whether it is the commercial fishermen, the fishing guides, a charter boat 

operator, or a dive shop operator. They are directly connected, day-in and day-out. They know how 

complex it is. They spend their lives trying to figure it out. They have a direct input in their

livelihood into trying to figure this out. Jerry asked us to look at what new approaches and fo

re

responsibility of people. So that is the direction I am taking on this. 

To maintain critical ecosystem connections and functions, and, again, this is based on my experience 

as a SeaGrant marine extension agent, what we need are new approaches and foci in community 

environmental education. Fishery resources are most directly impacted, as we have seen in previous 

talks, by the act of fishing, by people. Here in the Florida Keys we have the greatest concentration of

boats and fishing effort probably anywhere in the world, yet our fishery resources are not in as 

dramatically a bad shape as you might think. We have these impacts because of our population 

demands, and because of these population demands, fishin

w

an hat we also need compliance with that management, but we also need a marine community to

g

d

W

c

re

al

o

h

U

im

b

m

T

im

to

don’t care how much publicizing you do, it is hard to get people to a workshop. I would dare say 

that very few people from the public who are not associated with a research effort, an environmental 

group, or an agency are here today, even though this conference was highly publicized. 

So, how do we go about getting this new ethic? And I think Aldo Leopold is a good analogy to start 

with. He is one of the folk heroes of the environmental movement. He is also recognized as the 

78
lifetime to develop his land ethic. It took him half a lifetime before he realized it was wrong to

exterminate predators and that it was wrong to subject the land to the whims of industry. His land

thic developed in his fertile mind from a progression of experiences. Although he had a number of 

What is needed to instill a new 

ethic in the fishing public is a 

our natural resources. Education 

is also the quickest way to instill 

education has in the campaign to reduce 

tter alongside the highways. Probably no-one in this room would casually roll down their window

e remains of your Big Mac meal. That sounds horrible. However, 50 years ago this was 

nched that

rough a focused educational effort to create a slogan of an Indian crying, that we had to realize 

ake individual responsibility for disposing of our trash. Somebody wasn’t coming

the person or the group, so that they pick

p the banner and run with it. You don’t have to continue to lead them. However, I think that

e

experiences that were clear moments of epiphanies, his land ethic gradually evolved from an

accumulation of experiences and knowledge. We can’t expect all of us in the general public to have 

that same knowledge and progression, and his was not that quick. 

concerted effort to create these

epiphanies, artificially, through

education, but yet to recognize 

that education is an ongoing,

cumulative process, that helps

individuals increase their

knowledge or awareness. I

contend that education is the

most effective means for creating 

or increasing the awareness, of 

the need to develop a new

behavior or a new ethic toward

an awareness of the need for people to take greater individual responsibility in respecting our 

resources. There is nothing revolutionary here, and I would say, just review your own growing 

environmental awareness and I know we tend to be impatient. Things can tend to be falling down

around our ears, but it does take time, and I think that education is the only effective, long-term

sustainable way. 

An example of this, and a powerful example, in the power

li

and drop th

regularly done – by everyone. Maybe we can make this someone else’s responsibility. The

government will clean it up. Some of you older baby-boomers in the audience will remember how 

highways looked in the fifties. There was litter everywhere. Virtually everyone was throwing their

trash out the car windows. It was until the Keep America Beautiful campaign was lau

th

that we had to t

along in a car and picking it up for us. And now in retrospect it seems pretty stupid and callous and

lazy to just toss your wrappers and cans out the car window. 

Again, education takes time. We should not expect immediate results. More importantly, education

without empowerment can quickly become a wasted effort. You have got to go beyond being busy 

at communicating, to trying to communicate or educate

u

education is the only means of guaranteeing a permanent, sustainable result, and is the only means

for implementing any new ethic. Thank you very much. [loud applause] 

79
Jerry Ault 

Thank you, Doug – very sage words. The next speaker will be Doug Kelly who will represent the 

folkloric point of view. Doug is the executive director of Bonefish & Tarpon Unlimited, which is a 

grassroots organization dedicated to global preservation of highly sought after game fish that Sandy 

as mentioning. He is also president of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, which 

There is connectivity of certain

ecies of fish and territories. Some fish stay on their natal reefs with site fidelity, while others 

There is an

stimate of $6-10 billion in the state of Florida just concerning bonefish and tarpon use. That is a 

uides who purchase them, boat rentals, taxis, tourist attractions, retail stores, craft and souvenir 

we need to

crifice, and lo and behold, commercial fishing has certainly sacrificed over the years. Recreational

w

connects him clearly to the public through the written word. Doug. 

Doug Kelly 

Thanks Jerry. Of all of the introductions I have received, yours is the most recent and I really 

appreciate it a lot [belly laughter]. By the way, Jim Bohnsack and Jerry and I are opening up a school

of ballet in Miami, but that’s for another occasion and talk. 

There certainly is good connectivity it seems to me in various ways.

sp

migrate long distances. There is evidence, of course, of propagation of larvae by gyres and currents,

and then I think Darwin demonstrated that there are closed ecosystems where evolution takes place. 

There is connectivity between various researchers and the public, including various user groups, and 

in that same regard we know that non-fishermen greatly impact the quality of fishing, by water 

quality, by projects of development, etc. So there is not just one particular group that uses the 

resource, but also a public concern on how we regulate that. 

We have connectivity between researchers and governments. That is part of the work that we are 

involved in with Bonefish & Tarpon Unlimited, and I will talk a little bit more about that in a 

second. And then we have connectivity with fisheries resources and our economies, and Jerry had 

mentioned something about the $4 billion in South Florida from all resource users.

e

guess, and we are hiring somebody to nail down exactly, or close, to what that real figure is. The 

reason for that is that bonefish and tarpon specifically, as many of you know, have really received

precious few research dollars. They are not considered a food fish in the way of snappers or 

groupers or tunas or dolphin, etc. So, it is important for fisheries managers and the government to

realize that just because it doesn’t end up on a plate, it’s still extremely important to the economies 

of the states, and for that matter of different governments. 

Let’s for a moment think that there are very few bonefish and tarpon left, say, in the Florida Keys.

The impact would be enormous. Besides the fact that hundreds of guides would be out of work,

there would be an impact to hotels, restaurants, bars, tackle shops, fuel, and marine supplies – from

g

makers, marinas, and on and on and on. So it really behooves us to approach fisheries management 

in a very thoughtful and careful manner, and make sure that we have the maximum cooperation 

from everyone, from all different groups. 

I haven’t seen that over the years. There has been a lot of conflict and divisiveness, and I think a lot 

of us have to put our hearts in the right place, do what we think is best, sacrifice if

sa

anglers have accepted many restrictions and bag limits and size limits and tags and things, etcetera,

etcetera and we have to go through it. If that is not enough, we have to go further. One of the ways

that I am seeing cooperation is through an organization that I am very proud to represent. I bring it 

up not as a sales pitch to you, but as an example of cooperation.

80
Many people may know my opinion of the no-fishing zones – I’ve got some great reservations about 

them. But in the work with Bonefish & Tarpon Unlimited, Billy Causey is one of our founding

members, Jerry Ault is our leading research scientist, Sandy Moret – we have hundreds of people 

with whom we work for our common goal and that is to improve these two particular species;

hopefully others will step forward with their own concerns about species and become champions of

ose as well. But what does it do? What is it we’re involved in? And this goes back to connectivity.

p

is that? 

Let me give you an example. If in fact the tarpon that we catch

Gulf Coast or the east coast of the United States around Florida o

also migrating at certain times of the year to Mexico, Guatemala,

Many of those countries unfortunately are not as enlightened abou

fact, many of those fish are killed, for something – a 200-pound

who macerates it and uses it for fertilizer. This is actually going o

hook and line them, net them, and they will sell them to restauran

Most people don’t know the difference between snapper and grou

most people don’t [laughter]. And it’s a problem. These are fis

shores, which impacts our tourism. If we with our tagging stud

lawmakers and say “Hey, look, we’ve got – not anecdotal info

supplied by Dr. Jerry Ault and others, and it is...” They can then

and say “Look, you know that $25 million a year appropriation f

o, this connectivity between fish habits, where they migrate, where they spawn, is directly relevant

eracruz, Mexico – we can see where it

ent. If it is tagged off Veracruz and goes straight across the Gulf into Key West, we can tell. So,

to get the tag back, although 

we would like to. 

th

Jerry was talking about our fish tagged off Veracruz that ended u in Louisiana. Well, what relevance

at certain times of year off of the 

f course, are the same fish that are 

Belize, Honduras, and those areas.

t catch-and-release. As a matter of

fish for a dollar to sell to a farmer

n. They catch the fish, spear them,

ts. They will sell them as anything.

per. Well, Billy Causey knows, but

h that never make it back to our

ies can go to our legislators, our 

rmation – we’ve got tagging data

go to these different governments

or tourism that we give you? You 

don’t get it because you are hurting our tourism unless you’re doing something about your tarpon 

resources.” Money talks. If you just go over there, and Sandy and Billy Pate and different people 

have gone to these different fisheries managers in some of these countries and they nod their head,

and as soon as you walk out the door they forget it. Nothing happens. 

S

to the health of those fisheries and what we can do about it. It requires a very proactive approach. I 

am going to pass around a couple of these tags. I am not going to get into too many definitions 

about the tagging and what we do, but this is called a P18 tag, a pop-up archival transmitting tag,

and Jerry is kind of our champion with these. This tag rides in a large tarpon, at least 80 pounds; we 

put this up behind the head, under a scale. This metal foot goes into the musculature, and then this 

rides with the fish. We can set a timer, which is like an alarm clock, so that this will pop up in three 

months, two months, up to a year. There is a lithium battery in here, and when the tag pops up, it 

transmits all the data that it has been collecting, on a minute-by-minute basis, to satellites. That 

information is downloaded, and we get it right onto a laptop. We get information on depth and

temperature preferences, and with different light level readings we can approximate the route of a

tarpon that was tagged off North Carolina and ends up off V

w

the beauty of these and the old-fashioned way of tagging, which was terribly exciting to people who

had heard about tagging. It is an awing experience to hear about it, you don’t have to recapture the 

fish. If you tag a fish with a regular tag at Point A, and it is never recaptured, you have lost it. If you 

do recapture it at a different point, all you know is how far it went between points. It could have

gone ten times farther and come back and gotten caught. With this tag, it pops up, we get all the 

information, we don’t have to recapture the tarpon, we don’t even have

81
For bonefish, this is an acoustic telemetry transmitter. This is actually sewn into the abdomen of a 

large bonefish, and the fish is sutured and put back and revived, and goes back in the water. Jerry’s 

survival rate is really high on fish that are so tagged. Jerry’s wife wanted us to put one of these in his 

rear end as a matter of fact [hysterical laughter]. Jerry wouldn’t hold still – we tried a few times. He’s 

too big to hold down. We put listening stations around various flats, and then we can measure

hooling behavior of 200-250 fishes at a time coming into a flat. We can check them for site fidelity 

 and graphs of temperature and conditions, etc. I am going to

oposition. I have some brochures about 

onefish & Tarpon Unlimited. If you are so moved and motivated to join our effort you can join

ble kind of management for sustaining 

shery resources. I am going to give him a different spin. He doesn’t have his NOAA hat on today.

sc

and tides, and overlay different charts

pass these around, and if you look at it briefly and pass it on, and we’ll check to get them back at the 

end. By the way these things cost $3,500, and this one is about $300, and the listening station, which 

we don’t have here, is about $1,000, so it is an expensive pr

B

for $25, and if you have deep pockets like Bohnsack, you can put up to $10,000 [laughter]. Thank

you very much, and I appreciate your time. 

Jerry Ault 

Thanks, Doug, for that colorful and interesting snapshot of my life [laughter]. The next speaker

probably doesn’t need too much introduction, but Jim Bohnsack is without a doubt one of the best 

recognized, seminal biologists in reef systems in the world. He has championed a number of things, 

including marine protected areas, marine closures, and sensi

fi

He has his public, personally motivated, ethically-driven hat on today, to talk about marine resources

and a new ethic. 

82
Jim Bohnsack

ng to talk a bit about ethics. Following on from Billy’s talk this morning, he mentioned our

nnection with the ocean, our connectivity with this process. I kept thinking of my connectivity to

vide the fish that they eat in 

e restaurant – that they catch – it provides a service. The fishing guide goes out there and people 

hn Muir, and probably Sylvia Earle could be put in that category, as a modern-day 

Jerry, I thought I needed no introduction [laughter]. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. You 

have heard Aldo Leopold mentioned. Doug Gregory mentioned him. Is there anybody that hasn’t 

read of his land ethic? It is in his book, A Sand County Almanac, and I urge everybody to read it. It is 

in about every bookstore I have ever been into. I have bought many copies and given them away. So

you don’t get bored, I suggest you start in the middle of the book. It starts off “Land ethic” – read

that. He builds up to it. Everywhere he says “land” think of the ocean [laughter]. 

I am goi

co

him, long before the Looe Key Sanctuary, and one thing Billy has taught me is of course the vision.

He and George Barley and some of the early champions – Nancy Foster – a vision of the Looe of

the future. Hopefully, we have learned from the connections of the past, and how things have 

changed, and how they will connect to things of the future. I want to talk about ecosystem-based 

management, and how one approach that could be used is Aldo Leopold’s ethic. The point is that

science does a lot of things, but it is not sufficient. It is necessary, but not sufficient. I use Aldo 

Leopold’s quote “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and the land,” but we can also

put in the oceans and the sea, and that is the idea of an ocean ethic. So certainly, that said, I have 

touched on many people here in this room, and for the many people in the future. That is what we 

are working toward: a state of harmony between man and the ocean. 

This is a more dynamic model, not that dynamic, but it gives you the idea that we have our resource 

and that is our foundation. There is a biotic dimension that you have heard about, the animals, the 

physical oceanography, geology, climate – you have heard about that. Those are important parts of 

our ecosystem. This forms our ecosystem structure and function. The point I want to make clear is

scientists and environmentalists talk about our ecosystem structure and function, our eco-oriented

point of view. Fishermen and people think about the services that pro

th

just want to go out there and enjoy the environment. The services, they are the same thing – two

sides of the same coin. One is a human perspective and one is an environmental perspective.

Obviously, with the human dimension, people have impact, whether we have good impacts, or we 

may have detrimental impacts. That is our ecosystem basis. The key elements are, the goal should 

be: maintaining marine ecosystem health. 

Leopold defines health as the ability to regenerate. So if something has been damaged by hurricanes, 

it doesn’t mean it’s not healthy. It can regenerate itself. It may be damaged by environmental things

like that. So, the ability to regenerate: that is one of our concerns in the Keys – are things

regenerating? The second point is it is not just organisms and animals and fish by itself, it is people, 

too. People are part of it. A philosopher, Callicott, has talked about different conservation ethics. 

One is called the Golden Ethic, or a frontier Golden Ethic. The idea is that humans are superior to 

the environment. This is a common theme that some fishermen have this ethic; it’s not any good 

unless you can sell it or eat it. The idea in the past was probably useful. It’s how we developed this

country two hundred years ago. We went out and caught the fish, killed the bears, cut the forest, and 

caught the fish. That was fine when resources were plentiful. There was very little conservation 

there. We just moved onto the next valley or the next fishery. 

In contrast to that we have what we call the Romantic Preservation Ethic. These are raised by Henry 

David Thoreau, Jo

83
person – that the human and the environment are equal. The environment should be protected for

se organisms have rights, mainly the right to a continued 

xistence. He developed what is called the Biotic Ethic. The point is that humans – by the way, he is

s he is environmentalist, I already should have said that – are part of the ecosystem, we

o people that Leopold developed is that of self-interest. You do this not because 

ou’ve got to, but you do it through self-interest. If you want goods and services, if you want jobs, if

you want employment, if you want recreation, if you want to catch fish, all those things you do for 

your self-interest – you are going to do the right thing for your self-interest. Every single person

should have a connection with that. You don’t have to have a love of the coral to appreciate that 

particular point. And that I think is one of the keystones of his idea. Also, by ethics he says you need

to have obligation, responsibility, and self-sacrifice. Economics is not about having those. So that is 

the key difference that ethics requires for an ocean ethic. 

Finally, I want to talk briefly about the differences and how ecosystem-based management works

compared to classic single-species management. Fisheries focus on maximizing the yield. We want 

the maximum number of spiny lobster from the sea, the maximum number of fishing trips. The

mode is: you fix it when it is broken; it is risk-prone. We have to break it and then we can do

something to fix it. Requirement for action – you have to prove that the problem exists. We get 

sued. We don’t prove there’s a problem. If you want to take an action pre-emptively you have to 

prove there is a problem. The emphasis is on short-term economics – this year’s boat payment, this

year’s catch; the future will take care of itself, hopefully. The results are boom-and-bust cycles, and

no-take reserves really have no role in this sort of a system. I make the analogy like Arnold Beale – 

this is how my daughter used to do it – you know you run until the car breaks [laughter]. You know 

it’s breaking, right, pull over and get it fixed, the battery dies you run over to Sears and a lot of years

they can get away with it because they’re not using our critical systems – our marine ecosystem is 

probably a little more critical. 

The alternative is ecosystem-based management, which is more akin to airplane maintenance. The 

idea is you don’t want your airplane to break [laughter]. You know, it’s embarrassing, you go up in 

the air and the wing falls off right, the engines quit, you don’t want those things to happen. So we

its own sake. This is fine, and you have heard that expressed this morning also. The trouble is a lot 

of people just don’t get it. You’re kind of lumped in that group, you’re a coral hugger or a tree 

hugger, you understand about biophilia that E.O. Wilson expressed – but a lot of people just don’t 

get it. If I can’t sell it, I can’t cash it in, what good is it? It misses that key element in connection with

people. 

Most governments and societies operate under what we call a Utilitarian Conservation Ethic. The 

idea is that it is “one-way:” the environment here is to support our activities and it is primarily

focused on economics. The big sin is not be wasteful, but not to be efficient. It is pretty much

dominated by economics, but there is no ethics. I would remind you that economics is not ethics. 

There is no value system in it. It needs more, and Leopold pointed this out. We tend to do away 

with things that are not economically important because they have no value for us; it’s a waste. 

Leopold made this idea of rights, that all the

e

as human a

are part of the marine ecosystem, and part of his idea was that some areas should be set aside with

minimum human disturbance. The goal is to maintain the ecosystem. Keep in mind that what he did 

here was with a scientific basis for ethics. It was developed from the sciences of ecology and

evolution. That was his contribution. People talked about ethics long before him, but they didn’t 

have a science derivation. 

The connection t

y

84
have all kinds of systems to prevent that from happening. The focus is Maintaining the Health of the 

en are fishermen, that’s why

shing got us involved, that’s why the commercial fishermen are out there. It’s the beauty, not just 

d we do it because it is the right thing to do, not because

necessarily pays.

different social objectives. That is the

eauty of the human connection. We cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of our 

Ecosystem: ecosystem structure, function, goods, and services. The management goal is to prevent 

failures. We don’t want them to fail; people get hurt. Requirements for action: prove that the 

activities are within the capacity of that system. We need to balance our activities within the system’s 

capabilities. Emphasis is long-term persistence of a system, not short-term economics. Results: 

sustainable fisheries, and in this case no-take reserves have an essential role that allows us to 

understand how the system works. 

When you buy a new car or a new boat engine or something, you have a manual that tells you how 

to take care of it – when to change the oil, how many RPMs, you know, how to maintain it. We 

don’t get a manual for our ecosystem. So some natural area set aside will allow us to understand how 

the system operates. What eats what. How the dynamics work, what is the variability, so that’s the 

key idea. Leopold said this very simply. It is the integrity and stability and beauty that run an

ecosystem. They are the fundamental criteria of his land ethic. The thing is right when it maintains

and preserves the integrity and stability and beauty of a biotic community. There is the ethic. Think 

about it: integrity, all the parts are there. We don’t eliminate something because we don’t understand

its importance. Stability: it persists through time; it doesn’t just disappear on us. And finally, the 

word beauty. This is the one word that scientists always abhor because we don’t like to hear the 

word ‘beauty’ because it is subjective and scientists hate subjective issues. But beauty – that’s the 

human hook – that’s why you are in this room, that’s why fisherm

fi

the aesthetic beauty, the beauty of the excitement of finding food, of providing jobs. You heard 

about the ocean circulation cycles, that’s the beauty of the systems – that is the key element of 

ecosystem-based management. 

I use an example of a case of ethics that occurred; you heard this before this morning. A boat 

manufacturer advertising: “Isn’t it time that all tournaments were catch and release?” That is a 

fundamental change of ethics, which Sandy alluded to this morning, very nicely. We also have the 

Gulf of Mexico commercial fishermen, which showed you what happened without a turtle excluder

in a shrimp net, this is what happens with one, the turtle gets out. Shrimpers tend not to like this 

idea, it is an extra piece of gear, it is an extra expense, and it is dangerous when it gets rough. But 

that’s their obligation, responsibility, and self-sacrifice. They do it because it maintains the health of 

the ecosystem. Turtles are a critical part an

it

Finally, I leave you with the last concept. Leopold pointed out, this is like a fisherman without a 

license. He noted that there is a clear tendency in conservation to relegate to government all 

necessary jobs – the private landowners in this case, fishers filled before them. The point is that it

takes individual responsibility. We need the education that Doug Gregory talked about. Government

cannot be there. You do not want government involved. It can’t be in everybody’s boat. It takes

individuals, it takes people out there who say “We will not tolerate unacceptable behavior.” And 

with that, I will point out that we do now have an official definition in my agency, NOAA Fisheries. 

We call it an ecosystem approach to fisheries, and it is essentially trying to get the Aldo Leopold idea 

geographically specified. It is adaptive, takes into account ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties,

considers local and external influences, and strives to balance

b

resources, Leopold pointed out. We do affirm a right to their continued existence and the continued

existence of the natural systems. Thank you. [prolonged applause] 

85
Jerry Ault 

I think we have covered a number of great issues and topics in this discussion, and I was going to

recapitulate things, but I think the coverage was so good that I’ll let Joanne open the floor for 

questions. So, any questions? 

Panel Discussion

n we have of the process. I think we need greater attention to

nderstanding what these processes are and how they work. I think that Elliott mentioned that they 

turtle excluders in the shrimp fisheries in

ose countries. In general, foreign exchange used to be handled through something called GATT,

the law from another country, they can be prosecuted, and some

rosecutions have occurred, I think, particularly with the Central American area that was exporting

Question/comment: Thank you all for your contributions. So if we start now, do you think we 

might be able to make it in the future to protect these resources, but what do you suggest we do in

the meantime to change the political will, and especially for this country, to take the dollars that we 

give in aid to all these countries that are putting stress upon our resources here, migrating fish and 

other species, and how do we change the issues for those who are in this room, to lead us, to 

prompt us in the protection of these resources? 

Ault: I will start with the science and give it up to the other folks. I think the driver for the political 

process that we have seen in the Keys is a lot like what Doug Gregory mentioned, education, 

education. Education starts with information, and what has been our Achilles heel in the entire 

process has been not having sufficient information describing where we are, how things function,

and where we are headed. It gets to an even greyer area once you get into the political process. What 

I think we are seeing in the Keys is a little different ethic, but information requires a history and as

near-term the informatio

u

are very complex. They are very complex and extremely non-linear. But good theory, good 

theoretical development in the future relies on us having a strong empirical base for developing new 

theory. Until we arrive at that kind of information we will be stuck in an old set of wheels when we

are trying to drive a Cadillac. 

Gregory: I can tell you a little bit about the fisheries aspect and I think what this group would like to

see is an environmental influence. The only time we saw that was with the “Dolphin Safe” products, 

trying to deal with the Latin American countries, with

th

now it’s handled through the North American Free Trade Association, and that has just made 

matters even worse. When it comes to marine resources, fishery resources, it is such a small part of 

our international trade that our government quickly dismisses those concerns to offset their political 

needs and concerns in dealing with these other countries. We have a king mackerel fishery that could 

be hurting. One of the reasons we are having a hard time rebuilding it is that the Mexican fishery is 

not as regulated. We are not even getting data from Mexico, and we have much closer connections

between Mexico and Florida with king mackerel migration than even with tarpon. With the lobster

fishery, where we don’t have lobsters walking from Mexico to here, I don’t think, we have maybe a 

brood stock in the Caribbean that is being decimated by illegal harvest. We are talking about 

countries that do not have the luxury we have of living in a highly developed, highly energy 

consuming nation. They are trying to survive, and they have got laws on lobster, but they are being 

violated every day. We do have the Lacey Act, which says that if somebody brings a product into

this country in violation of

p

small lobsters. So I think it is very difficult to do that. And it is more difficult with NAFTA, but we 

do have the Lacey Act which could be used when a blatant violation does occur. 

86
McManus: John McManus from the University of Miami. I just want to say that this was one the 

best sets of talks in one hour that I have ever heard in one place. I want to mention that I am really 

thrilled to see that people are really pinning down this connectivity issue. On the other hand, I want 

to make sure everybody is putting themselves in the places of people we are dealing with. The idea

of the U.S. government telling the Mexican government, sort of prying out of them better control,

probably isn’t any more rational than the European Union telling the federal government that you

should do catch-and-release in Florida. So what really has to happen is, it has got to be this

ternational collaborative work, at the community level, at the science level, at the management

of NGOs are doing a lot of good grassroots work, but they are all 

all, little grassroots efforts, and there is no national campaign to drive this message home. Before 

just going to say, see you at 1:15 tomorrow. [laughter] 

in

level, and so on, trying to get these things going, and that would be greatly improved if some of the 

U.S. agencies had stronger international programs. NOAA has a pretty good one, but it could be 

better. EPA has a fairly weak one which could be much better, but if you’re looking for ways to

handle this connectivity issue, the idea is to get in there and work with people and try to get these 

activities implemented. I would suggest, for instance, for catch-and-release, that it is the people who

do catch-and-release talking to the people who would do it over there; it is going to be much more

effective than some officer coming from the government. But as I say, this is superb; this is like 10

steps forward from any conversation of its kind I have heard with regard to this connectivity. 

Question/comment: More a comment. One of the things we have heard a lot today is about 

education. Before we can do anything with our neighbors throughout the Caribbean we have to get 

our effort squared at home. One of the things with education that we have seen, if we blow things 

up at the national level, such as the pollution ethic of the sixties and early seventies, or whether it 

was You Can Prevent Forest Fires, all of these were national campaigns that were run by the Ad

Council. We need to get a national program, whether it be for fishing or for coral reefs, or for both,

that really addresses this. A lot

sm

we can do anything with our neighbors, we have to get that square, right and center at home, and we

haven’t done that. And this might be the forum to start talking about what can we do nationally at a

really large scale. 

Bohnsack: I was just going to say, following on from Aldo Leopold, it’s not quantity of education,

there is a lot of quantity of education, it’s what we teach. Not how much we teach, but we are 

teaching the wrong thing, and it is clear we need to rethink what we teach. 

Steven Miller: I’m

Question/comment: I would like to present the opposing view, and that is that I think there are a 

lot of encouraging signs out there, throughout the region. Maybe a little bit less in the U.S., but 

throughout the region of the Caribbean, there are a whole lot of NGOs in every country now that

has as one of their mandates teaching education in fisheries and other resource managers. In fact, I 

would even argue the fact that in the Caribbean there is probably a greater ethic toward the 

development of marine protected areas than there is in the U.S. There are certainly a lot of

fishermen who do buy into that now; whether or not they pan out and provide the opportunities 

that they are sold on is a different question. But I do think that there is a lot of encouragement –

there are mutual efforts underway for education, both large-scale ecosystem projects in the eastern

Caribbean and in Mesoamerica, as well as a lot of NOAA projects that are throughout the region 

that have as a primary component education. So I think not all is gloom, I think we are in a much 

better position now than we were 10 years ago, and certainly a lot better than we were 30 years ago. 

87
Moret: I would agree with that on a whole lot of issues. I know that the Bahamas has made a huge 

with bonefishing in the last 10 years. When I first started going to the Bahamas, you

as, Yucatan, and certainly the Seychelles and many other places have 

me to realize that that bonefish swimming around is going to bring them a lot more meals over 

if somebody comes and spends $2-3,000 to fish for a week and they will catch 

hing I want to do is to recognize some folks here 

ho have been – it is related to the mission of the Sanctuary – and that is we had some incredible

turn-around

would go out in a boat with a guy, and every day they wanted to take one bonefish home to eat.

Well, you have a problem with people who are so close to sustenance level, I can’t argue with that.

But over the years the Baham

co

the next few years,

the same fish over and over. So I am seeing a lot of improvements in a lot of areas, but there is still a 

lot of work to do. 

Ault: I think we probably ought to terminate the questions, but before we break out there are a

couple of things. First of all I want you to thank my panel for a very stimulating and thoughtprovoking [thunderous applause]. The second t

w

support this year from folks in the room, who made possible the gut check, the process check, of 

marine reserve implementation. One moment please – we are experiencing technical difficulties.

[laughter] 

Part of the implementation process is to talk about fisheries resources, but you can’t talk about 

fishery resources unless you talk about habitat resources, water quality, and all the things we have 

discussed. So, the issue is: it is a good idea, but how does it really work. This year, as a function of 

implementation of the United States’ largest no-take marine protected area, in the Dry Tortugas – 

the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, which the Sanctuary manages, and the Research Natural Area in 

the Dry Tortugas National Park. Technically, that is nearly 200 square nautical miles of area. We

conducted a research cruise, using visual assessments to assess the efficacy of that process, two years

post implementation. 

The 20-day effort involved a number of agencies within NOAA and the National Park Service, the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, several universities, etc. It was a multidisciplinary, multi-agency research expedition, to what we called the U.S.’s last marine frontier

because it is land’s end, and it is an incredible place. We went to conduct a visual assessment of coral 

reef fisheries and habitat resources, two years post-implementation, and asked ourselves the 

question, are we seeing a difference? We also wanted to learn about the trends in reef fish

populations and the effectiveness of the suite of management activities going on; the first and 

foremost issues were the marine protected areas as one of a suite of management techniques that 

can be used with the central mission of sustainability of populations, in this case coral reef fishes in 

the Florida Keys. This problem is not unique to Florida and the Caribbean, and you will probably 

hear a bit about that tomorrow, but it is a critical step in understanding efficacy of measures that 

could have greater utility than just the Florida Keys. 

88
We used a large research ship with 42 of my closest friends and 10 dive support personnel and spent 

20 days doing dawn-to-dusk diving in the Florida Keys. We covered an area of about 600 square 

miles with the unique brand of high-tech lasers, wireless network databases, and yadda, yadda, yadda,

and performed the following miracle. This map shows the Tortugas area and the unit areas we 

classified. I am sure you have heard of Sherwood Forest, which is a formation of elaborate, layered

coral. It turns out that Sherwood Forest, which was thought to be much smaller, is a 15 miles long 

by 4 miles wide area of terraced reef. So, this was quite a discovery of new habitat. Every one of

these red dots on the map represents at least four scientific dives that were conducted over 20 days, 

so the statistics are 1,594 scientific dives for 37-1/2 days under water in 20 days for 42 personnel; it 

was an enormous effort conducted by multi-agency and multi-university crew. 

(From Ault et al. 2005) 

sight and foresight. In 1979, before anybody was even whipped up about this stuff, Jim Bohnsack 

I have a couple of awards that I would like to hand out in recognition of work and help they 

provided. The two most important, or the first two are Billy Causey and Brian Keller [applause]. The 

award reads “Dry Tortugas 2004 award for Significant Fiscal Contributions,” thanking Brian Keller 

and Billy Causey for their heroic contributions to 1,594 dives and 37-1/2 days underwater at the Dry 

Tortugas, signed by myself and one of my colleagues. So thank you so much. Now for the second

part of the award. No good cruise goes without the requisite t-shirt. Well, the t-shirt adds the 

brotherhood between Miami and NOAA, NOAA broadly, the backside lists all the scientific divers, 

the support agencies, and all the personnel involved. We would like you to have one of these each, 

and thank you so very much. Thank you, Billy. 

The last award I can make is to the man sitting at the table, who really is The Man when it comes to

in

89
began a process of visual assessment of coral reef fishes in the Keys, which essentially had an

ecological orientation early on. It now extends over the 12,500 square miles occupied by the Florida 

Keys and Jim’s ideas have basically grown into what now is probably the longest-term, most 

speciose, and most precise data-base on coral reef fishes in the world. I beg deference with my

colleagues from the Great Barrier Reef, but clearly it is a gem [laughter] and what a gem it is in terms

of all the things said, but the most seminal contribution is to Jim Bohnsack, because we really do 

appreciate [applause]. 

Bohnsack:You forgot one critical person: Joanne Delaney for getting our permits to us in time

aughter]. Thank you, Joanne.

e for there to have been a series of traditional increase in size limits. Things seem to be 

aving a positive effect. The second point I will make, and for our bonefish and tarpon friends, is to 

ark Service Contract No. H500000B494-J5120020275, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary R0500010, and NMFS Coral Reef Program NA17RJ1226.

[l

Ault: The last thing I will say is that we do have some good news about the cruise. I won’t go into

great detail, but the quick observation, the take-home message is what we saw in this cruise. This

was our fourth pass on the Tortugas at about that sampling density, and we saw more black grouper 

and red grouper on this cruise than we saw cumulatively over the last three passes on the region. All 

of those fish were mostly in the 2-5 year range, which suggests that things have been happening at 

least in tim

h

say that we encountered the largest single schools of permit, schools of thousands of permit inside 

the closed area, by the way, in the sanctuary. So preservation of the resource is beyond the 

information in the survey report. Thank you very much! 

Literature Cited

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J.A. Bohnsack, J. Luo, D.E. Harper, and D.B. McClellan. 2005. Fisheryindependent monitoring of coral reef fishes and macro-invertebrates in the Dry Tortugas. Final 

Report, National P

90
Plenary Presentation: 

Preserving Coral Reefs and Other Coral Communities: 

The Perspective of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

Frank Muller-Karger 

Member, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

The entire state of Florida is legally considered a coastal zone under the State’s Coastal Zone

Management (CZM) program. This program was developed in response to the Coastal Zone

anagement Act (CZMA), and defines the coastal zone of our state, both offshore and inland, since 

lorida re l

aters. The CZM program is implemented through a partnership of 10 agencies led by the State’s

epartment of Environmental Protection. Indeed, Florida has this nation’s second longest coast –

me 8,400 miles of tidally influenced shoreline (1,350 miles of coastline) that supports over 12.3 

illion people in its coastal counties (35 of the state’s 67 counties are coastal). Coastal counties 

enerate over three-fourths of the state’s gross retail sales ($354 billion), taxable retail sales ($157 

illion), and jobs (about 6.2 million). Clearly, Florida reflects the nation’s economy: coastal 

atershed counties contribute over $4.5 trillion, fully half of the nation’s gross domestic product, 

d account for some 60 million jobs.

he value of coral reefs can be evaluated in several dimensions. From an ecological point of view, 

ey house tens of thousands of species of plants and animals, making them among the world’s most 

iverse and productive habitats. Nearly one-third of all fish species live on coral reefs, while other

ecies depend on reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves. They have significant tourism and recreation, 

well as shoreline protection value. Globally, it is estimated that the value of reefs approaches

$375 billion per year and they support 500 million people. At least one-half of federally managed 

ommercial fish depend on reefs. The Florida Keys generated ~$105 million in income and 

pported 8,000 jobs in 2001. Finally, the cultural and aesthetic value of reefs is really enormous and 

ard to calculate. Few people realize that, according to NOAA estimates, U.S. coral reefs cover

7,600 square miles. Just those in the Pacific Freely Associated States (Palau, Federal States of

icronesia, and Marshall Islands) range 4,500- 31,500 square miles. 

As we enter the 21st century, we have a tremendous opportunity to improve the lives and economies

of coastal communities through better gies, and new strategies for managing 

ur coastal zones and marine resources. As any good business, developing coastal lands, maintaining 

M

F cognized it needed to manage all activities with a direct and significant impact on coasta

w

D

so

m

g

b

w

an

T

th

d

sp

as

~

c

su

h

~

M

education, new technolo

o

a vibrant and sustainable ocean, and having clean beaches requires review of how we have done 

things in the past, adjusting our strategies for the future, and particularly strong leadership to ensure

proper stewardship. This requires using science for the protection of human life and property, an

educated public, and effective management practices. 
The health of coral reef ecosystems is decreasing at an alarming rate. Bleaching episodes are 

common and other diseases are becoming more frequent. The causes of these problems are varied 

and depend on the reef being considered, but can be the result of one or a combination of the 

following: 

• Excessive fishing 

• Pollution, sedimentation, and runoff 

o Includes hypoxia and light limitation 

•

tal communities. As a recent example, if we 

ad had even slig tly better hurricane forecasting capabilities during the summer of 2004, we could 

these

e

wor

Ear

ea

o Pathogens 

o Eutrophication 

o Poisoning 

Temperature 

It is clear that human activities have and will continue to adversely impact the environment if we do 

not manage these activities. The cumulative effects of our actions threaten the sustainable use of the 

oceans and coasts. We have already lost potential sources of food, areas of recreation, and wetlands

that keep our water clean, and in many cases we have paid dearly with degraded water quality, lost 

jobs, increased health care costs, and decreased revenue. Surprisingly, Florida’s coastal counties

unemployment rates have been up to 20% higher than in non-coastal counties. 

Understanding the oceans and their connections to land and the atmosphere means better weather

forecasting and ultimately a better economy for our coas

h h

have saved lives and property in Florida. On land, we have weather stations everywhere, and

make regular reports to the National Weather Service and to meteorological services around th

ld. We take the daily weather reports for granted. Yet, because the oceans cover 71% of the

th’s surface, our weather maps are actually very crude approximations. We have few devices that

m sure water temperature and winds in the ocean.

It is also particularly difficult to see what happens beneath the surface of the ocean, and this makes

management of resources like coral reefs and fish very complicated. It is indeed difficult for people 

to be aware of environmental problems lurking beneath the waves. It should be obvious that we 

can’t manage resources without understanding them. Yet we regularly under-invest in science,

technology, and education. 

Managing marine resources is also difficult because of an intricate system of state and federal 

government jurisdictions seaward of the coast. At the federal level, marine resources and activities

are managed by over 14 agencies that are controlled by over 60 Congressional committees and

subcommittees. There are over 140 federal laws dealing with marine issues that in some cases

overlap, in some cases conflict, or may have gaps. 

92
At present, various different l esources and management is 

shared by many federal agencie

• Coral R

o

 National action strategy 

 Grants for cons

 Co

t present, there are several Federal interagency and intergovernmental initiatives, the most relevant 

vernance, and to recommend a national ocean 

olicy. The law stated that this process was to give equal consideration to environmental, technical

feasibility, economic, and scientific factors in developing our recommendations. 

To set the process in motion, President George W. Bush appointed the 16 members of the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy in July 2001. The President selected twelve members from lists 

submitted by the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House. The remaining four members were chosen

aws affect how we manage U.S. coral r

s. For example:

eef Conservation Act (2000)

Focus on NOAA activities: 

ervation

nservation fund for private-public partnerships

• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA; 1972) 

o NOAA may fund repairs to damaged habitat with cost recovery from responsible 

parties. Only immediate damage but not preventive (i.e., no navigation aids, etc.) nor 

long-term damage (pollution, overfishing, and disease). 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

o Regulates coral harvest and protects Essential Fish Habitat 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

• Clean Water Act 

• Sikes Act (U.S. DoD to rehabilitate/conserve corals on military bases) 

• Endangered Species Act 

(Plus a whole host of state and territories laws.) 

A

of which are: 

• U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 

o Created by Executive Order in 1998 

o Seeks to coordinate between agencies

o Develop strategies (mapping, monitor, study, conservation, and sustainable use) 

o National and international focus 

o Relevant agencies that are absent: DoE, USACE 

• U.S. All Islands Coral Reef Initiative 

o Cooperative: Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

How did we get here? The last comprehensive review of our nation’s ocean policies was completed

almost 35 years ago by the Stratton Commission. The Stratton Report, published in 1969, led to 

such things as the creation of NOAA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and several other major

pieces of legislation. 

Congress and the President recognized the staggering problems outlined above and mandated the 

creation of a new U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy through the Oceans Act of 2000. The objective

was to study the state of our ocean knowledge and go

p

93
directly by the President. The Commission members came from diverse professional backgrounds in 

federal, state, and local governments, private industry, and academic and research institutions

involved in marine-related issues. Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Retired), was elected chair by 

his fellow commissioners at the first Commission meeting on 17 September 2001. 

The e became 15 public meetings and additional site visits

around the u February of 2002. Through expert 

testimony a ders in every field related to marine research,

science, an ission learned first-hand about the most pressing issues facing the

nation regarding use and stewardship of ocean and coastal resources. 

p a ocess, the Pew Oceans Commission carried out its own assessments. This 

n w Commission embarked on what

co ntry, including various sites around Florida in

nd many excellent presentations by lea

d policy, the Comm

In ar llel to this pr

privately funded group of dedicated individuals published its findings in June 2003. A natural

question is how the recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy compare and

contrast with those from Pew Oceans Commission. The Pew oceans report

(http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf) highlights problems in the way 

we manage living resources and makes important recommendations for significant change in ocean 

governance and in management approaches. Our own U.S. Commission used the many documents

generated by the Pew Oceans Commission as input to our own study. 

In my opinion, both commissions’ findings are essentially the same. We agree on the problems and 

in many of the recommendations. (It probably is not very useful to get bogged down comparing the 

commissions.) The point is that the oceans are in trouble and we need to make changes. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy delivered its final report (entitled “An Ocean Blueprint for 

the 21st Century”) to the President and Congress on 20 September 2004. This report (as well as all

public input and various ancillary documents) are found at the Commission’s web site, at the

following address:

http://www.oceancommission.gov

The clock is ticking and your involvement is critical. The Oceans Act of 2000 states that the 

President has 90 days to submit a statement to Congress containing proposals to implement the 

Commission’s recommendations, and this is now slated to occur before December 17, 2004. The 

f the report has relevance to how we govern our waters and

manage our ocean resources. For example, State waters extend three nautical miles from the eastern 

coastline of Florida out to sea (measured from what is called the baseline, normally the low water 

line along the coast). But in the Gulf of Mexico, State waters extend nine nautical miles. Here, all 

resources belong to all Floridians, and the State has been entrusted with management of these public 

resources. Beyond “State waters” extend various “Federal waters” – first comes the Territorial Sea

(12 nautical miles wide starting at the coast and overlapping State waters) and then the Contiguous 

Zone (also 12 nautical miles wide). The nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; Fig. 1) extends

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), located within the Executive Office of the President, has 

convened an Interagency Ocean Policy Group (IOPG) that is reviewing the report and coordinates

input to the President in drafting the administration’s proposals to Congress. 

How does all this affect Florida? 

Practically every recommendation o

94
out to 200 nautical miles from the coast. All resources seaward of three nautical miles (or nine, 

depending on the coast) belong to all Americans, and the Federal Government has been entrusted

with a

 

Figure 1. The U

Economic Zone is 

the r

com

states. 

As mentioned

pro

important

in t

Drawing tourists to Florida and 

kee g

among many things (not 

arra e

porta

• Man i

• Go c

• Minimizing pollution by pathogens and chemicals

• Bet m tch

plan

• Mai i

• Unders a Keys

addition to coral reefs, another clear example of why we need to pay attention to policy is our 

and grouper, and

reater amberjack. Many other species are thought to be overfished or nearing overfishing, including 

m nagement of those public resources. 

.S. Exclusive 

the largest in

wo ld, and is larger than the 

bined land area of the 50

above, tourism is 

bably the single most

industry in the state 

erms of revenue and jobs.

pin them here requires,

ng d in order of

im nce):

• A healthy and attractive 

coastal ecosystem

• Clean beaches and good

water quality

ag ng urban sprawl

od onnections between ports, roads, railway, and air transportation

ter anaging commercial and sports fisheries and byca

• Advancing the Everglades restoration

nta ning healthy coral reefs 

tanding connections between the Everglades and the Florid

• Understanding beach geology and erosion/accretion 

• Understanding natural hazards like red tides and storms 

• Understanding climate change and sea level rise (now at about 1/20 inch/year) 

In

fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council manages 57 species, but we know little 

about the health of some 44 stocks out of these 57. Indeed, perhaps at best 13 of these Gulf of 

Mexico stocks are assessed, and the NOAA Fisheries Service has concluded that at least seven 

stocks out of these 13 are overfished. Some fish have been considered for listing under the

Endangered Species Act, including king mackerel, several species of snapper

g

many sharks, billfish, and several crustaceans. 

A significant problem with fisheries is bycatch. These are unwanted species caught while fishing and 

they include unwanted fish but also marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, corals, etc. We need to

95
reduce bycatch. In Florida, manatees and dolphins, sea turtles, and birds fascinate tourists; we 

should recognize their economic value as well as their natural beauty. 

As mentioned above, in Florida we have experienced an astounding decline in the health of coral

ef ecosystems in the past 25 years. We cannot just continue to focus only on studying the problem; 

year for reasons that include 

athogenic bacteria, hormones, other pharmaceuticals, nutrients, and other chemicals. But we also

e positive impact we can have by changing our behavior even slightly. 

To stimulate our economy and run, we need to address these 

roblems. But this cannot be done without having a clear and visionary ocean policy, a blueprint for 

e all can agree that the U.S. desperately needs a new integrated management mechanism to treat

and interdependent ecosystem components, rather than as a

llection of isolated fragments managed independently from each other, as practiced today. The 

re

there is an urgent need to address the identified, major factors causing coral declines, and these 

include elevated sea temperatures caused by global climate change, direct and indirect impacts of

fishing, and land-based pollution. 

In Florida, we have about 2,000 beach closures and advisories per

p

suffer significant pollution in our rivers by sewage and by non-point sources like power plants, trash 

burning facilities, and other sources of metals like mercury. Clearly, nutrients from agricultural 

runoff are not our only problem. 

I encourage everyone to participate in volunteer beach cleanup programs. It is an eye-opener to see 

the amount and types of debris dumped by people visiting beaches, but also from boats and ships. I 

have found sofas and refrigerators among hundreds of thousands of bottles, flip-flops, and other 

trash along a single causeway in St. Petersburg, near where I live. 

The Commission examined several aspects of pollution in great depth, and made specific

recommendations on coastal water pollution, vessel pollution, sediment management, marine debris, 

and other issues such as invasive species. 

Many of us may think our careless actions are insignificant, but indeed they are a problem because 

they happen in the same place, at the same time, and over a long time. Tourism, not to mention our 

own health, is affected by all this. These problems have real impacts on jobs and the economy of

Florida. Imagine th

 improve our lives over the long

p

managing the oceans. 

The Commission considered these issues in drafting its recommendations, which can be

summarized as follows: 

Ocean Governance 

W

ocean resources as interrelated

co

current insular and disjointed policy approach has led to confusion and contradiction and must be 

changed. 

The Commission recommends a National Ocean Policy Framework that creates a more effective 

and coordinated federal management system, with strong high-level leadership, strengthened and

improved agency performance, and greater opportunity for regional participation. A core element is 

the creation of a National Ocean Council (NOC), housed within the Executive Office of the 

President. It would be chaired by an independent Assistant to the President for Ocean Policy, and 

96
would be integrated by the President’s relevant cabinet members and directors of independent 

agencies. One way to visualize this NOC is as a parallel structure to the National Security Council. It 

does not create more bureaucratic layers and instead it provides a very important way for agencies to

mmunicate with each other at the top, to coordinate budgets, and to resolve conflicts. Above all,

provides a mechanism for the President to provide leadership and override agency turf. 

, less redundant, and more balanced ecosystem-based management 

ive local, regional, tribal, and state organizations a more active and

ation’s oceans and coasts. The Commission recommended

and participation. 

ns that transcend political boundaries and emphasizes the need to 

management approach. We appreciate that one cannot call for 

hout recognizing the direct linkages among the oceans, the 

man activities that take place across these areas. Ocean 

nagement, for example.

Sci e ineering 

Effective ocean policy should be based on unbiased, credible, and sufficient scientific information. 

This requires significant investment, an adequate infrastructure, a system for data collection and 

manage eans to effectively translate science into useful and timely products. The 

federal investment in ocean research has been stagnant or decreasing. It has fallen from 7% of the 

fede l

Thi are recommending significant

atte o re.

Tod yed on the oceans

on ip ed a system that

inte t ts useful to the public, industry, and

gov m er System, which has established a

netw rk day and now 

ke for granted. A high priority, therefore, is to implement an Integrated Ocean Observing System

co

it

A second element of the new N

structure toward a more effective

approach. 

ational Ocean Policy framework is to move the existing federal 

Third, it is equally important to g

effective role in managing the n

strengthening regional management

The Commission proposes solutio

move toward an ecosystem-based

ecosystem-based management wit

atmosphere, the land, and the hu

management must be tied to land ma

enc , Technology, and Eng

ment, and the m

ra research budget 30 years ago to less than 4% today.

s is not good. Management in ignorance is not acceptable. So, we

nti n be put into reviving our research and technology infrastructu

ay we have the technology to gather data from many different sensors deplo

sh s, buoys, and autonomous robots, as well as on satellites, but we ne

gra es all these disparate datasets and generates produc

ern ent entities. This should work like the National Weath

o across the globe to collect data and integrate it to make products we use every

ta

(IOOS) based on a backbone of coordinated, linked regional monitoring systems and strong

connections to a Global Ocean Observing System and to a Global Earth Observation System. 

97
Education 

The Commission supports a national ocean policy founded on high-quality, effective education that 

romotes lifelong learning, an adequate and diverse workforce, informed decision making, science 

tewardship ethic.

ated one full chapter to recommendations on coral reef management.

pecifically, in Chapter 21 of the Final Report, we included the following recommendations: 

ht of the National Ocean Council (NOC). 

p

literacy, and stewardship. All of the ocean-related agencies should be required to take responsibility 

for promoting education and outreach related to their missions. Lifelong education efforts need to 

be improved so that every individual recognizes the value of the ocean to their own lives and how 

their actions directly and indirectly affect the marine environment. We need an informed public that 

upholds and promotes a national s

Coral Reefs 

The Commission dedic

S

Congress should pass, and provide sustained funding for, a Coral Protection and Management 

Act that covers research, protection, and restoration of coral ecosystems. 

Congress should codify and strengthen the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and place it under the 

oversig

NOAA should develop national standards—and promote adoption of international standards—

to ensure that coral reef resources are harvested in a sustainable manner. The U.S. Department 

of State should implement incentive programs to encourage international compliance with these 

standards. 

98
Recommendation 21–4. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force should identify critical research and

data needs. These should guide agency research funding and be incorporated into the design and 

implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System. 

NOTE: As per our July 22, 2004, public meeting, we dropped the recommendation that the U.S. 

ship with other federal, state, and academic entities; perhaps later the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force would be the appropriate interagency coordinating entity. 

recognizes that to

take things to practice 

are unpopular, largely

because people feel 

they restrict 

recognize the 

significant problem 

term MPA, because it 

seems to have 

elieve

that the development 

of MPAs must be 

based on good 

scientific information, 

when possible come 

from a bottom-up 

process starting at the 

local level, and that state and local citizens must be engaged in the development process. MPAs can 

be temporary and have flexible boundaries that change with time. They do represent an important 

Coral Reef Task Force have responsibilities over deep and temperate corals. Rather, we now 

explicitly recommend that NOAA lead the effort to study and manage these resources in 

partner

The Commission

requires access to a

variety of

management tools.

Some of these tools

freedoms. One

example is “marine

protected areas

(MPAs).” We

of confusion with the 

become a catch-all

phrase that, to many 

people, means

locking an area away 

forever. We need

better ways to define 

and implement

MPAs. We b

99
100

anagement tool that promotes healthy oceans by purposefully managing portions of 

The U.S. has been an international leader in coral reef management. The State Department, NOAA,

,

cluding Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues that are not currently committed to other

e Trust Fund would help support the new responsibilities placed on federal, state,

here are many other important activities, with significant implications for oceans and coasts, whose 

cos

incl

The nationwide upgrading of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure 

ance to federal offices, laboratories, and other facilities 

and useful m

ecosystems. 

The Commission also recognizes that the international dimensions of ocean policy are important. 

We urge the U.S. to lead the way in promoting better practices worldwide by ratifying the U.N. 

Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our nation needs to define a useful path to follow with other

international programs, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

U.S. AID, and the U.S. FWS contribute significantly to developing countries in terms if capacity and 

capacity building, research, enforcement, management procedures, and environmentally sustainable 

harvesting techniques. Other international initiatives that we participate in are the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), where over 2,000 species of coral are listed. 

Also, the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), developed in 1994, is an informal mechanism to 

develop best strategies for conservation. A final (but not exhaustive) example is the Global Coral

Reef Monitoring Network, which has the only global estimates of coral reef coverage and status,

although accuracy could be improved. 

Costs 

Significant change, however, cannot be achieved without commensurate investment. The U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy outlines the costs associated with making improvements to our ocean 

policy, and presents a proposal for meeting those costs through the establishment of a new “Ocean

Policy Trust Fund.” The sole intent of the Trust Fund is to ensure a dedicated source of funding for 

improved ocean and coastal management, including sustainable management of renewable 

resources. It is not intended to either promote or discourage offshore uses authorized under existing

laws, and the Fund itself would not drive activities in offshore waters. 

Although there is a considerable level of uncertainty in the cost estimate, the Commission estimated 

that the total additional cost to the federal government is approximately $1.5 billion in the first year, 

rising to roughly $3.9 billion per year in ongoing costs after full implementation. Monies for the 

Trust Fund would be generated through resource rents from certain approved uses in federal waters

in

purposes. Th

territorial, tribal, and local governments, and prevent the creation of unfunded mandates. 

T

ts, even if known, were not included in the totals provided by the Commission. Examples

ude:

•

• Ongoing flagship projects such as restoration of the Florida Everglades 

• Nationwide (inland) water monitoring 

• Planning and implementation of an intermodal freight transportation system

• The National Science Foundation’s Ocean Observatories Initiative 

• Reestablishment of a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 

• Mainten
• The costs of renewing the U.S. Coast Guard fleet, implementing Maritime Domain

Alth report, I hope you see that we are 

striking a good balance. I am confident that our report will be a blueprint for action using 

eco

scie

Thi

or y t. That is understandable

and inevitable, but it should not prevent you from supporting the creation of a comprehensive and

ate

these recommendations:

• Stimulating research and development in our nation 

• Ensuring that your children have fish to eat and beaches to enjoy 

• Strengthening our nation’s security—military and economic 

• Improving your quality of life and that of the entire planet 

• Developing new partnerships and business opportunities 

• Helping universities start a curriculum focused on Commission the

tenure process so it is broader than just counting research publications 

High tides raise all boats. It is our collective task to make sure everyone under

are both a public resource and a public trust, and that conservation for future

for our survival on Earth. This can only be done by working together. 

You should take this opportunity and responsibility as an individual to provi

House and to our leaders in Congress to act on the principles and recommen

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

Discussion 

Muller-Karger What I want to emphasize again is that the – I know a lot of p

well, what are the most important recommendations that come from this re

the corals, it is everything. I encourage you to look at this report, it is on the website: 

http://oceancommission.gov

Awareness, and other broad ocean safety and enforcement needs 

ough these are just a few of the issues we address in the

system-based management as the organizing framework for improvements in governance, in 

nce, and in education.

s process requires your active participation. You may not agree with all of our recommendations

ou may think some particular area did not receive adequate treatmen

coordinated national ocean policy. 

Here are a few reasons why you should read the report and develop a str gy to help implement 

mes and refocus the 

stands that the oceans

generations is critical

de input to the White

dations laid out by the 

eople are going to ask,

port, and it is not just

. If we don’t all work together in pushing our

people, if you don’t write to the president, to the chair of the Council on Env

you don’t write to these people, pushing this report forward, nothing is goi

going into an election cycle; this thing is noise in the eyes of many people

federal government are paying close attention to it. There is some legislation g

a very turbulent time, and if we don’t find support from the people, from t

keeping this momentum up and going, nothing is going to happen, neither

whoever may come next. So it is your job to push this thing forward. I wou

any questions now. [applause] 

analyzed the Pew Ocean Policy Commission recommendations and over a few hours, probably. One

leaders, our congress

ironmental Quality, if

ng to happen. We are

. Many people in the 

oing through, but it is

he media, consistently

with this president or

ld be happy to answer

DeeVon Quirolo: I was privileged to be at a conference in Washington, where for three days we 

101
of the big differences between the two was that Pew went a step up saying we need a new agency 

with a conservation mission, not one that is in Commerce to truly achieve our goals. In your final

port is there any upward change in that position that you reported? 

A be given that task by law,

y Congress. That would be a major step in that direction. We also say, very explicitly, that – there 

re

Muller-Karger: I touched on that area. We suggest that... For example, NOAA was created by 

executive order, so it doesn’t really have the mandate from Congress to be the leading agency to 

manage our ocean resources. We proposed that that happen – that NOA

b

are many other agencies – that NOAA should be the lead agency for ocean issues in the federal 

government. So we know that caused commotion, because many agencies – in the U.S., which is the 

leader – because who wants to even step forward. It is frustrating to see this, and they don’t even 

take the initiative to go forward and say “We are the leaders.” So we proposed that NOAA be the

leader. The reason we don’t agree with the concept of moving NOAA to be an independent agency 

is that would cost an enormous amount, because you would have to destroy many other agencies 

and pull pieces out and move them into NOAA. We say that this should be done over the long 

term. We actually have it in the report that this has to be a long-term process. We even get to our

natural resources... 

Quirolo: I understand what you are saying, but the other side of the coin if you did create a new 

you would be able to pull strong support from these various agencies that are competing for

life of this country, that we

ould probably do nothing if we recommended that. I think you have a good point, but we need 

ll agencies, 

f the order of $2-3 billion dollars: the smallest agencies in the government. And in Washington, the

Qu lo ommission, and

pow f

Mu r

Qu lo quick 

mo o d the effort to adopt

nut e national nutrient standards,

you make sure to protect the especially sensitive areas like coral reefs. So it would be virtually

agency,

that... 

Muller-Karger: What we have to... 

Quirolo: It bears looking at is what I am saying... 

Muller-Karger: I agree with you 100%. It is at this time, and in the

w

two steps to get to an objective, and we say “This is our objective.” But what we need is

coordination between the agencies and focus, and leadership from the agencies and high level 

attention to these problems. There is a reason why just lifting NOAA out of Commerce would not 

work, for another reason, but there is some basic reasoning. NOAA’s budget is on the order of $3 

billion. The Department of Commerce’s budget is $5 billion, so if you take NOAA out of

Commerce, and Commerce is a very small department compared to even NASA, or especially the 

Department of Defense, if you take this agency out, you now have created two new sma

o

way that you gain influence is by having a budget. So you now have created a worse problem for 

these agencies to function. 

iro : Unless you had a giant ocean bill to create a strong, new ocean c

er ul...

lle -Karger: But you would have to pull pieces out of... 

iro : But that is the part of what I wanted... I don’t want to dominate, but I have two

re c mments. The reports both came out with very important, and I applau

rient standards, but I just want to voice my concern that if you creat

102
imp si

particul you about that. But it is so 

portant and so good that the need to establish nutrient standards and reduce non-point source

n that that’s the same number everywhere. That

ould make no sense.

ernment. Granted that this is a top-down effort, it is a federal 

ffort, but the closest you get to the grassroots are the regional councils, where you will have one or 

o the grassroots community level, because that is where the stakeholders 

who u protect the ocean, are working, and by 

con c community support and

stak o

Mu r e report says. The report strongly

enc ra ement level, to the tribes and the

terr ri

governm e things that you are

lking about also happen in state waters. States have to work on themselves. So we state that

have organized themselves,

ther than resort to the federal government to deal with their problems. So we recognize that, every 

up. You have also described taking NOAA out of Commerce

d putting it into Interior as a bad idea. Could you elaborate on your rationale for that? 

r agency that basically guts all the other agencies to make a new one,

st to get the critical mass in terms of budget and people. Probably people would not even pay 

os ble to create national standards, unless you create them to a level high enough to meet the

ar nutrient preconditions for coral reefs. I just wanted to caution

im

pollution is a very strong part of that report in my eyes. And finally... 

Muller-Karger: Which is fine, but I think that we should not misread what the report said. There 

should be national standards, but that doesn’t mea

w

Quirolo: You just need to account for local standards, such as coral reef areas, marine parks, and 

finally, meeting the Florida people everywhere, in the communities, to make a successful ocean bill, 

which would be successful in gov

e

two people from whole regions representing the community. So I would strongly encourage you to

go a lot further down int

tr ly care and love and will do what they need to do to

ne ting strongly with the grassroots level you will achieve far more

eh lder involvement than you will with just another federal initiative.

lle -Karger: Well, I agree 100%. I think that is exactly what th

ou ges partnerships, taking down things to the local manag

ito es and the states as much as you can. Still, a lot of what the report refers to is federal 

ent structure and managing resources in federal water, so a lot of th

ta

initially these councils, these regional councils are voluntary – that does not mean that they shouldn’t 

happen. It means that there is strong encouragement, because you have these regional problems, for 

people in the region, in the manner that you have just described, who

ra

chapter has recommendations. 

Question: This is kind of a followan

Muller-Karger: Well, in defense of that, I don’t think it is a good idea just to move the boxes 

around. That accomplishes nothing. Just moving boxes from one agency to another, it’s typical 

government management, and we want to get away from that. I don’t want to be cynical about it,

but just moving it from here to here doesn’t do anything. So you would literally have to take pieces 

from USGS, from the management services, from EPA, given the functions, you would have to 

define which agency is regulatory, which one is this – and that. We are going through that right now 

with the intelligence community, you can see how big of a mess that is, and it is exactly the same 

problem, exactly the same problem. We went through that with the homeland defense process in 

creating a new agency, and it almost tore our political process apart. It was very painful. So, knowing 

that this is the climate that we are dealing with right now, we put a goal up of what this nation 

should be doing in how it manages its resources. But we cannot now, at this point in time,

recommend creating yet anothe

ju

attention to it at this point in time. The problem is mismanagement of our resources and the lack of 

103
coordination between the agencies. If you wanted to harness all the energy and coordinate it in a

proper way, you would be better off than we are today. [applause] 

Kacky Andrews: Before we move on to the next agenda item, I just want to mention and make 

] George is also the chairman, speaking of grassroots efforts, George is the 

hairman of our Sanctuary Advisory Council, and we have many members of our advisory council

coordinator, look at her, she’s embarrassed, anyway, give her another big hand [applause]. 

we move on to Climate Change. 

sure you are all aware. As Frank mentioned, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, every fall, has a meeting 

in states and territories on a rotating basis, and next month it is in Florida. It is in Miami Beach,

September 14th through 15th. We have some workshops on the 13th as well. There are some

pamphlets on the back table if you want more information, but I do want to make sure all of you are 

aware of that, that it is next month. 

Causey: Thank you, Kacky, and that is going to be the first joint meeting of the Task Force with the 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, so we are going to have the two overlapping. I 

just want to say a couple of things. We have a couple of elected officials who have joined us. Arlene 

Corbin, who is the vice-mayor of Key Colony Beach. I didn’t see her this morning, and now I have

embarrassed her. No, she was here for your whole talk. I also want to point out county

commissioner George Neugent. Would you mind standing – county commissioner George

Neugent? [applause

c

here that are stakeholders and grassroots people, will you all stand up, all of you that are here? These 

people, these folks volunteer their time [applause], and Fiona, you all know Fiona, she is the SAC

liaison

Heidi Schuttenberg: And with that

104
Climate Change

Moderator: Heidi Schuttenberg
Rethinking Conservation to Increase Coral Reef Resilience in the Face of 

Climate Change 

Lara Hansen 

The composition of the Earth’s atmosphere has been changing since the beginning of the industrial 

revolution owing to the emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Projections

for the next century are that greenhouse gas concentrations could increase by two to three times 

above pre-industrial levels. This has implications for coral reefs around the world, including Florida. 

ncreasing temperatures are expected in increase the incidence of coral bleaching. This may also 

ke

into account projected impacts of climate change when designing new protected area systems,

to aid species migration. In

particular, planners should look for climate refugia, areas that experience less change than

others. With respect to coral reef systems this may include identifying those locations which can 

be referred to as “cool spots,” places where thermal anomalies exceeding bleaching thresholds 

appear to have not occurred to date (Fig. 1). Using the remote sensing data generated by the 

NOAA HotSpot monitoring we can look for these sites with low warming probability (Kassem

et al. accepted). Planning marine protected areas and other reserves will now require an eye for

potentially dramatic future changes in protected areas; thinking about not only current but future 

configurations of habitats, communities, and ecosystems. Managers will need to be even more 

strategic, creative, and flexible in designing protection strategies to address traditional land/sea

uses, existing threats, and also climate change stresses. Protecting not just space but functional 

groups, keystone species, climatic refugia, and multiple microhabitats within a biome to provide 

adequate representation is essential. 

2. Limit all non-climate stresses 

Climate change is not occurring in a vacuum. There are myriad stresses affecting natural systems,

including habitat fragmentation, overharvest, invasive species, and pollution, to name a few. The 

limited body of research on interactions between climate and non-climate stresses suggests 

synergistic responses (McLusky et al. 1986). For example, when rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) 

are exposed to the pesticide permethrin over a range of temperatures, the toxicity increases as

temperature increases (Kumaraguru and Beamish 1981). In coral reef systems, synergistic 

responses have been identified between temperature and UV to induce bleaching. To support 

ecosystem resilience you must reduce the number of 

I

affect harmful algal bloom frequency. Sea level rise and associated land-use change will further 

exacerbate damage to reefs relating to climate change. These changes will require that we change our

approach to conservation in the face of climate change. 

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has created guidelines for developing conservation strategies to

respond to climate change (Hansen et al. 2003). They are based on four tenets. 

1. Protect adequate and appropriate space 

Ecosystems with high biodiversity and those that maintain crucial structural components are 

thought to recover more easily from climatic disturbances. Traditional conservation methods

such as creating protected areas, whether in terrestrial or marine areas, will thus have another

justification in the next several decades. It will become increasingly important, however, to ta

and to expand spatial scales through buffer zones and corridors

106
Figure 1. Cool spot identification for southeast Asia and northern Australia. The number of cool cell reef 

pixels is shown in these 90 km x 90 km bins to illustrate the regional patterns of cool cell distributions. At the 

native resolution of the PFSST (9 km), individual reef pixels are too small to be seen on regional maps. 

Darker blue represents more cool cells per bin. Red bins have had at least on extreme thermal anomaly (From

Kassem et al. Accepted). 

Simultaneous insults faced by that ecosystem. Fortunately many stressors are more locally 

controllable than climate change. In a marine system this may mean establishing “no-take zones” 

to reduce fishing pressure and associated habitat destruction. In a freshwater system this may 

require limiting the concentration of toxic substances in effluent from an upstream industry; to 

protect related marine systems it may mean lower acceptable nutrient and pollutant run-off 

concentrations through regulation. It may mean protecting alpine watersheds by limiting

extraction of water by downslope agriculture and cities, or limiting harmful grazing practices in

grasslands. Forests could require limiting fragmentation from road construction and logging. 

None of these tasks are easy, but they are approachable on a local level. 

3. Use adaptive management and start testing strategies now 

Given uncertainty about the exact nature of local ecosystem impacts of and responses to climate 

change, effective management of protected areas will require a responsive and flexible approach.

The success of various conservation approaches should be continually reassessed as the system

changes, and approaches should be adjusted as new information becomes available. In instances

where impacts are relatively clear, active intervention to increase adaptive capacity coupled with

0

1 - 4

5 - 8

9 - 12

13 - 17

18 - 25

Number of cool cell reef pixels

cells in a 90km square

107
monitoring is necessary. Such intervention may include assisted migration or reintroduction

 and freshwater ecosystems. Where extinction

of

in the wild is inevitable, ex situ conse es via the collection of germ plasm, seed

banks, gardens, aquaria, or zoos can be used as an option of last resort. 

e are attempting to

ilience and resistance to coral reefs in regard to coral

4.

Change (2001) suggest that if humans do not act to reduce 

emissions we will see CO2 levels of 550 ppm within the next 40 to 100 years, roughly a doubling 

s. Other scenarios predict a potential tripling by the century’s end. 

provide adequate protection for

biodiversity under these conditions. Conserving biodiversity will therefore require a two pronged 

approach. First, greenhouse gas emissions must be dramatically reduced in order to slow the rate 

and extent of global climate change. Under current scenarios, all outcomes result in dramatic 

species, non-chemical control of pest or disease outbreaks, controlling invasive species and 

decreasing nutrient-enhanced run-off into marine

rvation of speci

Regardless of management strategy, on-going monitoring is essential to assure that actions are 

truly of the “do no harm” variety. Monitoring with adaptive management sets up an in situ 

experiment, providing data for modification of management strategies and allowing for exchange 

of results between protected areas for better strategy development worldwide. This exchange of 

information will also be crucial as much of the world will be unable to afford extensive

monitoring techniques but will require new conservation strategies to protect ecosystems from 

climate change. 

The WWF has begun to study what approaches to conservation may increase the resilience of

coral reef systems to climate change. In American Samoa for example, w

determine what factors may confer res

bleaching. We know that increased sea temperatures, relating to climate change, are increasing

the incidence of coral bleaching. What we are interested in determining is if there are local

factors that can affect the likelihood of bleaching or the ability to recover from bleaching. To 

test the role of local factors we are conducting quarterly sampling at seven unique sites to

examine the condition of coral reefs in relation to nutrient concentrations (from terrestrial runoff), presence of UV-protective compounds in the water (chromophoric dissolved organic 

matter) and within corals (mycosporine-like amino acids), zooxanthellae variability, marine 

protected area status, and water temperature. We are looking for variability in these sites with 

regard to their bleaching response, as well as overall health. If factors are identified as being

associated with altered responses, they may prove useful in making decisions relating to selection

of new marine protected areas, or for improving management approaches. We are also

conducting similar projects at WWF field sites in Indonesia and hope to expand the project to

sites in the Indian Ocean and Caribbean region. 

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow the rate and extent of climate change 

Since the industrial revolution the average global temperature has risen 0.7 oC as atmospheric

CO2 concentrations have risen from ~280 ppm to 376 ppm. Emissions scenarios from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

of pre-industrial concentration

This range of scenarios implies an additional increase in average global temperature of 1 to 5.8 

oC. Recent papers suggest that the upper end of this range is more likely and that even higher 

high temperatures are possible, especially if climate sensitivity has been underestimated (Caldeira 

et al. 2003). This higher range of temperatures will also mean greater sea level rise and greater

potential changes in precipitation and oceanic currents. 

Clearly most systems will be dramatically challenged and subsequently altered by changes of this 

magnitude. It is unlikely that any local strategies could

108
c

greenhouse gas emissions to limit change to less 

hanges beyond the reach of adaptive measures. WWF proposes that we aim to reduce 

than a 2 oC average temperature increase above 

re-industrial levels. Second, assuming that we can limit the rate and extent of change, we will 

ill need to respond to the change that is already inherent in the system and buy some time for 

cosystems as emissions are reduced. Because the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

ave a substantial lag time we are locked into additional change from the concentrations of

reenhouse gases already in the atmosphere today. This does not mean that reducing emissions 

futile; rather it means that we must reduce emissions quickly and deeply and take local action 

protect biodiversity by increasing the resistance and resilience of natural systems so they can 

etter survive the changes to come. 

hile it is not the role of resource managers to lobby for policy implementation in relation to

reenhouse gas emissions, they can make a contribution to explaining the urgent need for such 

tion. By identifying the vulnerability of their systems to climate change, as well as observing 

d reporting the changes they are already seeing, they can communicate to those in positions to 

fect climate policy the need for taking such action. Policy is swayed by economics and

vidence. In addition to providing evidence, it may be possible to determine the economic cost 

f current and future climate change impacts to systems. Increasing the resilience of a system is 

ive. This means that resource management, an area already existing on limited 

nding will become more challenged to work effectively as climate change continues. 

dditionally many of the resources that are managed are themselves of substantial economic 

alue and will be affected by climate change, such as fisheries and tourism. 

What can Fl

Lite

Cal

Han

p

st

e

h

g

is

to

b

W

g

ac

an

af

e

o

not inexpens

fu

A

v

orida conservation practitioners do about climate change? 

1. Develop local strategies to respond to climate change to protect natural resources 

2. Encourage local policy makers to take action on climate change 

3. Use stories of climate change in Florida to mobilize global action on climate change to

afford real long-term protection for coral reefs from even more dramatic climate change 

rature Cited

deira, K., A.K. Jain, and M.I. Hoffert. 2003.Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for 

energy without CO2 emission. Science 299: 2052-2054. 

sen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman, eds. 2003. Buying time: a user’s manual for building resistance 

and resilience to climate change in natural systems. World Wildlife Fund. (Available at www.panda.org). 

rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

sem, K.R., M.A. Toscano, K. Casey, K.G. Llewellyn, L.J. Hansen, and T. Ricketts. Accepte

Absences of coral reef extreme thermal anomalies: Regional implications for conservation. Ma

Pollut. Bull.

Inte

Kas d.

r.

Kumaraguru, A.K., and F.W.H.Beamish. 1981. Lethal toxicity of permethrin (NRDC-143) to 

d water temperature. Wat. Res. 15(4): 

Mc

rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, in relation to body weight an

503-505. 

Lusky, D.S., V. Bryant and, R. Campbell. 1986. The effects of temperature and salinity on the 

toxicity of heavy metals to marine and estuarine invertebrates. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 24: 

481-520. 

109
Panel Discussion

uttenberg: I am going to ask our speakers to move up to the table, for all of the questions that 

e come up for the last four discussions. Who would like to start it off with a question? 

Sch

hav

John McManus: I just wanted to build on something that Mark said. He was pointing out that 

thes

that

som

arou

be a

fact

Eakin: The problem that we have had in the past is that most of the global climate models have not 

don

I am

mo

beli

the

freq

are 

per

glo

eas

and

tem

the

but

say

r Another one for Mark. What bothers me about CO is another story in a recent report 

rease in acidity. 

Wa

Ea

tha

the

feel

a la

On

rate

And we are probably dealing with non-linear systems, and so you may be – insofar as the CO2

crease hasn’t reached a point where the corals suddenly have a serious problem. The other 

pos

the

e increases are not uniform at all, they are patchy. In other words if there is one degree change, 

 means it is going to be two degrees in some places, and zero degrees in others, which makes 

e people feel happy. But the other realization is that those two-degree places are going to sweep 

nd like a razor that is shaving a face, which is something that some of us still do, and that would 

 problem. What is the record and the feeling with regard to the El Niño phenomenon, and the 

 that we’re having trouble finding out if there is a trend or not? 

e El Niño very well, and they can’t do a very good job of really representing what El Niño does. 

 not talking about the prediction models; those are good – they are different from normal 

dels. If they can’t do a very good job of showing what El Niño does now, how can you really 

eve what they are saying about the future? That has changed. Those models are improving and 

 story is starting to come out, but it is still a bit mixed. If El Niño is going to become more 

uent and more severe, some of the models say yes. Some of the models are indifferent. There 

very few that say that El Niño is going to tend to go away. If we look just from a theoretical 

spective though, El Niño is theorized as being basically a piece of the radiator system of the 

be that allows us to blow off steam, as it were. As the temperature differences between the 

tern and western Pacific get stronger, you’ve just got to blow the steam off, and El Niño goes 

 dumps heat out and changes things around; then it goes back to normal. If you increase 

perature there would be more of a need to do that, and so there is some indication from some of 

 models and from theory, that indeed the tendency for increased El Niño is likely in the future, 

 I am afraid the answer to that question is very wishy-washy because that ss what the data are 

ing right now. 

Te y Done: r 2

about another calcium carbonate pool – calcite – dissolving, and buffering the inc

s that discussed in Okinawa and was it given any credence? 

kin: It wasn’t really discussed because the problem you run into with any scientific meeting like 

t is you get what people happen to be working on at the time, what they are interested in, and 

re really wasn’t much discussion that went on at the meeting. I don’t think that there is any 

ing that there is a lack of credence to that. But again, it is one of these things. If we are looking at 

rge scale, globally, what happens in the laboratory may or may not happen the same in the field. 

e of the questions that has been raised, looking at the paleoclimatic studies, is looking at growth 

 over time, why does it not look like the corals have changed in growth rate as CO2 has gone up. 

in

sibility is that the concentrations of calcium carbonate around reefs may be naturally buffered, 

y may be protected. In fact, only time is going to provide an answer on that one as well. 
Elli sical, the

seco

littl ay

brin e

effe

are coral

reef

CO r

dow

Eakin: The first of those – I don’t think we have a really good answer about changes in current 

patterns, especially because most of the global models tend to handle ocean very roughly, very 

coa d

ans I

am n

of i

saw s of the

low s

the .

Are have

wea driven to

coll

od Salm: When you were asking that question, I was thinking of some of those other reef 

ngs that are more fragile and

perhaps.

The a , and these

are f

perh s

orpho

need to be taking care of local conservation e

something. It is one of the things I have been ch

about how they are not willing to do

it’s true, Elliott. [applause] 

ott Norse: I have two questions. These are going to be different. The first one phy

nd one biogeological. I have had a sense for a while that linear forcing, pushing a little more, a

e more, a little more, incremental increases in CO2 may bring linear responses, but that they m

g non-linear responses in currents. And I can imagine that changes of currents could have mor

cts on coral reefs than linear increases in temperature. What is the latest on whether or not we

likely to have non-linearity, rearrangements of current structure that could help, or harm,

s, greatly? Second question: has anybody looked at how increasing temperature, or increasing

2 and decreasing the acidity of coral skeletons might affect bioerosion rates, will they go up o

n, because there already is an effect. 

rsely. The last thing they are interested in are coastal areas, so I don’t think there is any goo

wer to the first one. The second – and, in fact, that is something we are working on right now.

preparing a paper, working with Joanie Kleypas and some others, looking at the whole questio

f, and in some areas such as where I have worked in the Pacific. After the El Niño in 1982-83 we

a tremendous mortality, which was followed by huge amounts of bioerosion, and area

er reef are just flat gone. They are sand. The question is, are there differences in systems such a

eastern Pacific compared to areas that are already, that have less CO2 in their current systems

there analogues out there, and the evidence seems to support this, yes indeed. Where you

ker skeletal structure you have a more fragile system that is more capable of being

apse by bioerosion, whereas in other areas the physical structure is just more robust. 

R

structures of those subtropical areas, some of the worm reefs and thi

that you can break easily with your fingers and how they have adapted their growth form

se re reefs, I am thinking of the southern Mozambique coast that I know quite well

ree s in very high energy environments. So if one wants to look for an optimistic interpretation, 

ap there would be ability for those more fragile coral skeletons to survive by changing their

m logy and being better able to withstand wave energy and other similar stressors. 

Schuttenberg: I am going to ask this question as a proxy for someone else. Lara came and gave a

similar presentation to the Sanctuary Advisory Council earlier in the week and quite inspired some

of the SAC members, so that at the reception yesterday, several of them came up and asked her

“What are you going to do about that climate change thing?” So, given the collective expertise, if

you were writing a prescription for some concept – what are you going to do, how are you going to

answer the members’ question? [laughter from the panel] 

Hansen: I get to start. Well, I sort of gave my prescription in the last slide of my talk. I think we

fforts, we need to be motivating our local policy 

makers to start taking action, and we need to motivate our global policy makers to look at what is 

happening in our systems locally that we care about, and persuading them that they need to do

atting about with people in the Keys. If sea-level

rise has dominantly, in the past couple of decades, been caused by the melting of glaciers in Alaska.

Alaska is another state, Florida is a state, perhaps your senators need to meet and have a little chat

 anything about climate change that is impacting folks here. Yes, 

111
Bob Ginsburg: I’d have to say I agree Coral reefs and corals especially have

one through some pretty serious ups and downs of sea level, and I tried to indicate that on this

ey had to 

commodate to almost equally large lowerings of sea level, not to mention the associated climatic 

realize, and I would include the 

olicy makers in this, that global actions have important local consequences, as well as of course 

ilization, to allow us the time to get more technologies to allow us get to longer 

rm stabilization. I recommend that everyone take a look at that paper. No one is proposing that 

of ways that we can do things. The

conomic pressure is the big issue right now, because the people who sell fossil fuels are making a 

and the

verglades. There will be three more excellent panels. Thank you all very much. [applause] 

with Greg Nalter [??].

g

graph. In the past – what, 125, the last 10,000 years sea level has risen 120 meters, and the corals had

to accommodate that. And previous to that there were four or five episodes where th

ac

changes. So I think, first of all, we are certainly going to have coral reefs. I agree with Greg Moulter

[??], and I would also like to point out that the geologic record is replete with extinctions and 

disappearances of individual taxa. So Greg, we may not have the same reefs that we have today, but 

I can assure you we will have coral reefs. 

Eakin: I think that the plan that you had up on the screen from the WWF report is a very good one.

I think that the only thing that I would add is if – people need to

p

local actions have important global consequences. We really have to make sure that people are 

working together on this one, because it is a big problem. I mean, it is a huge problem that we don’t,

I think, collectively, globally have an answer to really get it solved. We could easily sit up here and

say “Cut CO2 emissions,” but the economic consequences of doing that are huge. So there is a lot 

that goes into this equation, just like Elliott was talking about complexity of systems earlier today. 

This is a huge, uncontrolled global experiment, and if anyone knows the answer of how to put it

back together, please step forward. 

Ginsburg: How many people in this room’s families have two cars? Are you willing to give up one? 

How many people have one car? Are you willing to give it up? 

Hansen: I live in Washington, DC, and I’m a driver. [laughter] The other thing that I want to talk

about is a paper that I have been touting at every talk I have given this week. The issue of Science that

came out last week was focused on the hydrogen economy. There was a paper in it by two scientists

at Princeton who talked about their proposal for how we reach stabilization, not full stabilization,

but a 50-year stab

te

we stop driving cars, no one is proposing that we stop using electricity. They actually have a 

blueprint of how they think we can get to this, and there are a lot of other people who put out 

similar blue prints. We have a lot of technologies and a lot

e

whole bunch of money. 

Schuttenberg: Alright, then, well perhaps a new issue for the Florida Keys Sanctuary! Thank you 

very much, we want to thank the panel very much. [applause] 

Keller: I would just like to make a couple of concluding remarks and set us up for tomorrow. I

think this has been a truly extraordinary day for the Florida Keys and I want to thank our plenary 

speakers and all of our panelists and speakers, the audience that has come here to partake of all this, 

and I want to thank you all very much for a fantastic day. [applause] And tomorrow is going to be 

another extraordinary day with three plenaries: on our sister coral reef system in Australia, on the 

Great Barrier Reef; on Shifting Baselines; and on the recent history of South Florida

E

112
Plenary Presentation: 

Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef: Sister System of the Florida Keys 

Terry Done 

Introduction 

The theme of this public meeting about conserving and using the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (FKNMS) stresses the importance of building connections among scientists, the general 

ublic, and policy-makers. In Australia, these same players have also made good connections in 

stem, while 

alancing access and sustainable use of its resources. The creation of the FKNMS and the effort to 

n perceived threats were mining of reef 

mestone and drilling for oil. (Then we just worried about mass spillages of oil; now we also worry 

p

relation to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), in some ways, a sister to the Florida Keys. The GBR 

World Heritage Area is an area of ocean and reefs the width of Florida that, if transplanted to the 

U.S. east coast, would stretch the 1,200 miles from Key West to Baltimore (Fig. 1). The GBR is a 

sister not just in terms of its ecological structure of coral reefs, seagrass areas, islands, mangroves, 

sea creatures, and wildlife. It is also a sister in the sense that there has been a long history of 

increasing use of the ecological system in both places: coastal development, shipping, ports, fishers, 

divers, tourists and tourism operators. In both places, there are people who may never visit the reef 

tract themselves, but greatly value its existence and its intrinsic qualities nonetheless. Like the Florida 

Keys, the GBR is managed as a multiple use marine management area, with goals of balancing use, 

production, and access, while protecting its economic values (mainly tourism, fishing, ports, and 

shipping) and natural values (the scenic qualities, biodiversity, and ecosystem function that underpin 

most of the economic values – which are valued at billions of dollars annually). 

But there are important and striking differences between the GBR and the FKNMS apart from 

sheer size. Whereas the Keys loom small in the consciousness of the American general public, “Our 

Reef” looms large in the consciousness of Australians. Most if not all Australian schoolchildren learn 

of the GBR as a national treasure from an early age, as much as American school children learn of 

Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon National Parks: it is unthinkable that we humans inadvertently 

do anything to diminish them. The strength of care for and ownership of the GBR by the people is 

translated into bi-partisan political support for strong measures to conserve the sy

b

restore the Everglades is evidence that the great value and importance of the linked ecosystems of 

the Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys are clearly recognized. 

Connections Inherited, Built, and Maintained 

In Australia, it was in the 1960s and 70s that public groundswell to “Save the Reef” came to the 

consciousness of my generation. At that time, the mai

li

about burning it). An engrossing account called The Coral Battleground from the perspective of poet 

Judith Wright (1973) juxtaposes the imagery of the coral paradise at risk, the vested interests 

standing to make a fortune from oil, conservationists from diverse walks of life who saw the issues, 

created and committed themselves to the “Save the Reef” cause, and scientists in the Great Barrier 

Reef Committee (formed in 1922 – now the Australian Coral Reef Society) walking a line between 

science and advocacy, informing the public debate, and 
Figure 1. Map of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, showing revised zoning introduced in July 2004.

114
115

highlighting the paucity of sci at we wanted to save: “Our

Reef.” Wright’s account has in te, and manager, and indeed,

the p y by

d large came out of those days: the Department of Marine Biology at James Cook University 

(JCU; 1969); the Australian Institute of M AIMS; 1972); and the Great Barrier Reef 

arine Park Authority (1975). All have made their mark since, and built much of the foundation of 

out tropical marine systems in general, and the GBR in particular, that managers and 

ive Research Center 

RC) Program. Over 12 years, it provided billions of dollars a range of Centers, and in particular, 

RC Reef Board of interest 

roup leaders, and the science institutions themselves. The outputs of all the science organizations 

n problems as perceived by interest groups and

entific understanding of the very thing th

spired many a coral reef scientist, advoca

olitical impetus that led to today’s research institutions and the GBR management agenc

an

arine Science (

M

basic science ab

policy makers can now take for granted. But there were also shortcomings and delays in the transfer 

of the considerable science knowledge that was relevant to policy and management. Also, there was

inadequate engagement between scientists and would-be users of science – not only the managers 

and policy makers, but also the traditional, commercial, and recreational users of the GBR. Two 

concrete initiatives to redress these shortcomings had their genesis in the 1990s. 

The first was a two-year, skillfully facilitated process of extensive workshops and working groups

orchestrated by the GBR Marine Park Authority that produced the Twenty-five Year Strategic Plan for the 

Great Barrier Reef (Anon. 1994). The Plan’s vision, broad goals, and specific strategies, signed off by 

the leaders of all the major interest groups of the time, have been reflected in many recent GBR

policy and management initiatives. In the process of meetings and workshops to develop the plan,

scientists were not afforded the status of an elite group with a unique and disinterested view of the 

system. Rather, we were considered “just another interest group,” a decision that, if not immediately 

appreciated by the scientists involved, was vital in building the science-people connectivity. The 

second concrete initiative was the Australian federal government’s Cooperat

(C

about $90 million of new money to coral reef science with important strings attached: interest 

groups must be involved in the identification of issues, the allocation of research funds, and where 

possible, the logistic support of the research. 

Those same interest groups that defined the vision and created the Twenty-five Year Strategic Plan

signed up to the partnership that became “CRC Reef”: The CRC for the Ecologically Sustainable 

Development of the GBR (1993 – 1999) and The CRC for the GBR World Heritage Area (2000 – 

2006). Institutions including AIMS, JCU, and the Queensland Fisheries Service, by making

commitments of time, staff, and resources to CRC Reef programs, were able to bolster their staff, 

income, and resources to undertake research in areas prioritized by the C

g

increased substantially; there was a greater focus o

there were mechanisms of consultation to translate “issues” into targeted research projects to better 

know and understand not only the physical and ecological system, but also the human dimensions – 

who does what where, how, and how much, and how better could it be done. Importantly, in some 

studies, especially a large “effects of fishing project,” the process of engagement and consultation

was equally as important as the science. Brochures, media briefings, and web sites have been

important parts of connectivity building. There is now a greater appreciation of the issues and the 

scientific process – warts and all – and a greater willingness across the community to be part of the 

solution, not “the problem.” 
Pressures, Symptoms, and Management for Resilience 

Like the Florida Keys, the ecology and economy of the GBR are subject to the same set of 

pressures as have been enumerated for tropical coastal systems the world over (Fig. 2): land-based 

runoff, fishing, tourism, diseases, pest outbreaks, and occasional ship groundings; extremes of 

natural climate variability such as hurricanes, heat waves, and floods; climate-change related changes

in frequency and intensity of hurricanes, floods, and heat waves; and other more insidious climate 

change impacts such as slow increases in average ocean temperature and acidity. Given the huge size 

of the GBR, there is enormous variability in the extent to which these pressures have caused 

damage, and to which they represent ongoing threats to wildlife, ecological function and revenue 

generating activities and opportunities for fishing and tourism. Overall, the Great Barrier Reef is

considered to be in relatively good condition (Wilkinson 2002), and I see current management as a 

mix of reducing manageable pressures, and improving the system’s capacity to accommodate effects 

of runoff and fishing, and to rebound from inadvertent and natural disturbances. Diverse and 

sometimes subtle symptoms of degradation in the ecosystem at large, or in any local spatial or 

habitat subset, may be loosely categorized into three broad classes (Fig. 2B): 1) degradation of the 

environment (e.g., water or sediment quality), 2) a paucity of fish or other key functional group that 

could reasonably be expected to be abundant at that place, and 3) failure of ecological processes

(such as corals not returning after a hurricane, or a target population of fish or invertebrate not 

rebounding after relaxation of fishing pressure). Any one of these symptom classes can signal a need 

for better policy and management in relation to a particular place; conceptually and operationally,

the symptoms merge and overlap (Fig. 2B). 

Zoning of access and use has been the major management action for almost two decades, along with 

management of fisheries in that section of the area that is open to fishing (> 90% until 2004), 

regulation of reef-based tourism, restriction of large shipping to designated lanes, and initiatives to 

maintain or where necessary, restore, good water quality. These management actions also fall into 

three broad overlapping categories (Fig. 2C): 1) rehabilitation (of water quality or substrate quality),

2) fisheries management (with an eye not only on market forces, technology, catch, and profitability, 

but also on in situ ecological function of fished target and incidental populations), and 3) zoning of 

use and access (discussed in more detail below). I portray the response to climate change as

“coping” (Fig. 2C), recognizing that while reef managers do not do climate management, they can

try to prevent other stresses at times and places of extreme climate stress, and so improve coral 

survival or recovery prospects. 

These strategies (Fig. 2C), collectively, and adequately applied and targeted, should lay the 

groundwork for improvement in what has become the holy grail for managers of all sorts of natural 

and managed systems: ecological resilience (Best et al. 2002). At any given site, be it mangrove or 

seagrass area, the open sea floor, or a coral reef, two things need to be ‘OK’ for that place (Fig. 2D): 

timely and adequate natural replenishment of depleted populations, especially key functional groups, 

and an environment that will expeditiously produce ‘the right’ outcome: a mangrove forest that 

supports prolific fish nurseries; a seagrass meadow that supports dense shrimp populations, turtles,

and dugongs (like manatees); another area of sea floor where fields of sea-fans, sponges, worms, and

lace corals regain a trawl-damaged area; and a coral reef with 

116
Figure 2. Schematic representation of pressures (A) and a classification of symptoms (B) and management

) as a package of macro-scale strategies. These strategies that should work together to build resilience (D) 

to the system at the regional scale.

(C

in

117
lots of corals, fish, and all the other creatures that make up a rich coral reef community. We can

stal development (Fabricius and De’ath 2004).

is the relative importance of floods and normal flows in contributing

targeted amounts? How are the materials are dispersed, diluted, and taken up biologically once 

will be able to play out their roles in

ecosystem function relieved of fishing as a source of mortality, and with the habitat relieved of 

effects of direct impacts of fishing gear. Many of the technical details of the rezoning process are 

outlined in Day et al. (2002). 

think of the broad management strategies (Fig. 2C) as the regional macro-ecological management

necessary to set up success of micro-ecological management carried out at individual sites, or by

individual enterprises, be it fishery or tourism activity. 

Rehabilitation 

In the GBR, rehabilitation is primarily concerned with maintaining or improving water quality 

impinging on the habitats and ecosystem. (Fortunately, there has only been a small need for site 

rehabilitation following ship groundings and channel dredging). In relation to land-based sources of

pollution, the differences between the Keys and the GBR are more striking than the similarities. The 

towns of the Keys, with their septic systems and storm-water runoff, may be thought of as pointsources of domestic pollution, sitting within the more diffuse and episodic plume of runoff entering 

Florida Bay from the catchment that is mainland Florida, and sweeping onto the Keys and reef tract 

from the west. The Great Barrier Reef catchment comprises about 40 rivers draining highland 

ranches and lowland croplands, ranches, and towns. There are no towns on the islands of the GBR,

but many do have tourist resorts within a stone’s throw of coral reefs. The sewage from all these 

resorts is now tertiary treated and discharge points are sited to minimize impacts on the reefs. 

Looking at the regional scale, scientific study has shown that the main sources of nutrients and

sediments to coastal waters of the GBR are the crops and farmlands adjacent to the 40 rivers 

(Furnas 2003), and that there are demonstrable impacts on several indicators of coral reef health on

those reefs closest to the area of greatest coa

These two pieces of science – the quantification of land-based inputs and the demonstration of a 

detrimental effect on coral reefs – have provided scientific support and impetus for the introduction

of a major regional water quality rehabilitation program called the Reef Water Quality Protection 

Plan (RWQPP). The RWQPP is currently setting the groundwork for a process that will assist 

farmers and ranchers keep their soils and fertilizers where they want them: on their farms and 

ranches. It will eventually set targets for river-mouth loadings of sediments and nutrients for each of 

the catchments feeding into Great Barrier Reef waters. The solution must thus be built on

connectivity and collaboration among land-users, who are in a number of cases organized into 

integrated catchment management committees, and whose actions will be backed by dedicated state 

and federal funds. For reef scientists, the still evolving river-mouth target approach poses a number

of challenging questions. What

to

they reach the sea? How much, where, and how will the benefits in the marine system will be 

expressed? 

Zoning 

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) recently (1 July 2004) implemented a

revision of zoning of the GBR that increased the level of no-take protected areas from 4% to 33%, 

an 800% increase in protection at a cost of a 30% reduction in area available for fishing. The 90 notake zones are areas usually of 10s to 100s of square miles scattered along the length and breadth of 

the GBR (Fig. 1). In all these areas, previously fished species

118
Previous zoning did not adequately protect the full range of biodiversity, and it reflected a historical 

cus on coral reefs and remote areas. The rezoning has enhanced protection of the region’s 

iodiversity by introduction of a network of highly protected areas typical of all the different habitats

d communities. A scientific advisory group worked with GBRMPA staff to compile and collate 

iophysical data and use GIS to produce a classification of about 70 contiguous reef and non-reef

ioregions covering the entire GBRWHA. Scientists also took a leading role in defining a set of

perational principles (amounts, replication, and configuration) that they believed would produce a 

etwork of no-take zones that would provide a high level of insurance for all biological diversity by 

liminating any extraction of species and incidental effects of fishing. Others developed and helped

plement a computer-aided reserve selection process that provided a great flexibility of options

at would meet conservation goals while minimizing economic, cultural, and social costs. The GIS 

ap of the area was divided into > 50,000 hexagons that were grouped into candidate areas 

cording to specific rules consistent with the operational principles, such as minimum size, 

plication, spatial distribution within a bioregion, specified number or area of each biological 

ature type, inclusion of ‘special’ places, adjacent land or sea uses, and pre-existing zoning. From 

shers’ perspectives, however, the zoning measures constitute a reduction in areas open to fishing 

om around 96% to 67% (Fig. 1) and loss of access to particular areas and stocks that were 

reviously used recreationally or commercially (see discussion of compensation measures, below). 

anagement of Fishing

the Great Barrier Reef, the language in laws and regulations covering fishing emphasizes not only 

stainable fish stocks, but also the sustainability of ecosystems on which they depend

fo

b

an

b

b

o

n

e

im

th

m

ac

re

fe

fi

fr

p

M

In

su . Meeting 

ese dual fishing objectives alongside the responsibilities Australia has to protect and present the 

ef as a World Heritage Area is a balancing act for the management agencies. Fishing in the GBR is

iverse: trawling, line fishing (for frozen, fresh, and live trades), netting, crabbing, and several 

collection fisheries,” including corals and aquarium fishes. There are bag and size limits, and 

asonal closures explicitly to protect reef fish spawning aggregations. Starting in 2004, there are 

ree nine-day closures to all reef fishing based on the moon phases that are cues to summer time 

ass fish spawning on reefs.

he no-take zones, though explicitly for biodiversity conservation, restrict fishing to 66% of the 

ea, with implications for the viability of fishing enterprises through new restrictions placed on the 

istribution of effort, and the potential for concentration of effort in the remaining open areas. A 

ell funded, joint federal and state government compensation plan has been introduced for fishing 

nterprises that can attribute disadvantage to the increase in no-take area. The federal government 

pplies the funds, and the state manages them as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Structural 

djustment Package 2004 through the Queensland Government Rural Adjustment Authority. Its 

ope can be appreciated through the main types of assistance offered: Business Advice Assistance;

usiness Exit Assistance; Business Restructuring Assistance; Employee Assistance; Social Impact 

ssistance; and Employee Assistance (see http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/

th

re

d

“

se

th

m

T

ar

d

w

e

su

A

sc

B

A ). 

he federal government identified ecosystem-based fisheries management as the broad ground rules

r accessing this scheme. Like the concept of resilience, and overlapping with it, ecosystem-based

anagement is an intuitively appealing idea and an incentive for research to refine how it is done. 

iversity conservation in the Great Barrier Reef: the vast size and

diversity of the area over which biodiversity conservation and fisheries are practiced; and the real 

T

fo

m

Certainly, actions like zoning, protection of water quality, and protection of spawning aggregations 

are elements of ecosystem-based fisheries management. There are two causes for optimism in 

relation to both fisheries and biod

119
prospects that, uniquely in the world so far, the number, size, and distribution of no-take zones will 

have important flow-on and spill-over benefits in replenishing fished stocks within the area at large, 

and in supporting fishing at large. 

Coping with Climate 

s a major threat for coral reefs and allied systems (Buddemeier et al. 2004; Done 

current

itiative to build resilience into coral reef management pioneered and developed by Salm and 

hem.

K in terms of “lots” and “many varieties” will depend not only on whether you are in the 

r supply of coral or fish larvae,” or “it wasn’t so close to that shipping 

ne or sewage outfall.” Scientists may, through good connections with each other and a collective

understanding of processes, so characterize many such points on the map, and also learn to 

Climate change i

and Jones 2006). Sea-level rise and increases in ocean temperatures will potentially affect local

survivorship, extent of individual formations, and regional distributions in mangroves, seagrass

meadows, and coral reefs – the iconic habitats of both the GBR and the Florida Keys. Increasing 

concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will directly affect plant productivity and indirectly affect growth

rates in calcareous organisms such as corals, clams, and many marine plants, potentially impeding a

reef’s ability to grow vertically in pace with sea-level rise. The greater the climate change, the greater

the potential detrimental effect on humans through the loss in area of productive habitat, and loss of 

ecosystem goods and services in areas that remain. Coral reefs are now widely recognized as an

iconic natural system at risk of serious degradation under the effects of global climate change, being 

regularly covered in the scientific and popular press. To that extent, scientists have been very 

successful in informing the public debate. 

A recent statement from the influential International Coral Reef Initiative included the words “reefs 

are deteriorating from coral bleaching and mortality due to warming seas,” and coral reef managers 

should “counteract these trends by adopting a number of risk minimizing strategies.” The

in

colleagues (these proceedings) is one risk-minimizing strategy based on “picking winners.” Another,

based on “spreading the risk” rather than picking winners, is the implementation of a dispersed and

replicated configuration of no-take areas such as we have in the Great Barrier Reef. Though “notake” confers no protection from ocean hot-spots, our configuration should minimize the risk of all

protected areas being damaged by any unmanageable external event, such as a summer heat wave, a

flood plume, or hurricane waves, all of which are patchy at the scale of the whole Great Barrier Reef. 

Conclusion 

At the Great Barrier Reef or at “little sister” Florida Keys, any of us can drop an anchor, swim

around, and enjoy or despair at the sights we see. We are aware that what we are seeing is a snapshot

in time. Things you hear from scientists may color what you see through your facemask. For 

example, on a damaged or over-fished coral reef in Florida or the Great Barrier Reef, you might take 

heart if you can see evidence of resilience: new corals and young fish, lots of them, and many 

varieties of t

What is O

GBR (high species richness) or the Keys (low), but also where in those places (some of my favorite 

places in the GBR have low species richness of corals and fishes). Science can attempt to tell us 

what is OK at local scales, and what processes produce OK or not OK. It can help define

reasonable expectations for place A, as compared to place B a few yards, miles, tens of miles, or

hundreds of miles away. If science is good enough, it can make the distinction between “it’s not OK 

and its prospects are bad” and “it’s not OK now, but its prospects are good because...”, or “...it 

would be OK if only...” “If only” might typically include “the place weren’t so choked up with 

seaweeds,”, or “it had a bette

la

120
interpolate and extrapolate sensibly to points for which they have no direct observations. This is a 

major part of the scientific challenge on the vast expanses of the GBR and the Florida Keys reef

tract, where in situ data points are extremely sparse, be they ecological observations on coral reefs, 

seagrass beds, hard-grounds, or the sea floor, or be they samples of water or plankton communities, 

or sediment cores. 

When scientists needed to connect with the GBR Marine Park Authority, this type of thinking fed 

into the process that laid the ecological ground rules for the new Zoning Plan. When, to finalize the 

zoning, the managers connected with the broader, sometimes antagonistic, fishing community, they 

were able to negotiate on two broad premises: 1) that the ecological ground rules were considered by 

a scientific panel to be necessary to meet criteria for biodiversity conservation, and 2) that there 

could be flexibility in zone boundaries, but only within bounds of the ecological ground rules. That 

we now have a zoning plan that can do great good for the people and “Our Reef” is perhaps one of

the world’s best examples of science-people-policy connections. This is big sister’s lesson for little 

sister. 

References 

Anon. 1994. Keeping it great. Twenty-five year strategic plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. 

Best, B.A., R.S. Pomeroy, and C.M. Balboa, eds. 2002. Implications for coral reef management and policy:

relevant findings from the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium. U.S. Agency for International

Development, Washington, DC, in collaboration with the World Resources Institute,

Conservation International, and the International Society for Reef Studies. Web access:

http://www.usaid.gov and http://www.wri.org. 

Buddemeier, RW., J.A. Kleypas, and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Coral reefs and global climate change: potential

contributions of climate change to stresses on coral reef ecosystems. The Pew Center on Global Climate 

Change, Arlington, VA. Vi + 44 pp. 

Day, J., L. Fernandes, A. Lewis, G. De’ath, S. Slegers, B. Barnett, B. Kerrigan, D. Breen, J. Innes, J. 

Oliver, T. Ward, and D. Lowe. 2002. The representative areas program for protecting the 

biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Proc. 9th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2: **-

Xiv+ 203pp.

**. 

Done, T.J., and R.N. Jones. 2006. Tropical coastal ecosystems and climate change prediction: global 

and local risks. Pages 5-31 in J. Phinney, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J.A. Kleypas, W. Skirving, and 

A.E. Strong, eds. Corals and climate change: science and management. American Geophysical Union, 

Washington, DC. 

Fabricius, K.E., and G. De’ath. 2004. Identifying ecological change and its causes: a case study on

coral reefs. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1448-1465. 

Furnas, M. 2003. Catchments and corals. Terrestrial runoff to the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of 

Marine Science, Townsville. Xii + 334 pp. 

Wright, J.A. 1977. The coral battleground. Thomas Nelson, West Melbourne.

121
Resource Conditions
Corals and Microbial Power Shifts... 

What Does It Mean? 

Kimberly B. Ritchie 

Coral Microbial Associates

Corals are complex consortiums consisting of a number of mutualistic individuals: the coral animal,

the symbiotic endosymbionts (dinoflagellates), and a host of other microbes, both endosymbionts 

and exosymbionts, which associate with the coral host. Culturable heterotrophic bacteria associated 

with the surface mucopolysaccharide layer of corals (Fig. 1) form diverse communities that differ 

significantly from communities in the surrounding water mass. Living in a nutrient-rich matrix, 

bacterial populations are competitive and appear to be specific to the chemical environment in

which they live. For example, the microbiota associated with healthy corals are different among coral

species. These similarities reflect the phylogenetic relationships among corals. Bleaching is the loss,

or degradation, of carbon-fixing zooxanthellae from otherwise healthy coral tissue. There is a 

gnificant shift in microbial community structure when corals become bleached.

Fig

dep

of

pro

mic

Co

mucus layer

of corals occur when corals are stressed, either due to disease or during bleaching (Fig. 2). We have 

also shown that Vibrio populations tend to increase during bleaching, but return to previous levels

during recovery. Conversely, populations of Pseudomonas decrease during bleaching, but also return 

to previous levels during recovery. It is not clear whether this population shift to predominantly 

opportunistic Vibrio populations is a response to available carbon sources after bleaching alters the 

mucopolysaccharide composition, or whether environmental conditions, such as temperature or

available nutrients from the water mass, contribute to an environment conducive to Vibrio

si

ure 1. Diagram

icting the surface of a 

coral colony, the surface

mucopoly-saccharide layer

the coral, and the

adjacent water mass. Also

shown are the complex

cesses associated with 

robial communities

within the surface mucus 

layer. 

ral Stress and Susceptibility

Coral Surface Surface 

Mucopolysaccharide Layer 

Microbial Water 

We have shown that shifts in organoheterotrophic microbial populations in the surface

Biomass Mass 

Products CO2 

2

CO2

Organic 

Acids Organic 

Exudates 

Secondary 

Coral 

Surface 

O O2

N

N2-Fixation 

Decreased 

C:N Ratio 

Mineralization 

Organic

N 

2

(Microaerophillic)

123
124

vergrowth, resulting in subsequent virulence and bleaching. It has been shown by other groups that

arious isolated Vibrio species can cause coral bleaching and disease symptoms. It is likely that many 

ifferent microbial species, both marine and land-based, can become opportunistic once 

nvironmental stressors have compromised the coral host. 

Figure 2. Illustration of the shift in

microbial community composition 

between a healthy coral polyp (left)

a bleached coral polyp (right). P:

omonas; V: Vibrio. 

Coral Diseases 

There is a range of disease 

assaults recorded for coral reef 

communities of the Caribbean. 

Black Band Disease is the best 

documented one. Among other 

known coral diseases are 

Aspergillosis (a fungal disease of

sea fans caused by Aspergillus 

sydowii); White Pox disease (a disease of Acropora palmata caused by Serratia marcescens) (Fig. 3); White 

Plague Disease (a disease of massive corals caused by Aurantimonas coralicida); and White Band

Disease (putative causative agent, a Vibrio sp.). It is estimated that White Band Disease has

destroyed up to 95% of the acroporid corals on many reefs. The precise source of known pathogens

is still unclear. To cause more uncertainty, there are a number of diseases affecting corals for which

the causative agents have not been identified. These include Yellow Band Disease, Dark Spots 

Disease, and a myriad of additional white diseases. 

Figure 3. Photograph of Acropora 

palmata colony infected by white pox

disease (left) and a photomicrograph of

the pathogen, Serratia marcescens (right). 

o

v

d

e

and

Pseud

Healthy Bleached

Bacterial composition shifts from Pseudomonas

to Vibrio as coral becomes bleached

VVPVPVV

VPVVVPV

PVVVVPV

VVPPVVV

VPVPVVV

PPPVPPP

PVPPPPP

PPPPPPP

PPPPPVP

PPVPPPP
The current thinking on co sed, but there are likely to

be more interesting and complex processes at work. For example, the microbial “power shift” from 

seudomonas to Vibrio may compromi

pounds are ay leave the coral animal open for 

pportunistic infection. Theoretical and o

normal communities associated with healthy corals. In some coral 

emselves? If they become pathogenic, opportunistically or otherwise, then this suggests that 

acteria are not the problem, but a symptom of a change in an environment more conducive to bacterial overgrowth, or 

icrobial processes that trigger a cha ects. It is much more likely that many different 

pes of microbes can cause infection, g en th

ral diseases is predominantly single pathogen-ba

P

produce protective com

se coral primary immune responses, as normal associates that 

compromised. This m

o observed consequences of environmental changes can als

lead to the disruption of the

diseases, the mucopolysaccharide matrix appears to break down at the site of the lesion. Because it is

likely that the normal microbiota protects the coral animal from invading microbes, changes in

microbial community structure may result in the development of some coral diseases. It is important 

to understand the role of these normal microbial communities in the health of corals when asking 

why some corals are more resistant to stress and disease than others. 

Microbes Are Not the Problem 

Known coral diseases for which pathogens have been identified range from terrestrial fungi to 

marine bacteria. This suggests that the putative causative agents of marine diseases are much more 

complicated than just new invasive species. Do pathogens become pathogenic through a

programmed adaptive process, or are they made pathogenic by the circumstances in which they find 

th

b

m in of environmental eff

ty iv e opportunity.

125
\ 

Resource Conditions: Discovery of a Viral Diseas

Impact of Sponge Fishing on Hard-botto

Mark Butler, Donald Behringer, and Jeffrey Shields 

Our presentation summarizes recent 

resea

two f

the

Sanc

Carib

argus)

comm

supp

operates within the FKNMS. 

However, both fisheries depend on 

healthy, shallow hard-bottom areas that provide habitat for commercial sponges and serve as 

nurseries for lobster. 

Shallow, hard-bottom habitat is a ubiquitous feature of the shallow waters within the FKNMS, and 

both sponges and spiny lobster are prominent constituents of these communities. Yet, remarkably 

little is known about the structure, ecological function, or resilience of hard-bottom communities. 

Our poor understanding of these communities has been highlighted in recent years by questions 

about the possible ecological impacts of Everglades restoration and commercial sponge fishing on 

hard-bottom communities. 

In the case of sponges, resolution of these issues has been

about their biology and ecology. For example, there is no stock assessment for sponges, the most 

basic population dynamics for the pertinent sponge species is largely unstudied, their tolerance to 

changes in water quality has not been tested, their impact on planktonic communities is not well

known, and the effect of the fishery on commercial sponges and allied species has never been 

examined. Although we know more about the biology of spiny lobsters, the recent discovery of a 

pathogenic disease that infects juvenile lobster has raised concerns about its possible impact on the 

fishery and its possible linkage with environmental quality. Our research on hard-bottom 

e Infecting Lobster and

m Communities 

rch developments pertaining to 

ishery resources that occur within

Florida Keys National Marine

tuary (FKNMS), namely: the

bean spiny lobster (Panulirus 

and several species of 

ercial sponges. Spiny lobster

ort one, if not the, most

economically valuable fisheries within 

the FKNMS, the State of Florida, and 

indeed the entire Caribbean.

Commercial sponges, on the other

hand, are targeted by a much smaller 

and largely artisanal fishery that

hampered because so little is known

126
communities over the past two decades has yielded important scientific insights, not the least of

which is new information on the lobster virus and the potential impact of the sponge fishery on 

sponge communities within the FKNMS. It is these two topics that we summarize below. 

Lobster Virus 

In 2000, we discovered a lethal virus (PAV1) that infects Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) in

the Florida Keys. It is the first viral disease known for any lobster, and it alters the behavior and

ecology of this species in fundamental ways. We have identified infected juvenile lobsters from sites

throughout the Florida Keys and from a few other locations in the Caribbean. The prevalence of

infection varies with ontogeny; most infections occur within the smallest lobsters. In contrast, < 1% 

of the more than 1,500 adults sampled showed visual signs of PAV1 infection.

th successful transmission

quired PAV1 infections after direct inoculation. 

ield observations indicate that lobsters infected with PAV1 

e found alone in dens more often than uninfected lobsters.

aboratory experiments confirm this and show that healthy 

dividuals, which are normally social, detect and avoid diseased conspecifics – the first report of 

ch behavior in any animal species in the wild. The evolution of this behavior may be an adaptation 

at thwarts transmission of disease in these social creatures and field experiments confirm that 

isease prevalence is independent of local population density. 

e are continuing our studies of this disease on a number of fronts, including: (1) testing whether

abitat change or alteration of individual condition alters susceptibility to infection, (2) developing 

munological and genetic diagnostic tools to assess infection at earlier stages, and (3) spatially 

xplicit, individual-based modeling of disease transmission under varying scenarios of habitat

ructure, behavioral attributes, and fishing pressure to better understand disease dynamics and the 

volution of traits to minimize transmission. 

ard-bottom Community Ecology with an Emphasis on Sponges 

There are several goals associated with our research on hardbottom communities, one of the first of which was establishing a 

long-term monitoring program for hard-bottom habitat in 

cooperation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission/Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

(FWC/FWRI). In addition, we have conducted or are 

conducting a series of field and laboratory studies including: 

The virus is highly pathogenic, wi

demonstrated via: (a) direct injection of hemolymph from

infected donors, (b) oral ingestion of infected tissue, (c) 

contact transmission among lobsters, and (d) waterborne 

transmission over short distances of < 1 m. In all cases, 

transmission declines with lobster size. The other decapods

commonly found with P. argus (e.g., stone crab, Menippi 

mercenaria; spider crab, Mithrax spinomosissimus; and spotted 

lobster, P. guttatus) are unlikely carriers of the disease as none 

ac

F

ar

L

in

su

th

d

W

h

im

e

st

e

H

127
• a field experiment to assess potential factors that control recruitment of sessile hard-bottom

species, 

of

comm

• an experiment conducted with the assistance of sponge fishers to assess the impact of the 

sponge fishery on sponge communities, 

• field and labo ponge differ in their

impact on planktonic community abundance or composition, and 

• spatially explicit, individual-based modeling of changes in sponge, octocoral, and spiny 

d

Our hard-bottom monitoring program is of 

hard-bottom sites at depths of < 4 m from 

Key Largo to the Lakes region west of Key 

West, extending on the ocean side of the 

Keys south to the edge of Hawk Channel and 

on the bay/gulf side up to 15 km north of 

U.S. Highway 1. We currently survey the 

abundance and, for some species, size 

structure, of > 60 species on each of 35 

permanent sites once a year. Those sites were 

chosen from > 135 sites that we surveyed 

from Key Biscayne to the Marquesas in 2001 

in a double-stratified, random sampling 

design. We are also monitoring recruitment 

g of hard-bottom habitat and select motile invertebrates is conducted in 

habitat monitoring, we are also conducting experiments designed to 

• observational field studies to determine growth, reproduction, and natural mortality

ercial sponges, 

ratory experiments to determine if various species of s

lobster populations in response to various natural an anthropogenic stressors.

on settlement plates at half of the permanent sites and at some we are also conducting experiments 

to examine the effect of local scour, microscale topography, and adult abundance on recruitment. 

Our current monitorin

conjunction with FWC/FWRI, who also periodically monitor fish communities at these same sites. 

These surveys provide a spatio-temporal record of hard-bottom community structure that we use as 

a modeling framework and which may be used for commercial sponge population assessment and 

detection of habitat change. 

In addition to hard-bottom

reveal more about sponge population biology and the potential effect of the commercial sponge 

fishery on the sponge community. Our results suggest that the common large sponges found in the 

Florida Keys (including species that are commercially fished) grow slowly (~3 cm diameter/yr; Fig. 

1), their fecundity generally scales linearly with size, and they die when exposed to atypical salinities. 

However, these responses vary somewhat among sponge species and among seasons. We estimate 

that natural sponge mortality of sub-legal sized commercial sponges (< 5 inch diameter) is

approximately 7% of the population annually, with little difference among species. 

128
The fishery appears to operate 

legally (i.e., harvests only permitted

species and sizes) with minimal 

impact on non-targeted species. We 

ortality of sub-legal

r glove sponges. Our estimates are

mmercial species. Undersized 

nt varies among species and depth of

ur field and laboratory experiments designed to assess the impact of sponges on planktonic water 

estimate that m

commercial sponges due to fishing 

activities is approximately 3% of the 

populations annually, with that for 

most desirable species (sheepswool

sponge) being slightly higher overall 

on fished sites than that for yellow 

o

in line with estimates of the fishers 

themselves (1–3%) based on daily 

logbook records. We estimate that 

about 40% of the fishable area

during our six-month study period 

was never visited or fished. In areas 

that were fished, fishers removed 

33% of the legal sized sponges, 3% 

of the sub-legal sponges, and 

virtually none of the non43 48 28

2.0

1.5

co

commercial sponges are not landed,

but are thrown back into the sea to become “rollers.” W

comparable to attached sponges. The probability of reattachme

sediment; sheepswool sponges readily reattach within a few months whereas glove sponges rarely 

do. We also found that rollers actually move little; the median distance moved after 6 months is ~1 

m. 

e found that rollers grow at rates 

O

column communities confirm that all seven species that we tested (golf ball sponge, yellow sponge, 

sheepswool sponge, glove sponge, brown branching sponge, loggerhead sponge, and vase sponge) 

consume primarily bacteria rather than larger planktonic size fractions. Completion of ongoing data

analysis will yield information on possible differences in selectivity with season. 

N = 97

SPECIES

SPG

-1.5

SPR SPS SPY

1.0

43

107

198

161

124

133 109

121 106

63

32

GROWTH

.5

0.0

-.5

-1.0

Figure 1. Comparison 

for four species of com

grass sponge (spr), shee

sponge (spy). Plotted

percentiles (in red) and

box lengths. 

of annual growth (cm diameter/yr)

mercial sponges: glove sponge (spg),

pswool sponge (sps), and yellow

are medians with 25th and 75th

ranges of observed values within 1.5

129
The Tropical Fish Resources of South Florida’s Coral Reefs 

Martin A. Moe, Jr. and Ken Nedimyer 

The coral reefs of the tropical Western Atlantic and their living resources have been under great 

stre a

and colorful tropical fish of these reefs have been collected for the marine aquarium trade since the 

196 a

of mari Florida has grown into a significant fishery. And as

with ll

to the This presentation at the 

Con c

of S t

n

e of reefs can be widespread and extensive. There is a

ture that results in an immediate loss of tropical fish and a 

that would have supported future recruitment and

l fish and invertebrates. Although loss of habitat can be

nment can, over time, rebound from such impacts. It is

r environmental stresses that recovery from such damage is 

had numerous large and small storm impacts in recent years

fisheries, suffered from these impacts.

tremes create localized, temporary stress and loss of 

een injured or destroyed, juvenile fish recruit to these areas 

e fishery and the environment is only temporary. 

tal

reef

is

, the loss of habitat equals the loss of tropical fish. A direct impact of 

arm water, however, is the proliferation of some protozoan fish parasites (see below), which can

ly those that are 

rongly tropical in distribution, are stunned and usually die from such cold-water exposure. Unlike

ss nd have been in steep decline for many years, most dramatically since the 1970s. The small 

0s, nd with the great increase in popularity of marine aquariums in the 1980s and 90s, collection

ne tropical fish and invertebrates in South

a major coral reef fisheries, the status and impact of the marine life fishery is of great concern

fishermen and to fishery and environmental management.

ne tivity conference provides a brief report on the current status of the tropical fish resources

ou h Florida coral reefs. 

Sources of Decline 

Environmental (natural) impacts 

Storms. Storms, particularly hurricanes, ca

inhabitants. Physical damage to the structur

loss of living and dead complex coral struc

long-term loss of the environmental structure

survival of many species of marine tropica

immediately severe, a healthy reef enviro

when storm damage compounds othe

slow and problematic. South Florida has

and the marine life fishery, as has other Florida

Temperature extremes. Typically, temperature ex

tropical reef fish. If the habitat has not b

within six months to a year and the loss to th

Warm water. Throughout tropical areas all over the world, including southeastern Florida, coas

waters occasionally become extremely warm, and approach the upper limits that many

organisms can tolerate. Although most reef fish can withstand extremely warm water or move into

deeper cooler water, long periods of calm, hot weather can stress corals and other sessile organisms

to the point of death and this destroys the habitats of many species of tropical fish. Although this

an indirect impact, over time

have devastating effects on coral reefs and their 

w

erode the tissues of some species of tropical reef fish to the point of death. Warm water stress 

affects tropical fish, and other organisms, over a broad area and over an extended period of time. 

Cold-water upwelling. Occasionally, due to unusual winds and especially deep-water tidal fluctuations,

cold water from the depths just off the Florida shelf rise to shallower areas and spill over into the

shallow warm waters of the reefs. When this happens water temperatures in the 30 to 100 foot (10 

to 30 m) depths may drop rapidly from 80 to 90 oF down to 50 to 60 oF (26 to 32 oC down to 10 to 

15 oC). Although these upwellings usually occur off the steeper shelf of the lower east coast, they are 

not at all unknown in the Keys. Many species of marine tropical fish, especial

st
warm-water events, cold-water upwellin

events. 

Another source of cold-water stress is

winter months. Usually these cold fro

(7 to 15 oC) affect mostly shallow in

water temperatures and stun and kill s

that inhabit shallow inshore waters. 

Disease. There are many sources of

organisms. Bacteria, viruses, and prot

protozoan parasites apparently accounting for the greatest l

protozoan parasite in particular, how

attacks the external tissues of angelfish

and in the tissues of the fish, it can qu

responsible for epidemics of parasitic d

warm water. Such epidemics are relativ

Ecological (habitat) change. Destruction a

and decline of populations of tropic

presence of coral reefs. This change an

storm or disease damage, occurs slow

of loss of herbivores, cumulative storm

factors that are contributing to the de

fish resources of this region have suffered from these impacts over the last 30 years and as these 

factors continue to degrade reefs, they will continue to impact these and other resources. 

Unfavorable recruitment conditions. An environmental factor that is seldom recognized or considered is

the

gs affect relatively local areas of the reefs and are short-term 

sometimes experienced during extreme cold fronts during the 

nts with surface wind temperatures ranging from 45 to 60 oF

shore waters, but severe events can lower nearshore oceanic 

ome reef fish as well as some tropical species, mostly juveniles 

ozoans are the most common disease organisms in fish, with

oss, especially in captive fish. One 

ever, Brookynella hostilis, is particularly virulent. This ciliate 

and other species and since it can complete its life cycle on

ickly destroy skin and muscle and kill the fish. This parasite is 

isease on marine angelfish, particularly in areas of extremely 

el

n ge

a he

me

ly, lobal warming, algal overgrowth due 

damage, heavy visitation and fishing, and coral disease are 

cline of coral reefs off southeastern Florida. The tropical reef 

environmental changes that impede or deny the successful recruitment of juvenile fish and other

rganisms. There may be an abundant, or at least adequate, supply of larval and post-larval 

onsumptive and other human impacts

Marine life fishery (aquarium collection). The marine life fishery has been active since the late 1950s. 

However, it has been recognized as a significant fishery and managed as a fishery only since the late 

1980s. In 2004 there were about 300 licensed marine life fishermen and about 75 part-time (bycatch)

fishers. In 2005 the marine life fishing industry helped promulgate and install management measures 

including a limited entry provision. A total of 108 marine life fishermen qualified for the transferable 

dive endorsement (full-time marine life fishermen), 29 qualified for the non-transferable dive 

endorsement (part-time marine life fishermen), and 42 qualified for the bycatch endorsements

(mostly lobster and crab trap fishermen that sell marine ornamental organisms taken in traps). In

order to limit the effort of the fishery, the marine life fishery has been closed to new entrants since 

1998 and new marine life fishermen can enter the fishery only through purchase of a transferable 

dive endorsement. 

disease in marine tropical reef fish, corals, and other reef 

y rare, however.

d decline of coral reef habitats results in permanent chan

l fish and other organisms that exist only because of t

d decline usually, except in the case of rapid and extre

over a span of years. G

o

organisms that drift into coral reef areas, but do not settle and/or survive due to an inhospitable 

environment. Changes in the environment that foster dense algal growth that harbors micropredators, lack of a required food supply, loss of a suitable substrate, and many other factors can

severely limit the successful recruitment of many species of tropical reef organisms. 

C

131
The fishery i ions of the 

ost popular species and to restrict the fishery as necessary to protect the environment. The fishery, 

for the most part, targets juv many species are harvested 

nder slot restrictions for size that protect smaller juveniles that may not survive captive conditions

vertebrates considered ornamental marine life, so other than multi-use 

sh, most marine life fish are protected from food fishery pressures. Parrotfish and tangs are 

d as exclusively marine life species and are being targeted as food fish by some 

the frequent

aily) visitation by sport divers. This is probably a negligible impact; however, frequent visitation to 

lso, there is a recreational fishery for ornamental aquarium species and this probably contributes a 

years. 

s now well managed and rules and regulations are in place to protect populat

m

eniles of the more popular reef fishes and

u

and larger sizes to protect breeding populations. In addition to size restriction on small and large 

individuals (slot restrictions), daily bag limits on both fish and invertebrates are place. 

Food and sport fish fisheries. There is an impact on marine tropical fish resources from the traditional

food and sport fish fisheries, but it is not great. Some fish that are sometimes taken in the food fish 

fisheries are taken as juveniles in the tropical marine fish fisheries, but these are only a few species. 

However, as populations of ethnic Caribbean cultures increase in the South Florida area, use of what 

we consider ornamental species for food purposes may well increase. There is a live landing

requirement for all fish and in

fi

currently not protecte

trappers. 

Another apparently minor impact on ornamental fish populations comes from the lobster and stone 

crab trap fisheries from the loss of fish trapped and destroyed in lobster and stone crab traps and 

from the collection of juvenile ornamental species that are taken by trap fishermen and sold in the

ornamental trade. Trap bycatch is limited to the recreational catch for fish, which is 20 fish per day, 

and it must be landed live. 

Visitation pressure and recreational collection (sport divers). There is a variable and undocumented pressure 

on populations of ornamental species that occur in popular dive sites just through

(d

specific dive sites does impact the natural environment in these areas and this must extend to some 

degree to ornamental species as well. 

A

minor impact on these populations. To collect tropical fish a recreational fisherman must have a

saltwater fishing license, and is limited to 20 specimens per day, only five of which can be angelfish. 

Size limits on ornamental fish do not apply to recreational catches. 

Habitat degradation (pollution, direct impacts, ecological change). As mentioned previously, habitat

degradation produces serious and permanent ecological change that results in the decline of many

ornamental species. This can be alleviated only through the process of ecological restoration of coral 

reefs. Control of all sources of pollution and elimination of unnecessary human impact is the only 

way that these negative impacts can be decreased.

What We Know 

Populations vary (good years/bad years) 

There are variations in the annual abundance of juvenile ornamental species (from year to year and

place to place), just as with all marine organisms. Wind, currents, upstream spawning success or

failure, plankton patches, and weather events all contribute to the variables that dictate the

abundance of particular species in nursery areas each year. Most of this variation is natural and 

unavoidable, and the fishery works with this natural variation and enjoys good years and laments bad

132
Overall, impacts from storms, disease, and cold water are localized and are not important long term 

torms, disease, and other short-term natural events are usually local events and do not affect the 

cological changes greatly affect tropical reef fish populations over the long term, both species and abundance. Habitat

orking knowledge of much of the biology 

d ecology of their target species, but this knowledge is not structured or published. What is known 

nowledge Gaps

and disease in

rals. However, the biology of the many species of small fish and crustaceans that make up a large 

ade is still largely unknown.

S

fishery on a long-term basis. These events interact with the success or failure of “good years/bad

years” and can enhance or diminish the results of natural annual recruitment. Although the impact

for good or ill in any year may be quite significant, the long-term effects on the fishery from such 

events are not important. 

E

is everything. 

This is a reoccurring theme throughout this presentation, but it has to be so; ecological decline is at 

the core of the decline of ornamental marine species. 

Biology and ecology of a few species 

We know something of the biology and ecology of many ornamental reef species, but most of that 

knowledge is anecdotal and is not in the scientific literature. Observant individuals engaged in the 

ornamental marine fishery for many years have a good w

an

is largely available in the popular literature of the marine aquarium hobby. 

Natural longevity of some species 

Marine life fishermen and marine aquarium hobbyists have some indications of the life cycles and

longevity of many ornamental reef species, but this information is not in the scientific literature. 

Many of the targeted fish and invertebrates are short lived in the wild (about a year), and some are 

long lived (ten years or more). 

K

The marine life fishery for ornamental species is composed of a great many species of fish and

invertebrates that inhabit coral reefs and associated marine environments. Most of these species are 

valuable only in the marine life fishery and very few have been the subject of intensive biological 

study. Thus there are extensive knowledge gaps on the biology and ecology of most of the individual

species that make up tropical coral reef environs. Gradually, especially with the death and decline of

corals on the reefs of Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean, much more scientific attention is 

now directed toward corals and we are learning much more about reproduction

co

part of the ornamental aquarium tr

These are the major subject areas for research on these species:

• Reproductive biology of important species 

• Post-larval and juvenile biology and ecology 

• Effects of ecological change on specific species 

• Origin of post-larval fishes (current patterns that distribute larvae) 

• Effects of ecological change on fish behavior and population dynamics 

• Effects of collecting pressure on the local ecology of reefs

133
Management Actions Accomplished 

Marine life fishermen of South Florida have long been concerned about the impact that their fishery

may have on the resources and environment of the coral reefs of this great area and formed an

organization in the 1970s to protect and help manage the fishery and the resources. This

organization has been instrumental in working with fishery and environmental scientists and

anagers to inform and guide the development of rules and regulations to protect the resource and

Gear restrictions (traps, nets, chemicals, elimination of nitrox rebreathers) 

• Elimination of fish traps (except in Gulf of Mexico) 

arum populations is essential to reef recovery! 

ithout ecological restoration of the coral reef environments of South Florida, the value of the 

reef areas. One of the strongest possibilities is restoration of

erbivory on certain reefs through re-establishment of populations of the keystone herbivore, the 

m

establish sustainability of the fishery. The work of this organization over the years has helped in

development of legislation in the following areas: 

• Marine life endorsement requirements 

• Recreational catch limits and license requirements 

• Live rock aquaculture licensing program 

• Daily bag limits for certain fish and invertebrates.

• Size restrictions (slot restrictions) 

• Closed areas (all National Parks, SPAs, and State Parks) 

•

• License moratorium beginning in 1998 eventually leading to a limited entry into the 

marine life fishery

Habitat Restoration is Critical 

Restoration of Diadema antill

W

coral reefs and the fisheries that depend upon them, including the marine ornamental fishery, will 

continue to decline. Restoration of coral reefs, however, is not an easy or uncomplicated task. Many 

factors far beyond the control of local or even state-wide efforts contribute to the ecological changes

that affect the reef environment. However, there are programs that can be developed that will aid 

restoration of the ecology of specific

h

long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum. 

134
Plenary Presentation: 

Shifting Baselines

Steven Miller

[Editors’ Note: Steven Miller’s presentation included showing public service announcements that are 

available at: http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/index.php. We strongly encourage viewing these film 

 Dr. Randy Olson as an op-ed in the 17 November 2002 Los Angeles Times, and is posted 

here is a new term in the environmental movement. It sounds esoteric, like the kind of thing you 

d, something you can leave to the more technical types. 

sappearance of birds and frogs in the countryside to the increased 

rive time from L.A. to San Diego. If your ideal weight used to be 150 pounds and now it’s 160, 

ell as your waistline – has shifted. 

d, the baseline for any given habitat 

ould be what was there before humans had much impact. 

If we k w e can work to restore it. But if the baseline 

shifted fo e can end up accepting a degraded state as 

normal o

The nu e hat it was in the 

1930s. a in the Columbia River in the 

930s were only 10% of what they were in the 1800s. The 1930s numbers reflect a baseline that had 

ready shifted. 

clips and sharing them widely. The following summary of the Shifting Baselines program was 

published by

at the Shifting Baselines web site.] 

ENVIRONMENT 

Slow-Motion Disaster Below the Waves 

By Randy Olson

T

don’t really need to understan

The term is “shifting baselines,” and you do need to know it, because shifting baselines affect the 

quality-of-life decisions you face daily. Shifting baselines are the chronic, slow, hard-to-notice 

changes in things, from the di

d

your baseline – as w

The term was coined by fisheries biologist Daniel Pauly in 1995. It was a term we’d apparently been 

needing, because it quickly spread to a variety of disciplines. It’s been applied to analysis of 

everything from deteriorating cities to declining quality of entertainment. 

Among environmentalists, a baseline is an important reference point for measuring the health of 

ecosystems. It provides information against which to evaluate change. It’s how things used to be. It 

is the tall grass prairies filled with buffalo, the swamps of Florida teeming with bird life and the 

rivers of the Northwest packed with salmon. In an ideal worl

w

no the baseline for a degraded ecosystem, w

be re we really had a chance to chart it, then w

 – r even as an improvement. 

mb r of salmon in the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia River today is twice w

Th t sounds great – if the 1930s are your baseline. But salmon

1

al
This is what most environmental groups are now struggling with. They are trying to decide: What do 

e? And more important: What did nature look like in the 

Jackson n ta from around the world to make the case that 

overfish g oceans over the past millennium.

Further r ect on the oceans for so long that, in many

locations, it is difficult to even imagine how full of life the oceans used to be.

One of i ed for many ocean ecosystems.

What t calling them

beautifu u

People go diving today in California kelp beds that are devoid of the large black sea bass,

roomtailed groupers and sheephead that used to fill them. And they surface with big smiles on 

ally stunning experience to dive in a kelp bed. But all the veterans

the rats and roaches of the sea. They point to the world’s 

ost degraded coastal ecosystems – places like the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, even parts of the 

hesapeake Bay. That’s about all you find: jellyfish and bacteria. 

We have already become comfortable with a new term, “jellyfish blooms,” which is used to describe 

sudden upticks in the number of jellyfish in an area. The phenomenon has become sufficiently 

common that an international symposium was held on the subject in 2000. Meanwhile, other types

of world fisheries are in steep decline. 

It is easy to miss changes in the ocean. It’s big and deep. But sometimes, if people have studied the 

same oceanic trends over time, we get a glimpse of a highly disturbing picture. The Scripps 

Institution’s Jackson, for example, has documented the nearly complete disappearance of the 

ecosystem he built his career studying: the coral reefs of Jamaica. “Virtually nothing remains of the 

vibrant, diverse coral reef communities I helped describe in the 1970s,” Jackson says. “Between 

overfishing, coastal development and coral bleaching, the ecosystem has been degraded into mounds

of dead corals covered by algae in murky water.” Nothing you would want to make into a postcard. 

we want nature to look like in the futur

past? 

These questions are particularly important to ask about oceans, my main research interest. Last year 

Jeremy Jackson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography brought the problem into focus with a

cover article in Science that was chosen by Discover magazine as the most important discovery of the 

year. 

a d his 18 co-authors pulled together da

in had been the most important alteration to the

mo e, humans have had such a strong eff

sc entists’ biggest concerns is that the baselines have shift

his means is that people are now visiting degraded coastal environments and

l, naware of how they used to look.

b

their faces because it is still a visu

can think is, “You should have seen it in the old days.” 

Without the old-timers’ knowledge, it’s easy for each new generation to accept baselines that have

shifted and make peace with empty kelp beds and coral reefs. Which is why it’s so important to

document how things are – and how they used to be. 

For the oceans, there is disagreement on what the future holds. Some marine biologists argue that, 

as the desirable species are stripped out, we will be left with the hardiest, most undesirable species –

most likely jellyfish and bacteria, in effect

m

C

136
Next year two major reports w the Oceans Report from the

Pew Charitable Trusts, and th . The advance word on both

is that the news will not be good. 

The last major U.S. report on the oceans w . That report warned that “there may be a

sk some day of severely declining oceans.” The inside word on the upcoming reports is that they 

are already known: We must care more about the environment 

d work to prevent its decline. Hundreds of environmental groups have action plans to help 

achieve such goals. The only thing they are lacking is mass support. 

The oceans are our collective responsibility. We all have to ask the questions: What did they used to 

here did these fish we are eating come from? Are my

food preferences jeopardizing the health of the oceans? 

And, in a more philosophical vein, we should consider the shifting baselines in our own lives, 

our increasing

comfort with shifting baselines. I suspect our lives have suffered in other ways as well. 

ill be released on the state of the oceans:

e report of the U.S. Oceans Commission

as 30 years ago

ri

will conclude that the oceans are today in severe decline. 

The Ocean Conservancy, Scripps Institution and the Surfrider Foundation are mounting a major

media campaign for early next year to call attention to the overall fate of the oceans and the problem

of shifting baselines. The solutions

an

look like? What are we putting into them? W

examining how and where have we lowered our standards to the point that we accept things that

once would have been unacceptable. Our environment has clearly suffered from

Randy Olson is a filmmaker and faculty member in marine biology at USC.

137
Water Quality

Moderator: Bill Kruczynski
What We Know About the Water Quality of the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary

Quality Protection Program. The period of

quality monitoring projects to

y (practical salinity scale), temperature (oC), 

dissolved oxygen (DO, mg l-1), turbidity (NTU), relative fluorescence, and light attenuation (K , m-1). 

e study were

chlorophyll a (CHLA, μg l-1) and alkaline phosphatase activity (APA, μM h-1). 

Joseph N. Boyer 

This report serves as a summary of our efforts to date in the execution of the Water Quality 

Monitoring Project for the FKNMS as part of the Water

record for this report is Mar. 1995 – Sept. 2004 and includes data from 37 quarterly sampling events

at 154 stations within the FKNMS including the Dry Tortugas National Park (Fig. 1). The specific 

objectives of this project are to: 

1. Assess the current status of water quality in the FKNMS by developing a long-term database 

2. Assess the current trends in water quality in the FKNMS 

3. Integrate the FKNMS project with other existing water

provide a more regional view 

4. Evaluate the relative effects of terrestrial vs. Gulf/Ocean influences on water quality 

Field parameters measured at each station include salinit

d

Water chemistry variables include the dissolved nutrients nitrate (NO3

-

), nitrite (NO2

-

), ammonium 

(NH4

+

), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and soluble reactive phosphate (SRP). Total unfiltered

concentrations of nitrogen (TN), organic nitrogen (TON), organic carbon (TOC), phosphorus (TP),

and silicate (Si(OH)4) were also measured. The biological parameters included in th

-83.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5 -80.0

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

Miami

1

4

2

5

9

7 Tortugas 6 Marquesas

Backcountry

Sluiceway

Lower Keys

Middle Keys

Upper keys

Figure 1. Map of the study area, showing sub-regions; Dry Tortugas National Park is in sub-region 1. 

139
Several important results have been realized from this monitoring project. First, there are spatial 

ifferences in water quality across the study region (Fig. 2). DIN is elevated in the Backcountry 

ecause of its shallowness and potential to be most affected by benthic flux. There are lower

oncentrations of DIN, TP, CHLA, and turbidity in Upper Keys compared to the Middle and

ower Keys; water quality in the Upper Keys is most comparable to the Tortugas area. The 

arquesas have highest CHLA and turbidity as a result of influences from the Southwest Florida 

helf.

d

b

c

L

M

S

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Units

DIN TP CHLA TURB

Tortugas

Sluiceway

Marquesas

Keys Up.

Keys Mid.

Keys Low.

Backcountry

Spatial Differences in Water Quality

Figure 2. Variation of DIN, TP, CHLA, and turbidity among sub-regions. 

Second, is documentation of elevated DIN in the inshore waters of the Keys (Fig. 3). This result was 

evident from the first sampling event in 1995 and continues to be a characteristic of the ecosystem.

Interestingly, this gradient was not observed in a comparison transect in the Tortugas. This type of 

distribution implies an inshore source, which is diluted by low nutrient Atlantic Ocean waters.

Presence of a similar gradient in TOC and decreased variability in salinity from land to reef also 

support this concept. There were no trends in either TP or CHLA with distance from land. 

Another observation is that the Backcountry exhibits elevated levels of DIN, TOC, turbidity, TP, 

and CHLA. I believe most of these distributions are driven by the Southwest Florida Shelf waters

moving through this area (median DIN = 0.7 μM, TOC = 298 μM, turbidity = 6.4 NTU, TP = 0.48 

μM, and CHLA = 1.6 μg l-1). In addition to this Shelf influence, elevated NO3

-

 is a regular feature of 

Backcountry waters, where some of the highest concentrations are observed in non-populated areas

(Fig. 4). This is probably the result of the benthic flux of nutrients in this very shallow water column. 

140
Elevated DIN and Turbidity in Inshore Waters

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

uM

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

uM

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

U NT

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

0

100

200

300

400

uM

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

ug/l

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

33

34

35

36

37

38

BACK

KA

KC

KR

MS

SLU

TA

TCTO

DIN Turbidity TOC

TP CHLA Salinity

Figure 3. Variation in DIN, TOC, turbidity, TP, CHLA, and salinity, including onshore-offshore variation in 

the Keys (KA-KC-KR) and Tortugas (TA-TC-TO). 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Nitrate (uM) - Median 1995-2004

Figure 4. Spatial variation in nitrate concentrations. 

The third important result is that highest CHLA concentrations occur on the Shelf and show a 

strong N-S gradient toward the Marquesas and Tortugas (Fig. 5). This is because of higher TP 

concentrations on the Shelf as a result of southward advection of Gulf of Mexico waters along the 

coast with entrainment of coastal rivers and runoff. 

141
-83.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

Miami

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

4.4

4.8

5.2

5.6

6.0

Chlorophyll a (ug/l)

Median 1995-2004

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

3.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Miami

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Total P (uM)

Median 1995-2004

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

Figure 5. Spatial variation in CHLA and TP. 

The fourth result is that trends in water quality showed most variables to be relatively consistent 

from year to year (Fig. 6), with some parameters showing seasonal excursions. Overall, there were 

statistically significant decreases in DIN, TON (except for increases in Tortugas), TP, TOC, and 

DO throughout the region. This is contrary to some of the trend analysis reported last year. Clearly,

there have been large changes in FKNMS water quality over time, and some sustained monotonic 

trends have been observed; however, we must always keep in mind that trend analysis is limited to

the window of observation. Trends may change, or even reverse, with additional data collection.

his brings up ocal trends, we

view of

T another important point: when looking at what are perceived to be l

find that they seem to occur across the whole region but at more damped amplitudes. This spatial 

autocorrelation in water quality is an inherent property of highly interconnected systems such as 

coastal and estuarine ecosystems driven by similar hydrological and climatological forcings. It is clear 

that trends observed inside the FKNMS are influenced by regional conditions outside Sanctuary 

boundaries. 

The large scale of this monitoring program has allowed us to assemble a much more holistic

broad physical/chemical/biological interactions occurring over the South Florida hydroscape. Much 

information has been gained by inference from this type of data collection program: major nutrient 

sources have be confirmed, relative differences in geographical determinants of water quality have

been demonstrated, and large-scale transport via circulation pathways has been elucidated. In

addition we have shown the importance of looking “outside the box” for questions asked within.

Rather than thinking of water quality monitoring as being a static, non-scientific pursuit it should be 

viewed as a tool for answering management questions and developing new scientific hypotheses. 

142
3.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

Miami

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

TON Trend 3.0 (10 yr)

(uM/yr)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

-83.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

Miami

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

DIN Trend (10 yr)

(uM/yr)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

-83.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

Miami

-0.20

-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04 TP Trend (10 yr)

(uM/yr)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

3.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

Miami

-60

-50

-40

-30

0

-10

0

10 TOC Trend (10 yr)

(uM/yr)

-2

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

-83.0 -82.5 -82.0 -81.5 -81.0 -80.5

24.5

25.0

25.5

26.0

26.5

Miami

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

DO Trend (10 yr) 0.15

(mg/l/yr)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/

Figure 6. Spatial variation in temporal trends of DIN, TON, TP, TOC, and DO.

We continue to maintain a website (http://serc ) where data from the 

FKNMS is integrated with the other parts of the FIU/Southeast Environmental Research Center 

water quality network (Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay, Biscayne Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, and 

Southwest Florida Shelf) and displayed as downloadable contour maps, time series graphs, and 

interpretive reports. 

143
Acknowledgments 

I thank all the field and laboratory technicians involved with this project, especially Pete Lorenzo, 

John Fulop, George Meichel, Ruth Justiniano, Pura Rodriguez de la Vega, Pierre Sterling, and Frank 

Tam. Special thanks to Danielle Mir-Gonzalez for help with time series analysis. We also thank the

captains and crew of the R/V Bellows of the Florida Institute of Oceanography for their 

professional support of the monitoring program. This project was possible due to continued funding 

by the U.S. EPA (Agreement #X994621-94-0) and the South Florida Water Management District 

(Contract #C-15397). This is Contribution #366 of the Southeast Environmental Research Center

at Florida International University. 

144
Why Don’t Queen Conch Reproduce in Nearshore Florida Keys Waters?

Bob Glazer and Gabriel Delgado 

The queen conch, Strombus gigas, is a marine gastropod that inhabits the tropical western Atlantic. In 

South Florida, it once comprised significant commercial and recreational fisheries (Stevely and 

Warner 1978). In the mid-1980s, the stock declined precipitously resulting in a moratorium on 

collection in 1985 in state waters; this ban was extended to federal waters in 1986. Until very 

recently, the population showed no sign of recovering (Berg and Glazer 1995; Glazer and Berg 1994; 

Glazer and Delgado 2003). 

Both adult and larval conch may be affected by declines in water quality associated with nearshore 

environments. In the case of adult conch, extensive surveys of conch populations throughout the 

Florida Keys have shown no spawning occurring nearshore even though anecdotal accounts indicate 

that this was once common as late as the mid-1980s. In South Florida, conch exist in two spatially 

distinct regions: nearshore (i.e., adjacent to the islands and north of Hawk Channel) and offshore 

(i.e., oceanside of Hawk Channel; Glazer and Berg 1994; Fig. 1). Over the course of our studies, we 

observed there has been a cessation of spawning in adult queen conch inhabiting the nearshore 

region (Glazer and Quintero 1998; McCarthy et al. 2002; Delgado et al. 2004). However, anecdotal 

reports from several sources indicate that as late as the mid-1980s, they used to spawn there. 

Examinations of gonadal tissues from nearshore male and female conch showed serious deficits in 

N

W E

S

PS

TI

0 60 120 Km

Gulf of Mexico

Hawk Channel

Florida

Atlantic Ocean

Reef Tract

Miami

Key West

DK

Marathon

Long Key

AR

Marathon

Figure 1. Offshore (PS, AR) and nearshore (DK, TI) sites from tranplant experiments 
gonadal condition when compared with offshore counterparts (Delgado et al. 2004; Fig. 2).

reeding aggregations or from other upstream sources. Larval 

undance and juvenile recruitment may be affected directly by water-quality degradation through

three mechanisms: (1) larval growth retardation prolonging the larval cycle and increasing larval

mortality, (2) direct mortality of larvae because growth has ceased and metamorphic competence is

never attained or, (3) direct mortality from toxicity. 

These deficits are consistent with exposure to man-made chemicals in the environment (i.e.,

xenobiotics) that simulate naturally occurring, biologically active compounds (i.e., endocrine

disrupting compounds) and to sub-optimal environmental conditions. Among the xenobiotics

implicated in endocrine disruption are the alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) which function as

estrogenic endocrine disrupters (see Gronen et al. 1999 for a review), butyltins implicated as the 

causative agent in molluscan imposex (see Matthiessen and Gibbs 1998 for a review), polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that depress both female and male reproductive development (Spies

and Rice 1988), currently used and banned organochlorine pesticides that may impact the endocrine 

system (Celius and Walther 1998; Cross and Hose 1988), and human-use pharmaceuticals. 

Xenobiotics may enter Florida Keys nearshore waters via a variety of mechanisms including sewage

discharges and surface water runoff (Heatwole 1987), vessel discharge and oil spills (Zheng and Van

Vleet 1988), fish house discharges (Heatwole 1987), discharges from the South Florida mainland

(Jaap 1984), and mosquito pesticide application (Pierce 1998). The lack of reproductive development 

in nearshore conch coupled with these widespread sources of pollutants suggests that there may be a

linkage between water quality and reproductive development in Florida’s conch population. 

Reciprocal transplant studies demonstrated that the gonads of conch transplanted from offshore to 

nearshore degraded, whereas those transplanted from nearshore to offshore regenerated gonads

after about six months (McCarthy et al. 2002; Delgado et al. 2004). The greatest impacts were

observed in female conch (Delgado et al. 2004). Additionally, collaborative research between the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Caribbean Marine Research Center

indicated that larval abundance was significantly lower in Florida than in an analogous location in 

the Bahamas. Thus it now appears certain that conch larvae obtained in nearshore plankton tows

originated from either offshore b

ab

146
147

A

D

C

B

Figure 2. Photomicrographs of the gonads of resident nearshore and resident offshore queen conch

(Strombus gigas). A: resident nearshore female, no tissue, and <25% gametogenic tissue. B: resident offshore 

female, ripe, and >75% gametogenic tissue. C: resident nearshore male, early development, and <25% 

gametogenic tissue. D: resident offshore male, ripe, and >75% gametogenic tissue. Adapted from Delgado et

al. 2004. 

Environmental conditions may also directly impact reproductive condition. These may include poor

habitat (Madrones-Ladja et al. 2002), diet (Madrones-Ladja et al. 2002), or food quality (Le Pennec et 

al. 1998). Furthermore, low dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e., hypoxia) have been shown to

disrupt reproductive function in fish populations (Rudolph et al. 2003). 

In 2004, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute began a project with the University of Florida and NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the goal of examining 

endocrine disruption in adult queen conch. This will be accomplished by examining vitellin in the 

blood of conch. Vitellin is a naturally occurring protein that may be induced by exposure to certain 

xenobiotics. After the tools are developed to quantify the vitellin in conch blood, we will test 

whether there are differences in vitellin levels between conch found in the nearshore and offshore 

regions of the Florida Keys. Further tests can then determine the chemical(s) or environmental

condition(s) that may be negatively impacting conch reproduction in the nearshore, coastal zone and

may help lead to the development of management strategies that safeguard the function of critical

ecosystems in South Florida. 
Literature Cited 

Berg, C.J., Jr., and R.A. Glazer. 1995. Stock assessment of a large marine gastropod (Strombus gigas) 

using randomized and stratified towed-diver censusing. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 199: 247-258. 

Celius, T., and B.T. Walther. 1998. Differential sensitivity of zonagenesis and vitellogenesis in 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) to DDT pesticides. J. Exp. Zool. 281: 346-353. 

Cross, J.N., and J.E. Hose. 1988. Evidence for impaired reproduction in white croaker (Genyonemus 

lineatus) from contaminated areas off southern California. Mar. Environ. Res. 24: 185-188.

Delgado, G.A., C.T. Bartels, R.A. Glazer, N.J. Brown-Peterson, and K.J. McCarthy. 2004. Translocation as a 

strategy to rehabilitate the queen conch (Strombus gigas) population in the Florida Keys. Fish. Bull. 102(2): 

278-288. 

Fowles, J.R., A. Fairbrother, L. Baecher-Steppan, and N.I. Kerkvliet. 1994. Immunologic and 

endocrine effects of the flame retardant pentabromodiphenyl ether (DE-71) in C57BL/6J mice. 

Toxicology 86: 49-61. 

Fry, F.E.J. 1969. Some possible physiological stresses induced by eutrophication. In Eutrophication:

er quality:

implications for coastal development. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 50: 78-93. 

Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the south Florida coral reefs: a community profile. FWS/OBS-82-

/08. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

Le Pennec, M., R. Robert, and M. Avendano.1998. The importance of gonadal development on 

larval production in pectinids. J. Shellfish Res. 17:97-101. 

Mattheissen, P., and P.E. Gibbs. 1998. Critical appraisal of the evidence for tributlyntin-mediated 

endocrine disruption in mollusks. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 37-43. 

Madrones-Ladja, J.A., M.R. de la Peña, and N.P. Parami. 2002. The effect of micro algal diet and 

rearing condition on gonad maturity, fecundity, and embryonic development of the windowpane shell, Placuna placenta Linnaeus. Aquaculture 206: 313-321. 

McCarthy, K.J., C.T. Bartels, M.C. Darcy, G.A. Delgado, and R.A. Glazer. 2002. Preliminary 

observation of reproductive failure in nearshore queen conch (Strombus gigas) in the Florida Keys. 

Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 53: 674-680. 

Meerts, I.A.T.M., J.J. van Zanden, E.A.C. Luijks, I. van Leeuwen-Bol, G. Marsh, E. Jakobsson, E.

Bergman, and Å. Brouwer. 2000. Potent competitive interactions of some brominated flame 

retardants and related compounds with human transthyretin in vitro. Toxicol. Sci. 56: 95-104. 

Pierce, R.H. 1998. Effects of mosquito control measures on non-targeted organisms in the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Final Report submitted to the Environmental Protection

Agency. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report 609. 40 pp. 

causes, consequences, correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 531-536. 

Glazer, R.A., and C.J. Berg, Jr. 1994. Queen conch research in Florida: an overview. In R.S.

Appeldoorn and B. Rodriguez, eds. Queen conch biology, fisheries, and mariculture. Fundación 

Cientifica Los Roques, Caracas, Venezuela, pp. 79-95. 

Glazer, R.A., and G.A. Delgado. 2003. Towards a holistic strategy to managing Florida’s queen conch (Strombus 

gigas) population. In D. Aldana Aranda, ed. El caracol Strombus gigas: conocimiento integral para su 

manejo sustentable en el Caribe. CYTED, Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Technología para el

Desarrollo, Yucatán, México, pp. 73-80. 

Glazer, R.A., and I. Quintero. 1998. Observations on the sensitivity of queen conch to wat

Gronen, S., N. Denslow, S. Manning, S Barnes, D. Barnes, and M. Brouwer. 1999. Serum

vitellogenin levels and reproductive impairment of male Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) 

exposed to 4-tert-Octylphenol. Environ. Health Persp. 107: 385-390. 

Heatwole, D.W. 1987. Water quality assessment of five selected pollutant sources in Marathon,

Florida Keys. Florida Keys Monitoring Study: 1984-1985. South Florida District. Marathon 

Branch Office. Marathon, Florida. 

148
Rudolph, S.S., B.S. Zhou, D.J. Randall, N.Y.S. Woo, and P.K.S. Lam. 2003. Aquatic hypoxia is an 

endocrine disruptor and impairs fish reproduction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37: 1137-1141. 

Spies, R.B., and D.W. Rice. 1988. Effects of organic contaminants on reproduction of the starry 

flounder Platichthys stellatus in San Francisco Bay. Mar. Biol. 98: 191-200. 

Stevely, J.M., and R.E. Warner. 1978. The biology and utilization of the queen conch, Strombus 

gigas L., in the Florida Keys and throughout its geographic range. Marine Resource Inventory.

Monroe County Cooperative Extension Service. 48 pp. 

Zheng, W., and E. Van Vleet. 1988. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the Dry Tortugas.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19: 134-136. 

149
Episodic Nutrient Transport to Florida Coral Reefs 

Fro to Florida coral 

Thi

Florida Keys coral reefs and points to biological use of subthermocline nitrate brought onshore by 

1.0–

flow velocities of 0.1–0.3 m s-1. The arrival of internal bores causes 10–40 fold increases in nutrient 

con reases 

to s

C:N ladum. Internal tidal bores are widespread 

of t

nitr

larg s to near-shore waters from waste water and storm water 

of n lability in this system 

stro

simple concentration thresholds such as 1.0 μmol L-1 NO to cause phase shifts to algal dominance 

sign ll relative to 

strong internal tidal upwelling may explain rapid algal growth including reported blooms of C. 

nutrients, including high-frequency nutrient pulses, is sufficient to support significant growth of 

nut

changes in community composition on Florida reefs are related to factors such as herbivory, changes 

com

pos nthropogenic nutrients reaching the reef tract. Although 

anth

Key that 

pre

Steven Miller

m: J.J. Leichter, H.L. Stewart, and S.L. Miller. 2003. Episodic nutrient transport

reefs. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48: 1394-1407. 

Abstract

s study documents the changes in nutrient fluxes associated with internal tidal bores arriving on 

this mechanism. Internal bores on Conch Reef, Florida Keys, are associated with concentrations of 

4.0 μmol L-1 nitrate (NO3) and 0.1–0.3 μmol L-1 soluble reactive phosphate (SRP) and onshore 

concentrations and 1–2 orders of magnitude increases in nutrient flux relative to ambient, nonbore 

ditions. The magnitude and duration of cool-water nutrient transport events inc

significantly with increasing depth on reef slopes. In June 2001, the gradient of increased exposure 

ubsurface water with depth corresponded to increased percentage of N and δ15N and decreased 

 ratio in a common benthic macroalga, Codium isthmoc

throughout the Florida Keys reef tract, with cool-water episodes influencing reefs up to 10%–25% 

he time during summer months and with significant variability among years. Estimated inputs of 

ogen and phosphorus by internal tidal bores to Florida Keys reef slopes are as much as 40-fold 

er than published estimates of input

runoff. Internal tidal upwelling represents an important, previously underestimated, episodic source 

utrients on the Florida Keys reef tract. In order to assess nutrient avai

accurately it is essential to understand natural sources of high-frequency variability. 

Conclusions

Recognition of the highly complex, naturally varying nutrient availability in this system, as well as the 

ng potential for similar effects in other locations, supports the view that it is unrealistic to expect 

3

on coral reefs (Bell 1992; Lapointe 1997; Hughes et al. 1999; McCook 1999). Further, the possible 

al of anthropogenic nutrients reaching the Florida Keys reef tract is likely to be sma

the large fluctuations in background concentrations and thus very difficult to detect. Periods of 

isthmocladum (Hanisak 2001) on Florida reefs, and it appears likely that natural availability of 

macroalgae in this system (Hanisak and Siemon 2000). Considering the natural availability of 

rients in this system, it seems much more likely that recent increases in macroalgal cover and 

in water clarity, sedimentation, and coral diseases (all of which may have anthropogenic 

ponents) than to direct anthropogenic nutrient inputs. However, this does not rule out the 

sibility of important effects related to a

Szmant and Forrester (1996) found no evidence in Florida Keys reef tract sediments of 

ropogenic nutrient enrichment, there is widespread consensus that conditions on the Florida 

s reefs and back reef environments have changed dramatically in recent years and 

anthropogenic activities are a major cause (e.g., Porter and Porter 2002 and papers therein). The data 

sented here clearly suggest that natural inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus during strong bouts of 
internal tidal upwelling would swamp out the possible signal of anthropogenic nutrients reaching the 

reef tract. However, there also are significant periods between pulses of upwelling and long periods

consequence of anthropogenic nutrient inputs may have been subtle alterations in baseline nutrient 

syst

tha ge may have, and/or could in the future, 

internal bores reaching Florida reef slopes and significant increases in reef slope nutrient availability.

The physical processes observed here are likely to occur on other reefs adjacent to strong, relatively 

shallow thermoclines and in proximity to mechanisms of internal wave generation such as strong

alongshore currents and tidal exchange over abrupt shelf topography (Baines 1986; Wolanski 1994). 

Frequent bouts of strong internal tidal upwelling with 

associated low temperatures and significant nutrient input are probable contributors to the less-thanoptimal conditions for scleractinian corals in the Florida Keys reflected in relatively low rates of reef

accretion during the last 2,000–4,000 yr (Shinn et al. 1989). Periods of intensified upwelling, such as 

those observed in May–August 2000 and June–July and September 2001, are likely related to 

regional-scale oceanographic variability associated with the Florida current (Lee 

et al. 1985, 1994). At long temporal scales, changes in processes that control high-frequency 

upwelling such as water column stratification and the trajectory of coastal currents may result in 

significant changes in reef nutrient dynamics. At more immediate temporal scales, with the

increasing need to understand rapid ecological change on coral reefs comes a critical need to

evaluate and understand high-frequency oceanographic forcing mechanisms and their consequences 

for these and other complex marine ecosystems. 

Literature Cited

Baines, P.G. 1986. Internal tides, internal waves, and near-inertial motions, p. 19–31. In N. K.

Moores (ed.), Baroclinic processes on continental shelves. American Geophysical Union, 

Washington, DC. 

Bell, P.R.F. 1992. Eutrophiciation and coral reefs: some examples in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. 

Water Res. 26: 553–568. 

Hanisak, M.D. 2001. Macroalgal blooms in Florida’s coastal waters: Codium isthmocladum. J. Phycol. 37: 

21. 

Hanisak, M.D., and L.W. Siemon. 2000. Macroalgal tissue nutrients as indicators of nitrogen and 

phosphorus status in the Florida Keys. J. Phycol. 36: 28. 

Hughes, T.P., A.M. Szmant, R. Steneck, R. Carpenter, and S. Miller. 1999. Algal blooms on coral 

reefs: what are the causes? Limnol. Oceanogr. 44: 1583-1586. 

Lapointe, B.E. 1997. Nutrient thresholds for bottom-up control of macroalgal blooms on coral reefs 

in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 1119-1131. 

Lee, T.N., F.A. Schott, and R. Zantopp. 1985. Florida Current – low-frequency variability as 

observed with moored current meters during April 1982 to June 1983. Science 227: 298-302. 

Lee, T.N., M.E. Clarke, E. Williams, A.F. Szmant, and T. Berger. 1994. Evolution of the Tortugas 

Gyre and its influence on recruitment in the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54: 621-646. 

McCook, L.J. 1999. Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on coral reefs: scientific issues and 

management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 18: 357-367. 

Porter, J.W., and K.G. Porter, eds. 2002. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and coral reefs of the Florida 

Keys: an ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

particularly in October–December in each year when internal tidal upwelling is minimal. One 

concentrations and shifts toward a situation of more continuous, chronic nutrient availability in a 

em naturally characterized by large but highly episodic inputs. It is also reasonable to speculate 

t warming of surface waters associated with climate chan

lead to increased water column stratification. A possible effect could be an increase in the number of 

151
Shinn, E.A., B.H. Florida and the

Dry Tortugas: a guide to the modern carbonate environments of the Florida Keys and Dry 

Tortugas. U.S. Geological Survey, Rest

zmant, A.M., and A. Forrester. 1996. Water column and sediment nitrogen and phosphorus

Wolanski, E. 1994. Physical oceanographic processes of the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL. 

Lidz, J.L. Kindinger, J.H. Hudson, and R.B. Halley. 1989. Reefs of

on, VA.

S

distribution patterns in the Florida Keys, USA. Coral Reefs 15: 21-41. 

152
Coral and Seagrass Habitats

Moderator: Brian Keller
EPA/NOAA Coral Reef Evaluation & Monitoring Project 

Carl R. Beaver, Walter C. Jaap, JamesW.Po

over 2,800 square nautical miles of coastal waters as the FKNMS. In cooperation with NOAA, the 

.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Florida implemented a Water Quality 

Protection Program to monitor seagrass habitats, coral reefs and hardbottom communities, and 

water quality. The Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project (CREMP) sampling strategy and

methods were developed in conjunction with EPA, FKNMS, Continental Shelf Associates, and the

Principal Investigators in 1994. The major criteria for coral reef monitoring included Sanctuary-wide 

spatial coverage, repeated sampling, and statistically valid findings to document status and trends of

the coral communities. The results were intended to assist managers in understanding, protecting, 

and restoring the living marine resources of the FKNMS. 

Forty sampling sites were selected using a stratified random sampling procedure (U.S. EPA EMAP) 

and permanent station markers were installed. Annual sampling began in 1996 and has continued 

through 2003. Three additional sites were selected and stations installed in the Dry Tortugas in 1999. 

In 2002, additional sampling techniques were incorporated including a bio-eroding sponge survey, 

an expanded stony coral disease survey, and a stony coral population abundance survey. 

Results are reported for regions defined as Upper Keys (north Key Largo to Conch Reef), Middle 

Keys (Alligator Reef to Moser Channel), Lower Keys (Looe Key to Smith Shoal), and Tortugas (Dry 

Tortugas to Tortugas Banks). 

Sanctuary-wide from 1996 to 2003, for a total of 105 stations, the number of stony coral species

declined at 76 (72%) stations, increased at 15 (14%) stations, and remained unchanged at 14 (13%) 

stations. A decline in the number of stony coral species was recorded in all habitat types. In 2003, 

offshore deep and patch reef stations had the greatest numbers of stony coral taxa with 17 and 16 

species, respectively. Hardbottom stations had the fewest number of stony coral species, averaging 

nine species per station. Between 1996 and 2003, the number of stony coral species decreased at 25

of 30 (83%) stations in the Upper Keys, increased at one station, and remained unchanged at four

stations. In the Middle Keys, the number of stony coral species decreased at 18 of 29 (62%) stations,

increased at seven stations, and remained unchanged at four stations. In the Lower Keys, the 

number of stony coral species decreased at 33 of 46 (72%) stations, increased at seven stations, and 

remained unchanged at six stations. 

In 1996, coral disease was observed at only five stations Sanctuary-wide. By 2002 coral disease was

observed at 102 stations. Incidences of stony coral disease were reported for 95 stations in 2003.

Specifically, in 2003, “White” disease occurred at 72 stations, “Other disease” was recorded at 89

stations, and Black Band disease was recorded at seven stations (Fig. 1). 

Sanctuary-wide, mean percent stony coral cover declined from 11.9 in 1996 to 7.4 in 1999, a decline 

of 38%. The greatest change occurred between 1997 and 1999 when mean percent stony coral cover

declined from 11.3 to 7.4 (significant at p = 0.03, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The changes observed

between 1999 and 2003 were determined to be statistically insignificant. Sanctuary-wide, stony coral

rter, Jennifer Wheaton, Michael Callahan, 

James Kidney, Selena Kupfner, Cecilia Torres, Shannon Wade , and Dustin Johnson 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and Protection Act (HR5909) designated 

U

154
cover has not changed significantly since 1999. In 2003, mean percent stony coral cover Sanctuaryide was 7.2 (Fig. 2).

 Figure 1. Incidence of coral disease 1996-2003. Figure 2. Mean % coral coverSanctuary-wide1996-2003.

From the inception of the project in 1996 through 2003, 57 (55%) stations had a significant decrease 

in stony coral cover, 39 (38%) stations showed no significant change, and only seven (7%) stations

had a significant increase. Evidence of this loss and partial recovery can be seen in Figure 3, which 

shows a catastrophic loss of Acropora palmata colonies at Western Sambo Station 2 after hurricanes 

Georges in 1998 and Irene in 1999. Although the majority of stations had a significant decrease in

percent coral cover over the first four years of the project, between 1999 and 2003, mean percent 

coral cover remained unchanged at 70 (68%) stations, increased at 19 (18%) stations, and decreased

at 14 (14%) stations. 

Also in 2003, functional group data showed the benthic community was composed of 64.5% 

substrate, 12.6% octocoral, 11.1 % macroalgae, 7.2% stony coral, 2.2% sponge, 2.0% zoanthids, and 

0.5% seagrass Sanctuary-wide. 

Beginning in 2002, a series of mid-water and coral mucus samples were examined for presence of

human enteroviruses commonly found in sewage. Human enteroviruses were detected in coral

mucus from two Upper Keys sites (El Radabob and Conch Reef), one Lower Keys site (Jaap Reef), 

and, surprisingly, one Tortugas site (Black Coral Rock). In addition, enteroviruses were detected in

the mid-water samples from Black Coral Rock and Western Head off Key West (Lower Keys). It is 

unknown if the source of these pollutants is local or the result of remote transport. Additional

analysis is planned for 2004, and may help define the source of this pollution. 

From its inception, the CREMP has documented long-term changes in the status and trends of coral

reefs throughout the 2,800-square-nautical-mile FKNMS. The cessation of rapid decline 

documented in the early stages of the project is encouraging. However, there is a general consensus

that multiple stressors acting at local, regional, and global scales are continuing to have negative 

affects on coral reefs in the Florida Keys and elsewhere. The CREMP will continue to collect data

relative to benthic habitat condition at the 40 sites in the Sanctuary and Dry Tortugas. 

The CREMP was expanded in 2003 with the addition of ten sites in Miami-Dade, Broward, and

Palm Beach counties through funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

w

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of

Stations

Black Band Other Disease White Disease

11.9 11.4

9.6

7.4 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2

0%

8%

10%

12%

14%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

an Coral Cove

4%

6%

 % Stony M

2% e r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of

Stations

Black Band Other Disease White Disease

11.9 11.4

9.6

7.4 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2

0%

8%

10%

12%

14%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

an Coral Cove M

2% e

4%

6%

 % Stony r

155
and the U.S. e, long-term

oral monitoring program in Florida.

Acknowl

report of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the University of Georgia 

Coral Reef Task Force. The expanded CREMP is the only comprehensiv

c

edgments

A

pursuant to U.S. EPA grant award X-97468002-0 and NOAA Grant award NA 160P2554. 

1996

1999

2004

Figure 3. Photo mosaics of Western Sambo Station 2 showing catastrophic decline in Acropora 

palmata after hurricanes Georges in 1998 and Irene in 1999 and subsequent partial recovery into 

2004. 

156
Assessment and Monitoring of Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas Coral Reef and 

Hard-bottom Habitats 

,

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) 

onnectivit

NMS,

l reef decline worldwide. This program was born out of the need to assess and

s/Research Only (RO), and Ecological Reserves (ER) designed to 

rotection from fishing

designated in

Steven L. Miller, Mark Chiappone, Leanne M. Rutten, and Dione W. Swanson 

Acknowledgements and Program Support 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, National Park Service, Emerson Associates International

National Undersea Research Center-University of North Carolina at Wilmington Rosenstiel School

of Marine and Atmospheric Science-University of Miami, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries

Service, The Nature Conservancy. 

Slide Presentation Narrative 

Introduction 

This slide presentation was put together for the 

C y Meeting held in Key West, Florida, during August 2004. The following narrative 

outlines the basic goals of the UNCW assessment and monitoring program in the FK

including the Dry Tortugas, and the major results obtained on the status of reef and hard-bottom 

habitats sampling in the region conducted from 1999-2001. The work is carried out by scientists

from the Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina-Wilmington (UNCW), and the 

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science-University of Miami (RSMAS). 

 Program Objectives 

When the FKNMS zones were established, there was a desire on the part of Federal resource

managers to be able to assess changes that might occur due to protection from fishing, one of the 

primary agents of cora

monitor the structure and condition of coral reef benthic organisms throughout the Florida Keys 

marine environment, including the Dry Tortugas, with an initial focus on changes within the

Sanctuary’s no-take zones designated in 1997. The no-take zones include Sanctuary Preservation 

Areas (SPAs), Special-use Area

minimize user group conflicts, provide scientists with control areas for evaluating fishing effects 

from other human impacts to the marine environment, and protect contiguous habitats, respectively.

The goals of the UNCW assessment and monitoring effort are three-fold: 

 To assess the community structure and condition of reef benthos at multiple spatial scales, 

with particular reference to the no-take zones, but also inter-reef, among habitat type, and

among region variations. 

 To track the dynamics of coral reef benthos to assess changes due to p

within the zones, but also changes due to larger-scale factors, such as regional water quality 

phenomenon. 

 To complement fishery-independent reef fish surveys with “fine-scale” or detailed habitat 

information, to facilitate experimental and modeling efforts for evaluating essential fishery 

habitat. 

However, the FKNMS zones, even including the Tortugas North and South zones

2001, represent only about 6% of the total area of the Sanctuary. Thus, there is also a need to

determine the condition of benthic coral reef resources outside of the zones, necessitating a larger

scale approach that considers regions in the FKNMS (upper Keys, middle Keys, etc.), multiple 
habitat types that form a mosaic of hard-bottom and coral reef habitats from nearshore to offshore 

of the reef tract, as well as comparable habitats inside and outside of the zones. 

nt

rogram,

laced against a backdrop of attempting to determine the status and condition of hard-bottom and

oral r itats throughout the Florida Keys. There are a number of challenges to determining 

e ef on benthic coral reef organisms. First, the no-take zones were not

ndomly placed, but instead are heavily concentrated along the reef tract and encompass most of 

e well developed spur and groove reefs. This was done largely to separate recreational fishing from 

norkeling and diving activities, and is where most of the SPAs are sited. However, comparable 

ference areas (i.e., sites open to fishing) are sometimes difficult to find to compare to the zones.

econd, most of the no-take zones include more than one benthic habitat type (e.g., spur and

roov , hard-bottom) that necessitates a sampling program that considers multiple habitat 

pes. he zones comprise a relatively small percentage of the total hard-bottom and coral reef

abitat area in the FKNMS, which raises the issue of not only what is happening within the zones,

ut changes that occur in the larger system that are not protected from hook-and-line fishing for 

nfish and trap fishing for spiny lobster. Fourth, baseline data on the status and condition of 

enthic resources was not available for most reef sites prior to the implementation of the zones.

inally, because of the long history of intensive exploitation of reef fishes and invertebrates in the 

d

enthic Habitats of the Florida Keys

nyone who has spent time underwater in the Florida Keys is well aware of the mosaic of benthic 

abitats that occur from nearshore of the islands to deeper water along the reef tract. This mosaic

cludes soft-bottom (sand and seagrass) and hard-bottom habitats that provide food and refuge for 

undreds of species of invertebrates and fishes. The map shown here highlights several patterns: (1) 

oral reef areas, while a focus of much of the tourism and management in the FKNMS, comprise a 

ery small percentage of the total benthic habitat in the region; and (2) much of the south Florida 

elf remains to be adequately mapped. Mapping is an integral part of the reef fish and benthic 

se the 

ze ur

cu suite of different hard-bottom and coral reef habitat types. 

Protected Zone Assessme

Assessing and monitoring changes that occur on the sea bottom to a variety of benthic organisms

(e.g., corals, gorgonians, sponges, algae) in the FKNMS zones is one facet of the UNCW p

p

c eef hab

th fects of the no-take zones

ra

th

s

re

S

g e, rubble

ty Third, t

h

b

fi

b

F

Florida Keys, scientists are not exactly sure how these small reef areas will respond to protection 

from fishing. There are several hypotheses for how benthic coral reef organisms may respond to 

protection from fishing: herbivory by fishes may decline due to increased predation from more an

larger fishes in the zones, leading to increases in algae; sea urchins may decline due to increased 

predation from more and larger fishes in the zones; the zones may experience decline simply 

because corals tend to be more abundant at the onset due to the non-random placement of the 

protected areas, etc. 

B

A

h

in

h

c

v

sh

as ssments that are undertaken because the area of different habitat types is used to estimate

s of populations of different organisms. One of the hallmarks of the UNCW program is o

s on a

si

fo

158
Benthic Habitats of the Dry Tortugas

The UNCW assessment and monitoring effort has also include fieldwork in the Tortugas region of

the Sanctuary. The map shown here included pre-existing maps developed by NOAA and the State 

of Florida, together with new information collected in 1999 and 2000 to fill in the gaps. Even so, 

one can see that large areas of Dry Tortugas National Park are still not adequately mapped. 

159
Classification of Hard-bottom and Coral Reef Habitats 

An important feature of the UNCW program is our attention to multiple habitat types that occur in

e Florida Keys. Not only do the zones encompass multiple habitat types, but the larger system is

hs of low-relief hard-bottom and deeper reefs that traditionally were not 

th

dominated by large swat

sampled by earlier assessment and monitoring efforts. 

Hard-bottom Types 

Patchy hard-bottom Low-relief hard-bottom Rocky outcrops Low-relief spur & groove 

▪Keys fore reef ▪Nearshore Keys ▪Deeper fore reef ▪Keys fore reef 

▪Tortugas region ▪Fore reef ▪Tortugas region ▪Tortugas region 

 ▪Tortugas region

Coral Reef Types 

Patch reefs Medium-profile reef High-relief spur & groove Reef terrace 

▪Hawk Channel ▪SW Florida Keys ▪Keys fore reef ▪Tortugas region 

▪Tortugas region ▪Tortugas region ▪East Dry Tortugas NP 

UNCW Survey Locations in the Florida Keys during 1999-2001 

This map shows the spatial distribution of sampling locations from northern Key Largo to 

southwest of Key West that were surveyed for the abundance and condition of benthic coral reef 

organisms. All told, the UNCW survey effort included 80 sites surveyed during 1999, 45 sites during 

2000, and 86 sites during 2001. Additional fieldwork was accomplished in 2002, 2005, and 2006. 

160
161

UNCW Survey Locations in the Dry Tortugas during 1999-2000 

This map illustrates the spatial distribution of sampling location in the Tortugas region that were

surveyed for the abundance and condition of benthic coral reef organisms during two 3-week 

research cruises in 1999 

and 2000. Sur

ot only included Dry

ortugas National Park,

ut also several locations 

n the Tortugas Bank,

hich was relatively 

nexplored as of 1999 

hen this program began. 

he Tortugas Region

ffers an important

omparison area to the

st of the Keys, as coastal

evelopment and fishing 

ressure are not as

tensive compared to the

st of the archipelago.

vey locations 

n

T

b

o

w

u

w

T

o

c

re

d

p

in

re
Benthic Survey Methods 

The UNCW assessment and monitoring program measures a suite of variables to determine the 

abundance, size, and condition of benthic coral reef organisms. Before getting into the water, 

mapping information on the distribution and coverage of habitat types is used to allocate sites by 

habitat type, regional sector, and location within and outside of the zones. Global Positioning

ystem (GPS) points are generated for each site. Once at the site, a three- to four-person team is

deployed in the water with transect reel lates. Four pairs of 25 m transects are

eployed at each site, labeled as 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, etc. Along four of the primary transects (A),

 along the primary transects. T species of stony corals, gorgonians, 

and sponges is determined on all four primary an y transects. Gorgonian density and

height distribution using four size classes (< 20 cm, 20-50 cm, 50-100 cm, > 100 cm) are measured 

along transects 1A and 2A, as are coral density, size, and condition. The condition measurements

include an assessment of competition between co d the extent to which

interactions cause tissue damage or mortality. ameter) are 

ach

tes

• In situ linear point-intercept 

• Video and still photograph ar

we

additionally assessed density and predation by the flamingo tongue snail (Cyphoma gibbosum), by 

noting the number of individuals, gorgonian prey, and gorgonian height on all transects deployed.

We have periodically conducted surveys of fishing gear and other marine debris by surveying 1 m on

each side of all primary and secondary transects. Noted are the type of gear, dimensions (typically 

length) to the nearest centimeter, whether the debris is biologically fouled or clean, and the number 

of sessile invertebrates impacted by the debris that are causing tissue abrasion and/or mortality. In

situ measurements of topographic complexity along the four primary transects are undertaken to

S

s, rules, pencils, and s

d

coverage is determined every 25 cm to yield 100 points per transect. Digital video along a 0.4 m

swath is also taken he number of

d secondar

rals and other taxa, an

Juvenile corals (< 4 cm maximum di

assessed along transects 1A and 2A by randomly sampling ten 0.68 m x 0.45 m quadrats along e

transect. Urchin density and test diameter, as well as the density of incidental marine invertebra

are assessed on all four primary and secondary transects. 

25 m transects for benthic cover

chive

25 m x 0.4 m belt transects 

• Species richness (coral, sponge, gorgonian) 

• Coral and gorgonian density 

• Juvenile coral density and size 

• Coral size and condition 

• Urchin density and size 

• Marine ornamental species density 

• Substratum topography (vertical relief, slope, depth) 

• Gorgonian height distribution 

• Density, length, and impacts of lost fishing gear 

Rapid Assessment Methods 

Most of the information is collected underwater on pre-formatted slates, allowing for relatively rapid

data entry and summary analysis that does not require a lot of time once the fieldwork is completed.

However, the level of information collected underwater requires a team experienced in identifying 

the major groups of algae and species of sponges, gorgonians, stony corals, and other benthic 

invertebrates that are sampled for presence-absence, abundance, size, and condition. In 2001,

162
provide an assessment of substratum angle, maximum vertical relief, and the coverage of different 

relief categories along 0.4 m x 25 m swaths. 

 Transect deployment Digital video Juvenile corals 

Examples of Benthic Habitat Types Sampled 

Illustrated here are a few of the many hard-bottom and coral reef habitat types that exist in the

Florida Keys. Habitat types include mid-channel and offshore patch reefs, low-relief hard-bottom, 

high-relief spur and groove, rubble, and low-relief spur and groove. 

 Sand Island spur and groove Crocker Reef hard-bottom 

tion Area

the high-relief spur and groove habitat at Molasses Reef SPA, one of the 

ost popular SCUBA diving locations in the Sanctuary. Most of the SPAs are located in these types

f well-developed reef areas and were designed to separate potential user group conflicts such as

shing and diving. Most of the well-developed spur and groove structures were built by elkhorn 

coral (Acropora palmata) several thousand years ago, but are now principally dominated by crustose 

 Cheeca Rocks patch reef 

Molasses Reef Sanctuary Preserva

Shown below is part of

m

o

fi

163
algae, colonial zoanthids (Palythoa), smaller corals (Porites astreoides, Agaricia agaricites), and gorgonians 

such as sea fans; a few A. palmata colonies are present in this image (left-center). 

164
High-relief spur and groove - coral cover

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

Sand Key (2)

E. Dry Rocks (2)

W. Sambo (2)

E. Sambo (2)

Looe Key (4)

eys Reference (12)

Sombrero Key (4)

 Keys Reference (1)

Molasses Reef (2)

Elbow Reef (4)

Carysfort Reef (4)

Keys Reference (7)

Mean (+ 1 S

E) cover (

%)

over of stony corals

(Milleporina and 

Scleractinia) on 

shallow spur and 

groove reefs from 

northern Key Largo 

to southwest of Key 

West sampled during 

the summer of 2001, 

several patterns 

emerged. First, fully 

protected marine 

zones, most of which 

are SPAs, had greater 

coral cover than

corresponding 

reference areas open

fishing. This is the 

ndom placement of

best coral areas along the main reef tract. Second, even 

ost of the corals in this habitat

pe were no longer Acropora palmata, but instead smaller colonies of Porites astreoides and Agaricia 

garicites. 

Spatial Variations in Coral Cover on High-relief Spur and Groove Reefs in 2001 

Data on coral cover from individual 

fully protected marine zones and 

corresponding reference areas were 

compared to the overall Keys-wide 

average coral cover for the shallow (< 

8 m) high-relief spur and groove 

habitat. Not surprisingly, most of the 

Keys-wide average of 7.6%, while 

corresponding reference areas were 

below this average. However, not all of 

Coral Cover on High-relief Spur and Groove Reefs in the Florida Keys in 2001 

Examining percent 

c

L. K

M.

U.

result of the nonto

ra

the zones that encompass some of the

among no-take zones, there was substantial variability in coral cover, ranging from ~4% to ~16%. 

Third, overall coral cover was relatively low compared to how much coral covered the reefs 

historically, probably the result of storms, disease, and bleaching. M

ty

a

no-take zones were above the 2001 

the zones were similar in terms of total 

cover, illustrating the significant reefto-reef variability inherent in the

Florida Keys ecosystem. 

165
Algal Cover on High-relief Spur and Groove Reefs in the Florida Keys in 2001 

In contrast to corals, algae were obviously the dominant components of the sea bottom in this

abitat type, covering as much as 90% 

 Halimeda opuntia Dictyota bartayresi

 Algal turf Crustose corallines 

h

of the available substratum at some

sites. However, what these data do not 

reveal is that most of the algal cover in

this habitat type consisted of 

filamentous algal turfs, crustose 

coralline algae, and calcareous algae 

such as Halimeda, all of which are 

generally indicative of relatively high 

grazing intensity and low nutrients. 

Dominant Algae on Offshore Spur and Groove Reefs 

Shown here are examples of the dominant types of algae on offshore spur and groove reefs in the 

Florida Keys. Most of these dominant algal groups are characteristic of environments with high

grazing pressure and/or strong wave energy. 

High-relief spur and groove - algal cover

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Sand Key (2)

E. Dry Rocks (2)

W. Sambo (2)

E. Sambo (2)

Looe Key (4)

L. Keys Reference (12)

Sombrero Key (4)

M. Keys Reference (1)

Molasses Reef (2)

Elbow Reef (4)

Carysfort Reef (4)

U. Keys Reference (7)

M

ean (+ 1 

S

E) co

v

er (

%)

166
167

employed by these organisms. Corals can be divided into life history groups

grow, how resistant their skeleton is to damage, how they reproduce 

extent to which a species relies upon asexual reproduction, and how 

ent is from the plankton. An apparent shift can occur in disturbed reef

er growing and more massive corals are replaced by smaller, faster growing,

e Florida Keys, the well-developed offshore spur and groove reefs where 

ones are located are now dominated by “weedy” corals such as Agaricia 

nd Porites astreoides (right, below). The life cycles of these species include 

nal development), smaller colony size, faster growth, and higher adult

of these genera include broadcasting larvae (external development), larger colony size, 

enerally slower growth, and lower adult mortality; these also are major reef builders. These patterns

insights into the factors that

Coral Reproductive Strategies 

Population assessments o

reproductive strategies

based upon how fast they

(externally or internally), the

successful larval recruitm

systems when older, slow

“weedy” species. In th

most of the no-take z

agaricites (left, below) a

brooding larvae (inter

mortality. 

In contrast, patch reefs in Hawk Channel and closer to shore tend to be dominated by massive head 

corals of the genera Diploria (left, below), Montastraea (right, below), and Siderastrea (not shown). The 

life cycles

f corals in the Florida Keys need to take into consideration the different 

g

have implications for how coral populations may change and provide

affect current distribution and size patterns of species. 
Juvenile Stony Corals 

An assessment of coral populations in the Florida Keys should also consider the species and 

densities of small (< 4 cm) diameter cor

from the water column (whether interna

metamorphosed, and reached a size that

density of juvenile corals represents an

insights into the factors that affect the a

recover from disturbance. 

als. These juveniles represent those corals that have settled

lly or externally developed relative to the parental corals),

is visible underwater (usually 0.2 cm and greater). Thus, the 

integrated measure of all of these processes and provides 

bility of coral populations to maintain themselves and

Dichocoenia stokesi 

Diploria labyrinthiformis Siderastrea radians 

Diploria strigosa

168
Juvenile Scleractinian Coral Density on High-relief Spur and Groove Reefs during 2001 

Densities of juvenile (< 4 cm maximum diameter) scleractinian corals measured among several highrelief spur and groove reefs in the Florida Keys during the summer of 2001 showed several patterns.

First, juvenile coral densities varied greatly among individual reefs, again implying that a large-scale 

approach that considers multiple sites is needed to capture the inherent spatial variability in the 

Florida Keys. Second, juvenile coral densities varied between fully protected zones and reference

areas, with no clear pattern relative to protection level. Third, densities in this habitat were relatively 

low compared to other habitat types and especially compared to other areas in the wider Caribbean.

Most of the juvenile corals in this habitat type were small colonies of species that brood their larvae,

such as Porites, Favia, and Agaricia, instead of the massive reef framework builders. 

Juvenile scleractinian coral density

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Mean density

Spur and groove management type x region Sand Key SPA (2) E. Dry Rocks SPA (2) Western Sambo ER (2) Eastern Sambo RO (2) Looe Key SPA (4) L. Keys Reference (12) Sombrero Key SPA (4) M. Keys Reference (1) Molasses Reef SPA (2) Elbow Reef SPA (4) Carysfort Reef SPA (4) U. Keys Reference (7)

169
Gorgonian Density on High-relief Spur and Groove Reefs in the Florida Keys in 2001 

corresponding reference areas. These data also indicate that there were 

gnificant regional variations in gorgonian densities in this habitat type, with lower Keys sites

occurs, but we do know that while

be replaced by the colonial zoanthid Palythoa

Anyone who has snorkeled or dived on Florida Keys reefs and hard-bottom habitats knows that

gorgonians, which include sea fans, sea rods, and sea whips, are dominant. In fact, in most Florida 

Keys habitats, gorgonians are usually two to three times more abundant than the hard corals. Shown 

here are data on mean gorgonian densities on offshore high-relief spur and groove reefs in the

Florida Keys sampled during 2001. It is evident that there was substantial inter-reef variability, with

densities ranging from ~1 colony per m2 to over 12 colonies per m2, and no clear trend between

fully protected zones and

si

exhibiting much lower densities than upper Keys sites. We are not sure why this regional variation 

 gorgonians were dominant on upper Keys reefs, they appeared to

 on lower Keys reefs. 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Mean density

Gorgonian density

Spur and groove management type x region Sand Key SPA (2) E. Dry Rocks SPA (2) Western Sambo ER (2) Eastern Sambo RO (2) Looe Key SPA (4) L. Keys Reference (12) Sombrero Key SPA (4) M. Keys Reference (1) Molasses Reef SPA (2) Elbow Reef SPA (4) Carysfort Reef SPA (4) U. Keys Reference (7)

170
Eastern Sambo Research Only Area 

This underwater photograph at Eastern Sambo Reef, offshore of the island of Boca Chica, indicates

the general structure of high-relief spur and groove reefs in the lower Keys region. Note the

dominance by the colonial zoanthid Palythoa and the near absence of gorgonians. This reef, like 

other similarly structured reefs in the Keys, was primarily built by elkhorn coral. 

171
Elbow Reef Sanctuary Preservation Area 

This underwater photograph at The Elbow, offshore of Key Largo, indicates the general structure of 

high-relief spur and groove reefs in the upper Keys region. Note the dominance by gorgonians, 

especially the sea fan Gorgonia ventalina, and the fire coral Millepora complanata. This reef, like other

similarly structured reefs in the Keys, was primarily built by elkhorn coral, although this species is 

now relatively rare on most offshore spur and groove reefs. 

172
Historical and Present Status of Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals 

People who have snorkeled or dived in the Florida Keys know that significant changes have

occurred to corals and other marine organisms relative to the 1950s and 1960s. Significant among

ese changes are the well-documented declines in the abundance of elkhorn (top) and staghorn 

corals (bottom), two species that are important reef framework builders in the Florida Keys and

throughout the Caribbean. However, dramatic declines in populations of these corals have occurred 

during the past 25 years, principally due to storms and disease. Disease is of particular importance,

especially white band disease, because it has affected populations far removed from local human 

activities, suggesting that the declines in the Florida Keys are part of a Caribbean-wide decline. In 

any event, this has implications for the future of many Florida reefs, as the major framework

builders are not significantly reduced and have been replaced with gorgonians, Palythoa, algae, and 

smaller corals. 

th

173
Population Estimate for Elkhorn Coral in the Florida Keys

ta) throughout the Florida Keys. This is

important step in assessing a population. The disease prevalence estimates are a concern because 

lkhorn coral is relatively rare compared to what it used to be, but in addition, extant colonies are 

The stratified sampling design employed by our program, using habitat-based mapping, allows for 

the construction of population estimates for a variety of benthic coral reef organisms. Detailed

surveys of the offshore reef tract in 2001, focusing on high-relief spur and groove reefs and patch 

reefs, allowed us to derive population estimates for both elkhorn and staghorn corals. Shown here 

are the population estimates for elkhorn coral (Acropora palma

an

e

being affected by disease-like conditions. However, it is encouraging that large stands of elkhorn

coral can still be found at sites such as Sand Key SPA, Sand Island, Elbow Reef SPA, and South 

Carysfort Reef. 

Sand Island

Acropora palmata

Population estimate – Key Largo to Key West

387,744 ± 282,261 colonies 

Disease prevalence 

13.2% ± 11.2% 

Dead white skeleton/white band disease 

174
Population Estimate for Staghorn Coral in the Florida Keys

imilar population abundance estimates were developed for staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) after 

undance and disease prevalence estimates

S

the summer 2001 surveys. Shown here are the ab

throughout the Florida Keys. Relative to elkhorn coral, staghorn coral is more abundant, occurs in

more diverse habitats such as patch reefs and low-relief hard-bottom, and appears to be less affected 

by disease-like symptoms. However, only small patches (< 10 m diameter) are usually found. The 

large stands that historically occurred at 10-15 m depth on the fore reef of many lower Keys bank

reefs (e.g., Sand Key, Sambos) are gone, but we are encouraged that this species is still present at

many sites, albeit in relatively low densities. 

Little Africa

DryTortugasNational Park

13,199,606 ± 11,772,110 colonies 

Disease prevalence 

0.38% ± 0.38% 

Dead white skeleton 

Acropora cervicornis

Population estimate – Key Largo to Key West

175
Impacts to Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals

There are several biological and physical factors that may impede the ability of elkhorn and staghorn 

corals to re-establish their former prevalence on Florida Keys reefs. Among these are continued

disease such as white band, patchy necrosis, and white pox, as well as predation by snails

(Coralliophila) and other reef organisms, storm damage, and physical impacts from humans. 

Damselfish predation

Di

dation?

?

Disease? Pre

sease? Predation? White-band disease?

176
Coral Diseases 

Reports from reef areas throughout the world over the past 20 years indicate that the number and 

prevalence of diseases has increased dramatically. The etiological agents involved and the causes of

the increased prevalence of diseases are still not well understood, but are considered to be one of the 

primary factors that has caused changes to Florida Keys reefs. Shown here are some of the diseases

or disease-like symptoms that affect Florida Keys corals. 

Prevalence of Coral Diseases in the Florida Keys 

The following are summary data that provide a general overview of disease prevalence estimates 

obtained from our program’s large-scale sampling of the Florida K

• 204 sites were sampled between 1999 and 2001 

• 7,587 colonies (39 taxa) were sampled 

• 125 colonies (1.65%) exhibited one of six signs of disease 

• 85% of disease conditions were dark spot and dead, white skeleton of unknown cause(s) 

• 22 of the 39 taxa exhibited one of six signs of disease 

• There were no significant habitat or regional variations 

• Disease prevalence generally was 1-3% among habitat types and regions 

eef-building corals in the Florida Keys can be affected by any number of disease-like conditions,

uch as any one of the band diseases, spots, and tissue necrosis. Most species appear to be 

usceptible to at least one of these disease-like conditions, but overall prevalence was relatively low.

pecifically, we have consistently found that 1% to 2% of all scleractinian corals measured in a 

articular year are experiencing a disease-like symptom. During 2001, we were encouraged to find 

ery few incidences of bleaching from the areas surveyed and disease incidence in the habitats was

White band? 

White plague type II Black-band disease Unknown

Black-spot disease Black-band disease

eys since 1999:

R

s

s

S

p

v

177
very low. Of the 2,665 scleractinian corals assessed, only 49 (1.8%) exhibited signs of disease. 

s and A. 

humilis; 

• Yellow band disease; 

• White plague type II, noted on Dichocoenia stokesi, A. humilis, and A. agaricites; 

• White band disease, noted on Acropora palmata; and 

• Decaying tissue/skeleton, noted on S. michelini, and possibly indicative of shutdown 

reaction. 

The percentage of scleractinian corals with signs of disease varied among habitat types as follows: 

mid-channel patch reefs (2.5%), offshore patch reefs (2.1%), high-relief spur and groove (1.7%), and 

low-relief hard-bottom (1.5%). No incidence of black-band disease was recorded from any of the 

colonies assessed. 

Urchin eys

One of the factors that has led to dramatic changes in Florida Keys and wider Caribbean reefs was

the mass mortality of the long-spined sea urchin, Diadema antillarum, in 1983-84. The cause of the 

mortality was a water-borne pathogen that presumably originated near the Panama Canal and spread 

rapidly throughout the Caribbean basin. Populations in the Florida Keys were impacted by a second

die-off event, similar to the first, in the early 1990s that further depressed population levels.

However, the implication for reefs in the Florida Keys was probably not as dire because we have 

relatively healthy herbivorous fish populations, unlike those in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, for

example. So, even with the mass mortality of this urchin species, there has probably been at least

some compensation by fishes that continue to keep many habitats well grazed of macroalgae (see 

algae data, above). Since 1999, we have sampled for urchin density and test size at hundreds of sites 

in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas. While six species can be found in hard-bottom and reef

habitat Specifically, densities of this urchin still remain about an 

order of magnitude lower than historical data prior to the 1983-84 mortality event. Despite this

attern, we have found several locations, including the Dry Tortugas, with large (3.5-5 cm test

iameter) D. antillarum, with clear effects of grazing on the substratum. Many other sites have 

latively high densities of other species. The factors that may be impeding the recovery of Diadema

ay include insufficient adult densities to produce enough larvae, poor recruitment, and high postettlement mortality due to inadequate habitat and/or predation. 

Disease conditions noted were: 

• Dead white skeleton noted on several species, including Porites astreoides, Siderastrea siderea, 

Stephanocoenia michelini, P. porites furcata; 

• Dark spot condition, noted primarily on S. siderea, but also Agaricia agaricite

Density and Size Patterns in the Florida K

s, D. antillarum is still relatively rare.

p

d

re

m

s

178
Amount of Hook and Line Fishing Gear on Spur and Groove Reefs during 2001 

Periodically we have sampled the amount of marine debris and have noted the type, amount, and

biological impacts. With literally hundreds of thousands of lobster traps deployed per year, the 

thousands of recreational and commercial fishing trips, and the shear numbers of people on the 

w sur that can be bottom.

ased upon results from 2000, we assumed when we made assessments in 2001 that relatively little 

shing gear would be found throughout much of the shallow (1-6 m) fore reef, especially within the 

hing. We were surprised at the amount of marine debris,

rope, wood slats, buoys, and cement. From all 86 si

m2 duri t k-and-line gear and trap rope.

Of the 9

fully pr ec

greatest en ost of the gear within the zones

was bio i Sand Key SPA 

.4 m), om

Echinometra and Eucidaris (shown here) 

• Poor compensation by species other than

a

Similar historical distribution/density 

patterns 

• Shallow fore reef appears to be well grazed 

by fishes 

Diadem

• 

Diadema antillarum 

• Poor recovery since 1983 

• Low densities in all habitats 

• Dominated by recruits 

• Poor survivorship 

• Locally high densities in Tortugas 

ater, it probably comes as no prise the amount of debris found on the

B

fi

fully protected zones that are closed to fis

represented mostly by hook-and-line gear that was recovered, even within the fully protected zones. 

The majority of the debris was hook-and-line gear, represented by monofilament, wire, leaders,

hooks, lead weights, and even a fishing pole, followed by remnant lobster/crab trap debris, including 

tes representing a total survey area of only 25,200 

ng he summer of 2001, we recovered more than 0.5 km of hoo

34 m of hook-and-line gear recovered from the fore reef, 112 m (32%) was recovered from

ot ted zones. In fact, many of the fully protected zones surveyed yielded some of the 

d sities of hook-and-line gear in the Sanctuary. While m

log cally fouled, clean or freshly lost hook-and-line gear was recovered from

(7 S brero Key SPA (29.06 m), and Carysfort/S. Carysfort SPA (1.86 m). Most of the gear

found on mid-channel and offshore patch reefs was lobster trap debris, especially buoy lines. 

However, several patch reefs near Molasses Reef Channel (near Three Sisters) and White Banks/Dry 

Rocks had significant quantities of hook-and-line gear. We also were able to assess the number of 

organisms impacted by debris, specifically abrasion and tissue mortality to sessile marine

invertebrates. On the fore reef alone (63 sites), we noted 319 incidences of damage to fire coral, 

stony corals, gorgonians, sponges, and the colonial zoanthid Palythoa. Not surprisingly, most damage

179
was caused by hook-and-line gear on the fore reef, especially to gorgonians, and secondarily to fire

coral and sponges. We recognize that lost fishing gear and other debris is probably a relatively minor 

factor a ec

material du ur.

ff ting Florida Keys reefs; however concerted efforts need to continue to remove this

e to the cumulative effects that may occ

Density of Lost Hook-and-line Gear

Shallow spur & groove, 2001

3.00

0.00

0.50

1.00

Lower Keys Reference No. incidences/100 m

2

1.50

2.00

2.50

(9)

Sand Key SPA (2)

E. Dry Rocks SPA (2)

Western Sambo ER (2)

Eastern Sambo RO (2)

Middle Keys Reference (1)

Sombrero Key SPA (2)

Upper Keys Reference (6)

Molasses Reef SPA (2)

Elbow Reef SPA (2)

Carysfort Reef SPA (4)

180
Gorgonian-dominated Hard-bottom in Dry Tortugas National Park 

This slide narrative has illustrated some of the patterns that have emerged from the large-scale 

sampling of benthic coral reef organisms in the Florida Keys, with a particular focus here on the 

high-relief spur and groove fore reef habitat. However, it is also important to point out that other 

habitat types, such as this low-relief hard-bottom site in the Dry Tortugas, are equally if not more

important in terms of area coverage in the Sanctuary. In addition, many of the patterns observed in 

one habitat type are not universal. For example, we have noted relatively healthy coral assemblages 

and abundant urchins in other habitats. 

SE of Loggerhead Key, DTNP 

181
Mid-channel Patch Reefs in the Florida Keys 

One habitat type of particular interest in the Florida Keys are patch reefs, which are distributed from 

close to shore to the seaward edge of Hawk Channel. Literally thousands occur from Biscayne 

National Park southwest to the Dry Tortugas and are notable for their diversity in physical and

iological structure. While dramatic changes have been documented on offshore reefs in the Florida

eys, the patch reef environment is characterized by significantly greater coral densities, coral cover, 

b

K

and coral colony size, despite existing in an environment often characterized by low visibility and 

flocculent sediments. Of interest to scientists are the factors responsible for the persistence of high 

coral cover reefs located relatively close to shore. Perhaps these habitats are a source of new corals 

to other areas of the Florida Keys. In any event, Federal and State resource managers should

consider additional protection for patch reefs, as most are not within zone boundaries and represent 

what are probably the best remaining coral assemblages in the Florida Keys. 

Cheeca Rocks SPA

Marker 49

South of Marathon

Sunshine Key

182
Status of Seagrass Beds in South Florida

e resources of the Sanctuary. The scope and depth of this

onitoring effort are without precedent or peer for seagrass ecosystems throughout the world.

pecific objectives are: 1) To provide data needed to make unbiased, statistically rigorous statements

about the status and temporal trends of seagrass communities in the Sanctuary as a whole and within 

defined strata; 2) To help define reference conditions in order to develop resource-based water 

quality standards; and 3) To provide a framework for testing hypothesized pollutant fate/effect 

relationships through process-oriented research and monitoring. In order to meet these objectives, 

we have developed these goals for the project: 

 

• Define the present distribution of seagrasses within the FKNMS 

• Provide high-quality, quantitative data on the status of the seagrasses within the FKNMS 

• Quantify the importance of seagrass primary production in the FKNMS 

• Define the baseline conditions for the seagrass communities 

• Determine relationships between water quality and seagrass status 

• Detect trends in the distribution and status of the seagrass communities 

 

To reach these goals, four kinds of data are being collected in seagrass beds in the FKNMS: 

 

• Distribution and abundance of seagrasses using rapid assessment Braun-Blanquet surveys 

• Seagrass productivity of the dominant species of seagrass in the FKNMS (Thalassia 

testudinum) using the leaf-mark and harvest method

• Seagrass nutrient availability using tissue concentration assays 

 

These data are being collected at three different types of sites within the FKNMS: 

 

stations

• Level 2 Stations: Randomly selected locations within the FKNMS, sampled annually for

seagrass abundance and nutrient availability. Each year, new locations for Level 2 stations are 

chosen. 

• Level 3 Stations: Randomly selected locations within the FKNMS, sampled annually for 

seagrass abundance. Each year, new locations for Level 3 stations are chosen. 

e are assessing both inter-annual and intra-annual trends in seagrass communities. The mix of site 

pes is intended to monitor trends through quarterly sampling at a few permanent locations (Level 

sites) and to annually characterize the broader seagrass population through less intensive, one-time 

ampling at more locations (Level 2 and 3 sites). In addition to the monitoring activities, we take 

dvantage of the vessel time needed to collect the monitoring data to also conduct manipulative 

xperiments that help us understand spatial patterns and temporal trends in the monitoring data. 

James W. Fourqurean 

Project Overview 

The general objective of seagrass monitoring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

(FKNMS) is to measure the status and trends of seagrass communities to evaluate progress toward

protecting and restoring the living marin

m

S

• Level 1 Stations: Sampled quarterly for seagrass abundance, productivity and nutrient 

availability. These stations are all co-located with Water Quality Monitoring Project

(Fig. 1) 

W

ty

1

s

a

e

183
 

 

Figure 1. Location of the 30 Level 

1 seagrass status and trends 

monitoring sites in the FKNMS.

Site numbers correspond to water

quality monitoring locations. 

Project Accomplishments FY 2004 (October 2003 – September 2004)

The significant changes in seagrass communities at the permanent Level 1 stations that we reported

last fiscal year continue to be present after an additional year of sampling. These changes are 

consistent with model predictions of nutrient-induced changes of these systems. There may be 

reasons for these observations that are unrelated to human activities in the region, but the spatial

pattern of changes and the agreement of the changes with models of the system suggest that there is 

regional-scale change in nutrient availability that is causing changes in sea ide

portion of the FKNMS. 

In 2004, we resurveyed 251 Level 2 and Level 3 stations that were last visited during the summer of 

1997 (Fig. 2). Preliminary analyses indicate that there are no large-scale spatial trends in the 

abundance of the dominant benthic plant types between the two years. 

In general, nutrient addition to aquatic environments shifts the competitive balance to fastergrowing primary producers. The consequence of this generality in seagrass-dominated environments

is that seagrasses are the dominant primary producers in oligotrophic conditions. As nutrient 

availability increases, there is an increase in the importance of macroalgae, both free-living and 

epiphytic, with a concomitant decrease in seagrasses because of competition for light. 

Macroalgae lose out to even faster-growing microalgae as nutrient availability continues to increase:

first, epiphyt roalgae on seagrasses; then planktonic microalgae 

bloom and deprive all benthic plants of light under the most eutrophic conditions. 

grass beds over a w

ic microalgae replace epiphytic mac

184
ure 2. Thalassia testudinum distribution map from the 2004 Level 2 and Level 3 monitoring data. 

The o re

six m

requirem trophication. Large expanses of shallow 

mar ass and growth of even the

est-growing local seagrass species, Thalassia testudinum, are nutrient-limited. At this very 

reases in nutrient 

availability actually cause increases in seagrass biomass 

seagrass species will out-compete it (Fig. 3). The relative 

Figure 3. Conceptual model showing the change in

Fig

S uth Florida case is more complicated than the general case described above because there a

co mon seagrass species in South Florida, and these species have different nutrient and light 

ents, and therefore have differing responses to eu

ine environments in South Florida are so oligotrophic that biom

slow

oligotrophic end of the spectrum, inc

and growth rate. As nutrient availability increases beyond 

what is required by a dense stand of T. testudinum, other 

importance of the various primary producers, then, can

be used to assess the trophic state of the community. 

importance of primary producers as nutrient availability

increases from low (oligotrophic) to high (eutrophic). 

185
Each species in the species dominance-eutrophication gradient model (Fig. 3) can potentially 

minate over a range of nutrient ava

nutrient availability changes. These changes are not instantaneous, however. Field evidence 

uggests that species replacements may take place on a time scale of a decade or more. It is desirable 

at we be able to predict the tendency of the system to undergo these changes in species

so that management actions can be taken. Tissue nutrient

o assess the relative availability of nutrients to the plants. For 

ea is captured in the interpretation of elemental ratios compared

106C:16N:P. For 

he critical ratio of N:P

green leaves that indicates a balance in the

ailability of N and P is approximately 30:1, and

onitoring deviations from this ratio can be used

infer whether N or P availabilities are limiting

rowth of this species. T. testudinum is likely to be 

placed by faster-growing competitors if nutrient

ailability is such that the N:P ratio of its leaves is 

y to a definition of trends 

kely to be encountered in the seagrass communities of South Florida if humans are causing regional 

) regional eutrophication will

ause a shift in species dominance in South Florida seagrass beds. The first responses to 

ns based on our

onceptual model (Fig. 4) were tested experimentally, and during this fiscal year, we published the 

sults of an experiment that proved that offshore seagrass beds in the FKNMS were limited by 

nitrogen availability, while nearshore seagrass beds did not respond strongly to nutrient addition 

(Fig. 6; Ferdie and Fourqurean 2004). We also have completed experiments investigating the role of 

grazing fish in controlling the distribution of seagrasses in the seagrass beds adjacent to coral reefs in 

the FKNMS. 

do ilability and the model predicts a change in species dominance 

as

s

th

dominance before they occur,

concentrations can be monitored t

phytoplankton communities, this id

to the familiar "Redfield ratio" of

the seagrass T. testudinum, t

in

av

m

to

g

re

av

approximately 30:1. A change in the N:P ratio in 

time to a value closer to 30:1 is indicative of

eutrophication (Fig. 4). 

Figure 4. Conceptual model indicating how elemental

ratios of seagrasses respond to increasing nutrient

availability. 

These models lead directl

li

changes in nutrient availability because of alterations to quantity and quality of freshwater inputs to 

the marine ecosystem: 1) regional eutrophication will cause N:P ratios of seagrasses to approach 30:1 

from higher or lower values indicative of oligotrophic conditions; and 2

c

eutrophication will be evidenced by an increase in the relative abundance of fast-growing seagrass

species (Halodule wrightii and Syringodium filiforme) at the expense of the now-dominant, slow-growing 

T. testudinum (Fig. 3). At later stages of eutrophication, macroalgae and microalgae will become the 

dominant primary producers. 

Our monitoring data indicates a large spatial gradient in the N:P ratios of Thalassia testudinum across 

the Sanctuary, with N:P ratios predicting nitrogen limitation in the offshore parts of the Sanctuary 

and predicting phosphorus limitation in nearshore areas (Fig. 5). These predictio

c

re

186
d

At four nearshore Level 1 sites in the FKN

of macroalgae over the period 1995 - 2004 that is consistent with increased nutrient availability. At 

none of these has there yet been a decrease in seagrass abundance, but our conceptual model

predicts that increases in fast-growing macroalgae should precede decreases in seagrass abundance

(Fig. 3). One example, from site 235 offshore of Lower Matecumbe Key, shows how macroalgae 

have steadily increased in abundance over

where relative abundance of primary produ

been long-term shifts in the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in seagrass leaves that ar

with increases in nutrient availability (Fig. 8). 

Figure 5. Distribution of N:P of Thalassia testudinum leaves.

Figure 6. Response in Thalassia testudinum stan ing crop to nutrient additions at nearshore and offshore sites. 

MS, there has been an increase in the relative abundance 

the monitoring period (Fig. 7). In addition to these sites

cers has changed, at four more Level 1 sites there have

e consistent 

187
 

Figure 7. At Level 1 station 235 (see Fig. 1 for location)

abundance, with faster-growing macroalgae becoming m

consistent with model predictions of the consequences of

there has been a slow and consistent shift in species

ore abundant over the time period. This change is

increases in nutrient availability. 

Figure 8. At Level 1 station 267 (see Fig. 1 for location) there has been a slow and consistent shift in N:P 

ratios from values consistent with P limitation toward values indicating an increase in phosphorus availability. 

The sites that showed changes consistent with increased nutrient availability were not randomly

distributed across the Sanctuary - rather, all of these sites were relatively close to shore in the Middle 

and Lower Florida Keys (Fig. 9). 

 

188
Figure 9.

at exhibited changes that are consistent with eutrophication (see Fig. 11 for spatial pattern of 

onsistent with the patterns seen at the permanent sites. In FY 2005, we will resample an additional 

 Long-term changes in seagrass beds at the Level 1 sites. 

The lack of any such changes in the Upper Florida Keys suggests that the factor driving the 

observed changes is not present across the entire Sanctuary, so factors acting at the global scale (like 

global warming or coastal overfishing) are not likely responsible for the observations. In addition to 

Level 1 sites that are exhibiting changes that are consistent with long-term increase in 

nutrient supply, two additional sites were severely impacted by hurricanes over the course of the 

monitoring period. 

 

Resurveying the Level 2 and Level 3 sites revealed no spatially consistent patterns in changes in 

relative abundance of seagrass communities from throughout the Sanctuary. The mean changes in

Braun-Blanquet density for the major taxa for the period 1997-2004 were not significantly different 

from zero (Fig. 10), but there were some locations that had large differences between 1997 and 

2004. Whether these changes were real changes in benthic communities or artifacts caused by smallscale spatial heterogeneity is currently being investigated. There were some areas, like around 

Islamorada, that showed declines in Thalassia in a large area contiguous with Level 1 permanent sites

th

change and Fig. 9 for Level 1 site summary). However, other regions of apparent change were not

c

272 sites that were surveyed in 1998 and an additional 94 sites in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Our surveys have provided clear documentation of the distribution and importance of seagrasses in 

the FKNMS. The seagrass bed that carpets 80% of the FKNMS is part of the largest documented

contiguous seagrass bed on earth. These extensive meadows are vital for the ecological health of the 

FKNMS and the marine ecosystems of all of South Florida. Maps of spatial distributions can be 

found on the web or DVD. 

189
Figure 10. Frequency distributions of the changes in BraunTh

 

data on

sites during hurricanes over the last four years. At the 

ealth of the seagrass beds represented by the permanent 

 be detected with the six years of 

2003.

etailed analyses of the monitoring data have led to 17 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific

terature. These publications address aspects of the functioning and status and trends of benthic 

Blaunquet density for the three most common taxa based on

revisiting 202 sites in 2003 that were originally surveyed in 1996. 

e mean change in density for all three taxa is not different

from zero. 

Our permanent monitoring sites have provided valuable 

 the inter- and intra-annual variability of seagrass 

cover and abundance. Time series of species composition, 

seagrass productivity, nutrient availability and physical

parameters can be found for each permanent monitoring 

site on the web site or the DVD. There have been some 

striking trends in the seagrass communities at these 

permanent sites: seagrasses were lost completely at 3 of the 

30

remaining 27 sites, benthic communities are relatively

stable. There are no common trends across the sites in 

seagrass cover or community composition. This can be

interpreted to mean that there are no regional trends in the 

h

monitoring sites that can

monitoring data. But, manipulative experiments in seagrass 

beds in South Florida demonstrate that the time course of 

the response of seagrass beds to eutrophication is on the

order of decades, and we do not understand completely the 

interaction humans have with the natural dynamics of these 

systems. These 30 sites should continue to be monitored on 

a quarterly basis. 

Figure 11. Spatial pattern of changes in Braun-Blanquet density of Thalassia testudinum at Level 2 and Level 3

sites surveyed in 1996 and revisited in

D

li

190
communities, and lay the groundwork for forecasting future anthropogenic impacts on this

ecosystem. 

Acknowledgments 

Michael J. Durako (University of North Carolina at Wilmington) and Joseph C. Zieman (University 

of Virgina) are Principle Investigators and Susie P. Escorcia (Florida International University) is the 

Project Manager of the South Florida seagrass program. This data report represents the dedicated

work of many people. Craig Rose, Alan Willsie, Brad Peterson, and Leanne Rutten led the field

collection efforts and spearheaded the compilation of the data report; Meredith Ferdie, Dotti

Byron, Virginia Cornett, Sean Meehan, Kevin Cunniff, Segio Ruiz, Bryan Dewsbury, Travis 

Thyberg, and Anna Armitage collectively put in the thousands of hours in the field and laborator

that went into the collection of these data. The field work was conducted under permits FKNMS2003-036 from the FKNMS, FDEP permit number 1587, FDEP Parks and Recreation. Contracts: 

NOAA - NA16OP2553/NA04NOS4780024; EPA X97468102-0. 

Literature Cited 

Ferdie, M., and J.W. Fourqurean. 2004. Responses of seagrass communities to fertilization along a 

e 

y 

gradient of relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in a carbonate environment. Limnol. 

Oceanogr. 49: 2082-2094.

191
Plenary Presenta

Building Resilience into Coral Re

tion:

ef Management

Rod Salm and Elizabeth Mcleod 

easingly severe impacts of large-scale

ther there is anything we can do to 

ventured to ask “why bother trying to

l will undermine our best efforts?” In

, emerging threats of this century, such

ssible strategy to address the challenge,

underscore that there is room for 

can take to build resilience into their

erever possible. 

frequency, and geographic distribution 

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 

recedented proportions worldwide and

00). Bleaching is the response of corals

spread when caused by thermal stress

e intense solar radiation that usually 

itions.

e a serious global threat to coral reefs

1), raising concerns about appropriate

ughes et al. 2003). Marine Protected Areas1

 (MPAs) have been identified as

ne of the most effective tools for conserving reefs and related marine systems (Lubchenco et al.

istribution, and how much mortality a bleaching event causes. After widespread mortalities from 

In light of widespread coral reef degradation and the incr

climate-related thermal bleaching, people began asking whe

conserve coral reefs. The greater skeptics among these even

conserve coral reefs when events that are beyond our contro

this paper, we will consider the challenge posed by large-scale

as climate-related coral bleaching, introduce resilience as a po

exemplify this with the approach being taken in Palau to

optimism, and suggest some specific actions that managers

programs, putting this into the context of the Florida Keys wh

The Challenge 

Large-scale coral bleaching events have increased in intensity,

in the last two decades (Wilkinson 1998, 2000). The 1998

event and 1999 La Niña caused mass coral bleaching of unp

near complete loss of live coral at some sites (Goreau et al. 20

to many forms of stress, but is particularly severe and wide

(unusually high seawater temperatures) combined with th

accompanies warming during these calm, clear, cloudless cond

We now recognize that climate-related bleaching events pos

(Goreau et al. 2000; Westmacott et al. 2000; Salm et al. 200

response strategies (H

o

2003; Palumbi 2003). However, protected area managers must incorporate climate change as well as

increasing human pressures into their conservation strategies, or MPAs may not be able to safeguard 

biodiversity effectively. Networks of MPAs, including no-take areas, have been identified as a critical 

way to protect coral reefs from human stresses. 

Reason for Optimism 

Despite the widespread bleaching-related mortality of coral reef organisms, particularly following the 

1998 El Niño, it is rare for living corals to be completely eliminated from a section of reef. Even in

the most severe cases, some coral communities appear to be more resistant (i.e., they don’t bleach) 

or more resilient (i.e., they bleach and may die but recover quickly) to bleaching (Salm et al. 2001; 

West and Salm 2003; Salm et al. in prep). A recent analysis of bleaching reports (Wilkinson 2000) 

indicates that there is a wide variability in bleaching intensity, species affected, depth, and geographic 

d

 

1

 MPAs are interpreted here in the internationally accepted context, which is broader than often applied in the USA: 

Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and 

cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed

environment (Kelleher 1999). 
bleaching events have occurred, reefs also differ in their ability to recover through growth and 

expansion of surviving corals or the settlement and recruitment of new corals. 

ental and biological factors appear to influence the differences in responses to 

ffort and funds.

The

effectively cools the heated surface water and reduces thermal stress to corals (Done et al. 2003; 

ooldridge and Done 2004). Tidal-driven and ocean currents can thus prevent temperature 

anomalies occurring within some coral zones, duri g times when regional heat stress is generally

idespread. Following the 1998 El Niño, areas of local strong vertical mixing protected central 

donesian reefs from severe bleaching (Goreau et al. 2000; Salm et al. 2001). For example, at 

Komodo National Park and Nusa Penida Island in Indonesia, there was a clear vertical mixing effect 

of strong cool currents. At these locations, there was little or no bleaching or temperature related 

mortality in corals following the 1998 event. Other reefs also had lowered mortality due to the 

cooling effects of local upwelling: the outer reefs of Alfonse, St. Francois, and Bijoutier atolls in the 

Seychelles, Western Zanzibar, and certain areas in the Maldives (Goreau et al. 2000), and some outer

reefs in the Great Barrier Reef following a 2002 heat wave (Berkelmans et al. 2004; Wooldridge and 

Done 2004). 

Strong currents and flushing 

Flushing by strong currents, even if the water remains warm, may also protect corals to some degree, 

apparently working by removing free radicals that are a toxic byproduct of bleaching in corals 

(Nakamura and van Woesik 2001). In laboratory experiments, these authors demonstrated that 

Acropora digitata suffered high bleaching mortality under low-flow conditions, and none under highflow conditions. While field evidence for this effect is weak, there have been observations in Palau 

and Indonesia that clearly demonstrate synergisms at work. At several sites in Palau2

 where corals 

had died on reef slopes below 2-4 m, reef flats and shallow reef crests with strong currents showed 

much higher coral survival. 

 

A variety of environm

bleaching among various coral communities, making some communities more resistant or resilient 

to coral bleaching. These include factors that: 1) reduce temperature stress (e.g., local upwelling 

areas); 2) increase water movement and flush harmful toxins (e.g., narrow channels with strong 

currents); 3) decrease light stress (e.g., high island shading); 4) harden corals to adverse conditions

and develop stress tolerance (e.g., regularly stressful environments where corals are already adapted

to stress, such as reef flats where corals are exposed to the air at low tides); and 5) favor conditions 

that enhance recovery potential (e.g., high herbivore populations to graze back algae and maintain

suitable substrate for settlement of coral larvae, low incidence of disease) (Salm et al. 2001; Salm and

Coles 2001; West and Salm 2003). Sites where these factors reliably occur would make good

candidates for MPA selection and the investment of conservation e

Reduction of temperature stress 

re is emerging evidence that vertical mixing of deeper cool waters up through the water column 

W

n

w

In

2

 Lighthouse Reef flats, reefs in Malakal Channel and at the Pincers, patch reef east of Ebiil Channel off NW

Babeldaob Island, Fantasy Island area reef flats (these later severely impacted by the crown-of-thorns starfish

Acanthaster planci) 

193
Reduction of light stress 

Under ideal condit wever, in

combination with a secon me a stress. 

ions, corals thrive at high light levels (Jokiel and Coles 1990). Ho

d factor (i.e., increased temperature), high light levels can beco

Shading: High north-south orientated islands can sometimes provide shading for corals during one or 

other half of the day, and undercut karst islands or coastlines often provide intensely shaded shelves 

on which corals can grow. Trees growing on the slopes of these coasts can further extend the 

shading effect seawards. The Rock Islands in Palau demonstrate well this effect of shading in 

reducing bleaching and related mortality. 

Rock Islands in Palau (Photo by Jez O’Hare) Shaded corals beneath overhang in Palau (Photo by Rod Salm) 

ral cover can approach 100% over large areas 

ond 1992). In parts of the Rock Islands and sheltered bays off Babeldaob, 

lagoon of Alfonse atoll (Goreau 1998c; Goreau et al. 

At Nikko Bay, in particular, one of the most diverse permanent monitoring sites of the Palau 

International Coral Reef Research Center, corals in shaded areas survived well during the 1998 

bleaching event that, elsewhere in the vicinity, caused major coral mortality. 

Screening: Suspended particulate matter in the water column may also protect corals naturally adapted 

to these conditions by screening them from destructive high light levels. On silty and often turbid 

fringing reefs on the inner Great Barrier Reef, co

(Stafford-Smith and Orm

Palau, Porites rus and Porites cylindrica succumbed to 

bleaching and died in clear water areas, but survived in 

naturally cloudy water. Turbidity may also have 

contributed to lower mortality following the 1998 

bleaching event in the Gulf of Kutch, southwestern Sri 

Lanka, Mahé (Goreau 1998a, b), along the 18-foot break 

inside the barrier reef in the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (B.D. Causey, pers. ecol.), and inside the 

2000). 

Screening by suspended particulate matter

(Photo by Rod Salm) 

194
Reefs in such naturally turbid waters are often overlooked by MPA managers, who focus their

ing susceptibility

corded for corals in some inner reefs and lagoons relative to the same coral species from deeper

lm et al. 2001; West and Salm 2003). The central Indian Ocean in 1998

attention on the clearer water reefs favored by tourists. But these reefs merit greater representation 

in conservation programs as they may demonstrate greater resilience to bleaching events relative to 

reefs in clearer waters. 

Stress tolerance 

A history of regular exposure to severe conditions (Brown et al. 2000; Dunne and Brown 2001; 

Coles and Brown 2003) also appears to acclimatize corals to cope with anomalous excursions in light 

and temperature. This includes corals in habitats exposed to intense solar radiation (Brown et al. 

2000) and/or high temperatures (Craig et al. 2001; Jokiel and Coles 1990; Marshall and Baird 2000).

Corals on reef flats that emerge at low tide are exposed to conditions of heating, desiccation and

rainfall. Such prior exposures have been suggested as explanations for lower bleach

re

waters (Hoeksema 1991; Sa

provides another example. Here, there was localized survival of corals in reef flat and lagoon areas

(Spalding et al. 2000), probably reflecting the wide ambient variability in light and heat in these

habitats. 

Exposed corals (Photo by Rod Salm) 

nal coral communities should not be overlooked in management plans or

th of

types.

oral species with rapid growth rates, thinner tissue, and branching forms, (e.g., Acropora spp., 

tylophora spp., and Pocillopora spp.) tend to bleach sooner and more severely than slow-growing, 

massive corals with thicker tissues (e.g., Porites, Goniopora spp.) (Gates and Edmunds 1999; Loya et al. 

Thus, reef flat and lagoo

reef conservation. Indeed, reef flats will be the coral habitat most affected by sea level: given a

strong supply of coral larvae, a rise in sea level could allow for successful recruitment and grow

a greater variety of corals than are currently found on some reef flats (Done 1999). 

Coral community type

It is unlikely that the above factors acting alone can explain differences in coral survival during 

bleaching events. It is more probable that these factors interact to different degrees to favor growth

of specific coral community

C

S

2001). However, even in a specific location, different colonies of a coral species can vary greatly in 

their susceptibility to thermal stress (Marshall and Baird 2000; Smith and Buddemeier 1992). 

195
In one study of three hard coral genera, Acropora spp. Showed the most severe bleaching, Po

spp. Showed intermediate bleaching, and Porites spp. Showed the least bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg

cillopora

d Salvat 1995). It was the corals that showed the fastest growth and metabolic rates (Acropora spp.) 

at were the most susceptible. All Porites spp. Colonies recovered from bleaching, while Acropora

might

bligate

au et al. 2000).

ood indicators of the resilience of a site for its 

corals. Strong recruitment is measured

established in an area since a prior disturbance. 

presence of different, well-defined size t is also a 

proxy measure of local reef “health”; i.e., suitabili t and of water 

quality. The ‘sources’ of larvae that recruited may b am, and themselves 

need to be identified and protected in MPAs to en

‘sink’ reef. It is likely that these source coral commu

these factors reduce the risk of bleaching at the si

coral communities in MPAs is essential, wh

PA managers, accustomed only to addressing direct and usual threats related to fishing and 

nt and

their

otest

) succumb to a climate

lated bleaching event. However, there are some direct actions that MPA managers can take 

ner

 high level 

heir potential contribution to the recovery 

h larval dispersal.

ture Conservancy developed a “Resilience Model” to assist conservation planners and 

managers build resilience into coral reef MPAs (Fig. 1). 

an

th

spp. Did not recover well. Here, mass bleaching quickly changed the dominance relationships by

decimation of a major component, the branching corals. A similar change in community structure

was observed in Okinawa (Loya et al. 2001). Community shifts away from branching corals

have negative impacts on these ecosystems, as many fish and invertebrate populations are o

associates of intact branching corals (Gore

Strong and diverse coral settlement and growth are g

 by both the number and the cover of small coral colonies 

The chronology of recovery is often reflected in the 

s of corals. It can be argued that such recruitmen

ty of the substrate for coral settlemen

e some kilometers upstre

sure strong and rapid recovery of the downstream 

nities have survived because of one or more of 

te. Full protection of these “resistant” or low risk 

atever the underlying reasons for survival. 

What Can MPA Managers Do? 

M

tourism, for example, find it difficult enough to address the impacts of coastal developme

inland activities, and may consider climatic sources of environmental stress totally beyond

sphere of influence. This perception is reinforced when even well managed reefs in the rem

MPAs (e.g., Ngeruangel atoll in Palau and Aldabra atoll in the Seychelles

re

immediately, even as the scientific understanding improves. Salm et al. (2001) proposed that it might

be possible to mitigate the negative impacts of bleaching on coral reef biodiversity in two broad

ways: 

1. Identify and protect from direct anthropogenic impacts, specific patches of reef where 

local conditions are highly favorable for survival ge

risk of temperature-related bleaching and mortality (i.e., coral assemblages with a

of “resistance”); 

2. Locate such protected sites in places that maximize t

of damaged or vulnerable reefs that are connected throug

The Na

ally, and that also may be at reduced 

196
REPRESENTATION AND REPLICATION

Habitat Types

Figure 1. TNC Resilience Model. 

e

would

 Risk Spreading

Multiples 

REFUGIA

Resistant Communities Secure Sources 

Spawning Aggregations of Seed 

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

 Strong Recru Enhanced Reco ry

 

itment ve

 CONNECTIVITY

Transport Replenishment

 

RESILIENCE 

The components of the model and their application to MPA network design are described below.

The most effective configuration would be a network of highly protected areas nested within a

broader management framework. Such a framework might include a vast multiple-use reserv

managed for sustainable fisheries as well as protection of biodiversity. The ideal MPA system

197
be integrated with coastal management regimes to enable effective control of threats originating 

n areas with greater and lesser wave energy

upstream, and to maintain high water quality (e.g., Done and Reichelt 1998). 

1) Representation and Replication 

Manager’s action: Protect multiple examples of a full range of reef types, seeking to represent the area’s total reef

biodiversity. Replication within each type reduces the chance of any one type being completely compromised by an 

unmanageable impact such as a major bleaching event. 

To fully represent regional biodiversity within protected areas, the range of reef types protected 

should include samples of offshore reefs (barriers, atolls) i

and exposure to trade winds, mid-shelf reefs (patch and fringing reefs) where these exist, and 

inshore fringing and patch reefs in sheltered locations. For long, linear coastlines, samples of all 

these reef types should be selected at regular intervals along the coast and reef tract. Wherever 

possible, multiple samples of each reef type should be included in MPA networks or larger 

management frameworks, such as multiple-use MPAs or areas under rigorous integrated 

management regimes. This approach also has the advantage of protecting essential habitat for a wide 

variety of commercially valuable fish and macroinvertebrates. 

Representation: different coral habitats support different elements of biodiversity 

(Photo by Rod Salm) 

Key to achieving representation is a good classification scheme that shows the distribution of 

ifferent reef types and further categorizes them by biodiversity. These reef types can then serve as 

sently,

rld are

re 

ll functioning and survival of the coral reef system (Hoegh-Guldberg and Hoegh-Guldberg 2004). 

d

surrogates for species diversity or resource and use values in determining representation. Pre

~10% of reefs in the Florida Keys are fully protected. Studies and policies around the wo

increasingly suggesting that up to between 30 and 50% of reefs should be fully protected to ensu

fu

198
Certainly, an increase in fully protected reefs to 33%, as was recently decided for the Great Barrier

Reef, would be a good place to begin building cora eef resilience in the Keys. 

) Refug a

anager’ a fully p tect a nd thereby reseed and facilitate

e recover ha are seriously damaged by bleaching. 

Through analyzing local tribute to coral community resistance and 

resilience, managers can identify areas of cooling, shading, screening, stress tolerance, and strong

currents, as described in the precedin est and Salm 2003; Salm et al. in prep.). The 

mpilation of these data in the Keys would help managers identify reefs that either do not bleach 

r that bleach and recover with ty and low incidence of disease. Examples of 

oth the e types of reefs should be

assumption as a shortcut to identify refugia sites 

that have a high probability of surviving bleaching events: corals that have survived a previous 

known bleaching event have a higher probability of surviving a future one, especially if they have a

wide size frequency distribution indicating regular recruitment and survival over long time periods.

The decision tree (Fig. 2) will greatly facilitate owing down the options for new MPA sites. It 

arts fr tion th on have been agreed and applied to select 

andida h biod their response when tested by elevated

, th d for their survivability in the context of global 

armin

3) Connectivity 

Manager’s action: Identify patterns of connecti and sink reefs, so that these can be used to inform reef 

selection in the design of MPA networks ng-stones for larval dispersal, over longer time frames. 

onne ivity’ describ from the dispersal and migration

f orga isms by ocean cu drodynamic factors (speed, direction, and pattern

f curr ty dep ds on the abundance and reproduction potential of 

source eir larvae, and the spawning sites and movement patterns of 

adults. Connectivity is thus a key driver o strength and reliability of the replenishment of

biodiversity on reefs damaged by natural or human-related agents. Ideally, to maximize a damaged

site’s chances of recovering from a bleaching event, it should have a bleaching-resistant site 

pstream of it to supply its larvae.

is important for ma where the larvae of corals and

ther reef related sp ently large to be self-seeding.

thers may rely on re ying source and sink reefs and

nking them into a MPA network is critical to enable surviving reef communities to aid in the 

ccu

l r

2 i

M s action: Identify nd ro t can serve as refugia a

eas t t

coral communities th

th y of other ar

 environmental factors that con

g section (W

co

o do minimal mortali

b s protected and included in fully protected zones. 

It is possible for managers to apply the following 

narr

st om the presump

sites with hig

at criteria for MPA selecti

c te iversity value. Based on

temperatures

w

ese candidate sites are then appraise

g.

vity among source 

 and provide steppi

‘C

o

ct es the natural linkages among reefs that result

n rrents. In addition to hy

o ents), the strength of connectivi en

populations, the life spans of th

f the

u

It nagers to develop an understanding of how and

ecies are distributed. Some reefs may be suffici

efs up current to provide their seed. Thus identif

o

O

li

recovery of others that have su mbed to one or another threat.

199
Application of conventional selection criteria 

Good Site?

Yes

(meets important selection criteria) 

No 

(drop the site) 

Exposed to bleaching before?

N Yes

Good luck Good Oceanography

Reason 

High Low

Surviva

Figure 2. Decision tree to aid MPA site selection.

Where protected areas are surrounded by intensively used lands and water, buffer zones are 

commonly established to provide a transition zone of partial protection. Such buffer zones will 

become increasingly important for coral reefs as sea level rises, potentially expanding the extent of

some shallow water habitats for reefs and mangroves. As warm tropical waters extend polewards, it 

may be timely to begin modeling future connectivity patterns. This would help guide planning of 

MPA configurations in light of possible expansions in latitudinal distributions of coral communities 

that presently are restricted by existing temperature ranges. 

gement

l

A. Not exposed yet, but 

 may be in the future 

 and found susceptible 

 to bleaching 

 Possibly OK for MPA 

D. Poorly adapted 

 No critical 

 environmental 

 factors present 

 Not OK for MPA 

 C. Well adapted 

 Critical environmental 

 factors present 

 

 OK for MPA 

B. Unlikely to 

 be exposed 

 OK for MPA

(modified from Done, 2001) 

4

M

) Effective Mana

anager’s action: Manage reefs for both health and resilience, and monitor multiple indicators of the effectiveness of

current actions as the basis for adaptive management. 

Effective management is fundamental to the success of any conservation effort and the daily 

business of managers’ work. While management activities focus mainly on addressing direct 

proximate threats, such as those resulting from destructive forms of fishing or recreational use,

pollution from various sources on land and at sea, and those linked to coastal development, mining, 

200
or oil and gas prospecting, there is the need to plan for impacts resulting from beyond the manager’s 

field of influence. This calls for actions to ameliorate the impacts of such threats as climate related

oral bleaching and hurricane damage. 

onitoring programs to address issues of 

leaching resistance, determine connectivity patterns, and accommodate a rapid response to a 

eeds to address 

e socioeconomic impacts of both coral bleaching itself and of the conservation strategies 

t agencies and the private sector could protection of coral reef resources be used as the 

verage to bring about control of land-based sources of pollution. To engage communities in such

ear need for managers to develop strategies that are attuned to local priorities and 

ce.

anage water quality: Managers can manage water quality by addressing sources of pollution, especially 

anage functional groups (herbivores): Steneck and Dethier (1994) defined a functional group as a

collection of species that perform a similar function, irrespective of their taxonomic affinities. Some 

areas have more species in each functional group; thus they have functional redundancy. Reef

communities with functional redundancy may have a better chance of recovery, if a species is lost

from a functional group. 

c

Managers can also help strengthen the science underlying resilience, by encouraging or supporting

dedicated research programs and by tailoring existing m

b

bleaching event. A rapid response mechanism allows us to track the bleaching impact and to 

measure and interpret the response in light of different factors that might explain the different levels 

of mortality and recovery. 

Expanding the area of tropical seas managed for biodiversity conservation increases the impact on

people’s activities, access, and resource uses. Effective management therefore also n

th

introduced to counteract its impacts (Salm et al. in prep.). Poverty reduction and sustainable

development strategies become the cornerstones of effective MPA management in many locations.

Partnerships are the key to both conservation and sustainable development. For example, only 

through partnerships with local communities could managers hope to rehabilitate damaged sites by 

such actions as removal of crown-of-thorns starfishes or other coral predators, restriction or

reduction of fishing of herbivores, prevention of destructive practices, control of tourism impacts,

improvement of water quality, and physical removal of macro-algal mats that are inhibiting coral

settlement, survival, or growth. Only through the existence of influential partnerships among

governmen

le

ways, there is a cl

needs, with useful productivity and resilience of the reef resource system among those needs. These 

strategies should include incentives to local fishers to protect key species that support reef resilien

Is there more managers can do? 

The Caribbean reefs provided a valuable lesson in reading warning signs that signaled future reef 

collapse. Loss of herbivorous fishes, loss of macro-fauna, a shift from fish-dominated herbivory to 

echinoid-dominated herbivory, destructive overgrazing and bioerosion by food-limited sea urchins, 

and reduced coral recruitment all indicated significant ecosystem changes that depleted the resilience

of reefs (Bellwood et al. 2004). Managers must pay attention to ecosystem shifts and incorporate 

targeted responses to mitigate these shifts in order to maintain reef resilience. 

M

nutrient enrichment of water, which creates conditions that favor algal growth and prevent coral

larvae from settling. To manage water quality effectively, managers must link their MPAs into the 

governance systems of adjacent areas, as well as controlling the pollution sources within their own 

boundaries. 

 

M

201
The issue of how to respond to competition between algae and corals for space to settle and grow is 

challenging. One way m re fisheries so that herbivores –

especially fishes, are able to keep the algae in check. Bellwood et al. (2004) defined three functional

groups of herbivores that play complementary roles in preconditioning reefs to facilitate coral 

recovery: bioeroders, grazers, and scrapers. Bioeroders are important because they break down

stands of dead coral which provide transient substrates for coral recruits. Grazers assist 

ecolonization of coral larvae following mass coral mortality by keeping the coral substrate clear of

overgrowth and shading by macroalgae (Nyström et al. 2000; Bellwood et al. 2004). Scrapers reduce 

the development of algal turfs w can trap sed nts smothering coral recruits and inhibiting

recovery. Bioeroders, grazers a to maintain reef resilience, 

and managers will need to monitor these populations and take measures to regulate fisheries before 

they show signs of depletion. 

Surgeonfishes are important algal grazers 

(Photo by Rod Salm) 

In parts of the Caribbean, overfishing of herbivorous fishes created the opportunity for sea urchin 

populations to expand and fill the niche as key algal grazers. While this helped maintain suitable 

conditions for coral settl rowth, resilience was compromised because the resulting dense 

urchin population facilitated the spread of disease leading to the urchin die-off, near total loss of 

herbivores, and phase shift to the algal-dominated state of today (Hughes 1994; Knowlton 1992). 

anagers can respond is to regulate herbivo

hich ime

, and scrapers re critical herbivores required

ement and g

Manage functional groups (predators): There are indications that corals which survive bleaching are 

weakened to the extent that they are susceptible to both disease (Harvell et al. 1999) and predators. 

There is no easy fix for disease so far, but predators, like the crown-of-thorns starfish, can and have

been effectively removed when their populations explode following a bleaching event. 

Crown-of-thorns starfish 

(Photo by Rod Salm) 

202
One of the greatest impediments to recovery of damaged coral areas is the pre-emption of the reef 

surface by carpets of algae; rates of algal production are too high relative to rates of export and

onsumption (e.g., Hughes 1987; Littler and Littler 1997; Williams et al. 2001). This type of negative

emselves. This can occur when top-level fish predators are fished out, 

ausing populations of lower level grazers – notably sea urchins – to explode, eroding reef surfaces, 

oral communities are essential. Retrospective surveys and follow-up studies of the spatial patterns

ching events in relation to the pattern of heat stress as recorded from

the long term, there is concern that the effectiveness of MPAs and other management measures

rough the accumulation of long-term monitoring data-sets and use this knowledge to

ide decisions about the design and management of MPAs in a future, changing environment. The 

ing global threats, like climate related coral bleaching with all of its 

nknowns, require us to respond adaptively. We are entering a period of rapid change and need to 

c

effect can be a result of sequential fishing down the fish food web, including herbivorous fish 

species (Pauly et al. 1998; Pandolfi et al. 2003; Bellwood et al. 2004; Dulvy et al. 2004). For resilience 

in coral cover, there needs to be enough grazing by reef organisms to keep algal biomass on 

damaged reefs sufficiently low that corals can establish and flourish (Sammarco 1980; Hatcher and 

Larkum 1983; Steneck and Dethier 1994). In some circumstances, grazing rates can also be too high 

for corals to reestablish th

c

and in the process, destroying small coral recruits (McClanahan 1997). Some intermediate level of 

grazing is therefore an important operational goal for coral reef management. Of equal importance 

to grazing, especially when coral reefs occur in enclosed waters, may be the reduction of runoff of 

nutrients that enhance the growth of seaweeds to the detriment of corals (Smith et al. 1981; McCook 

1999). 

Monitoring: Coral reef management needs to be responsive to issues and adaptive to learning; baseline

data and monitoring provide an essential foundation for guiding decision making in both instances. 

Not only is there a need to monitor the ecological well-being of the reef, but also to define and 

monitor indicators of the effectiveness of reef-related governance measures and of reef-related 

socioeconomic trends (Pomeroy et al. 2004). 

There is no substitute for real-time tracking of a bleaching event with field work. This helps 

managers understand the vulnerabilities of particular species and communities in different locations 

and identify those places where corals merely bleach, as opposed to those where the corals die 

(Marshall and Baird 2000). For this, a good baseline and understanding of the natural fluctuations in

c

of individual coral reef blea

satellites can be an effective means of assessing the response and vulnerability of particular coral 

communities at that time (Arceo et al 2001; Berkelmans et al. 2004; Wooldridge and Done 2004). 

However, retrospective studies done long after the event are not always easy to interpret, as other

factors (e.g., hurricane damage, disease, and crown-of-thorns predation) may obscure the causes of

mortality. 

In

may be compromised by several other manifestations of climate change (Pittock 1999): changes in

ocean chemistry (brought about by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels – Kleypas et al. 1999); 

changes in salinity due to changed rainfall and runoff regimes (Pittock 1999); and changes in 

hydrography (sea level, currents, vertical mixing, storms, and waves). Managers can help build 

knowledge th

gu

results of such research and monitoring programs also provide managers with an improved basis for

recognizing truly bleaching-resistant sites for protection and for informing decisions relating to 

realization of the conservation goal. 

Manage adaptively: Emerg

u

203
build change into our strategies. We should be rethinking our paradigms, and considering MPA 

boundaries that are flexible in space and time, including ones that are designed to expand or

contract, or that have seasonal or other fixed time limits. Our strategies should be flexible too, so 

that we can change zone designations and levels of protection as changing conditions indicate. 

Integrated management: We should try harder to integrate our management with that of surrounding 

areas, particularly as concerns land and water use that might exacerbate the level of threat to our 

target reefs. Nesting coral reef conservation programs in broader management frameworks, such as 

integrated coastal management, makes good sense – especially in island nations where everything is

essentially coastal. 

Is this enough?

Yes, it probably is if we are concerned only about the location of reefs in our lifetimes, but probably

ot if we think beyo expand our horizons and think both long term and

lobally. Many reef managers around the world plan in one- to five-year timeframes. Their strategies 

e generally reactive in response to proximate threats – not proactive in anticipation of change. 

owever, reef distribution has expanded and contracted over hundreds of thousands of years. How 

o we deal with this? We should be planning our coral reef conservation activities to anticipate 

hange and help coral reefs survive longer timeframes that are measured in decades and centuries. 

his will mean including in our planning where to position protected reefs so that they are able to 

ed new areas as seas warm and cold water barriers to coral reef distribution expand away from the 

opics. For example, we can anticipate in time that corals will move north along the eastern

eaboard of the U.S otected in the right places up 

urrent. There is so establishment of staghorn corals (Acropora 

rvicornis) on the relict H where this species was an important

 the resilience model to protection and management strategies in the Keys. The 

Sanctuary is well placed to play a leading role in developing practical application tools and

approaches both locally and globally to build resilience into coral reef management. 

References 

Arceo, H.O., M.C.C. Quibilan, P.M. Aliño, W.Y. Licuanan, and G. Lim. 2001. Coral bleaching in the 

Philippines: coincident evidences of mesoscale thermal anomalies. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69 (2): 579-594.

Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nyström. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis. 

Nature 429: 827-833.

Berkelmans, R., G. De’ath, S. Kininmonth, and W.J. Skirving. 2004. A comparison of the 1998 and 

2002 bleaching eve ier Reef: spatial correlation, patterns and predictions. 

Coral Reefs 23: 74-8

n nd this century. We need to

g

ar

H

d

c

T

se

tr

. mainland if there are healthy source reefs pr

his from the resc me evidence for t

ce olocene reef tract off Fort Lauderdale,

reef-builder up until about 6,000 years ago (Vargas-Angel et al. 2003; Precht and Aronson 2004). A.

cervicornis is also establishing itself on the Flower Gardens Banks in the northern Gulf of Mexico

(Precht and Aronson 2004). 

There are compelling reasons for conserving the reefs in the Florida Keys and for selecting the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as a place to develop our global understanding of resilience

and how to apply it to MPA design and management across the United States and the world. The 

extensive research and monitoring in the Florida Keys and the high levels of public visitation have 

generated a vast body of knowledge from which to draw information on the location of coral

community types, which ones bleach and which do not, and possibly even why the communities

respond differently. So there is the opportunity to make quick progress on application of all 

elements of

nts on the Great Barr

3.

204
Brown, B.E., R.P. Dunne, M.S. Goodson, and A.E. Douglas. 2000. Bleaching patterns in reef corals. 

N.K., R.P. Freckleton, and N.V.C. Polunin. 2004. Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects

of predator removal by exploitation. Ecol. Lett. 7: 410-416. 

elles: impacts in the South Central Pacific during 1994. 

Report to the U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Available through Global Coral Reef 

Nature 404: 142-143.

Coles, S.L., and B.E. Brown. 2003. Coral bleaching – capacity for acclimatization and adaptation.

Adv. Mar. Biol. 46: 183-223.

Craig, P., C. Birkeland, and S. Belliveau. 2001. High temperatures tolerated by a diverse assemblage 

of shallow-water corals in American Samoa. Coral Reefs 20: 185-189.

Done, T.J. 1999. Coral community adaptability to environmental changes at scales of regions, reefs

and reef zones. Amer. Zool. 39: 66-79.

Done T.J., and R.E. Reichelt. 1998. Integrated coastal zone and fisheries ecosystem management:

generic goals and performance indices. Ecol. Appl. 8 (Suppl.): S110-S118.

Done, T., P. Whetton, R. Jones, R. Berkelmans, J. Lough, W. Skirving, and S. Wooldridge. 2003. 

Global climate change and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Final Report to the State of

Queensland Greenhouse Taskforce through the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 

Australian Institute of Marine Science, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, and CRC Reef Research 

Centre. 

Dulvy,

Dunne, R.P., and B.E. Brown. 2001. The influence of solar radiation on bleaching of shallow water

reef corals in the Andaman Sea, 1993-1998. Coral Reefs 20: 201-210. 

Gates, R.D., and P.J. Edmunds. 1999. The physiological mechanisms of acclimatization in tropical 

reef corals. Amer. Zool. 39: 30-43. 

Goreau, T.J. 1998a. Coral Bleaching in Seych

Alliance web site at http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~goreau. 

Goreau, T.J. 1998b. Coral recovery from bleaching in Seychelles, December, 1998. Report to the 

Seychelles Marine Park Authority. Available through Global Coral Reef Alliance web site at 

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~goreau. 

Goreau, T.J. 1998c. Coral recovery from bleaching in Alphonse and Bijoutier. Report to the

Seychelles Marine Park Authority. Available through Global Coral Reef Alliance web site at 

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~goreau. 

Goreau, T.J., T. McClanahan, R. Hayes, and A.E. Strong. 2000. Conservation of coral reefs after the 

1998 global bleaching event. Conserv. Biol. 14: 5-15. 

Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E.K. 

Lipp, A.D.M.E. Osterhaus, R. Overstreet, J.W. Porter, G.W. Smith, and G.R. Vasta. 1999. 

Emerging marine diseases – climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science 285: 1505–1510. 

s tolerance and interference by life history strategy. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 74: 225-37. 

Hatcher, B.G., and A.W.D. Larkum. 1983. An experimental analysis of factors controlling the 

standing crop of the epilithic algal community on a coral reef. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 69: 61-84. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and B. Salvat. 1995. Periodic mass-bleaching and elevated sea temperatures:

bleaching of outer reef slope communities in Moorea, French Polynesia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 121: 

181-190. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, H., and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 2004. The implications of climate change for Australia’s 

Great Barrier Reef: people and industries at risk. A joint report between WWF Australia and the 

Queensland Tourism Industry Association. 356 pp. 

Hoeksema, B.W. 1991. Control of bleaching in mushroom coral populations (Scleractinia:

Fungiidae) in the Java Sea: stres

Hughes, T.P. 1987. Herbivory on coral reefs: community structure following mass mortalities of sea 

urchins. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 113: 39-59. 

205
Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase-shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. 

Science 265: 1547–1551. 

Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O.

Hoegh-Guldberg, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nyström, S.R. 

Palumbi, J.M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate change, human impacts, 

leypas, J.A., R. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J.P. Gattuso, C. Langdon, and B.N. Opdyke.

chemical consequences of increased atmospheric CO on corals and coral reefs. Science

oesik. 2001. Differential survival of corals during the 1998-bleaching

event is partially explained by water-flow rates and passive diffusion. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301: 929-933. 

Jokiel, P.L., and S.L Coles. 1990. Response of Hawaiian and other Indo-Pacific reef corals to 

elevated temperatures associated with global warming. Coral Reefs 9: 155-162.

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Xxiv +107 pp. 

K

1999. Geo 2

284: 118-120. 

Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics. Amer. 

Zool. 32: 674–682. 

Littler, M.M., and D.S. Littler. 1997. Epizoic red alga allelopathic to a Caribbean coral. Coral Reefs 16: 

168. 

Loya, Y., K. Sakai, K. Yamazoto, Y. Nakano, H. Sembali, and R. van Woesik. 2001. Coral bleaching:

the winners and losers. Ecol. Lett. 4: 122-131. 

Lubchenco, J., S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: the 

emerging science of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13 (Suppl.): S3-S7. 

Marshall, P., and A. Baird. 2000. Bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef: differential 

susceptibilities among taxa. Coral Reefs 19: 155-163. 

McClanahan, T.R. 1997. Primary succession of coral-reef algae: Differing patterns on fished versus 

unfished reefs. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 218: 77-102. 

McCook, L.J. 1999. Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on coral reefs: scientific issues and

management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 18: 357- 367. 

Nakamura, T., and R. Van W

212: 

301-304. 

Nyström, M., C. Folke, and F. Moberg. 2000. Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a humandominated environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15(10): 413–417. 

Palumbi, S.R. 2003. Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine

reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13 (Suppl.): S146-S158. 

Pandolfi, J.M., R.H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T.P. Hughes, K.A. Bjorndal, R.G. Cooke, D. McArdle, L.

McClenachan, M.J. Newman, G. Paredes, R.R. Warner, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2003. Global

trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955–958. 

Pauly D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres. 1998. Fishing down marine food 

webs. Science 279: 860-863. 

Pittock, A.B. 1999. Coral reefs and environmental change: adaptation to what? Amer. Zool. 39(1): 10-

29.

Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks, and L.M. Watson. 2004. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and 

social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. IUCN Gland. Switzerland

and Cambridge, UK. Xvi + 216 pp. 

Precht, W.F., and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals. Front. Ecol. 

Salm

a design. In H.Z. Schuttenberg, ed. Coral bleaching: causes, consequences and 

Environ. 2: 307-314. 

, R.V., S.E. Smith, and G. Llewellyn. 2001. Mitigating the impact of coral bleaching through 

marine protected are

206
response. Selected papers presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium on “Coral

Bleaching: Assessing and Linking Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts, Future Trends and

Design, Bishop Museum,

ii, U.S.A. 118 pp.

plications, AGU. 

Sm

Smith, S.V., W.J. Kimmerer, E.A. Laws, R.E. Brock, and T.W. Walsh. 1981. Kaneohe Bay sewage

str. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43: 683–705. 

Var Acropora cervicornis thickets off 

We

serv. Biol. 17: 956-967. 

Wil f the world: 1998. Australian Institute of Marine Science,

Wil 2000. Australian Institute of Marine Science,

Wil

rog.

Wo t

Mitigation Planning.” Coastal Management Report #2230, Coastal Resources Center, University 

of Rhode Island, pp. 81-88. 

Salm, R.V., and S.L. Coles, eds. 2001. Coral bleaching and marine protected areas. Proceedings of the 

Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA

Honolulu, Hawaii, 29-31 May 2001. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report # 0102. The 

Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawa

Salm, R.V., T. Done, and E. McLeod. In prep. Marine protected area (MPA) planning in a changing 

climate. Coral Reefs and Climate Change – Scientific and Management Im

Sammarco, P.W. 1980. Diadema and its relationship to coral spat mortality: grazing, competition, and

biological disturbance. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 45: 245-272. 

ith, S.V., and R.W. Buddemeier. 1992. Global change and coral reef ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. 

Syst. 23: 89-118. 

diversion experiment: perspectives on ecosystem responses to nutritional perturbation. Pac. Sci.

35: 279-402. 

Spalding, M., K. Teleki, and T. Spencer. 2000. Biodiversity and climate change: climate change and coral

bleaching report. UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 

Stafford-Smith, M.G., and R.F.G. Ormond. 1992. Sediment rejection mechanisms of 42 species of

Australian scleractinian corals. Au

Steneck, R.S., and M.N. Dethier. 1994. A functional group approach to the structure of algaldominated communities. Oikos 69: 476–498. 

gas-Angel, B., J.D. Thomas, and S.M. Hoke. 2003. High-latitude 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Coral Reefs 22: 465-473. 

st, J.M., and R.V. Salm. 2003. Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: implications for coral 

reef conservation and management. Con

Westmacott, S., K. Teleki, S. Wells, and J. West. 2000. Management of bleached and severely damaged coral 

reefs. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 36 pp. 

kinson, C., ed. 1998. Status of coral reefs o

Queensland, Australia. 184 pp. 

kinson, C., ed. 2000. Status of coral reefs of the world:

Queensland, Australia. 363 pp. 

liams, I.D., N.V.C. Polunin, and V.J. Hendrick. 2001. Limits to grazing by herbivorous fishes and

the impact of low coral cover on macroalgal abundance on a coral reef in Belize. Mar. Ecol. P

Ser. 222: 187-296. 

oldridge, S., and T.J. Done. 2004. Learning to predict large-scale coral bleaching from pas

events: a Bayesian approach using remotely sensed data, in-situ data, and environmental proxies.

Coral Reefs 23: 96-108. 

207
Human Perspectives

Moderator: Heidi Schuttenberg
Co

He

Tha

Tha

wid

mill

eople. The Florida Keys is right up there, too, with perhaps 4 

illion visitors now because of the dramatic increases in cruise passengers that we have seen over 

the past few years, here in Key West. In the Caribbean, tourism is a major economic player,

contributing heavily to the economies of Caribbean islands, and to our economy, providing a lot of

jobs, as well. Throughout the area, despite the setback of a few years ago, we see a rapidly growing 

industry that is threatening the resource base. 

Focusing in on the Florida Keys and Key West, let’s look at some of the connections between this 

industry and the economy. From Bob Leeworthy’s work and his group at NOAA, we know that

nnections Between the Tourism Industry, the Environment, and Society in 

the Florida Keys

Daniel Suman

idi Schuttenberg 

nk you very much. The first panel is going to look at the first list of criteria concerning how we 

value the reef and how that influences management. We have a wonderful panel that has changed

just a bit. Our first speaker, Dr. Daniel Suman, is really one of the pioneers of looking at values for 

reefs and human perspectives on reefs. This has recently got a lot of attention internationally and

Daniel has been doing this for a long time before that, and is going to bring a really rich and deep 

view to that discussion. He is a professor at the University of Miami, at RSMAS, and let’s give him a

welcome. [applause] 

Daniel Suman 

nk you very much, and good morning. Congratulations to our Sanctuary and, of course, to 

NOAA for organizing this symposium. We think it is an excellent opportunity to get people

together, and I also thank you, Heidi, for moderating the panel. I am going to provide a quick

overview. I focus not entirely on coral reefs, but more on tourism in the Florida Keys, and

connections and linkages between this industry and the environment and society. I think my general

overview will provide a good introduction to Manoj Shivlani, who will be talking about the world he

surveys and research that he has been doing for the last couple of years here in the Florida Keys, and

to Peter Ilchuk from the Florida Keys Lodging Association. We are really happy to have him on our 

panel as well, talking about the good work, the good evolving work that the hotel industry is doing 

here in the Florida Keys. And then onto Stephen Frink, who will show us views of reefs, and

hopefully changes that we see in time. That will help us, of course, to dedicate our efforts to making 

the situation better.

So, first of all I would like to look at the broader perspective of where we are here in the Florida 

Keys and in the wider Caribbean. Of course the tourism that we see in the Florida Keys is really a 

similar type of sun and sand and beach tourism that we see throughout the Caribbean. The 

differences, of course, are that here in the Florida Keys we have a road and a lot of mainland visitors 

as well as cruise liners and air traffic. So I think that the tourism pressure that we see in the Florida

Keys is greater, perhaps, than in other island destinations, or even mainland destinations around the 

er Caribbean.

Tourism is perhaps one of the world’s largest industries. Coastal tourists amount to, perhaps, 600 

ion people throughout the world, and in the Caribbean, depending on how we cut the pie,

perhaps between 30 and 50 million p

m

209
almost 3 million visitors spent perhaps 13 million person-days in the Florida Keys, and this data is 

most 8 or 10 years old. It has increased perhaps 25% since then, and we have tourists who visit 

ey West as their final destination. Key West alone has about half of the hotel rooms and half of 

e restaurants in the Florida Keys. There has been a significant change and dramatic increase in 

ruise passengers, from 250,000 cruise visitors 10 years ago to over a million, a more than 300% 

crease in the last 10 years, with some interesting social and environmental impacts, perhaps, from

is industry. Now the number of cruise visitors here, to Key West, compares certainly with the 

ajor cruise destinations throughout the Caribbean: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Jamaica. 

We know from our surveys th activities – snorkeling, diving,

recreational fishing, spending re and wildlife. Other survey

data from the NOAA group, from the state of F the counties indicate that we 

ave high numbers of people vis ificial in the Florida Keys. They 

e involved in typical reef activities, as you would expect. That survey, as well as one that Manoj 

Shivlani did, estimated that the number of people diving on Florida Keys reefs ranges between

600,000 and 800,000 people per year – diving and snorkeling. 

So tourism is the major economic engine of the Florida Keys, accounting for over a million dollars

spent and about half of the employment in the county. The reef activities themselves are responsible 

for creating 10,000 jobs. We have a dynamic and economically very important activity which is 

driving the economy of the county, and the political engine and interests of the county as well. From 

the NOAA work we know that tourists are satisfied; of course they are perhaps not aware of

Shifting Baselines [laughter]. They are satisfied with the water, the amount of living coral on the reef,

and the diversity of fish. But this NOAA research indicated that there were significant declines in

the satisfaction in those critical areas and of course aquatic conditions, but overall, even in the most 

recent survey, the satisfaction ratings were high. 

I want to mention some really fascinating research that Joe Schittone did when he was a student at 

Miami. Joe now works at the sanctuary program’s national office in Silver Spring, MD. He looked at

the evolution of tourism in the Florida Keys, and I just want to let you know that this is another

connection to other interests. Commercial fishing has been an important activity in the Florida Keys 

for hundreds of years, beginning with sponges and turtles, and evolving to shrimp and fish and 

lobsters and stone crabs. In the Lower Keys the activity centered at Key West Bight. Other

economic activities: salvaging, commercial shipping, and the military have had their rises and falls in 

the Lower Keys, but the city of Key West and the county really began to think about tourism as an 

answer, as all of south Florida did, in the 1930s. Joe points out in his manuscript this really 

interesting evolution of Key West Bight as the seafood companies, supporting facilities, and fishing 

operations were pushed out of the Bight because of rising land values, and have essentially moved to

Stock Island. Perhaps rising dockage fees have been the major factor behind this. The city eventually 

acquired this waterfront area and began leasing it to new tenants who could pay the higher rents, so 

now we see the charter fleets, dive boat operators, sail charters, sight-seeing vessels, and sunset 

cruises in Key West Bight. And the county and the city have major policies oriented toward 

increasing the activities of this sector. 

The potential environmental impacts of tourism are great. Luckily, in many aspects I think the 

Florida Keys are doing well compared to Caribbean island economies. We do have problems of

anchoring, groundings, and diver contacts. Some research indicates that one diver during one day 

may contact, either by dragging, touching, brushing up against, or a tank hitting a reef, 10 times 

during a dive. Recreational boating has a number of impacts that we are all familiar with: anchoring, 

al

K

th

c

in

th

m

at tourists are involved in water–based

time on the beaches, and viewing natu

lorida, and some of

h

ar

iting the reefs, both natural and art

210
g

talked about in the last few days, often sting of renewable resources, reducing

abundance, decreasing average sizes, and altering age distribution and species composition. Damage 

from fishing gear is another impact: aban equipment, and trawls on reefs and the 

heltered areas. Perhaps also the increase o an increase in demand for local 

ch again in some situations can lead to over-fishing. The infrastructure for 

ween 80 and 90% of resorts have adequate sewage treatment. Marinas result in

nd may alter sediment transport and destroy important coastal habitats. Tourism

development of important infrastructure, and in some cases the feedback to an

international organizations. It is time to increase the 

roundings, propeller scars and seagrass beds, and waste disposal issues. Fishing, which we have

can lead to over-harve

doned traps and

s in tourism has led t

seafood products, whi

hotels and resorts results in major land-use changes and habitat damage during the construction

phase and the operation of these facilities. Sediments are mobilized during construction and 

increasing sediment loads and transport to nearshore lagoons and offshore areas, which of course, as 

we have mentioned in the last few days, can cause increased stresses to coral reefs. Some of these 

also generate large amounts of solid waste. 

Throughout the Caribbean, sewage systems do not operate efficiently, and in many cases are nonexistent. Perhaps bet

dredge and fill, a

throughout the Caribbean demands the 10,000-foot runway to bring in passengers from Miami, as

well as piers and roads that may alter hydrology. In some cases beach alterations may result from 

tourism as a result of beach replenishment of shoreline protection structures or dune alteration. And

cruise liners themselves have their own impacts because of the way they generate gray water and

black water, and also the solid waste that they generate and the resulting disposal. 

Social impacts may be great, as well. Throughout the Caribbean as well as here in the Florida Keys,

increased congestion, population density, replacement of traditional uses as Joe mentioned in his 

paper, and the displacement of commercial fishers here in Key West to Stock Island with the 

increase in the tourism industry. In other situations we may have decreased beach access as a result 

of hotels and resorts, and fishing may be banned from certain areas, certain beach areas. Of course, 

there are many benefits: the economic benefits from tourism, the employment benefits, the revenues

to governments, the

increasing environmental awareness and understanding of the local population. But the basic issue 

of course is sustainability. Is this a sustainable activity throughout the Caribbean and in the Florida 

Keys? 

We see some decrease in satisfaction with the environmental product, with the environmental 

amount of use, and certainly throughout the Caribbean and here in Key West in the Florida Keys an

increase in mass tourism. Of course this inevitably leads to decreased and diminished environmental 

amenities, and could result, has resulted in some places in the Caribbean in a tourism spiral, the 

tourism death spiral. The tourism industry and local policy makers, local decision makers, and local 

governments need a recipe for suitable policies for sustainable tourism development. There needs to 

be an integration of tourism and tourism planning into the broader sector of planning, through 

integrated coastal management, or applying more aggressively restoration and environmental

mitigation. Another approach is increasing the effectiveness of coastal and marine protected areas

and adopting or recommending best management strategies for this sector, for the tourism sector. 

Many best management strategies already exist through international and national environmental 

groups, and governmental agencies, as well as

acceptance and use of best management practices for the tourism sector here in the Florida Keys.

So, the final words that I have are that we can see coastal resources as “capital” that will provide 

interest through rational use and interest that benefits the tourism industry. Without a rational use,

211
without a wise and rational use of the resources, we will begin to erode the capital base, which will 

diminish the interest that the county and the Caribbean region as a whole obtain from the resource 

base. Thank you. [applause] 

212
Remarks: The Lodging Association of the Florida Keys and Key West 

Peter K. Ilchuk 

Heidi Schuttenberg 

Thanks very much. If you have been with us a the past couple of days, you know our normal format 

is to hold questions until the end and then have all the speakers come up to a panel; however, we are 

going to break the rules briefly for our next speaker because he has to leave immediately following 

his talk. So we will allow one or two questions after the presentation by Peter Ilchuk. Peter is the 

President of the Florida Keys Lodging Association and the former head of United Way for Monroe 

County. 

Peter Ilchuk 

most of the Keys 

usiness community that was adamantly opposed to the Sanctuary concept. Why? 

ing marine environment for even the most timid adventurer. Our advertising and marketing 

us prominently features the unique and beautiful aspects of the marine world that surrounds us 

o 

randfather in those sites already transient. Of course, we were accused of trying to eliminate 

As the head of the lodging industry in the Florida Keys, I could focus on many aspects of our 

business of serving our visitors and how it relates to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. I 

will focus, however, on two key items that I believe have a potential for negative impacts on both 

the Sanctuary and the lodging business. But first some history. 

Our predecessor organization, the Key West Hotel & Motel Association, was one of the earliest 

supporters of creating a National Marine Sanctuary for our offshore waters. We took a strong 

position of support in the very first scoping hearings. This was in contrast to 

b

Our industry recognized that our livelihood depended on beautiful waters filled with wonderful sea 

life and a healthy offshore coral reef. While our guests booked rooms with us for our great lodging 

hospitality, their vacation experience was dependent on their finding new adventures fishing, diving, 

snorkeling, or sailing in and on our offshore water resources. 

Unlike the rest of Florida, we cannot advertise fabulous Keys beaches. We are on top of an old coral 

rock formation. We do, however, have great year-round sun in a tropical environment and America’s 

only living coral reef six miles off shore. Our nearshore waters also offer a wonderful window on a 

fascinat

th

and the excitement a day of sailing, snorkeling of fishing can bring. The National Marine Sanctuary 

was critical to preserving that resource and, if you will, our marketing tool! 

In the late 1980s, the lodging industry also was among the first to raise concerns over the growth of 

visitor numbers. We recognized that TOO many tourists would destroy the very thing our visitors 

came down to see. We were then and are still today advertising the Keys as an easy going, laid back, 

and relaxed place to visit with unique natural resources, attractions, and dining and shopping 

experiences. That was what our visitors wanted and we had to make sure it stayed that way. 

Thus, in Key West in 1988, we urged the elimination of all transient zoning from the code except t

g

competition; however, our desire was to preserve the uniqueness that attracted our visitors and to 

limit the impacts too many visitors and residents could have on our natural resources as well as our 

historical and cultural assets. Unfortunately, we were not successful then, but subsequently transient 

unit growth controls were incorporated in both the City and County land use plans. 
In the early 90s, we fought the trend toward attracting spring breakers in March, at that time the 

biggest month of the year for lodging. Spring breakers were NOT the type of visitor that was

ompatible with our message or our product. Working with the City to assure strict enforcement of 

our laws, we managed to bring that so-called event under control. Unfortunately, March continues

to be problematical with many of our traditional visitors shying away during the perceived spring

break weeks. Many of our hotels do not accept guests under 25 unless accompanied by a parent. 

In the early 90s, the cruise industry started to grow exponentially. What started out as a form of 

transportation was morphing into a vacation experience unto its own. This again was threatening

our natural resources, stirring up the bay bottom in the ship channel and harbor and thus 

threatening our reef and muddying the good fishing in nearshore waters. It also was adding

congestion to our downtown area that belied the easy going atmosphere of Duval Street. And it was 

changing the quality of our retail from artisans and specialty shops to t-shirt shops, chain outlets, 

and other American generics. We have not been successful in this area and today we see a million or 

more cruise passengers enter our port. We continue to urge limits on this market. 

We also fought to prevent large numbers of day trippers coming to the Keys, particularly on day bus

tours converting Key West to an attraction on view from a bus window. The City of Key West has

wisely put limits on that activity. 

I would suggest that the lodging industry and those concerned about protecting our offshore waters

and reefs are natural allies. A strong lodging industry that can educate our visitors when they arrive 

and provide the financial resources to the community to support preservation is in your best 

interests. And the lodging industry will continue to support the efforts of the National Marine 

Sanctuary and other programs such as the Nancy Foster Eco-Discover Center at the Truman Annex

Waterfront. 

Now, let me outline two threats I see to our mutual efforts to preserve and protect the natural water

resources of the Florida Keys. 

Regional planners expect the Homestead/Florida City area of South Dade to go from the current

population of 42,000 to 462,000 by 2050. Tens of thousands of building permits are already active in 

the area, and that does not include a planned major development with 6,000 homes as well as hotels

and shopping at the junction of Card Sound Road and Route One, the entry to the Keys. That 

proposed project is outside of the development boundaries for South Miami-Dade, but there 

appears to be political momentum to approve it. 

All those new residents will want to drive down Route One, a short 30 minute jaunt, to enjoy the 

Florida Keys. It’s a federal and state highway. We cannot bar them from doing that. And they will

want to visit a State Park, John Pennekamp, already one of the busiest in the State. And, of course, 

they will be going out on the water. 

Unlike guests in our hotels, who generally use local attractions operators to access the waters and

reef, these folks will be on their own in their own boats. They will not be educated about how to 

protect the corals or encouraged to release their catch. 

c

214
It is i our

lorida Keys natural resources. And by creating a major congestion point at the entrance to the 

Keys, it also will have a major negative impact on our lodging industry. 

hore waters.

r threat I see to our Keys resources and industry is the increasing numbers of people 

tate and local government depend on the revenues generated from lodging properties and their

om development.

odging properties also are the primary payers into sewer and solid waste systems. As an industry, 

erties, to provide for an advanced

tormwater treatment system in Key West to prevent pollution of nearshore waters. We have much 

cutive secretaries, public

afety personnel, school teachers, and even doctors. In the lodging industry we are seeing a growing 

of living

more affordable for raising families. 

mpossible not to believe that these numbers will not have a major negative impact on

F

We must join together to push for stricter limits on the unbridled growth occurring in the South 

Miami-Dade area. In addition to the negative impacts I have outlined, this area is the major source 

of drinking water for the Keys and South Miami-Dade. Massive development could well destroy the 

water table upon which hundreds of thousands of residents rely. And it will adversely impact our 

efforts to restore those areas of the Everglades, also essential to the preservation of our Keys reef 

and nears

The other majo

who are buying homes in the Keys as a second or vacation home. While this might seem at first an

attractive prospect, it is an insidious threat to the well being of the Florida Keys and all its resources.

Here’s why. 

S

guests to commit the financial resources necessary to environmental protection and sensitive land 

acquisition. Nineteen of the top 25 taxpayers in the Florida Keys are hotels. We and our guests

contribute more than 60% of sales tax revenue. Half of the 4th cent of bed tax paid only by lodging 

guests goes toward the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, saving them fr

L

we strongly supported the effort of the City of Key West to install the highest standard of

wastewater treatment facilities in the country. We now treat our wastewater to near drinking water

standards before disposing of it down a deep injection well. We also strongly supported additional

assessments on property owners, largely our hotel prop

s

work still to be done in the rest of the Keys. Where will the financial resources come from if the 

major property tax and sales tax payers are removed?

Yet that is what will happen if more homes are purchased for second homes by wealthy outsiders 

seeking their piece of paradise. First, they are removing more and more residential properties from 

the permanent resident housing stock. We are now not only finding it hard to house lower-income 

service workers, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to hire nurses, exe

s

exodus of our mid-level managers. These are the folks who have been around for years, own their 

own home, and form the backbone of the community. They serve on the boards of community 

associations and service organizations. They are the volunteers for social services agencies and

community projects, such as shore cleanups and installing mooring buoys. They are selling out to big 

bucks investors and second home seeking billionaires and moving elsewhere where the cost

is

So in keeping with the topic of your conference, I hope I have outlined a few of the ways there is a 

connectivity between the lodging industry and those in the marine sciences field concerned about 

preserving the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. And we must stay connected if we are to

accomplish our mutual goals of preserving and protecting the Florida Keys and its natural resources 

for future generations. Thank you. 

215
Discussion

l. I

hoping that there will be sewage treatment with these redeveloped businesses, but could you just

all of these extra 

enefits that they have come to associate with the lifestyle. This is particularly true of the 

see, because you have three bedrooms you are going to have six

eople, or eight people, or ten people. Or that it is necessarily going to escalate the number of

uestion: I want to know if you have any recommendations for how those of us in the science and 

lchuk: Actually, we spend, here in the Keys particularly, a lot of our tourism dollars on educating 

eep that education resource going. We just have to 

onstantly keep getting the message across and advertising and of course the person-to-person

lchuk: Well, we compete against destinations throughout the Caribbean already. We compete 

against Cuba now, although not with the American visitor, but with foreign visitors. Cuba right now 

Deb Shaw: This was the first time I have heard you speak, Mr. Ilchuk, and I am reassured by your 

comments because from a distance I have been concerned about the lodging industry and I am a 

biologist. The question I have is, in the Marathon area we have a tendency to take small, old motels

that were probably single guests in a room, and we are now redeveloping them into suites. I have 

heard people say, how many people are going to be accommodated in these larger suites, and I have 

a fear that we are finding a way to pack more people in to what used to be a very small, little hote

am

comment please on how we seem to be cramming more people in, and am I right to be concerned, 

or am I being a little hysterical? 

Ilchuk: Oh, you’d better be a little hysterical [laughter]. A lot hysterical, basically. I have heard a lot 

of people asking about that – the changes, the increase in the size, traditionally in the Middle and 

Upper Keys. Most of the hotel units were 600 square feet or less – standard hotel rooms. There is a

major trend in the entire industry to go into a suite concept or larger units. People want, and

demand, when they travel, more space. They want a kitchen facility, they want

b

environment in the Keys, which is generally a much more upscale market that we have to adhere to. 

We have to do that because the costs of doing business simply are much higher here. So I don’t

think you are necessarily going to

p

people coming into the marketplace. It is a world trend, and nationwide and also in the change of

ownership, where people are going to condos that are being rented out, hotels that are actually 

condo-izing their hotel; they don’t necessarily change the nature of the hotel. This is what is

happening in Cheeca Lodge. So this is a trend nationwide, as Americans feel that vacationing is their 

birthright, also having bigger hotel rooms is practically a birthright. 

Q

education community could better reach your customers and educate them? 

I

our customers. If you look at some of the ads that we put on to promote tourism, and we advertise 

around the country, our videos and other media, we talk about the coral reefs, but we also talk about 

being careful about them at the same time. So at the same time we are saying “Come on down,” we 

are also starting a message about protecting the resource that you are coming to visit. And we work 

very closely with Reef Relief, and our industry works closely with those people who are out there,

putting up the buoys, doing the management to k

c

contact that we get. But I think the science and education community also have to help us with the 

people that are outside of the media, such as South Florida, to educate them about how their 

impacts of construction and expansion will have a tremendous impact on this resource down here, 

even if we stopped everything. 

Question: How does your organization think that the eventual opening of Cuba to U.S. tourists will 

change tourism in the Florida Keys? 

I

216
is more of a downscale tourist market, and is not the type of tourism that we are seeking here in Key 

West. More mass tourism and 747 trucks coming in; it’s a competition. Right now, our greatest 

threat for tourism in the Florida Keys is what is happening south of Cancun. Cancun has been 

andoned to mass tourism, but the development of a more eco-friendly tourism south of Cancun, 

wn here, that perhaps we should be looking at wealthier tourists? 

to put that money in. One of the best jobs is as a housekeeper, where you make about 

10-12 an hour, you get out in six hours; they have done the work and they have the tips. The

ing the airport and improving the runway and

ringing in the RJ jets that are coming in now, is going to increase tourism. Thirty percent of our

se ship industry, the other visitors coming in – are they going 

be day trippers, or overnight visitors and the day-tripping bus visitors and so-on and so-forth.

ab

the condo-type development, that is putting in 15,000 units right now; it’s very accessible by air. We 

are having some problems getting people by air. Richer people like to fly in – they don’t like to drive. 

That is affecting us much more than Cuba. 

Question: How can you promote tourism that is more upscale? Because that is one of the issues 

that is usually raised do

Ilchuk: We do have wealthier tourism, as you might say, but because the cost of doing business 

here for hotels is so extraordinary – there is not a single person in the lodging industry that is 

making minimum wage. We will pay $9-10 to start because we are competing against everything else 

and we have

$

promotion? Our whole marketing effort is toward the upscale visitor. We look at $100,000 

household income, we go after media markets to attract them, and this goes again to the type of

lodging. They are not going to come to a 10-room mom-and-pop of 400 square feet. They are 

looking for higher quality of accommodations – we have to provide that, and we have to provide a 

high level of customer service to do that. And to do that, we need housing for our workforce, and 

that is another problem. 

Question: How do you feel about enlarging the airport in Key West and doing away with the rather

quaint facility that is there now? 

Ilchuk: About 10 years ago was the last time we replaced “that quaint facility.” We do need to

replace it, it’s inadequate. I have had a lot of ideas from my friends within our community about the 

airport and its runways. I don’t know whether improv

b

visitors fly into South Florida, but only 9% end up flying into the Keys. Some of them can drive to 

the Upper Keys from the Miami Airport, but a large percentage has to drive down to get here 

because of the lack of air service. I would like to shift that to air and then make sure they know they 

don’t need a car when they get here. 

Question: What is your opinion of the cruise ship industry and how that industry is impacting the 

marine resources here in the Keys? 

Ilchuk: I am just checking – do we have any Congress people here? [laughter] Our industry has not 

only suggested you need to control the number of lodging units, you need to control the source of 

other visitors as well. Not only the crui

to

You can’t keep putting more people on an island that is advertised as easy-going, laid-back, relaxed,

unique shops, restaurants, etc., and then get up in the morning at your $359 a night hotel and you

find a large structure blocking the sunrise, 10,000 people at your doorstep, and a Burger King across 

the street. [applause] 

217
Diving and Snorkeling in the Florida Keys 

to how sustainable the industry is down here. Finally, I am going to 

d up with some management recommendations. 

ference, and that is one of the 

cuses of my talk. There have been a number of studies that looked at diving and snorkeling, and I 

is, especially Bob Leeworthy, Grace Johns, Daniel Suman, and myself. 

e upper graphic over here, you will note that there are series of 

umbers from 1-12, and none of them are shaded very differently; however, in the lower graphic 

at in the Upper Keys, dive operators tend to shift their trips 

ound quite easily because of the availability of habitat and dive sites, whereas in the Lower Keys 

Manoj Shivlani 

I am going to focus on diving and snorkeling in the Florida Keys as a retrospective over the last 10 

years – what’s been happening. There are a number of studies that have been looking at diving and 

snorkeling and looking at how that has changed over time in the Florida Keys. Specifically, I am 

interested in looking at three aspects of diving and snorkeling. One is the sheer numbers themselves. 

The second is the economics behind diving and snorkeling and the third is resource perceptions, 

because all of these feed back in

en

The importance of diving and snorkeling in tourism cannot be understated; it is one of the fastest 

growing sectors. NAUI last year issued about 1.5 million certifications; these are new people going 

into the water. Thirty percent of the persons who came down here to the Florida Keys, as Daniel 

mentioned before, go into the water, either as a diver or a snorkeler, so there is significant usage of 

the resource. The other aspect of diving and snorkeling is partly due to the fact that condition of the 

use itself is tied to the resource. First, water clarity and quality will affect the visitor experience. 

Marine life and benthic habitats will affect the wilderness experience, and consumptive activities will 

be affected by the resource base. So that makes it an ideal industry to study how well management is 

taking place. 

What do we know about diving and snorkeling in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary? 

What we know can be divided up into two components. The first is the tourism base itself and the 

residents who use the resource and the second is the industry itself. I put this slide in because this is 

what people come to see. Obviously water clarity makes a big dif

fo

can make these available for those of you that are interested. Obviously, when we give these talks, 

we try not to focus on the studies, but there are a number of researchers who have been working on 

th

The first thing we want to look at are baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are those conditions 

that existed before the Sanctuary was put into place. So far, the baseline conditions are 1995-96, and 

thankfully we actually completed our first study of the dive industry in 1996, so we have excellent 

baseline information. The 31.3% of 3 million visitors to the Florida Keys that year entered the water, 

via a dive or snorkel trip, 80-85% of all divers and snorkelers actually visited one of 18 SPAs, which 

are the Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and 70% of all dive trips the dive operators told us about in 

1995 ended up in one of the 23 designated no-take zones within the Sanctuary. 

The use we found in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is very variable – it is not the same 

throughout – and that makes a big difference in terms of how to manage the resource. In the Upper 

Keys, for instance, which is th

n

you will notice that the numbers are shaded differently where #6 and #3 are darker than the rest of 

the numbers. What this shows is th

ar
they are focused on two main dive sites, Looe Key to the east and Western Sambo to the west. So 

any management that is going to be done has to take into account the regional perspective. 

The other aspect that studies have looked at is economics. In terms of economics I want to focus

first on investment and expenditures. Looking at divers and snorkelers, Grace Johns et al. looked at

the numbers of visitors to natural and artificial reefs in South Florida, and they found that 2.5 

million person-days were spent in Monroe County. If you analyze the use-value, which is a 

illingness to pay, which I will talk about shortly, it comes to about $50 million, and the regional 

and 75 dive

perations in 1995, that the average investment, and there is a high variance in this, but the average 

ng to visit the reef. We followed that up using a 2003 study, which found 

at for a single site, persons were willing to pay $9.61 and when you went to two sites, they were 

rticularly, was about $20 per person. 

ut effort accordingly. 

merging and important issue. In the two most recent studies,

xperienced residents reported declining water quality and visitors reported that water clarity 

w

impact is $1.7 billion, and this is looking at 2001. A lot of this data is pre-9/11, but the numbers 

have come back up in the past year, especially. For the dive industry we found, with 62

o

investment per operation, is about $300,000. You can see the number of trips taken is quite large –

about 30,000 trips – for at least those persons that we spoke to, and that was extrapolated to about 

540,000 divers and snorkelers. Years ago, in 1996, this led to an annual revenue of $18 million. 

If we look at willingness to pay, using what is known as contingent valuation methodology, which is 

where you go up to somebody and ask them: How much would you be willing to pay to go diving? 

Or how much would you be willing to pay if we closed this area? What we find within the industry 

first, in 1995, is that there is a low level of support for user-funded maintenance programs, the way 

they exist in Bonaire and Saba. Only 13% were in favor of this. We did find though, that by 2001, 

persons who were being surveyed who were actually using the reefs were willing to pay $9.87 more

than what they were payi

th

willing to pay more than that - $10.19. The additional value, the use value that they are willing to pay

to protect reefs, no-take zones pa

We will look at resource perceptions, which are again very important, because perceptions tie into 

people’s willingness, they tie into how well they support management. If you look at some of the 

resource perceptions, first looking at diver and snorkeler resource perception, you will see the 

positive views in terms of how well the zones have performed in terms of the number of fish, the 

type of fish, the size of fish, and other resource indicators. They have positive views on social

crowding issues. Most people we spoke to in the last study we did said that they have no problem 

with spacing, even in the most heavily dived sites, and this is a credit more to the operators than the 

users themselves, who tend to space o

The third thing that we found, and the most important thing, the point that I’m going to stress

today, is that water clarity is an e

e

conditions did not meet their expectations, and the next graphic shows this in more detail. If you 

look at the purple bars being what people expected to see, versus what they did see, which would be

the blue bars, being observed, and create a comparison index, you will notice that the comparison

index shows that the observed conditions for large fish, and the amount of fish, met the 

expectations for most divers and snorkelers. However, the comparison index also shows that

observed water clarity conditions did not meet expectations, so the zones are working at one end, 

but they’re not working at the other. There is a break in terms in of the effectiveness, and people can

perceive this. 

219
The next group of perc s, and these are based

on the 1995 study. The first is that there are poor levels of support for any sort of user-based 

funding program, but there is a high level of support if that use is passed on to the user, versus the 

dustry. The second thing that we found is that the industry on the whole supports the Sanctuary,

he second major finding is that, according to users, the Sanctuary and its no-take zones need to

course, information gaps, and I have identified two important ones. The first one is

at the impact of diving and snorkeling on marine resources is poorly understood. There have been 

he other information gap is more difficult to get to because it is looking at the linkages, the

ns. I could come up

ith a lot more, but I think that these are the ones that need to be focused upon most immediately. 

taking away a person’s rights, and so on and so forth. But in this case, if limited entry is introduced 

such that it brings in everybody, includes everybody, rather than being exclusionary, in terms of how 

eptions that we looked at are dive operator perception

in

and is strongly behind its management plan, so there is a base here that can be utilized and worked 

with. And thirdly we found that there is industry-wide recognition that diving and snorkeling are 

indeed not non-consumptive activities, do have some impacts, and therefore there is strong support 

for mooring buoys. 

So, what have been our major findings? The first thing is that the zones are working, as perceived by 

users, in terms of increasing the number, size, and types of fish, as well as other resource indicators. 

T

focus on water clarity, and this is true not only from our study, but from Johns’s study, back in 2001, 

so there is corroborating evidence for this. And finally, the third finding is that the dive industry is 

efficient in spacing out its efforts, so many of these issues that look at dive capacity for sites are not 

really an issue down here in the Keys, because the dive operators are doing a good job in spacing out 

their effort. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that there is a high turn-over within the 

industry, so it is not something that research can guarantee will continue into the future, because 

competition increases as new people come in. 

There are, of

th

studies done, sporadically, but nothing systematic. Which is – What are the direct impacts? How are 

the corals being impacted? As Daniel mentioned, 10 persons, or 10 hits per day – What does this

mean into the long term? And secondly, what are the indirect impacts – How many persons can

these reefs hold? We have background information from Barker and Roberts and other studies that 

have been done elsewhere, but nothing has been done here. Related to that, what is the social 

carrying capacity, How many people can other people have around them? Is there a threshold? And 

if so, are we reaching it? 

T

economic linkages between diving and snorkeling and the environment in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, specifically, What is it worth, in terms of dollars, to have water clarity and quality,

healthy resources in terms of sustainability, of industry, of tourism? And secondly, do visitors

perceive the same conditions that biological monitoring reveals, that is, are we seeing the same thing, 

and how is that related to the willingness to pay, and their willingness to return? 

Finally, with that I will come up with five different management recommendatio

w

The first is to involve the dive and snorkel community in research. I know this is done currently, for 

example, that the Reef Environmental Education Foundation does a great job with this. If it could 

be expanded, you could not only get free information, but you would also get buy-in. The second

management recommendation is to involve the industry in self-policing and management. Again,

this is something that is done, and I am not saying that this is a problem. However, if you increase

stability within the industry, you will increase self-policing and management, and the way to increase 

stability is to look at limited entry. Of course, limited entry is seen as a big issue, something that is 

220
it is brought in is what I mean to say, it will promote stability, and it will help implement related

protection matters. The fourth point is to consider reef rotations, where possible, and only as

eeded, and up to this point, from all the data that we have collected, from a social perspective, we 

m. If

ou want to have your visitors understand what the Sanctuary wants done, what management wants

and for this tourism sector to

ove forward, maybe into the next generation, without incurring some of the impacts that are 

n

do not find the need for this. Again, this is something that we are looking at sometime in the future, 

if it were the case. This is practiced in other parts of the Caribbean. Bonaire, for instance, closes off

reefs after they reach a threshold. Is that something that we need to look at here? Of course, more 

research is required, but that is an option down the road. And fifth, and finally, most importantly, is 

to develop an integrated policy to manage reefs that can minimize the environmental damage and

maximize economic benefits. I look at this more or less as a pilot. 

The plan itself can include these special items: consider user fees that do not affect operator fees, 

which is to say, if you have an industry-wide standard of stability, you have a set number of persons, 

limited entry, then you can consider implementing user fees. If there is flux in the industry, user fees

will not work. The second point is to implement a cohesive, industry-wide education progra

y

completed, you can best do that by having something that is standardized from Key Largo to Key 

West. The third point is to track visitor opinions to determine sources of decline. Now, these could 

be perceived sources of decline. Nevertheless, it’s still very important to ‘track’, because they could 

be telling you what the science end, the natural science end is missing, or at least where information 

needs to be better told to users themselves. And finally, track all uses. Make sure that the area is not 

being burdened, either from a biological or from a social perspective. 

So, with all of these management recommendations, put into effect hopefully tomorrow [laughter],

no seriously, I am not going to be so I as to say that these aren’t without their hurdles and their

criticisms, they are, but what they represent is a way for the industry

m

inevitable as more and more people start taxing a finite resource. Thank you. [applause] 

221
Personal Reflections and Underwater Images of the Florida Keys

Stephen Frink

You are all scientists, and you speak of baselines. Thank you for that, thank you for my lead. I come 

to the Florida Keys with personal baselines. I guess the first significant one probably happened 

when I was in sixth grade, I dropped out. At that point some very forward-thinking conservationists 

created a marine preserve off Key Largo – John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park happened in 

960. Now, that was pretty exciting because people were beginning to think that the marine resource 

essed at $6 a roll, so I came to town. [laughter] And 

at never happened in life. My math was more like fuzzy logic. 

cidentally, last week. So I was tied up all last week teaching digital 

hotography. Billy Causey called me a while ago and said “Will you come down and speak at this 

we have to promote 

 our tourists, what the dive operators are here serving people, day after day after day. And so to 

1

was something that we should protect, so that was pretty exciting. Everglades National Park was 

happening at that point. At a time when people were dredging hard corals, other people were 

thinking of how to preserve them. 

Another personal baseline occurred in 1978 when I came to town. I lived in Colorado at that time, I 

came diving in the Florida Keys, in Key Largo and I thought “Well, maybe a guy could make a living 

processing E6 film.” We had a sanctuary in Key Largo at that time, and Looe Key a little bit later. 

But I did my math. I came to town and I saw that there were 500,000 divers that were going to dive 

Key Largo, and I figured half of those would be shooting film underwater. Certainly half of those 

would come to my shop and have them proc

th

I have been here since 1978. I have been very involved with diving in the local community, and I 

have also traveled the world. Gratefully. A big part of my business is commercial photography and I 

have been to all the tropical dive sites. I went to Palau for the first time in 1982. I was there in 1998 

when that terrible coral bleaching occurred, so I have seen the good and I have seen the bad, and I 

have seen changes in our own home environment. 

Part of what I do in the course of my business, once a year, I teach an underwater photo seminar, 

and this happened, coin

p

symposium?” And I thought well, this is a perfect opportunity for me to bring the latest images. I 

have been here since 1978, I have enjoyed this resource, I go to places like the Winch Hole where 

we have these massive forests of elkhorn coral, and I could show you that, but is that really the 

relevance? 

I think the relevant thing is, what we have today, what we have to protect, what 

to

that end, this is a perfect opportunity, because I was on the boat for six days in a row, with 14 highly 

motivated people who wanted to take digital photographs in Key Largo. What I am going to do is to 

show you the fruits of their labors over the last six days, and then we’ll talk about what we have to 

protect, and some of the things that have come forward in the course of your meetings this week. So 

we are going to go ahead, I am not going to interrupt their vision, but I’m going to let you share. 

[slideshow] This is all Sunday through Friday of last week, in Key Largo. OK, and I think that is our 

final image. [applause] 

Thanks to my students for providing those images. It was a very inspirational week; it was fun to get 

in the water. We talk about the impacts that come from recreational divers, and always on the first 
day of the seminar we talk to them about the importance of maintaining proper buoyancy control.

Photographers are often the whipping boy for environmental damage, but these guys were very, very 

good. I think we are seeing a big change, particularly the more sophisticated customers like I had last

week. There was something like $200,000 worth of digital cameras and housings and strobes sitting 

on two camera tables with 14 customers, all available systems, so people take this very seriously. We 

take photos all around the world, but when it comes to teaching photography, I come back to Key 

Largo, and why do I do that? First of all I get to stay at home and be with my wife and daughter, but 

most significantly we have water that is clear enough to take our photographs in. I wish we had

better coral, and I applaud the efforts of all of you in this room to make that happen. 

evertheless, the mooring buoys were a massive advantage to begin with, but I’ve got to say 

le collecting

opical fish on the same reef. So you do have those kinds of conflicts, and I don’t know how you 

can satisfy everybody, and I’m not here – I had an opportunity to express an opinion, so I did it

[laughter]. 

At any rate, SPAs are magnificent, you get out there, you can come in on a Civil War wreck to see –

there is one image that I didn’t show you because it wasn’t a digital image and it didn’t fit this. With

a single closed focus with a wide angle with a 15 mm lens on the Civil War wreck, I have 14 lobsters 

in a frame. We are two weeks after the opening of lobster season, and if that were not in a SPA, 

those things would be gone, absolutely gone. Those are lobsters that are going to make baby 

lobsters, so that’s a pretty cool thing! Anyway, that is my opinion, and I am very proud of our

National Marine Sanctuary, I am very proud of our management personnel, and I congratulate the 

science, and I congratulate the vision. Thank you. [applause] 

Water quality is a massive issue. I thought the stuff that Rod Salm spoke about this morning in

terms of creating the seed, for example the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary could be 

perceived at a national level as the seed population for this whole eastern seaboard. I think that is a 

very dramatic benefit for all of us who live here, because we are going to have a better environment

to begin with. So keep going guys, that is a very strong message. But you know what it is, it’s that 

prescient vision that started in 1960, and it evolved since, with the Key Largo National Marine 

Sanctuary, the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, and now the whole Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary in terms of preserving the natural resource. I remember when the boat captains

used go out and had to triangulate to find out where the reef would be. But now we have mooring 

buoys and that’s a whole other story. But that’s another issue [laughter]. 

N

“Thanks” to Billy right here in public, because this whole concept of Sanctuary Preservation Areas is 

so good for our National Marine Sanctuary, and to provide these fish nurseries and to go out with a

group of 14 people and to go on Molasses Reef. Did you see all those fish on Snapper Ledge? Now 

that actually is not a SPA, but I’m going to tell you, it ought to be, because the same day that we 

were out there, photographing schools of fish like that, we had spearfishermen and peop

tr

223
Panel Discussion

Schuttenberg: I would like to ask our sp he table at the front for some additional 

uestions, of which I am sure there are many. 

er and there was an average. 

uestion: One major concern that I have picked up on this week, because it has changed from the 

at they’re doing. And the amount of money they 

re bringing in is a driving force that could be going in the wrong direction in terms of preserving 

uestion: And how many do some kind of nature-based activity when they are here, compared to 

, I would like to clarify a couple of issues if I may, just very quickly. I am an 

nvironmental consultant for the harbor pilots and also have worked with the City of Key West on 

eakers to go to t

q

Question: This is for Daniel or Manoj. You both reported that there is a perception that there is a 

decline in water quality, or water clarity. I am wondering if you teased out the seasons, because in 

the winter you know we are driven by siltation, and in the summer we have more of a decline of the 

problems. 

Suman: Correct. I think that those data were from two different six-month periods, one was the 

winter and the other was the summ

Shivlani: The Johns study was an average of a year. One of the things that we did with the other 

study – because there are two studies that show this, but I only talked about the one that we worked 

on. What we tried to do is equalize the clarity issue with sea state, as well as with the experience of 

the diver, so what you are seeing there is a snapshot, single statistic, which I guess could be 

manipulated. But there is a lot more behind it that we tried to use to corroborate, and seasonality, 

unfortunately was not used, but sea state was. 

Q

last time that I was in the Keys, is the major increase in cruise ships. The reason it concerns me is 

not just the numbers, but it is the change in the thought process, the demography, the whole 

approach. In the earlier data you had 30% of the people being involved in underwater activities. 

These are people, primarily, you can tell them there is a beautiful coral reef under you, they are going 

to believe it and they are going to go off and do wh

a

the natural resources here. I wonder what your thoughts are on the encroaching problem of this 

massive influx of money and power from a different source. 

Suman: Actually I was thinking that power is something that Manoj would comment on [laughter]... 

regarding activities of cruise line passengers once they arrived in Key West. We were talking about 

that the other day. 

Q

the general population, non-cruise line population? 

Shivlani: I do not have numbers on that currently, but the group I work with is involved in the 

Quality of Life Study, looking at cruise ships down here in Key West. In fact our data collector is 

right here as well, but we are still doing the summer season, and I don’t want to make any comments 

until we have all the data because it would be unfair. So maybe you want to check back in a year. 

Sandy Walters: I have a question that has to do with diving impacts, but because I work closely 

with the cruise industry

e

the subject, and I just wanted to mention a couple of really quick things that might clarify. The 

cruise ships that come to Key West for the most part are the higher-end ships that bring higher-end 
visitors who don’t worry too much about spending $300-500 at a high-end jewelry store. From what

I understand, we will be collecting solid data on this, which of course will be very useful for us. 

Many of the dive and tour businesses in Key West, the nature businesses, do take visitors out to our

resources. The number of vessels that you saw compared from 1993-2003, peaked in 2003 largely as 

a result of the 9/11 phenomenon, which had visitors wanting to stay within the United States. Those 

numbers are already starting to drop significantly, even before the Mole Pier was closed by the Navy

for repairs. Cruise visitors do not drive cars and produce that associated pollution, and they don’t 

flush nearly as many toilets as residents and people staying in hotels. The Sanctuary supported a 

highly environmentally conscious Navy harbor dredging project, which will cause a great decrease in

arbor turbidity issues. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection will confirm that 

ed currently. Unfortunately,

ecause they are not being taken out by a professional, there is really nothing that could be 

r: No, you won’t. And at that point I think the citizenry was asked to vote in favor of or 

ainst the establishment of the Sanctuary. I am sure it was wordier than that, and the Sanctuary 

Frink: Since there is no science to your answer and it is purely postulation, I’m happy to postulate 

[laughter]. I think the big issue when the initial referendum happened was that individual rights were 

going to be eroded. That people weren’t going to be able to salvage, they weren’t going to be able to

spearfish, they weren’t going to be able to tropical fish, or live collect, they weren’t going to be able 

to take pictures, they weren’t going to be able to do a lot of the things. But I think the Sanctuary,

with the concept of zonation, probably allayed a lot of those fears and the positive benefits from 

things that evolved like Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and the fact that now we have nurseries. 

People, I think, now are far more trustful of the Sanctuary, that it’s not just a rights grab, that it’s

h

more water under the keel of a vessel at Pier B here in Key West resulted in less turbidity. Initial 

monitoring has found following cruise ships in the outer entrance channel more than an order 

magnitude drop in turbidity as a result of the dredging. So to answer my question concerning the 

dive industry, all of your management suggestions were focused on the industry. How can that relate 

to the day-tripper visitors who tow their own boats, and launch them at a ramp, and just goes piling 

out there to reefs without any contact with our professionals here who can give them education and

direction? 

Shivlani: You are talking about a different user group, the private boaters. There are other strategies 

that could be used, namely education and outreach, which are being us

b

recommended within that scheme that would reach them. 

Question: This is directed to all three of you, and also to Billy. Back in, I don’t know, Billy could tell

me a date, or many of you could, the referendum to accept the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, the county-wide referendum, when was that – 1995? 

Causey: I think it was 1996, November 1996. I will never forget that. [laughter] 

Questione

ag

lost... 

Causey: 53-47. 

Questioner: In what many people view as a skewed vote, but I wonder for all of you who are 

assessed and surveyed and had your finger on the pulse of the populace in the Keys, tourist and

resident alike, if we did that same referendum now, what do you feel would be the percentage for 

and against the Sanctuary? I would like to get Billy... 

225
something that is necessary to manage a fragile resource. I think people trust our Sanctuary, where 

ey didn’t before because there was distrust of the unknown. I really believe that’s what it was. It 

hivlani: I would just add to that by looking at two different processes. The first was the zone 

wing the level of support in at least part of the commercial industry, the commercial 

shing industry, which was probably the most vociferous opponent of the Sanctuary, then you are 

uman: I will guess at a number. I would think that a similar referendum today would be 3:1, maybe 

n over the summer, working on a somewhat parallel

roject in the kayaking industry down here. One of my study focuses was on educational materials 

out the different subsets, and develop

aterials that were focused toward the different users – as many as was feasible, given available

icated consumer probably isn’t going to pick it up anyway, so you might as well

rget your market to the people who are eager to learn. Obviously it has to be visually compelling 

ake them believe in the pictures, and speak to

ose that need education. The people on my boat last week didn’t need environmental education,

all

appy surprises for those people. But if they’re already here, they’re going to have that surprise 

the experience of the user. 

th

was distrust of the unknown and you guys have earned our trust. 

S

designation process that took place in 1995 and contrast that with the Tortugas process. The latter

went much more smoothly. There were obviously opponents of it, critics of how it worked, but the 

zone was passed unanimously, and is in effect today. So if that is a subset, some sort of a subsample, sho

fi

seeing at least a slight shift. 

S

75% supportive, that would be my guess. 

Causey: And there is science that supports that now. Bob Leeworthy can account for that better. 

Alison Gleason: My name is Alison Gleason, I am a graduate student at Duke University, and I was 

lucky enough to be a Lower Keys office inter

p

within the tourism industry, and so my question would be for all three of you. Where do you place 

the bar for the educational materials? There is such a diversity of tourists out there. There are people 

who barely know how to swim and kayak and have never seen the ocean before, and then there are 

20- or 30-year returning divers who have a great knowledge of the reef system and the mangrove 

systems. So if the responsibility were in the tourism industry to provide educational materials, what 

level – or how would you address the scope of the span of different skill levels and prior knowledge? 

Suman: I would think that a sophisticated environmental education program based through the 

industry would, first of all, look closely at the audience, break

m

funding. 

Frink: The sophist

ta

anyway, and then you’re going to have to craft a soft sell in there. I don’t think you can hammer

them with a lot of words; you’re going to have to m

th

but I will say that they were universally surprised at how good the resource was. There is a 

perception that – I don’t know who said it – somebody commented that there is a perception that 

there is perhaps 6% coral cover in the Florida Keys, and that’s bogus. They didn’t have a clue how 

good our waters are, they didn’t have a clue as to the density of the marine life, and those were

h

themselves once they step off the gunwale. 

Shivlani: I would just add that the recommendation that I mentioned is that the education, at least 

the aspect that I wanted to focus on, the education be placed on what the Sanctuary is doing, what 

management is trying to get done, which does not necessarily affect, which is not affected by, rather, 

226
Male question: I guess I wanted to make a comment about what somebody had said before, you

said that you really didn’t – or there wasn’t a way to help the private boaters know what’s going on, 

and I just wanted to make a comment, that before you get a driver’s license, you have to pass a test,

and maybe for the private boaters, if you could maybe have some private education process before 

they get the boater’s license. 

H.T. Pontin: My name is H.T. Pontin and I’ve been diving down here in the Keys since 1960s,

especially around Looe Key before there was a sanctuary and you people doing your studies. But I

do have an important question that has not been answered. All your studies are based on the 

conditions today. Now for the last 30 years, the Florida Keys have been filling in, and we only have

three foot tide range down here, so if we lost a foot and a half of that tide range, for example, would

that affect all your studies and reasoning and everything else, because if that much less water comes

over the reef four times a day you’re going to clearly stop out. Thank you. 

Shivlani: Well I would just say that our baseline, in terms of the industry is at least 10 years old, so

it’s not as of today. Unfortunately some of these studies weren’t done in the past and we have to

art somewhere and work with the baseline that we have. If you use anecdotal information, it can’t 

shift as well.

our fourth meeting with local dive

perators for something called the Blue Star Program which is Billy’s idea, and slowly but surely 

snorkel boat in the 

eys would eventually learn a basic amount of information about the Sanctuary, about the no-take 

and the no-take areas. I’m not a marine biologist, I’m not an oceanographer, I’ve worked in 

e Sanctuary for seven years and I can’t figure out how being a no-take area would affect the water 

that’s a broader relationship. So I’m confused there, and would like some 

larification.

at is whether divers and snorkelers perceived

source condition differences within open versus closed areas. So what they reported generally, for 

st

really be corroborated, and besides it’s not representative enough of the area. I would also add that 

one of the articles that’s included in the pack that’s given out deals with Jim Bohnsack talking about

Shifting Baselines, and that’s something that’s very important to consider, not only from the natural 

perspective, but also from the social perspective. Baselines

Cheva Heck: Manoj, I just want to note in regards to your recommendation about an educational

program for the dive and snorkel operators in the Florida Keys, you and I haven’t talked, but I think 

that’s an excellent recommendation. In fact we’re going on to

o

trying to get it off the ground. The idea is that anyone that steps on a dive or

K

areas, and how they can help protect the marine environment and be partners with us in that. The 

other thing that I have to ask you a question about is the relationship in your remarks between water 

clarity

th

quality. To me,

c

Shivlani: The reason why you are confused is because I didn’t explain it well. The study that we did 

was a paired-site study. It looks at no-take areas and compares them to open, or open-access areas 

and really the things that we’re interested in looking

re

both open and closed areas, and I’m sorry I didn’t point that out, is that water clarity is an issue – 

that the statistics shown there, the comparison index, is actually for all areas, both open and closed.

Sorry about that. 

Causey: I think I get the last comment and the last question. First, a comment. Manoj, your 

management suggestions are very insightful, excellent. There’s two of those that we’ve implemented

partially in the Tortugas Reserve, as a part of what we heard. One is that we have access by permit 

only, and it would prohibit all diving except by permit in Tortugas South, and so in Tortugas North 

227
you can only access it by paper permit – by reporting permit, and that’s going to give us the data that

we think is going to help us start looking at changes to the resources with use. The other thing is 

that we went ahead and established a rotational system for our mooring buoys. We put in 36

cations and we’ve started really moving around between 18 and 24, different locations, with the 

ber of artificial reefs, in fact I think you had the Spiegel Grove, would 

u just close and comment on what you think of artificial reefs and their importance for the dive 

rink: OK, I’m glad to have an opportunity to speak on that. First of all, I was personally involved 

at

appened with the Dwayne, I swore that I would never get involved again in an artificial reef project.

is isn’t where you’re going with the question, Billy, but I’ve got to say a bit about the history 

aid them to take the steel and put it for salvage, and then said they were out of money,

uld we have more. We couldn’t do it. We got a new contractor, we cleaned the vessel, we towed 

n the two ships? [no]. I think it’s like 32 species of fish

at live on the Dwayne and I think it’s like 52 that live on the Spiegel Grove. I think a lot of it has to 

d a clean scientific study, so that we knew exactly how much fish would

lo

monitoring of the sites where we’re moving them from, and trying to see what kind of impact – we 

have a really clean slate to start with out there. My question is for you Stephen, and thank you for 

coming down, I don’t know if you all know, he’s a world-wide known photographer, he’s been all

over the world, and he comes back here to photograph fish. At a very crucial time when I was

licking my wounds after the referendum, Skin Diver magazine came out with a before-and-after 

photograph, and it was Stephen’s work, and it was phenomenal, and it made me feel a little bit 

better. I saw you had a num

yo

industry. 

F

with the Dwayne, that was in 1987 and after going through the fund-raising and everything th

h

Then, about four years later, I guess time heals all wounds, and we started to think We need one 

Bigger, Better. So Bill Herrigan, former National Marine Sanctuary manager, and myself and some 

of the local dive operators in Key Largo, probably over too many beers, started thinking that we 

ought to go back up to the Reserve Fleet in the James River and find a suitable vessel. So back, I 

guess it was probably in the late 1990s, we decided that the Spiegel Grove would be the appropriate 

thing for another artificial reef, and we went about doing that, it was a massive fund-raising effort, 

we did it through the private sector. I’ve got to say thank you very much to the Tourist 

Development Council for their support on that, because it was just such a big project. We started 

out thinking it was going to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars to acquire a shipwreck. I realize 

th

because it was a tough thing to live. We acquired the vessel, we hired who we thought would be

good contractors; they weren’t good contractors, they – you know, man, it’s just a viper nest, once 

you get into trying to clean a ship for salvage, but in our case we got people who took the money 

that we p

co

the vessel, in the end it was like seven to ten years of our life to finally, proudly get it on site and

think we’re going to have the thing exactly like happened with the Dwayne and we’re going to have a

ship upright like the Dwayne. Well, it didn’t happen, you all know that, what happened with the 

Spiegel Grove. I guess we’re not really here to talk about the trials and tribulations of putting a ship on

the bottom, but what happened once it went on the bottom. There are biological issues, and again, I 

think these have been carefully documented, and I think Billy, I’d like you to speak on this, but there 

were baseline studies done about fish aggregation, so we knew what happened with coral reefs in

proximity to the Spiegel Grove, and I know that REEF [Reef Environmental Education Foundation] is 

out there doing documentation after the Spiegel Grove. Now, I am told that there are far more species

of fish on the Speigel Grove than there are even on the Dwayne. The Dwayne’s been down since 1987 – 

do you know the exact number of species o

th

do with the luck of the draw, because the ship, when it did go down, it went down on its side, and 

it’s kind of counter to the current, so there’s significant upwelling from the Gulf Stream, and it 

ended up being a magnificent habitat for fish. Now, speaking of Sanctuary Preservation Areas, it 

would be very cool if we ha

228
come to an artificial reef, and what kind of species. But you have game fish that are going to come 

re was – it was a detriment economically because the people in the 

pper Keys, because it’s so easy to drive five miles north to get on a boat that’s going to go to the 

there because it’s an oasis in the middle of the Gulf Stream, and that has to be attractive to an

angler. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, but it’s not science anymore, because we have the right for 

people to take fish off that artificial reef, but for recreational diving aspect, I think you only have to 

look at the dive shops that can’t really run, that may be in the Upper Keys – but the Spiegel Grove is 

too far to run, and they, the

U

Spiegel Grove versus to be on a dive boat that’s going to have to run 10 miles to get there. So it’s a big 

deal. Was it a massive economic benefit to Key Largo? Yes, it was. Was it terribly fascinating in 

terms of the fish life that’s accruing on the ship? Yes, it was. And you guys are going to have to do

the scientific studies to tell us what does it mean when you sink an artificial reef in the Florida Keys, 

and I’m really looking forward to the benefits of that study. 

Schuttenberg: Thank you very much. Let’s thank our panel. [applause] 

Keller: Thank you all very much. That was very interesting, in fact this whole morning has been so 

interesting and full of discussion that we’re starting to run late, even by Keys standards, if that’s 

possible [chuckling from panel] so what we’re going to do is we’re going to move right on into the 

next panel on Management Options and encourage you to take your individual breaks as your 

physiology requires [laughter] and just go ahead and get started, and I’m going to hand it over to

Joanne to move this along. 

229
Management Tools

Moderator: Joanne Delaney
No-Take Marine Reserves: Science, Values, and Choices for the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Cheri A. Recchia 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated in 1990, but the regulations

implementing the final management plan were not issued until 1997. The Sanctuary was expanded in

2001 with the addition of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (TER). The protections put in place are 

therefore still relatively new, particularly in the TER, but it is nonetheless reasonable and necessary

to ask whether the Sanctuary appears effective in achieving conservation goals. For example, is there 

evidence that, overall, ecosystems are healthier inside the Sanctuary than outside? If one traveled in a

submarine across the Sanctuary boundary, would there be any visible difference?

-wide level, the protections

tablis

the Sanctuary.

However, there is reason to believe that the Sanctuary’s ecosystems and the resources they sustain 

would be healthier, more resistant to these as well as local threats, and more resilient in recovering

from impacts if the Sanctuary included adequate no-take marine reserves. No-take marine reserves 

are marine protected areas that are closed to all extractive uses, including to all fishing. Around the 

world, they are increasingly being employed as an essential marine conservation and resource 

management tool. However, less than 6% of the Sanctuary is designated as no-take reserves, and

there is good reason to believe this is woefully inadequate if the Sanctuary is to conserve the 

resources it was designated to protect. 

The substantial and growing scientific literature clearly demonstrates that well-designed and

adequately enforced no-take reserves are singularly effective in increasing the size, diversity, and

abundance of organisms, protecting habitat, and providing ecosystem-based protection within their

borders. Research on dozens of sites around the world has shown that even though no-take reserves

cannot directly counter threats from poor management practices on adjacent lands, distant air or 

water pollution sources, global climate change, or a variety of other adverse impacts originating 

outside reserve boundaries, they nonetheless produce dramatic improvements within their 

boundaries. Reserves are much more effective in this regard than are temporary, seasonal, or partial 

closures, all of which may confer important conservation or management benefits, but are not 

associated with equivalent long-term effects. For example, studies have demonstrated rapid return to 

pre-reserve conditions following re-opening of temporary closed areas. 

Although some controversy remains, common sense, theory, and increasing scientific evidence also 

point to beneficial effects beyond reserve boundaries, for example, through increased fish catches.

This may occur through fish traveling out of reserves into areas in which they may be caught,

through movement of fish eggs or larvae into surrounding waters in which they settle and grow 

The answer to both questions appears to be no. To date, at a Sanctuary

es hed have not been demonstrably effective in conserving healthy populations (abundance,

structure, etc.), halting declines in biodiversity, protecting habitat, or protecting or restoring

ecosystem functions. Threats to the marine ecosystems of the Florida Keys are numerous, and

include several operating at regional, hemispheric, and global spatial scales. African dust, plumes 

from the Orinoco and Mississippi Rivers, dark water phenomena, harmful algal blooms, bleaching, 

and global climate change are a few such threats, and none of these can be addressed directly 

through actions taken within

231
larger until they may be caught, or both. In addition, there are increasing suggestions that reserves

an lead to increased resistance and resilience of ecosystems, so that they are better able to withstand 

d recover from a variety of adverse effects, such as those arising from pollution, bleaching, and

ther threats.

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, three types of zones are commonly cited as no-take 

serves: the Ecological Reserves, consisting of the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve and the two 

eas comprising the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, the four Research-Only Areas, and the 18 

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (S are indeed no-take, all the SPAs

allow baitfishing for ballyhoo, an g. The SPAs may be producing

significant conservation benefits, and indeed an dotal reports are accumulating that some fish 

species are more abundant inside S not and should not be considered

no-take areas, nor expected to generate equivalent benefits. 

The total no-take area, consisting of the Ecological Reserves and the Research-Only Areas, is less 

than 6% of the Sanctuary. (The 18 SPAs are very small, collectively covering only 16.5 km2

, less than

0.02% of the Sanctuary, so do not much increase this percentage even if included). Scientific 

recommendations of the percent area that should be protected in no-take reserves to protect 

biodiversity and support sustainable resource use typically range from 20-30%, and

recommendations in the 30-50% range are becoming more common. Experience from around the 

world and the best available scientific information clearly indicate that 6% is not nearly enough. 

Establishing additional no-take reserves in the Sanctuary would incur both costs and benefits. The 

benefits of reserves are many. In addition to those discussed earlier, adequate no-take reserves also 

typically are healthier than surrounding areas, providing much needed natural laboratories and

classrooms for science and education, so that it is possible to know and document what natural, 

healthy areas look like. We cannot measure the impacts of fishing, for example, if we do not have

sufficient unfished areas for comparison. 

These benefits, however, come at the cost of further spatial constraints on extractive human

activities, including fishing. As a result, establishment of no-take reserves is currently quite 

controversial. The heated voices and polarized views on both sides of the issue are reminiscent of

those that occurred in the Keys during the sanctuary designation process. Opposition to the 

Sanctuary was initially very strong, but was eventually largely overcome through a lengthy public 

consultation process, supported by concerted and successful efforts to inform the debate with the 

best available science. 

Today, opposition to establishment of no-take reserves is strong among some interest groups. For

example, some recreational fishing interests are seeking to advance “Freedom to Fish” legislation

federally and in several coastal states. The typical formulation of the proposed legislation would 

prevent closing areas to recreational fishing unless there is a clear indication that it is the cause of a 

specific conservation problem and that no “less severe” conservation measure (such as size or bag

limits, gear restrictions or seasonal closures) will adequately address the problem. The proposed 

legislation would further require that any recreational closure be the minimum size supported by the 

best available science and that the closure be reopened as soon as the problem is resolved. If passed, 

this legislation would demand a level of scientific proof of the need for reserves that is

unprecedented among other management measures, and likely unachievable. It would also prevent 

closure of healthy areas, even if needed for science or other purposes. Had the Freedom to Fish Act 

c

an

o

In

re

ar

PAs). While the first two zone types

d four allow catch-and-release trollin

ec

PAs than outside, but they are

232
b

Ecological Reserve, as well as the Research-Only Areas, and may have resulted in SPAs that were 

pen to all recreational fishing. F not yet passed federally 

r in any state, but its supporters remain

lowing suit, including Kenya, Belize, and Chile. Indeed 

ected areas to all fishing. The best scientific 

een in place at the time, it would likely have prevented the establishment of the Tortugas

o reedom to Fish legislation of this type has

o active.

Today, those with an interest in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and its resources are 

faced with several choices. Will the needed attention on distant threats, whether African dust, 

Orinoco plumes, or global climate change, eclipse the equally needed attention to strengthening local

protections afforded sanctuary resources? Should there continue to be fishing allowed in over 94% 

of the Sanctuary? Are those interests more important than implementing adequate no-take reserves,

which are the most powerful, flexible, and proven tool for conserving species, habitats, and

ecological processes? 

Elsewhere in the world, choices are being made to limit all fishing in some places, restricting this 

type of use in selected locations in order to better conserve species, habitats, and ecosystems, and

hopefully to improve fishing elsewhere. For example, after extensive ecological and socioeconomic 

analysis and public consultation, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has recently been rezoned,

increasing the percentage of the park closed to all fishing from 4.5% to 33%. Beyond this, the

Australian government is already working to complete a national, ecologically representative MPA 

system, including no-take reserves, in federal waters, and several states are implementing reserve 

systems in their waters. In New Zealand, the government is moving to protect 10% of waters in notake reserves. Many other countries are fol

the U.S. is lagging behind many developed and developing countries in implementing marine 

reserves. 

Finally, in the Florida Keys as elsewhere, it is really a question of values and choices. How do we 

want these world-famous reefs, the ecosystems of which they are a part, and the resources that are 

so critically important both ecologically and economically, to look and to function in 10 years, or in 

50? What measures are we willing to take now to reverse the well-documented declines and set a 

path to recovery and long-term health and protection? There is no question: enforced, no-take 

reserves work. And reserves require closing sel

information clearly points to the conclusion that, although no-take areas are by no means a silver 

bullet, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will not succeed in halting further species and

ecosystem decline without additional, adequate reserves. What choices will we make? 

233
Suggested reading: 

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. 2001. Scientific Consensus Statement on 

Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas. University of California, Santa Barbara. 

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/Consensus

National Research Council. 2000. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems.

Committee on the Evaluation, Design and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas

in the United States, Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and

Resources. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Sobel, J.A., and C. Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design, and Use. Island 

Press, Washington, DC. 

234
Marine Zoning: A Management Tool in the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Billy D. Causey

think that I’ve given it right here in the Florida Keys. 

I am proud to say that we manage the 

ast three days 

aying attention to this, meeting. My partner Kacky Andrews is around here somewhere. 

The Sanctuary is a 2,900 square nautical mile area, this entire blue line (Fig. 2), including this disjunct 

area around Tortugas South. The three national parks fall outside our boundaries, but we do have 

contiguous boundaries with them. The Sanctuary is a marine protected area. If you use the definition 

that Kelleher and Kenchington and DeVine used in 1991, it is a marine protected area, but as some 

of the movements – the Freedom to Fish Act, all of these movements, they turned the term marine 

protected area into a bit of a bad term, with a negative connotation. We have very clear legislation 

from Congress, and that is we will improve the conservation, management, and wise and sustainable 

use of marine resources, enhance public awareness and appreciation, and maintain it for future 

generations. Just like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, you heard Elliott and his 

opening comments, or some of you did, we are a multiple-use management area. National marine 

sanctuaries allow continued commercial, recreational uses. One of our mandates is to facilitate to the 

Delaney: Thank you Dr. Recchia very much. We’re next going to hear from Billy Causey. 

Causey: I didn’t tell you to be that provocative [laughter]. Ah, you can’t get through this skin. 

Thank you. Cheri made some very good points, and you are going to see in my story – I am going to 

tell a very fast story about the Florida Keys, but I am going to give you some background. I have 

given this presentation all over the world, but I realized when I was going through it to start cutting 

out slides, that I don’t 

We are a part of a system of national marine sanctuaries (Fig. 1), but I am really just going to be 

talking about the Florida Keys. I can’t go around and name all thirteen sanctuaries and the resources, 

but just to know that we are part of a national network of marine protected areas, and we are 

currently working on what is going to rival the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, up here in 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Terry, you don’t want to touch it. 

Figure 1. System of 13 National Marine 

Sanctuaries and the proposed site at the 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Sanctuary through a co-trustee 

partnership with the state of Florida’s 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. You may 

have seen the Captain of our Sanctuary 

enforcement squad with FWC. Stand 

up, Captain Luher. Laurie Luher, she 

has been around the l

p
extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of

e resources. That is quite a challenge. 

Fig

of t

Mar

whi

d

ed lines). 

My job today is to talk about 

management tools, and to 

embed in this presentation 

the kind of management 

tools that we have put in

place to try to achieve that 

objective. This sanctuary 

gave us the first opportunity when it was designated to start looking at the full coral reef ecosystem,

not just little islands out on the reef tract, but to look at the full range of the habitats and all of the 

species that exist in those areas. But we are not doing it in a vacuum, and this was the first sanctuary

to totally surround a populated community. It was the first sanctuary to have a water quality 

protection program, directed by Congress, coming in at a time when we were already challenged by 

development and use of the resources, more and more impacts coming in and affecting our 

resources in various ways. 

As you have seen, I am not going to spend a lot of time on the uses, but I have to lay the framework 

for where we are today, and how we got there. We do get over 3 million visitors every year and they 

spend 13.3 million visitor-days. In other words, one visitor might spend 5 days. They come in by a 

variety of ways. Someone asked about cruise ships. When I moved here there were no landings of

cruise ships 31 years ago. Fifteen years ago, maybe one or two a month. Last year they had 526 

landings alone in that one year. So we are getting a lot of people coming down to the Keys,

including a lot of people pulling their own recreational boats. Terry, I don’t think that is something 

you see out on the Great Barrier Reef, all those small 22-foot boats sitting out there on the reef 

tract. We have over 60 dive shops, 65 boat rental operations, and 35 bait and tackle stores. 

Diving and snorkeling – you have heard the importance of that to the economy, locally. And of

course as well as snorkeling and diving, recreational fishing is a very important part of our economy.

A lot of people come down here now just to look, to drive around Key West and enjoy the various

sites, but commercial fishing is our second largest industry as far as the economy is concerned. Our 

fishermen will land anywhere from $50-70 million worth of product every year on the docks. We

have the eighth largest fishing industry in the United States here in the Keys. This is not without 

impacts. We have all sorts of impacts that come with the use of these resources. We get over 600 

vessel groundings every year; those are on seagrasses, on corals, these are things that affect the

Sanctuary. 

th

ure 2. Diagram of southern 

60 0 60 120 Miles

N

W E

S

Florida, showing the boundary

he Florida Keys National

ine Sanctuary (blue line),

ch surrounds most of the 

Florida Keys. Also shown are

the Dry Tortugas, Everglades, 

an Biscayne National Parks

(r

236
237

It took us from 1991 to 1996 nagement plan to manage the

Sanctuary, and we incorporated in that plan 10 diffe In 1997, in spite of, I 

wouldn’t say in spite of, I would say on referendum, we had the Governor and 

abinet with seven elected officials, partisan offici nctuary to include State 

so much

a

Over 60% of the Sanctuary lies in State waters. We overla

three aquatic preserves, and two previously existing national

to develop a comprehensive ma

rent action plans (Fig. 3). 

the heels of the

C als, who agreed for the Sa

waters. The reason I said the numbers earlier, 53-47%, the Governor and Cabinet heard

misinformation going on down here by the opponents to the Sanctuary, that they were just glad that 

we only lost by that percentage. [laughter] They thought we were going to lose with about 15-20% 

support. 

•

•

Channel / Reef Marking

• Education and Outreach

• Enforcement

• Mooring Buoy

• Regulatory

• Research and Monitoring

• Submerged Cultural Resources

• Volunteer

• Water Quality

• Zoning

Regulatory

Management

Action Plans

Figure 3. The 10 Action Plans comprising the Man gement Plan of the FKNMS. 

p four wildlife refuges, six state parks,

marine sanctuaries. It is a very complex

mosaic of management. In order to pull it all together, we had an inter-agency core group that

helped us to develop the management plan. In order to help us develop this plan we brought

together this nation’s first sanctuary advisory council, a group of stakeholders from various

occupations: scientists, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, a variety of people, educators,

conservation groups, even treasure hunters to help us put together a plan. The plan came up with six 

major management categories, but the one that I really want to focus on is a management tool that 

we implemented here, called marine zoning. 

This is how we defined marine zoning in our final management plan. I am not going to read that to 

you, but it is a concept that has been used around the world, and when we developed our draft 

management plan in 1995 the areas that were most controversial were three large, what we called 

“replenishment reserves” (Fig. 4). A twenty square-nautical-mile area in the Carysfort area, a nine

square-nautical-mile area around the Lower Keys, and a 110 square-nautical-mile area around the 

Tortugas. When we put this plan on the streets, the advisory council drew every one of these lines. I 
am not shifting responsibility; we used them for that purpose – 99% approval of this by the SAC.

We hit opposition. What we realized is that sometimes you don’t think about the uniqueness of the 

ommunity where you are working, the people that live there, and in fact this whole thing, in the 

eys and Key West is that

was the worst day in my life, except for when my parents passed

orge Barley and myself hanging in effigy as we arrived at a meeting.

when you exclude people from the process, and clearly what we had

done a good job about thinking about all of the people that were in

rking with. We thought we were, but we didn’t. What we ended up

e out in 1997 was one nine-and-a-half square-nautical-mile area (Fig. 

ack and do something else in the future. 

Figure 4. Map of the FKNMS 

from the 1995 Draft 

Management Plan showing the

three proposed “replenishment

reserves” (yellow areas). 

conflicts. The Sanctuary 

rger than

c

K we do have people who are individualistic in their thinking. But, Cheri, it 

wasn’t easy to do this, and this

away, and that was to see Ge

These things are not easy to do

done the first time around is not

the Keys and who we were wo

with in the final plan that cam

5), but with a promise to come b

Marine zoning is a versatile 

tool. We didn’t develop it;

we really copied a lot of

what was done at the Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority. It is a multipleuse tool. It helps reduce

Preservation Areas, and I 

will get into it – we have 18 

of those. Those are not set aside for any fisheries management purposes, whatsoever. I guess if

you’re a blenny or a goby, it’s your home, but those are set aside for visitor-use conflicts. I am going 

to go over all five of these different types of zoning, and I think I am going to have to hurry. We 

have 18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas that focus on top of the shallow reefs; these are the areas that 

are the greatest use. We capture 80-85% of the snorkeling and diving activity, except for the first 

two weeks of lobster season. These areas are critical for sustaining and protecting some important 

marine species, such as the small critters. When we talk about these for biodiversity purposes, they 

are great. I can tell you that many of the areas set aside in New Zealand were not much la

even our smallest Sanctuary Preservation Area. We sometimes lose dimension when we start talking 

about percentage. The Sanctuary Preservation Areas focus our protection, and you can see here we 

have about 60-65% of the spur-and-groove reef formations, and the main thing is that we do protect 

a number of species that do not move very far. If you look at them along the map, they do look like 

little postage stamps, but you can imagine that is where 80-85% of the snorkeling and diving activity 

takes place. 

238
Figure 5. Map of the FKNMS in

the final Management Plan (1997), 

showing the single Ecological

Reserve at Western Sambo 

(orange area). Also shown are the

18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas,

Existing Management Areas, and 

four Research Only Areas 

(Eastern Sambo, Looe Key,

Tennessee Reef, and Conch Reef). 

also have four areas set

a to

g on as

are only accessible by 

p itte

in and study them. We have 

two Sanctuary Ecological Reserves now. One of nine square nautical miles, and one of 151 square 

nautical mile, and I am just very quickly going to touch on those. These are areas of some the best

r inin d they provide n ery

areas for a lot of the marine life where they lie. The one that we ended up with in the management

plan in 1997 was the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve, and you can see we run it from onshore, 

we pick up the inshore patch reefs, all of this Hawk Channel reef system, the back-reef patch 

s m, nd all the way out to the first 60-foot depth. The reason we stopped at the first 

60-foot depth is that the fishermen that were on our advisory council wanted it to stop there at that

first depth. We ended up there after a process. 

I am going to go through very quickly what the Tortugas Ecological Reserve – we implemented that 

in July 1, 2001, and it covers 151 square nautical miles (Fig. 6). It is broken up into Tortugas North 

d Tortugas South. We had to deal with seven different jurisdictions to get them implemented; four

f them had t 

ap, thanks ortant fish

n the fishermen saw that data presented to them, they 

We

side help monitor what is

oing with uses. These are

erm d scientists that can go

ema g water quality, they encompass larger areas, an atural spawning and nurs

yste the reef flat a

an

o veto capability in the process. This is what it looks like, if you throw it over our habita

m to The Ocean Conservancy for this. Here is Riley’s Hump, a very imp

spawning aggregation site, here is the Tortugas North, spectacular coral reef resources still in this 

area, this is the Research Natural Area that the Dry Tortugas National Park developed that will be 

implemented eventually [tittering]. Promise. If you look at Tortugas North and then look at the 

Western Sambo area, and then look at this slide, you can see why the fishermen really supported us

tremendously in the Tortugas process. There are two counter-clockwise gyres, you saw some of this 

on the first day, if you were here for the oceanography presentations. There is the current between 

us and Cuba, along this very deep area, a series of counter-clockwise gyres or eddies spin off. The 

Tortugas gyre spins for a long period of time, in fact you can see right there that one of the drifters 

just stayed in that area. Anything spawning there is going to get distributed on up into the Keys and 

into the nursery areas, to the seagrasses. Whe

really bought into the Tortugas Reserve process. 

239
Figure 6. The Tortugas Ecological

Reserve, which covers 151 square

nautical miles and was implemented

in 2001. 

One of our stealth tools has been 

these Wildlife Management Areas.

These are areas that primarily

address the mode of access,

recreational paths of access, and

the flats fishermen have found

that these areas are very positive.

They have been supporting them,

i

this

Dece

trying

controversial about the area, and

in fact went back with a story on

no-motor zones revive Keys

fishing. He couldn’t find a flats guide to say anything negative about the

Existing Management Areas, this is a very simple tool. This is one t

existing authorities that we overlap, including our own at the Looe Ke

zoning, as you look at the map now, you see the layout, the Existing

these Wildlife Refuges, we overlap, Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and then Looe Key and Key 

Largo National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Tortugas 2000. We promised to come back and do something, but we

do it right. We had a newly configured advisory council. We listened to

ience, and the working group heard from oceanographers, geologists, ecologists, 

iologists, divers, and fishermen. They heard oceanographers tell us about the special area, they had

satellite tracking meters, information to go by, they had a lot of socioeconomic on-the-ground work. 

and n fact I was very glad to see

reporter came down in

mber or January, he was

to find something

m.

hat protects all of the other

y and Key Largo areas. The 

Management Areas such as

promised to come back and

our old advisory council, we 

made some changes in the make-up of the group, and we had some lessons learned from the first 

process, and those fell into four categories: participation, process, science, and jurisdictions. I am 

just going to speed through these work slides, you can read them for yourself, but participation was 

the big thing. That we involved the general public more, we maintained an integrated group, and we 

tried to include all of fisheries managers up front. The Sanctuary Advisory Council formed a 

working group to help us in the process, and this working group was very effective in helping us. In 

fact, we asked that they use an ecosystem approach, and they did such a good job that they added 60

miles to the reserve that was outside the Sanctuary boundary [titters]. Process: we tried to make it 

open, flexible; we tried to be as adaptable as we could. They came up with the ground rules, they 

listened, and they really listened to all of the stakeholders and tried to engage the public as much as

possible. We had a lot of public meetings. Science was an important part of this, and it was science 

really that helped everyone, but I’m also talking about the socioeconomic sciences. You heard that 

presented today, but that is something that was a big gap in our previous process. We did come back

with the sc

b

240
Then we had to work with the jurisd

we ended up with, at the end of the game. Governor Bush and the 

ove it, and the last two steps were the State – the State Fish and

, and then the Governor and Cabinet. And this is what we ended

ve, and the main thing, some of the summary here, is to involve 

ocioeconomic science, bring people into the process, don’t exclude 

ecise and science-driven, but incorporate the best anecdotal 

ade Ph.D.s out of commercial fishermen. We told them that we

entation: I am just going to touch on a couple of things in closing. Enforcement is critical. 

ou heard Cheri say that you have to enforce these areas. We now have 17 enforcement officers in 

, four lieutenants, we are actually changing that slightly, but it is in 

itted to. Is it working? Well, here are three of our buoys, right here.

all fishing the line (Fig. 7). I was in the Tortugas two weeks ago, 

that. So I think enforcement does work. One thing I am going to 

ught that we have been doing this on land for a long time, and we 

ictions – seven different jurisdictions, but we did get success.

And in fact, consensus was what

Cabinet were the last ones to appr

Wildlife Conservation Commission

up with, with the Tortugas Reser

stakeholder leadership, use the s

them. Utilize the process as pr

information when necessary. We m

felt that they were at that level. 

Implem

Y

the Sanctuary. We have a captain

fact something that we are comm

One, two, three. These boats are

and saw the same thing, just like

leave, is a little philosophical tho

are just starting to do it in the ocean. We need to do more of it. [applause].

Figure 7. Aerial

photograph showing

vessels fishing just 

outside the boundaries

of a Sanctuary 

Preservation Area. The

SPA marker floats are

highlighted by the red 

symbols. [Photo credit: 

D. McClellan, NMFS]

241
How Acoustic Telemetry Migh

Rodney Bertelsen 

Delaney: Thank you, Billy; a good reminder for most

management tools going on right here in our own backyard. N

t Be Used in MPA Design 

 of us that we have some pretty innovative 

e

Rod Bertelsen with Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 

Bertelsen: Formerly known as FMRI. I am going to talk from th

information to managers, and give you a case study that we have

Sambo Ecological Reserve, using sonic technology. You saw som

brought one along that I can activate if you want to hear what it so

to your temple, and this one fires off every two seconds. The othe

– the receivers that we put into the water (Fig. 1), and they’re o

directions for the sounds these particular tags make. These tags co

sizes. In our case we used the tag that was passed around on the

affixing them to the top of the carapace (Fig. 1). 

xt we are going to hear from Dr.

e science end of trying to provide

been conducting in the Western

e tags on the first day (Fig. 1); I

unds like. You just put it right up

r items that we use a lot are these 

mni-directional, they listen in all

me in a wide variety of shapes and

first day, and we tag lobsters by 

Figure 1. Photographs showing a sonic tag affixed to a 

spiny lobster carapace (left) and a receiver being

deployed into the water (right).

Managers usually want something very, very 

concrete, very specific. Scientists tend to couch

their findings with lots of caveats and things like 

that. To misquote Harry Truman, who might say 

something like “On the one hand my scientist tells me to do this, and on the other hand he tells me

to do that. What this country needs is a good one-handed scientist.” [laughter] What we may be able

to do with sonic technology is to provide something a little more specific. Some of the questions 

about which we may be able to provide some information that managers want are: How many of

these marine protected areas should we have? How large should they be? Where should we put 

them? What shape should they be? What contours, how far out should they go, and this sort of
thing. Acoustic telemetry can probably help us concerning what size they should be, depending on 

the types of creatures you are trying to protect, the suite of creatures or the ecosystem, and what 

shape or where we should put them. The two are kind of related, because we are going to tie habitat 

in with the creature’s needs. 

These are the principles that we used for our pilot study, and the study that we have just completed

that involved tagging spiny lobsters. We put a sonic tag on their backs (Fig.1). We can tag them

down to sublegal size, and we have tagged lobsters up to almost a five-inch carapace length, that we 

found in the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve. We put these receivers out into the water into a 

rid pattern (Fig. 2). In the pilot study it was 800 meters by 200 meters wide, in those patch reefs, in 

reserve, all the time, flip-flopping all over the place. This is a large male for the Keys-proper, an 84-

mm male, and you can see that it used a decidedly smaller area. At 135 mm, this is a gigondo-male, 

especially for the Keys area, and it spent two months in an area that is smaller than these small

specially protected areas. 

g

that mid-channel patch reef area. Our area is over here; the fore reef is out here. This is where the 

snorkel/dive trip is going to go. These are the patch reefs that are located along the channel, and we 

will be traversing that area, for those who are going on the field trip. This is the study that we just

completed. We expanded the grid out; we had a few more receivers to put in the water and we 

moved them into more of a honeycomb pattern to get a little bit more coverage, and put four 

sentinel receivers out on the fore-reef (Fig. 2), because we discovered something pretty fascinating 

about these lobsters out in the channels. 

Figure 2. Diagram of the 2004 

study site in and near the Western

Sambo Ecological Reserve

(WSER), showing the grid pattern 

(upper pale red oval) and the four

sentinel receivers (lower pale red

ovals). 

These are some of the things 

that the acoustic telemetry used

in this way can provide: How 

much territory do these 

animals take up, what do they 

need to exist in terms of space?

We can also try and identify, if 

we have a good habitat map, 

how the lobsters are using the 

environment. Here are some home ranges from the study we just completed, which are still 

preliminary. One is a small, sublegal lobster – its carapace length is 68 mm; that is pretty tiny. You 

would know it was not legal-sized if you have experience in recreational fishing for lobsters. It took 

up quite a bit of area, and actually went and moved outside of the reserve, and back inside of the 

243
244

Figure 3. Diagram showing

the home ranges of three male

iny lobsters: 68-mm carapace 

within about 10 meters of where that animal is located

are pinging off the different receivers. 

This is a pretty large female that spent about seven 

within the strip; she moved outside a couple of times,

one of her favorite areas to den up during the day 

they move around and forage at night. This female took off after night and then slo

spent a lot of time down in here. I suspect very str

want to know more about what she was doing there. 

we looked at her from night to night. One time sh

she didn’t seem to slow down much, she just kept trucking. Next we are going from July, almost a 

month later (Fig. 5). She had gone out of the area fo

inging back to that same area, and then went back to den in one of her favorite spots. 

Figure 4. Diagram depicting movement of a 

female lobster between a daytime den and a 

presumptive nighttime foraging area. 

Another thing that we found out about these 

patch reefs, these inner channel patch reefs, is 

that the females that live in here, if they are 

reproductive age, go charging off to the reef

when they are getting ready to lay eggs. A lot 

sp

length (blue), 84 mm (red), and 

135 mm (pale blue). 

What we have found,

looking at size structure

across the Keys over the 

past few years, is that we are 

starting to see some large 

males showing up in some 

of these smaller protected

areas, and this is probably 

the reason why: they are 

very localized. How do they 

use their habitat? We can

trace the movements of these animals fairly specifically. When they are out in the open we know 

, by listening to the patterns of the pulses that

weeks, the entire time of the pilot project, almost 

 but most of the time within the strip. This was

(Fig. 4). Lobsters hide during the day, and then

wed down and 

ongly that is a foraging area (Fig. 4), and I would 

Here is a different pattern, on a different night; 

e went north, and went up in that direction, but 

r a little while, and then all of a sudden she came

z

of the females that we have seen in the past 

years, egg-bearing females out on the fore-reef, 

a lot of those are temporary residents that we 

now know come from the patch reefs. Here is

an animation, and this is going to show the movements of one particular female in the study that we 

tagged (Fig. 6). She took off. She had a large egg mass and she took off on the first night after we 

Small male

(68 mm) 

Legal male

(84 mm) 
tagged her, and she would come back and the yellow and the reds mean that this is day time, and the 

dark things – there she went. A week later she came charging back. She ended up over here on this

patch reef during her first day back, then when it gets to night, she takes a little exploratory run, 

comes back to her patch reef, and then zings back over to her original home, where we tagged her, 

d then spent the day there. Two weeks later, here she is back in her favorite little spot. She dens

to that

re reef. They will make it about half-way, find 

s

fertilize their eggs, and they had a huge egg mass, and so we knew tha

inshore and that they were on the way out. 

Figure 6. D

movements

We have se

is kind of

barracuda

show up on

in the Flori

month earlier. And what the next slide will show you is what that lobster

as really doing (Fig. 7) [exclamations]. That diver came back up and said “This lobster didn’t do a 

ing!” [laughter] You can see it is down here foraging, up in here foraging, lots of denning activity 

oing on in the middle here. That lobster – and it went completely off of the strip – that is probably 

an

up here during the daytime. And these are – she ran on full moons toward the reef, and she came 

back toward the new moon. Straight back home. They have very good homing instincts. They know 

where they are going and they know where they have been. 

Figure 5. Diagram depicting movement of the same

lobster shown in Fig. 4.

Just one other thing, on the study that we just 

did with the sentinel receivers that we put out 

on the fore reef, I can pretty much tell you with

some confidence (there’s my caveat) that female 

lobsters take a two-day trip to get out

fo

a den somewhere, hole up during the day. We

found some female lobsters when we were 

doing this last study, that were covered with 

mud and dirt and stuff, and they were on a 

patch reef that was surrounded with clean sand. They all had fresh permatophores that they use to 

t they were coming from closer 

iagram depicting several weeks of

of a female lobster. 

en some tagging studies – this 

interesting with regards to the

study, that had the barracuda

the Texas side, and then back 

da Keys, and that sort of thing.

This is a fairly good-sized lobster that we

tagged on one particular patch reef, near 

where that female was that I have been

showing you, and a month later we also 

put an antenna tag on them. This was part

of two studies going on, and the other

study required us to go back and look for the antenna tags, and the same diver a month later goes

into the water, finds this antenna tag, and the tag on the back of this lobster, just about in the exact

same spot he placed it a

w

th

g

245
the reason we expanded the

make a benthic habitat map so that we can correlate a tions and all 

of those home ranges with different habitat types, and once we understand that, and once we 

understand how those two are related, at least for lob

specifically what they need in order to protect them

listen to this tag at some time, let me know and I will

grid, too, was to try and figure out how much territory these animals

need. 

Figure 7. Diagram depicting position of a large male lobster in June 2004 (yellow dot) and one month later 

(green star). 

One month later

So what is missing? Well to misquote Martin Moe, It’s the habitat, stupid! [laughter]. We need to 

ll of those dots and all of those mo

sters, we can provide information to managers,

. Thank you. [applause]. If anybody wants to

fire it up.

246
Connecting Microbes to Management 

Kimberly B. Ritchie 

The Importance of Marine Microbes 

Marine microbial processes are important to the overall health of the global ecosystem, but are 

largely underestimated. Life began in the oceans some 3.8 billion years ago as simple microbial life

forms, creating the basis for the evolution of life as we know it today. It is currently estimated that

ere are 2 million species of bacteria in the oceans, but this number is likely to increase as our focus 

ents throughout the biosphere. Studies over the past 100 years have 

ty of metabolic capabilities and physiological

y 2.5 billion years ago. Despite decades of active 

derstanding of environmental microbial processes,

the surface mucopolysaccharide layer of corals

from communities in the surrounding water mass.

ions are competitive and appear to be specific to 

ic relationships among corals. 

fixing zooxanthellae from

tissue. There is a significant shift in microbial community

is likely that, since qualitative changes (and often quantit rted in coral

mucus during bleaching, the bacterial population change

Theoretical and observed consequences of environmenta

the ‘normal’ communities associated with healthy corals

and species-specific set of microbial symbionts associat

these microbes undergo a shift to marine opportunistic

bleaching. 

Characterization of Keystone Species 

All organisms, including marine invertebrates, are host t

association with various tissues. These commensal micro

region, depending on water quality and biogeographical

th

in marine microbial systems is expanded. As the

exist in almost all environm

earliest forms of life on earth, bacteria are able to 

shown that bacteria exhibit a tremendous diversi

attributes. One of the first vital global processes of marine microbes was the cyanobacterial

production of oxygen in the atmosphere roughl

scientific study, there remain large voids in our un

especially in the marine environment. 

Microbial Community Structures of Corals 

Culturable heterotrophic bacteria associated with

form diverse communities that differ significantly

Living in a nutrient-rich matrix, bacterial populat

the chemical environment in which they live. Recently it has become clear that there is a unique 

microhabitat or niche associated with corals and other marine invertebrates. Specifically, corals have 

a surface mucus layer populated with numerous commensal microbial species that appear specific to 

each host, actually reflecting the phylogenet

 otherwise healthy coral 

structure when corals become bleached. It

tive changes) have been repo

Bleaching is the loss, or degradation, of carbona

is a response to available carbon sources. 

l changes can also lead to the disruption of 

. We know that corals harbor a distinctive

ed with the surface mucus layer and that

bacteria when corals become stressed by

o commensal microbes that live in healthy 

bes may vary, to a degree, from region to

co-evolution of microbial associates. One 

good example is the mass die-off of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum in the early 1980s. Because the 

causative agent of this die-off is currently unknown, it is important to have a working knowledge of 

natural Diadema microbial associates in the Florida Keys. This may include a study cataloging the 

normal baseline, microbial communities for comparison in the case that Diadema should become 

compromised in the future. This baseline information could add greatly to our understanding of the 

causative agents involved in future die-offs, by establishing a baseline of normal communities for 

comparison with diseased individuals. This was not possible with the mass die-off of 1983, as this 
baseline of comparative data was unavailable. In addition, it is necessary to establish a set of regionwide rapid response procedures for the proper collection and handling of unhealthy specimens,

plicable to any marine invertebrate, should another outbreak occur. 

Some Management Questions 

Inshore patch reefs and mid-channel reefs show higher resistance and/or resilience to bleaching and 

diseases compared to offshore shallow bank reefs and spur-and-groove reefs in the Florida Keys. 

Why are some corals more resistant to stress and disease than others? More specifically, what role do 

bacteria play in normal host resistance to stress and disease? A conundrum to addressing this issue is that the 

vast majority of environmental bacteria cannot be cultured in the laboratory. Many studies are now 

focused on baseline assessments of coral microbial communities based on molecular genetic 

analysis. This provides information on microbial associates that may never be available for culture in

the laboratory. However, this approach leaves a critical void in our understanding of specific 

microbial processes. A solution is to look at a subset of constantly culturable microbial associates

and study metabolic and protective processes in a laboratory setting. While not comprehensive, this 

provides an opportunity to study microbial processes associated with corals, and their surrounding 

environment, that would otherwise be missed. 

From a management perspective, understanding how these microbial communities interact on

healthy corals (and other keystone marine invertebrates) is a critical first step in understanding how 

and why these populations can become compromised. The establishment of a baseline microbial 

community of relatively healthy corals along the Florida Reef Tract is critical to knowing what has

changed when corals become sick. This characterization can be accomplished in two different ways. 

First, culturable heterotrophic coral microbes can be identified via laboratory growth and

characterization. A caveat is that the vast majority of environmental microbes are not culturable in 

current laboratory settings. However, a consistent subset of culturable individuals can be very 

informative because they are conducive to laboratory testing of microbial capabilities and processes 

that are likely to be important for coral health, but that are impossible to characterize using only

phylogenetic analysis of total microbes. Second, total microbial populations associated with corals 

ncluding those not culturable in the laboratory) can be identified using genetic techniques. This

may be best suited to the characterization of keystone reef corals or other invertebrates. 

e 

not the problem, but a symptom of a change in an environment making it more conducive to 

bacterial overgrowth or to microbial processes that trigger a chain of environmental effects. It is

therefore likely that many different types of microbes can cause infection, given the opportunity. 

One approach is to address the larger problem with as much interest as we address the onepathogen paradigm. This includes not only addressing invertebrate symbiosis, but also water column

or introduced microbes and their responses to environmental triggers. By learning more about the 

way microbes behave in their natural environment, in relatively normal situations and with the 

ap

(i

type of analysis is labor intensive and expensive, and therefore not logistically suited for all reef

organisms. This type of analysis, however, gives a comprehensive look at what type of microbes are

present and

Misunderstanding Coral Stress and Disease 

Current coral diseases, where pathogens have been identified, range from terrestrial fungi to marine 

bacteria. This suggests that the putative causative agents of marine diseases are much more

complicated than just new invasive species. Do pathogens become pathogenic through a

programmed adaptive process, or are they made pathogenic by the circumstances in which they endup? If they become pathogenic, opportunistically or otherwise, then this suggests that bacteria ar

248
addition of particular stre can be integrated into a

arine microbial processes model for the prediction of a potential for environmental degradation by 

opportunistic microbes. 

ssors, environmental data already being gathered

m

249
Panel Discussion

Delaney: I would like to ask the four panelists to come forward please, take a seat and we will take 

me questions from the audience. 

p here in Florida in about 1991 and we brought in 

ientists from all over the world. Mark was one of the organizers of that conference and our 

aking – or were making a lot of progress with public dialogue and consensus on marine reserves, 

es, sponsored by the state agencies, the Governor’s 

ing 

onsensus and getting information on the table, and having a public dialogue about marine reserves, 

so

Gilman: My name is Sue Gilman. I am a citizen. I believe that I heard Dr. Salm say earlier today that 

diseased coral is not a problem in the part of the world where he works. Did I make that up? Is that 

correct? Is that interesting, I mean the fact that we have diseased corals and the coral there is not, is 

that interesting to science? 

Causey: I will take a first shot at that and I think Terry will remember this, Rod probably will, but it 

seems like, anecdotally, it seems that things are happening in the Indo-Pacific about a decade, maybe 

a decade and a half, behind the trends that we follow in the Atlantic/Caribbean on coral bleaching 

and the appearance of diseases. We were having mass bleaching events in 1983, 1987, and 1990, and 

yet in Australia and the Indo-West Pacific, they had not had major bleaching events. We were on the 

heels of the 1990 bleaching event and, by the way, in between each of those bleaching events we had 

outbreaks of coral diseases. We had a worksho

sc

colleagues from the Indo-West Pacific said this is a really nasty problem. It was an 

Atlantic/Caribbean problem at the time, and it was in 1992 I believe, Terry, when you had your first 

massive bleaching? 

Done: There was some in the early nineties, but the big one was 1994. 

Causey: The point being, that anecdotally, it seems like they are just starting to get some coral 

diseases showing up, and it is becoming more and more of an observation on the coral-list, and in 

the literature, that they are starting to see what we were seeing about 10-12 years ago. And if you 

look at what we saw in trends the other day, it almost seems like there is intensification spatially and 

temporally on these global impacts that we are seeing, and the corals are expressing those in diseases 

on the heels of stresses. Now, I can say that as a manager, but I don’t think Kim is going to say that 

right now without more data. 

White: David White with The Ocean Conservancy. Regarding marine reserves, we seem to be

m

with a conference back in 1996 on marine reserv

Ocean Commission meeting in 1998, the stakeholder group with the Tortugas and the consensus 

agreement on that. This stands in contrast to the current state where the chairman of the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission has said in a public hearing that marine reserves go against 

everything the Commission stands for, and that the Memorandum of Agreement between the Fish 

and Wildlife Commission and the Park Service should not consider marine reserves as part of the 

fishery management plans for Biscayne National Park. There also has been the refusal so far of the 

National Park Service to even consider reserves or put them out for public review in Biscayne 

National Park as part of a general management plan. What happened? How did we go from build

c

to a situation now where never again in the state of Florida will we even discuss marine reserves as 

part of ecosystem management in Florida state or federal waters? 
Causey: Who is that for, David? 

White: Anybody. [silence, followed by laughter from audience].

Recchia: I am pleased to be given this opportunity. Was it David – White? Was that? [laughter] 

Thank you for that question. I have to say that – I am frankly mystified by that because of course 

the Tortugas model is the one that is pointed to in Florida and around the country, and in fact, 

around the world, as a great stakeholder process. People have been saying – I have been working on 

marine protected areas for over a decade in Canada, in Australia, various sites around the world, and 

people always say that the most important ingredient for success with marine protected areas,

including reserves, is effective public process. It’s bringing the people together, putting in the 

science, the stakeholder perspective, involving everybody in the solution, which is the same thing

that Billy was saying in his presentation earlier. And I think you can always look back and criticize 

some aspect of the Tortugas, learn how to do it better, but globally it is really pointed to as one of

the first, best public processes. A similar process, in many respects, was undertaken in the Channel

Islands, and a panel of scientists was directed to come up with a recommendation for marine 

reserves in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary that would achieve two goals: conserve 

biodiversity and support sustainable fisheries. They did all kinds of studies. They assembled 

empirical data and they assembled as much data as they could get their hands on, frankly, and they 

came back with a recommendation of 30-50% and it needed to be representative and the other

things that were talked about earlier today as basic principles. There was a complete breakdown of 

process that basically started then, and led to a lack of consensus at the end. There was consensus 

among many of the stakeholders in that process, but the recreational fishing members in particular

violently objected to this kind of recommendation and distanced themselves effectively from the 

process. As a scientist, despite doing policy work now for a decade, I think I am still remarkably I. I 

think we just need to show them the data, and show them that these things work, and then

everybody will say Oh, OK. Now we just need to work together to figure out how to do it. So, I 

guess that what I am wondering is, is what we are seeing is that people know things are bad and are 

so scared that they are afraid of the camel’s nose under the tent, as one of my more colorful 

colleagues likes to say. They are afraid of the thin end of the wedge, they are afraid that groups like 

us really do want to shut down the ocean, or that if it starts it will get out of control, so we have to 

draw the line in the sand here. That’s my best guess. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I see it as 

counter-productive, at least I think that once we get an effective system of reserves in place, 

everything else will improve, including fishing. So my best guess is it is an ideologically based, feardriven reaction that comes out of misunderstanding and mistrust – the kind of mistrust that was 

discussed earlier. 

Causey: Thank you, Dr. Recchia, and if you don’t mind, I’ll just give a footnote on that. It’s the 

boring part of what happens. It’s the process, and I hate to talk process, but it is really critical, and 

that is what we learned the first time, some of our lessons learned. It’s the participation and who you

include in the process, and how you go about it. One of the bullets I had under process, and this is

where we tend to fail up front, is when we come into the room with lines already on maps, and 

we’re already starting to talk about how big, and then we come in and start asking people their 

opinions, and you immediately cut the communication. They become suspicious. They get polarized, 

and that was the lesson learned from the first time around. Up until the very last couple of meetings, 

I would not let them put lines on the maps, we wouldn’t even talk about how big, and I can tell you

what we ended up with was drawn up by the conservation community in one corner, sitting with the 

commercial fishermen, and they drew the line on that map and brought it to me, and had I spent a 

251
year trying to pick out the best place, I better job. So you can’t over-estimate

e importance of process. But what happened in California, and what my colleagues did in the 

in the Tortugas was a culmination of over a ten-year process.

hat they tried to do in California was in two to three years. And I think it takes more time to get 

ancy Klingener: This is a question for each of you, and I am afraid it is going to involve some 

s still out on the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. It’s brand new – we haven’t really 

ad enough time. It takes about 5-10 years to start evaluating that one, but I am very pleased with 

ioneering sites for that technique, so again I think that’s a good grade.

think the thing that causes my jaw to drop on a regular basis is – I am going to sound like a total 

at we’ve gotten to with the public 

important, and getting the public involved and focused on what’s been going on has been a good 

grade. Our effectiveness, I would have to give us a ‘C-‘. And I would give it a ‘C-‘ because we are 

could not have done a

th

Channel Islands was a tremendous effort to be all-inclusive. But what we have to realize, the story I 

just showed you here, what we did

W

the information in front of people, it takes more time to build the trust, and to in fact be able to

reflect that you are listening to those that are giving you the input. So it’s process, process, process, 

and of course the science was critical. 

N

severe over-simplification, but I am going to ask it anyway. If you were to give us, and by that I 

mean all of us, a grade, at how we are doing at managing and protecting this ecosystem, (a) what

grade would that be and (b) what is one suggestion you would have to improve that grade, and when

I say “manage the ecosystem” I am not meaning How is Billy doing? How is Kacky doing? Because 

as far as I’m concerned we have two of the greatest resource managers in the country managing our 

Sanctuary. I mean how are all of us doing at protecting this resource? 

Bertelsen: Well, with regard to Western Sambo, we have a very good grade there. The stated goals 

of this particular ecological reserve are being met, and in some cases exceeded, just for lobsters, for 

the fish formerly known as the jewfish [laughter], the corals and all of those sorts of things are doing 

very well. The jury i

h

what I am seeing in the Eastern and Western Sambos. 

Recchia: I guess I would give a pretty good grade, maybe a B, on getting everybody together and

really working these pretty effective and innovative inter-institutional management arrangements and 

so forth. I think the cooperative ties that have been forged among the various federal agencies and

state agencies and everyone else are impressive. Having the Sanctuary Advisory Council and having

those working groups,\ and that kind of process is impressive and a good model. I think the on-theground aspect, some things again are very good. I think a zoning approach is essential, and the 

Florida Keys was one of the p

I

broken record here – is the complete – the strength of the resistance to the concept of no-take 

reserves, which I just don’t get, and it is not unique to the U.S. It’s also seen in Canada, although

perhaps in a less formal way. And I just don’t understand that. I meant what I said in my comments

earlier, which is the easy decision is to decide we need more of them, and we have to move forward. 

Let’s get to the hard work of how we do that in a sensible, realistic and viable way. I would have to 

say, globally, I think the U.S. and the Florida Keys – the Florida Keys is a leader in the U.S., but the 

U.S. is lagging globally pretty seriously, and I would probably give a failing grade in that respect. 

Ritchie: I can only speak about what I know, and I’m a microbiologist [laughter] but as far as my

small baseline of data within the past eight months, I would give the Sanctuary down here an ‘A’ as

far as working with scientists to get data to empower them to make decisions, and that’s about all I

can say. 

Causey: Thank you, I will take that [laughter}. I would give some multiple grades. First, I think we 

have a ‘B+’ with the public here in the Keys, and the acceptance th

is

252
still having water quality problems, we’re still seeing some resources decline, although we can 

elebrate some of what’s happening in the fully protected areas, and some of the not-quite-so-fully 

overall the trend continues to be

ownward. I think we are blessed in this corner of the world with ‘A+’ group of scientists, and we 

of Reef Relief here, and Michael, I had him earlier on my list, and we have also had

ll the folks from Mote Marine Laboratory, another science education facility, and I want to say 

c

protected areas. We are seeing some positive things, but still

d

are blessed in this part of the world with an ‘A+’ group of educators that care about what’s going

on, and the room is full of them, particularly over here, today, and I think we have to give us as a 

community those positive grades – and over here [laughter] as far as educators and people that are 

involved, but definitely I think there are multiple things we have to grade ourselves on, but as far as

the resources and what we need to do, we have a lot of work. 

Delaney: Very thought-provoking question, Nancy, and can you join me in thanking our panel one 

more time. [applause]. 

Causey: That’s right – I get to do the contingent surprise. Well, it may not be a surprise. First of all, 

I want to thank all of you. This has been an incredible audience, you all need a round of applause –

let’s applaud you [applause]. I want to thank each and every one of you, and I want to thank each 

and every one of our speakers. I am not going to go through each and every one of them, but those 

that are here, please hear my heartfelt thanks for coming from Down Under, for Way Over Yonder,

to come and share with us your experiences. I also want to thank the Sanctuary team. I am blessed,

and Kacky, my partner, we are blessed with some of the best, hardest working people in public 

service, and if you will, all of you, come up here that have been here, come on, we don’t have much 

time, come on Robbie, come on Joanne, Nancy, Joanne we have something for you. [applause]. 

Heidi, where is Heidi? We’ll give these to all of you if we can. Alright, and I also want to thank our 

Sanctuary Advisory Council. We have had some members stay here during the whole time. I 

recognized them the other day, but I want to thank all of you for staying with us and listening. We 

heard a lot about the connectivity of people who work, live, and play here in the Florida Keys and

the coral reef environment of the Florida Keys. However, I want to stress over the last two-and-ahalf days the importance of re-energizing the connectivity between managers and scientists. I feel 

like I am going away with a lot more information than I came with. I feel more blessed as a result of

hearing from some experts from around the world, come and share with us. But I also want to

emphasize the connectivity that we have made in reaching others. People kept asking over the last 

couple of days Is the right audience here? Are you getting your points across, do you think? And I

want to say that I am very grateful that we have had members of the public come out, but I also

want to say that we have had the Marine Resources Development Foundation – Art, you and your

crew, thank you for bringing them down. We have had folks from SeaCamp here, we have had 

DeeVon Quirolo

a

“That’s the connectivity.” That’s where it goes exponential, when we’re taking the science and the 

management and getting it out to the public in various ways. I also want to thank the media that

have been here. We have had some reporters here taking notes and getting the stories out, I haven’t 

even had a chance to see all of them, but I just want to thank you, because that is connectivity 

between what you have been hearing and where we hope to go. Over the last two days we have 

attempted to demonstrate the connectivity, and you watched this down to the very last presentation,

from the global sense, from the very remote sense, from satellite remote sensing techniques, down 

to the on-the-water, in situ, in the water monitoring, all the way down to microbial life, and the 

focus of this is that it is all connected, and all along the way we influence it in various ways. People 

influence it one way or the other all the way down to the microbial scale. I want to also stress that it 

is going to be in each of us, the solutions are going to lie in what we do after leave here, and the 

253
messages we take home, and those we spread with our neighbors and other managers and educators, 

but it is going to be up to each of us to make a difference in the long term. From this conference 

Dr. Keller is going to be assembling a paper, a report, he has to do an annual report, and I think 

you’re looking at this as already done, right? [Brian laughs heartily, then everyone else joins in]. So he 

is going to be assembling an annual report consisting of abstracts, but the bad news, we haven’t told

anybody this, but we are going to get some abstracts and put those together, but take this in a

synthesized form and get that out to the public, and get it out to other managers and scientists. And

I really want us to thank Fiona one more time. [face-reddening applause and hooting] Thank you 

once again, and Dr. Keller, do you want to add anything? We are adjourned, and those of you that 

are joining us for lunch, it’s in front of the ballroom. 

254
Concluding Remarks 

Brian D. Keller and Fiona C. Wilmot

Was this colloquium successful at “connecting the dots” among science, people, and policy 

in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary? Do we understand the complex coral reef 

ecosystem of the Florida Keys well enough to take additional management actions beyond 

those implemented in 1997 and 2001? If not, have we identified information gaps that need

to be filled to help inform sanctuary managers? Or will we do little more than carefully 

e coral over the past 30 years (see Gardner et 

document a coral reef ecosystem on the “slippery slope to slime” (Pandolfi et al. 2005)? 

The Florida Reef Tract has lost most of its liv

al. 2003), has lost most of its grouper and snapper (e.g., Ault et al. 2005), lost most of its 

Diadema in 1983 and 1991 (Lessios et al. 1984; Forcucci 1994), loses most legal-sized spiny 

lobster each year (Cox and Hunt 2005), has lost most of its queen conch (Delgado et al.

2004), has lost most of its sea turtles, and is visited by millions of people every year (Johns et 

al. 2003). These are but some of the “shifted baselines” (Jackson et al. 2001) of the Florida 

Keys. Additional, anecdotal observations include widespread loss of crinoids (feather stars),

loss of corallimorphs from some areas, loss of ornamental fishes such as rock beauties, and

increased turbidity. Against this background of losses and changes can a marine protected 

area “turn things around” and help restore a more “naturally functioning” marine 

ecosystem? As Steven Miller showed in his plenary presentation (Shifting Baselines), we have 

a long way to go. 

Cheri Recchia (Management Tools) may have summed things up pretty well when she 

observed that the level of protection provided by the FKNMS has not, to-date, been

demonstrably effective sanctuary-wide, in part because many stressors operate on a larger 

scale than the sanctuary can manage, but perhaps also because stressors operating within the 

sanctuary are not yet adequately addressed. The factor that can be managed locally with

considerable effectiveness – overfishing and other extraction of living marine resources – is 

presently done across only 6% of the sanctuary, and approximately 90% of this high level of 

protection is in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, as discussed by Billy Causey (Management 

Tools). The rest of the fully protected zones within the FKNMS are mostly small Sanctuary 

Preservation Areas, which were designed to reduce human-use conflicts, not to protect large, 

contiguous areas of the ecosystem. 

This spatial scale of protection probably is not adequate for restoration of heavily fished

predator populations across significant areas of the Florida Keys, which is necessary to help

re-establish a key ecosystem process – trophic cascades. As Terry Done discussed in his

plenary presentation, the proportion of fully protected zoning within the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park recently increased from 4% to 33%. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force set a goal 

of no-take protection of 20% of U.S. coral reefs by 2010 (http://www.coralreef.gov/), 

which seemed a bit radical several years ago but now seems rather conservative. For 

example, the largest marine protected area established to-date worldwide, the ~ 360,000-km2

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian

Islands, will be a fully protected marine reserve in its entirety. This is an area as large as 36

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries! 

258 
In addition to considerations of the spatial scale of protection is the time frame required for 

demonstrable changes within marine protected areas. For example, increased coral 

recruitment rates recently were documented in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Trust in the 

Bahamas after 20 years of protection, associated with a net increase in herbivory by fewer,

but larger parrotfish (Mumby et al. 2006, 2007). A similar time frame appears to apply in the 

Philippines for fishery benefits of a marine reserve (Russ et al. 2004). It may be difficult to 

maintain this level of patience with marine reserves in the State of Florida, the “Fishing 

Capital of the World,” as discussed from various perspectives by the panel assembled by

Jerry Ault (Connectivity between People and Marine Fishery Resources).

The sessions on regional connections and climate change highlighted the larger-scale 

phenomena that impinge on sanctuary management actions, which necessarily occur on a 

local scale. Frank Muller-Karger and colleagues (Regional Connections) noted the wide range 

of influences the FKNMS experiences: from freshwater discharges of the Everglades, rivers 

emptying into the western and northern Gulf of Mexico, and local oceanic circulation

features to the significant impacts of the water and other materials carried from the 

Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic by the Loop Current. Local-scale physical

connectivity can bring negative influences such as blackwater phenomena (Chuanmin Hu 

and Frank Muller-Karger, Regional Connections) as well as the potentially positive effect of

retention of larvae (Libby Johns and colleagues, Regional Connections). Interestingly, we 

learned from Tracy Villareal (Regional Connections) about connectivity between the eastern 

and western Gulf of Mexico, with an artificial reef “stepping stone” of 4,000 oil production 

platforms utilized by barracuda and other organisms. 

Global climate change is exerting an unprecedented set of physical environmental influences 

and associated ecological changes that require us to re-think and modify some of our 

approaches to conservation, as outlined by Lara Hansen (Climate Change). These include 

protecting adequate and appropriate space, limiting all non-climate stresses, using adaptive

management and testing strategies now, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow the 

rate and extent of climate change. If this final recommendation is not undertaken with vigor, 

all other actions likely will be little more than “buying time.” 

It is imperative for resource managers to be aware of the influences of “externalities” such as 

regional-scale connectivities and climate change. Furthermore, it is fundamentally important 

to monitor ecosystems so that managers are aware of spatial and temporal patterns of 

variation even though we often do not understand their causes. For example, the long-term 

coral reef monitoring data set discussed by the late Carl Beaver and colleagues (Coral and 

Seagrass Habitats) shows the decline in cover of live coral in recent years based on 40 sites.

Broader-scale assessments are being conducted by Steven Miller and colleagues across 

hundreds of sites, additional coral reef and hard-bottom habitat types, and inside and outside 

of fully protected marine zones, and have highlighted the significance of patch-reef 

environments for relatively healthy and abundant coral colonies. Kim Ritchie’s research 

(Resource Conditions) is improving our understanding of the role of microbial communities

within coral mucus for the health and susceptibility to diseases of various corals. The causes 

of marine diseases may be much more complicated than just new invasive species, and

managers need the findings of this kind of research to help understand why coral 

259 
communities on patch ree re reefs. Ironically, most

research on coral reefs has and Fong 2007).

onitoring of seagrasses species and algae as an

ons.

are that queen conch cannot reproduce in nearshore waters, although 

k (Climate Change); since the colloquium, the A Reef

fs are doing so much better than on fo

focused on the fore reef (but see Lirman

M

“

is showing managers the value of these

early warning system” for signs of eutrophication. Jim Fourqurean (Coral and Seagrass

Habitats) also discussed regional variation in these signs, showing that management actions 

within the FKNMS should be relevant – possibly additional wastewater treatment in the 

lower Florida Keys beyond the advanced treatment and deep-well injection that has been 

implemented in Key West. As Steven Miller discussed (Water Quality), upwelling can be a 

major source of nutrient inputs, at least along the outer reef tract, indicating that some 

patterns of variation in nutrient availability are not amenable to management acti

Furthermore, water quality monitoring described by Joe Boyer (Water Quality) noted likely 

advection of nutrients into the FKNMS by large-scale oceanographic processes as well as

possible nitrogen fixation in shallow, nearshore environments, particularly along the Gulf of 

Mexico side of the lower Florida Keys. All these studies collectively highlight the inherent 

complexity of processes affecting nutrient availability and the difficulty of reversing the 

degraded water quality that appears to have developed over the years in the Florida Keys. As 

Stephen Frink (Human Perspectives) noted: “Water quality is a massive issue” in the Keys. It 

seems that human influences need to be managed on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico as well 

as in the Keys. 

Nevertheless, the millions of people who visit the Florida Keys each year must think the 

water is just fine, based on the remarks by Daniel Suman (Human Perspectives). They most

likely are not aw

offshore water quality favors their sex drive (Bob Glazer and Gabe Delgado, Water Quality).

Nor do they know about the recently discovered virus killing juvenile spiny lobster (Mark

Butler and colleagues, Resource Conditions) or the pressing need for restoration of Florida’s 

coral reefs (Martin Moe and Ken Nedimyer, Resource Conditions). Visitors to natural and 

artificial reefs spent 2.5 million person-days in the Keys in 2001 (Manoj Shivlani, Human 

Perspectives). “Our nearshore waters also offer a wonderful window on a fascinating marine 

environment for even the most timid adventurer” (Peter Ilchuk, Human Perspectives). 

Rod Salm’s plenary presentation provided a ray of hope to coral reef managers by describing 

ways to apply the concept of resilience to management approaches The theme of resilience 

also appeared in Terry Done’s plenary presentation about the FKNMS “sister system” in 

Australia and in Lara Hansen’s tal

Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching (Marshall and Schuttenberg 2006) has been published. In 

addition, Rod Bertelsen (Management Tools) discussed the use of acoustic telemetry to help 

guide the design of marine protected areas around patterns of utilization by animals such as 

spiny lobster. Finally, Kim Ritchie (Management Tools) highlighted the need for managers to

understand the role bacteria play in coral resistance to stress and disease, which could lead to 

new management actions in the future. 

We would like to conclude with a quote from Elliott Norse’s keynote address, which

provided a challenge to us all: “I have a sense that the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary is a microcosm of all of the problems we are facing and it will be – or it might be 

– the place where we come up with the solutions. I have a feeling that at least we have a 

fighting chance.” 

260 
References 

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, S.G. Smith, and J. Luo. 2005. Towards sustainable multispecies

fisheries in the Florida, USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bull. Mar. Sci. 76: 595-622. 

Cox, C., and J.H. Hunt. 2005. Change in size and abundance of Caribbean spiny lobsters

Panulirus argus in a marine reserve in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, USA.

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 294: 227-239. 

Delgado, G.A., C.T. Bartels, R.A. Glazer, N. J. Brown-Peterson, and K.J. McCarthy. 2004.

Translocation as a strategy to rehabilitate the queen conch (Strombus gigas) population in 

ade County, Monroe County, Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

uide to Coral Bleaching. Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Queensland, Australia. 

the Florida Keys. Fish Bull. 102: 278-288. 

Forcucci, D. 1994. Population density, recruitment and 1991 mortality event of Diadema 

antillarum in the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54: 917-928. 

Gardner, T.A., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. Watkinson. 2003. Long-term regionwide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301: 958-960. 

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. 

Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. 

Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner. 

2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 

629-638. 

Johns, G.M., V.R. Leeworthy, F.W. Bell, and M.A. Bonn. 2003. Socioeconomic Study of 

Reefs in Southeast Florida. Final Report October 19, 2001 as Revised April 18, 2003 for 

Broward County, Palm Beach County, Miami-D

Administration, Hollywood, FL. 

Lessios, H.A., D.R. Robertson, and J.D. Cubit. 1984. Spread of Diadema mass mortality 

through the Caribbean. Science 226: 335-337. 

Lirman, D., and P. Fong. 2007. Is proximity to land-based sources of coral stressors an

appropriate measure of risk to coral reefs? An example form the Florida Reef Tract. Mar. 

Pollut. Bull. 54: 779-791.

Marshall, P., and H. Schuttenberg. 2006. A Reef Manager's G

Mumby, P.J., C.P. Dahlgren, A.R. Harborne, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, D.R. Brumbaugh,

K.E. Holmes, J.M. Mendes, K. Broad, and J.N. Sanchirico. 2006. Fishing, trophic

cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 311: 98-101. 

Mumby, P.J., A.R. Harborne, J. Williams, C.V. Kappel, D.R. Brumbaugh, F. Micheli, K.E.

Holmes, C.P. Dahlgren, C.B. Paris, and P.G. Blackwell. 2007. Trophic cascade facilitates 

coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104: 8362-8367. 

Pandolfi, J.M., J.B.C. Jackson, N. Baron, R.H. Bradbury, H.M. Guzman, T.P. Hughes, C.V.

Kappel, F. Micheli, J.C. Ogden, H.P. Possingham, and E. Sala. 2005. Are U.S. coral reefs 

on the slippery slope to slime? Science 307: 1725-1726. 

Russ, G.R., A.C. Alcala, A.P. Maypa, H.P. Calumpong, and A.T. White. 2004. Marine reserve 

benefits local fisheries. Ecol Appl. 14: 597-606. 

261 
NMSP CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All 

publications are available on the National Marine Sanctuary Program website 

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). 

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-01) 

Automated, objective texture segmentation of multibeam echosounder data - Seafloor survey and substrate 

maps from James Island to Ozette Lake, Washington Outer Coast. (NMSP-07-05) 

Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 

Washington (NMSP-07-04) 

A Bioregional Classification of the Continental Shelf of Northeastern North America for Conservation 

Analysis and Planning Based on Representation (NMSP-07-03) 

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2006 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-07-02) 

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat classification of 

side scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-07-01) 

2002 - 03 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: An Ecosystem Report Card After Five 

al

backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, Olympic 

Years of Marine Zoning (NMSP-06-12) 

Habitat Mapping Effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Current Status and Future Needs 

(NMSP-06-11) 

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-010) 

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-09) 

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral Reef Restoration Baseline Monitoring Report - 2004 Florida Keys Nation

Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-08) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan sonar 

data from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01 (NMSP-06-07) 

A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef Research Only 

Area (Northern Florida Keys) (NMSP-06-06) 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam Sounding 

Data Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05) 

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments

(ONMS-06-04) 

Normalization and characterization of multibeam

Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03) 

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

262 
Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

ovement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci 

orida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry 

The ry (MSDAn a

Noi

Estu

04-3

Olym

(MS

A R

Dist

Mar

Har

M

Poey 1860) in the northern Fl

(MSD-05-4) 

Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctua

05-3) 

nnotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

se Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River 

ary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-2, MSD-

)

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

pic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, Washington

D-01-04)

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-03) 

eview of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2) 

ribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae Using the 

AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two National 

ine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program (MSD-00-

1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo opalescens) 

vest in California (MSD-99-1) 

263