U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management

Sanctuaries and

Reserves Division

Florida Keys

National

Marine

Sanctuary

Strategy for Stewardship

Final Management

Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement

 Volume II of III

Development of the

Management Plan:

Environmental

Impact Statement
Cover Photos: Marine Educator--Heather Dine, Upper Keys Regional Office; Lobster Boats--Billy Causey, Sanctuary Superintendent;

Divers--Harold Hudson, Upper Keys Regional Office; Dive Charter--Paige Gill, Upper Keys Regional Office;

Coral Restoration--Mike White, NOAA Corps.

This final management plan and environmental impact statement is dedicated to the memories of Secretary

Ron Brown and George Barley. Their dedicated work furthered the goals of the National Marine Sanctuary

Program and specifically the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

"We must continue to work together - inspired by the delight in a child's eye when a harbor seal or

a gray whale is sighted, or the wrinkled grin of a fisherman when the catch is good. We must honor

the tradition of this land's earliest caretakers who approached nature's gifts with appreciation and

deep respect. And we must keep our promise to protect nature's legacy for future generations."

- Secretary Ron Brown

 Olympic Coast dedication ceremony, July 16, 1994

"The Everglades and Florida Bay will be our legacy to our children and to our Nation."

- George Barley

 Sanctuary Advisory Council Chairperson
Florida Keys

National

Marine

Sanctuary

Final Management

Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement

Volume II

Development of the

Management Plan:

Environmental

Impact Statement

1996

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
In 1955, renowned naturalist and marine biologist Rachel Carson described

the Florida Keys this way in her book The Edge of the Sea:

"I doubt that anyone can travel the length of the Florida Keys

without having communicated to his mind a sense of the

uniqueness of this land of sky and water and scattered mangrove-covered islands. The atmosphere of the Keys is

strongly and peculiarly their own. This world of the Keys

has no counterpart elsewhere in the United States, and indeed few coasts of the Earth are like it."

This unique environment is the reason for the existence of the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary, and the reason why so many people have

contributed so much of their time and energy to making the Management

Plan as comprehensive and fair as possible.

Since 1989, numerous environmental organizations and individuals have

worked long and hard to provide input into the legislation designating the

Sanctuary and into developing the Final Management Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement (FMP/EIS). They provided useful and objective comments

at numerous workshops, Advisory Council meetings, and other public

forums held during the planning process. The contributions of each of these

individuals, and the organizations they represent, is appreciated.

The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff wish to thank everyone who

has participated in the development of this plan, especially members of the

public who gave of their time to offer objective and useful input during the

many public comment periods offered during the planning process.

Special thanks go to the members of the Sanctuary Advisory Council for

their major contribution to the planning process. Their diligent work and

sacrifice of time and expenses will be remembered as the key to the

success of developing a comprehensive management plan. With the

leadership of their chairman and vice-chairman, they navigated waters never

before charted for a National Marine Sanctuary or, for that matter, any

marine protected area in the United States. Their role was crucial in this

planning process, especially the leadership they exhibited in developing the

Sanctuary's final plan. Never before has such a comprehensive plan been

assembled by such a diverse interest group to solve complex problems in

one of the Nation’s most ecologically diverse regions.

In addition, Program staff would like to thank our local, State, and Federal

agency planning partners for their assistance during the development of this

plan. Those individuals who worked diligently for over four years on the plan

sacrificed an enormous amount of time and effort to assist in this project.

Dozens of agency scientists, managers, and planners have devoted time to

this planning process, especially during the various workshops and strategy

assessment planning sessions, extended review sessions, and deliberations

on the compact agreement. The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff is

grateful to all of you.

Also, special thanks to all of those individuals who reviewed various portions

of the document, especially sections of the Description of the Affected

Environment. Your thorough review has served to make this section an

important reference for future use.

We also extend our appreciation to the Sanctuary Volunteers and staff and

students of Indiana University who have helped assess some shipwrecks

identified in the management plan.

Particularly, the Program owes special recognition and thanks to the staff of

NOAA’s Strategic Environmental Assessments Division for their enormous

amount of time and sacrifice in assisting in the planning and development of

this plan.

Acknowledgments
 Abstract

This abstract describes the Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (FMP/EIS) for the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Congress, recognizing the degradation of this unique ecosystem due

to direct physical impacts and indirect impacts, passed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Protection Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-605) designating the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Act

requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive management plan with implementing regulations to govern the overall management of the Sanctuary and to protect

Sanctuary resources and qualities for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act also establishes the boundary of the Sanctuary, prohibits any oil drilling and exploration within the Sanctuary, prohibits

the operation of tank ships or ships greater than 50 meters in the Area to Be Avoided, and requires the

development and implementation of a water quality protection program by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the State of Florida, in conjunction with NOAA.

The Sanctuary consists of approximately 2,800 nm2 (9,500 km2) of coastal and oceanic waters, and the

submerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys, and extending westward to encompass the Dry

Tortugas, but excluding the Dry Tortugas National Park. The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is the

mean high-water mark. Within these waters are spectacular, unique, and nationally significant marine environments, including seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs. These marine

environments support rich biological communities possessing extensive conservation, recreational, commercial, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values that give this area special national

significance. These environments are the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support high

levels of biological diversity, are fragile and easily susceptible to damage from human activities, and possess

high value to human beings if properly conserved.

The economy of the Keys is dependent upon a healthy ecosystem. Approximately four million tourists visit the

Keys annually, participating primarily in water-related sports such as fishing, diving, boating, and other

ecotourism activities. In 1991, the gross earnings of the Florida Keys and Monroe County totaled $853 million,

36 percent of which came from services provided as part of the tourism industry. Another 18.7 percent of the

gross earnings came from the retail trade, which is largely supported by tourists. In 1990, half of the Keys'

population held jobs that directly or indirectly supported outdoor recreation. In addition, the commercial fishing

industry accounted for $17 million of the Keys’ economy, more than 20 percent of Florida’s total gross earnings from commercial fishing. All of these activities depend on a healthy marine environment with good water

quality.

The purpose of the proposed Management Plan is to ensure the sustainable use of the Keys' marine environment by achieving a balance between comprehensive resource protection and multiple, compatible uses of

those resources. Sanctuary resources are threatened by a variety of direct and indirect impacts. Direct

impacts include boat groundings, propeller dredging of seagrasses, and diver impacts on coral. For example,

over 30,000 acres of seagrasses have been impacted by boat propellers. Indirect impacts include marine

discharge of wastes, land-based pollution, and external sources of water quality degradation. These and other

management issues are addressed by the comprehensive Management Plan.

Volume I contains the final comprehensive Management Plan and includes the discussion of the Preferred

Alternative and socioeconomic analysis as well as 10 action plans composed of management strategies

developed with substantial input from the public, local experts, and the Sanctuary Advisory Council to address

management issues. The action plans provide an organized process for implementing management strategies, including a description of the activities required, institutions involved, staffing requirements, and an

estimate of the implementation cost. A list of the action plans in alphabetical order is as follows: 1) Channel/

Reef Marking; 2) Education and Outreach; 3) Enforcement; 4) Mooring Buoy; 5) Regulatory; 6) Research and

Monitoring; 7) Submerged Cultural Resources; 8) Volunteer; 9) Water Quality; and 10) Zoning. These action

plans include several critical activities designed to manage and protect the natural and historic resources of

the Sanctuary, including:
• Establishing water-use zones providing focused protection for 60 to 70 percent of the welldeveloped reef formations, prohibiting consumptive activities in a small portion of the Sanctuary, buffering important wildlife habitat from human disturbance, and protecting several large

reserves for species diversity replenishment, breeding areas, and genetic protection.

• Establishing Sanctuary regulations to designate nonconsumptive zones, prohibit damage to

natural resources, establish special-use permits, and restrict other activities that may negatively impact Sanctuary resources.

• Expanding and coordinating the Enforcement Program to enforce the regulations, particularly

in the zoned areas.

• Implementing an Ecological Monitoring Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the zoned areas

and the health of the Sanctuary.

• Expanding the Mooring Buoy Program to include the new zones and protect important coral

reef and seagrass habitat.

• Implementing a Channel and Reef Marking Program to protect seagrasses, coral reefs, and

mangroves in shallow-water areas.

• Implementing a Submerged Cultural Resources Plan to protect the numerous historically

important shipwrecks and other submerged cultural resources.

• Expanding the Education and Volunteer programs to reach more users and the millions of

visitors coming to the Keys each year.

Volume II describes the process used to develop the draft management alternatives and includes environmental and socioeconomic impact analyses of the alternatives used in the draft management plan and

environmental impact statement.

Volume III consists of the appendices, including the two acts that designate and implement the Sanctuary.

Lead

Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

Contact: Mr. Billy Causey, Superintendent

NOAA/Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

P.O. Box 500368

Marathon, Florida 33050

(305) 743-2437

-orMr. Edward Lindelof, Chief, Gulf and Caribbean Branch

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

1305 East-West Highway - SSMC4

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3137
 Table of Contents

Page

i

List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... ii

General Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

Description of Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8

Physical Environments .............................................................................................................. 11

Natural Resources .................................................................................................................... 26

Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................ 69

Human Activities and Uses ....................................................................................................... 75

Existing Jurisdictional Responsibilities and Institutional Arrangements .................................... 101

Development of Management Alternatives ............................................................................................ 113

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 113

Management Issues .................................................................................................................. 113

Management Strategies ............................................................................................................ 129

Management Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 132

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives ................................................................. 155

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 155

Environmental Impacts: Water Quality ...................................................................................... 156

Environmental Impacts: Habitats .............................................................................................. 162

Environmental Impacts: Species ............................................................................................... 169

Additional Activities Affecting all Themes.................................................................................. 174

Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives ........................................................................... 177

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 177

Socioeconomic Impacts: Boating .............................................................................................. 180

Socioeconomic Impacts: Fishing............................................................................................... 183

Socioeconomic Impacts: Land Use ........................................................................................... 186

Socioeconomic Impacts: Recreation ......................................................................................... 189

Socioeconomic Impacts: Water Quality .................................................................................... 191

Socioeconomic Impacts: Zoning ............................................................................................... 194

Socioeconomic Impacts: Education .......................................................................................... 195

Implementation Costs ............................................................................................................... 197

Future Considerations ............................................................................................................... 197

Selection of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................... 199

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 199

General Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 199

Basis for Selection .................................................................................................................... 201

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 212

Backmatter

References ................................................................................................................................ 215

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 237

Glossary of Technical Terms .................................................................................................... 241

Metric Conversion Table ........................................................................................................... 245
 List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. The Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys .................................................................................... 8

Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Area ..................... 11

Figure 3. Natural Hydrology................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 4. The South Florida Canal System and Water Conservation Areas ....................................... 19

Figure 5. Regional Circulation ............................................................................................................. 22

Figure 6. Nearshore Transport ............................................................................................................ 23

Figure 7. Biogeographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

and Surrounding Areas ........................................................................................................ 27

Figure 8. Profile of the Florida Keys Reef Tract .................................................................................. 50

Figure 9. Locations of Historic Lighthouses and Selected Shipwrecks ............................................... 72

Figure 10. Resident Population of Monroe County and Key West, 1870-1990 ..................................... 75

Figure 11. Planning Analysis Areas/Enumeration Districts and Census Designated Places

in the Florida Keys................................................................................................................ 77

Figure 12. Number of Workers by Employment Sector in Monroe County............................................ 79

Figure 13. Land Use by Geographic Area ............................................................................................. 81

Figure 14. Recreational Boat Registrations per 100 Persons in Monroe County, 1971-1989 ............... 85

Figure 15. Percent of Visitor Days by Outdoor Activity.......................................................................... 86

Figure 16a. Landings of Invertebrates in Monroe County, 1970-1990 ................................................... 88

Figure 16b. Landings of Finfish in Monroe County, 1970-1990 ............................................................. 88

Figure 17. Major Ports Within the Keys and Distribution of Landings by Port, 1990 ............................. 90

Figure 18. Distribution of Saltwater Product Licenses by Fishing Method, July 1989 to June 1990 ..... 91

Figure 19. Artificial Reefs in the Florida Keys........................................................................................ 92

Figure 20. Military Areas Within the Keys.............................................................................................. 94

Figure 21. Commercial Shipping Routes in the Region......................................................................... 97

Figure 22. Monthly Cruiseship Passengers in Key West Harbor, 1988-1990 ....................................... 98

Figure 23. Summary of the Management Plan Development Process.................................................. 114

Figure 24. Part 1: Strategy Identification and Description .................................................................... 131

Figure 25. Part 2: Strategy Characterization ........................................................................................ 132

Figure 26. Zoning Scheme for Alternative IV......................................................................................... 136

Figure 27. Zoning Scheme for Alternative III ......................................................................................... 137

Figure 28. Zoning Scheme for Alternative II .......................................................................................... 138

Figure 29. Environmental Impact Attributes by Theme ......................................................................... 155

ii

 List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Florida Keys Statistics...................................................................................... 8

Table 2. Existing Management Areas ................................................................................................ 9

Table 3. Chronology of Modifications to Central and South Florida Hydrology, 1882-1980s ............. 20

Table 4. Middle Keys Tidal Passes .................................................................................................... 42

Table 5. Lower Keys Tidal Passes ..................................................................................................... 42

Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction ............................. 63

Table 7. Status of Florida Keys Protected Plant Species ................................................................... 66

Table 8. Prominent Shipwrecks by Era and Integrity ......................................................................... 73

Table 9. Database Comparison of Ships Lost or Wrecked in the Keys by Century ........................... 74

Table 10. Estimated Resident and Seasonal Population, 1990 ........................................................... 76

Table 11. Functional Population by Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District, 1990-2010 ........... 78

Table 12. Submerged Area of Public Recreation Sites in the Florida Keys ......................................... 84

Table 13. Total Impact of Recreation/Tourism on the Monroe County Economy, 1990 ...................... 86

Page
 List of Tables (cont.)

Page

Table 14. Summary of Institutional Jurisdictions and Responsibilities ................................................. 102

Table 15. Dates and Locations of Scoping Meetings ........................................................................... 115

Table 16. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Workshops ........................................................... 116

Table 17. Impact Categories Used to Characterize Strategies ............................................................ 132

Table 18. Mid-Range Alternative Strategies......................................................................................... 139

Table 19. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Water Quality .............................................. 157

Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats ...................................................... 163

Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species ....................................................... 170

Table 22. Tracking of Primary Concerns .............................................................................................. 178

Table 23. Boating Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ............................................ 181

Table 24. Fishing Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives............................................. 183

Table 25. Land-use Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ......................................... 186

Table 26. Recreation Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ....................................... 189

Table 27. Water Quality Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives .................................. 192

Table 28. Zoning Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ............................................. 194

Table 29. Education Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ........................................ 196

Table 30. Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs for Implementing

Mid-Range Management Alternatives .................................................................................. 197

Table 31. Management Strategies Organized by Issue ....................................................................... 213

iii
General Introduction

1

General Introduction

This is the second of three volumes describing the

Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary. Volume I contains the selection of the

Final Preferred Alternative, which is the Final Management Plan, including 10 detailed action plans.

The Final Preferred Alternative explains the modifications to the Draft Preferred Alternative (III) based on

public comments, the FKNMSPA, the NMSA and

other considerations. Volume II describes the

Management Plan/EIS development process,

including the process for selecting the Draft Preferred Alternative that underwent a nine-month public

review. Volume III contains the appendices referenced in Volumes I and II. The Final Plan is based

on the EIS analysis in Volumes I, II, and III.

 Authority for Designation

National marine sanctuaries are routinely designated

by the Secretary of Commerce through an administrative process established by the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et

seq., as amended, including activation of candidate

sites selected from the National Marine Sanctuary

Program Site Evaluation List. Sanctuaries also have

been designated by an Act of Congress. The Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated

when the President signed the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act. Appendix A in

Volume III contains a copy of this Act.

 Terms of Statutory Designation

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the

terms of designation set forth the geographic area

included within the Sanctuary; the characteristics of

the area that give it conservation, recreational,

ecological, historical, research, educational, or

aesthetic value; and the types of activities that will be

subject to regulation by the Secretary of Commerce

to protect those characteristics. This section also

specifies that the terms of designation may be

modified only through the same procedures by which

the original designation was made. Thus, the terms

of designation serve as a charter for the Sanctuary.

 Mission and Goals of the National

 Marine Sanctuary Program

The purpose of a sanctuary is to protect resources

and their conservation, recreational, ecological,

historical, research, educational, or aesthetic values

through comprehensive long-term management.

National marine sanctuaries may be designated in

coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their

connecting waters, and submerged lands over which

the United States exercises jurisdiction consistent

with international law. They are built around distinctive natural and historical resources whose protection

and beneficial use require comprehensive planning

and management.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program through the Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD) of the Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management (OCRM).

In accordance with the NMSA, the mission of the

National Marine Sanctuary Program is to identify,

designate, and comprehensively manage marine

areas of national significance. National marine

sanctuaries are established for the public's long-term

benefit, use, and enjoyment. To meet these objectives, the following National Marine Sanctuary

Program goals have been established (15 CFR, Part

922.1(b)):

• Enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation and

ecosystem management that complements

existing regulatory authorities.

• Support, promote, and coordinate scientific

research on, and monitoring of, the sitespecific marine resources to improve management decisionmaking in national marine

sanctuaries.

• Enhance public awareness, understanding,

and the wise use of the marine environment

through public interpretive, educational, and

recreational programs.

• Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the

primary objective of resource protection,

multiple uses of national marine sanctuaries.
2

General Introduction

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is one

of a system of national marine sanctuaries that has

been established since the Program’s inception in

1972. Sanctuaries are not new to the Florida Keys;

there is a twenty year history of National Marine

Sanctuaries in the Keys.

 Background

Historical Perspective. The lure of the Florida Keys

has attracted explorers and visitors for centuries.

The clear tropical waters, bountiful resources, and

appealing natural environment were among the

many fine qualities that attracted visitors to the Keys.

However, warning signs that the Keys’ environment

and natural resources were fragile, and not infinite,

came early. In 1957, a group of conservationists and

scientists held a conference at the Everglades

National Park and discussed the demise of the coral

reef resources in the Keys at the hands of those

attracted there because of their beauty and uniqueness. This conference resulted in action that created

the world’s first underwater park, the John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in 1960. However, in just a little over a decade following the

establishment of the park, a public outcry was

sounded that cited pollution, overharvest, physical

impacts, overuse, and use conflicts as continuing to

occur in the Keys. These concerns continued to be

voiced by environmentalists and scientists alike

throughout the decade of the 1970’s and indeed, into

the 1990’s.

Other management efforts were instituted to protect

the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The Key Largo

National Marine Sanctuary was established in 1975

to protect 103 square nautical miles of coral reef

habitat stretching along the reef tract from north of

Carysfort Lighthouse to south of Molasses Reef,

offshore of the Upper Keys. In 1981, the 5.32 square

nautical mile Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary

was established to protect the very popular Looe Key

Reef located off Big Pine Key in the Lower Keys.

Throughout the 80’s, mounting threats to the health

and ecological future of the coral reef ecosystem in

the Florida Keys prompted Congress to take action

to protect this fragile natural resource. The threat of

oil drilling in the mid-to-late 1980’s off the Florida

Keys, combined with reports of deteriorating water

quality throughout the region, occurred at the same

time scientists were assessing the adverse affects of

coral bleaching, the die-off of the long-spined urchin,

loss of living coral cover on reefs, a major seagrass

die-off, declines in reef fish populations, and the

spread of coral diseases. With the reauthorization of

the National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1988,

Congress directed the Sanctuary Program to conduct

a feasibility study of possible expansion of Sanctuary

sites in the Keys. Those study sites were in the

vicinity of Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and westward from American Shoals. This endorsement for

expansion of the Sanctuary program in the Keys was

a Congressional signal that the health of the resources of the Florida Keys was of National concern.

The feasibility study was overtaken by several

natural events and ship groundings that precipitated

the designation of the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary.

Three large ships ran aground on the coral reef tract

within a brief 18 day period in the fall of 1989.

Coincidental as it may seem, it was this final physical insult to the reef that prompted Congress to take

action to protect the coral reef ecosystem of the

Florida Keys. Although most remember the ship

groundings as having triggered Congressional

action, it was in fact the cumulative events of environmental degradation, in conjunction with the

physical impacts that prompted Congressman Dante

Fascell to introduce a bill into the House of Representatives in November of 1989. Congressman

Fascell had long been an environmental supporter of

South Florida and his action was very timely. The bill

was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Bob

Graham, also known for his support of environmental

issues both in Washington, and as a Florida Governor. It was passed by Congress through bi-partisan

support and was signed. On November 16, 1990,

President George Bush signed into law the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act

(FKNMSPA) (Appendix A in Volume III).

Florida Keys Environmental Setting. The Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary extends approximately 220 miles southwest from the southern tip of

the Florida peninsula. Located adjacent to the Keys’

land mass are spectacular, unique, and nationally

significant marine environments, including seagrass

meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living

coral reefs. These support rich biological communities possessing extensive conservation, recreational,

commercial, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values that give this area

special national significance. They are the marine

equivalent of tropical rain forests, in that they support

high levels of biological diversity, are fragile and

easily susceptible to damage from human activities,

and possess high value to humans if properly

conserved.
General Introduction

3

occasion, the recklessness of ship captains, boaters,

divers, fishermen, snorkelers and beachgoers. Over

30,000 acres of seagrasses have been damaged by

boat propellers. Direct impacts to resources also

result from careless divers and snorkelers standing

on coral, improperly placed anchors, and destructive

fishing methods. In the period between 1993 and

1994, approximately 500 vessels were reported

aground in the Sanctuary. These groundings have a

cumulative effect on the resources. Over 19 acres of

coral reef habitat has been damaged or destroyed by

large ship groundings.

Indirect human impacts. The overnutrification of

nearshore waters is a documented problem in the

Sanctuary. A major source of excess nutrients is

sewage-25,000 septic tanks, 7,000 cesspools, 700

shallow injection wells, and 139 marinas harboring

over 15,000 boats. These nutrients are carried

through the region by more than 700 canals and

channels. Removing nitrogen and phosphorous from

wastewater requires a technology that, at present, is

lacking from sewage treatment facilities in the Keys.

 Management Plan Requirements

The FKNMSPA directs the Secretary of Commerce to

develop a comprehensive management plan and

implement regulations to protect Sanctuary resources. The Act requires that the plan:

• facilitate all public and private uses of the

Sanctuary consistent with the primary objective

of resource protection;

• consider temporal and geographic zoning to

ensure protection of Sanctuary resources;

• incorporate the regulations necessary to

enforce the comprehensive water quality

protection program developed under Section 8

of the FKNMSPA;

• identify needs for research, and establish a

long-term ecological monitoring program;

• identify alternative sources of funding needed

to fully implement the Plan’s provisions and

supplement appropriations authorized under

Section 10 (16 U.S.C., §1444) of the

FKNMSPA and Section 313 of the NMSA;

• ensure coordination and cooperation between

Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State,

The marine environment of the Florida Keys supports

over 6,000 species of plants, fishes, and invertebrates, including the Nation’s only coral reef that lies

adjacent to the continent, and one of the largest

seagrass communities in this hemisphere. Attracted

by this natural diversity and tropical climate, approximately four million tourists visit the Keys annually,

where they participate primarily in water-related

sports such as fishing, diving, boating, and other

activities.

Sanctuary Boundary. The Act designated 2,800

square nautical miles of coastal waters off the Florida

Keys as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

The Sanctuary boundary extends southward on the

Atlantic Ocean side of the Keys from the north

easternmost point of the Biscayne National Park

along the approximate 300-foot isobath for over 200

nautical miles to the Dry Tortugas. From there it

turns north and east, encompassing a large portion of

the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay, where it adjoins

the Everglades National Park. The landward boundary is the mean high water mark. The Key Largo and

Looe Key National Marine Sanctuaries, the State

Parks and Aquatic Preserves, and the Florida Keys

Refuges of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are

overlapped by the Sanctuary; whereas the Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, and

Dry Tortugas National Park are excluded from the

boundary of the Sanctuary.

Threats to the Environment. The deterioration of

the marine environment in the Keys is no longer a

matter of debate. There is a decline of healthy

corals, an invasion by algae into seagrass beds and

reefs, a decline in certain fisheries, an increase of

coral diseases and coral bleaching. In Florida Bay,

reduced freshwater flow has resulted in an increase

in plankton blooms, sponge and seagrass die-offs,

and fish kills.

Over four million people visit the Keys annually, 70%

of whom visit the Sanctuary. Over 80,000 people

reside in the Keys full time. Since 1965, the number

of registered private recreational vessels has increased over six times. There are significant direct

and indirect effects from the high levels of use of

Sanctuary resources resulting from residents and

tourists. The damage done by people hinders the

ability of marine life to recover from naturally occurring stresses. Human impacts can be separated into

direct and indirect impacts.

Direct human impacts. The most visible and familiar

physical damage results from the carelessness or, on
4

General Introduction

and local authorities with jurisdiction within or

adjacent to the Sanctuary;

• promote education among users of the Sanctuary about coral reef conservation and navigational safety; and

• incorporate the existing Looe Key and Key

Largo national marine sanctuaries into the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

All of these requirements have been addressed in the

Management Plan.

In addition to the above statutory objectives, the

Sanctuary Advisory Council, early on in the planning

process in 1992, developed a set of goals and

objectives for the Sanctuary that NOAA later

adopted. The goal is:

“To preserve and protect the physical and biological

components of the South Florida estuarine and

marine ecosystem to ensure its viability for the use

and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

The objectives include:

• Encouraging all agencies and institutions to

adopt an ecosystem and cooperative approach

to accomplish the following objectives, including the provision of mechanisms to address

impacts affecting Sanctuary resources but

originating outside the boundaries of the

Sanctuary;

• Providing a management system which is in

harmony with an environment whose long-term

ecological, economic, and sociological principles are understood, and which will allow

appropriate sustainable uses;

• Managing the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary for the natural diversity of healthy

species, populations, and communities;

• Reaching every single user and visitor to the

FKNMS with information appropriate to their

activities; and

• Recognizing the importance of cultural and

historical resources, and managing these

resources for reasonable, appropriate use and

enjoyment.

NOAA incorporated the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s

objectives into the Final Comprehensive Management Plan, and some progress has already been

made toward accomplishing these objectives. For

example, steps have been taken to meet the first

objective of ecosystem management. Sanctuary

Staff have been involved in the efforts of the South

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and the

Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South

Florida. These two efforts have focused on the

restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, of which

the Sanctuary is the downstream component. These

combined efforts recognize the importance of protecting and preserving the natural environment for the

sustainable use of future generations. The natural

and built environments have to be managed in

harmony to sustain the healthy environment upon

which South Florida economy is dependent.

 Overview of the Planning Process

The size of the Sanctuary and the diversity of its

users required that NOAA adopt a holistic, ecosystem-based management approach to address the

problems facing the Sanctuary. This meant using a

problem-driven focus, relying on partnerships, and

building consensus around the identification of issues

and their short- and long-term solutions.

A Comprehensive Approach. The FKNMSPA

requires NOAA to develop a comprehensive management plan. To meet this mandate, NOAA has

addressed many problems and issues, such as water

quality and land use, that are outside the "traditional"

scope of Sanctuary management. The process

involved unprecedented participation by the general

public, user groups, and Federal, State, and local

governments.

Because of the size of the Sanctuary and the variety

of resources it contains, many problems never before

encountered by Sanctuary management had to be

addressed. For example, significant declines in water

quality and habitat conditions in Florida Bay are

threatening the health of Sanctuary resources. These

conditions are thought to be the result of water

quality and quantity management in the South Florida

region. Such problems must be addressed by

management to ensure adequate protection of

Sanctuary resources. There is a need, therefore, to

explicitly include the agencies with responsibilities in

these areas in an ecosystem management approach.

Knowledge-based Consensus Building. A series

of workshops followed a set of public scoping meetings, and laid the foundation for building this Plan. At

these work sessions, NOAA used a systematic
General Introduction

5

process for obtaining relevant information from

experts with knowledge of Sanctuary problems.

NOAA recognized that a useful management plan

could not be developed and implemented without

forging working teams to help provide the vision and

knowledge necessary to accomplish the goals set

forth in the FKNMSPA. Four teams were formed to

ensure that input was provided by major Federal,

State, and local interests in the Sanctuary, and to see

that a plan was produced that met the goals and

objectives set forth by the FKNMSPA and NOAA.

There was considerable interaction, and some

overlap in membership and function, among these

teams.

• In July 1991, the Interagency Core Group,

composed of Federal, State, and local agencies with direct jurisdictional responsibility in

the Sanctuary, was formed to develop policies,

and direct and oversee the management plan

development process (Appendix B in Volume

III lists the members of this Core Group).

• Sanctuary Planners held a series of workshops, from July 1991 through January 1992,

which focused on a range of topics. The

workshop topics included mooring buoys,

education, photobathymetry, research, submerged cultural resources, and zoning.

• A Strategy Identification Work Group, composed of 49 local scientists and management

experts, generated the initial set of strategies

and details on implementation requirements.

• The Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) was

established by the FKNMSPA to ensure public

input into the Plan, and to advise and assist

NOAA in its development and implementation.

The SAC first met in February 1992 and

conducted over 30 meetings that were open to

the public (Appendix B in Volume III contains a

list of SAC members). The SAC became an

integral part of the Sanctuary planning process

by serving as a direct link to the Keys' user

communities, such as the dive industry,

environmental groups, and commercial and

recreational fishermen. In addition, the SAC

has been instrumental in helping NOAA to

formulate policy, particularly with regard to:

1) the marine zoning plan, 2) activities needing

regulation, and 3) recommending a preferred

alternative for the Management Plan.

• A NOAA team composed of the Sanctuaries

and Reserves Division, the Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, and the Office of

the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean

Services was responsible for developing and

implementing the process to produce the Draft

Plan. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

is responsible for coordinating the review and

producing the Final Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement.

Focus on Management and Action. From the

beginning of the Plan development process, it has

been recognized that management is a continuous

activity that must involve those responsible for

implementing actions. The process has made

maximum use of existing knowledge and experience

to identify, characterize, and assess alternative

management actions. Much of the planning process

was devoted to identifying short- and long-term

management actions or strategies, including their

operational requirements. These management

actions can be found in the detailed action plans

contained in this volume. These plans address

management issues ranging from channel marking,

to volunteer programs, to regulations. They provide

details on institutional needs, personnel, time requirements, and implementation costs. These details are

necessary for the decisions that will have to be made

upon Plan implementation by the managers in the

region.

Toward Integrated, Continuous Management. A

central purpose of the Management Plan is to take

the disparate threads of protection and regulation

that currently apply to the Florida Keys' ecosystem

and weave them into a fabric of integrated coastal

management (ICM). ICM is not a new idea or concept; what is new is the notion of applying it in a

comprehensive and continuous manner. ICM is a

process that begins with direct participation of

managers, planners, analysts, scientists, and a

concerned public. Developing an integrated management approach does not take place quickly; it evolves

over time, based on incremental gains that build

upon one another.

A major component of the Management Plan is the

consideration of water quality issues and problems.

The FKNMSPA called upon the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency and the State of Florida to develop

a comprehensive water quality protection program for

the Sanctuary. NOAA has incorporated this protection program into the Management Plan as the Water

Quality Action Plan found in this volume.
6

General Introduction

pose, objectives, and ground rules for the

Working Group’s public review of the draft

plan. The purpose of the Working Groups was

to broaden the public’s review of the draft plan

in order to get the best and most comprehensive review possible. An objective of the

process was to help the SAC formulate their

comments on the draft plan. The ground rules

were: that membership on the Working Groups

was open and the public was encouraged to

sign up and participate; no voting (strive for

consensus, but record both sides when split);

all suggestions were to be recorded; the

Working Group meetings were to be held in

different parts of the Keys; and Sanctuary staff

were to serve in a support role.

Each of the Working Groups held multiple

meetings in various parts of the Keys. The

public was given enormous opportunity to

provide their input on the draft plan.

• Public Hearings. There were six public hearings held on the draft plan. The hearings were

held in Miami, Key Largo, Marathon, Key West,

St. Petersburg, and Silver Spring, Maryland.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council was encouraged to attend as many of the meetings as

possible in order to help the SAC further

develop their comments on the draft plan. This

made it possible for the SAC to take full

advantage of the public’s comments in their

deliberations on the draft plan in November

and December.

As a result of the public review process, NOAA

received over 6,400 statements of public comment

on the draft management plan and environmental

impact statement. Clearly, the use of the Sanctuary

Advisory Council Working Groups assisted the

advisory council in the development of their comments on the draft plan. As a result of their review

process, the input at public hearings, and written

public comments, NOAA has been able to develop a

Final Management Plan that reflects a broad range of

public comments.

 The Environmental Impact

 Statement Process

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) requires any Federal agency proposing a

major action that significantly affects the quality of the

human environment to develop an environmental

 Overview of the Public Review Process

The Draft Management Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement for the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary was released to the public at a

Sanctuary Advisory Council meeting on April 4, 1995.

This initiated a nine month public review of the draft

plan that ended December 31, 1995. During this

review period Sanctuary staff facilitated the public’s

review of the plan in a variety of ways that were

designed to maximize the public’s full understanding

of the components and contents of the draft plan.

The nine month public review process included the

following opportunities:

• Sanctuary Advisory Council Preview. On April

4, the draft plan was released in a public

meeting. At this meeting, each of the authors of

the Action Plans contained in the Preferred

Alternative (Volume I) gave a verbal summary

of the contents of the Action Plans. This daylong, detailed preview, initiated the public’s

review of the draft plan and served to introduce

and familiarize the public with the plan.

• Info-Expos. The Sanctuary staff held two

series of three-day-long Info-Expos in April and

May of 1995 and October 1995. The InfoExpos were held in the Upper, Middle, and

Lower Keys. They were set up like a trade

show and individual tables served as information booths manned by Sanctuary staff, Sanctuary Advisory Council members, Core Group

members, and a Spanish interpreter. The InfoExpo staff passed out materials and answered

the public’s questions about the draft plan.

Each of the booths represented a specific

theme such as water quality, fishing, boating,

zoning, etc. Additionally, staff distributed

copies of the draft plan to the public if they had

not received one by mail.

• Working Groups. In June 1995, the Sanctuary

Advisory Council established 10 Working

Groups, one for each action plan, to assist in

the public review of the draft plan. The SAC

appointed a Chairperson for each of the

Working Groups and other SAC members were

encouraged to sign up to participate in the

Working Groups that they were interested in

monitoring.

In August 1995, the Sanctuary Staff gave the

Working Groups a briefing outlining the pur-
General Introduction

7

impact statement that describes both the positive and

negative impacts that may result from implementation. Accordingly, an EIS has been drafted to accompany the Management Plan, and both have gone

through a public review and comment process prior

to adoption in this Final Plan. The Draft EIS evaluated a range of reasonable alternative approaches to

Sanctuary management. These alternatives are

presented in Volume II to facilitate analysis of their

effects. The Preferred Alternative for Sanctuary

management is presented based on NOAA’s analysis

of its impacts and the public comments.

 Contents of Volume II

This volume contains the EIS for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan.

The EIS provides the problem analysis and basis for

the Final Plan to manage the Sanctuary. Volume II

consists of the following chapters: 1) Description of

the Affected Environment; 2) Development of

Management Alternatives; 3) Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives; 4) Socioeconomic Assessment of Management Alternatives; and

5) Selection of the draft Preferred Alternative. The

selection of the Final Preferred Alternative is in

Volume I. Brief descriptions of these chapters follow.

Description of the Affected Environment. This

chapter describes the Florida Keys’ ecosystem,

Sanctuary resources, and their characteristics.

Human activities and uses impacting Sanctuary

resources, such as population growth, tourism, and

fishing, are also described. This chapter also contains an overview of the existing jurisdictional responsibilities and institutional arrangement for managing

and protecting Sanctuary resources. Recognizing

and understanding the mix of institutions that regulate and manage in the region is critical to making the

most efficient use of NOAA’s resources. This

section was changed pursuant to public comment on

the Draft EIS.

Development of Management Alternatives. This

section sets forth management alternatives for

dealing with the problems identified in the planning

process. This chapter describes how those alternatives were developed in the draft MP/EIS. The

process involved identifying themes for problem

(issue) areas (e.g., boating, fishing, recreation, etc.)

and describing those issues in detail; developing

management actions (strategies) for dealing with the

problems; and building the alternatives from the

strategies. The five alternatives described in this

document provide a range of environmental protection for the complete restriction of uses (Alternative I)

to the status quo (Alternative V). Three mid-range

alternatives (II, III, and IV) are considered acceptable

because they more adequately address the requirements of the FKNMSPA and the NMSA. Accordingly,

the EIS focuses on these mid-range alternatives.

Environmental Consequences of Management

Alternatives. This chapter provides information on

the potential impacts of the proposed mid-range

alternatives on the environment. It contains a

summary of each issue (e.g., boating fishing, etc.), a

description of each environmental impact theme (i.e.,

water quality, habitats, and species), and overall

description of the environmental impacts of proposed

management actions under those themes, and

summary tables comparing environmental impacts

across the three mid-range alternatives for each

theme. The purpose of this assessment is to facilitate a reasoned decision making process for choosing the Preferred Alternative in the Draft and Final

Plan, and inform the public of the basis for proposed

actions.

Socioeconomic Assessment of Management

Alternatives. In additional to assessing the impacts

on the natural environment, the draft MP/EIS also

assesses the economic and social aspects of the

human environment. This chapter includes information on the groups and/or industries likely to be

impacted by various management strategies. It

discusses the qualitative nature of impacts that might

occur given changes in quantity and/or quality of

Sanctuary resources and their uses. It is organized

around the issues outline in the Development of

Management Alternatives chapter. Within each

issues, management strategies are evaluated across

alternatives. This section has been supplemented

by the assessment of costs and benefits conducted

pursuant to E.O. 12866 and attached in Volume III.

Selection of the Draft Preferred Alternative. This

chapter describes why Alternative III was chosen as

the Preferred Alternative, at the Draft MP/EIS stage,

including Federal, State, and local perspectives, and

provides a comparison of the alternatives by management issue (e.g., boating, fishing, etc.). This

section is supplemented by the discussion of the

Final Preferred Alternative in Volume I.

To the extent public comments suggested additional

alternatives or modifications of II, III, IV, or V, see the

discussion of the selection of the Final Preferred

Alternative in Volume I.
Description of the Affected Environment: Introduction

8

Description of the Affected Environment

 Introduction

The Keys and the Sanctuary Area. The Florida

Keys are a limestone island archipelago extending

southwest over 320 km from the southern tip of the

Florida mainland to the Dry Tortugas, 101 km west

of Key West. They are bounded on the north and

west by the relatively shallow waters of Biscayne

Bay, Barnes and Blackwater sounds, Florida Bay—

all areas of extensive mud shoals and seagrass

beds, and the Gulf of Mexico. Hawk Channel lies to

the south, between the mainland Keys and an

extensive reef tract 8 km offshore. The Straits of

Florida lie beyond the reef, separating the Keys from

Cuba and the Bahamas.

The Keys are made up of over 1,700 islands encompassing approximately 266 km2

. They are broad,

with little relief (generally less than one meter), have

a shoreline length of 2,989 km, and are inhabited

from Soldier Key to Key West. Key Largo (65 km2)

and Big Pine Key (27 km2) are the largest islands

(Monroe County, 1992).

The Keys are frequently divided into three regions:

1) the Upper Keys, north of Upper Matecumbe Key;

2) the Middle Keys, from Upper Matecumbe Key to

the Seven Mile Bridge; and 3) the Lower Keys, from

Little Duck Key to Key West (Figure 1). The cities of

Key West, Layton, and Key Colony Beach are

typically discussed separately, as they are the only

incorporated areas in the Keys (Monroe County,

1992).

The Sanctuary encompasses approximately 9,500

km2 of submerged lands and waters between the

southern tip of Key Biscayne and the Dry Tortugas

Bank (Table 1). North of Key Largo it includes

Barnes and Card sounds, and to the east and south

the oceanic boundary is the 300-foot isobath. The

Sanctuary also contains part of Florida Bay and the

Figure 1. The Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys

25°N

82°W 81°W

Lower Middle

Upper

entire Florida Reef Tract, the largest reef system in

the continental United States.

Approximately 5,500 km2 (58%) of Sanctuary waters

are under State jurisdiction, and numerous State and

Federal parks and reserves are located within the

Sanctuary's boundaries. The Key Largo and Looe

Key national marine sanctuaries will be incorporated

into the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, but

the area within Dry Tortugas National Park will be

excluded.

The Keys' Population. The Keys have both permanent and seasonal residents. In 1990 the peak

population was estimated at 134,600, including

78,000 permanent residents. The remainder were

seasonal residents and tourists/visitors. About onethird of the population was located in Key West, Key

Colony Beach, and Layton, the three incorporated

cities. There were also almost 1,400 live-aboard

vessels, accounting for over 2,500 residents.

The population of the Keys varies considerably by

season. The annual influx of residents and visitors

during the winter months causes the population to

increase by over 70 percent. Visitors staying either at

tourist facilities or with friends or relatives accounted

for approximately 37 percent of the estimated population in 1990.

Accessibility. Visitors to the Keys arrive either by

airplane, car, bus, or boat. The number of visitors is

restricted primarily by limited access, as only one

highway (US 1, the Overseas Highway) runs through

the area. This highway replaced the Keys' railroad

system, which was destroyed by the Labor Day

hurricane of 1935. Forty-two bridges along US 1

connect the area's principal islands; there are no

Name km2

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 9,515

Keys Land Areaa 266

Florida State Waters 5,526

Florida Keys Incorporated Cities 17

Source: Monroe County Working Paper 2, 1991. 

nm2

2,774

103b

1,611

6b

a. Outside of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

b. Square statute miles.

Table 1. Summary of Florida Keys Statistics
9

Description of the Affected Environment: Introduction

roads connecting the islands north of Key Largo (i.e.,

Sands, Elliott, and Old Rhodes keys).

The Upper Keys, particularly Key Largo, receive a

large number of weekend visitors. Fewer visitors

make short trips further down the Keys, but those

travelling to Key West stay for longer periods. Many

visitors also travel to the area's large public recreation sites. Approximately 1.3 million visited John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in 1990, 339,000

visited Bahia Honda State Park, and 19,400 visited

Dry Tortugas National Park (White, 1991).

Existing Management Areas. Federal, State, local,

and private organizations currently protect, preserve,

and regulate over 120 sites throughout and adjacent

to the Sanctuary, covering approximately 9,800 km2.

Some are entirely submerged, some entirely upland,

and some have both a land and water component.

Some sites serve as protective barriers, preventing

damage to sensitive environmental habitats. Others,

encompassing ecosystems that are already impacted, are protected from further degradation.

Additional protection is provided for archaeological

and historical site preservation, environmental

conservation, recreation, public access, education,

and scientific research. Many needs are served at

each site through multi-use management. Table 2

summarizes the Federal, State, and local existing

management areas within or near the Keys.

Federally Protected Areas. The Federal government

manages 96 percent of all protected areas in the

Keys, including four national wildlife refuges, three

national parks, and two national marine sanctuaries.

In the Upper Keys region, Everglades National Park,

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and the Key

Largo National Marine Sanctuary account for almost

7,000 km2. The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,

off Big Pine Key, protects about 18 km2

. The Great

White Heron and Key West national wildlife refuges

protect nearly 1,700 km2 in the Lower Keys region.

The National Key Deer Refuge is dedicated to

protecting that species alone, and almost entirely

overlaps the Great White Heron National Wildlife

Refuge. Dry Tortugas National Park contains about

261 km2 surrounded by Sanctuary waters.

State Protected Areas. Florida's Division of Recreation and Parks (FDRP) and Division of State Lands

(FDSL) maintain almost five percent (approximately

356 km2) of all protected areas in the Keys. The

FDRP protects nine sites: Bahia Honda State Park,

Long Key Recreation area, the Indian Key and Fort

Zachary Taylor areas, Lignumvitae Key and Key

Jurisdiction Area

km2 nm2

Federal 9,436 2,751

Department of Interior 9,060 2,641

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2,281 665

National Park Service 6,779 1,976

Department of Commerce 110

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 110

 Administration

State 356 104

Department of Environmental Protection 356 104

Division of Recreation and Parks 236 69

Division of State Lands 35

Local <1 <1

Monroe County Planning/Building <1 <1

 Department

City of Key West <1 <1

Other 4 1

Total Protected Areas 9,796 2,856

* National Park Service acreages are outside of FKNMS boundaries

Note: Numbers are rounded. Many areas overlap (see Figure 1), causing the totals 

 to be greater than the actual area managed.

*

Sources: National Park Service, 1989; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990;

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983, 1984; Florida Department of

Natural Resources; Monroe County Planning/Building Department.

Pers. Comm.: Chuck Olson, Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust;

Mark Robertson, Nature Conservancy; Paul R. Wick, Monroe County

Land Authority

376

376

120

Largo Hammocks state botanical sites, San Pedro

Underwater Archaeological Preserve, Windley Key

Fossil Reef State Geological Site, and John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, the nation's first

underwater State park. Each of these sites is in the

Upper Keys, except Fort Zachary Taylor and Bahia

Honda State Park, which are in the Lower Keys.

The FDSL manages three areas: Biscayne Bay/Card

Sound and Lignumvitae aquatic preserves in the

Upper Keys, and Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve in

the Lower Keys. Together with John Pennekamp

Coral Reef State Park, these four sites account for 96

percent of all areas protected by the State. The State

of Florida has also designated the Keys as an "Area

of Critical State Concern." Approximately 80 km2

have been set aside for conservation purposes by

the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Minerals

Management Service, 1990).

Locally Protected Areas. The governments of Monroe

County and the City of Key West manage 55 community parks that provide recreation and waterfront

access. Thirty-six county parks, most of which are

less than 1 km2

, provide picnic tables, ball fields,

playing equipment, and restrooms. Boat ramps have

Table 2. Existing Management Areas
Description of the Affected Environment: Introduction

10

also been built in many waterfront areas. Marathon

and Big Pine Key have the most parks in the county,

with six and seven sites, respectively (Ferris, pers.

comm.). The parks managed by the City of Key West

include two bird sanctuaries, a canoe trail, and an 18-

hole golf course.

Other Protected Areas. The Nature Conservancy,

Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust, National Audubon

Society, and Monroe County Land Authority protect

and conserve an estimated 4 km2 in the Keys, with

The Nature Conservancy and the Monroe County

Land Authority managing 88 percent of the total area

(1.5 and 2.0 km2, respectively). The South Florida

Water Management District (SFWMD) manages a

"Save Our Rivers" (SOR) property on Big Pine Key.

The Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust manages nine

areas, with the largest site (0.25 km2) on Vaca Key.

The remaining sites, four in the Lower Keys, one in

the Middle Keys, and three in the Upper Keys, are

also each smaller than 1 km2

. In addition, the National Audubon Society manages one site in the

Middle Keys that is less than 1 km2.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

11

Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Area

26°N

25°N

83°W 82°W 81°W 80°W

Key Largo Limestone

Miami Oolite

Florida Bay

Southwest

Continental

Shelf

Dry Tortugas

Middle Keys Lower Keys

Straits of

Florida

Everglades

Carbonate Sand Banks

Marquesas

Keys

Reef Tract

Upper Keys

20m

20m

20m 20m

of bays and lagoons in South Florida, while a large

reef complex flourished to the east. To the south, tidal

exchange between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of

Mexico formed a large series of cross-bedded, carbonate (oolitic) sand bars.

Sea level fluctuations attributed to glaciation are

largely responsible for the region's current morphology

(Holmes, 1981; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

During the Wisconsin Glaciation, sea level dropped

between 15 and 30 m, exposing the entire platform to

marine and subaerial erosion. Sea level rose again

approximately 6,000 years ago, flooding the area and

forming the current physiographic regions

(Hoffmeister, 1968 and 1974). Lithified remnants of the

ancient reef complex formed the Upper Keys, while the

Lower Keys were formed from the oolitic sand bars.

Florida Bay occupies the southern portion of the old

lagoonal structure.

The Sanctuary contains components of five distinct

physiographic regions: Florida Bay, the Southwest

Continental Shelf, the Florida Reef Tract, the Florida

Keys, and the Straits of Florida (Figure 2). The regions

are environmentally and lithologically unique, and

together they form the framework for the Sanctuary's

diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

 Physical Environments

The Florida Keys are located at the southern edge of

the Floridan Plateau, a large carbonate platform

composed of 7,000 m of marine sediments. The

plateau incorporates all of Florida and the adjacent

continental shelves of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic

Ocean (Minerals Management Service, 1990; Mueller,

1991). Sediments have been accumulating in the

region for 150 million years and have been structurally

modified by subsidence and sea level fluctuation

(Mueller, 1991).

The crystalline and sedimentary basement rocks of the

South Florida Basin underlie the plateau. The basin is

a block-faulted feature associated with the breakup of

North America and Africa during the Mesozoic era.

Further block-faulting during this era created the

Straits of Florida, the water body separating the

plateau from the Bahamas and Cuba (Hoffmeister,

1968; Mueller, 1991). Subsequent sea level transgressions flooded the area, initiating episodic reef building

and marine deposition. Between 100,000 and 125,000

years ago, sea level was approximately 6 m higher

than it is today. Sediments were deposited in a series
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

12

The shelf can be divided into two main morphologic

zones based on water depth and bottom structure. The

inner shelf is between 10 and 70 m deep, extending

approximately 210 km from Florida Bay. It slopes

gradually seaward at a 0.02° angle. Pulley Ridge, a 10-

km wide inactive bioherm complex, marks the inner

shelf's western edge. Sediment transport is based

primarily on tide- and wind-generated currents. Intrusions from the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current are rare

(Minerals Management Service, 1990).

The outer shelf is between 90 and 100 m deep and

slopes seaward from Pulley Ridge at an angle of 0.07°

to 1.0°. A fossilized double-reef complex marks the

outer shelf's western edge, and the southern section

contains the sediment banks that make up the

Marquesas and Dry Tortugas (Holmes, 1981; Minerals

Management Service, 1990). The outer shelf contains

numerous large sand waves, reflecting the effect of the

nearby Gulf of Mexico Loop Current.

The Florida Reef Tract. The Florida Reef Tract is an

arcuate band of living coral reefs paralleling the Keys.

The reefs are located on a narrow shelf that drops off

into the Straits of Florida. The shelf slopes seaward at

a 0.06° angle into Hawk Channel, which is several

kilometers wide and averages 15 m deep. From Hawk

Channel, the shelf slopes upward to a shallower area

containing numerous patch reefs. The outer edge is

marked by a series of bank reefs and sand banks that

are subject to open tidal exchange with the Atlantic.

The warm, clear, nutrient-deficient waters in this region

are conducive to reef development (Voss, 1988; Jaap,

1990; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

Approximately 130 km of bank reefs stretch from

Fowey Rocks to the Marquesas. One of their most

noticeable structures are seaward-facing spur-andgroove formations, constructional features formed in

part by wave energy (Shinn, 1963). Spurs are composed of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), while

grooves contain carbonate sands and reef rubble.

These features may extend 1 to 2 km off the main reef,

from depths of 1 to 10 m. Bank reefs exist in a highenergy environment and absorb the full impact of wave

action. Primary corals include Monastrea annularis (a

stony star coral), Acropora palmata; and Acropora

cervincoris (staghorn coral). The red algae Goniolithon

adds to the reef structure and exists in a symbiotic

relationship with the corals (Hoffmeister, 1974; Enos,

1977; Shinn et al, 1989; Jaap 1990; Minerals Management Service, 1990). (See the Natural Resources

section of this chapter for more detail on the reef

environment).

 Physiographic Regions

Florida Bay. Roughly triangular in shape, Florida Bay

is defined by the Everglades to the north and the Keys

to the east and south. It has an area of approximately

1,550 km2 and an average depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Its most

distinct feature is a patchwork of interconnected mud

banks composed of shelly calcareous silt, which forms

a series of oval-shaped basins 4.8 to 6.4 km long, 5.1

to 7.7 km wide, and 1.5 to 1.8 m deep (Multer, 1977;

Minerals Management Service, 1990). To the west,

these banks gradually mix with the more clastic sediments of the southwest continental shelf.

The bay has been termed an active lime-mud factory

(Stockman et al, 1967; Multer 1977), with silts and

muds composed of 90 percent calcium carbonate, with

aragonite the primary constituent mineral. Biogenic

sediments derived from a variety of marine organisms

(primarily the green algae Penicillus) (Stockman et al,

1967; Multer, 1977; Valleau, 1977; Minerals Management Service, 1990) continually accumulate.

Because of the bay's shallow depth, large seasonal

variations in temperature and salinity are common, and

abundant sediment contributes to turbidity levels. As

winter storms pass through the area, large amounts of

sediment-rich cool water are transported through the

channels between the Keys to the Florida Reef Tract.

During periods of warm, stable weather, tidal currents

can transport high-temperature water in the same

direction. This influx directly affects reef production by

changing water temperature, salinity, and turbidity

levels (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Jaap, 1990; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

Southwest Continental Shelf. In the South Florida

area, the southwest continental shelf is composed of

the southern portion of the west Florida continental

shelf and is bordered by Florida Bay to the east, the

western extension of the Keys and Florida Reef Tract

to the south, and the Florida Canyon to the west. The

shelf area is a marine environment that contains a

variety of benthic habitats dependent on substrate and

the quantity and quality of available light.

Most of the shelf's carbonate-rich surface sediments

were formed in the Holocene epoch and are continually

developing. As sediment deposition continues, the

shelf margin builds seaward (Minerals Management

Service, 1990). Continued sediment accumulation can

be attributed to both the marine erosion of existing

lithologic features and the biogenic production of

carbonate sediments from flora and fauna (Multer,

1977; Holmes, 1981).
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

13

Approximately 6,000 patch reefs lie along the Florida

Reef Tract, with over 80 percent between northern

Elliott Key and North Key Largo. They are circular to

oval in shape, 30 to 700 m in diameter, and occur in

water between 2 and 9 m deep in the low-energy

environment on the back side of the outer reefs. They

exhibit zonation based on water depth, and many have

formed on antecedent Pleistocene topography.

Grasses and other flora are not found at the reef's

fringe (primarily because of reef-dwelling herbivores),

leaving a ring of clean sand. Many are hollow due to

solution weathering by seawater.

Corals grow best in warm, clear, nutrient-deficient

waters, and their distribution within the Sanctuary

reflects the exchange of water between Florida Bay,

the southwest continental shelf, and the Atlantic

Ocean. Reefs are well-developed seaward of the

elongated Upper Keys and off the compact Lower Keys

but absent or poorly developed near the wider channels in the Middle Keys, where conditions for optimal

growth are adversely affected by water-quality variations (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Voss, 1988; Shinn et

al, 1989; Jaap, 1990).

Both patch and outer reefs maintain a balance between

physically constructive elements (including corals,

algae, and other flora) and destructive elements (e.g.,

salinity and water temperature changes, turbidity due to

weather events, exposure to air, and changes in

nutrient levels). By altering the physical characteristics

of the reef environment, human activities may further

stress an already stressed ecosystem (Jaap, 1990;

Voss, 1988).

The Florida Reef Tract is dependent on the warm

waters of the Florida Current for its survival, and

diverse hyperthermic conditions can occur when the

waters are heated during long-lasting summer doldrums. These events have been linked to coral bleaching (Voss, 1988).

The Florida Keys. The Keys extend southwest over

320 km from Biscayne Bay to the Dry Tortugas. They

do not contain the wide expanses of sandy beaches

characteristic of much of the Atlantic coast, and

beaches of any significant size and width are rare. Of

the total 50 km of beaches, most are between 4.5 and

7.5 m wide (Monroe County, 1991). The Keys can be

divided into four areas based on morphology, lithology,

and location: the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, and

the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas.

The Upper Keys extend from Soldier Key to Lower

Matecumbe Key and are composed of the Key Largo

Limestone. They are long and narrow, with their main

axis paralleling the axis of the chain. They are lowlying, with an average elevation of 1 to 2 m and a

maximum elevation of 6 m at Windley Key (Minerals

Management Service, 1990). Only a few narrow

channels connect Florida Bay with the Atlantic.

The Middle Keys extend from Lower Matecumbe Key

to the Seven Mile Bridge. Like the Upper Keys, they

are composed of the Key Largo Limestone. Although

smaller than the Upper Keys, they are similar in shape

to these islands, and have numerous wide channels

separating each island.

The Lower Keys extend from Little Duck Key to Key

West and (with the exception of Little Duck Key, the

Newfound Harbor Keys, and a portion of Big Pine Key)

are composed of the Miami Oolite. They are broad and

extremely flat, are separated by long, narrow channels,

and their long axis is perpendicular to the axis of the

chain (Minerals Management Service, 1990). To the

west lie the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas, recently

formed isolated clusters of carbonate sand shoals on

the southern edge of the southwest continental shelf.

Their continuing formation is dependent on sediments

transported to the area and the growth of surrounding

hermatypic coral reefs (Multer, 1977; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

The Key Largo Limestone. The Key Largo Limestone,

which composes the Upper and Middle Keys, was

formed by the lithification of a coral reef that developed

100,000 to 125,000 years ago. Below the surface, the

limestone extends under Miami, Florida Bay, and the

Dry Tortugas. At the surface it extends 180 km, from

Soldier Key to the Newfound Harbor Channel. The

thickness of the formation ranges from 23 to 52 m, with

fossilized corals indicating that the Upper and Middle

Keys are the remnants of patch reefs (Hoffmeister,

1968; Voss, 1988). It exhibits high porosity and permeability, both factors in the movement and retention of

groundwater and pollutant transport throughout the

Keys (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

The Miami Oolite. The Miami Oolite, which makes up

the Lower Keys, is a lithified series of oolitic sand

shoals that developed at the same time as the Key

Largo Limestone. The oolitic formation is thin over the

southern border of the Lower Keys, reaching a maximum thickness of 10 m on the northern part of Stock

Island. The channels between the Lower Keys are the

remnants of the original tidal channels that developed

in the sand shoals (Hoffmeister, 1968; Voss, 1988;

Minerals Management Service, 1990). The Miami

Oolite exhibits high porosity but low permeability (EPA,

1992).
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

14

Temperatures are also influenced by the amount of

solar radiation the area receives. The Keys are located

between the latitudes of 24° 30' and 25° 30' north, and

the sun’s rays strike the Earth at a greater angle in the

Keys than anywhere else in Florida (Winsberg, 1990).

Key West receives an average of 3,300 hours of

sunshine per year, more than any other area in the

state (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Monroe County Board

of County Commissioners, 1986).

Average temperatures show little variance over the

range of the Keys, and those in Tavernier, in the Upper

Keys, are typically within 1° C of those in Key West. At

Key West, the average annual maximum temperature

is 28° C and the average annual minimum is 23° C.

The highest normal daily maximum is 32° C, and

typically occurs in July and August. The lowest normal

daily minimum is 19° C, and typically occurs in February (White, 1991). The record high (35° C) occurred in

July 1951 and August 1957, and the record low (5° C)

occurred in January 1981 (Jordan, 1991). Temperatures below freezing have never been recorded.

Air temperature is modified by and reflects surface

conditions. Land masses heat more rapidly, reach a

higher temperature, and cool more quickly than water,

but water retains heat much longer. Compared to the

South Florida peninsula, the Keys have very little land

mass and are, therefore, constantly influenced by air

associated with the surrounding warm waters. The

inland areas on the peninsula typically experience a

greater range of temperatures than the Keys.

Similarly, humidity levels reflect the maritime environment. The mean average annual relative humidity is 75

percent, and does not vary significantly by month

(Schomer and Drew, 1982). Relative humidity also

shows only a slight diurnal variation, with the highest

humidities occurring in the early morning and the

lowest in the late afternoon (Schomer and Drew, 1982;

Jordan, 1991).

Precipitation. The Keys are the driest area in Florida,

with an average of 124.5 cm of precipitation per year

(Schomer and Drew, 1982). The highest monthly mean

rainfall, 16.5 cm, occurs in September and the lowest,

3.3 cm, occurs in March (White, 1991). This lack of

precipitation can be attributed to minimal well-established land/sea breezes and the limited number of

large-scale synoptic systems in the area (Monroe

County Board of County Commissioners, 1986; Jordan,

1991). Convection is weak and normally occurs over

open water because of the small land area. East winds

can push these storms ashore at any time (Jordan,

1991).

Straits of Florida. The Straits of Florida is a large

block-faulted basin paralleling the Keys that contains

an open-ocean, deepwater environment. Seaward of

the Florida Reef Tract, the ocean floor slopes gradually

for several kilometers to a depth of 300 m, before

dropping off sharply to an average depth of 800 m. One

of the Straits' most significant features is the Pourtales

Terrace, a well defined plateau (200 km long by 30 km

wide; 200-400 m deep) that borders the Lower Keys

(Multer, 1977; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

Currents associated with the terrace have a significant

effect on the reef tract off the Lower Keys. The Straits'

morphology is controlled by the Florida Current, which

links the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current to the Gulf

Stream. Surveys have shown evidence of erosional

and depositional structures related to sea level fluctuations. The basin slowly accumulates detrital sediments

composed of the skeletons of planktonic foraminifera

(Multer, 1977).

 Climatology

The Keys have a tropical maritime climate with moderate temperatures, and essentially two seasons: long

wet summers and mild dry winters (Schomer and Drew,

1982; Jordan, 1991). Summer lasts from May to

October and is characterized by numerous thunderstorms. Winter lasts from November to April and is

characterized by dry conditions and infrequent, fastmoving cold fronts (Schomer and Drew, 1982;

Winsberg, 1990). The climate is primarily influenced by

the warm waters of the Gulf and Atlantic and the

circulation patterns of the Florida Current and Gulf

Stream.

Weather in the Keys is directly related to the tropical

maritime air associated with the Bermuda/Azores highpressure system. Its movement, seasonal position, and

interaction with other pressure systems affect wind

direction and speed, temperature, and precipitation

(Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991). Winds are from the

east-southeast during the summer and the eastnortheast during the winter, shifting to the northwest

infrequently and for short periods during the passage of

cold fronts (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Localized

convective storms and intense low-pressure systems

(in the form of tropical storms and hurricanes) are also

integral climate components.

Temperature and Humidity. The Keys have the most

moderate temperatures in Florida. The prevailing

easterlies pass over the Gulf Stream and transport

warm air across the islands, while cold fronts reaching

the area are quickly modified by the warm waters of the

Gulf and Florida Bay (Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

15

Most rainfall occurs during the summer in the form of

locally intense convective storms. Only 18 to 33 percent

of the area's precipitation occurs during the winter, with

large-scale synoptic systems distributing small amounts

of rain over a broad area (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Precipitation peaks in June and again in late September/early October as the unstable edges of the Bermuda/Azores High become positioned over the area

(Jordan, 1991). Tropical disturbances primarily occur

between June and November and contribute a significant amount of precipitation.

Although drought can occur at any time, it is most

common in May, June, September, and October.

Drought is related to large-scale weather patterns and

is initiated by stable, stationary air masses that inhibit

convection (Winsberg, 1990). Drought conditions

decrease the supply of fresh water (Winsberg, 1990)

and stress marine ecosystems by raising water temperatures and salinity levels (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990).

 Storm Systems

Large-scale Synoptic Systems. During the winter,

large-scale, mid-latitude cyclonic systems may be

transported over the Keys by fluctuations in the winter

polar jet stream (Winsberg, 1990). These systems

occur approximately once a week, but are quickly

modified by the surrounding warm waters (Schomer

and Drew, 1982). Although they do not spread much

precipitation, they can have a significant effect on the

Keys' marine environment. Shallow areas may experience a decrease in water temperature and an increase

in turbidity, and nutrient and salinity levels also may be

affected. During the passage of an especially strong

cold front, fish and coral kills may occur, with recovery

taking several decades (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990).

Tropical Depressions and Hurricanes. South Florida

experiences more tropical depressions and hurricanes

than any other area in the United States (Schomer and

Drew, 1982). Storms normally occur between June and

November, peaking in late September/early October

(Schomer and Drew, 1982; Jordan, 1991). In Monroe

County, hurricanes have been reported as early as

August and as late as November (White, 1991).

On average, there is a 13 to 16 percent annual probability of a hurricane occurring in the Keys (Winsberg,

1990; Jordan, 1991). There were 20 hurricanes in

Monroe County between 1900 and 1990, 11 of which

were Class 3 or greater (Nuemann, 1991), and Key

West averages one hurricane every eight years

(Winsberg, 1990). The Keys are the only area in the

nation besides Texas to have experienced a Class 5

hurricane (Herbert, 1975), the Labor Day storm of

1935, which was the most violent ever to make landfall

in the United States.

With the exception of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (which

was a Class 4 on landfall), the Keys have only experienced two Class 1 hurricanes since 1966, and approximately 36 percent of Monroe County’s population has

never experienced a major hurricane (Class 3 or

greater). Residents are vulnerable, however, because

the Keys are considered more likely than any area in

the state to experience a major hurricane within the

next 20 years. Public shelters are only available for a

small percentage of the current population, and evacuation times have been estimated at between 27 and 30

hours (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Still, many residents remain unconcerned

and consider the threat of hurricanes only a minor

problem (Cross, 1980).

The topography of the Keys contributes to their vulnerability to such storms. Ninety-six percent of the area's

land mass is less than 2 m above sea level (Cross,

1980). The worst-case scenario would involve a fastmoving, powerful hurricane with extremely low pressure reaching the shore at high tide (Winsberg, 1990).

In such a case, storm waters would dome up and over

the islands in the hurricane’s path, completely inundating many areas.

Effects. Tropical depressions are reclassified as

hurricanes when maximum sustained winds exceed

120 km/h. Hurricanes are further classified according to

wind, storm surge, and pressure (Herbert, 1975).

Although winds seldom extend more than 80 km from

the eye, speeds can reach 120 to 160 km/h or more

and can exert up to 75 pounds of pressure per square

foot (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986). The Keys have experienced hurricane winds in

excess of 200 km/h several times in the last century

(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Both tropical storms and hurricanes can cause major

damage to the Keys' natural environment, with a single

storm causing changes that would normally take years

to occur. Storm waves and currents can destroy entire

ecosystems, large blocks of coral can be broken from

reefs and moved great distances, sediments can

abrade corals or bury them completely, and entire

islands can be defoliated. In addition, storm surges can

flood aquifer recharge areas with saline water and soils

can be completely eliminated (Monroe County Board of

County Commissioners, 1986; Jaap, 1990). Recovery

from such storms may take several decades (Nalvikin,

1969; Jaap, 1990).
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

16

The storm surge can be the most devastating element

of a hurricane. The height of a surge depends on water

depth, the shape of the coast that will be impacted, the

speed of the storm, the direction and strength of the

winds, and the air pressure in the eye (Winsberg,

1990). Low air pressure can cause the underlying

water to dome upward as much as 6 m (Monroe

County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Storm

waves of between 6 and 15 m may be superimposed

on the storm surge, and often contribute to damages.

Record storm surges in the Keys range from 3 to 5.5 m

above the mean tide level (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

System Dynamics. Systems affecting the Keys originate in either the western Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, or

Atlantic Ocean. Most approach the islands from the

east-southeast and are steered by adjacent pressure

systems and the jet stream (Schomer and Drew, 1982;

Jordan, 1991).

Precipitation normally associated with tropical depressions and hurricanes ranges from approximately 13 to

26 cm (Schomer and Drew, 1982), but may exceed 50

cm (Winsberg, 1990). Most precipitation is produced by

massive thunderstorms that ring the eye of the system

outward to 48 km and up to altitudes of over 12,000 m

(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986).

Thunderstorms. Most thunderstorms in the Keys

occur during the summer and are caused by convection. The Sanctuary has an average of 64 thunderstorm

days per year, with 90 percent occurring between May

and October and the greatest number in July (Schomer

and Drew, 1982; Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).

Lightning is common during these storms, and it is

estimated that any given square mile in South Florida

will be hit by 25 bolts per year (Winsberg, 1990).

Waterspouts. Waterspouts are common within the

Sanctuary, and the Lower Keys have the nation's

greatest point frequency of occurrence (Everling,

1987). Spouts are associated with areas of unstable

disturbed airflow, and may form in conjunction with the

rising currents of developing cumulus clouds. Fairweather spouts are often short-lived, have weak winds,

and occur most often around noon when solar heating

peaks (Golden, 1971; Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).

In general, waterspouts form most frequently between

May and October, with most occurring in July (Jordan,

1991). Waterspouts associated with thunderstorms,

squall lines, and hurricanes are stronger than average

and exhibit characteristics closer to those of a tornado

(Winsberg, 1990). True tornadoes are infrequent,

however, occurring only when a waterspout moves

over land (Winsberg, 1990).

 Hydrology

South Florida has serious freshwater problems that

threaten the resources of its estuaries (especially

Florida Bay) and ultimately the entire Sanctuary. During

the past century, the pattern and intensity of freshwater

flows to these estuaries have been significantly affected due to intense municipal and agricultural activities and the construction of the Central and Southern

Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes

(commonly known as the Project). The Project is a

surface-water management facility designed by the

U.S. ACOE in the 1950s to drain land, provide flood

protection, and regulate South Florida's water supply.

Through the Project, enormous volumes of freshwater

originally intended for the Everglades and its estuaries

have been drained, diverted, or stored in "conservation

areas." The resulting alteration of the natural freshwater cycle has interrupted the method and timing of

freshwater delivery through South Florida. The impacts

associated with this alteration have been studied but

are still unknown (EPA, 1992).

Historic Hydrologic Patterns (Pre-1880). Historically,

freshwater discharge to the Sanctuary was determined

by direct precipitation to its restricted basin and runoff

from the South Florida peninsula. South Florida's

effective watershed once encompassed more than

22,500 km2, extending inland to the headwaters of the

Kissimmee River basin in Central Florida. Peak precipitation and runoff in the basin between June and

October filled Lake Okeechobee, causing periodic spillover at its southern boundary. Shallow groundwater

aquifers were quickly saturated during the early summer months, promoting sheet flow (surface runoff)

through South Florida. This spill-over, confined to the

east by the southeastern Atlantic coastal ridge, was

transported south through the Everglades via Taylor

Slough and southwest through Big Cypress via the

Shark and East River sloughs (Figure 3). By late

summer, estuarine salinities were suppressed by the

freshwater pulse. As the rainy season abated, the

sheet flow of water slowed or ceased, leaving only the

sloughs filled with water. As the dry season progressed

(November through May), the area of standing water

steadily diminished (Duever et al., 1985).

Alteration of Historic Hydrologic Patterns. Beginning in the late 1800s, drainage canals were constructed in South Florida to "open up" the region's

interior to agricultural and urban development. Construction continued into the early 1900s, with approximately 708 km (440 miles) of canals completed.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

17

Figure 3. Natural Hydrology

27°N

26°N

25°N

82°W 81°W 80°W

Lake

Okeechobee

Shark River 

Slough

Taylor 

Slough

Biscayne Aquifer

Southeastern

Atlantic Coastal

Ridge

Sloughs

Coastal Ridge

Aquifer

Major Features
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

18

While this drainage system allowed an initial burst of

growth and development, hurricanes in 1927, 1928,

and 1947 caused devastation on a scale that clearly

showed that these early drainage works could not

adequately protect either Florida's present or future

residents from the natural extremes of the region's

weather and hydrology.

At the request of the State, the Federal government

directed the U.S. ACOE to construct the Central and

Southern Florida Flood Control Project, a comprehensive design for a water control system that would

provide improved control over water flows, supplies,

and levels; protection from floodwaters and saltwater

intrusion in coastal wellfields; and the ability to preserve fish and wildlife habitats. This vast project was

comprised of a network of over 1,600 km (1,000 miles)

of canals and levees, huge water storage areas, and

hundreds of pump stations and gated water control

structures. The Project was built on top of the

Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades system, with the

intent of modifying or controlling flows within the natural

system that limited or threatened human development.

The Project was built over a period of more than 20

years, with most construction completed by 1975.

Table 3 summarizes canal construction and modification through the early 1980s. While the Project was

designed and built by the ACOE, the State was responsible for operating and maintaining it. In 1949 the

Florida Legislature created the Central and South

Florida Flood Control District (FCD), a special taxing

district charged with operating and maintaining those

portions of the project not retained by the ACOE.

The Florida Water Resource Act, which was adopted in

1973, paved the way for the State's system of regional

water management by designating five water management districts whose boundaries were based on natural

hydrologic patterns. This legislation broadened the

scope of the regional water managers' responsibilities.

The FCD was reconfigured as one of the State's five

water management districts, and its boundaries were

redrawn to encompass all of the KissimmeeOkeechobee-Everglades system, from the chain of

lakes in the Kissimmee River valley south to Florida

Bay. Within the almost 47,000 square kilometers

(18,000 square miles) included in those boundaries are

more than 2,500 square kilometers (1,500 square

miles) of canals, many levees, almost 200 primary

water control structures, and over 2,000 smaller water

control structures.

In 1976, the agency's name was changed to the South

Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Since

that time, its resource management and protection

responsibilities have continued to expand. Today, the

SFWMD is responsible for operating and maintaining

the Project to provide for urban and agricultural development in coordination with flood and water supply

protection.

The Project essentially altered the distribution, flow,

and timing of much of the region's surface water.

Because of this, the SFWMD is required to maintain

predetermined, ACOE-mandated surface water levels

in the system's canals, lakes, rivers, and Water Conservation Areas (WCAs). The system is designed to

accommodate the Standard Project Flood (SPF),

defined as "that rainfall amount that occurs during a

100-year storm event, increased by 25 percent"

(Cooper and Roy, 1991). These operation schedules

are very complex, but their major pathways have been

summarized in Figure 4. At the same time, the agency

is also responsible for maintaining and protecting the

underlying natural water and land ecosystems that the

Project was built to change.

These two divergent responsibilities are often in

conflict. For example, required regulatory releases from

Lake Okeechobee may have to be channeled east or

west, toward the sensitive estuaries fed by the St.

Lucie and Caloosahatchee rivers. Today, whenever

possible, water managers channel flows south (rather

than east or west) into the New North River and Miami

canals, so they can be stored in the WCAs and kept

within the natural hydrologic system. This affords

additional opportunities for water storage and use, and

limits the amount of freshwater "lost to tide."

Still, the operation of this vast project has been associated with reduction of freshwater discharge to the

Lower Everglades, alterations in timing and volume of

inflow, and increases in downstream coastal salinities.

In the Everglades basin, the effective watershed has

been reduced to 7,800 square kilometers. In 1970,

Congress established PL91-282 in an attempt to

guarantee minimum water deliverances to Everglades

National Park (ENP) and to authorize construction of

the necessary conveyance facilities. Delivery schedules were established that required minimum monthly

discharges to three areas of ENP: Shark River Slough

(SRS), Taylor Slough, and the Park's eastern panhandle. Flows to SRS were made via S-12. The South

Dade Conveyance System was also constructed to

provide minimum deliveries to Taylor Slough and the

panhandle.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

19

Figure 4. The South Florida Canal System and Water Conservation Areas

27°N

26°N

25°N

82°W 81°W 80°W

Lake

Okeechobee

WCA 

1

WCA 

2A

WCA 

3A

WCA 

3B

Caloosahatchee

St.

Hillsboro

Canal

Canal

Lucie Canal

Canal

North

Miami

Miami

Canal

L-31N

L-31W

C-111

S-12s S-333

S-332

S-18C

S-197

Water Conservation Areas (WCA)

Major Canals

Surface Flow Direction

Major Control Gates

Major Features

WCA 2B

South Dade

Conveyance

System
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

20

Table 3. Chronology of Modifications to Central and South Florida Hydrology, 1882-1980s

Date Canal Construction Date Canal Construction

1882 Caloosahatchee Canal

1905-1913 North New River and Miami Canals

1921 Hillsboro and West Palm Beach Canals

1916-1924 St. Lucie Canal constructed (destroyed

1926 by hurricane)

1935 St. Lucie Canal reconstructed

1920s Tamiami Canal and others near Miami

1920s-late 1930s Hoover Dike levee around south and east

Lake Okeechobee

Late-1930s Saltwater intrusion to southeast Florida

coast seen as problem; intensified by

drought of 1943-45

1949 Central and Southern Florida Flood Control

District (FCD) established to control flood

waters and saltwater intrusion

1953 FCD had constructed levees along the

eastern Everglades to retain freshwater

runoff during the dry season

1960 Levees expanded to enclose WCAs 1 and 2 in

the northern Everglades

1962 Levee parallel to the Tamiami Canal partially

enclosed WCA 3

1967 Western boundary of WCA 3 completed

1967 Canal C-111 constructed as an extension of the

Atlantic Ridge to provide flood control, drainage,

and navigation benefits for the region between

Florida Bay and the Tamiami Canal

1968 Salinity barrier (S-197) constructed

1971 Kissimmee River flooding controlled; meanders

removed and 300 foot wide canal constucted in

its place; reduced river length from 100+ miles

to 52 miles; Kissimmee River renamed Canal

38.

Late-1970s to South Dade Conveyance System conveys water

south of Tamiami Canal for urban and agricultural supply and for Biscayne Aquifer recharge

Early-1980s

The Interim C-111 Plan, which includes the installation

of gates along the length of the canal, is intended to: 1)

reduce the duration of large discharge events at S-197

once associated with the removal of the earthen plug at

the end of C-111; 2) increase the frequency and

distribution of flow to the ENP panhandle by increasing

flow through gaps in C-111; 3) control the groundwater

stage near L-31N to enhance the hydroperiod of the

northeast SRS; and 4) maintain the current level of

flood protection (SFWMD, 1990). These activities will

be supported by an extensive monitoring program

designed to evaluate changes in baseline hydrology

resulting from implementation.

Relationship of Hydrology to the Sanctuary.

Changes in the volume, timing, and method of freshwater delivery to the South Florida peninsula that occurred

after the Project was constructed have been some of

the principal features associated with estuarine degradation in the Sanctuary. Normal operation of the canal

structures has been associated with reduced discharge

to ENP tributaries and a reduction in runoff to its

estuarine waters. Operation during major storm events

has historically contributed excessive freshwater to

Manatee Bay.

During the 1970s, however, it became apparent that

these minimum delivery schedules did not resolve the

problems in ENP, because minimum deliveries were

based on the calendar, rather than the region's natural

rainfall runoff response. The minimum delivery schedule also ignored both the inter- and intra-annual

variability of rainfall. In response to these problems, the

SFWMD created an alternative water management

plan based on historic rainfall distribution. This plan

was implemented in the SRS basin in 1985. That

"Rainfall Plan" is still being used. However, in the

Taylor Slough and eastern panhandle basins, the

minimum delivery schedule remained in effect until

recently.

Proposed Future Alterations. The Taylor Slough

Demonstration Project and C-111 Interim Construction

Plan are recent SFWMD plans designed to reestablish

the natural hydrology patterns in South Florida. The

Demonstration Project addresses the volume and

timing of surface-water flow through Taylor Slough. Its

objective is to improve water supply deliveries by

restoring the rainfall-runoff response that was in place

before construction of the Project (SFWMD, 1990). The

proposed plan includes added pumping capacity to

direct water from the L-31W canal directly to Taylor

Slough.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

21

Although current conditions may be attributed to

disruption of the natural surface-water patterns, exchanges with the surficial aquifer layer occur easily,

complicating the ability to isolate the relative importance of each mechanism. Recent Project modifications have sought to reestablish natural surface and

groundwater hydrologic regimes. The monitoring

program associated with the C-111 Interim Plan is

expected to improve the understanding of issues

related to South Florida's water quality and transport.

Groundwater. Because of the slight geographic relief

and pervious nature of the Key Largo Limestone and

Miami Oolite rock formations, most rainfall in the Keys

infiltrates the surficial aquifer and forms shallow

freshwater lenses. Groundwater in South Florida and

the Keys is restricted to these shallow lenses and the

deeper waters of the Floridan Aquifer (Schomer and

Drew, 1982). The size of a freshwater lense is controlled by several factors, with the lens generally

becoming thicker during the rainy season and thinner

during the dry season. Permeability of the subsurface

sediments, proximity to seawater and tidal fluctuations,

and the rate of freshwater pumpage or seepage from

these lenses are also significant (Schomer and Drew,

1982).

The Floridan Aquifer. The 259,000 km2 Floridan

aquifer underlies all of Florida and portions of Georgia,

South Carolina, and Alabama (Johnston and Bush,

1988). The aquifer's surface in South Florida is generally 150 to 300 m deep and its average thickness is

about 900 m (Meyer, 1989). It is divided into three

hydrogeologic units: 1) the upper Floridan aquifer; 2)

the middle confining unit; and 3) the lower Floridan

aquifer. The upper Floridan aquifer contains brackish

groundwater, while the lower Floridan aquifer contains

seawater. Groundwater movement in the upper aquifer

is generally toward the Keys, from the area of highest

head in central Florida, southward to the Straits of

Florida, and westward to the Gulf of Mexico. Studies

suggest saltwater upwelling occurs from the lower to

upper aquifer (Meyer, 1989).

The aquifer system in South Florida is used mainly for

subsurface storage of liquid wastes, primarily injected

treated municipal wastewater, oil field brine, and

industrial wastewater (Meyer, 1989). The impact of

groundwater on the habitats and water quality within

the Sanctuary is currently unknown.

 Hydrography

Hydrography is the study of the physical properties

affecting marine water and its movement. It determines

the extent to which water quality is affected by changes

in salinity, temperature, and circulation both in the

ocean and adjacent nearshore environments. The

Sanctuary's nearshore waters are affected by regional

circulation in the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico

and adjacent Atlantic Ocean as determined by the Loop

and Florida currents, respectively. The variability of

these boundary currents, in conjunction with local

meteorology and runoff, affects the nature of the water

and its transport into and within the Sanctuary.

Regional Currents. Circulation over the outer to

middle part of the southwest continental shelf is dominated by the Loop Current (Figure 5), which enters the

Gulf of Mexico through the Yucatan Straits and moves

in a northerly direction as far landward as the 100-m

isobath. Turning in a clockwise direction to the south, it

parallels the southwest continental shelf before shifting

to the east, just southwest of the Dry Tortugas. It then

becomes the Florida Current, meandering through the

Straits of Florida confined by the 250-m and 500-m

isobaths. It pinches landward south of the Marquesas

and is deflected seaward by the Pourtales Terrace. It

turns to the northeast near the Middle Keys, again

pinching landward near the Upper Keys and continuing

on as the Gulf Stream. Periodic changes in the locations of these currents result in the formation of circulation gyres that affect both the transport and entrainment

of Sanctuary waters.

These gyres, cold cyclonic features of various sizes

moving at speeds ranging from 2 to 20 km per day

(Vukovich, 1988), are found along the Loop Current’s

landward boundary. Off the Dry Tortugas, at the Straits

of Florida, they can grow to 100 by 200 km and can

become quasi-stationary and elongated to the southwest. They may then move easterly along the northern

boundary of the Florida Current (Lee, pers. comm.),

decreasing in size to about 50 by 100 km over the

Pourtales Terrace, before decaying near the Middle

Keys.

A significant gyre has been observed to upwell and trap

nutrients along the bank reefs near the Lower Keys.

Because of its size and sluggish movement, it may

contribute to increased phytoplankton concentrations

(Lee et al., 1992). A mean westward countercurrent,

located just seaward of the Lower Keys, has been

observed (Brooks and Niiler, 1975) and identified (Lee

et al., 1992) as part of the Dry Tortugas Gyre. Positioned over the Pourtales Terrace, this gyre may

enhance mean westerly transport within Hawk Channel.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

22

FLORIDA

Everglades 

Nat'l Park

Cape 

Sable

Biscayne Bay

Marquesas Keys

Dry Tortugas

Key W est

Florida 

Bay

Pourtales Terrace

Florida Current

Yucatan

Cuba

Bahamas

Florid

a

Loop

Current

Florida 

Current

Gulf 

Stream

Gulf of Mexico Regional Circulation

Figure 5. Regional Circulation

to the Lower Keys and enhancing exchanges between

the Gulf and the Atlantic through the Middle Keys tidal

passes. In the Lower Keys, surface waters are forced

onshore due to shoreline orientation and the rotation of

the Earth, causing an offshore movement of water at

depth.

Along the southwest continental shelf, transport

processes are complex and relatively unstudied, but

are important to exchanges throughout the Middle and

Lower Keys. Prevailing trade winds dominate most of

the region, forcing water in a westerly direction. Other

processes, however, control shelf-water movement

along the western boundary of Florida Bay and portions

of the Middle and Lower Keys backcountry. In both the

Middle and Lower Keys, net transport appears to be

north-to-south from the Gulf to the Atlantic (Smith, pers.

comm.). A weak along-shore current on the lee side of

the South Florida peninsula potentially transports the

near-coastal waters of southwest Florida toward the

Middle and Lower Keys. This effect appears to be

Near the Upper Keys, landward deflection of the

Florida Current sets up small frontal eddies (10-30 km

in diameter) just seaward of the reef tract (Lee, 1975;

Lee and Mayer, 1977). These disturbances occur once

a week on average and provide cool, nutrient-enriched

water to the reef tract through core upwelling. In

contrast to the sluggish Dry Tortugas Gyre, these

features move quickly, requiring only one to two days

to pass a fixed point. Accordingly, the Upper Keys

region is relatively well-flushed and has limited nutrientretention capacities.

Local Transport. Wind dominates the circulation and

transport landward of the regional boundary currents. A

mean westward current occurs in Hawk Channel

(Figure 6) due to the prevailing southeasterly winds

caused by the persistence of the Bermuda/Azores

High. The current is most pronounced during the spring

and summer, conveying waters from the Middle Keys
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

23

Figure 6. Nearshore Transport

Prevailing Easterlies

Florida Keys

Bank Reef

Hawk Channel

Outer Shelf

Slope

Florida

Current

Interaction

Zone

Longshore flow toward viewer

Longshore flow away from viewer

Stronger flow

within the Sanctuary include the ocean dumping of

glass, wood, aluminum, and paper and the release of

various potentially hazardous materials during commercial shipping operations. A separate, but equally

significant, concern involves the potential for a major oil

spill which could have catastrophic environmental

impacts. Although the Keys have not experienced such

a spill, since World War II, small spills from refueling

activities degrade water quality on a daily basis (EPA,

1992).

Sources of Pollutant Inputs. Pollutant sources

affecting the Sanctuary's water quality are considered

either point, nonpoint, or external.

Point Sources. Point sources are defined as those

facilities that release effluents directly to surface

waters. Significant point source dischargers include

wastewater treatment facilities, water supply treatment

plants, industrial facilities, and power plants. The Clean

Water Act requires that a Federal permit be issued

whenever pollutants are discharged into navigable

waters. There are currently 19 facilities actively discharging to Sanctuary waters, but several are planning

to eliminate these surface discharges by connecting to

an existing treatment facility. Ten domestic wastewater

treatment plants make up the largest component of this

group. The major discharger is the Key West Sewage

Treatment Plant which discharges into the Atlantic

Ocean. Two facilities are industrial dischargers, Key

enhanced during the fall, when an atmospheric high

develops over the southeastern United States, producing southward winds that persist for 5 to 10 days (Lee

et al., 1992). In the extreme, frontal passages occurring

during the winter and spring can intensify the flow over

the entire shelf region, resulting in significant fluxes

from the Gulf to the Atlantic.

 Water Quality

Preserving the Sanctuary's water quality is essential to

maintaining the richness and diversity of its varied

environments. Water quality is both a spatial and

temporal phenomenon and is affected by both natural

and human influences. Recent declines in coral recruitment, increases in the frequency and size of fish kills,

and seagrass die-offs are examples of the impacts of

declining water quality within the Sanctuary. Under

certain conditions, external sources adjacent to the

Sanctuary (such as the influences of Florida and

Biscayne bays, the Loop and Florida currents, landbased activities, and atmospheric inputs) can dominate

water quality impacts.

Types of Pollutant Inputs. Pollutants associated with

land-based sources include toxicants and nutrients.

Toxicants are mainly hydrocarbons, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals. Nutrients are derived primarily from fertilizers and wastewater, and include nitrogen and phosphorus. Other water quality concerns
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

24

West Utility and the Ocean Reef Club's desalination

unit (EPA, 1993).

Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint sources involve discharges not made directly to surface waters. They

include discharges to the groundwater and contributions from stormwater runoff. The most important

nonpoint contributor within the Sanctuary is domestic

wastewater. There are 670 injection wells in the area,

ranging in depth from 18 to 27 m which are used by

schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels/motels, trailer

parks, campgrounds, condominiums, resorts, and

shopping centers (EPA, 1992).

The majority of the domestic wastewater contributing to

the nonpoint load, however, comes from on-site

disposal systems (OSDSs). OSDSs do little to remove

nutrients, and there is reason to believe they are

responsible for a portion of the Sanctuary's nearshore

water quality degradation. In general, package plants,

which provide secondary treatment, remove four to

seven times more suspended solids and decrease

biological oxygen demand more than OSDSs.

There are approximately 30,000 septic tanks and

cesspits within the Keys as well (EPA, 1992). Cesspits

are not regulated, and discharge directly into local

groundwater without waste treatment. Septic tanks with

conventional soil absorption can provide effective

treatment, but due to the Keys' unique soil conditions

and water table elevations additional design criteria are

required. The State developed supplemental requirements in 1986 setting allowable densities and setbacks

for new development. Septic leachate from OSDS is

degrading water quality in confined waters and may be

degrading water quality in nearshore waters (EPA,

1993).

Other potential nonpoint sources within the Sanctuary

include existing and abandoned landfills, marinas/liveaboards, and stormwater runoff. Preliminary evaluations of the impacts of these sources have been

inconclusive, and additional monitoring efforts are

needed. However, site-specific examples, such as

conditions within confined waters, suggest the importance of understanding these sources in relation to

nearshore water quality degradation.

External Sources. External sources can also affect the

Sanctuary's water quality. Examples include Florida

Bay, Biscayne Bay, the region's boundary currents, and

the canal structures operated by the South Florida

Water Management District. Florida Bay has periodically experienced poor water quality due to both

physical and biotic factors affecting salinity, temperature, suspended particulates, and nutrient concentrations. Seagrass decomposition, and the associated

biologic activity, has been observed to create low

dissolved oxygen concentrations and high concentrations of suspended particulates. In addition, historical

flow modifications in both the Shark River and Taylor

sloughs have resulted in both a reduction in total flow

and a change in the delivery rate of freshwater inflow to

Florida Bay. This has, in turn, affected water temperature, salinity, and retention times (Richards, 1989). The

bay's poor water quality may also affect the reef tract, a

situation that may be enhanced during periods of windinduced transport.

Owing to alongshore transport from the north, Biscayne

Bay, another external source, may have detrimental

effects on the Biscayne National Park reef tract as well

as the Sanctuary. The bay is surrounded by numerous

potential pollutant inputs. Flows from Miami, other local

municipalities, and Metro-Dade County contribute to its

water quality conditions. The Miami River consistently

has the poorest water and sediment quality in the

Biscayne Bay area (EPA, 1992).

In addition to the influences of Florida and Biscayne

bays, external sources influence the Sanctuary's water

quality via water mass movement. The scale of this

problem is related to the region's physical oceanographic and circulation features. The Loop and Florida

currents transport most of the water from Florida's west

coast, Mississippi River outfall, contributions from

Central America and northern South America (Orinoco

Flow), and the various islands of the Caribbean.

However, due to the large dilutive effects of the ocean

environment, only the immediate waters of Florida's

west coast and the Mississippi appear to be likely

influences.

Other locally important external sources are derived

from eddies that form along the boundary currents

paralleling the shoreline. These small-scale features

can cause the periodic upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich

waters (e.g., the Pourtales Gyre that forms off Key

West).

Environmental Effects. Because they are generally

more soluble than toxicants, nutrient and organic inputs

may affect the environment over a greater spatial area.

They are deposited and retained more easily within

sediments. In addition, while toxicants affect localized

environments such as marinas, canals, and areas

surrounding industry, nutrients are more susceptible to

transport and represent a greater threat to seagrass

and coral reef communities.
Description of the Affected Environment: Physical Environments

25

Seagrass Beds. Seagrass beds and submerged

aquatic vegetation within the Sanctuary consist mainly

of turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass. In

total, the seagrass beds of South Florida, including

Florida Bay and the Florida Reef Tract, cover an

estimated 5,500 km2 (EPA, 1992). However, little

information exists on the relationship between human

uses and recent declines.

In the summer of 1987, a massive seagrass die-off

began in Florida Bay that resulted in 40 km2 of

seagrass loss (MMS, 1990) and damage to another

231 km2 (EPA, 1992). This trend has persisted at a

slower pace since 1990. Possible explanations include

a reduction in the freshwater inflow that has historically

drained to the bay and the fact that relatively few

hurricanes have affected the area over the last 20

years. These factors resulted in a condition favorable

for the invasion of Thalassia testudinum in areas

historically too fresh or variable for its colonization.

Organic accumulation due to possible nutrient enrichment and a reduction in events such as hurricanes,

which tend to cleanse the system and physically crop

the seagrasses, have allowed sustained growth and

expansion of the Thalassia beds (EPA, 1992).

While toxic effects have been blamed for the loss of

seagrass beds in nearshore and confined waters,

reductions in the quantity and quality of light reaching

the seagrasses is often considered the dominant

limiting water-quality factor. Nutrient-induced phytoplankton blooms and the enhanced growth of epiphytes that directly shade seagrasses are the primary

mechanisms affecting light quantity and quality. In

addition, nearshore and confined waters (especially in

artificial waterways and canals in developed areas)

exhibit increased organic content and reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations, further stressing

seagrass communities (EPA, 1992).

Coral Reefs. Various factors, both natural and humaninduced, affect coral reefs. Among these factors are

biological competition, predation, disease, stress from

various pollutants, algal fouling and smothering,

sedimentation, temperature extremes, salinity variations, decreases in water clarity, and physical damage.

Even minor changes in water temperature or nutrient

levels, as affected by the regional water quality surrounding the Sanctuary, can influence coral development. Extensive reefs occur where continuous barriers

(e.g., the Upper Keys) limit the intrusion of variable

Florida Bay waters that are at times incompatible with

reef development and survival (EPA, 1992).

An example of an impacted coral reef community is

Algae Reef, an octocoral community off Key Largo that

has suffered severe damage over the past two years

due to algal fouling. Evidence suggests that this fouling

is spreading to nearby Horseshoe Reef and may be

related to the leaching of nutrient-enriched groundwater. For the past three years, similar effects have been

observed during the summer months off the southeast

coast of Broward and Palm Beach counties, where

large concentrations of the green alga Codium

isthmocladum have fouled the reefs from depths of

30 m inshore to nearshore reefs (EPA, 1992).
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

26

fast-moving current serves as a zoogeographic barrier

between the fauna of Florida and other portions of the

Caribbean Province (Briggs, 1974) and parts of the

West Indian Province (which includes Cuba, the

Bahamas, and the West Indies). The current is also

responsible for the dispersion of larval fauna and flora

to the region, and it plays an important role in providing

the physical requirements necessary for coral reef

development (Smith, 1948; Jaap, 1984). Because its

source is tropical, it also moderates the Keys' winter

shelf waters (Jaap, 1984).

While numerous scientists have described the

Sanctuary's biological communities (Vaughn, 1914a;

Vaughn, 1914b; Vaughn, 1918; Voss and Voss, 1955;

Enos, 1977; Marszalek et al., 1977; Marszalek, 1981;

Odum et al., 1982; Zieman 1982; Schomer and Drew,

1982; Jaap, 1984; Minerals Management Service,

1989; Jaap and Hallock, 1990; Phillips et al., 1990),

most descriptions were regionally focused and did not

take a holistic approach in examining the region's

varied natural resources. Schomer and Drew (1982)

have made an attempt to comprehensively characterize

the ecology of the Lower Everglades, Florida Bay, and

Keys areas and to describe the complexity and interdependence of the various marine communities.

A Holistic View. Most descriptions of the marine biota

of South Florida and the Florida Keys have not emphasized the biogeographical variation and interconnection

between the area's Gulf and Atlantic regions. The Keys

act as a barrier to cross-shelf water transport from the

Gulf's shallow bays and sounds (Ginsburg and Shinn,

1964; Shinn, 1975; Enos, 1977; Jaap, 1984; Shinn et

al., 1989). These areas are influenced by seasonal

meteorological events that determine temperature,

salinity, turbidity, and oxygen concentrations. Changes

in these parameters are significant to the dispersal of

organisms between the Gulf and the Atlantic, and

winter cold fronts, summer doldrums, heavy rainfalls,

and droughts can all have a negative impact on the

establishment of tropical biota. The natural resources

of the two coastal regions are, therefore, tied together

and no discussion of the Sanctuary's biota would be

complete without examining the region in a holistic

manner.

 Natural Resources

The South Florida and Florida Keys region contains

one of North America’s most diverse assemblages of

terrestrial, estuarine, and marine fauna and flora.

Formed by significant geological, physical, and biological processes, the area is one of the most complex

ecosystems on Earth, and includes mangrove-fringed

shorelines, mangrove islands, seagrass meadows,

hardbottom habitats, thousands of patch reefs, and one

of the world's largest coral reef tracts.

 Biogeographic Overview

Peninsular Florida and the archipelago established by

the emergent Florida Keys serve as a partial biogeographic barrier between the warm-temperate waters of

the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical to subtropical

waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This division has resulted

in a distribution of marine fauna and flora characterized

as having both a warm-temperate and tropical Caribbean component.

Biogeographic Variation. Florida's Gulf coast supports a complex assemblage of biota (Tabb and

Manning, 1961 and 1962; Collard and D'Asaro, 1973;

Briggs, 1974; Lyons and Camp, 1982), with warmtemperate and tropical species mixing at various points

from north to south as they reach the limit of their

range. For example, a large number of warm-temperate species, some only common during winter months,

have been noted in northern Florida Bay (Tabb et al.,

1961). There is also a notable onshore/offshore

variation in distribution, with subtropical species found

in deeper waters (Gilbert, 1972; Smith, 1976).

While the marine fauna and flora on the northern side

of the Keys are characteristic of warm-temperate

areas, a distinct tropical biota becomes apparent in the

nearshore waters where Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic

Ocean mixing occurs. The Keys serve as a partial

barrier between the two regions, with numerous major

tidal passes separating the islands of the Lower to

Middle Keys. Although distinct species assemblages

are found on both sides of the Keys, water exchange

through these passes allows for a mixing of biota in the

area's nearshore transitional habitats.

The biota on the Atlantic side of the Keys is predominantly Caribbean in character. The region is considered

part of the Caribbean Province, and tropical waters are

supplied by the Florida Current (Briggs, 1974; Jaap,

1984). Often described as an enormous thermostat, the
27

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Figure 7. Biogeographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Surrounding Areas

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

1

2

4

1. Lower Everglades/South Florida

2. Florida Bay

3. Gulf of Mexico

4. Tidal Passes and Nearshore

5. Atlantic Ocean

Biogeographic Regions

.

26°N

82°W 80°W

5

25°N

3

west Florida continental shelf (dominated by low-relief

hard and soft coral communities and stands of the

seagrass Halophila decipiens ); 2) Florida Bay (dominated by communities of Thalassia testudinum,

Syringodium filiforme, and Halodule wrightii); 3) the

Lower Florida Keys (dominated by Thalassia,

Syringodium, and Halodule stands, hardbottom, and

patch reefs); and 4) the Tortugas/ Marquesas Reef

Banks (dominated by sand banks and coral reefs).

Four major ecological zones have also been identified

in the region as well: 1) terrestrial and freshwater

wetlands; 2) estuarine and saltwater wetlands; 3)

Florida Bay and mangrove islands; and 4) the Florida

Keys (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Although these

zones generally characterize the major ecological

components within the region, the diversity and

complexity of the Sanctuary's natural resources can be

better described using more specific biogeographic

regions. In this document, five regions (Figure 7) have

been identified to more precisely describe the aquatic

and marine biota of the Sanctuary:

1. Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida

2. Florida Bay

3. Gulf of Mexico

4. Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels

5. Atlantic Ocean

 Biogeographic Regions

Note: Within this document, major biogeographic

regions are considered to be those comprising the

marine components of the Sanctuary. However, as the

Keys' terrestrial habitats and species are also significant, a section discussing these environments has

been included after the section on the Atlantic Ocean

biogeographic region.

Visitors have traditionally viewed the Keys' marine

resources as wholly tropical, and the lack of major

coral reef structures and the seasonal appearance of

warm-temperate fauna on the Gulf side often escape

the casual observer. However, to better understand

the complexity and interactions of the natural resources within the Sanctuary, it is important to accurately characterize their distribution by biogeographic

region.

In 1989 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. used aerial

imagery and ground survey data to map 9.6 million

acres of Florida's southwest continental shelf. The

study area included the waters north of the Keys (to a

depth of 36 m, west of the Dry Tortugas) to Sanibel

Island, and ranged from the west coast of Florida to

the Gulf's 36-m depth contour. Four geomorphically

distinct subareas were identified: 1) the inner south-
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

28

26°N 82°W 80°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico

southeast of Taylor Slough. Cape Sable, the southwestern extent of the South Florida mainland, exhibits

beaches, salt marshes and prairies, mangroves, and

tropical hardwood hammocks (Craighead, 1971;

Schmidt, 1991).

Biological Components

Freshwater Wetlands. Seven terrestrial and freshwater wetland habitats (including disturbed habitats) have

been identified based on species distributions within

the inland physiographic areas of Broad River/

Lostmans River Drainage, Shark River Slough, Taylor

Slough, and Rocky Glades (South Florida Research

Center, 1980). In order of increasing hydroperiod,

these areas include: pinelands, hammocks, wet

prairies, cypress, thickets, and marshes. Disturbed

habitats occur in all hydroperiods.

Wet prairies, which occur on either side of Shark River

Slough and in Taylor Slough, make up the largest

portion of the terrestrial/freshwater zone (Olmstead et

al., 1980). They are dominated by Muhlenberghia

filipes, often associated with sawgrass (Mariscus

jamaicense) and other graminoids (Schomer and

Drew, 1982).

Sawgrass-dominated marshes are another extensive

and ecologically important habitat found mainly in the

sloughs, where the hydroperiod is the longest. Spike

rush (Eleocharis cellulosa), beak rush (Rhynchospora

tracyi), maidencane (Panicum hemitoma), and pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) are the less-dominant species found, along with low-lying pickerelweed

communities that provide important habitat for the

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)

(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

The remaining terrestrial/freshwater habitat types are

less extensive, tend to have patchy distributions, and

are found in areas of shorter hydroperiod. Pinelands

are fire-arrested climax communities dominated by

Caribbean slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa)

(Olmstead et al., 1980). Without periodic low-intensity

ground fires, pineland communities will be out-competed by hammock communities. These hammock

habitats represent the upland climax communities, are

dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana) and

strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and occur in the areas of

shortest hydroperiod.

Cypress communities occur in close association with

wet prairie habitats or in dome forests in Taylor Slough

and are dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium

Although the Lower Everglades/South Peninsular

Florida and Florida Bay regions are not within the

boundaries of the Sanctuary, their interrelationships

with the other regions and their influence on physical,

chemical, and ecological processes cannot be ignored.

Sanctuary management will require that each of these

regions be assessed, and the entire area monitored

holistically as a single ecosystem. The geographic

extent, biological components, and ecological importance of each region are described below.

 Lower Everglades/South Peninsular

 Florida

Geographic Extent

The Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida region

may be divided into distinct physiographic subunits

based on previously published literature and biological

and hydrographic factors (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Shark River Slough (the “river of grass” segment of the

Everglades) (Douglas, 1947; Gleason, 1974) and

Taylor Slough, the central components of the Florida

Bay drainage basin, are the region's major physiographic subunits (Parker et al., 1955). Rocky Glades,

a transitional area between these two broad regions, is

characterized by surficially exposed limestone, typically referred to as pinnacle rock (Davis, 1943).

Northwest of Shark River Slough lies Broad River/

Lostmans River Drainage, a slightly elevated freshwater wetland and upland area. A low salt marsh and

mangrove-dominated area of coastal swamps and

lagoons lies to the southwest, extending from the

furthest inland point of saltwater influence to the Gulf

of Mexico (Puri and Vernon, 1964) and receiving the

major portion of the runoff from the Everglades

(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

A similar coastal swamp and lagoon region, consisting

of a series of lagoons, coastal prairies, and mangrove

communities (Puri and Vernon, 1964), lies south-
29

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

distichum) (Hilsenbeck et al., 1979). Thickets are

associated with marshes and prairies, are dominated

by wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and saltbush

(Baccharis halimifolia), and provide important habitat

for wading birds and other marsh fauna.

Disturbed habitats are found with associated vegetation that is dependent on the type and intensity of

disturbance. In the privately owned areas of the east

Everglades, they most commonly occur due to intensive agricultural practices, drainage, and fires. The

exotic Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia),

cajeput or bottle brush (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and

Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) usually

colonize these disturbed lands (Schomer and Drew,

1982).

Freshwater Wetland Inhabitants. The freshwater

wetlands of the Lower Everglades/South Peninsular

Florida region support the following biota:

Invertebrates. Ecological information on the invertebrates in the region is only available for a few key

species including the crawfish (Procambrus alleni),

freshwater prawn (Paleomonetes paludosus), and

apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) (Schomer and Drew,

1982).

Fishes. Like other aquatic organisms that inhabit the

Lower Everglades, fishes have developed adaptive

mechanisms to help them survive the widely fluctuating drought and flood conditions. The South Florida

Research Center (SFRC) reported 34 species of fish,

representing 17 families, in the region (1980), the most

prevalent being the Centrarchidae (bluegill) and

Cyprinodontidae (topminnow) (Schomer and Drew,

1982).

Amphibians and Reptiles. The SFRC reported 18

species of amphibians, ranging over all habitats, and

47 species of reptiles in the Lower Everglades, including nine turtles, 10 lizards, 25 snakes, and two crocodilians. The American alligator and the Eastern indigo

snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) are listed as

threatened at the State and Federal levels respectively, while the American crocodile (Crocodylus

acutus) is on both endangered species lists.

Birds. More birds utilize the terrestrial and freshwater

habitats of the Lower Everglades than any other

wildlife group (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The SFRC

listed 221 species in the area, with 27 listed by the

Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants

and Animals (FCREPA). Four species are on the

federally endangered list, including the wood stork

(Mycteria americana). Eight are considered threatened

and nine are species of special concern, including the

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and roseate

spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja).

Mammals. The SFRC listed 28 mammal species that

utilize habitats in the Lower Everglades. Several

species ranging into the region have been identified as

rare or endangered (Layne, 1977).

Estuarine, Saltwater Wetlands, and Transitional

Habitats. Within the low salt marsh and mangrovedominated coastal areas of the southwesternmost

portions of the Florida mainland, four general habitat

zonations have been identified: mangrove forests, salt

marshes and transitional habitats, open waters, and

beach and dune habitat (limited to the shoreline of

Cape Sable) (Browder et al., 1973).

Mangrove forests are the most extensive habitat type

in the Lower Everglades, and are ecologically unique.

(Schomer and Drew, 1982; Minerals Management

Service, 1990). Accordingly, these highly productive,

tropical ecosystems merit a more detailed discussion

than the habitats previously described.

In 1974 Florida's Coastal Coordinating Council (CCC)

estimated that there were between 162,000 and

220,000 hectares of mangroves in the state, with

95,000 hectares in Monroe County. Mangrove communities are composed of an association of facultative

halophytes, adapted to anaerobic saline soils and

periodic inundation. The major factors limiting their

distribution and determining the extent of the ecosystem are climate, salinity, tidal fluctuation, and substrate

(Odum et al., 1982).

Mangroves are a tropical species and do not require

saltwater for survival. However, the presence of

saltwater gives them a competitive advantage over

less tolerant species. Tidal flow is not critical, but does

benefit mangroves through nutrient import/export, the

prevention of excessive soil salt loading, and

propagule dispersion. In addition, mangroves grow

best in low-energy environments that promote

propagule establishment, do not stress the root

system, and allow for sediment and peat accumulation

(Odum et al., 1982).

The red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove

(Laguncularia erectus) are the three “true” species

found in South Florida (Tomlinson, 1986). Red mangroves have prop roots and viviparous cigar-shaped

seedlings, while black mangroves have a
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

30

pneumataphore root system and gray-green leaves,

the undersides of which are encrusted with excreted

salt. White mangroves have rounded leaves, with a

pair of salt glands on each petiole. Buttonwood

(Conocarpus erectus), an associated species occurring with mangroves, is found in transitional wetland

areas between mangrove and upland areas.

A mangrove classification system has been developed

that identifies six major forest types based on geological and hydrological processes: riverine, overwash,

fringe, basin, dwarf, and hammock (Lugo and

Snedaker, 1974). Riverine forests do not occur in

southeast Florida due to a lack of freshwater rivers

and the associated floodplains (Davis, 1943; Minerals

Management Service, 1990). They do occur along

creeks and rivers in southwest Florida, however,

where red mangroves dominate and productivity due

to nutrient import/export from daily tidal flushing is high

(Odum et al., 1982).

Overwash and fringe forests are similar in that they

both occur along shorelines inundated by high tides,

dominated by red mangroves, and exposed to open

water. While tidal flow follows the same directional

path along the fringe forest, resulting in sediment and

litter accumulation, tidal waters pass completely

through the overwash community at high tide, producing high nutrient-export rates and low sediment

accumulation.

Basin forests mainly occur inland along drainage

depressions, where upland runoff is channeled to the

coast and inundation occurs at only the highest of high

tides (Odum et al., 1982). All three mangrove species

are found in basin forests, but red mangroves dominate where the tidal influence is strongest. Dominance

shifts to black and then white mangroves as tidal

influence decreases. Hammock forests are similar to

basin communities, but occur in slightly elevated areas

where all species of mangroves may be present

(Odum et al., 1982).

Dwarf forests have small mangrove trees that lack the

canopy height and high productivity of other forest

types due to seasonal inundation and flushing. Dwarfism is a function of shallow soil depth and low nutrient

levels (Kruer, pers. comm.).

Salt prairies in the northern part of the region, inland of

the mean influence of saline conditions, are transitional areas between mangrove communities and salt

or freshwater marshes (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Along northern Florida Bay, these areas are often

interspersed with basin-type mangroves and are

dominated by saltwort (Batis maritma) and glasswort

(Salicornia virginica).

Salt marshes dominated by Spartina spp. or Juncus

spp. are generally found between estuarine openwater areas upland of salt prairies, in association with

black mangroves (Craighead, 1971). In the Lower

Everglades, they are found along the interior areas of

the Buttonwood levee, Cape Sable, and some larger

mangrove islands (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The

buttonwood transitional habitats are found between

salt marsh areas and the upland hardwood hammocks

of lower Taylor Slough (Hilsenbeck et al., 1979).

In addition, various algal forms are present in South

Florida's inland bays and lagoons, depending on the

salinity levels in these areas. During winter months,

when low-salinity conditions (0-10 ppt) are prevalent,

Chara hornemani and Bataphora oerstedi form their

greatest areal coverage in Coot and Whitewater bays,

with widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) also reaching

maximum density (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Other

algal species, including Acetabularia crenulata,

Caulerpa verticillata, and Udotea wilsoni, dominate the

open-water areas during periods of intermediate- to

high-saline conditions. The red algae Dasya

pedicellata and Gracilaria confervoides are observed

when salinities are greater than 20-25 ppt (Tabb et al.,

1962).

Estuarine, Saltwater Wetlands, and Transitional

Habitats Inhabitants. Due to the widely fluctuating

drought and flood conditions of inland Everglades

areas, many organisms have developed adaptive

mechanisms, such as burrowing or moving with the

water to receding pools, to survive (Schomer and

Drew, 1982).

Invertebrates. Large information gaps exist on the

invertebrates of the salt marsh, salt prairie, and beach

and dune communities (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Invertebrates of the estuarine and saltwater zone have

been studied more extensively than those of the

freshwater zone. Odum et al. (1982) divided invertebrates into three communities: 1) arboreal arthropod;

2) prop root and associated mud surface; and 3) water

column.

The arboreal community is composed of insects,

molluscs, and crustaceans, with the mangrove tree

crab (Aratus pisonii) an important ecological component (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The prop root and

associated mud surface community is made up of

barnacles, mussels, oysters, coffee snails, and ascidians (Odum et al., 1982). Various species of zooplank-
31

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

ton (the most abundant being Acartia tonsa), prawns,

mysids, mussels, oysters, ostracods, ivory barnacles

(Balanus eburneus), and the pink shrimp (Penaeus

duorarum duorarum) are also found in the water

column.

Fishes. Mangrove-related fish communities can be

organized along various environmental gradients

including salinity, mangrove detritus dependence, and

substrate (Odum et al., 1982). The sheltered backwater pools of the black mangrove basin forest community are harsh environments inhabited by killifishes

(Cyprinodonts) and live bearers (Poeciliids)

(McPherson, 1971; Odum et al., 1982).

Riverine forest fish communities oscillate seasonally

due to a number of factors. During freshwater flooding,

Everglades marsh and slough species such as Florida

gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus), sunfish (Enneacanthus

gloriosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),

and catfish (Hypostomus spp.) are present. As the

flooding subsides, the freshwater species move

upstream and marine species such as stingray

(Dasyatis spp.), needlefish, and jacks become prevalent (Odum et al., 1982).

There are large numbers of relatively few species in

communities fringing estuarine bays, with Clark (1971)

reporting silver jenny (Eucinostomus gula) and pinfish

(Lagodon rhomboides) making up over half the total

catch in Whitewater Bay. This community can be

divided into a benthic habitat dominated by drums

(Sciaenidae), mojarras (Gerreidae), and snappers

(Lutjanidae) and a mid- to upper-water column habitat

dominated by anchovies, herrings, and needlefishes

(Odum et al., 1982).

Amphibians and Reptiles. Twenty-four species of

amphibians and reptiles have been identified in

mangrove and other upland habitats (Odum et al.,

1982). Of these, five are considered federally endangered: the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas

mydas), Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricta

imbricata ), Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempii),

Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta ) and the

American crocodile. The Eastern indigo snake is

considered threatened.

Birds. Odum et al. (1982) listed 181 birds that utilize

the South Florida mangrove zone, and classified them

into six categories based on feeding habits: wading

birds, probing shorebirds, floating and diving water

birds, aerially searching birds, birds of prey, and

arboreal birds. Wading, aerially searching, and floating

and diving birds are the most prominent. The tricolored

heron (Louisiana heron) (Egretta tricolor) and snowy

egret (Egretta thula) are the most abundant wading

birds, while the white ibis (Eudocimus albus) and wood

stork are found less frequently (Kushlan, 1979;

Schomer and Drew, 1982). The double-crested

cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) is the most prominent floating and diving bird.

Of the 25 probing shorebird species, only two, the

Wilson's plover and willet, are permanent residents of

the mangrove zone. Most of the surface and diving

birds are present all year (Odum et al., 1982). Nesting

colonies of aerially searching birds are restricted to the

mangrove islands of Florida Bay, but utilize the inland

mangrove zone for foraging.

Eighteen species of birds of prey are found in the

mangrove and upland habitats, but only seven extensively utilize the mangrove habitat for feeding. Odum

et al. (1982) listed 71 species of arboreal birds that

nest and feed within the study area. Kale (1978) listed

40 species of birds considered endangered, threatened, rare, of special concern, or of undetermined

status.

Mammals. Twenty species of mammals have been

identified in the mangrove zone (Odum et al., 1982).

Of these, the mangrove fox squirrel (Sciurus niger

avicennia) and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus

manatus ) are endangered.

Ecological Importance

The quality, distribution, quantity and timing of freshwater passing through the Everglades influences the

area's capability to support its distinctive fish and

wildlife resources (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The

freshwater, estuarine, and saltwater wetlands of the

Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida region

provide a variety of habitat features that encourage a

complex mixture of invertebrates, fishes, amphibians,

reptiles, birds, and mammals. In addition, the area's

diverse wetland and successional communities

provide food, shelter, and nesting sites for many

resident and migratory organisms.

The communities in the region not only affect the local

ecosystem, but ecosystems elsewhere through the

species they support. For example, Robertson and

Kushlan (1974) reported that 60 percent of the birds

regularly seen in South Florida are winter or migratory

species. In addition, mangrove leaf litter provides the

basis for the detrital food web and is utilized by many

organisms outside the immediate community (Odum et

al., 1982).
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

32

prevalent, but most abundant by mass. The algae

Penicillus produces much of the lime mud that builds

the islands (Stockman et al., 1967).

Seagrass. Primary production in Florida Bay's carbonate-sediment environment is dominated by 1,860 km2

of benthic vascular plants that are probably the most

productive photoautotrophic communities in South

Florida (Zieman, 1982; Zieman et al., 1989; Zieman,

1990).

Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) is the dominant

submerged macrophyte in both areal extent and

biomass. It produces extensive root and rhizome

systems and appears to be phosphorus-limited and

nitrogen-saturated (Fourqurean et al., 1992). Manatee

grass (Syringodium filiforme) and shoal grass

(Halodule wrightii) are found where conditions prevent

dense turtle grass growth. Manatee grass is prevalent

in deep channels on the outer fringes of Florida Bay,

while shoal grass is common in shallow waters on

banks or adjacent to mangrove islands. Widgeon

grass (Ruppia maritima) is less common, and is found

in Florida Bay from freshwater to salinities of 60 ppt. In

addition, small-grass species Halophila decipiens, H.

engelmannii, and H. johnsonii are sparsely distributed

throughout the bay (MMS, 1990).

In 1987 a major seagrass die-off, almost exclusively

affecting extremely dense areas of turtle grass, began

in the bay. By November 1988 approximately 2,000

hectares were eliminated and 5,900 acres were

severely impacted (Minerals Management Service,

1989). Hypotheses proposed to account for this

phenomenon include pathogens, eutrophication,

abnormally high temperatures and salinities, and

disease (Minerals Management Service, 1989; Zieman

et al., 1989). (For a further discussion of the seagrass

community, see the Gulf of Mexico biogeographic

region section.)

Mangrove Islands. Some islands in Florida Bay are

comprised entirely of mangrove communities, and

exhibit the characteristics of overwash mangrove

forests (Enos, 1989) as classified by Lugo and

Snedaker (1974). Most islands are fringed by red

mangroves, which form a narrow outer border of taller

trees at the periphery and exhibit the characteristics of

the fringe mangrove forest. A broader zone of black

mangroves generally dominates inside the red mangrove fringe, with larger islands containing areas that

are open, free of trees, and covered by mats of bluegreen algae. A small proportion of islands is partially

covered by beach cord grass (Spartina spp.), and

palm or hardwood hammocks mixed with buttonwood

are found at higher elevations.

 Florida Bay

Geographic Extent

Shallow and triangular in shape, Florida Bay is

bounded to the north by the freshwater-dominated

Everglades (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Fourqurean,

1992). The Keys are the bay's east and southeast

boundary, and the broad mud banks extending from

Cape Sable toward Lower Matecumbe Key delineate

its western extent (Enos, 1989). This western boundary was originally defined arbitrarily as 81°05' west

longitude (Scholl, 1966; Fourqurean, 1992).

Florida Bay is a protected low-energy region composed of numerous carbonate-sediment mud banks

and 237 low-relief mud islands of greater than 100 m2 .

These islands provide the only terrestrial habitat in the

region (Enos, 1989), and are dynamic features subject

to physical changes due to erosion and accretion

(Fourqurean, 1992). They are generally fringed by

various mangrove species. Mats of blue-green algae

and low, salt-tolerant vegetation occupy the open

areas. Approximately 1,800 km2 of Florida Bay is within

Everglades National Park, the majority carpeted by

seagrass (Zieman et al., 1989). Seven percent is

covered by mangroves (McNulty et al., 1972).

Biological Components

Algae. Mats of blue-green algae (Cyanophytes) are

found terrestrially on the area's larger mangrove

islands (Enos, 1989). They also occur in ponds and

flats in the center of mangrove-fringed mud islands all

over Florida Bay (Enos, 1989). Zieman et al. (1989)

found four major macroalgal genera in the benthic

community: Batophora, Laurencia, Penicillus, and

Acetabularia. Bataphora was the most widely distributed macroalgae, with Laurencia the second most

26°N 82°W 80°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico
33

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Seagrass and Mangrove Island Inhabitants. Many

of the organisms in the region utilize both seagrass

and mangrove habitats.

Invertebrates. Only molluscs, foraminifera, pink

shrimp, and insects have been extensively studied in

Florida Bay (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Turney and

Perkins (1972) identified 140 molluscan species, and

Tabb et al. (1962) reported 32 species of crustaceans

including the hermit crab (Pagurus spp.), stone crab

(Menippe mercenaria), and pink shrimp, which use the

bay as a primary nursery ground before moving into

the Tortugas shrimping grounds (Schomer and Drew,

1982). Simberoff (1976) identified 351 species of

insects inhabiting mangrove islands.

Fishes. Despite the bay's latitudinal location, fish

communities are dominated by temperate species

(Sogard et al., 1989). Those utilizing seagrasses have

been divided into three groups: small and inconspicuous permanent residents, seasonal residents that

spend their juvenile life stages in the habitat, and

occasional residents, such as large carnivores, that

rarely visit the grass beds (Zieman, 1982). Noteworthy

permanent residents include the emerald clingfish

(Acytrops beryllinus), pipefishes, and seahorses

(Syngnathidae). Seasonal residents include the

spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), spot

(Leiostomus xanthurus), silver perch (Bairdiella

chrysoura), and pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera).

Hudson et al. (1970) reported 64 fish species in a

basin in central Florida Bay, many associated with

mainland mangroves. In another representative study,

Sogard et al. (1989) used throw traps to sample

relatively sedentary, epibenthic species inhabiting

seagrass beds at six sites. Fifty-nine species, dominated by rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), were

captured and identified, with the majority found toward

the periphery of the bay. More mobile species were

sampled in the water column at these same sites using

gill nets, with 71 species identified.

In another study, Thayer and Chester (1989) used

otter and surface trawls to collect 93 species, mainly

juveniles and foraging species, in the western regions

of the bay, with rainwater killifish and silver jenny again

predominant. In a separate study, 64 species were

captured around red mangrove root systems using

block nets and rotenone at eight sites, with hardhead

silversides (Atherinomorus stipes) the most abundant

(Thayer et al., 1987). In the adjacent seagrass beds,

53 species were captured using high-speed trawls.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Twenty-four species of

turtles, snakes, lizards, and frogs have been identified

in South Florida's mangrove communities (Odum et

al., 1982). Six of the 10 turtle species present occur in

estuarine or marine habitats. The endangered Atlantic

hawksbill and Atlantic ridley turtles utilize the area, and

the endangered Atlantic green turtle was once a

predominant herbivore (Odum et al., 1982). Upper

Florida Bay is also critical habitat for the endangered

American crocodile (Odum et al., 1982; Schomer and

Drew, 1982), and the American alligator is an important reptile in low-salinity mangrove areas (Kushlan,

1980). Other Florida Bay reptiles whose distribution is

limited by salinity include the diamondback terrapin

(Malaclemys terrapin) and mangrove snake (Nerodia

clarkii compressicavda) (Dunson and Mazzotti, 1989).

Birds. Florida Bay provides significant habitat for many

bird species. Most nesting sites of the roseate spoonbill are located in the bay, and the area's smaller

mangrove islands shelter most nesting sites of the

great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and endangered

brown pelican (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Powell et

al., 1991). Odum et al. (1982) compiled a list of 181

bird species that use mangroves for nesting, feeding,

and roosting. Seagrass beds are also utilized as

feeding areas by numerous birds (Zieman, 1982). The

double-crested cormorant is the most common swimming bird foraging in the seagrass beds, while the

osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is a common raptor in the

bay area.

Mammals. The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops

truncatus), which preys on mangrove-associated

fishes, and the endangered West Indian manatee,

which consumes seagrasses, are the most noticeable

mammals in the area (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Ecological Importance

Regional Importance to Fauna. Florida Bay's mangrove islands and seagrass beds are highly productive, faunally rich ecosystems that provide food,

protection, and nesting sites for many species of

fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

These areas are critically important to commercial and

recreational fish species, as 70 to 90 percent of the

harvested species in the Gulf depend on coastal

wetlands and seagrass beds during at least part of

their life cycle (Lindall and Saloman, 1977). The

shallow mud banks are essential for various species of

wading birds, as they provide the only feeding access

to the bay's fish populations (Holmquist et al., 1989).
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

34

Seagrasses in the bay accelerate and stabilize sediment deposition, maintaining water clarity in adjacent

coral reef and open-water communities. They also

provide rich nursery grounds for ecologically, commercially, and recreationally important species (Odum et

al., 1982; Zieman, 1982; Zieman, 1990).

Mangrove prop roots and dense seagrass stands

provide protected habitat for a wide variety of juvenile

fishes and invertebrates (Thayer et al., 1987). Decayed, bacterially enriched mangrove leaf litter and

seagrass blades are the basic energy source for the

detritus-based food web (Odum et al., 1982; Zieman,

1982). Mangroves also provide hard substrate for the

attachment of sessile organisms and critical nesting

sites for many species of birds that forage in the

shallow seagrass beds. Based on their resource value,

they are protected within the region (Snedaker, 1989).

The water quality of the bay has a significant effect on

the biogeographic distribution and abundance of the

region's species. Runoff from Taylor Slough and the

coastal wetlands south of Shark River Slough, combined with groundwater seepage from the mainland,

account for the freshwater drainage flowing into the

bay (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The bay's surfacewater chemistry has not been well studied, but salinity,

temperature, and turbidity are frequently reported

parameters. Turbidity is highly variable due to wind

effects in upper Florida Bay, with wind less significant

toward the Gulf of Mexico. Water levels can fluctuate

up to 53 cm seasonally due to the bay's restricted

flushing (Turney and Perkins, 1972).

The bay has been divided into four subenvironments

based on benthic mollusc distributions, a convenient

means of discussing hydrology. The northern

subenvironment is adjacent to the mangroves of the

mainland coast and is, therefore, influenced by seasonal freshwater runoff. Salinities in this area range

from 13 to 48 ppt and temperatures from 15° C to 38°

C. Only the area's western edge is subject to significant tidal flushing (Turney and Perkins, 1972). The

northeast half of the bay comprises the interior

subenvironment, which exhibits widely fluctuating

salinities (22-52 ppt) and restricted circulation. Little

flushing occurs, except when wind-induced. The

Atlantic subenvironment begins in the Middle Keys and

runs southwest along the northern side, where nearnormal salinities (34-41 ppt) and moderate water

temperatures (17° C-32° C) exist. In this area, water

from the bay is exchanged with oceanic water through

the tidal channels between the keys. The Gulf subenvironment is located just inside the 1.8 m depth contour,

between Cape Sable and Fiesta Key, where water is

exchanged between Florida Bay and the Gulf of

Mexico (Turney and Perkins, 1972).

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA

26°N 82°W 80°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay Gulf of Mexico

 Gulf of Mexico

The waters north and west of the Keys are within the

eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf is a semi-closed

system with oceanic input through the Yucatan Channel by way of the Yucatan and Loop currents. It

receives runoff from approximately two-thirds of the

United States and over half of Mexico. Combined with

the area's temperate waters, this estuarine influence

distinctly separates the physical characteristics of the

Gulf from the waters supplied by the Florida Current

on the south side of the Keys.

A strong current enters the Gulf from the Caribbean

and carries water as far north as 26°, before turning to

the south as the Loop Current. The principal outflow of

Gulf waters is through the Straits of Florida and the

major tidal passes of the Dry Tortugas and Lower-toMiddle Keys. Because of higher sea levels on the Gulf

side, the net flow of water is from the Gulf to the

Atlantic (except for the ebb and flood of the tide)

(Smith and Pitts, 1993). This directional water movement, combined with the shallow depths on the north

side of the Keys, has a major influence on the biogeographic distribution of organisms in both the Gulf and

nearshore regions.

Geographic Extent

The Gulf region's geographic extent is difficult to

determine because there is no definite boundary along

the Keys' north-side margin, making it impossible to

clearly distinguish nearshore habitats and tidal channels from Gulf waters. Although the Gulf supplies

water to the Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels

area, there is a distinct biotic variation between the two

regions. Thus, the biogeographic significance of each

region is discussed separately in this document, with

the understanding that the geographic interface

between them remains vague.
35

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

numerous barren spots and solution holes that provide

habitat for reef inhabitants.

Seagrass beds are generally found in protected waters

between islands, behind barrier islands, and in lagoonal areas. Distribution is controlled by three

primary variables: light, sediment depth, and turbulence/exposure in shallow waters (Zieman, 1982).

Seagrasses grow in a variety of sediments, from fine

muds to coarse sands. These sediments help anchor

the plants, protecting them from the effects of water

surge and currents and providing a matrix for regeneration and nutrient supply (Zieman, 1982).

Shoal grass, turtle grass, and manatee grass can be

found in mixed beds or alone, between 1 and 10 m,

where suitable substrate and favorable physical

conditions exist. Definite zonation (distribution) patterns can be observed. Shoal grass tolerates exposure

better than the other species, and usually grows in

shallower water (Zieman, 1982). Although turtle grass,

the dominant species in the Sanctuary, often grows in

shallow water, there is usually leaf mortality when the

beds are exposed during low tides (especially during

winter months). Turtle grass forms extensive mature

meadows, usually at depths of less than 10 to 12 m,

but can be found at greater depths in less density.

Between 12 and 15 m, manatee grass replaces turtle

grass, and shoal grass is dominant below 15 m, but

does not form dense stands. Paddle grass and star

grass can occur deeper than the other species, and

have been reported at 40 m (Zieman, 1982).

Seagrass Inhabitants. The distribution and density of

species utilizing the seagrass habitat are dependent

on the physical, chemical, and geological environment

(Zieman, 1990). Five principal groups have been

identified that comprise the community of organisms

associated with seagrass habitats (Zieman, 1990).

These groups may vary, depending on the composition of seagrasses and the influence of abiotic factors.

Within the groups, organisms are identified as:

1) epiphytic; 2) epibenthic; 3) infaunal; 4) planktonic;

and 5) nektonic.

Epiphytes are any organisms that grow on the blades

of seagrasses, including algae, diatoms, bryozoans,

and other encrusting organisms (Zieman, 1982).

Epibenthic organisms live on the surface of the

substrate, and include motile organisms such as

gastropods, sea urchins, sea stars, sea cucumbers,

sea biscuits, and a wide variety of crustacea. Besides

motile organisms, epibenthic fauna includes sessile

organisms such as sponges, sea anemones, ascidians, and macroalgae. Infaunal organisms live buried

in sediments, and include a variety of polychaetes,

The Sanctuary's northern boundary, from Everglades

National Park to the Dry Tortugas, is 223 km long and

lies entirely in the Gulf of Mexico. This jurisdictional

boundary does not separate habitat types or biogeographic regions, and because its location has no

bearing on physical or ecological processes, it is

unimportant in describing the Sanctuary's natural

resources. On average, the Gulf area within the

Sanctuary is approximately 16 km wide.

Biological Components

The Sanctuary's Gulf region contains several biological communities that contribute significantly to the

diversity of the area's natural resource base. Although

each of these communities is also present in the Key's

other biogeographic regions, species diversity and

density varies. Communities found in the Gulf include

mangrove, seagrass, coral, and hardbottom and

softbottom habitats.

Mangrove. Mangrove islands and mangrove-fringed

shorelines similar to those in the Florida Bay region

are present in the Gulf. An estimated 95,000 hectares

of mangrove forests have been reported in Monroe

County (Odum et al., 1982), and a large percentage of

the area covered by mangroves is owned by Federal,

State, or local government agencies.

Mangrove Inhabitants. The inhabitants of the mangrove habitat in the Gulf are similar to those described

for the Florida Bay region.

Seagrass. Seagrass communities are among the

richest, most productive, and most important of all

coastal systems (Zieman, 1990). Florida has one of

the world's largest seagrass communities, with an

estimated 1.4 million acres within Sanctuary boundaries (Zieman, 1982).

The submerged vegetation in the Gulf region consists

mainly of turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass.

Zieman (1991) estimated that these three seagrass

species make up approximately 95 percent of the total

submerged vegetative biomass in the Sanctuary. Two

other vascular seagrasses, paddle grass (Halophila

decipiens) and star grass (H. engelmannii) are also

found, but contribute very little to the overall biomass.

The large section of Florida Bay extending from

Arsnicker Keys to Big Pine Key is populated by

manatee grass and lesser amounts of turtle grass. The

manatee grass grows on thin sediment and the

Pleistocene limestone on which the sediment rests is

distinctly different from the rest of the area. It has
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

36

(Fasciolaria tulipa) and horse conch (Pleuroploca

gigantea), and echinoderms such as the cushion sea

star (Oreaster reticulatus) and comet star (Echinaster

sentus). Other common echinoderms include herbivorous sea urchins such as Eucidaris tribuloides

tribuloides and Lytechinus variegatus spp.

Some sponges of the genus Spongia are present in

seagrass beds, but due to the lack of suitable substrate for attachment, Alcyonarians (soft corals) are

rare (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Scleractinians (stony

corals) are represented by only a few species including rose coral (Manicina areolata), tube coral

(Cladacora arbuscula), and finger coral (Porites

divaricata, P. porites, and P. furcata).

Numerous species of small crustacea (shrimp and

crabs), echinoderms (brittlestars, sea cucumbers, sea

stars, etc.), anemones, flatworms, and polychaetes

utilize the seagrass habitat as well. Several species of

gastropod snails, including Cerithium muscarum, C.

eburneum, Anachis spp., Mitrella lunata, Tegula

fasciata, Modulus modulus, and Bittium varium are

also found. In addition, two species of Astraea feed

on the epiphytic flora of seagrass blades (Schomer

and Drew, 1982). Species of infaunal invertebrates

found include the tube-dwelling annelids

Americonuphis magna and Arenicola cristata. Other

annelids, such as Terebellides stroemi and Eunice

longicerrata; burrowing bivalves including the pen

shells Atrina rigida and A. seminuda; the cross-barred

venus Chione cancellata; and several other molluscan

genera such as Arca, Anadara, Barbatia, Codakia,

Lucina, Laevicardium, and Tellina are also present.

The Gulf's seagrass beds support several commercially important species as well, and South Florida's

commercial shrimp fishery is based on the region's

pink shrimp population (Saloman, 1968). Although the

brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus aztecus) and the

pinkspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis) are also

present, they are not as important (Saloman, 1968).

Pink shrimp are historically common in the estuaries

and shallow marine waters surrounding southern

Florida and in the deep waters (approximately 100 m)

southeast of the Keys, and are the dominant species

within the Dry Tortugas shrimping grounds and Florida

Bay (Saloman, 1968). Adult pink shrimp congregate in

deep water (>6 fathoms) off the Dry Tortugas to

spawn. Larvae can take two routes to the estuarine

nursery areas where they spend most of their life

cycle. One route is directly to the shallow-water

estuaries of the Ten Thousand Islands, Whitewater

Bay, and Florida Bay. On the other route, larvae are

swept southwesterly into the Florida Current by way of

burrowing crustaceans, and molluscs. Planktonic

organisms, which depend on water movement and

currents for transportation, include phytoplankton,

zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton. Nektonic organisms

include highly mobile species such as fishes and

squids that live in or above the seagrass canopy. In

combination, these organisms help comprise the

tightly coupled pelagic food webs in the subtropical

and tropical oligotrophic waters of the Gulf of Mexico

and Straits of Florida (Collard and D'Asaro, 1973;

Zieman, 1982; Zieman, 1990).

Benthic Algae. Although seagrass beds and areas of

soft or sandy substrate are not optimal habitat for most

algae, it may still attach to sediments, seagrass

blades, and scattered rock outcroppings. The only

algae consistently utilizing sediments as substrate are

the mat-forming algae and members of the order

Siphonales (Chlorophyta), which have creeping

rhizoids that help anchor them in sediments (Zieman,

1982). Important genera of these algae include

Halimeda, Penicillus, Caulerpa, Udotea, Avrainvillea,

and Rhipocephalus.

Aside from their importance as primary producers of

organic carbon, some of these genera produce

calcium carbonate for their skeleton. When the algae

die, the calcium carbonate becomes a source of

sediment, significantly contributing to the overall

composition of the Keys' carbonate sediments. Off the

Upper Keys Ginsburg (1956) found that more than

80% of the sediment was Halimeda. Shinn et al.

(1990) reported that an average of 48 percent of the

sands in an area 50 km west of Key West (the Quicksands) was composed of fragmented plates of the

calcareous green algae Halimeda. In another study,

Lidz et al. (1985) reported that over 13.5 percent of the

sediment within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary was composed of calcareous algae fragments.

Ginsburg (1956) and Ginsburg and Shinn (1964) have

reported similar findings off Key Largo.

Besides calcareous algae, there are several groups of

detached drift algae that are found in the seagrass

habitat. Laurencia is one of the most abundant, with

other species including Amphiroa spp., Melobesia

spp., Fosliella spp., and Padina spp.

Invertebrates. The invertebrate fauna of the seagrass

beds of the southwest Florida coast is primarily

characterized as Caribbean-West Indian, with increasing Carolinian fauna found to the north (Collard and

D'Asaro, 1973). Seagrass bed fauna is diverse and

complex, with large epibenthic species the most

obvious members (Zieman, 1982). Representative

species include gastropods such as true tulip
37

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

the Loop Current, and are carried northeasterly along

the outer edge of the Florida Reef Tract or east coast

of Florida (Ingle et al., 1959). As the postlarval pink

shrimp mature, they enter Florida Bay on incoming

tides. Young shrimp spend from two to seven months

in the bay's seagrass nursery grounds before moving

into the Gulf off the Dry Tortugas (Schomer and Drew,

1982; Bielsa et al., 1983).

The commercially important spiny lobster begin their

existence in the Keys as larvae that arrive in oceanic

currents. As planktonic larvae they pass through 11 life

stages in more than six months. They then metamorphose into a transitional swimming stage (puerulus)

(Little and Milano, 1980; Lyons, 1980) that is found

along Florida's southeast coast all year long (Hunt et

al., 1991). Pueruli travel through channels between the

Keys and enter nursery areas in Florida Bay and the

Gulf, where they preferentially settle into clumps of the

red alga Laurencia (Herrnkind and Butler, 1986). In

seven to nine days they metamorphose into juveniles

and take up solitary residence in the algal clumps for

two to three months (Marx and Herrnkind, 1985b; Hunt

et al., 1991).

When juvenile spiny lobsters reach a carapace length

of 15 to 16 mm they leave the algal clumps and reside

individually within rocky holes, crevices, coral, and

sponges. They remain solitary until carapace length

reaches approximately 25 to 35 mm, when they begin

congregating in rocky dens. They remain in these

nurseries for 15 months to two years (Hunt et al.,

1991).

Adult lobsters move to deeper waters and the coral

reef environment, where they occupy dens or holes

during daylight hours. They are nocturnal feeders and

predominantly prey on molluscs and crustacea,

including hermit crabs and conch. Adults move to the

offshore reef to spawn, and larvae are swept up the

East Coast by the Florida Current, where many are

lost due to the length of their pelagic pueruli stage

(nine months) (Marx and Herrnkind, 1985a; Hunt et al.,

1991).

Stone crabs are distributed in various habitats throughout the Sanctuary's Florida Bay and Gulf of Mexico

regions. They inhabit warm-temperate, subtropical,

and tropical waters, and although found in harvestable

quantities along parts of Florida’s west coast from

Cedar Key to the Ten Thousand Islands, the greatest

concentrations occur in the coastal waters adjacent to

Collier County and throughout Florida Bay (Bert et al.,

1978). They occur, but are less abundant, in

nearshore habitats and tidal passes with suitable

substrate. Although stone crab fishermen set traps on

the Atlantic side of the Keys, the majority of the fishery

is within Gulf waters.

The crabs' planktonic stage is not extensive. They

metamorphose from hatchling to true crab in about six

weeks. Juveniles do not dig burrows, but utilize readily

available hiding places that are near food. They

occupy muddy bottoms, turtle grass beds, sponges,

gorgonians, empty shells, shell bottom, and sargassum mats (Bert et al., 1978). Adults inhabit burrows 15

to 127 cm deep in turtle grass flats, along the sides of

channels, in hardbottom areas, and in reef communities. They can tolerate most environmental extremes

within their distributional area and can withstand a

broad range of salinities, making them very adaptable

to Florida Bay and Gulf waters (Bert et al., 1978).

Fishes. Diverse and abundant fish assemblages are

found within the Gulf's seagrass habitats. These areas

are important nursery and feeding grounds for many

species that will ultimately have commercial or

sportfishing value (Zieman, 1982). Fish populations

are largely temperate in character, and seagrasses

predominately serve as nursery grounds for seasonal

residents (i.e., those fishes that spend only part of their

life cycle in these areas). Examples include drums

(sciaenids), porgies (sparids), grunts (haemulids),

snappers (lutjanids), cobia (rachycentrids), and

mojarras (gerrids) (Zieman, 1982).

Numerous fish species occur in the Gulf region

ecosystem that are not found in the Atlantic waters just

a few kilometers away. For example, several species

of the family Sciaenidae are seasonal residents of the

Gulf seagrass community but are rarely, if ever,

observed on the Atlantic side of the Keys. Examples

include the spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus),

spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), silver perch (Bairdiella

chrysoura), and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Other

fishes frequently observed in the Gulf's seagrass

habitat or within the nearshore tidal passes, but less

frequently on the Atlantic side of the Keys, include

pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides), sheepshead (Archosargus

probatocephalus), hardhead catfish (Arius felis),

gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), and cobia

(Rachycentron canadum). All are uncommon seaward

of Hawk Channel.

The seagrass community is vital habitat for a variety of

commercially important fish species. Snapper, a

commercially important family of food fish, spends

much of its life cycle in the seagrass habitat. Examples

include the mangrove (gray) snapper (Lutjanus
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

38

griseus), lane snapper (L. synagris), schoolmaster

(L. apodus), and mutton snapper (L. analis).

Recreationally important species utilizing the seagrass

community include spotted seatrout (Cynoscion

nebulosus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), bonefish

(Albula vulpes), permit (Trachinotus falcatus), tarpon

(Megalops atlanticus), great barracuda (Sphyraena

barracuda), and various sharks. These species are

sought by professional fishing guides and

sportfishermen from all over the world, and form the

basis of an important recreational industry. Although

these species are found in the Gulf region and

throughout the Sanctuary, they are most common in

the Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels.

Other resident seagrass fishes include mojarras,

killifish, silversides, grunts, inshore lizardfish (Synodus

foetens) and scarids such as Sparisoma rubripinne, S.

radians, S. chrysopterum. A number of small, less

mobile cryptic species are also found, including the

emerald clingfish (Acyrtops beryllinus) that lives

epiphytically on turtle grass blades; pipefishes

Syngnathus scovelli, S. floridae, S. louisianae, and

Micrognatus crinitus; seahorses Hippocampus

zosterae and H. erectus; and several species of

gobies (Gobiidae) and clinids (Clinidae). The code

goby (Gobiosoma robustum) is the most abundant

goby, and the clinids Paraclinus fasciatus and P.

marmoratus are the most abundant representatives of

the clinids.

Hardbottom. A diverse benthic habitat commonly

called hardbottom is distributed at various depths (<1

m to >40 m) from northwest of Tarpon Springs to the

Keys. Although the range of this habitat extends far

north of the Sanctuary, it is important to mention here

because of its role in replenishing the area's resources. In addition, this area will be important for

long-term habitat monitoring to detect change before it

reaches the Sanctuary.

Sporadic hardbottom outcroppings parallel the shoreline at approximately the quartz sand/carbonate sand

interface in 6.1 to 18.2 m of water (Minerals Management Service, 1989). The exposed calcium carbonate

substrate, dating from the Holocene, is thought to be

the remnants of previous shorelines that were covered

by water as the sea level rose. Although most of the

exposed hardbottom has low relief (< 1 m), ledges with

over 3 m of relief are found between Tarpon Springs

and Sarasota. The density and diversity of sessile,

epibenthic organisms in these areas is high for a

temperate region. Accordingly, the area has supported

the commercial sponge industry in Tarpon Springs

since Greek sponge divers first settled there in the

early 1900s. It also supports a commercial and recreational grouper and stone crab fishery and provides

habitat for recreational scuba divers. Some commercial harvest of decorative rock and fish and invertebrates for the aquarium trade also occurs.

Although the geographic extent of the hardbottom

habitat in Sanctuary waters is not fully known, major

low-profile hardbottom substrate supports a diverse

sessile, epibenthic community in the Gulf. In the Keys,

the biotic structure resembles that of the temperate

waters off the Tarpon Springs area. Octocorals, which

include sea plumes, sea whips and other gorgonians,

and soft corals, help characterize the habitat. Genera

represented include Euenicea, Muricea, Plexaurella,

and Pseudopterogorgia (Phillips et al., 1990). Soft

corals dominate stony corals (Scleractinia) and fire

corals (Hydrozoa) throughout the hardbottom habitat

and within other areas of the Gulf region.

Hardbottom Inhabitants. The distribution of the

diverse assemblage of invertebrates and fishes

making up the majority of the hardbottom biota helps

characterize the Gulf biogeographic region as temperate.

Algae. Macroalgae are an important component of the

Gulf's hardbottom community. Continental Shelf

Associates, Inc. (1987) collected over 160 species of

macroalgae during a survey of the hardbottom habitat

of the southwest continental shelf. Some of the most

common genera were within the main groupings of red

algae (Eucheuma, Laurencia, Gracilaria, and

Lithothamnium), green algae (Codium, Caulerpa,

Halimeda, Penicillus, and Udotea), and brown algae

(Dictyopteris, Dictyota, and Sargassum).

Invertebrates. Although the hardbottom community

does not support three-dimensional tropical reef

development, many stony corals (Scleractinians) are

present (Jaap, 1984). The dominant species are ivory

tube coral (Cladocora arbuscula), ivory bush coral

(Oculina diffusa), rough star coral (Isophyllastrea

rigida), sinuous cactus coral (Isophyllia sinuosa),

rough starlet coral (Siderastrea siderea), lobed star

coral (Solenastrea hyades) smooth star coral

(Solenastrea bournoni), and other species of solitary

corals (Phillips et al., 1990). Crenelated fire coral

(Millepora alcicornis), an encrusting and branching

species of fire coral, is common but does not form

massive colonies.

Sponges (Porifera) make up another major group of

colonial, epibenthic organisms that contributes significantly to the diversity of the region's sessile organisms. Representatives include the loggerhead sponge
39

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

(Spheciospongia vesparia), vase sponge (Ircinia

campana), stinker sponge (I. felix), black-ball sponge

(I. strobilina), finger sponge (Axinella polycapella), and

several red and orange branched species of the class

Demospongiae. Commercially important sponges

include sheepswool sponge (Hippospongia lachne),

yellow sponge (Spongia barbara), grass sponge

(Spongia obscura), glove sponge (Spongia graminea),

velvet sponge (Hippiospongia gossypina), wire sponge

(Spongia sterea), reef sponge (Spongia obliquia), and

finger sponge.

Several sponge species are collected for the marine

aquarium industry, including red and orange branched

colonies of Demospongiae. One of the most abundant

is a red encrusting Demospongiae found in association

with the bivalve mollusc turkey wing (Arca zebra). This

sponge and bivalve combination is so abundant in

some hardbottom areas that the bottom appears to

move as the bivalves close in reaction to the presence

of an intruder. Other colonial epibenthic organisms

found attached to the hardbottom substrate include

bryozoans, hydroids, and ascidians.

Hardbottoms in shallow Gulf waters (< 40 m) support a

diverse motile invertebrate epifauna as well. Over 306

species of molluscs, 283 species of crustaceans, and

120 species of echinoderms have been reported,

including species of sea urchins, sea stars, holothurians, numerous shrimps (e.g., anemone shrimp,

synalpheid shrimp, etc.), lobsters, portunid and

calappid crabs, conchs, bivalves, nudibranchs, and

annelids (Minerals Management Service, 1987).

Hardbottom habitats with high-relief ledges or solution

holes often support commercially important species

such as palinurid and scyllarid lobsters including

Panulirus argus, P. guttatus, Scyllarides spp., and

Scyllarus spp. Stone crabs are often found in burrows

or solution holes.

Examples of temperate invertebrates include the

purple-spined sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata) and pin

cushion urchin (Lytechinus variegatus). Arbacia

punctulata is abundant on hard substrate in 7 to 15 m

of water (possibly deeper) within the Gulf. However, it

is rarely found on the hardbottom of the Keys' Atlantic

side. Another common temperate invertebrate is the

Greek goddess nudibranch (Hypselodoris

edenticulata), a sponge-feeder commonly found off

Tarpon Springs. Within the Sanctuary it is only abundant in the hardbottom habitats of the Gulf, although

isolated sightings have been made on the Atlantic side

of the Keys.

Fishes. During their 1987 study of the southwest

continental shelf, Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

collected 220 fish species from the Gulf's hardbottom

habitats. In these areas, the diversity and density of

fish species vary considerably depending on both the

physical and structural characteristics of the ecosystem (e.g., relief, ledges, crevices, holes, etc.). Habitats

with greater three-dimensional complexity offer more

protection to populations and support a richer, more

abundant fish fauna.

Like the fish found in other Gulf habitats, populations

in the hardbottom community exhibit an obvious

temperate influence. Several sea basses (Serranidae)

commonly occur on the Gulf side of the Keys but are

not found on the Atlantic side. Examples include the

belted sandfish (Serranus subligarius) and the black

sea bass (Centropristis striata). The jackknife fish

(Equetus lanceolatus), a species of drum, is found on

both sides of the Keys, but adults are far more abundant on the Gulf side than the Atlantic side. Juveniles

are common on the Gulf hardbottom as well, but not

on the Atlantic side. Similarly, the sheepshead is

common in the Gulf's hardbottom areas, but infrequently observed on the Atlantic side of the Keys.

These are but a few of the numerous species commonly found in Gulf waters but not in the Atlantic,

further supporting the characterization of the northern

side of the Keys as temperate.

Gulf Coral Reef Habitats and Inhabitants. There is

no tropical coral reef development off the west coast of

Florida, and the only major reef complex in the eastern

Gulf is the Florida Middle Ground, a fossil limestone

topographic feature 157 km northwest of Tampa Bay.

Although it exhibits a high diversity of coral species,

the Middle Ground is not a growing coral reef, as are

those off the Keys (Jaap, 1984).

Coral patch reefs and hardbottom communities are

rare within Florida Bay proper (Minerals Management

Service, 1989), but areas of hardbottom and patch reef

on the far western end of the bay have been studied

(Zieman et al., 1989). Some mixed finger coral, rose

coral, and seagrass communities occur in the shallow

waters surrounding mangrove islands. However,

significant coral communities do not occur on the Gulf

side until the Lower Keys. In the Middle Keys, the area

southwest of Conch Key and northeast of Big Pine Key

is influenced by environmental extremes brought on by

large tidal exchanges (Minerals Management Service,

1989). The seasonal and annual extremes that affect

coral distribution (and other biotic communities) in

Florida Bay and the Gulf side of the Middle and Lower

Keys result from hydrographic changes in the Gulf of

Mexico (Smith and Pitts, 1993).
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

40

The reefs off the Dry Tortugas have many characteristics of other South Florida reefs (Jaap and Hallock,

1990). One notable exception, however, is the dense

staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) thickets that

occur west and north of Loggerhead Key. Reports

from as early as 1878 (Jaap and Hallock, 1990) have

described these dense stands and the changes in their

density and distribution as a result of environmental

perturbations such as cold fronts. Staghorn coral

proliferation during favorable periods is characterized

by rapid growth and fragmentation.

Softbottom. A large portion of the Sanctuary's Gulf

region, especially west of Key West, contains

softbottom habitat, where the sediment may be up to

7.6 m thick (Shinn et al., 1989). North of the Sanctuary, an area of silty sand extends from the mouth of

Florida Bay westward to the Dry Tortugas, roughly

paralleling the 25° N latitude line (Minerals Management Service, 1989). This area effectively divides a

northern habitat characterized by low-relief,

hardbottom algal stands and the seagrass Halophila

decipiens from the hardbottom and reef communities

just north of the Keys. The area corresponds to the

Tortugas shrimping grounds (Zieman, pers. comm.).

Westward of Northwest Channel off Key West, there is

a broad shallow bank or series of flats and shoals

made up of the Boca Grande Bank, the Marquesas,

and the Quicksands. Patch reef development is poor

on the north side of these banks, especially in the

Quicksands, due to the sand's shifting nature. However, major growths of the carbonate sand-producing

alga Halimeda opuntia have been reported by several

investigators (Shinn et al., 1982; Hudson, 1985). Shinn

et al. (1991) described the Quicksands near the

Marquesas.

No major reef development occurs inshore between

the Quicksands and the Dry Tortugas, except near

Rebecca Shoal and New Ground Shoal. On average,

the passage between Rebecca Shoal and Pulaski

Light is approximately 24 m deep. The bottom consists

of current-swept sand, sparsely covered by the

seagrass Halophila decipiens and the green alga

Caulerpa prolifera (Shinn et al., 1989).

Softbottom Inhabitants. Softbottom communities

support a diverse infauna assemblage in continental

shelf environments. At least 1,121 species have been

identified in the southwest Florida region (Minerals

Management Service, 1987), with crustaceans accounting for the largest percentage (40%), followed by

polychaetes (37%) and molluscs (21%).

On the northern side of the Lower Keys, scattered

patch reefs are common, forming a generally continuous band approximately 7 km from shore. The band

contains larger, head-forming coral species (e.g.,

Montastrea annularis and species of Diploria and

Colpophyllia) and is surrounded by areas of lower

relief that have solitary (e.g., Siderastrea siderea,

Solenastrea spp., and Dichocoenia stokesii) and soft

corals. The band runs from Key West northeastward

past Big Pine Key, where it becomes less distinct due

to changing bottom topography, sediment distribution,

and the major tidal influences of the Middle Keys

(Minerals Management Service, 1989).

One of the most commonly visited coral reef habitats

on the north side of the Keys is the "rock pile" located

along the 5.5 m depth contour, north to northwest of

the Content Keys. This area of high-relief, boulder-like

coral heads supports a diverse mix of temperate and

tropical fauna, and has distinct seasonal variations in

fish density and diversity. Each year since the early

1970s a bloom of long, filamentous algae (possibly

blue-green) has occurred during the summer months,

totally covering the coral heads.

Another coral reef community north of the Keys

includes New Ground Shoal and the tract extending

east to Ellis Rock. At up to 7.6 m of relief, these reefs

are higher than some Atlantic formations (Shinn et al.,

1989). They are constructed of massive corals including M. annularis and Siderastrea spp.

Located at the westernmost extent of the Keys are the

Dry Tortugas Banks. These banks are separated from

the remainder of the Keys by a 24 m-deep channel.

Described as an atoll by Vaughan (1914), the banks

have a rim of Holocene coral reef development

surrounding an inner basin containing several sandy

islands including Loggerhead Key, Garden Key, Bush

Key, and Hospital Key (Shinn et al., 1989).

Numerous scientists have worked in the Dry Tortugas

since the Carnegie Institution Marine Laboratory

operated on Loggerhead Key between 1910 and 1939.

Jaap (1984) provided an excellent historical record of

the research on Florida’s coral reefs, including the

work accomplished at the Carnegie Laboratory. Davis

(1979) used aerial photography to construct a detailed

habitat map for the Fort Jefferson National Monument

(renamed Dry Tortugas National Park in 1992). Other

recent studies of the area's reefs include those by

Davis (1982) and Jaap et al. (1989). In addition,

Wheaton and Jaap are currently conducting long-term

coral monitoring studies.
41

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

In addition to the diverse infauna, sand and softbottom

communities support a motile epifauna. Common

inhabitants include several echinoids (Meoma

ventricosa ventricosa, Clypeaster rosaceus, and

Plagiobrissus grandis) and Encope michelini,

Clypeaster subdepressus, and Leodia sexiesperforata

which burrow in clean, grassless sand areas (Schomer

and Drew, 1982).

Ecological Importance

The importance of the Sanctuary's Gulf of Mexico

region as a fisheries resource cannot be overstated, in

that it serves as the nursery grounds for many

recreationally and commercially important species of

fishes and invertebrates, including groupers, snappers,

pink shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab. The

region's location “upstream” of the Keys is also

significant, in that the anthropogenic processes

negatively influencing the waters of the Gulf ultimately

impact the habitats and natural resources of the Keys.

The region, therefore, must be considered as an

integral part of the overall Sanctuary ecosystem.

 Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels

The Holocene geology of the emergent Keys sets the

scene for the distribution of marine communities

throughout the Sanctuary and adjacent areas. The

Upper Keys are composed of the 120,000-year-old

Key Largo Limestone, a fossil reef formation that

progresses to the west. The Miami oolite (oolitic facies

of the Miami Limestone) begins at Big Pine Key and

overlies the Key Largo Limestone formation

(Hoffmeister and Multer, 1968). This oolitic formation

plunges below sea level in the Newfound Harbor Keys/

Eastern Big Pine Key area (Hoffmeister and Multer,

1968; Mueller et al., 1991). The Lower Keys, which are

fossilized oolitic sandbars, are oriented in a northwest

to southeast direction, allowing for greater water

exchange between the Gulf and Atlantic than the

Upper Keys.

The Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels are

transitional areas of species mixing between the Gulf

and the Atlantic, and the presence or absence of tidal

passes, coupled with their bathymetric features (e.g.,

depth, width, current velocity, etc.), plays an important

role in the distribution of biota and the establishment of

marine communities within the Sanctuary (Schomer et

al., 1982; Zieman, 1982; Jaap, 1984; Minerals Management Service, 1989). Studies have shown that the

net flow of water is from Florida Bay and the Gulf to

the Atlantic (Smith and Pitts, 1993). Once in the

Atlantic, the principal flow in the Lower to Middle Keys

is westward during most of the year. This flow also has

a significant influence on the distribution and mixing of

the biota in the region.

Geographic Extent

The Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels biogeographic region extends from the northernmost portion

of the Sanctuary (except for a narrow strip paralleling

the offshore boundary of Biscayne National Park) to

the south, southwest, and westernmost reaches. The

region is narrowest in the Upper Keys and reaches its

maximum width in the Big Pine Key area. The habitats

discussed below are located in the nearshore waters

north of the Keys and surrounding the islands in

Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

Upper Keys. Due to their orientation and elevation,

the Upper Keys form an almost continuous land mass,

resulting in the absence of wide tidal passes through

the Lower Matecumbe area and restricting water flow

between the Gulf and the Atlantic. Beyond these

natural features, water exchange was further limited,

and water-flow resistance increased, by the bridge

piles of the Overseas Railroad, built between 1904 and

1907 (Albury, 1991). Twenty-seven kilometers of

bridges were built across open water and 32 km of

causeways were constructed to connect islands where

natural passes had once existed (e.g., Indian Key Fill).

Middle Keys. Several major passes between Lower

Matecumbe and Big Pine Key connect Florida Bay and

the Gulf to the Atlantic (Table 4). In addition to allowing

for the mixing of temperate and tropical biota, these

passes allow the exchange of warm, saltier water in

the summer and cold, less saline water in the winter.

Heavy rainfall, drought, summer doldrums, and winter

cold fronts influence temperature, salinity, nutrient

supply, and turbidity in the shallow waters north of the

.

26°N 82°W 80°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

42

Table 4. Middle Keys Tidal Passes

Name Width (m) Depth (m)

Back Country Passes

Rocky Channel 2,035 6

Big Spanish Channel 2,340 9

Harbor Channel 700 8

Cudjoe Channel 1,000 7

Johnston Key Channel 700 6

Ocean-Side Passes

Bahia Honda Channel 1,560 8

Bogie Channel 595 5

Pine Channel 1,000 6

Niles Channel 1,250 3

Kemp Channel 965 3

Bow Channel 400 3

Table 5. Lower Keys Tidal Passes

Name Width (m) Depth (m)

Channel Two 580 4

Channel Five 1,375 4

Long Key Pass 3,640 5

Duck Key Area 784 3

Vaca Cut 90 5

Seven Mile Bridge Pass 

 and Moser Channel 10,719 5

Little Duck Key Pass 250 1

Ohio Pass 245 2

Missouri Key Pass 395 2

(1,250 m wide/2.7 m deep), Kemp Channel (965 m

wide/3.1 m deep), and Bow Channel (400 m wide/2.7

m deep).

To the west of Bow Channel is a series of passes in

the Sugarloaf and Saddlebunch Keys area. Most of

these channels are shallow, ranging from 70 m to 380

m wide and .3 m to .6 m deep. The last wide channel

in the Lower Keys (before Key West) is the Boca

Chica Channel, which is approximately 790 m wide

and 3.1 m deep.

Northwest Channel. The last deep natural pass in the

Lower Keys before Boca Grande Channel is Northwest

Channel, which lies immediately west of Key West.

This pass is 4.44 km wide and 8.5 m deep and is the

northern extension of the Key West ship channel. Its

eastern margin has been used as deepwater anchorage. To the north, the eastern and western margins of

the Northwest Channel have man-made submerged

granite jetties that serve as habitat for a variety of

species.

The Lakes Passage. Ten keys are found between

Key West and Boca Grande, with each separated by a

shallow tidal pass. The Lakes refers to the shallow and

expansive seagrass habitat primarily north of the

islands in this area. The seafloor is predominantly

covered with seagrasses, and scattered patches of

hardbottom supporting sponges, soft corals, and

solitary corals are also found. Solution holes, depressions in the seafloor of varying size, are sometimes

found in association with the hardbottom habitat.

These holes are formed by various geological proMiddle Keys (Jaap and Hallock, 1990). Extreme

variations in these parameters affect the distribution of

organisms from the nearshore habitats to the outer

bank reefs. In areas exposed to wide seasonal variations in environmental and hydrographic parameters,

the sessile, benthic epifauna are hardier and more

capable of withstanding a broader range of environmental stresses. This ability is characteristic of the

communities in the nearshore habitats and tidal

channels of the Middle Keys.

Seven Mile Bridge. In the Lower to Middle Keys, the

widest bridged gap is the open body of water spanned

by the Seven Mile Bridge. Several deep cuts allow for

water exchange in this area, with Moser Channel,

close to the center of the gap, the deepest at 5.2 m.

Lower Keys. The area between Big Pine Key and Key

West, north of the open Atlantic waters, is a complex

system of shallow-water bays and basins surrounded

by hundreds of mangrove-fringed keys and developed

shorelines. The Lower Keys are oriented predominantly in a northwest to southeast direction, and form

the widest land mass in the Sanctuary. Water exchange occurs through several deepwater passes on

the north side of the Keys. Although these tidal passes

allow for water exchange between the Gulf and the

Atlantic, the cluster of islands protects the reef tract

from the outflow of seasonally variable Gulf waters.

The Lower Keys' major backcountry passes (Table 5)

include Rocky Channel (2,035 m wide/5.8 m deep),

Big Spanish Channel (2,340 m wide/ 8.8 m deep),

Harbor Channel (700 m wide/7.9 m deep), Cudjoe

Channel (1,000 m wide/6.4 m deep), Johnston Key

Channel (700 m wide/6.1 m deep), and numerous

smaller channels. After flowing through the Keys, the

water exits through several major ocean-side passes

including Bahia Honda Channel (1,560 m wide/8.2 m

deep), Bogie Channel (595 m wide/5.2 m deep), Pine

Channel (1,000 m wide/6.4 m deep), Niles Channel
43

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

cesses during subaerial exposure when sea level was

lower, and offer protection for both fish and invertebrates. This habitat often provides an oasis of reef life

in the middle of dense seagrass communities. The

Lakes, which are separated by islands, mud banks,

and a rock ridge along the north and south margin, are

also an important fishing area for flats guides. The

shallow waters support bonefish, tarpon, permit,

barracuda, and shark, and are a nursery area for

numerous commercially important species.

Boca Grande Channel. Boca Grande Channel is 9.8

km wide and separates Boca Grande Key from the

Marquesas. The channel has a maximum depth of 9.1

m and exhibits strong tidal exchange. There are

several deep cuts in the channel and the entire pass is

generally deeper than 4.6 m. The seafloor is covered

by seagrasses, hardbottom, corals, and soft substrates, and in some areas there are numerous stony

coral colonies, some of which are over 1 m tall. The

channel is an area of major mixing between the Gulf

and the Atlantic.

The Quicksands. West of the Marquesas is a vast

current-swept sand flat referred to as the Quicksands.

Sand waves as high as 2.7 m have been reported in

this area of high current velocity (Shinn et al., 1982;

Hudson, 1985; Shinn et al., 1990). Shifting sands have

prevented the development of extensive reef habitats,

but have allowed major growths of the carbonatesand-producing alga Halimeda spp. (Hudson, 1985).

At the westernmost tip of the Quicksands is Halfmoon

Shoal, which is separated from the Rebecca Shoal

reef community by a broad pass 17 to 18 m deep.

From Rebecca Shoal west to the Dry Tortugas the

depth of the passage is approximately 24.4 m, and the

bottom is current-swept sand (Minerals Management

Service, 1989).

Biological Components

The Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels are

exposed to a wide range of environmental conditions.

Water depths are generally less than 2.5 m (except in

the deeper passes) and radical changes in weather

conditions and the velocity of water flow can adversely

affect the distribution of biota. The structure of the

biological community changes considerably based on

the speed at which water is transported through the

area, the depth of the water, and the type of substrate.

In a representative study, Enos (1977) grouped

organisms into habitat communities based on the

substrate on which characteristic assemblages lived,

and on circulation and bottom morphology.

Intertidal Shoreline Habitats. All major biological

communities are present in the nearshore habitats and

tidal channels including mangroves, intertidal shorelines, seagrasses, hardbottoms, and soft substrates.

The most detailed attempt to describe the various

habitats in the region was made by Schomer and Drew

(1982). Nine shoreline habitats were identified, including those described below.

Exposed Vertical Rocky Shores and Seawalls. These

habitats occur both naturally and as a by-product of

human activities. Natural formations occur in areas

where steep scarps in the limestone bedrock have

been created by erosion due to waves and currents.

Man-made formations include seawalls, bridge piles,

structural supports, power poles, piers, docks, and

other vertical structures entering the water. Bridge

piles exposed directly to the open ocean and those

located in channels with high-velocity currents exhibit

diverse attached biota. Several species of stony

corals, hydrozoans, gorgonians, sponges, tunicates,

barnacles, and algae make up a rich sessile community that supports an equally diverse epifauna composed of fishes and invertebrates. Bridge piles not

exposed to high-velocity currents exhibit lower sessile

species diversity and organism density.

Exposed Rocky Platforms. Exposed rocky platforms

are one of the most extensively studied intertidal

shoreline communities within the Keys, and abundant

literature is available describing the biota in this habitat

(Schomer and Drew, 1982). Stephenson and

Stephenson (1950) described three separate zones.

The first is an upper platform that varies greatly in

width, angle of slope, and pattern of seaward termination, extending from the edge of dry land vegetation to

the seaward edge of the lime rock platform. The

second is a lower platform that occurs as discontinuous patches of low rock, running seaward from the foot

of the upper platform to a level slightly above the

spring tide low-water level. The third zone is a lowlying area (usually submerged) in which rocky patches

alternate with sand, mud, and gravel.

Fine-grained Sand Beaches. Sand beaches are

composed of fine-grained calcareous fragments of

shell, coral, and coralline algae. Most of these "pocket

beaches" are limited in size, are in the Middle Keys,

and face the Straits of Florida. Their formation is often

influenced by wave activity. Examples include Long

Key Beach, Bahia Honda Beach, and Sombrero

Beach.

Coarse-grained Sand Beaches. These areas are

physically similar to fine-grained beaches, but are
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

44

composed of coarse-grained carbonate sands and are

usually narrower (<10 m) between the dunes and low

water. Coarse-grained sand beaches are found in the

Dry Tortugas and Marquesas, primarily in high-energy

areas.

Mixed Sand/Gravel Beaches and Fill. This habitat type

is found in areas exposed to high wave energy, which

creates beaches of coarse shell and coral fragments.

Man-made beaches of this type are composed of

poorly sorted mixtures of sediments in a variety of

sizes, sometimes resulting in a hard-packed surface

layer.

Gravel Beaches and Riprap. All forms of gravel

beaches and riprap in the Keys are man-made. The

habitat is usually made of materials ranging from

gravel to boulder-sized riprap revetments, most often

composed of local limestone. Examples include

shorelines bordering causeways.

Exposed Tidal Flats. The most common exposed tidal

flats in the Keys are the seagrass flats. Generally

located in open bays, lee of offshore islands or near

tidal inlets, these flats are exposed during low spring

tides, vary in size, and are subject to moderate- to

high-energy wave activity and tidal currents. The

sediments are dominated by carbonate sands, and

some muds are often found accompanying migrating

carbonate sand bars on the flats' seaward edge.

Sheltered Rocky Shores and Seawalls. Sheltered

rocky shores occur when canals are dug through

limestone bedrock. The vertical faces are often

irregular, with holes, pockets, and crevices providing

microhabitat. Depending on where the canals have

been dug, the exposed rock may be Key Largo

Limestone, Miami Oolite, or both. Both sheltered rocky

shores and seawalls often line shorelines along the

interior and sheltered areas of populated regions.

Each extends below the low-water mark. Waves and

currents usually do not have an influence where

canals have been dug. However, boating activities can

cause shoreline erosion in canals.

Sheltered Tidal Flats. This habitat is found associated

with interior island lagoons and is unaffected by even

moderate waves or tidal currents. The carbonate mud

sediments of this habitat are less consolidated than

those of the exposed tidal flats. The habitat is most

common in the Lower Keys.

Intertidal Shoreline Inhabitants. The biota associated with intertidal shoreline habitats is diverse and

varies according to the habitat type and physical

features. Sessile, epibenthic, and infaunal organisms

all help comprise this community type. They are

thoroughly described by Schomer and Drew (1982).

Hardbottom Habitats and Inhabitants. Exposed

limestone is a common bottom type in the Keys'

nearshore waters. This rocky surface, whether of

geological or biological origin, provides the substrate

necessary for the attachment of sessile organisms.

Hardbottom habitats are typically dominated by algae,

sponges, gorgonian corals, hydrozoans, bryozoans,

stony corals, anemones, molluscs, and tunicates. The

actual composition of these species depends on the

location of the hardbottom and the physical influences

on the community. There are two types of nearshore

hardbottom habitats: restricted-circulation and highvelocity.

Nearshore Restricted-circulation Hardbottom Habitats.

These habitats are located in restricted embayments,

and their distribution is controlled by minimal water

movement, low turbidity, and/or suspended sediments.

Epilithic and drift algae (previously attached species

which have broken loose) that attach directly to

limestone usually dominate. Common species include

seabottles (Ventricaria ventricosa), green bubble algae

(Dictyospaeria cavernosa), mermaid’s wine glass

(Acetabularia crenulata), star algae (Anadyomene

stellata), and squirrel tail algae (Dasycladus

vermicularis). Common species of brown algae include

forked tumbleweeds (Dictyota spp.) and several

species of sargassum. Representative red algae

include Laurence’s weed (Laurencia papillosum and L.

poitei), spiny seaweed (Acanthophora spicifera), and

Eucheuma isiforme. The coralline red alga

Neogoniolithon strictum is also abundant (Booker,

1991).

Nearshore Restricted-circulation Hardbottom Inhabitants. This habitat is characterized by slow water

movement, and fish species are not abundant. Common groups include the needlefishes (Belonidae),

killifishes (Cyprinodontidae), livebearers (Poeciliidae),

silversides (Atherinidae), mullets (Mugilidae), and

barracudas (Sphyraenidae). These species are all

capable of withstanding changes in a broad range of

environmental parameters including temperature,

salinity, and dissolved oxygen levels. Still, abrupt

temperature changes can result in fish kills.

Nearshore High-velocity Hardbottom Habitats. Located

in tidal channels between islands and on the openwater side of the Keys facing either the Gulf of Mexico

or the Atlantic, these communities are swept by strong

currents that prevent sediment accumulation. They
45

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Seagrass distribution was previously described for the

Gulf of Mexico biogeographic region. Although the

same species occur in the nearshore passes, distributions differ in some areas. For example, Halophila spp.

commonly occurs in the deeper portions of the tidal

passes on the Gulf side, but is not as common closer

to the Atlantic passes. Various factors, including

turbidity and light penetration, influence its distribution.

Invertebrates. Sponges of class Demospongiae are

the dominant organisms in the deepwater passes.

Loggerhead sponge, vase sponge, stinker sponge,

candle sponges, green sponge, sprawling sponge,

chicken liver sponge, and fire sponge (Tedania ignis)

are common representatives. Commercially important

species found include sheepswool sponge, yellow

sponge, grass sponge, glove sponge, velvet sponge,

wire sponge, reef sponge, and finger sponge.

In passes closer to the Gulf, sponges of class

Demospongiae are also the dominant organisms.

Loggerhead sponge, vase sponge, stinker sponge,

candle sponges, green sponge, sprawling sponge,

chicken liver sponge, and fire sponge are all represented in the backcountry hardbottom community.

Several commercial species are also common, including sheepswool sponge, yellow sponge, grass sponge,

glove sponge, velvet sponge, wire sponge, reef

sponge, and finger sponge. Corals are not as abundant in this subhabitat, however, with only lobed star

coral, smooth star coral, smooth and rough starlet

coral, rough star coral, sinuous cactus coral, and

encrusting fire coral (Millepora alcicornis) representative species. All of these species are characteristic of

the corals previously described for the Gulf biogeographic region.

Fishes. Nearshore high-velocity tidal passes close to

the Atlantic also support a diverse assemblage of

fishes, and a large number of species spend the early

portion of their life history in these areas. Juveniles of

many species popular in the aquarium trade spend the

early portion of their life cycle in high- to moderatevelocity tidal passes. Most angelfish (Pomacanthidae),

butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae), and surgeonfish

(Acanthuridae) are commonly found in nearshore tidal

passes that have strong tidal influences. Other families

of fish common in this habitat include sea basses,

jacks (Carangidae), snappers, grunts (Haemulidae),

porgies, drums, damselfish (Pomacentridae), barracudas, wrasses (Labridae), parrotfish (Scaridae), clinids,

combtooth blennies (Blenniidae), and gobies.

In contrast, the deep backcountry tidal passes close to

the Gulf exhibit mixed temperate and tropical fish

species. They serve as important migratory routes for

generally exhibit a greater diversity of sessile biota

than restricted-circulation hardbottom communities.

High-velocity hardbottom habitats can be subdivided

based on their proximity to the Atlantic. The first

subcategory is composed of habitats located near

major deepwater passes such as Moser Channel,

Bahia Honda Channel, Boca Grande Channel. The

second includes those in close proximity to the Gulf of

Mexico.

High-velocity habitats near major deepwater passes

are dominated by stony corals and sponges. Bahia

Honda Channel for example, one of the deepest

natural passes in the Lower-to-Middle Keys, has a

diverse stony coral population dominated by ivory

bush coral, brain corals (Diploria spp. and Colpophyllia

natans), smooth and rough starlet coral, club finger

coral (Porites porites), golf ball coral (Favia fragum),

and others. Most are relatively small (< 1 m), lowprofile colonies.

Passes near the Gulf exhibit a completely different

benthic and epibenthic community than those near the

ocean. Examples include Rocky Channel, Big Spanish

Channel, Harbor Channel, Cudjoe Channel, and

Johnston Key Channel. The dominant feature is the

topographic relief and structure of the hardbottom.

Deep and wide holes in the center of some of these

channels indicate long-term erosion; some have steep

ledges and undercut overhangs that provide excellent

habitat. Some overhangs are extensive (2 to 3 m) and

may serve as refuge for a host of marine organisms

including turtles, spiny lobsters, stone crabs, and a

variety of fishes.

Nearshore High-velocity Hardbottom Inhabitants.

Despite the similarities between the two habitat

subcategories, variation exists between the species

composition of these areas.

Benthic Algae and Seagrasses. The flora of the

deepwater passes on the Gulf side of the Keys also

differs with that of other areas. Although many of the

green (including both calcareous and noncalcareous),

brown, and red algae exhibit similar species compositions as those found near the Atlantic, noticeable

differences exist. Red algae dominate by mass in

some of the deeper channels on the Gulf side.

Eucheuma isiforme exhibits a very different, massive

morphological form throughout much of the year in

deeper channels with strong tidal influences and

restricted light penetration. Laurencia spp. forms

massive clumps and contributes significantly to the

area's algal biomass.
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

46

The region exhibits coral reef communities similar to

those found in the Caribbean and other tropical

Atlantic areas (Jaap, 1984). However, the Keys' coral

reefs occur at an environmental threshold because of

their northern distribution, and therefore exist in a

delicate ecological balance (Vaughn, 1914a). Because

scientists have studied the area's coral reefs since

1852, much literature exists on their biology, ecology,

physiology, geology, and community composition

(Jaap, 1984). Throughout the development of the

management plan, this information has been useful in

formulating strategies to reduce potential impacts on

these complex areas.

Geographic Extent

The Sanctuary boundaries in the Atlantic Ocean region

are established by the seaward shoreline east and

south of the Keys approximately to the 91-m depth

contour. The region's northern limit is Fowey Rocks at

the northern end of Biscayne National Park; the

southern limit approximates the westernmost boundary

near Dry Tortugas National Park. The region extends

along the entire length of the Sanctuary and encompasses all waters on the ocean side of the Keys.

Biological Components

Despite its size, the region is one of the most homogeneous in the Keys. Habitats occur in parallel bands

from the extreme north to the southwest, and similar

coral reef communities are found when progressing

from onshore to offshore environments in the Upper,

Middle, and Lower Keys. In addition, reef community

distribution by depth correlates with sea-level fluctuations and the changing shoreline (Shinn et al., 1989;

Lidz et al., 1991). Although the biota described between Soldier Key and the Dry Tortugas is predominantly Caribbean in character, Kruer and Causey

(1992) found numerous fish species common to Gulf

waters surrounding artificial reefs in Hawk Channel

between Big Pine Key and Upper Sugarloaf Key.

Most of the regional habitat types and biological

communities described previously are also found in

the Sanctuary's Atlantic Ocean region. However, the

biological and ecological composition of the communities within these regions varies greatly. Specifically,

the variety of habitat types is greater in the Atlantic

region, and the area's more tropical habitats support a

significantly greater biodiversity of organisms. Major

Atlantic Ocean habitats include: 1) the mangrove

fringe and nearshore hardbottom; 2) inshore patch

reef; 3) Hawk Channel (mid-channel) reef; 4) Hawk

Channel (mid-channel) seagrass and softbottom; and

5) reef tract habitats. The complex reef tract commumany of the snappers and groupers that move to open

water during spawning. Spadefishes, porgies, sheepshead, and drums occur, but are less common near the

deep tidal passes closer to the Atlantic.

Ecological Importance

The size and geography of the Sanctuary's Nearshore

Habitats and Tidal Channels region help set the Keys'

coral reefs apart from the fringing reefs of much of the

Caribbean. The biological diversity supported by the

area's habitats makes the Keys' ecosystem ecologically and aesthetically unique within the United States.

The region is an area of ecological and biological

mixing where the temperate waters of the Gulf meet

the tropical waters of the Atlantic, producing one of the

most complex habitats in the Sanctuary. The majority

of the commercially and recreationally important

species in the region forage and seek shelter in the

nearshore habitat both in their early life stages and as

adults. In addition, much of the consumptive recreational and commercial activities in the Keys occur in

these areas, and the region has the highest potential

for environmental damage as a result of human use.

Dredging, development, water quality degradation, and

the overuse of resources are but a few of the humanuse activities within the region that may result in

resource damage.

 Atlantic Ocean

26°N 82°W 80°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Like an enormous thermostat, the Florida Current

supplies the Atlantic side of the Keys with a constant

flow of tropical waters. Although they become diluted

through mingling with nearshore waters, these tropical

waters are capable of supporting and sustaining

complex coral reef communities. Accordingly, coral

reefs and their associated subhabitats are the dominant biological and ecological features of the

Sanctuary's Atlantic Ocean biogeographic region.
47

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

nity is composed of habitats including offshore patch

reef, seagrass, back reef/reef flat, bank reef/transitional reef, intermediate reef, deep reef, outlier reef

(Lidz et al., 1991), and sand and softbottom environments.

Mangrove Fringe and Nearshore Hardbottom. The

species composition of mangrove communities in the

Atlantic's fringe and nearshore hardbottom habitat is

similar to that of Florida Bay's fringing mangrove

habitat. Nearshore hardbottom is the dominant ecological community, extending seaward to a depth of

approximately 5.5 m. This depth varies between the

Upper and Middle Keys, but remains relatively constant from the Middle to Lower Keys. Immediately

seaward of some Upper Keys is a broad seagrass

community that extends to the nearshore hardbottom.

In general, the substrate is composed of exposed

fossil corals or limestone formed by biological and

geological processes.

Although seagrasses are not a major habitat component, turtle grass and manatee grass are often found

in sediment-filled depressions. Rhizophytic algal

species are dominant, and attach to sediments by

forming rhizoidal "root balls," or by affixing themselves

directly to the substrate with holdfasts (Croley and

Dawes, 1970; Booker, 1991). The most common

species are members of the green algae family

Codiaceae, including shaving brush (Penicillus spp.),

halimeda (Halimeda spp.), ripweed (Rhipocephalus

phoenix), mermaid’s fan (Udotea spp.), and feather

algae (Caulerpa spp.). Several brown algae (including

Sargassum, Padina, and Dictyota) and some species

of calcareous red algae (including Gonolithion) are

also found.

Mangrove Fringe and Nearshore Hardbottom

Inhabitants. The habitat does not actively accrete or

build massive reef structures, but does support a

diverse sessile and motile biota and provides important nursery and foraging habitat for a variety of

recreationally and commercially important species

including spiny lobster, snapper, and grouper (Jaap,

1984).

Invertebrates. Colonial gorgonian corals are the

dominant sessile organism. Gorgonians (octocorals)

are typically found in areas exhibiting considerable

water exchange, and are therefore able to survive in

waters with high levels of sediment loading (Booker,

1991). Octocoral species include the reticulate seafan

(Gorgonia ventalina), knobby candelabra (Eunicea

mammosa and E. calyculata), double-forked sea rod

(Plexaurella dichotoma), gray sea rod (P. grisea), dry

sea plume (Pseudopterogorgia acerosa), slimy sea

plume (P. americana), and spiny candelabra (Muricea

muricata). Solitary or non-reef-building ahermatypic,

stony corals are also found, with common species

including club finger coral (Porites divaricata), mustard

hill coral (P. astreoides), smooth and rough starlet

corals, golf ball coral, rose coral, elliptical star coral

(Dichocoenia stokesii), knobby brain coral (Diploria

clivosa), and smooth brain coral (D. strigosa). Encrusting fire coral is also found.

Sponges of class Demospongiae are also prevalent,

and loggerhead sponge, vase sponge, stinker sponge,

candle sponges, green sponge, sprawling sponge,

chicken liver sponge, and fire sponge are common in

areas of strong water movement. Commercially

important sponges include sheepswool sponge, yellow

sponge, grass sponge, glove sponge, velvet sponge,

wire sponge, reef sponge, and finger sponge.

This habitat also supports a diverse assemblage of

anemones, polychaete worms, shrimps, crabs, molluscs, echinoderms, and other invertebrates. Coral

rubble, limestone rock, and solution holes and ledges

provide habitat for a host of organisms seeking refuge

from predators.

Fishes. Many fish species, including juveniles popular

in the aquarium trade, spend the early portion of their

life history in the nearshore hardbottom habitat.

Juveniles of most angelfish, butterflyfish, surgeonfish,

and drums are common. Other juveniles found include

sea bass, snappers, grunts, porgies, damselfish,

barracuda, wrasses, and parrotfish. Several other

families, including clinids, combtooth blennies, and

gobies are present as adults.

Inshore Patch Reef. A diverse inshore patch reef

community overlaps the nearshore hardbottom between the depths of 3.7 and 5.5 m. The corals of this

habitat attach to the hardbottom substrate, forming a

discontinuous line of reefs that varies in topographic

relief but is found seaward of nearly every island

bordering the open ocean. The line approximately

parallels (and is restricted to) the chain of emergent

Keys, and the age and size of the corals vary tremendously. Many colonies are small, with a low profile, but

some rival the offshore bank reefs in size.

Inshore Patch Reef Inhabitants.

Invertebrates. Stony corals dominate the inshore patch

reef's sessile biota, and all species in the nearshore

hardbottom habitat (except rose coral) also occur here.

Some massive corals such as mountain star coral

(Montastrea annularis), cavernous star coral, and giant

brain coral (Colpophyllia natans) form colonies that
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

48

may be up to 2 m across. Small colonies of lettuce

coral (Agaricia agaricites) and scattered colonies of

staghorn coral occasionally occur.

The habitat's wide diversity of invertebrates is also

similar to that of the nearshore hardbottom area.

However, inshore patch reefs are primarily occupied

by adults of various species, as opposed to juveniles

(except for cryptic invertebrates that hide under

rubble). Prior to a massive die-off in 1983, the longspined urchin (Diadema antillarum) was a common

inhabitant of these reefs. The species grazed effectively and kept algae away from the reefs, producing a

halo around certain patch reefs.

Fishes. All families of fishes in the Atlantic's nearshore

hardbottom habitat are also found in the inshore patch

reef environment. However, like invertebrates, adults

are more common than juveniles, especially where

adequate relief and shelter afford protection from

predators. Herbivorous and omnivorous fish and

invertebrate species keep the plants grazed back

around the reefs.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Reef. The midchannel reef habitat is a third coral reef community

paralleling the Keys, lying approximately in the center

of Hawk Channel. The reefs vary in topographic relief:

some have a low profile (1 m or less), while others

have relief of over 7 m. This variation is related, in

part, to water depth and proximity to the major passes

opening to the Gulf. Depths in Hawk Channel vary

from 8.5 m off Key Largo to 13.7 m off Big Pine Key

and 9.1 m off Key West.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Reef Inhabitants.

Invertebrates. The mid-channel reef habitat is composed of massive corals including mountain star coral,

cavernous star coral, smooth starlet coral, and giant

brain coral. Many other coral species are present, with

diversity and density exceeding that of the inshore

patch reef habitat.

Cnidarians dominate the benthic biota, with colonial

corallimorphs such as false coral (Ricordea florida),

zoanthids (Palythoa spp.), and a variety of anemones

contributing to the array of organisms. Octocorals are

both large and numerous, with species composition

similar to that of the nearshore hardbottom habitat.

Encrusting sponges are diverse and abundant and

cover much of the reef. Polychaete worms, including

sabellids and serpulids, are also common. Numerous

species of molluscs and echinoderms add to the reefs'

diversity, and encrusting tunicates cover large surface

areas.

Fishes. Mid-channel reefs are a significant habitat for

many commercially and recreationally important fish,

and species diversity and density is greater than that

of inshore areas. Many species are the same as those

found near inshore patch reefs, but representative

species of some families begin to replace their inshore

counterparts. For example, species of damselfish not

commonly found inshore begin to occur in abundance.

Mid-channel reefs also serve as an important habitat

for species migrating offshore to spawn, and due to

the turbidity of Hawk Channel throughout most of the

year, they are natural biological "recharge" areas for

many species targeted by fishing activities.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Seagrass and

Softbottom. Starting approximately 5.5 m seaward of

the inshore patch reefs, turtle grass, manatee grass,

and sparse Halophila spp. become the dominant

seagrasses on portions of the seafloor in Hawk

Channel. A number of algae are also found, and

Caulerpa prolifera is common. In the Lower Keys, the

seagrass and softbottom habitat extends to the

seaward edge of Hawk Channel, marking the landward

side of the reef tract habitat. It is interrupted by scattered rock outcroppings that support sparse

hardbottom communities. For example, in the Upper

Keys the seaward edge is White Bank.

Hawk Channel (Mid-Channel) Seagrass and

Softbottom Inhabitants. Portions of the seafloor not

covered by seagrasses and algae have soft sediments

that serve as habitat for a variety of invertebrates

including polychaete worms, gastropods, and echinoderms. However, the fauna and flora of this area are

not well-known.

Florida Reef Tract

Florida’s coral reef tract comprises one of the largest

communities of its type in the world, extending from

Fowey Rocks near Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The

reef tract parallels the emergent Keys for 356 km,

arcing in a southwesterly direction before terminating

west of the Dry Tortugas. The coral reef community is

almost continuous except for the area between

Rebecca Shoal and the Dry Tortugas. An outer reef

tract lies east and south of the Keys at a distance of

4.8 to 11.3 km. Because the Upper and Lower Keys

are protected from the direct flow of Gulf water, they

are considered to have greater reef development than

the Middle Keys (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Shinn et

al, 1989; Jaap and Hallock, 1990). All but the northernmost extent of the reef tract lies within the boundaries

of the Sanctuary.
49

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

While there are many references in the popular

literature describing the area as a barrier reef, there is

a strong belief in the scientific community that it does

not fit the definition of such a system (Vaughn, 1914b;

Jaap, 1984; Dustan, 1985). To avoid entering into this

debate, the reef tract is described in this document as

including a “bank reef margin” or as a “bank reef

system” (Jaap, 1984). Shinn (personal communication)

has suggested it be called a "discontinuous barrier

reef." However, it is important to note that within the

Sanctuary it is an almost continuous reef community,

and that the linear or elongated reef habitats that lie

parallel to one another in a discontinuous reef tract

often resemble a barrier reef community (Figure 8). In

the Keys, such reefs parallel the shoreline and are

located between Hawk Channel and the Straits of

Florida.

Existing Studies. Although the reef ecosystem has

historically been one of the Keys' most widely examined marine communities (Smith, 1948; Voss and

Voss, 1955), most scientific studies have focused

primarily on the shallow bank reef habitat. In many

cases, scientists have ignored the deeper and more

expansive intermediate-to-deep reef habitats, and only

recently have these areas been rigorously investigated

(Jameson, 1981; Pomponi and Rützler, 1984;

Bohnsack et al., 1987; Miller, 1987; Wheaton and

Jaap, 1988; Lidz et al., 1991; Kruer and Causey, 1992;

Lapointe et al., 1992).

Numerous scientists have identified and described the

organisms comprising the Keys' coral reef ecosystem.

Jaap (1984) and Jaap and Hallock (1990) thoroughly

described the ecology of South Florida's coral reef

ecosystems and provided a historical overview of coral

reef research and the resulting published literature.

Other scientists who have studied the ecosystem

include Starck (1968), who published the most comprehensive list of fishes (517) in the Keys, and Longley

and Hildebrand (1941), who listed 442 fish species in

the Dry Tortugas.

Numerous studies have also been completed that

specifically describe the inhabitants of the Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary. Because Looe Key Reef

and its surrounding habitats generally are inhabited by

species found along the entire reef tract, these studies

may be used as a basis for characterizing species

common in these areas.

In a general survey at Looe Key, Littler et al. (1985)

reported a diverse tropical flora among the hermatypic

corals, gorgonians, and nonarticulated coralline algae

that help form Looe Key Reef. Ninety algal taxa

representing 28 families were identified, and similar

communities are believed to exist along the Keys' reef

tract. Wheaton and Jaap (1988) surveyed fire corals,

octocorals, stony corals, zoanthids, and

corallimorpharians (false corals) and found two

species of fire coral, 42 species of octocorals, and 63

taxa of stony corals. Pomponi and Rutzler (1984)

reported 38 species of sponges, and Vittor et al.

(1984) reported 33 species of polychaete worms.

Thomas (1985) described 47 species of amphipods

and detailed their distribution and ecology. Miller

(1987) identified 82 species of echinoderms, and both

Miller and Felder (1984) sampled invertebrates

throughout all habitats. Bohnsack et al. (1987) reported 188 fish species within Looe Key National

Marine Sanctuary, and Kruer and Causey (1992)

surveyed three depths near Big Pine Shoals, reporting

104 species in shallow depths, 114 in mid depths, and

109 on the deep reef.

Reef Tract Habitats. While the Florida Keys reef tract

is itself considered a bank reef system, the studies

mentioned above (and others) have led to the delineation of several distinct habitats including areas of:

1. Offshore Patch Reef

2. Seagrass

3. Back Reefs/Reef Flat

4. Bank Reef/Transitional Reef

5. Intermediate Reef

6. Deep Reef

7. Outlier Reef

8. Sand and Softbottom

Note: Because many studies have been published on

the biota of the Keys' coral reef system, references to

species found in reef habitats have been limited to

significant species and those unique to a specific area.

Offshore Patch Reef. The Florida Keys reef tract has

a distinct profile along most of its length, with depths

decreasing seaward of Hawk Channel toward the reef

tract. Scattered dead coral outcroppings supporting

sparse hardbottom biota are dispersed in seagrass

beds, marking the landward edge of the bank reef

community. Just seaward is a discontinuous band of

offshore patch reefs that parallel the Keys and comprise the first major habitat encountered in a seaward

progression toward the reef tract.

The topographic relief of patch reefs varies depending

on their proximity to the more seaward back reef and

bank reef communities. Sediment accumulation

landward and behind some bank reefs is rapid, and

may have an effect on the relief of offshore patch

reefs. For example, sediments are accumulating in the

back reef habitat at Looe Key at a rate of 2 m per
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

50

Figure 8. Profile of the Florida Keys Reef Tract

Florida Keys Inshore 

Patch Reef

Offshore

Patch Reefs

Bank Reef/

Transitional Reef

Hawk Channel

Mid-channel Patch

Reef

Sea Level

Intermediate/

Deep Reef

Back Reef/

Reef Flat

Outlier Reefs

Pleistocene Limestone

Holocene Sediments/Reef Limestone

Atlantic Ocean Biogeographic Region

Florida Keys Reef Tract

(NOTE: The underlying bedrock is not accurately depicted.)

1,000 years (Lidz, et al., 1985). The tops of the

offshore patch reefs in the area are 6.5 m deep and

the surrounding seafloor is 7.5 m deep, giving the

reefs 1 m of relief. Along the same line 2.4 km to the

east, however, the tops of the reefs are also 6.5 m

deep, but the surrounding seafloor is 11.5 m deep. As

a result, some of the reefs have over 5 m of relief.

Such three-dimensional topography results in both

complex and diverse reef assemblages.

Offshore Patch Reef Inhabitants. The offshore patch

reef habitat is a transitional zone between the midchannel and inshore habitats and the outer reef tract

community. Accordingly, the area exhibits a subtle

mixing of biota.

Invertebrates. Stony corals and octocorals dominate

the habitat, with the species of stony corals present

very similar to those of the mid-channel reef. Massive

corals include mountain star coral, cavernous star

coral (M. cavernosa), smooth starlet coral, giant brain

coral, and pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus). Colonies

of staghorn coral are often located near patch reefs,

but not in the dense colonies found seaward of the

bank reefs. Octocorals form large colonies that may

grow to over 2 m high. Colonial corallimorphs such as

false coral, zoanthids, and a variety of anemones are

also abundant. In addition, Hunt et al. (1991) reported

that the Caribbean spiny lobster uses the habitat when

migrating through Hawk Channel.

Fishes. Due to their proximity to Hawk Channel and

the Florida Keys reef tract, offshore patch reefs attract

a diverse assemblage of reef fish. Both resident and

transient species including wrasses, angelfish, tangs,

surgeonfish, porkfish, cardinals, blennies, damselfish,

grunts, and hogfish frequent the reefs. Commercially

important species such as grouper and snapper are

seasonally abundant, and migrate shoreward and

seaward between spawning events. In addition,

several species uncommon inshore begin to appear,

demonstrating the habitat's increasingly tropical

influence. Examples include the blue chromis

(Chromis cyanea), redspotted hawkfish (Ambiycirrhitus

pinos), and Spanish hogfish (Bodianus rufus).

Reptiles. Loggerhead turtles are frequently observed

resting under ledges and overhangs in offshore patch

reef areas.

Seagrass Community. An important seagrass

community surrounds the offshore patch reefs, extending further seaward toward the outer reef tract. This

habitat is composed mainly of turtle grass and manatee grass, although various species of algae (particularly green algae) may be present. Rock outcroppings

supporting diverse miniature reef assemblages are

scattered throughout the habitat.

Seagrass Community Inhabitants. Like the

Sanctuary's Gulf region, the seagrass community

exhibits a high density and diversity of organisms.

Species composition varies considerably, however,

between the Gulf's seagrass environment and that of

the Atlantic.

Invertebrates. The Atlantic's seagrass community is an

important habitat for a wide variety of invertebrates,

most conspicuously those of the class mollusca. The

queen conch, for example, spends much of its life
51

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

history grazing the beds. A wide variety of echinoderms, such as the cushion sea star and long-spined

sea urchin, are often found. In addition, patches of

hardbottom with associated reef inhabitants such as

sponges, octocorals, small solitary stony corals,

tunicates (ascidians), bryozoans, anemones, and

algae frequently occur, and a variety of other invertebrates (including polychaetes, mollucsa, and crustacea) help comprise this mini-reef environment. In

addition, the Caribbean spiny lobster may seek shelter

under ledges created by blowouts (Hunt et al., 1991)

and forage in the seagrass beds.

Fishes. A variety of juvenile and adult reef fishes

including wrasses, parrotfishes, surgeons, gobies, and

others use the seagrass community as both a habitat

and food source. Nocturnal species foraging over the

beds include snappers, grunts, and porgies.

Amphibians and Reptiles. The endangered Atlantic

green turtle is known to graze on turtle grass within the

habitat.

Back Reefs/Reef Flat. In back reef areas, where the

seagrass community is protected by the shallow bank

reef habitat and its associated fossilized coral rubble

ridges, a reef flat community often forms. This shallowwater habitat is dominated by turtle grass and manatee grass, with scattered coral heads and small patch

reefs providing shelter for community inhabitants.

Back Reefs/Reef Flat Inhabitants. Coral rubble is a

prominent feature of the back reef/reef flat habitat,

providing shelter and habitat for a wide variety of

fishes and invertebrates. Echinoderms, mollusca,

polychaetes, and decapod crustacea all seek shelter

under the rubble, and it is also important as a nocturnal foraging area for the spiny lobster.

Invertebrates. The back reef/reef flat habitat is important to a variety of invertebrates including the queen

conch, which lays eggs in the shallow sand patches

between the grass beds (Glazer and Berg, 1993). All

species found in the Atlantic's seagrass beds also

occur in this habitat.

Fishes. Bohnsack et al. (1987) described back reef/

reef flat fishes within the Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary. Their findings included a visual assessment of species comparable to those found along

other portions of the reef tract.

Bank Reef/Transitional Reef. The Keys' bank reefs

are estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000 years

old and, in the Lower Keys, stopped growing about

800 years ago (Shinn et al., 1977). This may correspond to sea-level rise that results in the mixing of Gulf

and Atlantic waters. Bank reefs are considered unique

due to the presence of elkhorn coral (Acropora

palmata), coral zonation by depth, and seawardly

oriented spur-and-groove formations (Shinn, 1963;

Shinn, 1981; Jaap, 1984; Wheaton and Jaap, 1988).

These formations (mainly composed of elkhorn coral)

give the reefs three-dimensional relief and contribute

to their complexity, making them both biologically and

aesthetically appealing. Accordingly, they are popular

among scuba divers and snorkelers.

Although the well-known shallow bank reefs (e.g.,

Carysfort Reef, Molasses Reef, Sombrero Reef) may

break the surface at mean low water, less prominent

transitional reefs are found from 4.6 to 6 m below the

surface. Located on the same continuous reef line as

the bank reefs, these transitional reefs stopped

developing 1,500 to 2,000 years ago, possibly in

relation to rising sea levels. Like the other habitats

along the reef tract, the transitional reef community

parallels the Keys.

Bank Reef/Transitional Reef Inhabitants. The band

of habitat that comprises the bank reef/transitional reef

community is almost continuous, except in areas

where sediments have smothered the reef.

Plants. Dominant plants of the fore reef include

encrusting red algae of the genera Lithothamnium,

Goniolithon, and Peyssonellia. Other plants present

include Halimeda opuntia, Bryopsis pennata, and

Dictyota spp. (Antonius, 1978; Littler et al., 1986).

Invertebrates. The shallow fore reef zone makes up

part of the bank reef community. Within this zone at

Looe Key Reef, for instance, high-profile spur-andgroove formations descend from the shallow reef crest

seaward to the tip of the coral fingers. Shinn (1963)

demonstrated that the spurs at the reef are made of

fossilized elkhorn coral. Wheaton and Jaap (1988)

described reef zonation in the Keys' fore reef habitats

and listed the major inhabitants.

Bank reefs and transitional reefs exhibit a high diversity of invertebrate species. The shallow fore reef

habitat consists of massive growths of bladed fire

corals (Millepora complanata) in an area known as the

reef crest. Seaward of the reef crest, the reef's shallow

surface is covered by yellow sea mat (Palythoa

caribbea) and colonies of fire coral. Some species of

hardy stony coral are also present.
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

52

Slightly seaward, the spurs plunge in depth, and

colonies of elkhorn coral begin to appear in the

Acropora Zone. Although some elkhorn coral is

present on most shallow bank reefs, it is uncommon

on the deeper transitional reefs as it is less tolerant of

environmental changes and succumbs easily to

extreme water temperatures, increased turbidity, and

deteriorating water quality. The presence or absence

of this fragile coral seems related to water depth,

exposure to waters derived from the Florida Current,

proximity to Hawk Channel, and location relative to

major inshore tidal passes. The boulder and head

corals previously described for the offshore patch reef

habitat occupy the deepest portion of the spurs. These

massive coral colonies make up the Buttress Zone of

the fore reef. Wheaton and Jaap (1988) reported 23

species of soft coral, 31 species of stony coral, and

two species of fire coral in this habitat at Looe Key

Reef.

Fishes. Several fish species not found on the offshore

patch reefs begin to appear in the bank reef/transitional reef habitat. Juvenile and adult rock beauties

(Holacanthus tricolor), adult reef butterflyfish

(Chaetodon sedentarius), creole wrasses (Clepticus

parrae), and many other species are common, but are

rarely found just a few kilometers inshore. Although

the significance of this zoogeographic distribution has

not been studied, it suggests physical, biological, and

environmental requirements that help characterize the

distribution of various species. Bohnsack et al. (1987)

compiled a comprehensive list of fish species within

this habitat. Kruer and Causey (1992) identified fish at

a 6 to 8 m deep transitional reef 7.5 km east of Looe

Key Reef.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Atlantic hawksbill turtles are

frequently observed in the fore reef areas of the bank

reefs.

Intermediate Reef. Seaward of the shallow bank reefs

and transitional reefs are the deeper intermediate reef

communities. This habitat, which forms the majority of

available reef substrate along the reef tract, begins at

an approximate depth of 10 m and extends out to a

depth of approximately 19 to 21 m. The slope is

gradual, decreasing only about 11 m over 1 km,

making the area a very broad reef habitat. Because it

extends almost the entire length of the Keys, the

intermediate reef occupies a significant geographical

portion of the bank reef community. The reef is composed of a drowned spur-and-groove system exhibiting low-profile coral spurs. This habitat is older than

bank and transitional reefs, and may have been left

behind during the rapid sea level rise during the early

Holocene. The rock is Pleistocene limestone with a

veneer of corals and gorgonians. This zone extends

down to about 115' when the toe of the limestone is

buried in sediment.

Intermediate Reef Inhabitants.

Plants. Eiseman (1981) reported 10 species of algae

at depths of 20 to 30 m off Molasses Reef, with the

most characteristic being Halimeda opuntia (f.minor)

and Dictyota dichotoma. Two other species, Udotea

conglutiata and Galaxura obtusat, were common but

not as abundant.

Invertebrates. The benthic biota of the intermediate

reef is extremely diverse and may rival that of the

sessile organisms found in the bank reef environment.

Soft corals, enormous sponges, and a large variety of

stony corals are present. Boulder corals are most

prominent, but some staghorn coral colonies and

finger corals are also found. Colonies of porites are

often massive in size (sometimes measuring over 1 m

in diameter) and brain corals may get quite large.

Before 1977, acres of staghorn coral colonies were

common.

Fishes. Most of the species found in the bank reef's

fore reef environment also occur in the intermediate

reef habitat, but the numbers and sizes of some

species are noticeably different. For example, juvenile

rock beauties, angelfish, and adult reef butterflyfish are

common. In addition, several species of hamlets that

are uncommon in shallower waters also occur, including black hamlet (Hypoplectrus nigricans), butter

hamlet (H. guttavarius), and blue hamlet (H. gemma).

Other common species include the blue chromis,

which occurs in all size classes but is more common

as a juvenile than in other habitats, and various

seabass and grouper species such as the tobaccofish

(Serranus tabacarius) and the coney (Epinephelus

fulvus). Much of the seasonal commercial and recreational fishing for yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus

chrysurus), mangrove (gray) snapper (Lutjanus

griseus), and king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)

occurs in this often overlooked reef environment. Due

to diving limitations, Bohnsack et al. (1987) were

unable to count and identify fish in this habitat. No

observations were made deeper than 15 m, and

accordingly, the study may not be representative of the

diversity and abundance of species found below this

depth.

Deep Reef. At approximately 20 to 21 m, the intermediate reef begins to slope at a greater angle, and the

deep reef habitat is formed as it descends to a depth

of 29 to 33.5 m. The angle of the slope varies along
53

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

the reef tract, but is more gradual off Key Largo and

steeper off the Lower Keys. At several locations

between Sombrero Reef and American Shoals, the

slope is almost vertical. Deepwater lace coral (Acaricia

spp.), an octocoral occurring along the upper edge of

the deep reef, consistently marks the transition from

the intermediate reef environment. The deepwater

resources of the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary

(stony corals, octocorals, fishes, algae, echinoderms,

molluscs, decapod crustaceans, sponges, geology,

and archaeology) were described by several scientists

in a report based on a survey conducted with a

submersible (Jameson, 1981).

Deep Reef Inhabitants. Although the deep reef

habitat contains much barren fossilized coral covered

with fine sediment, the area is extremely diverse in

both invertebrate and fish species (Jameson, 1981).

Plants. The algae within the deep reef habitat are very

similar to those in the intermediate reef environment

(Eiseman, 1981).

Invertebrates. The most conspicuous invertebrates in

the deep reef environment are the giant basket

sponges (Xestospongia muta), Atlantic thorny oyster

(Spondylus americanus), and several species of

crinoids (Davidaster spp.). However, the presence of

crinoids has decreased since the early-to-mid 1980s.

Common coral species include platelike growth forms

of lettuce coral, mountain star coral, cavernous star

coral, and yellow pencil coral. Deepwater octocorals

such as Ellisella barbadensis and Iciligorgia schrammi

are also found.

Fishes. The number and abundance of chromis

species increases at this depth. Purple reef fish

(Chromis scotti) and sunshinefish (C. insolata) are

extremely abundant in large schools along the deep

reef drop-off. The cherubfish (Centropyge argi) is

another frequently observed species, and the spotfin

hogfish (Bodianus pulchellus), which rarely occurs in

waters shallower than 15.2 m, is common in all size

classes. During the 1970s and early 1980s, it was not

uncommon to observe up to six longsnout butterflyfish

(Chaetodon aculeatus) per dive, although Kruer and

Causey sighted none during a two-year study conducted from 1991 to 1992.

Outlier Reef. At the deepest margin of the deep reef

habitat, the reef terminates into soft sand/mud substrate. This softbottom extends seaward, gradually

sloping until it reaches a deeper reef community

approximately 1 km from the base of the deep reef

(Antonius, 1974; Jameson, 1981). This habitat has

been called the deep reef ridge by Antonius (1974).

More recently, however, Lidz et al. (1991) referred to a

similar habitat as outlier reefs, reporting 57 km of

formations parallel to the outer reef tract from American Shoals to west of Sand Key off Key West. The

structures were located .5 to 1.5 km seaward of the

bank reef margin, at an approximate depth of 30 to 40

m, and had 21 to 28 m of relief (Lidz et al., 1991).

Fishermen have used this habitat for years along

portions of the entire reef tract. In another study,

Jameson (1981) used side-scan sonar and visual

observations from a submersible to survey deep reefs

off South Carysfort Reef, The Elbow, and French Reef.

The habitat consisted of mounds, generally 1 to 2 m in

relief, interspersed with sand channels.

Outlier Reef Inhabitants.

Plants. Eiseman (1981) reported a Lithothamnion

cobble zone in the Keys’ deepest reef habitats. While

there was no dominant species, virtually all had

ligulate, foliose, or filamentous growth forms.

Invertebrates. Characteristic outlier reef invertebrates

include platelike growth forms of lettuce coral, mountain star coral, cavernous star coral, yellow pencil coral

(Madracis mirabilis), and the barrel sponge

(Xestospongia muta). Deepwater octocorals such as

Ellisella barbadensis and Iciligorgia schrammi are also

present. (Antonius, 1974).

Fishes. The fish species in this habitat are very similar

to those found in the deep reef environment.

Sand and Softbottom. Unconsolidated soft sediments

comprise the final habitat in the bank reef community.

Several scientists (Enos, 1977; Lidz et al., 1985; Shinn

et al., 1989) have described the origin of sediments

found along the reef tract. Recent work by Lidz et al.

(1985) has shown that the majority of sand-sized

sediments in the Lower Keys are composed primarily

of coral fragments, and not Halimeda fragments as

previously thought. West of Key West, however,

Halimeda fragments are the main sediment source

(Shinn et al., 1989).

Sand and Softbottom Inhabitants. The habitat

occurs throughout the reef tract, and it is much larger

than the reefs themselves. Still, its importance is often

understated, and it is an area of high polychaete,

mollusc, and echinoderm diversity.

Invertebrates. The most conspicuous epifauna are

echinoderms including the sea stars (Luidia spp.;

Astropecten spp.), sand dollars, and sea cucumbers.

Many molluscs occur on sand, including the Florida
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

54

fighting conch (Strombus alatus), hawkwing conch (S.

raninus), and queen helmet shell (Cassis

madagascarensis).

Fishes. Many fish species are found in the habitat that

are not as common in reef areas. Examples include

the yellowhead jawfish (Opistognathus aurifrons),

dusky jawfish (Opistognathus whitehursti), sailfin

blenny (Emblemaria pandionis), sand tilefish

(Malacanthus plumieri), and lantern bass (Serranus

baldwini). Several seabass species also occur.

Ecological Importance

The enormous size of the Sanctuary's Atlantic Ocean

biogeographic region sets the Florida Keys' coral reef

community apart from the fringing reefs of much of the

Caribbean. The biological diversity that the region

supports makes the Keys' ecosystem ecologically,

economically, aesthetically, and biogeographically

unique within the United States.

The region's reefs are highly complex and diverse

communities whose success is limited by the presence

of suitable substrate and a narrow range of environmental and hydrographical parameters. Corals are the

principal builders of the reef community and form the

main source of spatial complexity and shelter. Biogeographic and environmental factors determine the

density and diversity of the species on coral reefs

(Jaap and Hallock, 1990).

The ecosystem is not composed solely of coral reefs,

however. It also includes the seagrass community,

mangroves, and other biotic communities that, in

combination, help make the system ecologically

unique. Few places have the environmental and

geological setting that has made it possible for such an

ecosystem to form, and when combined with the other

biogeographic regions of the Sanctuary, the entire

ecosystem is unique to much of the Caribbean.
55

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

 Threatened and Endangered Species

A variety of plants, invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, birds,

and mammals in the Keys are protected at the Federal

and/or State level. Each of these species is a valuable

natural resource that contributes to the ecological

balance of the Sanctuary. This section provides a

short description of the species within the Sanctuary

that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern

(as defined by the State). Each description defines the

species' distribution, range, and use of habitats, as

well as the degree of risk posed by certain human-use

activities.

Because Federal and State classifications do not

always match, the protected status of each species

has been summarized in Table 6. A species is defined

as endangered if it is at risk of extinction throughout

all, or a significant part, of its range. A threatened

species is one that is likely to become endangered in

the near future, and a species of special concern has

received this classification based on either unfavorable

regional factors or a decline in population (Owre,

1990). The Federal designation of both plants and

animals is classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) and State designation is classified by

the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

(FGFWFC). A list of threatened and endangered

plants is also developed by the Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA) and the

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI).

Plants

Although some of Florida's 3,500 vascular plant

species have been introduced through horticultural or

agricultural practices, the majority are native to the

state. Many of these native plants are unable to

withstand human impacts or the competition of invading exotic species, and the number of individuals and

populations is declining. The primary causes of

declines include the selective horticultural collection/

removal of species and habitat destruction or clearing

for development (FGFWFC, 1978 [rev. 1988]). Due to

these human-induced pressures, as well as natural

threats from fires and hurricanes, 71 species of plants

in the Keys are listed as threatened or endangered by

the FDA, two species are listed as federally endangered, and one as federally threatened.

Both the Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii) and Small’s

milkpea (Galactia smallii) are listed as federally

endangered by the FWS. The tree cactus ranges from

Cuba to the Keys, where five small populations

remain. The cactus's endangered status is a result of

the destruction of hardwood hammocks for commercial

and residential development. Small’s milkpea is an

endemic plant restricted to seven pine rockland areas

in South Florida. It has been classified as endangered

based on the destruction of pine rockland and the

exclusion of fire in these habitats.

Garber’s spurge (Euphorbia garberi) is an endemic

plant listed as federally threatened by the FWS. It

occurs in only four areas of Everglades National Park

and one area of the Keys. Like the tree cactus and

Small’s milkpea, it is classified as threatened due to

habitat destruction.

Table 7 summarizes the status, habitat type, range

(when available), and cause of decline for plant

species in the Keys listed as endangered or threatened by the FDA.

Animals

Animal species in the Keys are dependent on the

area’s diverse habitats, including beaches, coral reefs,

pine rockland, transitional wetlands, freshwater

wetlands, mangroves, and hardwood hammocks. As

these habitats are altered, a species' chance of

survival diminishes. The species described below are

threatened primarily by direct or indirect habitat loss

and habitat alteration as a result of human activities.

Those that are either threatened or endangered are

listed in Table 6, along with the juridiction responsible

for protecting them.

Invertebrates

Florida Tree Snail (Liguus fasciatus). Florida tree

snails have historically been found from Grassy Key to

Key West, and museum specimens exist from Lower

Matecumbe Key (Deisler, 1982). They are found on a

variety of native hammock trees and a few introduced

ornamentals (Deisler, 1982). Primary threats include

the loss of habitat through development and recreational uses, as well as relocation by collectors

(Deisler, 1982; Sprunt, pers. comm.).

Stock Island Tree Snail (Orthalicus reses reses).

Until recently, the Stock Island tree snail subspecies

occurred in a small area on Stock Island and was

confined to a patch of natural hardwood hammocks

(FWS, 1982). However, only a captive population

remains (Wilmers, pers. comm.) Major threats include

habitat alteration and loss, human recreational use of

snail habitat, pesticide application, overcollection for

shells (Antonius, 1982), fire ants (Wilmers, pers.

comm.), and relocation by collectors (Sprunt, pers.

comm.).
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

56

Mangrove Rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). Mangrove

rivulus occurs throughout the Keys and has been

collected from Key West to Biscayne Bay. The species

primarily inhabits shallow mosquito ditches and bays

associated with estuarine mangroves and high-salt

marsh shorelines (Snelson, 1978; Taylor, 1992). It is

threatened by development near estuarine boundaries

(Snelson, 1978; Taylor, 1992).

Amphibians and Reptiles

American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The

American alligator primarily ranges from Little Pine

Key to Sugarloaf Key, inhabiting wetland areas,

including the edges of natural basins, freshwater

marshes, and mosquito ditches on Little Pine, No

Name, and Big Pine keys (Kruer, pers. comm.). The

greatest concentrations are on Big Pine Key. Alligator

holes and ponds may be important refuges for other

animals during periods of drought (Woolfenden, 1983),

and the maintenance of such ponds plays a significant

role in preserving the health of the area's wetlands.

Nests are usually constructed on mounds of vegetation, raised banks, or slightly higher ground so eggs

will be above the high-water mark (VanMeter, 1987).

The species is threatened by the loss of freshwater

and wetland habitats (Fogarty, 1978) and human

interaction (e.g., poaching, road kills, and removal)

(Kruer, pers. comm.).

American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). A tropical,

typically estuarine species that reaches its northern

limit in southern Florida, American crocodiles have

been reported in the Upper Keys from lower Plantation

Key to Key Largo and along Cross Key to the mainland of Barnes and Card sounds. They have also been

sighted from southern Biscayne Bay north to Turkey

and Black points (FWS, 1984; Moler, 1991). Crocodiles may occur in the Lower Keys, mainly within

boundaries of the National Key Deer and Great White

Heron wildlife refuges (FWS, 1984a), and have also

been found in Key West (Wilmers, pers. comm.).

However, there is no recent proof to verify continued

presence in these areas (FWS, 1984a).

Crocodiles primarily inhabit mangrove-lined creeks,

bays, and other swampy areas. Adult females often

construct low nest mounds or holes in sand, marl, or

peat soils on abandoned canal levees in mangrove

swamps, along creek banks, or on small beaches

(FWS, 1984). Of the 25 to 30 nests constructed in

Florida each year, 80 percent are in Monroe County or

on adjacent beaches in Dade County (Moler, 1991).

Most known nests occur in the Florida Bay portion of

Everglades National Park, in Barnes and Card sounds,

Pillar Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus). Pillar coral is

found scattered throughout the Florida Reef Tract in

shallow, protected areas of the outer reefs and on

shallow patch reefs. Because of its ornamental shape,

it has been overcollected by marine life collectors

(Antonius, 1982).

Schaus’s Swallowtail Butterfly (Heraclides

aristodemus ponceanus). The range of Schaus's

swallowtail butterfly is known only from the southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula and in the Keys (FWS,

1982). Adults occur most frequently along overgrown

trails in relatively undisturbed hardwood hammocks.

Although reports from Lower Matecumbe and Upper

Matecumbe keys exist, the species is most often found

in northern Key Largo and Biscayne National Park

(FWS, 1982; Monroe County, 1992; Kruer, 1992).

Primary threats include the widespread aerial application of insecticides, overcollection, hurricanes, and

primary habitat destruction (FWS, 1982; Wilmers,

pers. comm.).

Fishes

Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis). A

subtropical estuarine species, common snook generally inhabits brackish estuaries, particularly mangrovefringed bays and tidal streams (Seaman and Collins,

1983). The species is also found in salt marsh and

coral reef environments and in man-made ditches and

canals (Thue et al., 1982; Patillo et al., in prep.). The

species occurs from Everglades National Park to the

Dry Tortugas (Burgess, 1980) and is prized by recreational fishermen as a sport and food fish (Thue et al.,

1982). Primary threats include loss of habitat, low

water temperatures, and overfishing (Seaman and

Collins, 1983; Patillo et al., in prep.).

Key Blenny (Starksia starcki). Key blenny are known

only within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,

and although Gilbert (1978) has suggested the species

may inhabit other areas within the Keys, sightings are

rare. All specimens collected have come from isolated

coral formations in depths of less than 5 m. Major

threats include the loss of coral habitat (Gilbert, 1978).

Key Silverside (Menidia conchorum). Key silversides

are found in the Middle and Lower Keys in Long Key,

Big Pine Key, Cudjoe Key, and Key West (Gilbert,

1978; Gilbert, 1992). The species is essentially

marine, and typically occupies shallow open bays

(Gilbert, 1978). Since it has a limited range and its

numbers fluctuate dramatically, an undisturbed habitat

is crucial (Gilbert, 1978). Accordingly, the species is

threatened by habitat alteration.
57

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

marine debris and tar balls, entanglement in active and

passive fishing gear, water quality degradation, and

collisions with vessels (Lund, 1978e; FWS, 1984b;

NMFS and FWS, 1991b).

Atlantic Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Although Atlantic ridley turtles have a range that includes

the waters of the Keys, they are rarely sighted (Lund,

1978d). Like other sea turtle species, they have a

pelagic juvenile stage. Adults and subadults usually

inhabit nearshore waters, mangrove creeks, and bays.

Although there are no known nesting areas in the

Keys, knowledge of nesting, subadult distribution, and

recent strandings off Marathon indicate that much, if

not all, of the population migrates through the Straits of

Florida (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threats include egg

collecting and shrimp trawl drownings, ingestion of or

entanglement in marine debris, and water quality

degradation (Lund, 1978d; FWS, 1984b).

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Though

somewhat scarce, leatherback turtles occur throughout

the waters of the Keys (Lazell, 1989). They are the

most pelagic of the area's turtles and can dive to great

depths. There are no records of nesting beaches in the

Keys (Lund, 1978a; Wilmers, pers. comm.), although

one leatherback unsuccessfully attempted to nest in

the Marquesas in 1989. Primary threats include egg

collecting on beaches outside the Keys; the killing of

females for food; entanglement in fishing gear; and the

ingestion of plastic bags that are mistaken for jellyfish

(Lund, 1978a; Odell, 1990).

Striped Mud Turtle (Klinosternon bauri). Striped mud

turtles range from Big Pine Key to Stock Island in the

Lower Keys (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Optimal habitats include small fresh

or slightly brackish ponds, mangrove swamps, and the

edge of hardwood hammocks (Weaver, 1978). Primary

threats include land development, which alters freshwater/brackish ponds and the surrounding terrestrial

environment (Weaver, 1978).

Big Pine Key Ringneck Snake (Diadophis

punctatus). Big Pine Key ringneck snakes have the

most restricted range of any snake in the Lower Keys

(Lazell, 1989). They are found from No Name Key to

Sugarloaf Key, but may be restricted to Middle Torch,

Little Torch, and Big Pine keys (Monroe County Board

of County Commissioners, 1986; Kruer, 1992). On the

Torch Keys they have only been found on the edges or

within the disturbed portions of tropical hardwood

hammocks (Lazell, 1989). The principal threat is

increasing residential development, which destroys

Black Point, North Key Largo, Turkey Point, and Lake

Surprise (Moler, 1991; FWS, 1984a; Monroe County,

1992). Threats include habitat loss/alteration and

direct disturbance by humans, including camping,

boating and fishing near nesting sites, hunting, and

road kills (FWS, 1984a).

Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas). The

Atlantic green turtle occurs throughout the marine

waters of the Keys and is highly migratory (Lund,

1978b). There are recent reports of nesting on Boca

Grande, Sawyer Key, and the Marquesas (Wilmers,

pers. comm.). The Keys' nearshore waters are crucial

developmental areas (Hoffman, pers. comm.) and

manatee grass and turtle grass provide the species'

main food source (Zieman, 1982; Zieman, pers.

comm.). Primary threats include the loss of seagrass

feeding areas; human disturbances; entanglements in

active, passive, and lost fishing gear; water quality

degradation; the loss or alteration of nesting beaches

(FWS, 1984b; NMFS and FWS, 1991a); and cutaneous fibropapilomas found on immatures (Wells, pers.

comm.) that increase the chance of entanglement in

fishing gear (Hoffman, pers. comm.).

Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricta

imbricata). Atlantic hawksbill turtles occur throughout

the waters of the Keys, with nesting sites reported at

Boca Grande Key (Wilmers, pers. comm.) and Soldier

Key in Biscayne National Park (Hoffman, pers.

comm.). The species is most often observed near

coral reefs and is considered the most endangered of

the Keys' sea turtles. (Lund, 1978c). Primary threats

include the degradation of nesting beaches and coral

reefs, decreased water quality, hunting and egg

collecting, and entanglements in active and passive

fishing gear (Lund, 1978c; FWS, 1984b).

Atlantic Loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta).

Inhabiting waters throughout the Keys, Atlantic loggerheads are the most common marine turtle in the

Sanctuary and the only species regularly utilizing

Keys' beaches for nesting (Monroe County, 1992).

Nests occur from Upper Matecumbe Key to the Dry

Tortugas, and sites have been reported in areas

including the Marquesas Keys, Woman Key, Boca

Grande Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, Coco Plum

Beach, Bahia Honda, Big Munson, Sawyer, Lower

Sugarloaf Key, and Everglades National Park (Monroe

County Board of County Commissioners, 1986;

Wilmers, pers. comm.). Hatchlings are often associated with sargassum rafts (Odell, 1990). Major threats

include shrimp trawl drownings, the destruction of

nesting beaches by coastal development, artificial

lights near nesting beaches that cause hatchlings to

move away from their ocean destination, ingestion of
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

58

tropical hardwood hammock and slash pineland

habitats. The destruction of freshwater wetlands by

development is also detrimental to the species (Lazell,

1989).

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi).

Eastern indigo snakes have been reported on Little,

Middle, and Big Torch keys, and Summerland, Cudjoe,

Sugarloaf, No Name, Key Largo, Sugarloaf, Plantation,

Boca Chica, and Big Pine keys (Lazell, 1989; Monroe

County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). The

species is most often found on Big Pine Key (Wilmers,

pers. comm.) and utilizes tropical hardwood hammocks, slash pinelands, freshwater wetlands, tidal

mangroves, transitional habitats, and disturbed lands

recolonized by non-native vegetation. The species is

threatened by habitat loss, collection for pets (by both

recreational and commercial collectors), and road kills

(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986; Lazell, 1989).

Florida Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi victa). Florida

brown snakes occur in the Upper Keys (Sprunt, pers.

comm.), but primarily range from No Name Key to

Sugarloaf Key and are endemic to the Lower Keys

(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986; Lazell, 1989). They inhabit slash pinelands and

freshwater wetlands, and are vulnerable to habitat loss

resulting from development (Monroe County Board of

County Commissioners, 1986).

Florida Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritas

sackeni). Florida ribbon snakes are found in the Lower

Keys from No Name Key to Sugarloaf Key and have

also been reported on Cudjoe, Middle Torch, and Big

Pine keys (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986; Lazell, 1989). They also occur on Key

Largo and Plantation Key (Sprunt, pers. comm.).

Primary habitats include freshwater and tidal (mangrove and transitional) wetlands. A primary threat is

the elimination or degradation of habitat through land

development (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986; Lazell, 1989).

Miami Black-headed Snake (Tantilla oolitica). Although mostly found from Key Largo to Grassy Key

(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986), Miami black-headed snakes have also been

reported in southeastern Dade County (Sprunt, pers.

comm.). They mainly inhabit cavities in the Key Largo

limestone underlying Upper Keys' hardwood hammocks (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). A primary threat is the loss of tropical

hardwood hammocks through land development

(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986).

Red Rat Snake (Elaphe guttata guttata). Perhaps the

most common snake in the Upper Keys uplands

(Sprunt, pers. comm.), red rat snakes have also been

reported in the Lower Keys on Bahia Honda Key, Big

Pine Key, Vaca Key, Key West, Indian Key, Little Pine

Key, Stock Island, Sugarloaf Key, and the Marquesas

(Weaver, 1978). Pine woods are the preferred habitat

and the species is threatened by habitat destruction as

a result of land development (Weaver, 1978).

Florida Keys Mole Skink (Eumeces egregius

egregius). Although rarely seen, the Florida Keys mole

skink has been reported on Middle Torch Key, Key

Vaca, the Dry Tortugas, Key West, Indian Key, Stock

Island, Upper Matecumbe Key, Key Largo, and

Plantation Key (Lazell, 1989; Sprunt, pers. comm.). An

endemic subspecies, it is confined to the Keys and is

found in sandy areas, usually near the shoreline.

Human development is the primary threat to the

species (Lazell, 1989).

Birds

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius). A

migratory species seen in the winter throughout the

Keys, American kestrels are found in open habitats,

particularly pine forests and clearings with dead trees.

There are no known nesting sites in the Keys. They

are threatened by habitat destruction resulting from

human development (Wilmers, pers. comm.).

American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus).

Although rare in the Keys (Sprunt, pers. comm.),

American oystercatchers are occasionally seen in the

Upper Keys on sandy beaches and oyster and mollusc

beds at low tide (Woolfenden, 1978; Owre, 1990).

Threats include recreational beach use.

Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius).

Migratory birds observed in the waters of the Keys

during the fall and winter, Arctic peregrine falcons

inhabit sea coasts, estuaries, bays, and tree-rimmed

marshes (Owre, 1990). Over half of the total population may pass through the Keys during the fall migration, using Boot Key and other sites as roosting areas

(Hoffman, pers. comm.; Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threats

include chemical pollution and the loss of roosting

areas.

Bachman’s Warbler (Vermivora bachmani). Although

very rare and possibly extinct (Lazell, 1989),

Bachman's warblers have been reported in the Lower

Keys as far south as Key West (Stevenson, 1978).

The species' habitats include mangroves and hardwood hammocks (Stevenson, 1978; Lazell, 1989).
59

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

1990) and the Dry Tortugas (Hoffman, pers. comm.).

They prefer wet prairies, grasslands, sparsely vegetated marshes, and open areas that are shallow and

flooded (Williams, 1978). They nest in mounds of

aquatic vegetation and in sloughs of water about .3 m

deep (Woolfenden, 1983). Because of the species'

very low reproductive potential and subsequent

inability to respond quickly to environmental change

(Williams, 1978), threats include drainage area alteration and wetland loss.

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). Least terns are found

throughout the Keys, with nesting sites in areas

including Lake Edna, Grassy Key, Big Pine Key, Ohio

Key, and Everglades National Park (Hovis and

Robson, 1989; Spendelow and Patton, 1988). They

prefer to nest on open, flat areas with sparse vegetation and coarse substrates such as sand or shell. They

are opportunistic, and have begun to nest on a variety

of man-made habitats including gravel rooftops,

dredge material sites, highway easements, rock pits,

roadside shoulders, and parking lots (Spendelow and

Patton, 1988; Hovis and Robson, 1989). These sites

will ultimately threaten the species, however, as most

dredge material sites are not stable for nesting because they are temporary and subject to high levels of

human disturbance. Also, although rooftops are

permanent structures, they flood and may be hazardous to young that cannot fly (Hovis and Robson,

1989).

Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea). Little blue heron

populations are scattered throughout the Keys and can

be found in exposed tidal flats, intertidal seagrass

banks, shallows bordering mangrove islands (Wilmers,

pers. comm.), and the wet meadows of wetland areas

(Rodgers, 1978). Threats include the loss of foraging

and nesting habitats (Rodgers, 1978; Hoffman, pers.

comm.).

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). Scattered throughout the

Keys, snowy egrets are common in fresh and saltwater

marshes but prefer salt and brackish habitats (Ogden,

1978d). Nesting occurs in shrubs, small trees, mangroves, and cacti. Although populations are concentrated in South Florida, a few breed in the Keys

(Spendelow and Patton, 1988). As with other wading

birds, snowy egret survival is dependent upon the

amount of productive wetlands available for nesting

and feeding (Ogden, 1978d).

Tricolored Heron; Louisiana Heron (Egretta tricolor).

Although tricolored herons occur in a variety of environments throughout the Keys, they are most common

in estuarine and wetland habitats. Like most waders,

herons nest on islands or in woody vegetation over

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In the Lower

Keys, bald eagles range from Little Pine Key to the

Marquesas (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Eagles nesting in the Lower Keys are

the southernmost breeders in the United States

(Wilmers, 1991). In the Upper Keys, they range north

and east of Lower Matecumbe to the mainland (including adjacent islands and waters) and throughout

Florida Bay (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 1986). They are usually observed in wooded

areas near the coast and large lakes, and breed in

mangroves (Owre, 1990; Wilmers, 1991; Sprunt, pers.

comm.). Threats include lead pellet and pesticide

poisoning, nest flushing by boats, and habitat loss

from coastal development and acid rain (Wilmers,

1991; Sprunt, pers. comm.), especially near lakes and

coastal areas, both of which are crucial nesting and

roosting habitats.

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Brown

pelican populations are scattered throughout the Keys

(Sprunt, pers. comm.), and birds nest on coastal

islands in mangrove trees (Schreiber, 1978). Threats

include human disturbance of nesting areas, decreases in the availability of prey, and pesticide

poisoning (e.g., DDT and chlorinated hydrocarbons)

that decreases reproductive success (Schreiber, 1978;

Lazell, 1989).

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Although rare

within the Sanctuary, burrowing owl populations are

concentrated in the Middle Keys. Because they nest

several feet below ground, the local water table must

remain low or their burrows may be flooded

(Woolfenden, 1983). They are generally seen on high

shady ground with little growth (particularly prairies,

sand hills, and pastures) and on prairie-like expanses

of airports, industrial plants, and campuses (Owre,

1990). In Marathon they have been seen around the

airport, golf course, and at Sombrero Beach Park

(Wilmers, pers. comm.; Hoffman, pers. comm.).

Threats include development and the domestic cat

population (Hoffman, pers. comm.).

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus

maritimus mirabilis). Cape Sable seaside sparrows are

found primarily in Everglades National Park and

adjacent areas (Owre, 1990; Hoffman, pers. comm.),

in freshwater marshes and sites with fresh to slightly

brackish water. Primary threats include the alteration

of drainage areas and the loss of wetland habitat

(Werner, 1978).

Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis).

Although rare in the Keys, Florida sandhill cranes have

been reported in Everglades National Park (Owre,
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

60

Florida Bay (Ogden, 1978c), with colonies on Sandy

Key and Porjoe Key (Hoffman, pers. comm.). Most

recently, they have been sighted near ponds with

weedy bottoms in the town of Layton on Long Key,

around shallow ponds on Cudjoe Key, and occasionally on Big Pine Key (Lazell, 1989). Nonbreeders occur

south of Long Key (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threats

include habitat loss and food resource declines

resulting from an inadequate flow of freshwater from

the Everglades (Owre, 1990).

Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii). Roseate terns

primarily range from the Middle Keys to the Dry

Tortugas (Spendelow and Patton, 1988), preferring to

nest on shell/sand beaches, broken coral heaps, and

eroded limestone in open or sparsely vegetated sites.

They have historically been reported in areas including

Coco Plum Beach (Marathon), islands off the Seven

Mile Bridge, the Spoil Islands in Key West Harbor, and

Molasses Reef Dry Rocks (Spendelow and Patton,

1988). Threats include the loss of nesting sites due to

development, the disturbance of nest sites by humans,

and the predation of nest sites by raccoons and black

rats (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,

1986).

Southeastern Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus tenuirostris). Southeastern snowy plovers

require open, dry sandy beaches for breeding and

both dry and tidal flats for foraging. No other bird

species feeds and breeds on open, dry sand

(Woolfenden, 1978). Although rare in the Keys and

most common on Gulf coast beaches (Woolfenden,

1978) and Marco Island (Hoffman, pers. comm.), they

have been sighted in the Middle Keys and Florida Bay.

They are threatened by human beach use and domestic cats and dogs (Woolfenden, 1978).

White-crowned Pigeon (Columba leucocephala).

White-crowned pigeons nest on small mangrove

islands, from Elliott Key south to the Marquesas, and

usually fly into large hardwood hammocks to feed

(Bancroft et al., 1991). Breeding populations are

dependent on hammocks for food, but because these

hammocks occupy high ground they have been

extensively developed for human habitation. Accordingly, hammock destruction is a major threat to the

species (Bancroft et al., 1991).

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). Wood storks are

uncommon in the Keys, except in Barnes and Card

sounds. Although nesting once occurred in the mangrove islets in Florida Bay (Spendelow and Patton,

1988), these colonies no longer exist (Hoffman, pers.

comm.). Wood storks generally inhabit trees over

standing water (including freshwater swamps and

standing water (Owre, 1990). Nests are often located

in mangroves, willow, buttonbush, marsh elder, wax

myrtle, pond apple, or similar woody plants characteristic of interior wetland or estuarine areas (Ogden,

1978b). Threats include wetland loss (Ogden, 1978b).

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Ranging from Everglades

National Park to the Lower Keys, osprey nests are

concentrated between Florida Bay and the Ten

Thousand Islands (Ogden, 1978e; Wilmers, 1991).

Nesting usually occurs in the tops of large cypress,

mangrove, pine, or swamp hardwood trees near sea

coasts, interior lakes, large swamps, or large rivers.

However, nests may also occur close to the ground

(Ogden, 1978e; Wilmers, 1991) or on man-made

objects including utility poles, radio towers, channel

markers, and high signs (Wilmers, 1991). Although

threatened by pesticides that can greatly reduce

nesting success, the primary threat to nesting ospreys

is habitat destruction (Ogden, 1978e). In addition,

severe prolonged disturbances by boaters during

sensitive pre-nesting and incubation periods have

drastically reduced productivity in several local areas

of Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge

(Wilmers, pers. comm.).

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Piping plovers

are found in Everglades National Park and the Lower

Keys, primarily inhabiting beaches, tidal sand flats,

mud flats, and sandfills. The wetlands on Ohio,

Woman, and Boca Grande keys provide a major

wintering ground (Monroe County, 1992; Wilmers,

pers. comm.). Threats include habitat loss and human

disturbance (Owre, 1990; Wilmers, pers. comm.).

Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens). Reddish egret

populations are scattered throughout Florida Bay and

the Lower Keys. Nesting sites are most common within

Everglades National Park and on Hemp Key

(Robertson, 1978; Kruer, pers. comm.). Reddish

egrets are generally associated with red mangroves,

usually nesting near or over saltwater or hypersaline

water and feeding in nearby shallows (Robertson,

1978; Hoffman, pers. comm.). Because much of the

population occurs in areas with submarginal foodsource productivity (e.g., Florida Bay), the species is

threatened by habitat loss (Owre, 1990).

Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja). Roseate spoonbills

breed in Florida Bay, primarily in Everglades National

Park (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Although primarily scattered throughout the Upper Keys, some breeders feed

in areas of water lagoons and marshes with mangrove

zones (Spendelow and Patton, 1988), and most go to

the mainland (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Roseate spoonbills usually nest in the red and black mangroves of
61

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

marshes) or on islands, and feed on fish in shallow

water (Ogden, 1978a). Population declines result from

habitat loss and reduced fish productivity (which has

reduced reproductive success) in altered freshwater

wetlands such as the Everglades (Ogden and Nesbitt,

1979).

Mammals

Note: Current threats for each of the whales listed

below include the ingestion of chemical pollutants

(e.g., pesticides, trace metals) passed through the

food chain, marine debris (e.g., plastic bags and lost or

discarded fishing gear) (Sadove and Morreale, 1989),

entanglement in fishing gear, and collisions with boats

(Odell, 1990). Threats to food resources include ocean

pollution and competition from commercial fisheries

(Odell, 1992). Also, because whales have such vast

migration patterns, activities occurring outside the

Sanctuary can ultimately have harmful impacts on

individuals and populations travelling through the area.

Threats considered specific to a particular species

have been listed for that species.

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). There are no

records of blue whales in the waters of the Keys.

However, because at least one has stranded on the

Texas coast, it is possible that the species passes

through the Sanctuary (Odell, 1990).

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). The incidence of

several historical strandings throughout the Keys

(Smithsonian Institution, unpublished data; Schmidley,

1981) suggests that fin whales pass through the

Straits of Florida (Odell, 1990). Threats include fishing

gear entanglements, collisions with vessels, ingestion

of pollutants through the food chain, competition with

the fisheries industry, and stress caused by whalewatching activities outside the Sanctuary (Odell,

1992c).

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Although there are no historical records of humpback

strandings in the Keys (Smithsonian Institution,

unpublished data), the species has been sighted on

both coasts of Florida (Schmidley, 1981), and may

migrate through the region (Odell, 1990). Threats

include fishing gear entanglements, collisions with

vessels, pollutant ingestion through the food chain,

natural biotoxins, stress caused by whale-watching

activities outside the Sanctuary, and habitat modification caused by oil exploration and other human

activities (Odell, 1992d).

Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Because right

whales have overwintering and calving grounds off

Florida's east coast (Kraus, 1985) and because there

have been recent sightings in Dade County and

strandings in the Gulf of Mexico, it can be assumed

that they pass through the waters of the Keys (Odell,

1990). Threats include entanglement and collisions

with vessels, and recent photograph analysis indicated

that 57 percent of North Atlantic right whales have

scars indicative of such activities (Kraus, 1990). In

addition, coastal pollution may affect food distribution

and abundance, impeding whale recovery (Odell,

1992a).

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Although there are

no historical records of sei whales in the Keys, there

are several stranding records for the Gulf of Mexico,

Caribbean, and Florida's east coast (Smithsonian

Institution, unpublished data), suggesting that the

species passes through Sanctuary waters (Odell,

1990). Primary threats include a reduction of food

resources by ocean pollution and competition from

commercial fisheries (Odell, 1992b).

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Historical

records indicate that sperm whales have stranded in

areas throughout the Keys (Smithsonian Institution,

unpublished data), and because they feed throughout

the year (Schmidley, 1981), it is likely that they feed

within the Sanctuary. The occasional stranding of

calves suggests that Sanctuary waters may also be a

calving area (Odell, 1990). Threats include entanglement in fishing gear and underwater cables, habitat

modification by offshore oil development, and the

ingestion of pollutants accumulated in the food chain

(Odell, 1992e).

Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus). A subspecies

of the West Indian manatee, Florida manatees range

from Upper Key Largo to Key West. They generally

inhabit canals, creeks, and surrounding waters

throughout the year, but are not exclusive to Monroe

County, travelling to various coastal areas and rivers

throughout the southeastern United States (FWS,

1989). They are frequently found in the fresh or

brackish waters of large, slow-moving rivers, estuaries,

coves, and bays, but can survive in other water types,

including those that are saline or acidic (FWS, 1989).

Because they prefer submergent, natant, rooted, and

emergent vegetation, movements and aggregations of

manatees can be correlated with the distribution of

seagrasses and vascular freshwater aquatic vegetation (FWS, 1989). Human destruction and/or alteration

of the species' habitat (i.e., seagrass) is a primary
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

62

threat that has already caused population declines.

Other human-induced threats include collisions with

boats and barges, fishing gear entanglements, crushing in flood gates or canal locks, and intentional killing

(FWS, 1989; O'Shea and Ludlow, 1992).

Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium ). A smaller

subspecies of the Virginia white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), Key deer range from the

Johnson Keys/Little Pine Key complex west to Lower

Sugarloaf Key (FWS, 1985). Their range is currently

restricted to the Lower Keys (Klimstra, 1992), with the

greatest concentrations on Big Pine Key and No Name

Key (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992). They are known to

swim between Keys, particularly when searching for

fresh water in times of drought. Like most white-tailed

deer, they utilize various habitats depending on

availability, activity, and time of day (FWS, 1985).

They most frequently occupy mangroves and hardwood hammocks during the day, as these areas

provide escape cover, bedding, and loafing sites. They

feed on a variety of plants but prefer red mangroves

(FWS, 1985). Habitat use is affected by the availability

of fresh water. The primary cause of species decline is

the destruction or alteration of habitat by human

development. Other threats include road kills, water

source reductions (e.g., alteration or decreases of

freshwater wetlands), harassment, dog attacks,

poaching, and drowning (particularly of fawns in

mosquito ditches) (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992).

Key Largo Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus

allapaticola). The Key Largo cotton mouse is found

only in and around the hardwood hammocks of

northern Key Largo (Brown, 1978; Lazell, 1991). As

human development has increased, there has been a

corresponding decrease in available hammock habitat.

The increase in human settlement has also led to an

increase in the number of competing European rats

and predatory house cats, causing a subsequent

decline in the cotton mouse population (Lazell, 1991;

Humphrey, 1992).

Key Largo Wood Rat (Neotoma floridana smallii).

Found only in northern Key Largo, the Key Largo wood

rat utilizes the island's hardwood hammocks as its

primary habitat. The species is threatened by the loss

of habitat resulting from human development (Lazell,

1989). An increase in human settlement has also led

to a corresponding increase in competing European

rats and predatory house cats, causing a subsequent

decline in the wood rat population (Brown, 1978;

Lazell, 1989; Humphrey, 1992).

Silver Rice Rat (Oryzomys argentatus). Ranging from

Little Pine Key to Saddlebunch Keys, silver rice rat

populations are concentrated on Cudjoe, Summerland,

Big Torch, Middle Torch, Saddlebunch, Little Pine,

Raccoon, Water, and Johnson keys (Humphrey,

1992). They feed throughout these areas, nesting in

marsh and buttonwood zones. Most populations

depend on wetland habitat containing intertidal red

mangroves, salt marsh, and buttonwood. Because this

species is not found outside the Lower Keys, a primary

threat to its long-term survival is habitat loss due to

land development (Lazell, 1989; Humphrey, 1992).

Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris

hefneri). Found on only a few islands in the Lower

Keys, the Lower Keys marsh rabbit is an endemic

species that ranges from Boca Chica Key to Big Pine

Key (Lazell, 1989), living in transition lands at the

edges of mangrove islands and in hardwood hammocks. Recent declines have resulted from habitat

destruction due to human development, road kills, and

juvenile mortalities caused by feral and domesticated

house cats (Lazell, 1989; Wolfe, 1992).
63

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction

Species Jurisdiction

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State

Invertebrates

Florida tree snail Liguus fasciatus S

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus E

Schaus' swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus E E

Stock Island tree snail Orthalicus reses reses T E

Fish

Common snook Centropomus undecimalis S

Key blenny Starksia starcki S

Key silverside Menidia conchorum T

Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus S

Amphibians and Reptiles

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis S

American crocodile Crocodylus acutus E E

Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas mydas E E

Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricta imbricata E E

Atlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta caretta T T

Atlantic ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E

Big Pine Key ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus T

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T

Florida brown snake Storeria dekayi victa E

Florida Keys mole skink Eumeces egregius egregius S

Florida ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritas sackeni T

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E

Miami black-headed snake Tantilla oolitica T

Red rat snake Elaphe guttata guttata S

Striped mud turtle Klinosternon bauri E

Birds

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus S

Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius T E

Bachman's warbler Vermivora bachmani E E

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E T

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis S

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia S

Cape Sable seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis E E

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis T

Least tern Sterna antillarum T

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea S

Osprey Pandion haliaetus S

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens S

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii T T

Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja S

Snowy egret Egretta thula S

American kestrel Falco sparverius sparverius T

Southeastern snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris E

Tricolored heron; Louisiana heron Egretta tricolor S

White-crowned pigeon Columba leucocephala T

Wood stork Mycteria americana E E

Mammals

Blue whale Balanoptera musculus E

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis E

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E

Abbreviations: E, Endangered; T, Threatened; S, Species of Special Concern

Federal designation classified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State designation classified by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

T*

Key Largo cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus E E

Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium E E

E E

*Due to similarity of appearance to American crocodile
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

64

S

Plants

Aboriginal prickly apple Cereus gracilis var. aboriginum E

Apalachicola milkweed; green milkweed Asclepias viridula T

Aspidium fern (unnamed) Thelypteris kunthii T

Bahama sachsia Sachsia bahamensis E

Balsam apple (unnamed) Clusia rosea E

Bay cedar Suriana maritima E

Beach creeper Ernodia littoralis T

Big Pine partridge pea; Florida Keys senna Casia keyensis T

Bird's nest spleenwort; wild bird nest fern Asplenium serratum E

Blodgett's wild-mercury Argythamnia blodgettii E

Boston fern (unnamed) Nephrolepis biserrata T

Buccaneer palm; Sargent's cherry palm Psuedophoenix sargentii E

Burrowing four-o'clock Okenia hypoganea E

Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis T

Carter's small-flowered flax; Everglades flax Linum carteri var. certeri E

Cowhorn orchid; cigar orchid Cyrtopodium punctatum E

Cupania Cupania glabra E

Dildoe cactus Cereus pentagonus T

Dollar orchid; dogtooth orchid Encyclia boothiana var. erythronioides E

Everglades poinsettia Poinsettia pinetorum E

Florida Keys noseburn, South Florida tragia Tragia saxicola E

Florida peperomia Peperomia obtusifolia E

Florida three-awned grass; Key West three-awn Aristida floridana E

Garber's spurge Euphorbia garberi T E

Geiger tree Cordia sebestena E

Giant leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium T

Golden leather fern Acrostichum aureum E

Inkberry Scaevola plumieri T

Inkwood Hypelate trifoliata T

Joewood Jacquinia keyensis T

Ladder brake fern Pteris longifolia T

Lignum-vitae tree Guaiacum sanctum E

Little strongback Bourreria cassinifolia E

Mahogony mistletoe Phoradendron rubrum E

Manchineel Hippomane mancinella T

Mand adder's tongue fern Ophioglossum palmatum E

Michaux's orchid; long-horned orchid Habenaria quinquesta T

Parsley fern Sphenomeris clavata T

Pepper (unnamed) Peperomia humilis E

Pine fern Anemia adiantifolia T

Pine pink Bletia purpurea T

Polypody fern (unnamed) Microgramma heterophylla T

Polypody fern (unnamed) Polypodium dispersum T

Porter's broom spurge Chamaesyce porteriana var. scoparia E

Porter's hairy-prodded spurge Chamaesyce porteriana var. porteriana E

Powdery catopsis Catopsis berteroniana E

Prickly pear cactus (unnamed) Opuntia stricta T

Pride-of-big-pine Strumptia maritima E

Red berry ironwood Eugenia confusa T

Red stopper Eugenia rhombea E

Sand flax Linum arenicola E

Satinleaf Chrysophyllum olivaeforme E

Sea lavendar Mallotonia gnaphalodes E

E

Mammals (cont.)

Species Jurisdiction

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State

Abbreviations: E, Endangered; T, Threatened; S, Species of Special Concern

Federal designation classified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State designation classified by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

Key Largo wood rat Neotoma floridana smallii E E

Key Vaca raccoon Procyon lotor auspicatus

Lower keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri E E

Silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus E

Johnson’s Seagrass Halophia Johnsonii T

Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction (cont.)
65

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction (cont.)

Semaphore cactus Opuntia spinossisima E

Shell orchid; clamshell orchid Encyclia cochleata T

Shoestring fern Vittaria lineata T

Small's milkpea Galactia smallii E E

Small-flowered lilly-thorn; dune lilly-thorn Catesbaea parviflora E

Southern ladies' tresses Spiranthes tortilis T

Strap fern (unnamed) Campyloneurum phyllitidus T

Tamarindillo Acacia choriophylla E

Tree cactus Cereus robinii E E

Twisted air plant Tillandsia flexuosa T

West Indian mahogany Swietenia mahogani T

Whiskfern; forkfern Psilotum nudum T

Wild cotton Gossypium hirsutum E

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia circinata T

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia paucifolia T

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia setacea T

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia valenzuelana T

Wild thyme spurge, wedge spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea serpyllum E

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia balbisiana T

Worm vine orchid; link vine Vanilla barbellata E

Yellowheart Zanthoxylum flavum E

Plants (cont.)

Species Jurisdiction

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State

Abbreviations: E, Endangered; T, Threatened; S, Species of Special Concern

Federal designation classified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State designation classified by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

66 Table 7. Status of Florida Keys Protected Plant Species

Tropical Hammocks

Coastal Dunes

Rocky Pinelands

Brackish Wetlands

Not Available

Mainland

Collection

Development

Nuisance Removal

Natural 

Unknown

Lower Keys

Thickets

Upper Keys

Not Available

Mangroves

Reason for Decline Range Habitat

Species

Aboriginal prickly appleApalachicola milkweed; green milkweedAspidium fern (unnamed)Bahama sachsia

Balsam apple (unnamed)Bay cedar

Beach creeper

Big Pine partridge pea; Florida Keys sennaBird's nest spleenwort; wild bird nest fern

Blodgett's wild mercury

Boston fern (unnamed)

Buccaneer palm; Sargent's cherry palm

Burrowing four-o'clockButterfly orchid

Carter's small-flowered flax; Everglades flax

Cowhorn orchid; cigar orchid

CupaniaDildoe cactus

Dollar orchid; dogtooth orchidEverglades poinsettiaFlorida Keys noseburn, South Florida tragia

Florida peperomiaFlorida three-awned grass; Key West three-awnGarber's spurge

Geiger tree

Giant leather fernGolden leather fern

InkberryInkwood

Joewood

Johnson’s seagrass

Ladder brake fern

Lignum-vitae tree

Little strongbackMahogony mistletoe
67

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

Manchineel

Mand adder's tongue fern

Michaux's orchid; long-horned orchid

Parsley fernPepper (unnamed)

Pine fernPine pink

Polypody fern (unnamed)

Polypody fern (unnamed)

Porter's broom spurgePorter's hairy-prodded spurgePowdery catopsis

Prickly pear cactus (unnamed)

Pride-of-Big-Pine

Red berry ironwood

Red stopperSand flax

SatinleafSea lavendarSemaphore cactusShell orchid; clamshell orchidShoestring fern

Small's milkpeaSmall-flowered lilly-thorn; dune lilly-thornSouthern ladies' tresses

Strap fern (unnamed)

TamarindilloTree cactus

Twisted air plant

West Indian mahoganyWhiskfern; forkfern

Wild cotton

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed)

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed)

Tropical Hammocks

Coastal Dunes

Rocky Pinelands

Brackish Wetlands

Not Available

Mainland

Collection

Development

Nuisance Removal

Natural 

Unknown

Lower Keys

Thickets

Upper Keys

Not Available

Mangroves

Reason for Decline Range Habitat

Table 7. 

Species

Status of Florida Keys Protected Plant Species (cont.)
Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

68

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed)

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed)

Wild pine; air plant (unnamed)

Worm vine orchid; link vineYellowheart

Tropical Hammocks

Coastal Dunes

Rocky Pinelands

Brackish Wetlands

Not Available

Mainland

Collection

Development

Nuisance Removal

Natural 

Unknown

Lower Keys

Thickets

Upper Keys

Not Available

Mangroves

Reason for Decline Range Habitat

Table 7. 

Species

Wild thyme spurge, wedge spurge

Status of Florida Keys Protected Plant Species (cont.)
69

Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

A recent discovery by Eugene Shinn of the United

States Geological Survey has raised the possibility of

Pleistocene archaeological sites in the Florida Keys

(Mathewson 1977, 1992). In 1991 aerial surveys

revealed a submarine feature that appeared to be a

sinkhole in approximately 10 meters of water off of

Key Largo. The 600-meter diameter feature was

probed with a high pressure jet, and was found to be

filled with impermeable lime muds overlain by about

four meters of carbonate reef sand (Shinn, pers.

comm.). Investigators feel that this feature may be

similar to the famous “Blue Holes” or underwater

sinkholes found in the Bahamas and elsewhere. Due

to its shallow depth, this feature would have been a

cenote (sinkhole) on dry land for most of its history. It

would have contained fresh water, not unlike Little

Salt Spring. The steep banks of this feature make the

prospects for human habitation very good. Thus, the

Keys have an excellent prospect for human and

animal remains that are between 12,000 and 15,000

years old. In addition, because the mud overburden

is impermeable, any remains found will likely be well

preserved. As research and industry continue to

request permission to conduct activities on the outer

continental shelf, managers and legislators must be

aware of the possible existence of cultural resources

in these areas, and must guard against their destruction.

 Seafaring Legacy

1500-1700 Exploration and Early Colonial Development

This period begins with the Spanish “discovery” of

the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and the peninsula of

Florida and ends with the English settlement of the

nearby Bahamas just prior to the establishment of

colonies in neighboring Georgia and South Carolina.

Early explorations in Florida waters by Ponce de

Leon and others discovered the shallow depths of the

Gulf, the rocky islands of the Keys, and the swift

current of the Florida Straits. With the establishment

of a routine convoy system between Spain and her

new colonies, Havana became a major port for

returning fleets. After a Spanish failure to settle at

Pensacola due to a devastating loss of ships in a

hurricane, and after a decline in French rivalry on the

east coast, again accompanied by a loss of ships in a

storm, the founding of St. Augustine in 1565 established uncontested Spanish control over the Straits of

Florida well into the 18th century. By the mid 1600s,

a chain of missions stretched across northern Florida

from the Gulf to the Atlantic, and was supplied by a

 Cultural and Historic Resources

The history of the Keys can be most easily observed

through the region's land-based cultural and historic

resources. The numerous buildings in “old town” Key

West, for example, represent a time when the town

was the crossroads of the Caribbean, and the

bridges of Henry Flagler suggest the transition from a

seafaring to an industrial age. Despite this shift, the

sea remains the common thread through the region’s

cultural and historic sites. From the prehistoric Indian

mounds of the Upper Keys to the Customs House of

Key West, ties to the sea are everywhere, indicating

a strong regional connection to the Bahamas and the

Caribbean.

Because of the Keys’ significant maritime history,

submerged cultural and historic resources are as

representative of the area's past as those on land.

Such sites provide clues to deciphering the area’s

historical settlement patterns and may be useful in

determining global climate change through the

examination of the stratigraphic record. Also, because of Florida's unique position on European and

American trade routes, shipwrecks in the Keys

contain a record of the 500-year European occupation of the Americas.

 Submerged Paleo-Indian Sites

The inaccessibility of underwater sites has ensured

that many delicate artifacts remain undisturbed. In

addition, the environment of reduced oxygen, temperature, and light permits many artifacts to remain

well preserved for thousands of years. The importance of the submerged cultural resources of the

Florida Keys is great, and the possibility exists for

discovering some of the earliest sites in North

America. Such archaeological finds will provide clues

to answering such important questions as the peopling of the Americas and global climate change in

the past (Mathewson 1991).

Archaeologists have unearthed remarkable finds in

Florida using a hypothesis for site formation based

upon geologic and climatologic constraints in the last

phases of the Wisconsin Glaciation. As discoveries

have shown, sinkholes commonly found in limestone

areas contain some of the earliest records of man in

North America. The possibility of discovering such

sinkholes exists in the Keys (Clausen et al,

1975,1979).
Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

70

network. Settlements in the interior were serviced by

a growing steamboat trade along Florida’s river

systems, and coastal commerce in lumber, naval

stores, and fish accompanied an increase in population at the end of the Seminole wars. Florida’s rise in

maritime importance was marked not only by her

commercial role, but also by her strategic geographical role as the nation’s southern boundary, as coastal

forts were built to defend this maritime frontier. Near

the end of this period, sectional disputes erupted into

a civil war, which, in Florida was played out on the

water, rather than on land. The end of the Civil War

in 1865 is chosen as the concluding date of this

period.

1866 - 1912 Reconstruction, the Dominance of

Steamship Technology

After the Civil War, Florida, as well as other southern

states, underwent a period of reconstruction that

lasted for decades. Coastal urbanization continued

hand in hand with increased maritime mercantile

development. The ports of Jacksonville, Pensacola,

Tampa, Cedar Key, Apalachiacola, and Key West

came into their prime, as the dominance of steamship technology made sailing vessels obsolescent in

oceangoing commerce. On the Florida Reef, as

wreckers continued to salvage cargos from grounded

ships to be sold at Key West auctions, a system of

lighthouses was established to aid in coastal navigation. On Florida’s rivers, steamboat commerce

entered a twilight period, as improved railroad

networks serviced the interior of the peninsula. This

period saw the emergence of the American Merchant

Marine, and the Modern Navy appeared towards the

end of the century as the United States responded to

a growing naval buildup in Europe and Asia. Florida

became a routine port-of-call for the newest steel

fighting ships; Tampa was a major staging area for

the Spanish-American War.

1913-1945 World Wars and the Coming of the

Modern Era

Beginning with the completion of the Flagler railroad

in 1913, this period saw the development of South

Florida accompanied by more diversified and modern

commerce. The United States became increasingly

involved in world politics, as it had with world commerce in the preceding period. This involvement

eventually drew the nation into the first World War,

when, for the first time its neutral maritime commerce

was subjected to attack by German submarines.

Following World War I came Prohibition, with its

rumrunners and coastal blockade established to

thwart them.

small but growing maritime trade network based from

Cuba.

With the growth of other European colonies at the

end of this period, ships of other nations plying the

same homeward route past Florida unintentionally

ended their voyages along the shores including the

English wreck of the “Reformation” along with two of

her consorts in 1696 on the east coast.

1701-1820 Early Maritime Development of the United

States

During this period the British colonies of North and

South Carolina, and Georgia developed a firm

economic base and experienced a major increase in

population. While the Spanish colony in Florida

stagnated, these northern colonies matured into

prospering mercantile communities, as did those

English possessions in the Caribbean. The period is

marked by a tremendous increase in the volume of

shipping past Florida over the previous period, as

both maritime technology and overseas trade underwent a rapid evolution. The Spanish convoy system

experienced a gradual decline, accompanied by two

major fleet disasters along the coast of Florida, in

1715 and in 1733. The Spanish presence in West

Florida was briefly challenged by the French in the

early years of the period; by the Treaty of Paris in

1763 both East and West Florida fell under British

control. Despite Spanish sympathy with the American Revolution, Britain managed to retain her strategic naval outposts in Florida until 1781, when

Pensacola fell to Spanish naval forces. The most

outstanding cultural phenomena of the later years of

this period was a rapid development of American

maritime dominance in the region, as both political

control and an increasing share of maritime commerce passed to the United States. The year in

which ownership of Florida passed from Spain to the

United States is chosen as the closing date of this

period.

1821-1865 Establishment of the United States as a

Naval Power

This period is marked by unprecedented economic

expansion and national development, but is an era

which ultimately led to war. Commercial sailing

vessels reached their highest stage of evolution with

the appearance of the great clipper ships, and steam

began to be widely utilized in maritime commerce

and naval power. In Florida, major shipping ports

began to flourish on both coasts, bringing the state

into the rapid expansion of a global American trade
71

Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

During these years steamships underwent further

technological improvements as fuel oil began to

replace coal as the major energy source. With the

outbreak of World War II in 1939, the United States

once again started on the path to conflict as it

provided needed support to its traditional allies in

Europe. Beginning with a formal declaration of war in

1941, a savage naval conflict commenced along the

eastern North American seaboard. Staggering

losses to American merchant vessels were caused

by German submarines, especially off the east coast

of Florida. This period ends in 1945 with the end of

the war.

 Lighthouses

There are currently 16 lighthouses within or just

outside the Sanctuary, with three listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Dean, 1992). There

are also three land-based lighthouses in the Keys.

Before permanent lighthouses were built to save

ships and their cargo from the reef, lightships were

used at various sites to warn of danger. The first

lightship stationed in the Keys was built in 1824 to

warn ships of the Carysfort reef. Early lightships

occasionally broke free from their moorings, causing

other ships to strike the reef as their captains tried to

plot a safe course. A lightship was stationed at the

reef, 13 km off Key Largo, until 1852, when an

ironpile light was built directly on the coral.

Construction of the lighthouses in Key West and on

Garden Key (Fort Jefferson) was begun in 1825.

Construction was also begun on a 70-foot tower in

the Dry Tortugas, on Loggerhead Key, only a few

miles from Fort Jefferson. The following year, a

masonry lighthouse was constructed on Sand Key. A

hurricane toppled both the 60-foot Sand Key Light

and the 85-foot Key West Light in 1846. The Key

West Light was rebuilt in 1847, while Sand Key Light

was replaced with an ironpile light. The original

Garden Key Light was built in the middle of the

island, surrounded by Fort Jefferson. A 157-foot light

replaced it in 1858, but eventually burned down and

was replaced by a new harbor light on the wall of the

fort.

Once improved construction materials and techniques were developed, lighthouses could be constructed directly on the reef. Construction of the first

of six original reef lighthouses was begun in 1852.

These reef lights were located in shallow water

several kilometers from the main chain of islands.

The most common type was the ironpile, a derivative

of the screwpile lighthouses common in northern

waters. Ironpiles have an iron framework that is open

to wind and waves. The legs are screwed into the

coral, and a keeper’s quarters is built about one-third

of the way up. The open structure allows most of the

wind and wave action to pass through without

encountering much resistance, while an enclosed

circular stairwell protects the keeper up to the light

housing. Significant early reef lighthouses include:

Fowey Rocks Light (1878), Carysfort Reef Light

(1852), Sombrero Key Light (1858), Alligator Reef

Light (1873), American Shoal Light (1880), and Sand

Key Light (1853).

 Shipwrecks

Location and Causes. In attempting to predict the

location of shipwrecks in the Keys, several factors

must be considered, including where high shipping

concentrations have occurred, which areas have

been used most consistently over time, the depth of

the water navigated, and the existence of natural

hazards which may increase the probability of wrecks

(Mathewson 1981,1991; Halas 1988).

High concentrations of ships are commonly found

along trade routes (Figure 9). Because the Keys are

located at the southernmost point of the continental

United States and at the end of a peninsula, all ships

travelling from one side of the continent to Europe

must pass through the area. In addition, the narrowness of the Straits of Florida and the speed of the

northward-flowing Gulf Stream mean that ships

travelling north will use this route over most others.

The use of trade routes over time also influences the

number of shipwrecks in an area. If the shipping

route is important for only a short time and is then

discontinued, one can expect a lower abundance of

wrecks and less historic diversity among those found.

Because the Keys have remained on important trade

routes for centuries, shipwreck losses occurring in

the area represent the full spectrum of maritime

history (Table 8).

Water depth is also a factor in determining the

number of shipwrecks in an area. For example, it has

been proposed that up to 98 percent of all wrecks in

the western hemisphere before 1825 occurred in

water less than 10 m deep (Marx, 1971). In addition,

a 1989 Gulf of Mexico study sponsored by the United

States Minerals Management Service (MMS) produced shipwreck distribution plots across the colo-
Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

72

nial-modern period, showing 75 percent of all losses

occurred in nearshore waters (Garrison et al., 1989).

Accordingly, with their abundant shallows, the Keys

offer an above-average possibility for shipwreck

location.

Natural factors are often a direct cause of wrecks.

The Florida Reef Tract was unmarked prior to 1825

(Chambers, 1991), and the area's shallow, sporadically occurring corals are difficult to see from a

distance. Combined with a low land profile, it is

extremely difficult to determine a ship’s position

relative to the reef. Even with today’s modern navigational aids, ship groundings occur (e.g., the M.V.

WELLWOOD in 1984 and the ALEC OWEN

MAITLAND in 1989), and the constantly curving reef

tract presents additional problems for navigators,

especially when coasting.

In addition, the prevalence of hurricanes in the Keys

has influenced the number of ships wrecked. At least

two Spanish flotas were wrecked by hurricanes, and

as a result the Keys contain the largest concentration

of 18th-century Spanish colonial shipwrecks in the

Americas.

Florida is situated along what once was a major trade

route between the Empire of Spain and her colonies

in the Americas. As the great treasure fleets began

their journeys back to Spain laden with coinage from

the American mints and other riches from the New

World, even the safest route known — the straits

between Florida and the Bahamas or the New

Bahamas Channel — was fraught with enormous

danger and uncertainty. Hurricanes and reefs

claimed hundreds of Spanish ships — in some

cases, entire fleets such as the 1622, 1715, and the

1733 Fleets. Scores of vessels sank during this

period due to errors in navigation, poor ship construction, and storms. (M. Peterson, 1975) (E. Lyon,

1985, 1992)

War and naval battles are also factors in shipwrecks.

Naval losses range from vessels chased into shoal

waters to those sunk through direct military engagement. Conflicts that may have contributed to wrecks

Figure 9. Locations of Historic Lighthouses and Selected Shipwrecks

25°30'N

25°00'N

24°30'N

83°00'W 82°30'W 82°00'W 81°30'W 81°00'W 80°30'W

4

Cape Florida 

Lighthouse

Fowey Rocks 

Lighthouse

Carysfort 

Lighthouse

Molasses Reef

Lighthouse

Alligator Reef 

Lighthouse 

Sombrero Key 

Lighthouse

American Shoal 

Lighthouse

Sand Key 

Lighthouse

Rebecca Shoal 

Lighthouse

Dry Tortugas 

Lighthouse 

Henrietta Marie USS Eagle

HMS Looe

San Jose

USS Alligator 

San Pedro

El Infante 

NOTE: There are approximately 500 more wreck sites that are 

not displayed on this map but exist in the data base. They 

were not included because their locations are uncertain. 

Furthermore, there are many suspected wreck sites in the 

mapped area that are not included in this data base.

Shipwrecks

40 Kilometers

N

Lighthouses
73

Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

Era High

Moderate

Low

Seahawk Atocha American Shoal

Winchester

San Pedro

Issac Allerton

USS Alligator

Rigging Wreck**

Benwood

pre 1700

1701 - 1820

1821 - 1865

1866 - 1912

1913 - 1945

1945 - 

present

Integrity*

Northern Lights Granite Wreck**

Eagle

Sueco de Arizon

USS Alligator

HMS Looe

Duane

Bibb

San Jose

Henrietta Marie

*Integrity of a wreck site refers to the degree of disturbance/degradation 

of the hull structure, ballast, hardware, and small finds. The integrity will 

depend on cause of sinking, water depth, nature of environment, and 

adverse impacts of natural and human activities.

**Designates Local Name (vernacular) for wreck not the documented name.

Table 8. Prominent Shipwrecks by Era and Integrity

in Sanctuary waters include the Seminole Indian

wars, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American

War, the prohibition period, and World Wars I and II.

Shipwreck Concentration. There is strong statistical

evidence indicating that the Keys contain a high

concentration of shipwreck sites. This evidence is

derived from both actual ship remains found on the

seabed and historical and other documentation.

However, documentary evidence may not accurately

reflect the true number of ships on the bottom. And

although many ships that sank in the Upper Caribbean are undocumented and are likely to be found in

Keys' waters, most were salvaged shortly after

wrecking. Countries such as Spain, for example, had

effective salvage teams and an excellent communications system to report sinkings and recover supplies.

Throughout the history of shipwreck losses in the

Keys, there were salvors. From the mid 1500’s to the

mid 1800’s, Calusa Indians, Spaniards, French,

Dutch, English, Bahamian and others carried out

extensive recovery on vessels lost in the Keys and

throughout Florida. Though recovery peaked in the

late 1700’s through the 1800’s, it was always

present. The commercial salvage of ships and

cargos in distress became profitable for small groups

of determined sailors in Key West and the Upper

Keys in the early-to mid-1800’s. These sailors in the

Keys became known as “wreckers” and legend has it

that some deliberately lured vessels into hazardous

waters. Wreckers were a choice of last resort for

masters of ships in distress, however, as they were

usually more interested in salvaging cargo than

saving ships. The number of vessels used in wrecking increased from 20 in 1835 to 57 licensed vessels

in 1858. But as the first formal coastal survey of the

reefs and keys began in 1849, and a system of

lighthouses was constructed along the reef, the

number of shipwrecks began to decline. The business of wrecking, however, continued into the next

century; between 1900 and 1910, more than

$220,000 was awarded by court decree, and more

than $100,000 was paid for claims out of court. In

1921, the wrecking register of the Key West District

Court was closed.

During the Keys’ American period, there were salvors

as well. These “wreckers” were professionals who

operated in Key West and the Upper Keys in the

early- to mid-1800s. Wreckers were a choice of last

resort for shipmasters, however, as they were usually

more interested in salvaging cargo than saving ships.

Historical Data Bases. To demonstrate the Keys'

potential shipwreck resources, four databases have

been selected for analysis. These databases, however, do not reflect actual recorded finds. Instead,

they represent a combination of recorded finds and

archival references that together provide a representative view of the area’s shipwreck resources.

Table 9 illustrates the large number of documented

shipwrecks in the Keys, possibly the richest repository in the world. Information is based on data

compiled by Judy Halas (Halas, 1988), by Robert

Marx (Marx, 1971), and by Duncan Mathewson et al,

1981. Additional analytical information was taken

from an outer continental shelf study funded by the

MMS (Garrison et al., 1989).

The independent database covers the entire colonialmodern period and integrates State records, treasure

salvage records, and independent archival sources.

The Halas study is based on archival information,

and is the most accurate for American vessel traffic

into the 19th and 20th century. It focuses primarily on

the greater Key Largo area, but includes information

on other keys as well. The Marx data is rich in 16th

century vessel reports, many of Spanish origin, as a

result of the researcher’s interest in treasure hunting

operations. Although the vessels cited are not

exclusive to the Keys, and precise wreck location is

never cited, however, based on the public comments,

other records and opinions, it is reasonable to

assume that many of these 16th - 18th century

wrecks lie within Sanctuary waters. The 1981 MMS

study delineates probablity zones for shipwrecks
Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

74

Table 9. Database Comparison of Ships Lost or

 Wrecked in the Keys by Century

Century

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

Independent

Database

18

28

98

267

131

Halas Study

N/A

18

77

704

81

Marx Study

27

25

112

118

N/A

along the Florida reef tract as far as Key West. The

more recent 1989 MMS (Garrison, et al) study deals

with the projected shipwreck populations in the Dry

Tortugas-Marquesas area west of Key West.

Modern Era Shipwrecks. Recent shipwrecks and

ships sunk to form artificial reefs may also be considered cultural resources. The BENWOOD, for example, a World War II-era vessel scuttled off Key

Largo, is over 85 years old and may soon qualify for

historic status under Federal Historic Preservation

law. Divers generally enjoy modern wrecks, such as

the Duane and the Bibb, because more of their

structure remains intact and identifiable, i.e. high

integrity.

Vessels such as the NEPTUNE, an early 20th

century wreck located in 60 m of water off Key Largo,

may present a dilemma in the future, however. As

diving technology improves, historically valuable

wrecks that are currently inaccessible to the

sportdiving community will become more popular.

These deeper wrecks have many artifacts that may

be pilfered by the uneducated or unscrupulous diver.

Only by protecting these submerged resources can

their historic value be preserved.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

75

thon (Vaca Key and Key Colony Beach), Big Pine

Key, Summerland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Stock Island,

and Key West.

Historic Population. The City of Key West has

historically been the hub of population and activity in

the Keys. Prior to 1940, Key West was home to 90

percent of the population of Monroe County. Growth

was sporadic during this time, with the county's rate

generally mirroring that of Key West. The Keys'

population more than tripled between 1870 and 1890.

From 1890 to 1900 and 1910 to 1930 there were

significant declines in both populations, and from

1940 to 1960 the population of both areas grew at a

similar rate. However, between 1960 and 1990 the

population of Key West declined or became stable,

while in the remainder of the county the population

grew at a rate of 1.0 to 2.4 percent per year on

average. The decline in Key West's population may

be attributed to a decrease in the area's military

population, while the lure of vacant land has allowed

the rest of Monroe County to grow independently.

Figure 10 shows historical population trends in Key

West and Monroe County between 1870 and 1990.

Seasonal Population. Monroe County's economy is

essentially based on tourism and tourist-related

service industries, and the Keys' population fluctuates seasonally. Peak tourist populations occur in the

Source: White, 1991

*

 Human Activities and Uses

Human activities and uses have a major impact on

Sanctuary resources. One of the most valuable of

these resources is water, and because of its recreational, commercial, and transportation value, its use

and conservation are directly linked to the economy

of Monroe County.

Water and other Sanctuary resources have been

increasingly impacted by the area's growth. As the

number of visitors to the Keys has increased over the

past several decades, so has the number of residents, homes, jobs, and businesses. The population

of Monroe County has grown by 160 percent during

the past 40 years, an increase of almost 50,000

people. In recent years, areas such as Key Largo,

Marathon, and Big Pine Key have seen dramatic

increases in population and development. As population grows and the Keys accommodate ever-increasing resource-use pressures, the quality and quantity

of land and water resources are diminished. This

section summarizes the major human activities and

uses that directly or indirectly affect the waters of the

Sanctuary.

 Population

Of the 1,700 islands in the Keys, only 51 are connected to or by US 1, and fewer than 70 are inhabited. In 1990 the total resident population was

78,024, an increase of about 15,000 since 1980.

Seasonal visitors, including those living in residential

accommodations, in tourist facilities, aboard vessels,

or with friends and relatives, accounted for an

additional 56,643 people during the peak period of

1990. Dade and Collier counties, which are neighbors of Monroe County, had estimated 1990 populations of 1.94 million and 152,000, respectively.

Because of the region's unique geography, the Keys

are divided into discreet population centers. Larger

islands, such as Key Largo, have multiple population

foci, while other islands have just one. Several

inhabited Keys have never been the focus of concentrated growth, however, and remain rural. Certain

areas have also become the center of communities,

and can be defined by their “sense of community,”

rather than their population. The size of an area is

often determined by the boundaries of the islands on

which it is located. Examples include Ocean Reef

Club (North Key Largo), Key Largo, Tavernier

(Southern Key Largo), Plantation Key, Islamorada

(Upper Matecumbe Key), Layton (Long Key), MaraFigure 10. Resident Population of Monroe County

 and Key West, 1870-1990

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year

Thousands of Persons

Key West

Monroe County

*Although Key West is within Monroe

County, it is highlighted separately

here because of its larger share of

the population.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

76

Table 10. Estimated Resident and Seasonal Population, 1990

first quarter (January to March) of each year. The

tourist season is longer in the Upper Keys than in the

Lower Keys, extending from January to August, and

is based on weekend tourists from Miami and South

Florida.

The sum of the peak seasonal and resident populations is known as the functional population. In 1990

the Keys' functional population was about 134,600,

with a population density of 1,300 persons per

square mile. This combined population is important

because of its impact on infrastructure requirements,

resources, and the government's ability to manage

these resources. The seasonal population accounts

for nearly 42 percent of the functional population

during the peak tourist season.

Table 10 gives resident and peak seasonal population estimates for 1990 by Planning Analysis Area/

Enumeration District (PAED) for the unincorporated

areas of the county, and Census Designated Place

(CDP) for the three incorporated areas. PAEDs are

areas where contiguous boundaries exist between

aggregated planning area boundaries and census

enumeration districts. The estimates in the table

represent the 1990 total resident, seasonal, and

functional populations for each area. In addition, the

population density for each PAED or CDP is given

(Figure 11).

Population Characteristics. Monroe County has a

large retirement community, with 29 percent of the

population 55 years old or older and 16 percent 65

years old or older, both above the national average.

Forty-seven percent of the population is between 25

and 54, and the remaining 24 percent is under 25

years old. The large elderly population is reflected in

the local economy: about 48 percent of all income is

from nonwage sources (e.g., transfer payments,

Social Security, and retirement pensions).

The military also makes up a significant segment of

the Keys' population. In the 1980s the military

population accounted for between seven and nine

Areas* Resident Percent Seasonal Percent Population 

Population Total Population Total Density

Key West (CDP) 24,832 32 12,887 23 6,472

Stock Island, Cow Key, and Key Haven 4,541 6 1,734 3 5,976

Boca Chica, Rockland, and Big Coppitt Keys 3,106 4 717 1 499

Saddlebunch, Upper and Lower Sugarloaf Keys 1,786 2 944 2 147

Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, No Name, 3,983 5 2,117 4 405

 Little Torch, MiddleTorch, and Big Torch Keys

Big Pine Key 4,208 5 2,154 4 671

Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, 441 1 981 2 1,637

 Little Duck, and Pigeon Keys

Knight, Vaca, Stirrup, and Boot Keys 8,861 11 5,099 9 3,328

Key Colony Beach (CDP) 977 1 576 1 3,487

Fat Deer, Crawl, and Coco Plum Keys 697 1 371 1 563

Grassy Key 1,086 1 455 1 1,541

Duck, Walker's, and Conch Keys 629 1 1,917 3 7,147

Long Key and Fiesta Key 356 <1 1,401 2 951

Layton (CDP) 183 <1 70 <1 1,907

Lower Matecumbe, Craig, and Windley Keys 1,096 1 1,650 3 1,426

Upper Matecumbe Key 1,220 2 2,049 4 2,628

Plantation Key 4,405 6 4,745 8 3,967

Key Largo (Tavernier) 2,433 3 1,500 3 NA

Key Largo (Dove Creek) 2,287 3 2,940 5 NA

Key Largo (Rock Harbor) 2,465 3 2,703 5 NA

Key Largo (Tarpon Basin) 4,127 5 2,948 5 NA

Key Largo (Largo Sound) 908 1 418 1 NA

Key Largo (Blackwater Sound) 1,549 2 2,236 4 412

N. Key Largo (Port Bouganville to Angelfish) 1,787 2 3,862 7 328

Cross Key to Dade County Line 61 <1 169 <1 147

Note: Population density represents persons per square mile. Population density is based on the sum of the resident and seasonal 

population.

*Areas not identified as a Census Designated Place (CDP) are Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration Districts (PAED).

Source: Garrett, pers. com.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

77

Key Largo (Rock Harbor)

Cross Key

Key West

Big Pine Key

Knight, Vaca, Stirrup,

and Boot Keys

Key Largo (Tavernier)

Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod,

No Name, and Torch Keys

Stock Island, Cow Key, 

and Key Haven

Boca Chica, Rockland, 

and Big Coppitt

Saddlebunch, Upper, 

and Lower Sugarloaf

Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio,

Missouri, Little Duck, and Pigeon Keys

Key Colony Beach

Fat Deer, Crawl, and 

Coco Plum Keys

Grassy Key

Duck, Walker's, and 

Conch Keys

Long and Fiesta Keys

Layton Lower Matecumbe, Craig,

and Windley Keys

Upper Matecumbe Key

Plantation Key

Key Largo (Dove Creek)

Key Largo 

(Tarpon Basin)

Key Largo

(Largo Sound)

Key Largo (Blackwater Sound) N. Key Largo

25°00'

81°30' 80°30'

25°30' Note: Census Designated Places 

 are shown in bold.

20 Kilometers

N

Figure 11. Planning Analysis Areas/Enumeration Districts and Census Designated Places in the Florida Keys

percent of the Keys' total population (Sorenson,

1990). This was a decline from the early 1970s,

however, when the military made up almost onequarter of the population (Monroe County Board of

County Commissioners, 1986; White, 1991). Still,

despite defense cutbacks in the early 1970s when

the military force in Key West and the Boca Chica

Naval Air Station was reduced by almost 4,000, the

military remains a major employer in the Key West

area and has a major impact on the local economy.

Future Population Trends. The Keys are arriving at

a critical point in their history. The population has

grown steadily since the 1940s, while the land

available for development has dwindled and population densities have increased. In 1975 the Keys were

designated as an Area of Critical State Concern

because of increasing pressures from population

growth and associated development. As a result,

issues such as hurricane evacuation and transportation have come to the forefront of local planning

efforts. Development is now being severely reduced

to allow the public infrastructure to catch up with past

growth.

The projection of future growth may be based on a

rate of growth ordinance developed for the unincorporated county and adopted in July 1992. Under this

ordinance, development is limited to 256 residential

units per year (including hotel, motel, and condominium units). To date, these projections are not

available, but a single projection based on average

household size (2.05 persons per household) and

permission of all allocated units, provides 2,560 units

over the next 10 years and a population increase of

slightly over 26,000 individuals.

Based on past growth rates, Key Largo, the incorporated areas of Monroe County, Plantation Key,

Marathon (Boot, Knight, Stirrup, and Vaca keys), Big

Pine Key, and Cudjoe, Summerland and Torch keys

are projected to have the largest increases in absolute population over the next 20 years (Table 11).

This corresponds to relatively high rates of increase

in the populations of Plantation Key (44%), Key

Largo (39%), Big Pine Key (36%), Cudjoe,

Summerland, and Torch keys area (34%), and

Marathon (28%). The unincorporated area is projected to have a small rate of increase because it

already has a large population (almost 35% of the

county's residential total). Relatively high population

density increases are projected in many areas,

including Duck, Walker’s, and Conch keys; Plantation

Key; Marathon; and the incorporated areas of the

county. Relatively low density increases are projected from Boca Chica to Big Pine Key because of
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

78

Table 11. Functional Population by Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District, 1990-2010

1990

Population

% Change

in Population

1990-2010

Absolute Change in 

Population Density*

6,275

3,823

2,730

6,100

6,362

1,422

13,960

1,068

1,541

2,546

1,757

2,746

3,269

9,150

3,933

5,227

5,168

7,075

1,326

3,785

5,649

230

39,525

7,132

4,323

3,475

9,212

9,884

1,829

17,909

1,641

2,155

3,645

2,338

4,019

4,120

13,192

5,404

7,228

7,230

10,300

1,859

4,712

8,580

387

45,226

14

13

27

51

55

29

28

54

40

43

33

46

26

44

37

38

40

46

40

24

52

68

14

816

65

40

206

372

468

941

302

614

3,085

314

661

684

1,753

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

101

111

100

890

Planning Analysis Area/

Enumeration District

Stock Island, Cow Key, and Key Haven

Boca Chica, Rockland, and Big Coppitt Keys

Saddlebunch, Upper and Lower Sugarloaf Keys

Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, No Name,

 Little Torch, MiddleTorch, and Big Torch Keys

Big Pine Key

Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri,

 Little Duck, and Pigeon Keys

Knight, Vaca, Stirrup, and Boot Keys

Fat Deer, Crawl, and Coco Plum Keys

Grassy Key

Duck, Walker's, and Conch Keys

Long Key and Fiesta Key

Lower Matecumbe, Craig, and Windley Keys

Upper Matecumbe Key

Plantation Key

Key Largo (Tavernier)

Key Largo (Dove Creek)

Key Largo (Rock Harbor)

Key Largo (Tarpon Basin)

Key Largo (Largo Sound)

Key Largo (Blackwater Sound)

N. Key Largo (Port Bouganville to Angelfish)

Cross Key to Dade County Line

Incorporated Monroe County

*Persons per square mile. NA-not available.

2010

Population

Projected

Source: Garrett, pers. com.

the large amount of wetland, unserviced, or refuge

acreage on these islands.

 Economic Characteristics

The Keys' economy is unique because of the area's

location and geography. Monroe County’s economy

is dominated by the tourism industry, and the Keys

attract both seasonal residents and short-term

visitors because of their abundant recreational

resources. The military and the commercial fishing

industry are also important sectors of the region's

economy. The Monroe County economic base

expanded during the 1980s, with income and employment increasing at a faster rate than those of

Florida or the nation.

Personal Income. Personal income includes revenue received by county residents from all sources,

including wages, salaries and other income, dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments. Transfer

payments include private pensions, transfers from

government funds (such as Social Security, military

retirement pensions, Medicare, and Medicaid), and

direct government payments, such as unemployment, food stamps, and aid to families with dependent children.

Between 1970 and 1989, total earnings by place of

work in Monroe County increased by 450 percent.

The largest increases in earned income were in the

service, public utility, and fishing industry sectors.

However, the aggregate wage figures reflect trends

similar to those of employment, and together the

retail trade and service industries accounted for the

majority of all earnings in Monroe County. The

second-largest wage generator was the government,

with most wages going to military and State/local

employees.

In 1989 Monroe County wage earnings accounted for

52 percent of total personal income, while dividends

and transfer payments accounted for 36 percent and

12 percent, respectively (White, 1991). Across the

nation, however, wages accounted for over 68

percent of total personal income, while dividends

accounted for just 18 percent and transfers 15

percent. Almost half of all personal income in Monroe

County is derived from nonwage sources, compared
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

79

Source: White, 1991

Comm.

Fishing

Mining Constr. Manufac. Wholesale Retail FIRE Services Federal Military State/

Local

Trans./

Util.

0

3

6

9

12

15

1970

1989

Thousands of Employees

Abbreviations: Comm. Fishing, Commercial Fishing; Constr., Construction; Manufac., Manufacture; FIRE, Finance, Insurance, 

 and Real Estate; Trans./Util., Transportation/Utilities 

to 33 percent nationally, indicating the retirement

sector's strong role in the local economy (Bureau of

the Census, 1991). The county’s high percentage of

dividend, interest, and rent income reinforces the

importance of retirees and indicates that a significant

segment of the population is affluent.

Per capita income provides another view of the

Monroe County economy. From 1980 to 1989,

growth in per capita income exceeded both State and

national increases. During this time, per capita

income increased at an average annual rate of eight

percent. In 1980, per capita income in Monroe

County was $8,917, nearly nine percent below that of

Florida and 10 percent below that of the nation for

that year. By 1989, however, per capita income had

increased to $17,896, higher than that of both the

state and the nation.

Employment—Private Sector. The service and

retail trade industries are by far the largest privatesector employers in Monroe County (Figure 12). The

service sector includes the hotel and restaurant

trades, while retail trade establishments include gift

shops, apparel stores, and businesses that provide

specific products such as hardware, boating equipment, and photography supplies. These two industries make up 52 percent of the total employment in

the county and 66 percent of total private-sector

employment. The strength of these industries indicates the importance of tourism to the Keys'

economy. Growth in these industries has been

Figure 12. Number of Workers by Employment Sector in Monroe County

significant over the past decade as well, with nearly

75 percent of the new jobs created in Monroe County

during this period in either the service or retail trade

sectors.

The finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) trades

form a secondary, but similarly important, employment sector. Although not necessarily tied to the

service and retail trade industries, real estate businesses make up the largest part of the FIRE sector,

and it is fair to assume that the resources that bring

tourists to the Keys also bring those interested in

buying real estate. In 1989 the FIRE trades accounted for 11 percent of all private-sector employment. Tied to the large expansion of residential

construction, this industry grew by almost 60 percent

during the 1980s.

The commercial fishing industry represents the

fourth-largest employment sector in the county,

comprising nine percent of the work force. Growth in

this industry has been sporadic, exhibiting both large

increases and declines during the past decade. The

turbulent employment levels are a result of several

factors, including the cyclic nature of harvestable

resources, changes in catch quotas, and the rising

cost of living and doing business in the Keys.

The construction industry ranks fifth among the

county's private-sector employers. Reflecting trends

in the FIRE trades, it showed significant growth

between 1980 and 1989. The industry represented
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

80

eight percent of the private-sector work force in 1989,

growing by more than 57 percent during the decade.

The remaining private-sector employment is in the

mining and manufacturing industries and wholesale

trade businesses. Mining represents a small, but

significant, portion of the Keys' economy. Although

the work force is small (less than 1% of the total), the

industry contributes greatly to the construction of new

homes, businesses, and roads. It was slightly larger

in the 1970s because of canal construction and

subdivision development. The manufacturing and

wholesale trade businesses are represented primarily

by “cottage industries.” The lack of large land areas

for manufacturing facilities has limited the development of these industries as major employers.

Employment—Public Sector. Public-sector employment makes up approximately 23 percent of the total

work force in the Keys. About nine percent of these

workers are State and county employees, seven

percent are employed by the military, and seven

percent are Federal employees. The number of State

and local government employees increased substantially during the 1970s, but grew at a slower rate

during the 1980s. The public-sector component of the

work force has increased at a significant rate in

recent years, but has yet to reach its previous level.

There was a large decline in the number of military

personnel employed in the Keys during the 1970s,

but it appears that the military's strategy has been to

hire additional civilian employees when possible.

 Land Use

In 1975 Florida designated Monroe County an Area

of Critical State Concern under the authority of

Chapter 380, F.S. This legislation was designed to

preserve and protect the county’s unique natural

resources, which were being degraded by large

development projects. It gave the State Department

of Community Affairs (DCA) the responsibility of

overseeing all development activities within the

designated area. The legislation required both the

drafting of a comprehensive plan and development

regulations designed to set the county's growthmanagement standards, over which the State has

final review and approval.

Significant features of the plan include the “downzoning” of large natural areas (excluding Key West,

Key Colony Beach, and Layton), and the establishment of the Monroe County Land Authority, which is

responsible for purchasing these down-zoned areas.

The plan was also designed to preserve the contiguous areas of habitat as biologically functional units,

specifying that required open-space areas may not

be altered. It also contained the rudiments of the

concept of “concurrency,” which requires that a

project cannot be completed without the public

infrastructure necessary to support it.

Monroe County and its sister municipalities are

currently revising their comprehensive plans under

Chapter 163, F.S. In general, Chapter 163 legislates

more specific standards, significantly expands the

concept of concurrency, and allows the local government to set a "level of service" for hurricane evacuation that cannot be exceeded as a result of new

development. However, because the county is an

Area of Critical State Concern, the County must still

meet the standards of Chapter 380, F.S.

Existing Land Use. The inhabited Keys make up

only five percent of Monroe County's total land area

(65,500 of 1.2 million acres). The county also contains over 99,000 acres of the Everglades, but this

area is almost entirely within Everglades National

Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. The

majority of the county, consequently, is classified as

"conservation land."

Within the county, the unincorporated area is distinguished from the three incorporated areas of Key

West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. The zoning

and land development regulations and proportions of

land uses are quite different in each. Within the

unincorporated area, land use is also apportioned

differently between the Upper, Middle, and Lower

Keys. However, the types of land use can be categorized similarly. In general, they are defined as

residential, commercial, industrial, or public facilities

and buildings; historical buildings and districts;

military facilities; and recreation, conservation, and

vacant land (Figure 13).

Residential Land. The proportion of land used for

residential purposes ranges from 12 percent in the

Lower Keys to 58 percent in Key Colony Beach. The

small percentage of residential use in the Lower Keys

is due to the high proportion of conservation land,

primarily in the National Key Deer Refuge. The

relatively high proportion of residential development

in Key Colony Beach reflects the city's reliance on

Marathon for commercial and other use categories.

Within the unincorporated area, the majority of

residential development (78%) consists of singlefamily units. The unincorporated area also has the

majority of the county's mobile homes, although the
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

81

60504030201006050403020100

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Public Facilities

Historical

Military

Recreation

Conservation

Vacant Land

Lower Keys Middle Keys

6050403020100

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Public Facilities

Historical

Military

Recreation

Conservation

Vacant Land

Key West

6050403020100

Key Colony Beach

Percent

706050403020100

Layton

706050403020100

Upper Keys

Source: Monroe County, 1990

Figure 13. Land Use by Geographic Area

total area is relatively small. The cities of Key West

and Key Colony Beach have substantial duplex

development. In the City of Key West, the singlefamily/duplex zoning category accounts for 62

percent of all residential area. Key Colony Beach has

similar percentages.

Commercial Land. The proportion of commercial land

in each area is similar, although there are significant

differences between the Upper, Middle, and Lower

Keys. In general, commercially zoned land accounts

for about four percent of land-use acreage within the

Keys. The Middle Keys contain significantly higher

proportions because of the large amount of commercial land in Marathon. The lower levels in the Lower

Keys reflect the large amount of refuge conservation

land.

Industrial Land. The cities of Key West, Key Colony

Beach, and Layton contain no significant industrial

development, and rely on the adjacent unincorporated areas for their industrial needs. Two industries,

rock mining and marine repair and salvage, define

industrial use in the Keys. The majority of rock mining

operations are in Stock Island and Marathon. Other

small-scale industrial businesses are located in Stock

Island, Big Pine Key, Marathon, and Key Largo.

Public Facilities and Buildings. As much as eight

percent of Key West is allocated to public buildings

and facilities (excluding recreational uses), while the

unincorporated area, Key Colony Beach, and Layton

provide one percent or less.

Historic Buildings and Districts. Within the cities of

Key Colony Beach and Layton, and in the unincorporated areas of the Keys, virtually no acreage is

allocated for historical lands. There are, however,

historic structures and buildings outside Key West,

including those on Pigeon Key and the Carysfort

Light off North Key Largo, both of which are listed in

the National Register of Historic Places. The City of

Key West also considers large areas of "old town"

historic and, as a result, requires additional permits

before allowing development. In addition, the City

has established an Historic Architectural Review

Commission to ensure that the traditional character

and appearance of the area is maintained.

Military Facilities. Military facilities are located

exclusively in Key West and the Lower Keys. About

25 percent of Key West’s land is used for military

purposes. In the Lower Keys there are three military

facilities that make up five percent of all land in the

unincorporated area.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

82

land also limits Monroe County’s capability to manage solid waste, and the interisland transportation

network has reached its limits in some areas. Because the Keys are so dependent on the mainland,

the difficulty and cost of providing services to the

public have become increasingly apparent.

Potable Water. South Florida's Biscayne Aquifer

provides the Keys with its primary source of public

potable water. Through this aquifer, the county

extracts water from well fields in the Homestead area

south of Miami. Ocean Reef Club, in North Key

Largo, is the only area in the Keys that uses an

alternative source of water (the Floridan Aquifer and

a reverse-osmosis plant).

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) manages the distribution of potable water within the Keys.

It is permitted by the SFWMD to withdraw up to 19.77

million gallons per day (mgd). About 15 mgd are

currently being used. The total permitted yearly

withdrawal is 5.56 billion gallons. The FKAA is

currently operating at approximately 90 percent of

capacity.

Sewage Treatment. Three basic methods of sewage

treatment are utilized in the Keys: 1) centralized

facilities; 2) individual aeration units that utilize either

drainfield or borehole discharge; and 3) septic tanks

with drainfields. Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are responsible for permitting these

facilities.

The cities of Key West and Key Colony Beach

operate centralized sewage treatment facilities. After

secondary treatment, effluent is discharged to

surface waters. The remainder of the county (approximately 32,000 residential units and the associated commercial development) uses septic tanks,

individual aeration units, or small-scale, centralized

package treatment plants.

Stormwater. The City of Key West is the only area in

the county with a centralized system for stormwater

conveyance. However, this system provides little

retention and generally leads to nearshore outfalls.

Estimates of total discharge volume are currently

unavailable. The county's unincorporated area and

the cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton have no

centralized drainage facilities. Key Colony Beach

does, however, have injection wells. Because of their

size, many larger residential and commercial units

have on-site retention facilities that are permitted

through the SFWMD. In addition, recent improveRecreational Facilities. The proportion of land

dedicated to active and passive recreation varies

considerably throughout the Keys. The City of Key

West provides about seven percent of its land area

for recreational purposes, while the Lower and Upper

Keys provide less than two percent each. The Middle

Keys provide 11 percent, Key Colony Beach nine

percent, and Layton none. These numbers may be

somewhat misleading, however, as they are derived

primarily from a list of publicly and privately owned

lands that provide recreational activities. Many

private owners of resort areas provide recreational

facilities geared toward water activities, but may

include swimming pools and/or tennis courts. In

addition, recreational needs are generally assessed

based on standard estimates of the acreage required

per unit of the functional population for a given

recreational activity type.

Conservation Land. Conservation land makes up

about 34 percent of all unincorporated land use

within the Keys. The largest proportion is in the

Lower Keys, and is associated with the National Key

Deer and Great White Heron refuges (28%). In the

Upper Keys (51%), conservation land is located

primarily in North Key Largo. The cities of Layton and

Key Colony Beach have no conservation land. Within

the City of Key West, conservation land is undeveloped and categorized as open water, freshwater

islands, tidal wetlands, mangrove, and hammock.

Some of the land is in private ownership and, therefore, could be subject to future development. However, substantial areas around the “Salt Ponds” area

of Key West have been (and are currently being)

acquired by the Monroe County Land Authority. A

total of 550 acres remains undeveloped in Key West.

Vacant Land. About 210,000 acres of land are

potentially available for development--just over 34

percent of the Keys' total land area. In the unincorporated area of the county, vacant land is the largest

land-use category. Ten percent of the county's

vacant land is divided into nearly 15,000 vacant lots.

These lots represent the only reasonably buildable

property remaining in the Keys, and make up a

substantial proportion of the total potential singlefamily development area.

 Capital Facilities

Public infrastructure is extremely important in shaping current and future growth in the Keys. A large

part of the Keys’ power and virtually all of its potable

water originate in South Florida. The availability of
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

83

ments to US 1 have required stormwater conveyances and, in some instances where roads have

traditionally flooded, storm drainage trenches or wells

have been installed.

Solid Waste. Solid waste management currently

entails incineration and subsequent landfilling or

haul-out. The City of Key West incinerates combustible materials in a “waste-to-energy” plant on Stock

Island. Ash is placed in the adjacent landfill. Noncombustible materials are either processed through the

city’s recycling program or placed in the landfill. The

City of Key West generates almost 60,000 tons of

solid waste per year. As the Stock Island site reaches

capacity, alternate facilities will be required.

The incorporated area of Monroe County manages

its own solid waste and that of Key Colony Beach

and Layton. There are three landfills in the unincorporated county, two of which have remaining capacity. However, these sites are currently only used as

transfer sites as part of a solid waste haul-out

program. Non-recyclable materials are transported to

a landfill in Broward County.

Transportation. The highway network in the Keys is

unique, with just one major 100-mile roadway (US 1)

connecting the chain of islands with 42 bridges.

Numerous local roads are connected to the highway

and serve the area's many subdivisions. Key West’s

roadway network is perhaps the only area in Monroe

County that is characteristic of traditional urban

settings. There are major traffic constraints on US 1

in four locations: Plantation Key, Upper Matecumbe,

Lower Matecumbe, and Big Pine Key. Without further

roadway improvements, these constraints will restrict

the growth potential of these areas.

Other forms of transportation between islands and

from the mainland include airplanes and boats. There

are two public airports in the Keys, at Key West and

Marathon, and four private airstrips. There are also

163 marinas within the Sanctuary, and Key West

accommodates considerable cruiseline activity.

Energy Consumption. The Florida Keys Electric

Cooperative and the City Electric System provide

electric power to the Keys. The former is a privately

owned utility that serves the Upper and Middle Keys.

The latter is owned and operated by the City of Key

West and is run by a publicly elected board. In

combination, the two utilities sold over 1.2 million

kilowatt hours of electricity to approximately 48,500

customers in 1990 (Garrett, pers. comm.).

 Development

Development in the Keys is constrained by the lack

of adequate public infrastructure. A significant limiting

factor is highway capacity. US 1 restricts both day-today travel and the rate of potential hurricane evacuation transportation. Currently approved development

will add to the factors constraining new growth, as

insufficient infrastructure support exists.

Since the current development revisions were

undertaken, the county has carefully tracked its

permitting process because of the ultimate impact

approvals will have on existing facilities deficits and

future growth capacity. In 1990 there were about

45,000 residential units (both single- and multifamily)

in the Keys, with about 72 percent located outside

Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. Approximately one-third of all improved, buildable, and

residential lots remained vacant. From April 1990 to

October 1991, over 1,800 single- and multifamily

units, mobile homes, and motel/hotel units were

approved in the unincorporated area.

Future Development. Key West, Key Colony Beach,

and Layton currently have no capital facilities constraints that would limit growth within their boundaries. However, because residents of the three

municipalities must be evacuated on US 1 along with

the rest of the area's residents, the county must

consider how this influx would affect overall evacuation rates.

Current evacuation times for the Keys have been

projected at 27 to 30 hours. Continued population

growth would increase traffic during an evacuation,

thus increasing evacuation times. State law mandates that no such increases can take place, and the

county has suggested that two major stretches of US

1 be improved to offset this problem. Improvements

to these road segments would allow for the development of almost 3,700 new residential units throughout the county, without a further increase in projected

evacuation times.

The county has agreed to allocate a portion of these

units to the three incorporated municipalities, based

on the percentage of the total county population in

each. This allocation will take place over a 10-year

period, with 370 permits allowed annually. This would

constitute an approximate 75 percent reduction in the

number of residential units permitted each year. The

resulting "loan" in residential permit allocation would

be paid off within a decade if these improvements are
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

84

completed. Whether they are or not, and assuming

the current law doesn’t change, growth after the 10-

year period could be restricted even further due to

infrastructure limitations similar to those that currently

exist.

 Recreation and Tourism

Recreation and tourism are critical to the Keys'

economy, and businesses supporting the area's

recreational use (e.g., dive shops, charter fishing

boats, marinas, hotels, etc.) are vital to its economic

livelihood. Retail trade and services, for example, are

major employment sectors, accounting for half of

Monroe County's work force.

The Keys have an abundance of recreational and

open-space resources, and the tropical setting is a

major attraction for both seasonal residents and

short-term visitors. Because the Keys are a natural

chain of islands located between two of the world’s

great water bodies, the focus of recreation and

tourism is on water-related activities (e.g., boating,

fishing, scuba diving, and snorkeling).

Recreation/Tourism Infrastructure. The Keys have

an extensive public/private recreational infrastructure.

There are 257 public and private recreation sites,

ranging from single-lane boat ramps along US 1, to

private marinas and large public recreational sites

such as John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park.

Beach Facilities. Although participating in beach

activities is often a primary objective of tourists

travelling to the Keys, the area does not have the

wide, sandy beaches characteristic of Florida's east

coast. There are 58.4 km of beaches in the Keys'

portion of Monroe County (Clark, 1990). These

beaches are typically very narrow (8 m wide or less)

and many are on unbridged islands, especially west

of Key West (e.g., the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas).

Boating Facilities. There are 163 marinas, both public

and private, in the Keys, with large numbers in Key

Largo (57), Marathon (39), Islamorada (31), and Key

West (20). These extensive boating facilities provide

5,127 boat slips and 3,825 locations for dry storage,

accounting for almost 9,000 total slips (FDNR, 1990).

There are an additional 125 boat ramps scattered

throughout the Keys that provide direct access to

Sanctuary waters.

Recreation Sites. Public sites are major tourist

attractions because they offer a wide range of

Table 12. Submerged Area of Public Recreation

 Sites in the Florida Keys

recreational opportunities. For example, Bahia Honda

State Park provides snorkeling, beach activities,

fishing, picnicking, swimming, boating, camping, and

diving. The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary

contains several shipwrecks, and its easy access

makes it an excellent dive site. John Pennekamp

Coral Reef State Park and the adjacent Key Largo

National Marine Sanctuary together account for over

580 km2 of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangrove

swamps, and are both excellent areas for scuba and

snorkel trips.

There are 24 Federal and State recreation areas,

parks, refuges, historic sites, botanical sites, archaeological sites, geological sites, and aquatic

preserves within the Keys, accounting for nearly

10,000 km2 of land and water resources. Thirty

percent of the total area is within the boundaries of

the Sanctuary (Table 12). In addition, there are over

35 county recreation sites located on land, with some

providing access to Sanctuary waters.

Private recreation sites include marinas, campgrounds, RV trailer parks, and golf courses. There

are approximately 200 private recreation sites in the

Keys, most in Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon, and

Key West.

Site Submerged Area

Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary 359

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park 222

Bahia Honda State Park nd

Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Site

 (includes Shell Key State Preserve)

<1

Port Bougainville <1

Long Key State Recreation Area <1

San Pedro State Underwater Archaeological Site <1

Key Largo Hammocks State Botanical Site nd

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1991

(km2)

Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary 18

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge nd

Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge 842

Key West National Wildlife Refuge 849

National Key Deer Refuge 561

Fort Zachary Taylor State Historic Site nd

Indian Key State Historic Site <1

Curry Hammock nd

Windley Key Fossil Reef State Geological Site <1

Biscayne Bay and Card Sound Aquatic Preserves 67

Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve 20

Lignumvitae/Indian Key Aquatic Preserve 33

Abbreviation: nd, no data.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

85

February, around Easter, and again in the summer.

Residents of neighboring counties in South Florida

often trailer boats to the Keys during the summer.

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling. Scuba diving and snorkeling are also popular recreational activities, in part

because of the area's many shipwreck sites and

extensive coral reefs. Between 20 and 30 percent of

all tourists visiting the Keys scuba dive or snorkel

during their visit (Kearny/Centaur, 1990). Almost 90

percent of the significant dive spots are located in the

Upper Keys, including the protected waters of the

Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary and John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. These sites, and

the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary in the Lower

Keys, are popular because of their accessibility and

the number of dive operations available.

Recreational Fishing. The waters surrounding the

Keys are world-renowned for sport fishing, and the

chance of catching species such as marlin, tarpon,

bonefish, and permit make the area a popular fishing

destination. The impact on the Keys' economy is

enormous. A statewide study has shown that every

dollar spent by a fishing tourist gets re-spent 3.23

times before leaving the county. It has been estimated that recreational fishing brings almost $500

million to the local economy each year (Whitney,

1991).

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Boat Registrations per 100 Persons

Year

Sources: Monroe County, 1990; White, 1991.

Accommodations. There are over 14,600 tourism

units in the Keys, representing the sum of all hotel/

motel rooms, sites for camping and recreational

vehicles, and vacation rentals. A hotel/motel room is

defined as a unit in a resort, rooming house, or bed

and breakfast. Vacation rental units include apartments, condominiums, and houses (Kearny/Centaur,

1990). Almost half of all hotel/motel and vacation

rentals within the Keys are in Key West. Campgrounds are distributed through most of the remainder of the Keys.

In 1990 the hotel/motel occupancy rate in Monroe

County ranged from 67 percent in the fourth quarter

of the year (Oct.-Dec.) to 85 percent in the first

quarter (Jan.-Mar.) (White, 1991). The busiest

months are typically February and March, when the

City of Key West annually records occupancy rates

exceeding 90 percent (White, 1991). In addition,

there are over 600 restaurants in the Keys, with

almost half in the City of Key West.

Recreation Activities. There are numerous recreation activities available in the Keys. Most are waterrelated, but archaeological and historical attractions

are also popular. The rapid growth of tourism over

the past few decades attests to the desirability of the

Keys as a destination for outdoor recreation. Popular

recreational activities include boating, fishing, scuba

diving and snorkeling, beach activities, sight-seeing,

walking, jogging, biking, and swimming.

Recreational Boating. Boating is an integral part of

life within the Sanctuary. To fish, snorkel, or scuba

dive, a boat is usually required. In 1990, 15,595

pleasure boats were registered in Monroe County,

about one for every two households (Shermyen,

1991) (Figure 14). From Key Largo to Key West,

there are 163 marinas providing 8,952 boat slips.

There are also 103 public and 22 private boat ramps

(Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Tourists spend a considerable portion of their time

boating in Sanctuary waters, and such activities

account for about 13 percent of all visitor days. The

primary boating activity involves recreational fishing,

and about 55 percent of all visiting boaters participate

in fishing activities. Scuba diving and snorkeling trips

account for about 29 percent of all tourist boating

activities (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Because of the mild tropical climate, tourists frequently enjoy recreational boating during the winter

months (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1990). Recreational boating peaks between November and

Figure 14. Recreational Boat Registrations per 100

 Persons in Monroe County, 1971-1989
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

86

User Group/

 Economic Impact

Direct Indirect Induced Total

Tourists

 Employment

Income*

16,370

287

1,658

69

2,482

99

20,510

455

Residents

 Employment

Income 6 1 1 8

Total

 Employment

Income

16,691

292

1,690

71

2,502

100

20,883

463

50

57

321 32 20 373 1

1

51

58

Percent of 

Personal Income 

by Place of Work

Source: Kearny/Centaur, 1990

* Millions of 1990 dollars.

Table 13. Total Impact of Recreation/Tourism on the Monroe County Economy, 1990

Beach 

Activities 

(40%)

Walking, Jogging, 

Biking, Swimming

(30%)

Saltwater 

Fishing

(10%)

Scuba Diving/

Snorkeling

(9%)

Archeological/

Historical Attractions

(8%)

Boating 

(2%)

Other 

(1%)

Source: Kearny/Centaur, 1990

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AA

AA

AA

AA

Fishing-for-hire services are an important component

of the Keys' tourism industry as well. Several services are available to tourists, including backcountry

and reef expeditions. Backcountry guides accommodate one or two fishermen in a 5 to 6 m shallow-draft

boat. Much of the backcountry fishing is done by

sight for bonefish, permit, and tarpon, with boats

typically poled through the clear, shallow waters

(Rockland, 1990). Backcountry skiff fishing occurs

throughout the Keys, with the greatest concentration

in Islamorada (Rockland, 1990).

Reef fishing is done in deeper waters, often near

wrecks. Activities are concentrated in the Middle and

Lower Keys, with the greatest number of reef fishing

boats in Key West (Rockland, 1990). Methods

include bottom-fishing, trolling, and casting. Charter

boat fishing is almost always done offshore, beyond

the reef, in Atlantic waters. Large boats (8.5 to 15 m

in length) designed for catching species such as

sailfish, mackerel, and dolphin are generally used.

Partyboat fishing is done from boats over 12 m long

that are licensed to carry more than six people

(Rockland, 1990). These boats offer half-day or fullday trips to the reef.

Fishing from one’s own boat, without any hired

services, however, remains the predominant method

in the Keys. Because there are over 106,000 boats

registered in Monroe, Dade, and Broward counties,

and since many of these boats frequently operate in

Sanctuary waters, it is safe to assume that a large

number of recreational fishermen are operating in

Sanctuary waters during most days of the year. A

1980-81 survey of private-boat fishermen revealed

that 31 percent were from the Keys, 43 percent were

from Dade and Broward counties, 13 percent were

from other Florida counties, and 13 percent were

from outside the state (Rockland, 1990).

Figure 15. Percent of Visitor Days by Outdoor Activity

Most fishing not done from boats takes place at one

of the 42 bridges that connect the islands of the

Keys. Bridge fishing is also done on several retired

bridges, such as the Old Seven Mile Bridge, and from

catwalks beneath bridges. Because of their access to

deeper waters, bridges provide a better “shore”

location than piers or the shoreline.

Beach Activities. Although the Keys do not have the

beaches characteristic of the eastern and Gulf coasts

of Florida, beach activities still represent a major

tourist interest, accounting for about 41 percent of all

visitor-days (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Architectural and Historical Tourist Attractions. The

Keys have a variety of architectural and historical

tourist attractions. For example, Dry Tortugas National Park (accessible only by boat), attracted more
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

87

and tourism supported about half of all employment

in the county, and half of all personal income by

place of work came from these activities.

 Commercial Fishing

Commercial fisheries are among the Keys' most

valuable natural resources. The area is one of the

richest fishing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Phillips,

1990) and commercial fishing is the fourth-largest

industry in the region, representing nine percent of

Monroe County's private-sector employment (White,

1991).

The diversity of the Keys' aquatic habitats and

communities (including coral reefs, seagrass beds,

and softbottom and hardbottom areas) provides food

and shelter for these invertebrates and fishes (Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. et al., 1987;

Comp and Seaman, 1985), and ninety percent of the

region's commercially important species use these

habitats for shelter, food, or nurseries during at least

one stage of their life history (Comp and Seaman,

1985).

Population growth in Monroe County has raised

management concerns about demands on the

region's fisheries and potential overfishing

(Bohnsack, 1991). Commercial harvest is regulated

by measures including annual catch quotas, closed

seasons, gear restrictions, and guidelines setting

minimum catch sizes. These regulations have been

developed for most commercially important invertebrates, finfish, and corals through management plans

written by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

fishery management councils, the Florida Marine

Fisheries Commission, and the Florida Cabinet

(Bohnsack, 1991).

Catch Statistics. In southwest Florida (including

Monroe County), decapod crustaceans (shrimp,

stone crab, and spiny lobster), snappers (e.g.,

yellowtail), groupers, king mackerels, and Spanish

mackerels dominate commercial catches (Williams,

1991). In Monroe County, the total annual commercial landings for these species average almost 15

million pounds (Bohnsack, 1991). In recent years,

crustaceans have comprised 81 to 92 percent of the

total catch value, while finfish made up the remainder

(Rockland, 1988).

The State collects landings information on approximately 400 kinds of fish, invertebrates, and plants

harvested in Monroe County. Information is collected

than 19,000 visitors in 1990 (Shermyen, 1991). In

Key West there are numerous architectural/historical

attractions such as Fort Zachary Taylor, the Old Post

Office and Customs House, the Ernest Hemingway

House, and the Armory. Visits to archaeological and

historic attractions account for about seven percent

of all visitor days.

Walking, Jogging, Biking, Swimming. These activities

are universally popular in warm-weather resort areas,

and account for a large proportion of visitor days.

Each is much less expensive than renting a boat,

going on a dive trip, or hiring a private guide for

fishing. Within the Keys, about 31 percent of all

visitor days are spent walking, jogging, biking, or

swimming (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Other. Other recreational activities include

windsurfing, which is popular throughout the Keys

due to the many available access points, and the use

of personal watercraft, especially in the calmer

waters of the backcountry.

Economic Impact of Recreation/Tourism. Recreation and tourism activities create economic impacts

when the natural resources, historic attractions, or

leisure opportunities combine to attract visitors from

other areas or to induce local residents to pursue

leisure activities. Such activities can also result in a

series of purchases that enter the local economy.

Visitor expenditures can be viewed as a regional

export and, therefore, make up a base sector of the

local economy (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

A direct economic impact occurs in the Keys, for

example, when a vacationer books a fishing or scuba

trip. Indirect impacts occur when the provider of

these services, such as a boat captain, purchases

bait and fuel from other local businesses. These

suppliers, in turn, need to make purchases from their

affiliates. These effects are further compounded

when the charter boat captain and the other businesses supplying the operation take their money

home. These are induced impacts that have additional indirect and induced effects (Kearny/Centaur,

1990).

The impact of recreation/tourism on the Monroe

County economy is shown in Table 13. The direct

impact of tourists and residents is measured in terms

of employment—in 1990, 16,691 jobs in Monroe

County were dependent on the tourism/recreation

industry. Recreation activities also had an indirect or

induced effect, creating over 2,500 jobs (Kearny/

Centaur, 1990). Consequently, outdoor recreation
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

88

Figure 16a. Landings of Invertebrates in Monroe

 County, 1970-1990

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

0

4

8

12

16

Year

Millions of Pounds

Pink Shrimp Lobster Stone Crabs

Source: Muller, pers. com.

Figure 16b. Landings of Finfish in Monroe

 County, 1970-1990

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Year

Millions of Pounds

Mackerel Snappers Groupers

from every commercial fishing trip (including those

involving marine-life collecting). In 1990 commercial

landings of food and bait species were 19.7 million

pounds (approximately 10 percent of Florida’s total

landings) (FDEP, unpublished data). Figures 16a and

16b show annual landings for major crustaceans and

finfish between 1970 and 1990. Landings are impacted by the cyclical and migratory patterns of

various species and quotas that have been imposed

on certain commercial seafood.

Spiny lobster has recently surpassed pink shrimp,

and leads the county in both landings and value. In

1990 spiny lobster landings totaled 5.3 million

pounds, followed by pink shrimp (3.7 million pounds)

and stone crab (2.6 million pounds). Of the finfish,

yellowtail snapper accounted for the greatest landings (1.6 million pounds), followed by Spanish

mackerel (1.1 million pounds).

Major Species. The major commercial invertebrate

species in the Keys are the spiny lobster, Tortugas

pink shrimp, and stone crab. All three (particularly

spiny lobster) are also caught by recreational fishermen. Queen conch was once an important nearshore

fishery, but a harvest moratorium has been in effect

in State waters since 1985 and in Federal waters

since 1986 (Glazer, pers. comm.) because of severe

depletions in local populations due to overfishing

(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990). Snappers, groupers,

and mackerels are the most valuable commercial

finfish.

Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). Commercial fishing

for spiny lobster occurs on both sides of the Keys. In

the Atlantic, most fishing is done on the back side of

the reef, west to just beyond the Dry Tortugas.

Fishing activities are evenly distributed from John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park to Key West, with

most done in water less than 9 m deep (Beaver,

pers. comm.). In the Gulf of Mexico, fishing ranges

from the Everglades National Park (ENP) boundary

west to beyond the Dry Tortugas in depths of about 2

to 18 m. The highest trap concentrations occur from

ENP to the northern side of Big Pine Key and west of

Key West to the Marquesas (Beaver, pers. comm.).

Most legal-size adults are harvested during the

August-March fishing season, except within ENP, Dry

Tortugas National Park, and Biscayne Bay/Card

Sound (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

89

Management Councils, 1982; Schmahl, pers.

comm.).

Over the past 15 years, annual commercial harvests

have ranged from about 3.6 to 7.2 million pounds,

with a yearly average of approximately five million

pounds (Powers and Sutherland, 1989). In 1990

about 5.3 million pounds were landed, valued at

$21.2 million (FDEP, unpublished data). Approximately 88 percent of the nation's spiny lobster is

harvested in Monroe County (NMFS, 1991), and the

fishery is the most important in the Sanctuary in

terms of economic value. Recreational harvest is also

important, and one recent survey estimated that

recreational fishing accounts for 20 percent of the

total harvest, much higher than previously believed

(Hunt, pers. comm.).

Tortugas Pink Shrimp (Penaeus duorarum). Gulf

waters yield 99 percent of the total landings of

Tortugas pink shrimp in the Keys, with Atlantic waters

yielding the remainder. Other shrimp species, such

as rock shrimp and deepwater royal red shrimp, are

included in the area's catches, but are of only minor

commercial importance (Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council, 1981).

Two major pink shrimp fishing areas are the Tortugas

and the Sanibel grounds (Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council, 1981), which exhibit the

highest catch levels in the Tortugas. Both areas are

relatively close to estuarine nursery grounds that are

essential to the growth and survival of early life

stages (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,

1981). The majority of the Keys' shrimp industry is

located on Stock Island, but shrimpers also operate

from Key West and Marathon. Shrimping is seasonal,

with peak landings occurring between October and

March (Little, pers. comm.).

Although Tortugas pink shrimp used to be the most

valuable commercial species on the southwest

Florida shelf, their importance has declined in recent

years due to significant catch declines (Figure 16a).

In 1990, 3.7 million pounds were landed, valued at

$11.4 million (FDEP, unpublished data).

Stone Crab (Menippe mercenaria). Stone crabs are

commercially harvested along Florida's southwest

coast from Tampa Bay to the Dry Tortugas, out to the

18-m depth contour (Bert, pers. comm.), with most

harvest occurring in the Everglades-Florida Bay area

(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1978).

The peak stone crab season is between October and

May, and all crabs must be returned to the water

after claw removal (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1978). The fishery has been stable for

the last two decades. In 1990 about 2.6 million

pounds (valued at $7.3 million) were landed in the

Keys (FDEP, unpublished data).

Snapper-Grouper. The snapper-grouper fishery

consists of demersal tropical and subtropical species

including snappers (Lutjanidae), sea basses and

groupers (Serranidae), porgies (Sparidae), tilefishes

(Malacanthidae), grunts (Pomadasyidae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), wrasses (Labridae), and jacks

(Carangidae) (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

Fishery Management Councils, 1982). Commercial

fishing usually occurs outside the reef tract, particularly west of Key West, from the Marquesas to the

Dry Tortugas (Little, pers. comm.).

Some snapper and grouper fishing occurs when

other fishing seasons are closed or when catches of

other species are low (Hunt, pers. comm.). In 1989

combined landings totaled 3.0 million pounds (Beaver, pers. comm.), and in 1990 the total was approximately 2.5 million pounds valued at $4.3 million

(FDEP, unpublished data).

Other Fisheries. The gathering, processing, and

marketing of natural sponges was a major industry in

the Keys for almost a century (Viele, 1991). However,

a 1939 blight killed 60 to 90 percent of the region's

sponges, leading to a significant decline in the

industry. Sponging has recently resumed in the

region (Viele, 1991), probably due to an influx of

Cubans between the 1960s and 1980s, a prohibition

on sponging in Biscayne National Park, and a

Mediterranean sponge blight (Schmahl, pers.

comm.). Most commercial harvest occurs in Florida

Bay (Little, pers. comm.). In 1990 commercial

landings totaled 387,000 pounds, valued at $2.8

million (FDEP, unpublished data).

Another significant fishery targets coastal pelagic

species, including schooling migratory fish such as

Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and bait fish (e.g.,

ballyhoo). With the exception of king mackerel, these

fish are seasonally available and are usually caught

within five nautical miles of shore (Alevizon and

Bannerot, 1990). Inshore fisheries target species

such as mullet, pompano, and Spanish mackerel

(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990). In 1990 approximately 1.8 million pounds of mackerel were landed,

valued at $1.26 million. Spanish mackerel dominated

the catch (FDEP, unpublished data). Commercial

fishing for pelagic species occurs offshore of the reef

tract and within the Straits of Florida and has targeted swordfish, tuna, shark, dolphin, and other bill
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

90

fish (Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990; Gregory, pers.

comm.).

Commercial Fishing Ports, Fishermen, and Boats.

The Keys' major ports are shown in Figure 17.

However, because much commercial fishing is

conducted through small operations and from individual homes, it is difficult to accurately assess the

total number of ports in the region (Hunt and Muller,

pers. comm.). It is known, though, that Key West

(Stock Island) and Marathon typically lead the Keys

in landings and value, with the two areas accounting

for 75 percent of the Keys' poundage and 83 percent

of the value in 1990. The traditionally high value of

Key West's landings made it the 25th most important

fishing port in the United States in 1990 (Shermyen,

1991).

Florida requires a saltwater products license (SPL)

for the sale of marine resources. In Monroe County

during the 1989-90 license year, 4,156 SPLs were

issued (Figure 18), the largest number for hook-andline fishing, followed by traps and spearfishing/diving

(FDEP, unpublished data). Because the county

attracts fishermen from outside the Keys, landings

were reported from 4,914 SPLs during this period

(FDEP, unpublished data).

Source: Shermyen, 1991

Fishermen typically participate in a variety of fisheries

during the year. A cycle may begin in August by

fishing for spiny lobsters, adding or switching to stone

crabs in mid- to late October, briefly switching to king

and Spanish mackerel in January and February, and

shifting to snapper, grouper, and dolphin in early

summer (Muller, pers. comm.).

In 1989 over 1,700 fishermen regularly operated in

association with wholesale fish houses, not including

part-time or independent fishermen (White, 1991). In

1989 there were over 1,600 registered commercial

fishing vessels in the county (White, 1991). Between

1980 and 1990, however, the number of commercial

vessels declined by six percent, contributing to a 22

percent decline in total commercial landings during

the period. Factors influencing the declining number

of vessels included the high cost of living in the Key

West (Stock Island) area, increased dock fees, a

reduction in available dock space, the retirement of

older fishermen, and a declining shrimp industry

(Monroe County, 1992; Bohnsack, pers. comm.).

Commercial Fishing Methods—Finfish. In the

early 1900s, the two main gear types used in the

Keys were hook-and-line and gill nets. During the

1960s, however, fishing power per unit effort inFigure 17. Major Ports Within the Keys and Distribution of Landings by Port, 1990

Key West

Marathon

Tavernier

Key Largo

Summerland Key

AAA

AAA AAA

Key West

Summerland Key

(45%)

Marathon (29%)

(7%)

Key Largo (6%)

Tavernier (5%)

Other (8%)

25°00'

81°30' 80°30'

20 Kilometers

N

25°30'
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

91

creased considerably due to larger vessels, power

reels, power rollers for hauling gill nets, and the use

of electronic navigation devices (e.g., LORAN C) and

spotter planes (Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990;

Bohnsack, 1991). The main commercial reef-fishing

gear currently used includes baited hand lines,

electric and hydraulic reels, bottom long lines, and

scuba diver spears and powerheads (Alevizon and

Bannerot, 1990).

Most reef fish are caught with hook-and-line gear,

with the baited hand line the most common type. In

deeper water, mechanically operated "bandit" reels

may be used (Little, pers. comm.). Both methods are

used for snappers, groupers, and mackerels. Bottom

long lines, trawls, gill nets, and spears are also used

to catch snappers and groupers (Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 1981). Various nets

(e.g., gill and seine) are used to catch Florida pompano, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and bait fish

(Sweat, pers. comm.). It is currently illegal to use gill

nets to catch snappers and groupers (Bertlesen,

pers. comm.).

Commercial Fishing Methods—Invertebrates. For

shrimp fishing, double-rigged twin trawls, developed

in the late 1950s, have replaced single otter trawls as

the primary gear. However, some small-scale commercial bait shrimpers still use single trawls (Alevizon

and Bannerot, 1990). Most spiny lobsters and stone

crabs are taken via wooden slat traps (Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 1981). A very small

percentage of the commercial lobster catch comes

from divers who use hand-held nets or their hands

(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990). Fish traps have been

Figure 18. Distribution of Saltwater Products

 Licenses by Fishing Method,

 July 1989 to June 1990

Source: FDEP

AA

AA

AA

AA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

Traps (27%)

Nets (8%)

Trawls (3%)

Long Lines (2%)

Other Gear (1%)

Spearfishing/

Diving

(16%)

Hook-and-Line

 (43%)

illegal in Florida waters since 1980, and in South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council waters since

1992. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council is also currently considering making such

traps illegal (Bohnsack, pers. comm.). Sponges are

typically caught by hooking from boats, using a fourpronged iron rake attached to the end of a 5 to 7 m

pole (Steveley et al., 1978).

Marine Life Collecting. In addition to the commercial food and bait fish industries, a poorly documented fishery has recently been recognized as

economically important. This "marine-life" fishery

supplies small fishes, invertebrates, algae, and live

rock to wholesalers, retailers, hobbyists, and public

aquaria throughout the world (Feddern, pers.

comm.).

Although the actual economic value of the marine-life

fishery has not been determined due to its recently

recognized significance, the wide variety of species

involved, and the reluctance of fishermen to release

financial data, it is estimated to be $30 million

annually. About 260 species are harvested, including

the juveniles of a small number of species managed

in other fisheries (Feddern, pers. comm.). Overall

harvest totals are not applicable because market

categories are given as colonies, individuals, and

pounds of material (e.g., live rock). Live rock is an

important resource in the Sanctuary serving as a

refuge and food source to many juvenile and cryptic

species and serving as a substrate to filter feeders.

However, rock beauty was the most frequently

reported species collected in 1990 (on 1,913 trips).

Angelfish and butterflyfish are the most frequently

collected fish species in the county (Muller, pers.

comm.).

Marine life fishermen are considered small business

operators (Feddern, pers. comm.), and as such are

regulated by Florida permits. Fishermen typically

operate from small boats, using scuba, hookah, and

snorkel methods, in depths up to 45 m. Hand nets,

barrier nets, and anesthetics are used to capture fish,

and invertebrates are either detached from the

bottom or picked up by hand. Many marine life

fishermen also buy live organisms from shrimp

trawlers and bycatch from lobster fishermen. Little

information is available on the impacts of the marinelife fishery on harvested populations and communities (Hunt, pers. comm.).

Aquaculture. Aquaculture, the rearing or husbandry

of aquatic organisms, involves human intervention in

the production of marine life. Such operations make
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

92

Figure 19. Artificial Reefs in the Florida Keys

.

26°

25°

83° 82° 81°

1. Alva Chapman

2. Elbow Wreck

3. CG Cutters DUANE and BIBB

4. Islamorada and EAGLE

5. NIMROD

6. Long Key

7. Marathon and THUNDERBOLT

8. Seven Mile Bridge

9. Bahia Honda

10. American Shoal

11. Labriola

12. KW Fishing Tournament

13. Wilkes Barre

14. Big Pine

15. Cayman Salvor Master Reef

16. Key West Gulf Side

17. Gunbor

Artificial Reefs

1

2

3

4

6

7

8 9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

5

Source: Pybas, 1992.

40 Kilometers

N

up a relatively minor portion of the Keys' commercial

fisheries, and although various aquaculture attempts

have been made, most have failed. There are

currently several projects operating in the Keys

involving shrimp, finfish, and conch (Little, pers.

comm.). One project, a shrimp farm in the Upper

Keys, is attempting to rear adult brine shrimp (Hunt

and Little, pers. comm.). A second is producing

postlarval Pacific white shrimp to stock shrimp farms

in Honduras (Little, 1991). The FDEP also recently

set up an experimental culture laboratory for the

depleted queen conch at the Marine Science and

Conservation Center in Layton (Little, 1991) to

determine the feasibility of laboratory rearing

(Glazer, pers. comm.). In addition, Florida is currently developing a live rock aquaculture policy

(Hunt, pers. comm.).

 Artificial Reefs

Florida has more active permitted artificial reefs

(329) than any other state in the country (Pybas,

1992). In Monroe County there are 17 permitted

artificial reef sites (Figure 19), many of which are

made of more than one structure or material (Pybas,

1992). Since many objects are deposited without a

proper permit (e.g., abandoned shrimp boats,

lobster traps), however, this number is probably a

rather small percentage of the actual number of

artificial habitats in Sanctuary waters (Kruer, pers.

comm.; Pybas, pers. comm.).

Most artificial reefs are constructed from discarded

materials, although some may be accidentally placed

(Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985). In the past,

surplus auto tires; small craft; and household plumbing, cooking, and refrigerating appliances were used

as reef structures. However, corrosion, siltation, and

storm-related turbulence often caused reefs made of

these objects to deteriorate, and more stable, corrosion-resistant materials have recently been used

(Pybas, 1992). The two major types of artificial reefs

currently used in the Keys are shipwrecks and bridge

rubble (Kruer, pers. comm.). Other artificial hardsubstrate habitats include engineering structures,

piers, wrecked aircraft, pipelines, bridge pilings,

culvert materials, large storage tanks, porcelain

fixtures, navigational aids, and concrete structures

(Jaap and Hallock, 1990; Kruer and Causey, 1992;

Pybas, 1992).

In 1980 residents of the Keys formed the nonprofit

Florida Keys Artificial Reef Association (FKARA) to

determine the best use for the many concrete pieces

created during removal of some of the area’s original

bridges. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 35,000

tons of rubble were placed at six sites throughout the

Keys, creating food and shelter for a variety of fish
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

93

and invertebrate species (Kruer, 1991). The FKARA

has also placed steel vessels, including the Coast

Guard cutters BIBB and DUANE (off Key Largo), the

EAGLE (near Islamorada), and the THUNDERBOLT

(off Marathon), at several permitted sites (Kruer,

1991).

A Fisheries Resource. Artificial reefs are primarily

used to create habitat for marine algae, fishes, and

invertebrates and/or to enhance fisheries (Seaman et

al., 1989; Kruer, 1991). As new habitats are created,

species diversity and abundance may increase

locally (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Milon,

1989a; Jaap and Hallock, 1990; Kruer, pers. comm.).

Artificial structures provide a biota similar to

nearshore patch reefs and live-bottom communities

(Jaap and Hallock, 1990). Marine algae, small

invertebrates, and fish inhabit the newly introduced

materials almost immediately. Smaller organisms

provide food for many fish (e.g., snappers and

groupers) and larger invertebrates (e.g., spiny

lobster, crabs, and small shrimp) (Bohnsack and

Sutherland, 1985; Kruer, 1991). Reefs are eventually

colonized by other organisms including corals,

tunicates, sponges, molluscs, bryozoans, and

hydrozoans (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Jaap

and Hallock, 1990; Kruer, 1991).

The time it takes for an artificial reef to become an

effective fishery resource depends on variables

including structure type and design, water column

location, tidal current patterns, and bottom type

(Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Jaap and Hallock,

1990; Kruer, pers. comm.). For example, a structure

five meters tall can provide habitats for several

different organisms, including bottom and mid-water

species (Bohnsack, pers. comm.; Kruer, pers.

comm.).

Uses and Users. Fishermen and divers are typically

the primary recreational users of artificial reef environments, with sport anglers often selecting the sites

based on expectations of higher catch levels (Milon,

1989b). In addition, accessible, well-marked artificial

reefs are particularly important to tourists who are

unfamiliar with local fishing areas or cannot afford a

chartered boat (Bender, 1978). Commercial fishermen and marine-life collectors also use these artificial habitats to catch species including amberjack,

cobia, snapper, and spiny lobster (Bohnsack, 1989;

Pybas, pers. comm.). Scuba divers often use artificial

reefs because they are easily accessible and provide

a variety of experiences (Milon, 1989b). They often

consider dives near these structures to be unique

experiences, rather than substitutes for trips to

naturally formed reefs (Blout, 1981).

Artificial reefs can also be used as a resource

management tool (Kruer, 1991). For example, as

natural reefs become stressed due to fishing or

diving, users can be encouraged to move to alternative artificial structures. However, it cannot be

assumed that such sites will always increase fish

production or be immune to the stress caused by

human activities (e.g., overfishing) (Bohnsack, 1989).

Although these sites may offer the potential to

enhance many marine species, integrated management strategies and research efforts may also be

needed to protect fisheries resources (Bohnsack and

Sutherland, 1985; Milon, 1989a; Kruer, 1991; Pybas,

pers. comm.).

 Department of Defense Activities

The U.S. Department of Defense has played an

important role in Monroe County since the early

1800s, when the Federal government established a

small naval operation in Key West to control piracy in

nearby waters (1823).

Current Department of Defense Activities. The

Department of the Defense (DOD) currently maintains several sites in the Keys, including the largest

unencumbered airspace available for training on the

East Coast (Figure 20). Although all of the military

departments (Navy, Air Force and Army) are represented in the region, the Navy’s presence is the most

significant.

The Navy’s location in the Keys has international

significance, as it maintains the closest military

installation in the continental United States to Cuba,

Central and South America, and the Caribbean. All

of the Navy’s facilities are in the Lower Keys, with the

majority in Key West. The largest is the Naval Air

Station on Boca Chica (Monroe County Board of

County Commissioners, 1986). Key West harbor,

including piers at Trumbo Point and the Truman

Annex, is also the site of the only active Navy facility

within the Sanctuary, where Navy vessels conducting

operations in the Sanctuary area are berthed, and

where naval acoustic research vessels conduct

operations. Fuel deliveries and other logistical

actions are also conducted to support training and

operations.

Economic Significance. DOD has historically been,

and will continue to be, an important factor in the
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

94

Figure 20. Military Areas Within the Keys

26°00'

24°00'

82°00

'

84°00' 80°00'

Cuba

Florida

Explosives 

Dumping Area

Explosives 

Dumping Area

Explosives 

Dumping Area

Naval Operational

Training Area

Abandoned Mine

Field Area

N

80 Kilometers

Keys’ economy. Ten percent of all earnings in

Monroe County in 1988 were attributed to civilian and

uniformed military personnel (White, 1991), and the

United State’s desire to maintain a strong presence

in the Caribbean, combined with a climate ideal for

pilot training, makes it likely that the military will

continue to use the Keys for operations and training.

The implementation of recommendations under the

Base Closure and Realignment Act, however, may

result in a decrease in the actual number of Naval

personnel permanently stationed in the Keys.

Military Activities

Research and Development. DOD conducts

research and development activities in the Florida

Keys, both on and offshore, including research on

radar and missile systems and test missile operations

and evaluation. Other R&D activities include the

following:

• Underwater Explosives Testing. The Navy

formerly conducted small explosives testing in

the shallow waters (12 to 120 m) of the Keys, but

discontinued these activities in 1992. The Navy

now tests explosives in an area Site “A,” the

upper boundary of which is located 18 miles

Site "A"

Patricia Range

southwest of Key West and about 10 miles from

the Sanctuary boundary. Many of these tests are

in connection with weapon systems testing or the

shock testing of ship hull designs.

• The Navy prepared two Environmental Assessments (one under NEPA and one under Executive Order 12114) to assess the impacts from

these operations at Site “A.” Water depths at this

site are too great (1,200 - 2,400 feet) to support

benthic grasses. Concussive effects of the

largest explosives would extend up to one mile

from the detonation site. Thus, a two-mile safety

zone (or smaller, as appropriate to the charge

size) is maintained free of marine mammals and

turtles before a charge is detonated. Worst case

levels of explosion by-products immediately after

detonation are far below levels found toxic to

fish, and concentrations drop quickly to ambient

levels. Additionally, no testing is conducted

close to the northern boundary of Site “A”, where

the safety zone would extend beyond the site

boundary.

• In an emergency, the Navy may dispose of

explosives at three deepwater sites in the region

(although they are outside the Sanctuary). The
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

95

around the station. For all such aircraft, normal

approaches, transits, and holding patterns occur

regularly in accordance with applicable Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance. This

includes departure and landing patterns that take

aircraft over the FKNMS at altitudes below 1000 feet.

Normal transit and training flight operations occur

year round. Search and Rescue (SAR) operations

and any military operations using NAS Key West as a

staging base can occur with little or no notice. Much

of the airspace over and close to the station is

designated as restricted. Air operations at the station

are conducted in accordance with a consultation

between the Navy and the Fish and Wildlife Service,

undertaken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

for the protection of the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit.

(b) Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM). The reserved

airspace areas around NAS Key West are of critical

importance to the Atlantic Fleet’s aviation training.

These areas represent one of the largest areas

available for overwater and littoral aviation warfare

training. Marine Corps and Navy fighter and attached aircraft squadrons visit the Station and

conduct basic and advanced ACM training and

carrier qualification training in the designated airspace areas. This training at times entails supersonic flight and low level flight, which can result in

short periods of high noise levels. One training

fighter squadron, VF-45, operates out of the Station

most of the year as an “adversary” squadron to

provide an “enemy” for aircrews undergoing training.

Air Force fighter squadrons also use this airspace for

the same purposes. Live gunnery exercises are

conducted from time to time in designated areas with

towed sleeves as targets.

(c) Air to Surface Ordnance. Military aircraft periodically use a designated bombing range located just

west of Marquesas Key, west of the Station and east

of the Dry Tortugas. This range, knows as Patricia

Range, consists of a World War II vintage hulk that is

aground just west of Marquesas Key. Aircraft make

runs on this hulk in order to perfect at-sea delivery of

ordnance. Authorized ordnance for training at the

Patricia Range is limited to inert ordnance with

smoke markers. No live ordnance is dropped. As of

the date of issuance of this FEIS, operations at

Patricia Range had been temporarily suspended

pending an inquiry into the possible presence of

endangered turtles at the target site.

Submarine Operations. (a) Exercise Torpedoes.

Submarines engage in operations and training,

including training in conjunction with Research,

Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the

site closest to the Sanctuary is part of Naval Test

Area “A” (south of Key West).

• Mine Countermeasure Research. The Office of

Naval Research occasionally sponsors research,

in which allied forces participate, pertinent to

mine operations in the shallow-water carbonate

environment of the Sanctuary, using vessels

greater than 50 meters in length in the Area To

Be Avoided, and uses this environment to test

the next generation of environmental monitoring

and prediction systems for the next generation of

mine countermeasure class ships. According to

DOD, Key West is the only location in the continental U.S. where the environmental conditions

are similar to those of the Persian Gulf.

• Corrosion and Coatings Tests. The Naval

Research Laboratory/Marine Corrosion Facility at

Flemming Key conducts a wide variety of corrosion and coatings tests utilizing sea water from

the Sanctuary.

• Acoustic Research. Naval acoustic research

vessels occasionally operate out of Key West

harbor and conduct research activities in the

Sanctuary.

Onshore Operations. There are a number of

land-based military facilities in the Keys, accounting

for about 5,200 acres. The Naval Air Station Key

West, located at Boca Chica, and one communications site on Saddlebunch Keys account for 96

percent of all lands. There are also a number of

military facilities in Key West, including storage and

supply sites, military housing, the Navy commissary,

and a medical clinic.

The air station at Boca Chica contains more than

3,000 acres of facilities for airfield operations, aircraft

storage and maintenance, administration, supply,

housing, recreation, general maintenance, and health

care purposes. An Air Installation Compatible-Use

Zone (AICUZ) surrounds the air station. The area

excludes residential and commercial development

because of excessive noise and accident potential.

In addition, the Air Force owns 35 acres on Cudjoe

Key known as the blimp site. The blimps are used for

aerial surveillance of the waters surrounding the

Keys.

Offshore Operations. Air Operations. (a) General.

The Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West is an operation air station, located at Boca Chica. Various fixed

wing and rotary wing aircraft operate from and
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

96

Sanctuary. Occasionally, submarines fire exercise

torpedoes. These firings take place outside the

Sanctuary. Exercise torpedoes are nonexplosive and

are recovered for reuse.

(b) Sonobuoys. The Naval Air Warfare Center tests

sonobuoys and conducts diver training operations

approximately one or two times per month. Typically,

buoys are gravity launched from an aircraft into

shallow water and then recovered by divers in scuba

equipment.

Special Warfare Operations. NAS Key West supports a Special Warfare Training Center as a tenant

command. This center is located on Flemming Key

and includes parachute insertions, scuba and rebreather training, and ESAL team training. Such

training includes small boat operations, some at high

speed, and insertion and recovery of swimmers and

divers.

Other Department of Defense Activities.

Search and Rescue. This Search and Rescue

(SAR) area is the second busiest in the Navy an

extends 150 nautical miles form landing facilities in

the Keys and also from Navy ships equipped with

landing facilities that are in the area. According to

the Navy, the Coast Guard does not maintain a SAR

helicopter in the lower Keys, so the Navy picks up

most SAR missions. Rotary wing and fixed wing

SAR missions and training will fly from NAS Key

West whenever necessary. These missions will go

wherever they are needed and will entail hovering,

insertion of swimmers and small boats into the water,

and they even have the potential for helicopters to

actually land in the water.

General. NAS Key West maintains piers for contract

deliveries and support of small boats and ships at

Truman Annex and Trumbo Point. Harbor craft,

small military research vessels, surface warships,

submarines, and sealift ships call at the Station on a

routine basis. Access to these pier facilities is

possible for large ships by transiting the Hawk

Channel Cut. Transits, anchorings in designated

anchorages, moorings, and pierside maintenance

area ongoing at the vessels while pierside.

Harbor Management. A variety of small surface

craft are used in support of harbor management,

including training, waters transportation, pollution

control, search and rescue, and other similar management functions. These small craft include oil

boom deployment boats, work boats, crew boats,

utility boats, and other similar vessels.

Fuel Deliveries. NAS Key West’s fuel supplies

come by sea by way of the Hawk Channel Cut. One

Military Sealift Command (MSC) tanker per month

delivers aviation fuel, and between two and three

tankers per year deliver diesel fuel. The Key West

Pipeline Company owns three tender tanks for

receipt and storage of aviation fuel and a pipeline

that runs between Trumbo Point Annex and NAS Key

West. The pipeline is four inches in diameter and

about seven and one-half miles in length. Approximately two miles of it is in the Sanctuary.

 U.S. Coast Guard Activities

Because of its responsibilities in U.S. coastal areas,

the Coast Guard also maintains a significant presence in the region. It has five primary missions:

search and rescue, law enforcement, marine safety,

marine environmental protection, and the operation

and maintenance of navigational aids (e.g., channel

markers, navigational lights, and lighthouses).

Because of these responsibilities and the vast

expanse of waters along the Keys, the Coast Guard

provides an important public function in the Sanctuary. It is responsible for over 900 km of coastline and

88,500 km2

 of ocean area, and typically has several

vessels and over 600 personnel located at three

stations (Islamorada, Marathon, and Key West) in the

area. The largest vessels operate out of Trumbo

Annex in Key West.

 Commercial Shipping

The Straits of Florida have historically been the

access route for all vessels entering the Gulf of

Mexico from the north and east and, consequently,

the area is one of the most heavily trafficked in the

world. It is estimated that 40 percent of the world’s

commerce passes within 1.5 days' sailing time of Key

West (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1990). In

addition, oil tankers transit the coast daily, including

very large and ultra-large crude carriers.

The Gulf Stream lies offshore, and travels in a westto-east direction. To take advantage of the additional

speed afforded by the current, north- and east-bound

vessels have historically followed the axis of the Gulf

Stream, which lies about 65 nautical miles south of

the Dry Tortugas and 45 nautical miles south of Key

West. To avoid the current, south- and west-bound

vessels have historically transited close to the reefs.

A general guideline for south- or west-bound ships

has been roughly to follow the 50-fathom curve.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

97

Figure 21 shows the major commercial shipping

routes in the region.

Areas to be Avoided. In 1991, as part of the

FKNMSPA, several areas were declared off-limits to

tankers and other vessels over 50 meters in length.

These "Areas to be Avoided" (ATBAs) were developed in response to the region's many historical

groundings, and large vessels have been discouraged from operating in those located along the

Florida Reef Tract. Four ATBAs account for 96 nm2

of waters within and adjacent to the Sanctuary.

Key West Harbor. Key West is a small port with

minimal facilities for cargo commerce; its primary

commercial activities are fishing and tourism. It is a

port-of-call for cruiseships principally from Miami,

Port Everglades, and Tampa. Ships with drafts of 8.5

m or less can transit the main ship channel and dock

at Mallory Square, which in 1990 served over

127,000 passengers (White, 1991). Because of its

favorable location, Key West is an important stop for

repair/supply operations and crew changes for ships

travelling through the Straits of Florida.

The U.S. military and the local electric plant at Stock

Island receive the only commercial cargo entering

Key West harbor, with tankers importing jet fuel for

the Navy and barges bringing fuel to the electric

plant. In addition to their routine operations at the

site, the Coast Guard supports cutters and Aerostat

vessels involved in radar surveillance.

Cruiseship Industry. The cruiseship industry in the

Keys has grown rapidly in recent years, and the

annual number of passengers disembarking at Key

West grew from 10,600 in 1985 to over 127,000 in

1990. Peak months include February, March, and

April. Figure 22 shows the number of passengers

arriving monthly at Key West between 1988 and

1990.

Thirteen cruiselines currently use Key West as a

destination, and cruiseships made over 300 port calls

between October 1991 and September 1992. Key

West is typically a stop for cruiselines that originate in

Gulf of Mexico or East Coast ports. The majority

come from the Port of Miami and include Key West

as one stop in trips to various ports in Mexico and the

Bahamas. Key West is also an occasional stop for

world cruising ships (Hamlin, pers. comm.), ranging

from 130 to 200 m long and accommodating up to

1,200 passengers (Hamlin, pers. comm.).

Cruiseships typically arrive in early morning and

depart in late afternoon, providing an almost daily

influx of tourists to downtown Key West.

26°

24°

22°

80° 76°

Key West

Areas to be Avoided

Legend

Shipping Route

Florida

Cuba

Bahamas

To/From 

Western 

Gulf of Mexico

To/From 

North 

Atlantic

To/From 

Caribbean To/From Caribbean/

South Atlantic

Miami

Port Everglades

To/From 

Tampa

To/From 

Eastern 

Gulf of Mexico

Port

80 Kilometers

N

Figure 21. Commercial Shipping Routes in the Region
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

98

Figure 22. Monthly Cruiseship Passengers in

 Key West Harbor,1988-1990

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Month

Thousands of Passengers per Month

Source: White, 1991

Cruiseships usually dock at Mallory Square, but may

also dock at Pier B at Truman Annex. Two

cruiseships anchor offshore at Pier B and ferry

passengers to Key West. A second port is being

proposed at Safe Harbor Marina on Stock Island to

handle increased traffic in the event that Cuba

becomes open to the cruiseship industry (Hamlin,

pers. comm.). There is only a 4.5 m controlling depth

to the marina, however, limiting its use to shallowdraft vessels.

Dredging. Dredging activities in the Keys are usually

limited to small, private projects, the majority for dock

or seawall construction at private residences. Dredging is also occasionally required for maintaining

canals or expanding the dockage of a local marina.

Recently, a small State-funded project in Marathon

was completed to restore circulation between Florida

Bay and Bonefish Bay (Helbling, pers. comm.). There

are no Federal dredging projects in the Keys, but it is

anticipated that the Key West Ship Channel will

require maintenance dredging in the future.

 Commercial Treasure Salvage Activities

Historical Significance. The Gulf Stream has

historically been a major shipping route from the

Caribbean basin to the North Atlantic. The Keys are

located on the narrow Straits of Florida, which

contain some of the most treacherous waters between the Americas and Europe (Smith et. al., in

press.). Because of Spain’s heavy use of this route,

particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, storms,

currents, dangerous reefs and shoals, and human

error have sunk hundreds of Spanish vessels,

including the fleets of 1622, 1715, and 1733. Soon

after such disasters, efforts were typically made to

salvage the cargo and ships that were lost. In later

centuries, the salvage of cargos (known as "wrecking") became a profitable business for small groups

of sailors in the Keys. Federal courts were established to determine the award to be paid to the salvor

by the owner or from proceeds of the sale of the

cargo recovered. The success of these wrecking

efforts was mixed and, as a result, some shipwrecks

and cargo remained on the seabed and were covered by the sandy bottom.

As modern underwater technology such as scuba

gear, metal detectors, and remote sensing devices

were developed, both professional and amateur

treasure hunters were able to search for lost and

submerged treasures (Gerard, 1992). Federal courts

traditionally applied the maritime Law of Salvage and

the Law of Finds to cargo uncovered from shipwrecks

that had been lost or abandoned for hundreds of

years (Schoenbaum, 1987). For example, following

the development of scuba equipment in the 1950s,

treasure hunters in the Keys began salvaging the

Spanish fleet of 1733. By the 1980s, most of the

vessels in this fleet had already been found and

salvaged (Miller, pers. comm.). As more treasure is

found, there is less to discover and therefore the

chances of finding more treasure is diminished.

Some have the view that most of the treasure in the

Keys has been found while others, including commercial salvors dispute this view and assert that

many of the valuable tresures and artifacts, from

wide dispersal patterns, have yet to be found.

Regardless of one's point of view, there is an agreement that commercial treasure salvage is a very

speculative venture at best.

The development of propeller-wash deflection

devices (i.e., "mailboxes") enabled treasure hunters

to blow crater-like holes, allowing the discovery of

shipwreck material more than 20 feet below the

surface of the seabed. Such mailboxes were important in Mel Fisher’s 1985 discovery and recovery of

the ATOCHA, which was lost with the 1622 Spanish

fleet. However, indiscriminate use of mailboxes

cause significant harm to natural resources as well

as cultural resources, including contextual information.
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

99

While there are still recovery operations being

conducted on the ATOCHA, MARGARITA, LA

CAPITANA EL RUI, and the SAN JOSE DE LAS

ANIMAS within the Sanctuary, most of Florida’s

commercial treasure salvage activity is associated

with the 1715 fleet, which lies outside the Sanctuary.

There has not been a significant new find in the Keys

in five years.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1988,

neither the Law of Salvage nor the Law of Finds

apply to abandoned shipwrecks in State waters. In

areas of the Sanctuary under Federal jurisdiction,

shipwreck recoveries (including those of the

ATOCHA, MARGARITA, LA CAPITANA EL RUI),

and the SAN JOSE DE LAS ANIMAS are expected to

continue in a manner which does not terminate valid

Federal Admiralty Court rights of access granted

prior to congressional designation of the Sanctuary

on November 16, 1990. However, recoveries will be

subject to Sanctuary regulations in accordance with

the ASA, ASA Guidelines, NMSA, the NHPA and

FKNMSPA, as well as Federal Archeological Program guidelines.

Categories of Treasure Salvors. For purposes of

analysis in this document, treasure salvors are

grouped into three categories: 1) professional

treasure salvors whose search, recovery, sale, and/

or display of recovered items is a full-time endeavor

and primary source of income; 2) paraprofessionals

who hunt for treasure on a regular part-time basis,

but for whom treasure salvage is not their primary

source of income or full-time job; and 3) souvenir

collectors/hobbyists who combine the search for

treasure with their recreational diving activities.

Professional Treasure Salvors. The discovery of the

1715 Spanish fleet off Vero Beach in the early 1960s

resulted in a treasure hunting boom in the Keys

(Throckmorton, 1990). In the mid-1980s there was

another surge of treasure salvage activities in South

Florida. From 1985 to 1987, for example, Mel

Fisher’s Salvors, Inc. dove the ATOCHA and the

MARGARITA with up to six boats in the water at

once. The operation employed over 100 people as

divers, crew, and support staff for office, laboratory,

and museum work (Mathewson, pers. comm.). In

addition to these activities, it was estimated that 40 to

50 people were actively conducting commercial

treasure salvage during the 1980s at sites in Florida,

mostly outside the Keys (Miller, pers. comm.).

Treasure salvors have stated that 25 companies and

over 100 people worked the 1715 Fleet and asserted

that 1,000 to 2,000 people were directly or indirectly

involved with tresure operations in Florida in the

heyday of operations in the 1980s. While the potential for commercial treasure salvage operations is

provided for in the plan, the number of companies

and individuals involved directly and indirectly is not

expected to reach those of the peak years in the

1980s.

Since the enactment of the ASA in 1988, and perhaps due to the unlikelihood of significant new finds,

professional treasure salvors appear to have shifted

their efforts to the Caribbean and other areas. Most

professional treasure salvage in South Florida is

currently conducted by Salvors, Inc., which has

federal admiralty claims to the 1715 Fleet (outside

the Sanctuary) as well as the ATOCHA and the

MARGARITA (inside the Sanctuary). The company

employs approximately 50 to 100 people, but this

varies with the number of expeditions planned and

financed. Some treasure hunters have estimated that

there are numerous companies employing hundreds

of workers in the Keys (Arnold, 1991; Haskins, pers.

comm.; Chapman, pers. comm.). While it is difficult to

precisely estimate the number of commercial treasure salvors in the Keys, commercial treasure salvors

have been considered as a small business enterprise

in developing the plan and permit system.

The equipment used in professional treasure salvage

includes vessels, magnetometers, sonar devices,

prop-wash deflectors, air lifts, metal detectors, scuba

gear, tools, and other devices. The personnel involved in boat operations typically include a captain,

crew, and divers. A marine archaeologist may be

present to record information properly. Support

personnel or services that may be utilized include

researchers, conservators, coin experts, metallurgists, office staff, accountants, and lawyers.

Professional treasure salvage is a very speculative

venture that typically yields little or no return on the

investment made (Bauer, 1986). The annual costs of

such operations can easily reach $1 million a year,

and of those operations that do find treasure, few sell

enough to repay costs or pay investors

(Throckmorton, 1990). Given the business’s speculative nature, therefore, even when treasure is discovered and recovered, the return on the investment is

modest in light of the high risk involved. Treasure

salvors concur that it is a highly speculative venture,

but assert that there is still treasure to be found and

that the public benefit if artifacts are recovered in an

archeologically sound manner.

Paraprofessional Treasure Salvors. Paraprofessional

treasure salvors use much of the same equipment

and personnel as professional treasure hunters, but
Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

100

operate on a smaller scale. The equipment and

resources of a few individuals may be combined for a

particular discovery/recovery operation. A small

company may be set up (typically as a limited

partnership) to formalize the venture. Paraprofessionals may also be involved as subcontractors for

professional operators. The costs of paraprofessional

operations are generally much less than that of

professional operations. However, the profits from

such ventures, if any, are modest. There are approximately 25 to 30 paraprofessionals currently working

in the Keys, as well as some in other areas of Florida

and the Caribbean (Miller, pers. comm.).

Souvenir Collectors and Hobbyists. Souvenir collectors and hobbyists conduct treasure hunting primarily

in association with their recreational diving activities.

They typically use metal detectors and dive from their

own boat on a known vessel.
101

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

 Existing Jurisdictional Responsibilities

 and Institutional Arrangements

This section provides an overview of the existing

resource protection regime in the Florida Keys, and

details its effectiveness in managing human activities

and adequately protecting the Sanctuary's resources

and environmental quality.

Several Federal, State, and local governmental

agencies and departments and other organizations

are responsible for managing individual resources

and regulating their uses within the Sanctuary (see

Appendix C in Volume III for a summary of existing

legislative authorities). Table 14 summarizes the

relevant resource management authorities. These

agencies provide a system of comprehensive ecosystem management for the long-term protection of

the Keys' diverse natural resources. Faced with

increasing environmental threats from human activities, their capacity to perform effectively may deteriorate due to limitations in staffing, equipment, and

funds available for enforcement. Also, because of the

fragmentary nature of existing authorities (characterized by narrowly defined missions), coordinated

policy development is difficult. As resource-use

pressures continue to increase, overall management

effectiveness may suffer if inter/intra-agency coordination is not achieved. The existing agencies may

currently consider it within their mandate to work

individually toward preventing or resolving conflicting

management objectives. However, due to the inherently complex threats to the resource, a cooperative

multi-agency management program is needed.

 Federal

Federal agencies with primary environmental management responsibilities in the Keys are: the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) of the Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)

and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(USDOC); the National Park Service (NPS), U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Minerals

Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department

of the Interior; the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); and the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Several NOAA line offices are directly responsible for resource management and regulation in the

Keys.

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. The National

Marine Sanctuary Program is administered by the

SRD within NOAA's National Ocean Service. A sitespecific, comprehensive management plan is prepared for each sanctuary to ensure that resource

protection, research, and interpretation activities are

conducted in a coordinated manner consistent with

Sanctuary goals and objectives. The SRD establishes policies and procedures in response to issues

specific to the Sanctuary and develops a budget

delineating expenditures for program development,

operating costs, and staffing levels. Funding levels

are reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect the

priorities and requirements of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program and evolving conditions in the

Keys. The Sanctuary Superintendent is the primary

spokesperson for the Sanctuary and is responsible

for managing all day-to-day Sanctuary activities.

National Marine Fisheries Service. The NMFS shares

responsibility with the FWS for implementing both the

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Sanctuary resources

protected under these Acts include several marine

turtle and mammal species. The NMFS is assisted by

the USCG, Florida Marine Patrol (FMP), and Sanctuary officers in enforcement operations. Under the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, the NMFS is also charged with reviewing fishery

management plans prepared by the South Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico fishery management councils,

and approving all final plans. The Florida Marine

Fisheries Commission works with the NMFS to

ensure that the management plans are consistent

with State coastal zone management programs.

Sanctuary resources regulated by such plans include

corals and reef fish. For example, the plan for reef

fish sets bag and size limits, restricts the use of

certain types of fishing gear, and establishes reporting and permit systems.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service. Pursuant to the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (as amended), the

MMS manages Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

hydrocarbon and mineral exploration, development,

and production, including formulating and enforcing
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

102Table 14. Summary of Institutional Jurisdictions and Responsibilities

Natural and Cultural Resources Living Resources Environmental Management

Soil and

Water

Conservation

Beach and

Shore

Preservation

Parks,

Refuges,

and

Preserves

Land Aquisition

for 

Conservation

and Recreation

Outdoor

Recreation,

Recreational

Trails, and

Conservation

Historic

Preservation

SaltwaterFisheries

Freshwater

Fisheries

Water

Resources;

Water

Management

Districts

Commercial

Development

and Capital

Improvements

Coastal 

Planning and

Management;

Land and Water

Management

Federal

U. S. Department of Commerce NOAA √ √U. S. Department of StateU. S. Department of Transportation Coast Guard Federal Aviation Administration

U. S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service √ √ √ √ √ √ √ National Park Service √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Minerals Management ServiceU. S. Environmental Protection Agency √U. S. Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers Army Navy Air Force

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation √

State

Department of Environmental Protection √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √Florida Marine Fisheries Commission √Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission √Health and Rehabilitative ServicesDepartment of Commerce √ √Department of Community Affairs √ √ √ √ √ √Deartment of AdministrationDepartment of Transportation

Department of State √Office of Planning and BudgetDepartment of Ag. and Consumer Services √

Regional

Dade CountySouth Florida Regional Planning CouncilSouth Florida Water Management District √ √ √ √ √ √

County

Growth Management Division Building & Planning Departments √ √ √ √

 Marine Resources √ √ Environmental Resources √ √ √ √ √

City

City of Key West √ √ √ √City of Key Colony Beach √ √ √ √City of Layton √ √ √ √

Other

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council √Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council √Housing Authority √

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority √Mosquito Control District
103

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

special lease stipulations designed to protect specific

geological and biological features. The MMS also

regulates activities associated with offshore oil and

gas exploration and development based on the

provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

Lands Act. It has established biological lease stipulations, applied on a lease sale-by-lease sale basis, to

mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities on high-relief banks

and low-relief live-bottom areas of the Gulf of Mexico

outer continental shelf. Additionally, the MMS has: 1)

sand mining authority and 2) the ability to use OCS

royalties to support the Land and Water Conservation

Fund.

Fish and Wildlife Service. The FWS administers the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the

Lacey Act, and a variety of other laws designed to

protect the nation's anadromous fish, migratory birds,

and endangered species through regulation, permitting, or coordination with other Federal agencies. The

FWS also administers the National Wildlife Refuge

System according to the National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act. Four national wildlife

refuges are within the boundaries of the Sanctuary:

National Key Deer Refuge; Great White Heron

National Wildlife Refuge; Key West National Wildlife

Refuge; and the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife

Refuge.

National Park Service. The NPS administers the

National Park System, which includes national parks,

preserves, monuments, memorials, historic sites,

seashores, and battlefield parks. Three national

parks and one national preserve are adjacent to

Sanctuary: Dry Tortugas National Park, Everglades

National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big

Cypress National Preserve. Although the NPS is not

directly involved in regulation, their stewardship role

results in an indirect involvement in programs affecting the Sanctuary.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The

National Historic Preservation Act authorizes the

Secretary of the Interior to maintain a national

register of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and

objects significant in American history, architecture,

archaeology, and culture.” Any Federal agency

conducting, licensing, or assisting an undertaking

that may affect a site listed on, or eligible for listing

on, the National Register must provide the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation and the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a reasonable opportunity for comment. The criteria applied by

the Council and the SHPO relate to whether the

undertaking will change the quality of the site’s

historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural

character.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Coast Guard. The USCG enforces all Federal laws

in navigable waters under U.S. jurisdiction, in particular the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Act, the Compensation and

Liability Act, and the Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships. The goal is to prevent pollution caused by

vessel discharges of oil, hazardous substances, or

other pollutants. The USCG is also the lead agency

responsible for coordinating the response to oil and

hazardous waste spills in tidal waters and, therefore,

in the Sanctuary under the national contingency plan.

In addition, the USCG regulates vessel traffic,

maintains boater safety, and coordinates search-andrescue operations through the Marine Safety Office

and the Aids to Navigation Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA is responsible for protecting the nation's

environmental quality and public health through

pollution control and prevention measures. Specifically, the EPA regulates drinking water nationwide

(including directing the municipal monitoring of

drinking water), regulates hazardous waste storage

and disposal practices, and monitors air and water

quality. The agency is also responsible for the

oversight of Superfund cleanup activities under

CERCLA. The EPA also regulates sewage outfalls

under the Clean Water Act via the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under the

NPDES program, a permit is required for the discharge of any pollutant from a point source into

navigable U.S. waters, the waters of the contiguous

zone, or oceanic waters. Within Florida's State

waters, the EPA has delegated NPDES permitting

authority to the State government. The EPA also has

regulatory authority over ocean dumping under Title I

of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act (MPRSA). This legislation prohibits the transportation of any materials from the United States for the

purpose of dumping in the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, or the ocean without an EPA-issued

permit. In conjunction with the FDEP, the EPA is also

responsible for developing a Water Quality Protection

Plan for the Sanctuary.
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

104

U.S. Department of Defense

The Department of Defense maintains numerous

facilities and training areas in the Keys, and training

missions are frequently conducted by all branches of

the armed services. The Navy has conducted military

training within the Sanctuary, while the Air Force and

Army maintain facilities in the Keys and conduct

military training nearby.

Army Corps of Engineers. The ACOE issues and

enforces permits for the discharge of dredged or fill

material into navigable waterways (including wetlands) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It

has jurisdiction over marine construction, excavation,

and fill activities in all navigable waters of the United

States. Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act, the

ACOE must issue a permit before any marine

construction, excavation, or fill activities in these

areas can be conducted. Permits may be refused

when it is believed that dredge-and-fill activities may

pose a threat to navigation or will have an adverse

impact on living marine resources. Under Title I of the

MPRSA, the ACOE is responsible for regulating the

disposal of dredged materials in accordance with

EPA/ACOE guidelines. The ACOE is also responsible for determining that the dumping will not degrade or endanger the marine environment, human

health, or economic potentialities. Permit applications

typically include requests to place fill on lots for

house pads and driveways or as a base for planting

trees. The ACOE regularly consults with the EPA,

NMFS, and FWS regarding permits issued in the

Keys.

 State

State agencies with jurisdiction in the Keys are the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP); Florida Department of Community Affairs

(FDCA); Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

(FMFC); Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services (DHRS); Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission (GFWFC); Department of State (DOS)

and Department of Commerce (DOC).

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection

The FDEP was formed on July 1, 1993 as the result

of a merger of the Florida Department of Natural

Resources and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. In the legislation implementing

the agency, the declaration of policy stated that "the

protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water,

and other natural resources, of this state are vital to

the social and economic well-being and quality of life

of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state."

The merger was intended to provide more efficient,

effective management of the State's natural resources and to protect the best interests of the

public.

The FDEP provides policy directives to State agencies and regional and local governments. It also

supervises regional water management districts, and

delegates the authority to carry out programs to

these water management districts, other State

agencies, and local government agencies. To

achieve these goals, the FDEP conducts regulatory

programs to control or prohibit air and water pollution

and to clean up or restore polluted land and water

resources. It also supports research on environmental issues, and provides educational and technical

assistance to the public for preventing environmental

damage.

The divisions of the FDEP with natural resource

management responsibilities in the Keys include:

Recreation and Parks; Marine Resources; State

Lands; Law Enforcement; Beaches and Shores;

Water Management; Waste Management; and Water

Facilities.

Recreation and Parks. The mission of the Florida

Park Service (FPS) is to provide opportunities for

Florida residents and visitors to experience a variety

of resource-based outdoor recreation activities, while

ensuring the preservation and restoration of these

areas' natural and cultural resources. To accomplish

its mission, the FPS develops, maintains, and

operates a statewide park system that includes State

parks, recreation areas, archaeological sites, historic

sites, geological sites, botanical sites, preserves, and

reserves.

Marine Resources. This organization is divided into

several bureaus and offices responsible for managing the State marine resources, including: the Bureau

of Sanctuaries and Research Reserves (BSRR); the

Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI); the Bureau

of Marine Resource Regulation and Development

(BMRRD); the Bureau of Marketing and Extension

Services (BMES); the Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Services (OFMAS); and the

Office of Protected Species (OPS).

The BSRR is responsible for administering and

managing the Looe Key and Key Largo national
105

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

marine sanctuaries and the Appalachicola and

Rookery Bay national estuarine research reserves.

The FMRI has two facilities in the Keys. The longterm objective is to promote wise management of the

Keys' ecosystem through research and marine

education pertinent to South Florida's fisheries and

the marine environment in general.

OFMAS, established in 1990, is responsible for

examining recreational fisheries and fisheries management issues, emergency response to marine

environmental disasters, mosquito control, aquaculture issues, the review of comprehensive management plans, and environmental education programs.

State Lands. The DSL is responsible for acquiring

and managing State properties in the public interest

either by managing the properties or by leasing them

to other agencies. The Bureau of Submerged Lands

and Preserves (BSLP) manages, protects, and

enhances Florida's sovereign submerged lands.

(State waters, although within the physical boundaries of the Sanctuary, are not included within the

Bureau's management responsibilities.) The Bureau

also manages all sovereign submerged lands within

the Sanctuary, and any activities conducted on this

land require prior authorization. Most are related to

dredge-and-fill operations, but others also fall under

the Division's review responsibilities.

Law Enforcement. The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP)

enforces all State statutes, rules, and regulations

within State waters, including the Sanctuary. While

their primary focus is marine protection and boating

safety, they are also responsible for enforcing

Federal regulations in areas beyond Florida's territorial limits, under interagency agreements with the

following agencies: the Department of Commerce's

NMFS; the Department of the Interior's FWS; the

U.S. Customs Service; and the USCG.

Beaches and Shores. The Division of Beaches and

Shores (DBS) has regulatory jurisdiction for construction and excavation activities on sovereign lands

seaward of the high-water line of any State tidal

waters. In addition, the DBS has regulatory jurisdiction for specific construction activities within 50 feet

of the mean high-water line at any riparian coastal

location fronting the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean

shoreline (excluding bays, inlets, rivers, bayous,

creeks, passes, etc.). Historically, the DBS has not

consistently asserted regulatory jurisdiction within

Monroe County. However, it has included Monroe

County in the Florida Beach Restoration Management Plan.

Water Management. The FDEP manages changes

in State surface water quality standards. Responsibilities include managing the state’s general antidegradation policies, water quality uses, classifications and reclassifications, narrative and numeric

water quality criteria, and special protection measures such as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)

and Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW).

In 1985 the Keys were designated as OFW (excluding canals). The OFW program is generally implemented through the DEP’s permitting system, and

only affects activities that require a FDEP permit. The

intent is the maintenance of ambient water quality.

The FDEP also conducts water quality monitoring in

compliance with the Department’s quality assurance

rule. The lack of financial resources devoted to

monitoring efforts in the Keys is reflected by the

limited water quality monitoring activities currently

taking place. Such monitoring is now only done in

response to specific requests or permits. The efforts

of the FDEP's Marathon office are focused on

tracking and enforcing violations in current regulations. No specific plans for monitoring have been

completed for the Keys.

Wetland Resource Management. The FDEP processes applications for wetland resource (dredgeand-fill) permits for large-scale projects requiring

work in State waters. These projects include those

with more than 10 acres of dredging or filling, all

commercial marinas and docking facilities, and

private marinas with more than 10 slips. Permit

processing is governed by the Warren S. Henderson

Wetlands Protection Act of 1984. In general, the

Henderson Act sets forth the criteria by which the

landward extent of State waters is determined (i.e.,

what constitutes a wetland), when a permit is required, procedures for application and processing,

and the criteria for issuance or denial.

Of special interest is a State statute on "additional

criteria for dredging and filling within Outstanding

Florida Waters in Monroe County." This statute is

intended to provide the most stringent protection for

Keys' waters under the law. It specifically protects

coral, algae, sponge, and seagrass communities;

outlines siting and design criteria for piers and boatmooring facilities; and defines permitting requirements for marinas and shoreline stabilization. The

criteria are specific to the natural water bodies in

Monroe County.
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

106

program. However, the implementation of centralized

wastewater treatment plants has not been initiated

due to a lack of justifying data.

Environmental Regulation Commission. This

commission consists of unpaid citizens representing

various interest groups including agriculture, real

estate, environmentalists, the construction industry,

and private citizens. It sets air and water quality

standards for the FDEP and has authority over

groundwater and hazardous waste cleanup requirements, fees, and permitting regulations.

Department of Community Affairs

The DCA is responsible for planning and regulating

land use by approving local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. Planning activities are integrated on the regional, State,

and local level. The DCA is made up of the Office of

the Secretary, three divisions, and the Florida

Housing Finance Agency.

Coastal Management Program. In 1978 the State

legislature passed the Florida Coastal Management

Act. NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management approved the state’s program in 1981,

and has provided management grants of approximately $2 million per year in accordance with Section

306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

Federal approval of the state’s program also mandated that Federal activities within and seaward of

the coastal zone had to be consistent, to the maximum extent possible, with the policies of approved

State coastal management programs.

The DCA administers the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). Florida's coastal zone

comprises 8,426 statute miles of tidal shoreline,

encompassing 35 coastal counties, including Monroe

County. The FCMP is structured as a network of

State agencies that improves the effectiveness and

efficiency of implementing existing laws and programs in the coastal zone.

Areas of Critical State Concern Program. The

Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC) program

identifies certain regions of the state for special

protection based on perceived threats to significant

natural resources and/or the need to protect public

facility investments. The program is authorized by a

component of the Florida Environmental Land and

Water Management Act of 1972. The Act sets forth

criteria and procedures for designating the areas and

identifies the DCA as the State agency responsible

for administering the program. The objective is to

On November 16, 1992 the FDEP delegated dredgeand-fill permitting authority to the water management

districts for those projects requiring a surface water

management permit. The FDEP retained dredgeand-fill permitting responsibility for landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, industrial wastewater treatment facilities, hazardous waste facilities, and other

projects involving dredge-and-fill but not requiring a

surface water management permit.

Pesticides. The FDEP also administers activities

related to mosquito and arthropod control, particularly

on State-managed lands. No significant work has

been conducted on the impacts of pesticides on

groundwater in the Keys.

Waste Management. The impacts of point source

discharges in the Keys have been reviewed since

1977 in an attempt to improve water quality-based

effluent limitations (WQBELs) for point source

surface water discharges. Other projects are also

reviewed for their potential water quality impacts.

The FDEP also regulates all underground storage

tanks over 100 gallons containing pollutants and

hazardous substances defined by CERCLA, and

surface storage tanks with capacities over 550

gallons. Because of the Keys' geology and water

table, underground storage tanks have special

requirements and are more costly than surface

storage tanks, which are more common in the Keys.

As part of the SUPER Act of 1986, the FDEP is

required to contract with local governments whenever

possible to perform compliance and enforcement

activities. The Monroe County HRS unit performs

such activities in the Keys.

Water Facilities. The FDEP coordinates permitting,

compliance, and enforcement activities for domestic

and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Domestic wastewater treatment plants generating over

2,000 gallons per day (gpd) flow, and all on-site

wastewater treatment and disposal systems generating over 5,000 gpd are permitted by the FDEP’s

district offices or approved local programs. Septic

tanks and On-site Disposal Systems (OSDS) generating under 5,000 gpd are permitted by FDHRS. The

Domestic Wastewater Section serves as liaison for

the FDEP on septic tank issues, but has no permitting authority. The 1979 Monroe County Facilities

Plan recommended the construction of a centralized

wastewater system only after available data confirmed the need for centralized facilities based on

violations of water quality standards or threats to

public health. The county’s comprehensive plan

recommended a long-term water quality monitoring
107

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

review the comprehensive plans, land development

regulations, and activities in each ACSC. Areas are

deemed critical when it is determined that there is a

need to protect public resources from unregulated or

inadequately regulated development. The ACSC

program has very little jurisdiction in the Sanctuary

because it ends approximately 250 feet below the

mean high-water mark. However, it is important

because of the limits it places on upland development and the capital improvements in water quality it

requires.

Specific ACSC objectives that address water quality

issues in the Sanctuary include:

• coordinating all local governments in the Keys to

ensure that their comprehensive plans include a

drainage element, a wastewater treatment

element, and a capital improvement element, and

that they are consistent with the policies of the

ACSC program and the principles guiding

development;

• strengthening local government planning in the

Keys to the extent that the ACSC designation

may be removed;

• protecting marine resources and shorelines,

including wetlands, mangroves, seagrasses,

coral reefs, and their respective faunas; and

• limiting the adverse effects of development on

water quality throughout the Keys.

The Governor and Cabinet can designate an area by

rule, setting the boundaries of an ACSC and the

principles to be used for guiding development

activities. Once an area is designated, affected local

governments have 180 days to submit land development regulations consistent with the principles set

forth in the rule. If the local government fails to

submit regulations, or if its proposals are insufficient,

the State land planning agency may propose development regulations for the governor's and cabinet's

approval. Monroe County and the City of Key West

were designated as ACSCs by the governor and

cabinet in April 1975.

Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

The State legislature created the FMFC in 1983 to

manage and preserve Florida’s renewable marine

fishery resources by emphasizing the protection and

enhancement of Florida's marine and estuarine

environments.

The FMFC consists of members appointed by the

governor and approved by the State Senate. It has

full rule-making authority for Florida’s marine species

(except endangered species) and its regulations are

subject to final approval by the governor and cabinet.

The FMFC's rule-making authority relates to gear,

bag limits, size limits, protected species, closed

areas, seasons, and egg-bearing females of certain

species.

As of February 1991, the governor and cabinet had

approved over 460 saltwater fishing rules recommended by the FMFC. In addition, the Commission is

required to make annual recommendations regarding

marine fisheries research priorities and funding for

the FDEP. The Commission also has authority over

220 local laws related to saltwater fishing. In developing rules for saltwater fishing, the FMFC holds public

workshops across the State in which information and

views on issues are presented, and public input is

solicited. From this input, the Commission drafts a

proposed rule and associated regulations, which are

subject to the State administrative procedures.

Before any new rule is approved, the FMFC holds at

least one final public meeting.

The need for comprehensive and consistent fishery

management, protected species management, and

fishery habitat preservation and restoration is of

particular concern. Accordingly, the FMFC is working

with Federal fisheries management councils to

achieve the consistent management of Sanctuary

resources.

Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services

The mission of the FDHRS is to protect public health.

It oversees the construction, installation, and operation of individual OSDSs and implements a fee

schedule designed to recover the cost of conducting

the OSDS program. The FDHRS also permits

injection wells for stormwater or domestic wastewater

effluents of less than 2,000 gpd, and provides

continuing education courses for septic tank contractors, pump-out operators, environmental health

specialists, and master plumbers who install or

service septic tanks. The FDHRS is also responsible

for regulating private water systems, providing

mosquito control, implementing beach closures, and

issuing public health warnings regarding contaminated fish.
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

108

Bureau of Historic Preservation. The Bureau of

Historic Preservation reviews numerous private and

public undertakings within the provisions of Federal

and State regulations designed to protect archaeological and historical resources. For example, the

Bureau reviews dredge-and-fill permit applications

submitted to the ACOE, as well as any other Stateor federally-funded permitted undertakings consistent

with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Florida Historic Resources Act.

Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services

Within the Keys, this agency is primarily responsible

for mosquito control, and its Bureau of Entomology

and Pest Control administers the state’s mosquitocontrol program. Its responsibilities include overseeing all local mosquito-control programs, reviewing

and approving all county or mosquito-control district

work plans and work budgets, and administering

State funding programs. In addition, the Bureau of

Pesticides registers all pesticides, including mosquito-control products, for sale and distribution. Using

the Bureau's authority, the Department may deny,

cancel, or modify the conditions of any pesticide

registration.

In Monroe County, the Mosquito Control Authority

has the lead responsibility for eradicating adult

mosquitoes and for conducting larval mosquito

control activities. The objectives are to: 1) protect

human health and safety; 2) promote the state's

economic development and facilitate the enjoyment

of its natural resources by reducing the number of

disease-carrying arthropods; and 3) conduct arthropod control consistent with protecting the environmental and ecological integrity of all State lands and

waters. Pesticides are applied under its direction via

aerial or truck spraying.

Department of Commerce

Florida's Department of Commerce is not a regulatory agency and has no legislative jurisdiction.

Accordingly, its efforts are focused on promoting

tourism and developing the state's economy. The

FDOC is comprised of three divisions: Tourism,

Economic Development, and International Trade and

Development. The Division of Tourism stimulates and

promotes coordinated, efficient, and beneficial travel

and leisure development under the oversight of the

Florida Tourism Commission. The legislature created

the Commission in 1991 with the authority to fund,

plan, promote, and coordinate the state’s tourismrelated activities.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission

The FGFWFC manages freshwater aquatic life and

wild animal life and their habitats to perpetuate a

diversity of species and reduce fish and wildlife

habitat losses. Under Florida's constitution, the

FGFWFC is responsible for protecting freshwater and

upland endangered and threatened species. In

addition to the specific responsibility to enforce rules

with respect to the protection of listed species,

Commission law enforcement offices are empowered

to enforce State environmental laws.

Department of State

The Department of State has responsibilities with

respect to proposed State, State-assisted, Federal,

or federally assisted activities that could have an

adverse impact on the Sanctuary's cultural resources. The director of the Division of Historic

Resources serves as the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Division of Historical Resources. The FDHR is

responsible for managing the state's historical

resources, specifically those on State-owned submerged lands. All treasure, artifacts, and objects with

historical and archaeological value that have been

abandoned on State-owned or State-owned sovereign submerged lands belong to the State, with title

vested in the FDHR for administrative and protective

purposes. With respect to the Sanctuary Management Plan, the FDHR will be primarily responsible for

submerged cultural resources, especially historic

shipwreck sites and other abandoned objects having

historical or archaeological value. The FDHR includes four bureaus: the Bureau of Archaeological

Research; Bureau of Historic Preservation; Bureau of

Historical Museums; and Bureau of Florida Folklife

Programs.

Bureau of Archaeological Research. The chief of the

Bureau of Archaeological Research is the State

Archaeologist, and the office is primarily responsible

for managing State-owned archaeological sites by

establishing shipwreck preserves, conducting surveys and assessment studies, granting and monitoring research permits, etc. The Bureau manages a

contract program for exploring and salvaging historic

shipwreck sites, and has been regularly involved in

coordinating the state’s legal response to Federal

admiralty arrests in State waters. It also receives

applications for archaeological research permits for

State-owned sites and monitors archaeological work

after permits are granted.
109

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

South Florida Water Management District

The FDEP has supervisory and legal authority over

the regional water management districts under the

Florida Water Resources Act of 1972. These districts

design, construct, operate, and maintain water

management facilities. They also administer flood

protection programs, perform water resources

technical investigations, develop water resource

plans, regulate the consumption of water, and

acquire and manage lands through the "Save Our

Rivers" program. In addition, they have the primary

authority to regulate development that impacts

freshwater wetlands and estuarine systems through

their dredge-and-fill, groundwater, surface water, and

stormwater management permitting programs. Water

management districts also plan and administer

environmental restoration projects, often through

programs such as Florida's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act. District authority

extends to all State waters, and also includes the

power to tax.

In 1982 the State delegated the stormwater quality

permitting program for the Keys region to the

SFWMD. The projects in the Keys qualify for either a

surface water management general permit or exemption, due to their small size and/or the amount of

impervious cover. Projects that would otherwise

qualify for an exemption (because they are less than

10 acres in size) often require a general permit

because they have over two acres of impervious

area.

The majority of the projects in the Keys fall below the

District's threshold for permitting and, as a result, are

subject to the county's stormwater management

ordinance, adopted in October 1992. Whether

permitted by the District or the county, all final

stormwater discharges must meet State water quality

standards.

Regarding nonpoint source management, the FDEP

has worked with the FDHRS to revise statutes for

OSDSs, including developing special requirements

for systems in the Keys. In addition, the 1986 Statewide Nonpoint Source Assessment included the

Keys, although less than 10 percent of the area’s

surface waters were assessed.

Existing research needs include an assessment of

the effectiveness of traditional stormwater management practices in the Keys. There is uncertainty

whether these practices produce the desired level of

treatment given the region's soil, geology, and

vegetative characteristics. Research is also needed

on the effectiveness of traditional erosion and

sediment-control practices.

 County

Monroe County is a nonchartered county, and its

authorities and powers emanate from the State

legislature; the local government functions in accordance with the Florida constitution. A Board of

County Commissioners performs the executive and

legislative functions of the county government. The

Board consists of five members elected at large.

Each county commissioner represents one of the five

county districts for a four-year term (Monroe County

Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, 1992). The government is divided into five divisions: Management

Services, Public Safety, Community Services,

Growth Management, and Public Works.

Monroe County manages individual resources and

regulates uses throughout the Keys through its

adapted comprehensive plan, which is predicated

upon specific Florida statutes and administrative

codes. The County has completed an updated

comprehensive plan that is subject to review and

amendment by the FDCA (Chapter 163, Part 2 F.S.

and Chapter 9J-5 Florida Administrative Codes).

Major topics of this plan include:

• future land use;

• conservation and coastal management;

• traffic circulation;

• mass transit;

• ports, aviation, and related facilities;

• housing;

• potable water;

• solid waste;

• sanitary sewer;

• drainage;

• natural groundwater aquifer recharge;

• recreation and open space;

• intergovernmental coordination; and

• capital improvements.

The Board also adopts final approved management

plans.

The Monroe County Land Authority

Florida Statute 380.0552 specifies the Keys as an

Area of Critical State Concern and mandates the

creation of a local county land authority. It further

mandates that a comprehensive plan affecting the
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

110

Keys may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by the

local government, but may only become effective

upon the approval of the State land planning agency.

These statutes are in agreement with the Articles set

forth in chapters 28-29 of the Florida Administrative

Codes.

In 1991 the legislature created the Monroe County

Land Authority, which functions as an independent

arm of the Monroe County government. The Monroe

County Board of County Commissioners serves as

the Board of Directors, but none of the powers or

authorities of the Commission are given to the Land

Authority. Instead, the Land Authority is responsible

for purchasing properties made unbuildable by the

implementation of the 1986 land-use plan. A fivemember Advisory Council appointed by the Land

Authority considers purchase requests based on the

following criteria: preservation of environmentally

sensitive lands; preservation of the habitats of rare,

threatened, or endangered species of plants and

animals; and protection of open space, scenic

corridors, and viewsheds. Purchases recommended

by the Land Authority must be reviewed and approved by the State Comptroller, the DCA, and the

FDEP for statutory and program compliance.

 Municipalities

There are three municipalities in the Keys: Key

Colony Beach, Layton, and Key West. The cities of

Layton and Key Colony Beach exert jurisdiction to

mean high water, and Key West exerts jurisdiction up

to 500 feet off its shores. Within Key West, the main

jurisdictional agency is the Port and Transit Authority,

which manages operations at Mallory Square and

Garrison Bight.

 Other

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils

The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic fishery management councils are two of eight councils established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, as amended (Magnuson Act), 16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq. to manage fishery resources in

the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Except where

modified to accommodate international boundaries,

the EEZ encompasses all waters from the seaward

boundary of each of the coastal states to a line on

which each point is 200 nautical miles (nm) from the

baseline from which the territorial sea of the United

States is measured. The Councils are charged with

preparing Fishery Management Plans (FMP) that

define certain fisheries within their jurisdictions and

establish management measures to prevent overfishing. A description of the FMP process, National

Standards, and a list of the FMP’s that apply in the

Sanctuary waters is contained in Appendix D in

Volume III.

The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic councils’

jurisdictions overlap the FKNMS. The boundary

between these two Councils coincides with a line of

demarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and the

Gulf of Mexico that begins at the intersection of the

outer boundary of the EEZ and 83"00' W. longitude,

proceeds northward along that meridian to 24"35' N.

latitude, (near the Dry Tortugas), thence eastward

along that parallel, through Rebecca Shoal and the

Quicksand Shoal, to the Marquessas Keys, and then

through the Florida Keys to the mainland at the

eastern end of the Florida Bay, the line so running

that the narrow waters within the Dry Tortugas

Islands, the Marquessas Keys and the Florida Keys,

and between the Florida Keys and the mainland, are

within the Gulf of Mexico. Because State waters

extend 9 nm off the Gulf coast of Florida and only 3

nm off the Atlantic side, most of the EEZ within the

FKNMS is under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic

Council.

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

Because of the limited drinking water sources in the

Keys, almost all potable water is supplied via a

pipeline owned and operated by the Florida Keys

Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). This public water system

uses well fields and treatment facilities in Dade

County for its entire supply. The FKAA is the only

public water system in the Keys regulated by the

DEP’s Public Water System Supervision program.

Monroe County Mosquito Control District

The Monroe County Mosquito Control District

(MCMCD) maintains a program of abatement for

mosquitoes and other insect pests in the Keys. Its

primary mission is to provide effective mosquito

control, responsive to the health and safety of the

county's residents and visitors, while minimizing

adverse environmental impacts.

Policy decisions are made by a five-member, publicly

elected board. Day-to-day management of MCMCD

staff and facilities is provided by a board appointed
111

Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

by the executive director. The district has approximately thirty-seven full-time staff members. The

MCMCD operates from Key West to Key Largo, and

serves all municipalities and the unincorporated area

of the county.

 Memoranda of Understanding

Federal Agreements

National Marine Fisheries Service and Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,

NOAA. In 1992 a memorandum of understanding

was developed within NOAA, between the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries and the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Sciences and Coastal Zone

Management, concerning the National Marine

Sanctuary Program. This agreement established an

improved level of coordination between NMFS and

NOS regarding the selection and nomination of

proposed marine sanctuaries, the development of

fisheries regulations in proposed marine sanctuaries,

and the consideration of management measures for

protected species. The agreement also established

improved coordination between the two agencies

regarding the implementation of sanctuary management plans.

National Undersea Research Center, UNCW and

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA. In

1993 a cooperative agreement was established

between NOAA’s Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

and NURC/UNCW to provide a framework for

cooperation to aid and promote scientific, educational, planning, and management activities. This will

improve the communication between the two existing

organizations and help facilitate the implementation

of future projects, be they educational, scientific, or

management-related.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National

Marine Fisheries Service and Sanctuaries and

Reserves Division, NOAA. In 1994 an MOU was

established between the director of the NMFS’s

Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the chief of

NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. This

MOU provides a framework for cooperation to aid

and promote scientific research and to translate the

scientific findings into educational materials that can

be used in the planning and management activities of

national marine sanctuaries. An appendix to the

MOU specifies that the SEFSC will be responsible for

monitoring the status of living marine resources,

specifically reef fish, in the Sanctuary.

Federal/State Agreements

NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. In 1990 a cooperative

enforcement agreement was established between

NOAA, the USCG, and the FDNR (FDEP) for law

enforcement services related to the Key Largo and

Looe Key national marine sanctuaries. State law

enforcement officers designated as sanctuary officers

by FDEP were authorized to enforce the authorities

and regulations established under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA),

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (MFCMA), Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Lacey Act,

Atlantic Tuna Convention Act (ATCA), and the Fish

and Wildlife Improvement Act (FWIA). Actions taken

(in conjunction with NMFS special agents) include

warnings, seizure of domestic vessels and cargo,

and arrests for violations of the Acts. Arrests or

seizures of foreign vessels can be made with the

knowledge and consent of the Coast Guard. Sanctuary officers may accompany any Coast Guard vessel

or aircraft to aid in enforcing regulations, and the

Coast Guard may assist law enforcement officers if

necessary.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

and National Ocean Service, NOAA. In 1992 the

FDEP (formerly the FDNR and FDER), the Southeast

Fisheries Science Center (NOAA), the Office of

Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

(NOAA), and the Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management (NOAA) entered into a

cooperative agreement to develop aerial photography

of benthic communities in Florida Bay and Biscayne

Bay. Ecologists and photo-interpreters are transposing data from the photographs into a computer, then

using stereoplotters to construct precise maps.

Initially, these maps will be limited to the area surrounding Looe Key. However, addenda to this

agreement will fund the mapping of the remaining

areas of the bays within the Sanctuary. Agencies

involved in the mapping effort, but not specifically

included in the agreement, include ENP, the

SFWMD, and the Dade County and Monroe County

local governments.

NOAA and the Governor and Cabinet of the State

of Florida. In 1992 NOAA and the Governor and

Cabinet of Florida (the “co-trustees”) entered into a

cooperative agreement concerning the development

of the Sanctuary's comprehensive management plan.

The agreement was developed to promote and

ensure the cooperation of each party in implementing
Description of the Affected Environment: Existing Institutional Arrangements

112

the FKNMSPA. By entering into the agreement, the

co-trustees established the mechanisms for joint

consultation and cooperation to ensure the protection

of Sanctuary resources during the interim period prior

to the final approval of the comprehensive management plan. NOAA entered into this agreement

pursuant to its duties and obligations to the citizens

of the United States, the FKNMSPA, the MPRSA,

and other applicable Federal laws. NOAA is responsible for protecting and managing the resources of

designated marine sanctuaries, and is specifically

charged with implementing the policy of the United

States to protect and preserve the living and nonliving resources of the Keys' environment.

Under Florida's constitution, the Florida Trustees hold

title to all State lands, including sovereign submerged

lands within the Sanctuary. They are also constitutionally charged with conserving and protecting the

natural resources and scenic beauty associated with

those lands. While Sanctuary management does not

require that this title be conveyed from the State to

NOAA (or involve the conveyance of the title), it does

require consultation and cooperation between the

State and NOAA as co-trustees regarding the

comprehensive management of Sanctuary uses and

the protection of Sanctuary resources. In accordance

with this agreement, NOAA and the State have

cooperated in the development of the Sanctuary's

MP/DEIS. In addition, NOAA and the State have

consulted and coordinated with each other regarding

interim Sanctuary management (through permits), as

well as Sanctuary resource damage cases.

 Agreements with Nongovernmental

 Organizations

NOAA and the Pennekamp Coral Reef

Institute, Inc.

In 1991 a cooperative agreement was established

between NOAA and the Pennekamp Coral Reef

Institute, Inc. to: 1) provide a framework for cooperation; 2) promote a program for scientific and educational activities; and 3) solicit private donations for the

support of cooperative activities related to the

adoptive re-use of the Carysfort Lighthouse as a

research facility within the Sanctuary. The

Pennekamp Coral Reef Institute, Inc. agreed to: 1)

provide assistance, services, and funding for studies

and projects; 2) conduct fund-raising to support the

restoration of the Carysfort Lighthouse; and 3)

periodically meet with NOAA to develop, discuss, and

agree on projects and/or studies for the adaptive reuse of the lighthouse. Both parties also agreed to

enter into supplemental agreements to accomplish

projects and facilitate additional cooperative activities

between the parties.

NOAA and The Nature Conservancy

In 1991 a cooperative agreement was established

between NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management and The Nature Conservancy to: 1) provide a framework for cooperation; 2)

promote interpretive, historical, scientific, and educational activities; 3) solicit private donations for the

support of such activities; 4) provide a framework for

cooperation in the establishment, planning, management, protection, and public understanding of national marine sanctuaries and national estuarine

research reserves; and 5) establish a FKNMS

volunteer program by jointly funding a volunteer

coordinator position. The initial emphasis was on the

FKNMS, including the existing Key Largo and Looe

Key national marine sanctuaries. The Nature

Conservancy's programs in the Keys include those

designed to conserve the area's marine resources.

Its general objectives include exploring and preserving cooperative resource protection opportunities with

NOAA in order to provide expertise and assistance

through contracts or cooperative agreements.
113

Development of Management Alternatives

Development of Management Alternatives

 Introduction

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Protection Act (FKNMSPA), signed into law on

November 16, 1990, mandated that the Secretary of

Commerce develop a comprehensive Sanctuary

management plan in coordination with Federal, State,

and local government authorities and a public

Sanctuary advisory council. This involved an unprecedented level of planning detail, as the range of

management issues, their effects on the Keys’ abiotic

and biotic environment, and their impacts on the

conservation and consumer interest of the area are

as diverse as the ecosystem itself. In addition, the

number of governmental agencies with varying

degrees of overlapping jurisdiction within the

Sanctuary’s boundary adds to the complexity of this

management planning process (Figure 23). This

chapter explains the Sanctuary management planning process, which was designed to carefully

consider the complexity of the issues involved while

incorporating comments and suggestions from public

and private interests.

To develop the most comprehensive management

plan possible, the issues affecting the natural and

cultural resources of the Sanctuary had to be identified. Once these issues were defined, a range of

management strategies (with component actions)

that vary from being very restrictive regarding the use

of Sanctuary resources to nonrestrictive was developed to address them. In order to satisfy NEPA

requirements, NOAA considered a range of management alternatives containing the proposed strategies,

and assessed the environmental consequences of

each alternative. The “Preferred Alternative” for

managing the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was selected from this range of alternatives. This

chapter is divided into three sections to address the

management planning process in more detail:

1) Management Issues; 2) Management Strategies;

and 3) Management Alternatives.

 Management Issues

Management issues evolved from several sources of

information: technical workshops focused on the

status of the Keys' ecosystem, public scoping meetings related to Sanctuary designation, and a questionnaire associated with the scoping meetings

surveying the public's opinion on issues and their

priority.

Although the official comments on issues came from

the public scoping meetings, the issues affecting the

health of the Keys' ecosystem had been discussed

by the scientific community, the public, and the

popular media in the years leading up to the Sanctuary designation on November 16, 1990. One of the

first scientific workshops focusing on the issues or

threats affecting the Keys' ecosystem was described

in Results of a Workshop on Coral Reef Research

and Management in the Florida Keys: A Blueprint for

Action (Miller, 1988). Other workshops focusing on

environmental problems in the Keys included the

Blueprint for Action Seminar (1990), sponsored by

the State Attorney’s Office and Reef Relief, Inc.; the

Boating Impact Workshop (1990), sponsored by the

Boating Impact Work Group; the Florida Keys

Environmental Summit (1991), sponsored by the

Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust; the Workshop on

Coral Bleaching, Coral Reef Ecosystems, and Global

Change (1991), sponsored by the National Science

Foundation, EPA, and NOAA; and the Water Quality

Workshop (1991), sponsored by NOAA’s National

Undersea Research Center. Participants in the

workshops varied in interest, but included representatives from various user groups, concerned citizens,

conservation organizations, environmental educators,

and scientists. The range of issues and their importance has been reiterated at these workshops and

conferences. The basic issues identified at the

scoping meetings mirrored those identified in these

workshops.

 Management Issues Identification

Successful management requires a complete understanding of the full range of issues to be addressed

through the planning process. Several steps have

been taken to identify the management issues

affecting the Florida Keys' ecosystem. The first

official forums used to identify these issues were six

public scoping meetings, held specifically to gather

public input on the scope of problems currently

affecting the health of the region. Two-hundred-fortynine commentors testified at six scoping meetings

held during 1991 (Table 15). In general, the comments received were constructive and focused on

issues such as water quality, physical impacts to

marine habitats, the need for long-term research,
114

Development of Management Alternatives

Advisory 

Council

Workshops

Scoping 

Meetings

Core 

Group 

Meetings

Advisory 

Council

Environmental Impacts

Socioeconomic Impacts

••

Goals and Objectives of the Act

•

FKNMS

Draft 

Management 

Plan

Identify 

Problems/

Issues

Describe the 

Affected 

Environment

Workshops

Core 

Group 

Meetings

Advisory 

Council

Identify 

Management 

Strategies

Advisory 

Council

Workshops

Develop 

Range of 

Management 

Alternatives

Advisory 

Council

Core 

Group 

Meetings

Select 

Preferred 

Alternative

Core 

Group 

Meetings

Develop Detailed 

Action 

Plans

Workshops

Core 

Group 

Meetings

Evaluate 

Alternatives

Advisory 

Council

Figure 23. Summary of the Management Plan Development Process
115

Development of Management Alternatives

each issue, the major impacts, causes, data assessment needs, data sources (including those individuals with available information or expertise), and the

lead agency in acquiring information were determined. After the meeting, land use and land-based

pollution were combined into a single issue. Natural

processes was renamed water quality to better

describe the issue.

The next step was to evaluate the scope and type of

information identified on the data assessment

worksheets. These worksheets were sent out for

three rounds of review. They were first sent to the

Core Group for comments regarding the accuracy of

the issues identified, identification of major causes

and data assessment needs, and any information

that could help identify the best data sources available. They were then sent to resource managers,

scientists, and others. Finally, they were sent to user

groups, environmental groups, and other interested

citizens for review. A considerable amount of detailed

information was obtained in this consensus-building

process; however, there was no significant revision of

the issues, as these comments reinforced the

material already compiled by the Core Group.

A series of technical working sessions was another

source of refining the issues. Table 16 lists working

sessions that have taken place during the management planning process.

 Management Issues Description

In order to focus the development of management

strategies on specific problems, members of the Core

Group condensed the major issue groups into

description statements. The management issues

identified and described in this section are based on

those statements, and are considered to be activities

that may have potential resource impacts, either

negative or positive, on the Sanctuary. These issues

include: 1) Boating; 2) Commercial and Recreational

Fishing; 3) Recreation and Cultural/Historical Resources; 4) Land Use; and 5) Water Quality. They

have become the focus for the development of the

Sanctuary Management Plan, and are integral in

determining what management actions may be

necessary in the future. Each issue identifies activities that may affect the quality and/or quantity of

resources within the Sanctuary, and the problems

that may arise due to multiple-use conflicts. Each

issue includes a discussion of four potential impact

themes: habitats; species; use and users; and water

quality.

Table 15. Dates and Locations of Scoping

 Meetings

Date Location

April 10, 1991 Sheraton Key Largo Resort

Key Largo, Florida

April 11, 1991 University of Miami

Miami, Florida

April 15, 1991 Marathon High School

Marathon, Florida

April 16, 1991 Key West High School

Key West, Florida

April 17, 1991 University of South Florida

Tampa, Florida

May 6, 1991 U.S. Department of Commerce

Herbert C. Hoover Building

Washington, D.C.

declines in the abundance and health of marine

resources, and the protection of cultural and historic

resources. Before and during each scoping meeting,

NOAA distributed questionnaires requesting the

public’s help in identifying and ranking issues. Of the

several thousand forms distributed, several hundred

were returned, providing detailed information on

specific issues. The public was also asked to submit

written comments addressing these issues, and was

given 30 days after the scoping meetings to respond.

NOAA has compiled and considered these comments. The results of the survey forms and the

written and oral comments were used to determine

the management issues to be addressed in the Plan.

Those issues were: 1) declining water quality;

2) physical injury to resources; 3) decline of marine

resources; and 4) use conflicts.

Following these scoping meetings, the formal Core

Group, comprised of Federal, State, and County

agencies (Appendix B in Volume III) was established

to oversee the development and implementation of

the Sanctuary Management Plan. The Core Group

met July 17-19, 1991 to review the issues that had

been identified to date. The group removed redundancies by combining similar issues. The detailed

specific issues were placed into broad categories

representing six major issue areas: boating, commercial and recreational fishing, recreation, land use,

land-based pollution, and natural processes. For
116

Development of Management Alternatives

Boating

Boating activities are directly related to the use and

enjoyment of the Sanctuary, since watercraft provide

access to the area and offer significant commercial

and recreational opportunities throughout the year.

Attention was immediately directed at boating

because the FKNMSPA cited vessel groundings as

one of many "serious threats to the continued vitality

of the marine environments of the Florida Keys which

must be addressed in order to protect their values."

Impacts and conflicts from boating activities were

also raised at the scoping meetings held in April and

May 1991, and in comments submitted by the public

following these meetings.

Boating activity in Florida has increased significantly

over the last two decades. The number of vessel

registrations (recreational and commercial) for 1970-

71 was 235,293. By 1993, the number reached

Table 16. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Workshops

715,516 (Sargent, 1993). In Monroe County alone,

there are over 15,000 privately registered boats and

over 3,000 commercial vessels that use Sanctuary

waters (White, 1991). Thousands more are transported into the Keys by trailer and launched from the

59 public and private boat ramps or the 163 marinas

in Monroe County. When combined with the boats

visiting the Sanctuary, passing through Sanctuary

waters, and stopping along the reef tract or at

individual keys, the potential impacts of these vessels

on the area's natural resources increase sharply.

The issue is even more significant because boating

activity has increased rapidly within the Keys in

recent years. For example, the number of recreational and commercial boats using the Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary more than doubled

between 1985 and 1991 (Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary, 1983-1993). The range of activities

(especially recreational) has also increased, resulting

Date Location Topic Participants

1991

July Hawk's Cay Issue Definition 20

17-19 Marathon, Florida

July Sombrero Country Club Mooring Buoys 30-50

23-24 Marathon, Florida

September Hawk's Cay Benthic Mapping 60+

16-18 Marathon, Florida

September Sombrero Country Club Education 100+

24-26 Marathon, Florida

October Rosenstiel School of Marine Research 100+

7-9 and Atmospheric Science

Miami, Florida

November Jaycees Center Cultural Resources 35-40

13 Marathon, Florida

1992

January Florida Keys NMS Planning Office Zoning 135-155

27-31 Marathon, Florida

July Hawk's Cay Water Quality/Monitoring 20

14-16 Marathon, Florida and Research

August Hawk's Cay Water Quality/Institutional 25

4-6 Marathon, Florida Management and Engineering

Options

February Crowne Plaza Water Quality Technical 

 

40

3-7 Miami, Florida Workshop
117

Development of Management Alternatives

in visitor-use conflicts, direct impacts on Sanctuary

resources, and water quality degradation.

Boating impacts can be divided into direct and

indirect categories, and further divided into major and

minor subcategories. Direct impacts have quantifiable effects on the natural or cultural resources of the

Sanctuary and are observable, measurable, and

often long-lasting. They result in the direct loss of

significant biological, ecological, economic, or

aesthetically important resources. Examples of direct

impacts from boating include prop dredging and prop

scarring in seagrass beds, and boat groundings on

coral reefs and other benthic communities. Indirect

impacts are less easily quantified or qualified, and

may be difficult to distinguish from impacts resulting

from other activities.

Impacts have the potential to affect either the area's

natural resources (habitats, species, and water

quality) or to cause visitor use conflicts. In general,

major impacts occur over large areas and/or in

habitats that recover slowly and perhaps only partially after damage occurs (e.g., corals and

seagrasses). They also may result from activities that

are cumulative or persistent over time, causing

accelerated degradation of Sanctuary resources.

Minor impacts generally occur over smaller areas or

in areas that require less time for resource recovery

(e.g., groundings in sand habitats).

Habitat Impacts. A number of habitat impacts occur

as a result of boating and shipping activities within

the Sanctuary. The more conspicuous and longlasting impacts occur primarily in areas of

seagrasses, corals, hardbottom, and dead coral

rubble. Injury to these habitats occurs from a variety

of activities associated with boat operation. Some of

these impacts and activities are described in the

following section.

Vessel Groundings. According to a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel traffic study, in September and August 1991,

and January 1992, 1,500 ships transited the Straits of

Florida. Shipping historically has presented a risk to

the Keys' coral reefs. For example, on August 4,

1984, the M/V WELLWOOD, a 400-foot freighter

loaded with animal food bound for Europe, ran

aground on Molasses Reef in the Key Largo National

Marine Sanctuary, resulting in the destruction of over

1,282 square meters of reef. Just over five years

later, between October 25 and November 11, 1989,

there were three ship groundings along the Keys'

reef tract. According to Sanctuary records, these

groundings resulted in over 21,000 square meters of

reef being completely destroyed. These groundings,

along with the deterioration of water quality and the

health of the coral reef resources, were among the

events and problems that led to the designation of

the Sanctuary. Recent groundings include the 147-

foot MISS BEHOLDEN, which caused extensive

damage to the coral habitat on Western Sambo reef

(March 1993), and most recently, the 166-foot

University of Miami Research vessel COLUMBUS

ISELIN, which ran aground on the Looe Key National

Marine Sanctuary reef crest (August 1994), spilling

diesel fuel as well as damaging the coral reef.

Small Boat Groundings. Boat groundings are a

chronic problem within the Sanctuary. According to

Sanctuary records, over 310 boats have run aground

in the 103 nm2 Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary

since 1980 (Tagliareni, 1993). An additional 98 have

grounded in the 5.3 nm2 Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary since 1981 (Hartsing and Carver, 1993).

Between July 1992 and May 1993, the Florida Marine

Patrol recorded 97 vessel groundings in Sanctuary

waters.

While attention has primarily been focused on boat

groundings in coral and hardbottom habitats, they

also occur in seagrass meadows, areas of dead coral

rubble, and other benthic communities. The longterm impacts of groundings on corals have been well

documented in the Looe Key and Key Largo sanctuaries. However, the impacts on other habitats are not

well known. Grounding impacts on seagrasses vary

according to the size and weight of the boat and the

degree of effort required to dislodge the vessel.

These impacts can be short- or long-term, depending

on the amount of disturbance to the habitat and the

severity of injury to the resources (e.g., whether only

the blades of seagrass were cut or if entire plants

were removed, including their rhizomes).

Because groundings are indiscriminate actions,

specific user groups are not easily identified as major

contributors to the problem. However, trends may be

used to characterize small-boat groundings in

general. Most small-boat groundings involve boats

that average approximately 30 feet in length (Causey, 1993) and are most commonly reported along

the reef tract at shallow bank or patch reefs in depths

of less than 2 meters. In addition, most groundings

occur at popular dive sites and are due to navigation

errors, including a lack of familiarity with the area and

an inability to discern water depth by observing

bottom color and texture.

Direct habitat impacts of boat groundings include

physical damage to seagrass beds, corals,

hardbottom communities, and mangroves (all major
118

Development of Management Alternatives

impacts); moderate damage to rubble habitat; and

minor damage to sand and softbottom communities.

Overall, groundings lead to the degradation of

Sanctuary resources, resulting in decreased biological integrity and a localized negative impact on

biodiversity. They also affect the aesthetic appeal of

the resources, resulting in a negative economic

impact on the area. The potential for oil and/or fuel

spills also increases with the number of groundings,

adding to the overall negative impact on the resource.

Anchoring. Over 350 mooring buoys have been

installed on reefs in the Keys by the National Marine

Sanctuary Program, Florida Park Service, Reef

Relief, Inc. (Key West), Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary, Inc. (Marathon), and the Coral Reef Community

Foundation (Islamorada). Still, anchor damage

continues to have a major impact on Sanctuary

habitats. Damage occurs in coral and hardbottom

habitats, and is most severe on the heavily used

coral reefs, especially where mooring buoys are not

available. Hardbottom areas are one of the most

heavily used habitats by lobster divers and other

users that anchor their boats while conducting their

activity. Improper anchoring techniques (e.g., type of

anchor, inadequate scope of anchor line, etc.) can

result in overturned or injured coral heads, injured or

dislodged sponges, soft corals, or other hardbottom

inhabitants. Anchoring impacts on seagrass communities are more difficult to assess, except where

boats remain at anchor in the same location for a

long period of time.

Most bottom-fishing for snapper and grouper in the

Sanctuary takes place in the intermediate to deep

reef habitat (10-35 meters). This is the most common

coral reef habitat in the Sanctuary, and is used by

many commercially important fish species during

much of their life history. The habitat's depth and few

narrow sand strips make it difficult for vessel operators to anchor only in the sand and avoid damaging

the reef. The 12 mooring buoys installed in this

habitat within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary are continuously occupied during the fishing

season (Looe Key Daily Surveillance Reports).

However, installing enough mooring buoys to accommodate even a small percentage of the anchoring

activity in the intermediate and deep reef habitats

and restricting anchoring in these habitats are only

partial solutions to the anchoring problem. Additional

solutions will likely depend on the implementation of

other management strategies, including educating

operators on anchor types and techniques and

restricting the size of vessels anchoring in this

habitat.

Large shrimp boats frequently anchor in the intermediate and deep reef habitats while resting or waiting

for nightfall. In addition, staff from the Dry Tortugas

National Park have reported large ships anchoring on

Tortugas Bank, west of Fort Jefferson. The large

anchors on these vessels cause significant damage

in these habitats.

Prop Scarring and Prop Dredging. Seagrasses are

lost through prop scarring and prop dredging, as boat

propellers cut seagrass blades or leave trenches in

the substrate, severing the plants' rhizomes and

causing long-term damage. Seagrass impacts occur

near frequently used marinas, boat ramps, subdivisions with shallow-water access to open water and

other areas where propeller operation can harm

seagrass beds. In these nearshore areas, prop

scarring and prop dredging are the most common

habitat impacts, and are often caused by inexperienced boaters and/or the lack of properly marked

channels.

Over the past decade, seagrass destruction has

increased throughout the Sanctuary. Sargent (1993)

reported that the Keys have the highest concentration of propeller scar damage in Florida. It was

estimated that approximately 5,970 ha are lightly

impacted, 4,250 ha are moderately impacted, and

2,050 ha are severely impacted. Sargent (1993)

defined "lightly impacted" as the presence of propeller damage in less than five percent of the area in the

observer's survey plot. "Moderate impact" indicates

that five to 20 percent of the seagrass was impacted,

and impacts were considered severe when more

than 20 percent of the seagrass within a survey plot

was impacted. These impacts occur as a result of all

types of vessels operating in shallow water, including

personal watercraft. This is a Sanctuary-wide issue

requiring a wide range of management strategies

with coordinated interagency implementation.

Pollutant Discharge from Boats. Discharges from

boats can result in major resource damage. Fuel, oil,

contaminated bilge water, ballast, litter, and jetsam

originate from boats within Sanctuary waters or are

transported into the Sanctuary by natural processes

such as currents and winds. Cumulative impacts are

of particular concern in commonly used areas.

Backcountry Impacts. Backcountry recreational use

has increased for a variety of reasons including:

increased development in the Lower Keys; increased

use of shallow-draft craft such as personal watercraft

and fiberglass boats designed to operate in shallow

water; and an increased interest in exploring the

natural setting of the Keys' backcountry. Many of the
119

Development of Management Alternatives

issues relevant to the backcountry habitats of the

Lower Keys have been addressed in a management

plan approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service for

their refuges. Cross-deputization and interagency

coordination will increase the potential for reducing

conflicts between growing recreational use and

habitat impacts in backcountry areas.

Shoreline Erosion. Waves from boating activity can

cause erosion along shorelines, especially in confined areas, resulting in natural resource damages

and impacts to man-made structures such as seawalls, bulkheads, etc. Erosion is especially serious in

some of the narrow mangrove channels, where high

levels of boating activity wash sediments out from

around the prop roots of the mangroves.

Derelict Vessels. Boats of various sizes are often

abandoned in nearshore waters, threatening or

damaging natural habitat resources until the vessel is

removed. Derelict vessels have a major impact if

located over hardbottom, coral, or seagrass habitats.

The source of the problem, in general, lies in the

relative ease of abandoning a boat as compared to

properly disposing of it in a landfill. A derelict vessel

removal program, funded by the State and carried

out by local governments, is currently in place.

Live-aboard Vessels. Impacts of live-aboard vessels

vary by location, duration of stay, the size of the

vessel, the means of securing or anchoring the

vessel, and methods of waste disposal. Many liveaboard vessels in the Sanctuary substitute for lowincome housing, and have become permanent

homes. In other cases, they are the residences for a

transient population that remains in the Keys for a

short time. These vessels affect the habitat through

direct impact with the bottom, shading, discharge of

pollutants, and other means.

Elimination of Low-clearance Bridges. A number of

new, high-clearance bridges were built in the Keys in

the 1980s. As sections of older bridges with lower

clearances were removed, larger boats with deeper

drafts gained more direct access to backcountry

areas. These vessels are more likely to impact

seagrasses in shallow water because of the amount

of water they draw.

Commercial Shipping and Barge Traffic. The

FKNMSPA prohibits vessels over 50 m in length from

entering the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) within the

Sanctuary. However, certain navigable channels

have been established for commercial shipping and

cruise ship traffic into the port of Key West. There

has been an increase in passenger cruise ships

entering the Port of Key West during the past five

years (Crusoe, pers. comm.).

Tug and barge traffic continues in certain areas

outside the ATBA within the Sanctuary. Traffic to and

from Key West was not prohibited within the ATBA

because of the economic impracticality of relocating

slow, westerly moving tug and barge traffic offshore

into the strong easterly flowing Florida Current.

Commercial vessels, especially single-skinned fuel

barges, also put the Sanctuary at risk from oil spills

and substance discharges. Similarly, litter and jetsam

have had a chronic impact on the area's habitat

resources. The anchoring of large vessels outside of

designated sites, which currently takes place, may

also be of concern in the future.

Other Habitat Impacts. Although habitat impacts that

result from boat overcrowding, shading, and the use

of bottom paints are currently not well understood, it

is clear that these occurrences may have adverse

effects on Sanctuary resources and need to be

investigated. Overcrowding can lead to increased

user conflicts, increased pollutant discharges, and

habitat loss through a variety of direct physical

impacts. Shading of the benthic substrate, caused by

boats and barges anchored within the Sanctuary for

long periods of time, limits the productivity of certain

areas.

Species Impacts. Boating activities in the Keys

result in three main categories of species impact:

1) those caused by increased backcountry activities;

2) those caused by derelict vessels; and 3) those

caused by motor noise.

Backcountry Activities. The increased recreational

use of shallow-water habitats, including the

backcountry and areas around mangrove islands,

has resulted in major wildlife disturbances. Many of

these impacts can be traced directly to the increased

use of personal watercraft, which allow visitors

access to previously unreachable areas. Conflicts

between species and visitors lead to impacts on

manatees, birds and their colonies (such as feeding

areas, nesting areas, and staging areas), marine

turtles, the American crocodile, and shallow-water

fishes, as well as general habitat degradation (FWS,

1992).

Derelict Vessels. Derelict vessels can also adversely

affect species within the Sanctuary, as they may

injure or destroy the benthic community, which

serves as critical habitat for species development.
120

Development of Management Alternatives

Noise. Although the effects of motor noise on the

marine resources of the Sanctuary are not fully

understood, it is recognized that some species are

disturbed by noise and can be significantly impacted.

This problem should be more completely assessed.

Use and User Impacts.

User Conflicts. Sanctuary users depend on boats for

transportation to areas where they conduct their

activities. Some conflicts occur between users in

heavily used areas such as the shallow bank reefs

(e.g., Looe Key, Sombrero Reef, Sand Key, etc.), or

between recreational and commercial fishing vessels.

An example of the latter occurs most commonly at

the beginning of the spiny lobster season, when

fishermen are pulling traps in areas scattered with

recreational dive boats. However, conflicts can also

occur in areas of less concentrated activity, such as

treasure hunters disturbing the seabed in the vicinity

of recreational diving.

Safety. Visitor safety is also an issue with increasing

boat use of Sanctuary waters. The number of boating

accidents is monitored by the Florida Marine Patrol.

According to their records, there has been an increase in boating accidents during the past decade.

Other conflicts occur when vessels run aground,

creating safety hazards as well as jeopardizing the

health of the resource. In addition, the discharge of

untreated sewage from holding tanks reduces the

aesthetic value of Sanctuary resources and may

negatively affect visitor-use experience while participating in water-related recreation, similarly negatively

impacting local businesses.

Water Quality Impacts. Boating activities can also

have negative impacts on water quality as a result of

groundings, pollutant discharges, and erosion.

Groundings. Groundings result in a temporary

decline in water quality as sediment plumes are

created during grounding and vessel removal,

adversely affecting corals and other sedimentsensitive organisms.

Pollutant Discharges. Discharges from boats cause

water quality degradation within the Sanctuary and

may increase use conflicts, especially in waterrelated recreation areas.

Erosion. Erosion degrades water quality, creating

sediment clouds, moving bottom sediment, and

altering the configuration of the shoreline.

Issue Summary. Because boats are the mode of

transportation visitors use to access Sanctuary

waters, managing and regulating boating activity

provides a means for protecting natural resources,

balancing resource uses, and reducing or avoiding

user conflicts. For example, by managing access to

various habitats, such as shallows or other sensitive

areas, specific visitor-use impacts can be reduced

and adverse habitat impacts lessened. In this way,

the number of visitors allowed access to these areas

can also be monitored and managed. The appropriate use of channel markers can also reduce boating

impacts on natural resources by keeping boats in

areas already impacted, allowing unmarked areas a

better chance of recovery.

Management must balance the continually increasing

levels of boating activities with actions designed to

reduce impacts on the Sanctuary's natural resources

with a minimum of resource-use conflicts between

multiple users.

Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing activities are

economically important within the Sanctuary. Since

some species are only caught during certain times of

the year and/or in specific areas because of their

seasonal movements, fishing pressure varies between areas and over time.

Many fishing methods are employed throughout the

Sanctuary. Common traditional methods include

hook-and-line fishing, trapping, the use of long-lines,

spearfishing, hand collection by divers, netting,

trawling, and sponge hooking. Other fishing activities

include curio/souvenir collecting for the tourist trade

and the live trade in marine life for hobbyists, commercial wholesalers, retailers, and public aquaria.

This fishery includes the collection of tropical fishes,

invertebrates, algae, and live rock.

Although fishing activities are important and essential

Sanctuary activities, there is concern that excessive

fishing could deplete certain species, disrupt marine

ecosystems, and impact economic activities dependent on fishery resources. Information is incomplete

about what is intentionally being removed from the

Sanctuary (i.e., what species, where, when, how

much, and by whom) and what direct and indirect

effects that removal has on Sanctuary resources and

the ecosystem as a whole. This problem has become

acute as more people have moved to the Keys to use

the area's resources. Many fishing methods incidentally kill organisms that are not utilized (bycatch).
121

Development of Management Alternatives

Excessive bycatch mortality impacts the ecosystem

by reducing the forage base and altering the food

web. Bycatch mortality can also harm fisheries by

killing juveniles and undersized individuals of targeted species. While the impacts of various fishing

methods on habitats and species have not been

adequately studied, it is clear that some fishing

methods are less destructive than others.

Although the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

and Federal Fishery Management Councils regulate

fisheries, they rarely have the resources or detailed

information necessary to adequately manage a

fishery on the geographic level of the Sanctuary. The

Fishery Management Councils do not regulate

ornamental fish species. Also, management is

usually performed for an entire stock. Because of the

intensity of use at the Sanctuary level, resources are

likely to be impacted before problems manifest

themselves at the stock level. Finally, current fishery

management practices emphasize individual fisheries

and species. Ecosystem and intraspecific interactions

with fisheries are often not incorporated into such

management. More precise data and improved

geographic coverage by Sanctuary data collection

programs would provide more useful information to

improve fishery management at the ecosystem and

sanctuary levels.

Information about the harvest and impacts of certain

fisheries is particularly inadequate, especially for

marine life fisheries and most other segments of the

recreational fishery. Improved data collection, such

as fishery dependent sampling, and information

about various fisheries are critical for management.

Maintaining sustainable commercial and recreational

fisheries is an important Sanctuary goal. An equally

important goal, and potentially conflicting one, is the

maintenance of biodiversity of the Sanctuary. In

addition, various fishing interests compete and come

into conflict within the Sanctuary. Recreational and

commercial fishing activities are often in conflict

because of their different objectives and potential

impacts. Different fishing methods can also conflict.

Shrimp trawling can destroy stone crab traps if both

are conducted at the same time and place. The

establishment of the Sanctuary provides a unique

opportunity to help understand the relationships

between fisheries, and between fishery and nonfishery activities. One mechanism to address these

conflicting goals is the use of marine zoning.

Marine zones provide relatively undisturbed control

areas free from fishing activity. These control areas

are a critical requirement for research on the effects

of human activities on fish populations and the role

fish play in structuring the Keys' ecosystem. Scientific

research and monitoring of resources, particularly the

effects of fishing on the ecosystem, are needed to

properly manage human activities in the Sanctuary.

Because fishing has cumulative, ubiquitous, and

chronic effects, undisturbed areas are not available

to conduct scientific research and monitor natural

and man-made changes to Sanctuary ecosystems.

Some undisturbed or minimally disturbed areas are

necessary for scientific research and resource

monitoring.

Other important fisheries issues of public and Sanctuary concern include the introduction of exotic

(nonnative) species, aquaculture, and artificial reef

programs. Although these are all tools used to

enhance fishery production, they can be misused and

damage resources. Introducing nonnative species

could potentially disrupt Sanctuary ecosystems, as

has occurred in Florida's terrestrial and freshwater

habitats. Well-developed aquaculture programs could

help the regional economy and reduce harvesting

pressure on the natural stocks, while poorly designed

programs could spread diseases, damage habitat,

and hurt native species. Artificial reefs alter habitat,

and can have beneficial or damaging impacts depending on how and where they are constructed.

Although usually built to improve fishing, some reefs

may aggravate overfishing problems by concentrating depleted resources and making them more

vulnerable to overfishing (Bohnsack and Sutherland

1985; Bohnsack, 1989; Polovina, 1991).

Conflicting fishery management regulations are also

an important issue. Sanctuary fisheries are managed

by several State and Federal agencies with different

programs, goals, objectives, and information. As a

result, different rules exist under different jurisdictions, confusing the public, reducing compliance, and

creating enforcement problems. Consistent fishery

regulations in the Sanctuary would improve public

cooperation and understanding.

Habitat Impacts. The following activities impact

habitats within the Sanctuary.

Hook-and-Line Fishing. Hook-and-line fishing has no

significant impact on seagrass habitats, but does

moderately impact coral and hardbottom habitats as

gear becomes entangled and damages fragile corals

and other sessile organisms.

Trapping. Seagrass beds can be displaced by

derelict traps and long-soaking traps. Trapping may
122

Development of Management Alternatives

also impact corals and hardbottoms when these

devices are placed on them, or when traps are

dragged across the bottom by adverse weather or by

boats. Damage from lobster and crab traps is primarily seasonal (July to April).

Netting or Trawling. Netting impacts on seagrasses

occur primarily inshore as a result of repetitive trawls

(e.g., bait shrimping). Impacts on coral and

hardbottom habitats include the entanglement of nets

and the physical “uprooting” of corals.

Spearfishing. Damage to coral and hardbottom

habitats may be caused by overaggressive and

indiscriminate physical contact with sensitive corals,

or habitat displacement or damage when capturing

species. Impacts on these habitats are particularly

intense during the lobster sport-diving season.

Sponging and Tropical Fish Collecting. Sponge

hooking and tropical fish collecting can result in the

injury of seagrasses and damage to coral/hardbottom

habitats through physical contact or habitat disturbance and removal. Tropical species collection may

also involve the use of chemicals.

Live Rock Collecting. Live rock collecting occurs

mainly in coral and hardbottom and rubble areas.

Removal of hardbottom habitat and areas of rubble

are common impacts. Seagrass and coral habitats

may also be affected by this activity.

Artificial Reefs and Aquaculture. Artificial reefs

generally increase the area of hardbottom, but their

placement can directly reduce seagrass and other

habitats through improper placement. The man-made

structures may also be a physical threat to coral reefs

under extreme storm conditions. Aquaculture activities can have a similar effect.

Other Concerns. Indirect effects may occur as a

result of other fishing activities, including gear use,

human contact, nontarget species response to prey

and predator removal, changes in the habitat balance

due to species removal, and removal of habitat such

as sponges and live rock. Impacts occur throughout

the Sanctuary, with seasonal peaks for the species

sought. Incremental effects are noticeable where

activities overlap. Such impacts occur relative to

species reduction and shift, and thus may change the

balance of the ecosystem.

Species Impacts. Most fishing activities that impact

Sanctuary habitats have a corresponding effect on

species abundance.

Hook-and-Line/Traps/Nets. All fishing activities

directly reduce the abundance of target species

throughout the Sanctuary. Hook-and-line fishing and

trapping have the greatest impact in coral and

hardbottom areas. Lobster, crab, and fish traps have

a direct Sanctuary-wide impact by reducing the

abundance of target species. Although seasonal

peaks may occur, sustained netting, trapping, and

hook-and-line fishing in combination with declining

water quality have resulted in a continuous and

cumulative decline in species abundance. Ghost

traps and fish traps capture indiscriminately and

cause declines in species diversity in trapping areas.

The indirect impacts of these fishing methods on

species diversity are unknown. Netting impacts can

be high in all habitats, especially when abandoned

nets continue to fish. Bycatch mortality can indiscriminately decrease species abundance.

Spearfishing. Spearfishing occurs year round,

primarily in coral and hardbottom areas. Finfish

spearing can cause predator/prey relationships to be

imbalanced.

Sponging. Sponge hooking is practiced year round

with increasing frequency within the Sanctuary, and

reduces target species abundance. The removal of

sponges from the hardbottom habitat alters species

diversity, as they often provide essential habitat for

other invertebrates and fishes.

Tropical Collecting. A reduction in target species

abundance occurs when juveniles and adults are

removed by tropical species collectors. Effects are

greatest in coral/hardbottom areas, and are cumulative due to continuous pressure.

Live Rock Collecting. Because live rock collection

mainly occurs in coral and hardbottom and rubble

areas, it has a direct impact on sessile organisms.

There is an unknown, indirect effect on species

abundance and diversity due to substrate and habitat

removal. All of these impacts are cumulative and

continuous.

Artificial Reefs. Artificial reefs impact species by

increasing diversity and abundance at their location.

Although such reefs are located throughout the

Sanctuary, they make up a very small percentage of

the total area. Increases in species diversity and

abundance as a result of artificial reefs placement

have not yet been quantified.
123

Development of Management Alternatives

Aquaculture. When conducted in open water, aquaculture can reduce habitat and species abundance

and diversity. The stocking of target species in open

water (which does not currently occur in the Sanctuary, but has been proposed for the future) has not

been demonstrated to increase their abundance.

Other Concerns. Moderate species impacts may also

occur throughout the Sanctuary through the capture

or injury of wildlife by abandoned or working fishing

gear. Such occurrences are sporadic; however, their

impacts can become cumulative over time. Birds can

become entangled by fishing lines and hooks, and

turtles and diving birds can become entangled in

nets. Commercial and recreational fishing can also

disturb wildlife on islands.

Use and User Impacts. Conflicts between users are

largely the result of increased demands on the

marine resources of the Sanctuary. Conflicts range in

severity from annoying to very serious, and sometimes life-threatening, situations. They fall into three

general categories: 1) conflicts between commercial

and recreational fishermen; 2) conflicts between

recreational fishermen; and 3) conflicts between

fishermen and other users.

Conflicts between commercial and recreational

fishermen include commercial fishermen angering

recreational anglers in the vicinity by using massive

quantities of chum and potentially drawing fish from

one area to another. Conversely, recreational

fishermen sometimes move into commercial

fishermen’s chum slicks, interrupting fishing activity.

Recreational anglers may react negatively to the

sight of a successful commercial fisherman catching

large numbers of fish, perhaps more than the recreational fisherman thinks the resource can sustain.

More serious conflicts arise when high concentrations of lobster traps impede trolling grounds for

some recreational anglers. The largest single conflict

for commercial fishermen is molestation of lobster

traps, also called “trap robbing,” that some estimate

causes economic losses in the millions of dollars

each year. Trap robbing involves many categories of

users and is a felony under State law. The most

frequent complaint from both commercial and

recreational fishermen involves running over trap

buoys, and the entanglement and fishing gear loss

that results.

Conflicts between recreational fishermen usually

involve encroaching on another fisherman’s chum

slick, or some other invasion of a fisherman's perceived territory. In very unpopulated areas, and in

some types of fisheries, these territories are quite

large. The concept of territory is important to understanding recreational fishing, because many fishermen venture out for relaxation and feel the need for

solitude. This feeling of “getting away” may also be

disrupted for other outdoor enthusiasts if an area

becomes a popular fishing spot.

The final category of conflict, between fishermen and

other users of the Sanctuary, has the most serious

consequences. Swimmers and divers are most likely

to have a conflict with fishermen. The aesthetic and

habitat impacts from lost gear, such as fishing line

and sinkers wrapped around coral and fish with

hooks imbedded in their mouths, are part of the

concern. The potential for injury to divers and swimmers from fishing gear is also a concern, although

these types of injuries are infrequent. Trolling close to

the reef for barracuda is the most dangerous conflict,

as serious bodily injury or death to a swimmer or

diver may result. Problems also result when divers

venture too far from their dive flags, or anglers come

in too close to the reef. The potential exists for a

diver to be hooked by a slowly trolled fishing lure or

to be struck if the diver surfaces when a boat is

overhead.

These types of conflicts are familiar to those who use

the resource on a regular basis. The concern is that

as pressure increases on Sanctuary resources, the

lack of a system to address such conflicts will result

in resource degradation and user dissatisfaction.

Water Quality Impacts. Since the prohibition on

soaking traps in motor oil, water quality has not

emerged as a major consideration with regard to

impacts from fishing activities within the Sanctuary.

Most of the water quality impacts caused by fishing

activities are related to vessel use, and are covered

under the boating issue discussion. Aquaculture in

Sanctuary waters is a potential water quality concern

because of the feeding and concentration of fish.

Issue Summary. Fishing has been, and continues to

be, a major economic and recreational activity

throughout the Keys. Various methods are used, and

their impacts are a Sanctuary-wide issue. Because of

the increasing number of participants, increasing

quantities of resources removed, and increasing

efficiency of fishing gear; the cumulative impacts and

the severity of the impacts of fishing activities on

Sanctuary resources have increased over the past

decade. Sound strategies are needed to balance

both commercial and recreational fishing activities

with the preservation of the area’s natural resources,

and to resolve conflicts between multiple-uses.
124

Development of Management Alternatives

ties, visitors, areas affected etc., or those for which

effects are unknown. Direct impacts are easily

observable and often long-lasting, resulting from the

actual use of the resources (e.g., divers standing on

coral). Indirect impacts reflect either the extensive

land-based infrastructure associated with supporting

recreation activities, or the lesser-known effects of

these activities on the Keys' ecosystem (such as

turbidity plumes that settle on corals and other

bottom habitats following the improper use of watercraft).

Habitat Impacts. Although some of the specific

impacts of recreation activities on habitats are not

fully understood, some impacts are evident, and most

are related to boating activities.

Boating. Habitat impacts from boating activities have

been discussed in detail within the Boating issue

section. Recreational boating is specifically responsible for seagrass damage through prop dredging

and scarring throughout the Keys. The construction

of public and private docks and marinas, ranging

from single-boat ramps to large public recreation

sites, also can negatively impact seagrass beds

throughout the Sanctuary, even though these facilities are concentrated in specific areas, such as Key

Largo and Key West. The increased boating activity

resulting from the expansion and construction of boat

ramps, docks, and marinas further impacts the health

and abundance of these beds. Impacts on

seagrasses occur primarily in nearshore and shallowwater areas and access channels, especially near

canals leading to subdivisions. In backcountry areas,

where waters are calmer, personal watercraft can

cause injury to seagrass beds. It has been estimated

that over 2,020 ha of seagrass have already been

severely impacted (Sargent, 1993), including shallow-water habitats in the area’s national wildlife

refuges.

Dock and marina construction can also change

natural sediment transport processes and exacerbate

erosion. Boat wakes contribute to habitat decline in

nearshore waters, causing low-to-moderate impacts

by increasing turbidity. Recreational boat groundings

and anchoring damage coral/hardbottom areas.

Anchors can break or scar coral, resulting in the

corals being vulnerable to disease or decline.

Fishing. Overfishing by recreational users causes

instability in biological communities and results in

declines in target species abundance. Fishermen

also lose large amounts of gear on reefs. Reef

cleanups collect up to 100 pounds of lost gear each

year.

Recreation and Cultural/Historical

Resources

Over the past 20 years, the great diversity and

abundance of outdoor recreation activities in the

Keys have become a focal point of the local economy

for both visitors and residents. Most of the recreational activities in the region are “resource-based.”

That is, they are related directly to the natural environment (water-based recreation) or to man-made

resources of cultural or historical significance (sightseeing). Other “activity-based” leisure opportunities

include the use of swimming pools, playgrounds,

tennis courts, etc. Commercial as well as recreational

uses of submerged cultural resources are considered

here.

The Keys' natural environment attracts increasing

numbers of visitors each year, and the nature and

range of recreation activities is a consideration

throughout the Sanctuary. Despite the lack of the

wide beaches characteristic of the U.S. East Coast,

beach activities account for almost half of the area’s

visitor days (Kearney/Centaur, 1990). Many activities

involve water and, therefore, occur throughout the

Sanctuary. Water-related recreational activities are

among the highest in multiple-use conflicts.

Recreation in the Keys includes activities ranging

from sight-seeing, which may have little or no impact

on resources or other users, to diving and snorkeling,

which may have a direct and high impact on both.

Diving and snorkeling activities account for almost 30

percent of all boating-related activities (Kearney/

Centaur, 1990). Persistent conflicts exist among

users of personal watercraft, recreational fishing

boats, and divers.

Recreation and cultural/historic resource impacts

involve the area’s water-related activities, and other

activities, such as camping, hiking, and sight-seeing,

which includes nature observations (bird watching,

Key deer watching, etc.) and visits to cultural/historic

sites (historical houses, forts, lighthouses, Indian

mounds, etc.). Many of the impacts associated with

recreation are discussed in the Boating or Fishing

issue sections.

Major impacts to cultural/historic resources and

recreation occur over a large area, and require a long

recovery period. They result from a growing increase

in the number of visitors to the Keys, the number of

visitors involved in water-related recreation, and an

increase in treasure hunting operations. Minor

impacts are those involving small numbers of facili-
125

Development of Management Alternatives

Diving and Snorkeling. There are many attractive

dive sites in the Sanctuary, particularly within Key

Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Looe Key National

Marine Sanctuary, and John Pennekamp Coral Reef

State Park. The potential for major impacts accompanies the use of these areas for diving activities.

Damage results from standing or walking on corals,

overturning corals, or grabbing corals for locomotion

while swimming. Such damage may take years to

repair. Breaking corals for souvenirs and general

excessive handling by divers can also impact this

habitat, as can the sediment clouds created when

snorkelers tread water. Overuse of certain dive areas

is also significant, and too many divers at any one

time may tax the reef community. The most significant impacts caused by these activities have been

observed along the reef tract. Additionally, live rock

removal by divers has Sanctuary-wide impacts, as it

reduces the bottom habitat available for species.

Treasure Hunting Techniques. Some treasure

hunting methods for artifact recovery create a

significant threat to natural resources in and around a

wreck site. Treasure hunters use chisels, hammers,

crowbars, and propeller wash deflectors ("mailboxes") to uncover artifacts. The indiscriminate use

of mailboxes, in particular, to blow away sediment

can adversely affect both the cultural/historical site

and the natural resources in and around the site, and

can result in a decrease in future education and/or

scientific value. A single mailbox blow hole can be

four meters wide and just as deep (Throckmorton,

1990). Any other device capable of removing large

amounts of sediments or debris may have similar

effects.

Other Habitat Impacts. Other recreation activities that

impact habitats include illegal camping and plant and

animal collecting. Illegal camping occurs on offshore

islands that are part of national wildlife refuges;

vegetation destruction is the most common impact in

these sensitive areas. Plant and animal collecting

may also reduce the population of slow-maturing,

ornamental reef fish and invertebrates that graze on

algae and other sessile organisms. This may shift the

ecological balance of reef areas, either abruptly or

gradually, to a community dominated by fast-growing

algae species. It may also lead to a reduction in the

surface area available for recruitment of larval corals

and other sessile organisms.

Species Impacts.

Overcollection. It is thought by many that

overcollection of both small and large ornamental fish

and invertebrates for personal aquariums has a direct

impact on species abundance and diversity. Collection occurs in all habitats where divers and

snorkelers are found. For some slow-growing species

(e.g., starfish and conch), further study should be

undertaken to determine the effect of species abundance on species diversity. The impact of this activity

is even more significant when commercial collectors

gather the same species for sale to tourists or for the

aquarium trade. Overcollection of species that

remove fish parasites also encourages an increase in

parasitized fish on the reef. In general, these activities reduce the aesthetic and economic value of the

reef environment.

Other Concerns. Ignoring catch and size limits has a

direct impact on target species abundance in popular

fishing areas. In addition, the degradation of shallow

waters by recreational activities can damage the

feeding habitats of turtles, manatees, and dolphins.

Collisions between recreational vessels and marine

mammals and birds are significant as well, impacting

fish and wildlife nurseries. Noise from boat and

watercraft motors can also have an indirect impact on

species, including disturbances of bird nesting,

roosting, and feeding areas. As noted earlier, illegal

camping on offshore islands often results in the

destruction of vegetation crucial to the life history of

species. Wildlife disturbances (particularly of bird

populations) by hikers and campers are common.

These disturbances impact feeding and nesting

habitats.

Use and User Impacts. Tourist activity near cultural/

historical and archaeological sites within the Keys is

significant, with land-based sites less impacted than

marine sites. Typical impacts include the removal of

artifacts from sunken vessels; the construction of

docks and marinas that may destroy unreported

sites; and the use of mailboxes that can damage the

surrounding recreational areas and the artifacts

themselves. Search and recovery methods that do

not record and preserve all artifacts and contextual

information may result in irreparable destruction of

historical and cultural information. Conflicts also

occur between users who want to protect all artifacts

(especially shipwrecks) for education, research, and

sport diving, and those involved in artifact recovery.

Water Quality Impacts. Recreational boating

activities within the Sanctuary contribute to water

quality degradation through pollution from boat

paints, exhaust gasses, oil and human waste discharge, and improper trash disposal. Propellers also

stir up sediments that block sunlight, reduce photosynthesis levels, and smother bottom-dwelling

organisms.
126

Development of Management Alternatives

discharge or overland flow. Indirect impacts are

those having an effect on an alternate medium (e.g.,

groundwater and the atmosphere) before impacting

nearshore waters or marine resources.

Habitat Impacts. The following factors impact

habitats within the Sanctuary.

Population and Growth. The current resident population of the Keys (approximately 78,000) is expected

to increase to over 102,000 by the year 2010 (Monroe County Comptroller, 1993). Between 1990 and

2010, the Keys' annual seasonal population also is

expected to increase by almost 20,000 from approximately 56,000. The Keys' total functional population,

including both tourists and residents, has the potential to significantly impact the area's resources. As a

result, tourism has both direct and indirect impacts

on the Sanctuary. Direct impacts to resources result

from participation in water-related activities, and

indirectly affect local resources by increasing the

demand for public services such as water, sewage

disposal, and sanitary landfills.

Residential and Commercial Development. Continued residential development affects resources by

increasing upland and wetland clearing, which

promotes increased stormwater runoff and airborne

dust. Development is accompanied by an increase in

the demand for sewage treatment facilities, whose

effluents affect ground and surface waters. As

housing densities increase, sewage, stormwater,

and airborne loadings also increase, causing even

greater impacts. Commercial development brings

similar resource impacts in terms of stormwater

management and sewage treatment. Differences

between residential and commercial impacts include

the volume of runoff and pollutants it contains, as

well as the type of sewage treatment processes

used.

Canalization. Canals in South Florida are significant

contributors to seagrass die-offs brought on by

drought conditions and low freshwater flow through

the Everglades. The water diverted to these canals

previously entered Florida Bay.

Wetlands Degradation. The destruction or filling of

wetlands causes increased stormwater runoff,

increased turbidity at the land/water interface, and a

loss of the aquatic values often associated with

wetlands productivity. Mangrove removal causes a

decrease in aquatic values as well.

Issue Summary. The Keys' economy is dependent

on tourism and marine-related recreation. Accordingly, any measures that attempt to regulate either

the number of visitors or visitor use within the Sanctuary will have a profound impact on the local

economy. In 1990, for example, half of the Keys'

population held a job that directly or indirectly supported outdoor recreation opportunities.

Overuse of popular areas, particularly the reef tract,

is a primary concern. The increasing recreational use

of these areas often leads to the depletion of the

natural resources that attract users. The cumulative

impacts of these activities, and their severity, need to

be addressed to balance human uses and the quality

of the marine environment.

The Keys also offer a variety of significant cultural

and historical resources, and many have been

designated in the National Register of Historic

Places. Examples include the SAN JOSE shipwreck,

Indian Key, Rock Mound Archaeological Site, the

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Fort

Zachary Taylor, Sound Key Light House, and the Dry

Tortugas National Park. Seven percent of all visitor

days in the Keys are spent at archaeological or

historical attractions, representing a significant

visitor-use issue that should be considered when

formulating strategies to manage marine-related

resources.

Land Use

Land-use planning is either used to separate incompatible uses from one another (e.g., residential uses

from heavy industrial uses or airports), or to mitigate

the impacts of incompatible uses. Growth management ensures that public-sector capital improvements

track the needs of developing areas. Increasingly,

growth management has been used to curb development or alter its direction when it is perceived that the

impacts of growth will significantly effect a

community's health, safety, or welfare. In recent

years, these terms have come to embody “quality of

life” and the importance of environmental as well as

individual health. Land-use planning and growth

management, therefore, are important issues

throughout the Keys.

Major impacts are defined in terms of large numbers,

large affected areas, high densities, large volumes,

high concentrations, and significant periods of time.

Minor impacts are the converse. Direct impacts are

those considered to have a primary effect on

nearshore waters or marine resources as a result of
127

Development of Management Alternatives

Stormwater Runoff. With the exception of the City of

Key West, stormwater is inadequately managed

throughout Monroe County. Stormwater impacts are

similar to those of sewage effluent and nutrient

loading. However, stormwater differs in salinity,

degree of turbidity, and composition and/or proportion of the chemical and biological components.

Eutrophication. Canals near large numbers of septic

tanks, or receiving significant detrital loading, exhibit

high levels of nutrients, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and

low dissolved oxygen levels, all of which contribute to

eutrophication.

Algae. Algal “halos” may form around the mouths of

canals as a result of epiphyte loading to adjacent

seagrasses, or from the complete evolution of

adjacent communities to an algal community.

Solid Waste. Although landfills within Monroe County

are not lined and do not limit groundwater contamination, the impact of solid waste on Sanctuary resources remains unknown. The components of

landfill effluents are also unknown, but can be

assumed to include nutrients, organics, synthetic

organics, and heavy metals. All four landfills in

Monroe County are within 200 meters of tidal waters,

and although leaching is possibly occurring, the

impact on habitats is unclear.

Mosquito Control. Mosquito spraying occurs on a

seasonal basis, particularly during the rainy summer

season. The pesticides used generally have a

relatively short half-life, but many still have some

impact due to aerial spraying or salt pond site

application.

Species Impacts. There is no direct evidence that

upland land-use patterns have significantly reduced

species abundance or diversity. However, isolated

areas, particularly canals and other confined waters

have been impacted. In these areas, certain types of

algae can dominate, and during periods of extreme

summer heat fish kills have occurred. Wildlife disturbances, particularly of shore and wading birds, have

also occurred as a result of land-use activities,

although most are related to recreational boating in

backcountry areas.

Most permitted dredge and fill activities in the region

occur at or above the mean high-water level. Direct

impacts are obvious, and include the destruction of

benthic marine communities. Although the extent of

the impacts from mosquito-control measures is

unknown, seasonal pesticide application may affect

the health of larval fish and crustaceans.

Dredge and Fill Activities. Dredge and fill activities

are currently limited in the Keys, and most permitted

dredging is for the maintenance of existing and

previously permitted projects. Previous dredging

activities, that are no longer permitted, led to the

creation of significant canals and basins that have

little flushing ability and have become sediment and

nutrient sinks for debris, dead seagrass, and sewage

effluents.

Sewage Treatment. Sewage treatment techniques in

the Keys fall into three major categories: 1) centralized treatment on both large and small scales;

2) individual anaerobic treatment units that discharge

either to boreholes or drain fields; and 3) septic tanks

that discharge directly to drain fields. There are also

approximately 5,000 cesspits in the Keys (EPA,

1992). The Key West Sewage Treatment Plant,

which serves approximately 12,000 residential and

commercial operators, discharges through one

nearshore outfall. Between 25,000 and 30,000

residential units throughout Monroe County are

served by septic tanks. Approximately 300 residential

and commercial facilities are served by small-scale

centralized treatment units, and another 300 are

served by individual aerobic units (EPA, 1992).

The impact of these treatment facilities varies by

discharge location. In addition, the impacts of effluent

nutrient loading, either through groundwater or direct

discharge to nearshore waters, are related to the

extent that groundwaters interface with nearshore

waters, and the degree of flushing experienced by

nearshore receiving waters. The result is a potential

shift in benthic species composition and the possible

eutrophication of receiving waters.

Nearshore waters are most significantly impacted in

confined areas. Canals and basins, which are deeper

than adjacent receiving waters and tend to face

prevailing winds, are of particular concern because

they collect floating detritus or may be so circuitous

that adequate flushing cannot occur. Far-field impacts can also occur, but are often more subtle than

nearshore impacts, and more difficult to observe and

define.

In general, nutrients entering the Keys’ nearshore

waters from adjacent land areas can have an impact

as they cycle through the ecosystem. Water tends to

move southward through the natural passes between

the islands, toward the reef tract in the Atlantic.

Although nutrients often move from their source,

there is currently no conclusive evidence that declines in coral cover on the reef tract are directly

linked to land use.
128

Development of Management Alternatives

of factors, including the input of pollutants into

estuarine and marine environments, physical processes, and the alteration of historic drainage

patterns.

Pollutant inputs affecting water quality are the result

of land- and water-related human activity, as well as

natural processes. Pollution may originate within the

Sanctuary or may be transported from external

sources via regional ocean circulation or atmospheric

deposition. Within the Keys, pollutant inputs result

from both point and nonpoint sources. Point sources

are defined as end-of-pipe sources that discharge

directly to surface waters. Wastewater treatment

plants (WWTPs), industrial plants, water supply

plants, and power plants are examples of point

sources. In the Keys, there are currently 19 facilities

actively discharging, 10 of which are WWTPs. The

largest of these is the Key West sewage treatment

plant, which has a 10 million gallon per day capacity

(EPA, 1992). Other sources discharging to Sanctuary

waters include the C-111 Canal and Model Land

Canal which empty into Barnes and Card sounds,

respectively. These canals are part of the South

Florida Water Management District’s control structures, and are operated for water supply and floodcontrol purposes.

Nonpoint sources, including surface runoff and

groundwater inputs, can affect nutrient and other

constituent concentrations within the water column,

and are directly affected by land use, soil type, and

rainfall. Groundwater quality within the Keys is

affected by the 670 injection wells and 30,000 septic

tanks and cesspits, whose relative proximity to the

surface can impact marine waters near the shoreline.

Additionally, marinas, live-aboards, and boats

contribute to nonpoint pollution through maintenance

and refueling activities, and wastewater and bilge

discharges.

External pollution sources are defined as those

outside the immediate area which, via regional ocean

circulation or atmospheric deposition, affect the

Sanctuary’s water quality. Examples include exchanges with Florida and Biscayne bays, and, in a

broader context, the marine waters of Florida's

southwest continental shelf, as potentially affected by

human activities within the eastern portion of the Gulf

of Mexico. Florida Bay has experienced recent and

significant declines in seagrasses, an increase in

problematic algal conditions, and a general decline in

water quality. Although the impacts resulting from

human activities are unclear, indirect evidence

Use and User Impacts. Since Sanctuary users

typically participate in water-based activities, landuse activities have little or no impact on their ability to

enjoy their pursuits. However, the issue of shoreside

development has been raised by those concerned

with the aesthetics of the natural environment.

Water Quality Impacts. Although currents and water

flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico to the

Atlantic Ocean are understood, little is known about

the mass loadings of nutrients and other inputs from

the upland areas of the Keys, the Everglades, or

South Florida. This is true of both existing and

historic inputs. However, reductions in historic water

flows in the Everglades, the addition of fertilizers and

pesticides, and the use of on-site disposal systems

(OSDSs) are all believed to impact Florida Bay.

Dredge and fill activities are known to lead to increased short-term turbidity, changes in current and

water-flow patterns, and turbidity increases in areas

of minimal water movement.

Issue Summary. As development has occurred in

the Keys, and as growth management has been used

to direct it, significant land-use impacts have been

identified. These include the destruction of upland

and wetland areas for the placement of infrastructure

and associated development, and the direct impacts

of inadequately controlled sewage and stormwater

runoff that result from that growth.

All types of development can be assumed to have

both direct and indirect impacts on the Sanctuary.

Development has an impact on groundwaters, either

through stormwater drainage or sewage effluents.

Development can also have a direct influence if

stormwater facilities are not in place, or if an existing

facility reaches capacity and either fails or overflows.

All of these potential impacts must be considered as

part of a land-use management plan for the Sanctuary.

Water Quality

Water quality is affected by both natural and manmade influences, and is traditionally described based

on compliance with existing standards. Such standards typically address an environment’s biological

oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and chlorine residual

levels. In the context of resource protection, however,

water quality requires the consideration of temperature, salinity, light, nutrients, and toxics. In the Keys,

these parameters are directly influenced by a variety
129

Development of Management Alternatives

suggests that changes in the quantity, timing, and

quality of freshwater delivered to Florida Bay have

precipitated these declines (EPA, 1992).

Other pollutant sources within the Sanctuary include

the ocean dumping of glass, wood, paper products,

and other hazardous materials by commercial

shipping operations. A major oil or chemical spill

could cause catastrophic water quality problems.

Although the Keys have never experienced a major

spill, small spills from refueling activities degrade

water quality on a daily basis.

Major water quality impacts are defined as conditions

having persistent and deleterious effects on marine

resources (e.g., die-offs or declines, community

alterations, reductions in recruitment success), and

exhibit observable, widespread trends. Minor impacts

are those lacking persistence and/or occurring over a

very limited area. Direct impacts involve cases where

the pollutant source can be identified. Indirect

impacts occur when natural processes/factors alter or

combine with a pollutant source, altering the

pollutant's effect(s) on a Sanctuary resource. An

example of an indirect water quality impact would be

circulation changes that concentrate, dilute, or flush a

pollutant input.

Habitat Impacts.

Loss of Seagrass. The seagrass beds of South

Florida, including those of Florida Bay and along the

reef tract, cover an estimated 5,500 km2. In the

summer of 1987, a massive seagrass die-off occurred in Florida Bay, resulting in the loss of over

4,000 ha (EPA, 1992). Information suggests that the

die-off occurred in response to a combination of

ambient conditions that inhibited the sustainability of

the seagrass community. The susceptibility to

increased organic loadings from domestic wastes in

artificial waterways and dead-end canals within the

Keys also resulted in seagrass losses.

Loss of Coral/Hardbottom. Both natural and humaninduced factors have affected the Sanctuary's coral

and hardbottom communities. Stresses include:

disease; pollution; algal fouling and smothering;

sedimentation; temperature extremes; salinity

variations; decreases in water clarity; and physical

damage. Even minor changes in water temperature,

nutrient levels, or salinity caused by the quality of

waters surrounding the Sanctuary can impact coral

recruitment and development.

Mangrove Communities. Mangrove communities play

a significant role in stabilizing the shoreline and

preventing erosion. Although little is known concerning recent mangrove die-offs, there appears to be a

rough spatial correlation with adjacent areas of high

salinity in Florida Bay. Pore water salinity concentrations of up to 150 ppt have been recorded in the

higher relief mangroves where the die-offs have been

concentrated (EPA, 1992).

Species Impacts. Extremes in temperature, salinity,

algal productivity and/or dissolved oxygen have been

associated with periodic fish kills, coral bleaching,

and seagrass and sponge die-offs. Seasonal extremes can affect species tolerances at both ends of

the survival range. For example, winter cold fronts

can dramatically decrease water temperatures in

Florida Bay, and subsequently affect adjacent reef

environments when wind-induced transport forces

waters through the major tidal passes of the Middle

Keys. In addition, summer temperatures and calm

winds have resulted in biologically stressed oxygen

conditions, and have been associated with seagrass

die-offs and fish kills.

Use and User Impacts. The Keys' major industry is

tourism. The biggest attraction for these tourists is

the marine environment surrounding the Keys. As

water quality declines, so does the ability of the

region to draw tourists. A drastic reduction in

nearshore water quality and the loss of the live coral

reef could cause a decline in Monroe County's tourist

and real estate industries.

Issue Summary. Recent declines in coral recruitment, increases in the frequency of fish kills, and

seagrass die-offs are the result of declines in Sanctuary water quality. Preserving and improving the

region's water quality is essential to maintaining the

richness and diversity of its natural resource base.

 Management Strategies

Management strategies are the foundation for the set

of actions that will be implemented through the

Management Plan. They set out a conceptual course

for dealing with management issues, and detail the

conditions that must be fulfilled to successfully

address specific problems. A strategy must contain

certain elements to be practical to management,

including information on costs, schedules, respon-
130

Development of Management Alternatives

sible institutions, prerequisites, financing, regulatory

requirements, staffing and other resource requirements, and the geographic extent of the action that

will be implemented.

The process used to develop this Management Plan

has been described as "back-to-front," in that some

management activities are proposed before the

information needed to fully evaluate their impacts is

available. The data collection and detailed analysis

required prior to implementing these activities will

occur as part of the continuous management process. One of the keys to ensuring the success of this

process was the development of strategy descriptions that provided an "operational level" of detail.

This detail provides planners with a realistic picture of

the steps required to fully implement a strategy. The

detailed descriptions of these strategies (including

their component activities) are the foundation of the

"action plans" that have been developed as part of

the Preferred Alternative.

 The Strategy Development Process

The strategy development process was based

directly on the management issues identified. The

first work session focusing on strategy development

was held in February 1992 in Marathon, Florida. This

session was designed to: 1) develop a list of strategies from which management alternatives could be

developed; 2) describe the strategies in enough

detail to enable planners to judge their effectiveness

and feasibility; and 3) characterize the potential

impacts of a subset of the strategies (e.g., highpriority strategies) on users and the environment.

NOAA and its planning partners organized a four-day

work session and invited Federal, State, and local

managers and scientists with expertise and/or

experience in the Keys. Agencies with Sanctuary

management interests added participants to the list,

and the public was invited to attend in an observer

capacity. Participants were asked to list, describe,

and characterize management strategies or actions

that could be used to meet the objectives of the

FKNMSPA, the Act designating the Sanctuary. A

structured process was developed to obtain the

information required to proceed in the management

plan development process. A detailed description of

this work session is available in the technical document Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Management Plan: Management Strategy Identification and Description Workbook (May, 1992). The

following is a summary of the session.

Prerequisite materials developed for the session

included forms for recording information, packages

explaining the process to be used, and background

materials to help stimulate the development of

management strategies. The last item helped participants focus more clearly on the management issues

and provided important information on Sanctuaryrelated problems identified at previous workshops.

The issue-oriented approach was critical to obtaining

the best information from the participants. Additional

materials provided to each issue/strategy group

included summaries of the zoning, mooring buoy,

education, and research workshops conducted by

NOAA and others; draft text of the "Description of the

Affected Environment" chapter of this Plan; and draft

text of the Phase 1, Water Quality Protection Program document produced for EPA and the State of

Florida (EPA, 1992).

A "knowledge-engineering" approach was used to

gather information at the session. Knowledgeengineering is a technique that applies organization

and structure to the process of directing, acquiring,

and encoding what is known about a subject or

problem. This approach made the maximum use of

the existing knowledge and experience base to

identify, characterize, and assess the range of

management strategies or actions that could be used

to address the issues identified at the scoping

meetings.

The session was composed of two separate parts.

Part 1, "Strategy Identification and Description,"

involved a set of issue-group sessions where participants were asked to identify and describe possible

management strategies. In Part 2, "Strategy Characterization," participants were asked to describe the

impacts the strategies might have if implemented.

Strategy Identification and Description. Participants were first assigned to two of six issue groups.

In Round 1, these groups completed the first five

steps of the strategy identification and description

process (Figure 24). In Round 2, participants moved

to their second issue group and completed steps six

through 11. Two rounds were conducted to ensure

that strategies were reviewed by more than one

group and that a wide range of ideas was generated.

A sample of a completed strategy description sheet is

included in Appendix E in Volume III. Participants in

each issue group conducted a priority evaluation at

the end of the strategy identification and description

session. Strategies were classified as either high,

medium, or low priority. Approximately 150 strategies

were considered high priority by the participants.
131

Development of Management Alternatives

Round 1

Step 1 - List strategies. Participants in each of the six

issue groups were asked to list strategies

that should be considered to address their

issue. Each group listed at least 30 strategies.

Step 2 - Assign strategies to individuals. Each

strategy was assigned to an individual

(usually the person who proposed it) to

describe.

Step 3 - Review example strategy description as

group. The facilitator used an overhead

transparency to describe how to complete the

strategy description sheet.

Step 4 - Individuals describe/define strategies in

detail. Participants completed description

sheets for their assigned strategies.

Step 5 - Revise strategy descriptions as group. Each

sheet was presented to the issue group on

an overhead transparency. The sheets were

revised by the group.

Participants then moved to their secondary issue

group and followed steps 6 through 11.

Round 2

Step 6 - Review list of strategies from first group.

Participants were asked to examine the list of

previously developed strategies.

Step 7 - Identify new strategies. After reviewing the

list, participants suggested new strategies.

Step 8 - Assign new strategies to individuals. Each

new strategy on the list was assigned to an

individual for description.

Step 9 - Individuals describe/define strategies in

detail. Participants completed strategy

description sheets for their assigned strategies.

Step 10 -Revise all strategy descriptions as group.

Each strategy description sheet was presented to the group on an overhead transparency. The sheets were revised by the group.

Step 11- Prioritize strategies. Strategies were

prioritized as high, medium, or low based on

the consensus of the group.

Figure 24. Part 1: Strategy Identification and

 Description

Strategy Characterization. For the characterization

sessions, participants were divided into groups

focusing on the themes of habitats, species, use and

users, and water quality, and followed the steps

shown in Figure 25. Because of the large number of

strategies developed at the session (almost 300),

only the high-priority strategies were characterized.

For each strategy, impacts were characterized both

spatially and temporally as either high, medium, or

low. The impact categories reviewed by each group

are shown in Table 17. Impacts were characterized in

two spatial categories: those occurring in a specific

area and those occurring Sanctuary wide. Strategies

could have either a positive or negative impact in

each of the categories. The potential impacts of

strategies were also evaluated based on current

effects (within the next two years) and future effects

(more than two years after implementation). A

strategy could have no impact in some of these

categories. The process was designed to ensure the

consistency of characterizations by having the same

group of participants examine the same theme for all

strategies. The sheets used to record the characteristics also had room for notes and assumptions.

Appendix F in Volume III contains a sample strategy

characterization sheet.

Participants. The session's participants were

selected from Federal, State, and local agencies with

management responsibilities in the Keys. They were

chosen based on their knowledge of the local and

regional issues related to the Sanctuary and their

expertise regarding the establishment and maintenance of resource-management programs. A list of

the participants and their organizational affiliations

appears in Appendix B in Volume III.

Products. The products generated during the

session were designed to provide Federal, State, and

local planners with enough information to make

reasonable decisions about the range of possible

management strategies, the potential impacts of

these strategies, and preliminary ideas regarding

how to package strategies into management alternatives.

The primary product developed was the set of

strategy description sheets. These sheets were used

to record the initial thoughts of the participants on the

most important temporal, spatial, and additional

attributes of each strategy. Not all of the description

sheets were completed at the same level of detail, as

some strategies proved to be prerequisites for others.

For example, a strategy to research the effects of

boating, diving, and other activities on Sanctuary
132

Development of Management Alternatives

Table 17. Impact Categories Used to Characterize

 Strategies

Habitats

• Corals

• Hardbottoms

• Seagrasses

• Algal Communities

• Mangrove

• Sediments

• Submerged Cultural

 Resources

Use & Users

• User Conflicts

• Benefits

• Burdens

• Match Burdens/Benefits

Species

• Commercial/

 Recreational: Food

• Commercial/

 Recreational: Ornamental

• Diversity

• Keystone

• Distribution

• Wildlife

Water Quality

Confined/Nearshore/Offshore:

• Nutrient Concentrations

• Toxic Concentrations

• Salinity and Temperature

• Disolved Oxygen

Figure 26. Part 2: Strategy Characterization

resources should be completed before a strategy

establishing carrying capacities is developed.

Another product resulting from the work session was

the set of impact characterizations for all high-priority

strategies. The symbols on these characterization

sheets were designed to emphasize desirable

(positive) versus undesirable (negative) impacts.

Post-Work Session Activities. All strategies were

entered into a data base, and a list of strategies

organized by issue and priority was produced. In

addition, redundant strategies were combined into

new strategies and characterized; strategy description sheets were edited for clarity; tables summarizing strategy characterizations were developed; and

issue statements were revised and abbreviated.

The 273 original strategies were reviewed and, where

significantly similar, combined into new strategies.

Redundancy was anticipated because of the overlap

among issues. Also, while participants were asked to

focus on the issue for their group, they were not

prohibited from proposing strategies related to other

groups.

Twenty-eight new strategies were created by combining 62 originally formulated at the work session.

Based on the priority levels assigned to the original

strategies, 26 of the new strategies were ranked as

high priority and two as medium priority. If any of the

original strategies that were included in the new

strategy were classified as high priority, the new

strategy was also labeled as high priority.

Other Strategy Sources. The Sanctuary Advisory

Council Strategy Work Session, held in June 1992 in

Key Largo, provided another source of management

strategies and revisions. At this session, the Council

reviewed the proposed strategies and commented on

how they could be improved. They also identified

issues that had not been addressed in the existing

strategies. The session resulted in the adoption or

revision of 47 new management strategies.

Because the strategy development process was

iterative, strategies were continually revised and

refined as comments were received from the Core

Group, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, NGOs, and

the public. This allowed NOAA to integrate the most

current and wide-ranging ideas into the strategies

while the Management Plan development process

evolved. It also required NOAA to remain flexible to

strategy modification as new information became

available, and reinforced the fact that this flexibility

must be part of the continuous management process,

following the implementation of the Management

Plan. A table tracking the development of strategies

appears in Appendix I in Volume III of the DEIS/MP.

 Management Alternatives

This section describes the development of a series of

management alternatives and the placement of

strategies into these alternatives, each of which has a

different thrust with respect to resource protection

and user impacts. The development and consideration of a series of management alternatives are

required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) as part of the Sanctuary’s environmental

impact assessment process. A preferred alternative

is selected from these alternatives for implementaStep 1 - Develop characterization criteria. Each group

was asked to develop criteria that would be

used to characterize the impacts each

strategy might have on their theme (habitats,

species, etc.). These criteria concerned what

impacts would be considered negative and

positive and what degree of impact would

lead to a high, medium, or low "priority rating."

 Step 2 - Characterize all high-priority strategies. Each

group characterized the impacts of all of the

high-priority strategies with regards to their

theme. These characterizations included

both spatial and temporal attributes, and

became the raw material for the characterization matrices.
133

Development of Management Alternatives

tion. In previous sanctuary planning processes,

alternatives have been based on variations of the

sanctuary boundary. However, a much more detailed

and comprehensive approach was taken in developing the management alternatives for the Florida Keys

Sanctuary.

 Management Alternatives Development

Management alternatives were developed by the

Core Group during several work sessions designed

to define the most appropriate level and scope of

Sanctuary management. Input was also received

from of a number of public and private interests

including (but not limited to) departments and agencies within the Federal, State of Florida, and Monroe

County governments; national, state, and local

nongovernmental groups; industry and trade groups;

the Sanctuary Advisory Council; and the citizens of

Monroe County.

The interagency Core Group first met to identify a

suitable number of alternatives. They were divided

into three groups and asked to develop four to eight

different alternatives, and describe their general

objectives and thrusts. Standard terminology was

established by each group to describe management

alternatives consistently. Draft alternatives were

reviewed in plenary, and similar alternatives were

combined. Initially, six alternatives were considered,

ranging from "No Action" to the most restrictive of

uses of Sanctuary resources, including a "least

administrative cost" alternative. Further discussion

and refinements determined that the least administrative cost alternative should be eliminated, since it

was essentially the same as "No Action."

The five remaining alternatives represent different

levels of regulatory control over Sanctuary resources

and restriction of uses, with Alternative I the most

restrictive and Alternative V (No Action) the least

restrictive. Generally, strategies are not exclusive to

any management alternative. That is, most of the

management strategies in Alternative IV are also in

Alternatives III and II, but are augmented with

accelerated implementation schedules, and/or

include additional restrictions. The thrust and scope

of each alternative is described below.

Alternative I

Alternative I represents the most resource conservation at the expense of Sanctuary use and access. It

would ensure ecosystem protection by prohibiting

nearly all traditional uses (all consumptive uses) of

Sanctuary resources, and by imposing strict water

quality standards. Only research activities would be

permitted in Sanctuary waters under this alternative.

While Alternative I would meet the goals of the

FKNMSPA regarding resource protection, it would

not adequately balance the high level of protection

with the restrictions on current and future users. For

example, a strategy included in this alternative might

ban the harvest of all resources within the Sanctuary,

significantly impacting users. Another strategy that

might appear in this alternative would ban diving and

snorkeling activities on most reefs, if not throughout

the Sanctuary. This action would also have an

unreasonable impact on users and the economy of

the Keys. Accordingly, Alternative I is neither a

practical nor a desirable management alternative.

Alternative II

Alternative II represents a resource conservation

approach that facilitates access and use of the

Sanctuary. It would ensure a high degree of ecosystem protection through extensive regulations prohibiting or limiting many traditional resource uses within

the Sanctuary, using zoning and other techniques,

and by improving water quality. Alternative II meets

the goals of the Act regarding resource protection

without imposing the significant impacts on current

and future users seen in Alternative I. That is, under

Alternative II, most traditional uses of the Sanctuary

could continue, but in some cases there would be

spatial and/or temporal modifications (i.e., areal and

seasonal restrictions through zoning) regarding

where these uses may occur. Land-use activities

impacting Sanctuary waters would be minimized

under this alternative.

Alternative III

Alternative III represents a more traditional approach

to Sanctuary use and access than either Alternatives

I or II. It would ensure a higher degree of ecosystem

protection than currently in place by prohibiting or

limiting some traditional uses through zoning and

other techniques, and by improving water quality.

Like Alternatives I and II, Alternative III meets the

goals of the Act regarding resource protection, but

would not have as significant an impact on current

and future users. This alternative maintains many

traditional Sanctuary uses, but some areal and/or

seasonal modifications would be required.

Alternative IV

Alternative IV represents the least restrictive of the

mid-range approaches to Sanctuary use and access.

It is designed to ensure some degree of ecosystem

protection through zoning and other techniques, and
134

Development of Management Alternatives

Management zones help protect areas from resource degradation, can be used to separate incompatible uses, and facilitate

research and education by establishing special locations for

these activities. Zoning was specifically identified in the

FKNMSPA as a means of achieving environmental protection,

and comments were received as early as the scoping meetings

regarding the benefits of zoning to protect the Sanctuary’s

resources.

Because of its importance, zoning has received at least as

much attention as any other component of the Management

Plan. Its role in the success of the Sanctuary, and the public

interest it has generated, prompted the Core Group to work with

the Sanctuary Advisory Council and its constituent groups in a

close and coordinated manner uncommon in sanctuary planning

processes.

The process used to develop the zoning plan was similar to that

used for other action plans, up to the drafting of the strategy

descriptions. The issue statements helped frame the problem. A

series of five zoning workshops were held with different interest

groups to formulate a preliminary list of zone types. The

Advisory Council further refined the zone types. The Core

Group then developed strategy descriptions for each zone type.

Once these descriptions were developed, a variety of issues still

had to be considered, including how areas already being

managed would be zoned, and where the new zones would be

placed.

Based on further discussions, an Existing Management Areas

strategy was developed to recognize the areas already under

special resource management regimes. It was also determined

that Special-use Areas would be used to achieve particular

management objectives, including facilitating the recovery and

restoration of damaged Sanctuary resources, accommodating

activities not normally permitted in the Sanctuary, providing

research and education opportunities, and providing for specific

access to resources in a manner that avoids user conflicts.

Originally, Wildlife Management Areas only included those sites

listed in the FWS Backcountry Plan for the Lower Keys.

However, the Core Group added sites in the Middle and Upper

Keys during their October 1992 meeting. At their December

1992 meeting, the Advisory Council added more sites and

presented NOAA with recommendations on how these sites

would best fit into the three mid-range management alternatives.

First drafts of Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Replenishment

Reserves were mapped by the Sanctuary planning staff in

Marathon. The Core Group then modified this material,

establishing the starting point for a more deliberate set of work

sessions with the Advisory Council.

The first of these sessions, held in December 1992, focused on

the general areas to be included in a recommendation from the

Council. The public was encouraged to attend these sessions,

and to provide comments on how they believed they would be

affected by the types of zones and proposed locations. This list

of zone types and locations was based on all sites identified in

Alternatives II, III, and IV. Because of the lack of detailed data

on the proposed sites, the Council formed a subcommittee to

examine these zones further, and asked NOAA to provide them

with a process and the information necessary to conduct a more

objective analysis of the zoning alternatives. This request led to

the next set of work sessions.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council’s subcommittee met with NOAA

in February 1993 to: 1) develop criteria for selecting Sanctuary

Preservation Areas (SPAs) and Replenishment Reserves; 2)

apply the criteria to the areas proposed by the Core Group; and

3) develop a subset of zones to be examined further. The

criteria used to select areas for consideration as proposed SPAs

included: protection of representative critical/rare habitats; the

long-term impacts on areas of critical economic value; water

quality; accessibility by user groups; areas where user conflicts

are minimized; research potential; and geographic distribution in

the Sanctuary. The criteria used for Replenishment Reserves

included consideration of level of habitat and species diversity

representative of the Keys' ecosystem; ownership of nearby

waterfront property; water quality; existing Sanctuary management areas; areas within the Sanctuary with proposed restrictions; management of adjacent areas; socioeconomic impact on

displaced user groups; environmental and socioeconomic

impacts on other areas from displacing existing users; sufficient

size to include a range of habitats; and the long-term impacts

from establishing Replenishment Reserves in areas of critical

economic value.

Working in coordination with their constituents, the subcommittee reviewed benthic habitat maps, maps and information on

activities and use levels, and high-resolution aerial photography

covering the subset of proposed zones. This information was

used to draw preliminary boundaries on nautical charts and the

aerial photographs. The subcommittee also visited several

locations in the Upper Keys to examine the amount of resource

protection provided by the proposed zones, to evaluate the size

of the zones, and to gain insight on possible impacts to users.

As a result, some zone boundaries were refined.

NOAA generated materials relevant to the zones proposed by

the subcommittee and supplied descriptions of how each zone

met the criteria, maps of the proposed boundaries, and data on

the size of each area and the percentage of the Sanctuary that

would be included. The subcommittee then reviewed these

materials with their constituent groups.

The subcommittee met again in late February 1993 to make final

adjustments to zone boundaries and to present their proposal to

the public and the full Sanctuary Advisory Council. NOAA

provided aerial photography and nautical charts delineating the

zones proposed by the subcommittee, as well as the zones

proposed by the Core Group for Alternatives IV and II, to help

the Advisory Council in their deliberations. The Council voted on

the subcommittee’s proposal and recommended that 19 SPAs,

four "research-only" SPAs, two Replenishment Reserves, and

one "Special-use" Replenishment Reserve be included in

Alternative III. NOAA and the Core Group reviewed the

Council’s recommendation, and used their expertise to modify

and refine zoning proposals for Alternatives IV and II. NOAA

later reclassified the "research-only" SPAs as Special-use

Areas. Finally, pursuant to Section 304 (a)(5) of the NMSA, the

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils

were consulted on these zoning alternatives

Figures 27-29 are maps of the proposed zones included in each

of the mid-range alternatives. Detailed maps of the proposed

zones in the Preferred Alternative appear in the Zoning Action

Plan in Volume I.

Zoning: An Illustration of the Strategy and Management Alternatives Development Process
135

Development of Management Alternatives

by improving water quality. Alternative IV meets the

goals of the Act regarding resource protection, but

would not have as significant a positive impact on

habitats, species, or water quality as either Alternatives II or III. It would not impact current or future

users as significantly as Alternatives I through III.

Almost all traditional Sanctuary uses would continue,

but some areal and/or seasonal modifications would

be required.

Alternative V

Alternative V represents no modification of current

Sanctuary use and access policies. This is commonly

referred to as the "no action" alternative. No additional regulations, education, administrative actions,

research, or economic incentives would be proposed

to improve the condition of the Sanctuary or the

quality of user experiences. The alternative would not

ensure an increase in ecosystem protection, and

would not restrict Sanctuary users from any traditional activities. Alternative V does not meet the goals

of the Act regarding resource protection. It would

have no positive impacts on habitats, species, water

quality, or user conflicts. In addition, maintaining

current policies would pose significant long-term

threats to resources throughout the Sanctuary.

These alternatives contain the full set of proposed

strategies for Sanctuary management to ensure that

the goals and intent of the FKNMSPA are met.

Actions within these strategies cover activities on

land and water and cross many governmental

jurisdictions. It is clear that no single agency (whether

Federal, State, or local) has the regulatory authority

or resources to implement all of these actions. The

specific actions that make up alternatives are described in detail elsewhere in this document.

 Placing Strategies into Alternatives

The first step in placing strategies into alternatives

was to identify and describe how each alternative

might address the issues and affect species, habitats, use/users, and water quality. A summary matrix

was developed for each alternative. Next, each

activity/effect was assigned a proposed action from

the list of strategies that would meet the objectives.

Thus, the proposed strategies were assigned to

alternatives. This also provided an opportunity to

identify actions for which no strategy had been

developed.

Base Strategies. The Core Group felt that a subset

of the proposed strategies was essential to the

protection of Sanctuary resources regardless of

which alternative, other than Alternative V, was

chosen. These were termed "base" strategies. Once

they were identified, the Core Group moved on to

grading the remaining alternatives.

Grading Strategies across Alternatives. Grading

the remaining strategies across alternatives was

necessary to provide for a range of resource protection and use restrictions, and to ensure comprehensive management through zoning where the zones

could be modified as necessary to appropriately

manage resources and address user conflicts. The

iterative planning process resulted in a revised set of

alternatives (based on refinements in strategies). The

strategies included in the three mid-range alternatives appear in Table 18. Appendix G in Volume III

also contains a complete list of the strategies in each

of the three mid-range alternatives. A description of

how the alternatives were evaluated and compared in

order to select the Preferred Alternative appears later

in this volume.
136

Development of Management Alternatives Figure 26. Zoning Scheme for Alternative IV

25 Kilometers

81°00' 83°00' 82°00'

25°00'

N

1. Sawyer Keys

2. East Harbor Key3. Little Mullet Key

4. Upper Harbor Key

5. Little Crane Key

6. Boca Grande Key

7. Woman Key

8. Horseshoe Key

9. Cottrell Key

10. Marquesas Keys

11. Snipe Keys

12. Mud Keys

13. Big Mullet Key

14. Tidal flat south of Marvin Key

15. West Content Keys

16. East Content Keys

17. Bay Keys

18. Lower Harbor Keys

19. Cayo Agua Keys

Zone Type

Replenishment Reserves (a)

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (b)

Special-use Areas (c)

Wildlife Management Areas

Note: Draft Boundaries—designated boundaries will require 

Key Largo (a)

Carysfort/South Carysfort (b) 

Dry Rocks (b)

Grecian Rocks (b)

Molasses Reef (b)

Conch Reef (c)

Conch Reef (b)

Hen and Chickens (b)

Cheeca Rocks (b)

Alligator Reef (b)

Dry Tortugas (a) Sombrero Key (b)

Newfound Harbor (b)

Looe Key (c)

Pelican Shoal (c)

Sambos (a)

Western Sambo (b)

Sand Key (b)

Looe Key (b)

8

4 16 15

5 1

14 11

12

17 19

18

2

3

9

13

6 7 10

1010

Tennessee Reef (c)

groundtruthing.

25°30'

25°00'

24°30'
137

Development of Management Alternatives

Figure 27. Zoning Scheme for Alternative III

25 Kilometers

81°00' 83°00' 82°00'

N

1. Sawyer Keys2. East Harbor Key3. Little Mullet Key4. Upper Harbor Key

5. Little Crane Key

6. Boca Grande Key

7. Woman Key8. Horseshoe Key9. Cottrell Key

10. Marquesas Keys

11. Snipe Keys

12. Mud Keys

13. Big Mullet Key

20. Pelican Shoal

21. Crocodile Lake

22. Rodriguez Key

23. Tavernier Key

24. Snake Creek25. Cotton Key26. Dove Key

Zone Type

Replenishment Reserves (a)

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (b)

Special-use Areas (c)

Wildlife Management Areas

14. Tidal flat south of Marvin Key15. West Content Keys16. East Content Keys

17. Bay Keys

18. Lower Harbor Keys19. Cayo Agua Keys

Note: Draft Boundaries—designated boundaries will require 

Key Largo (a)

Carysfort/South Carysfort (b) 

The Elbow (b)

Dry Rocks (b)

Grecian Rocks (b)

French Reef (b)

Molasses Reef (b)

Conch Reef (b)

Conch Reef (c)

Hen and Chickens (b)

Davis Reef (b)

Cheeca Rocks (b)

Alligator Reef (b)

Tennessee Reef (c)

Dry Tortugas (a)

Coffins Patch (b)

Sombrero Key (b)

Newfound Harbor (b)

Looe Key (c)

Pelican Shoal (c)

Sambos (a)

Western Sambo (b)

Looe Key (b)

21

22

26

23

24

25

8

20

4 16 15

5 1 14

11 12

17

19

18 2

3

9

13

6 7 10

10

10

groundtruthing.

Rock Key (b) Eastern Dry Rocks (b)

Sand Key (b)

25°30'25°00'

24°30'
138

Development of Management Alternatives Figure 28. Zoning Scheme for Alternative II

25 Kilometers

81°00' 83°00' 82°00'

N

1. Sawyer Keys2. East Harbor Key3. Little Mullet Key4. Upper Harbor Key

5. Little Crane Key

6. Boca Grande Key

7. Woman Key8. Horseshoe Key9. Cottrell Key

10. Marquesas Keys

11. Snipe Keys

12. Mud Keys

13. Big Mullet Key

20. Pelican Shoal

21. Crocodile Lake

22. Rodriguez Key

23. Tavernier Key

24. Snake Creek25. Cotton Key26. Dove Key

27. Sawyer Key Flats Southwest28. Horseshoe Key/Mangrove Key29. Marquesas Keys30. Southwest Mud Keys31. Flats west of Bay Keys

32. Little Spanish Key Mangrove

Zone Type

Replenishment Reserves (a)

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (b)

Special-use Areas (c)

Wildlife Management Areas

14. Tidal flat south of Marvin Key15. West Content Keys16. East Content Keys

17. Bay Keys

18. Lower Harbor Keys19. Cayo Agua Keys

33. Cutoe Key

34. North Pine Channel Flats

35. Barracuda Key

36. Man Key

37. East Bahia Honda Key

Note: Draft Boundaries—designated boundaries will require 

Key Largo (a)

Carysfort/South Carysfort (b) 

The Elbow (b)

Dry Rocks (b)

Grecian Rocks (b)

French Reef (b)

Molasses Reef (b)

Conch Reef (c)

Conch Reef (b)

Hen and Chickens (b)

Davis Reef (b)

Cheeca Rocks (b)

Alligator Reef (b)

Tennessee Reef (c)

Dry Tortugas (a)

Coffins Patch (b)

Sombrero Key (b)

Newfound Harbor (b)

Looe Key (c)

Sambos (a)

Looe Key (a)

Pelican Shoal (c)

Western Sambo (b) Sand Key/

Eastern Dry Rocks/Rock Key (b)

Marquesas (a)

Lakes (a)

Key West (b)

Looe Key (b)

Pigeon Key (b)

Tennessee Reef (a)

Barnes Sound (a)

21

22

26

23

24

25

37

8

28

20

4 16 15

5 1 27

14

11

12

17

31 19

18

2

33

32

34

35

30 3

9

13

6 7 36 10

10

10

29

groundtruthing.

25°30'

25°00'

24°30'
139

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

 Boating

B.1.a. Boat Access

Conduct a survey to assess public and

private boat access throughout the

Sanctuary to develop a low-impact access

plan. Implement low-cost administrative

changes for public access (e.g., signage,

timing restrictions, closures, etc.).

B.1.b. Boat Access

Conduct a survey to assess public and

private boat access throughout the

Sanctuary to develop a low-impact access

plan; direct new public access to lowimpact areas; and modify as appropriate

any access affecting sensitive areas

throughout the Sanctuary.

B.1.c. Boat Access

Conduct a survey to assess public and

private boat access throughout the

Sanctuary to develop a low-impact access

plan; implement restrictions on new public

access; and require modification of public

and private access to reduce impacts to

resources and user conflicts throughout the

Sanctuary.

B.7.a. Pollution Discharges

Reduce pollution discharges (e.g., sanitary

wastes, debris, and hydrocarbons) from

vessels by enforcing existing regulations,

assessing the need for additional regulations, and implementing and enforcing new

regulations (i.e., upcoming regulation

restricting discharge in State waters).

Change the environmental crimes category

associated with discharges from felony to

civil offense, thereby removing the need to

prove criminal intent.

B.7.a. Pollution Discharges

Reduce pollution discharges (e.g., sanitary

wastes, debris, and hydrocarbons) from

vessels by enforcing existing regulations,

assessing the need for additional regulations, and implementing and enforcing new

regulations (i.e., upcoming regulation

restricting discharge in State waters).

Change the environmental crimes category

associated with discharges from felony to

civil offense, thereby removing the need to

prove criminal intent.

B.7.a. Pollution Discharges

Reduce pollution discharges (e.g., sanitary

wastes, debris, and hydrocarbons) from

vessels by enforcing existing regulations,

assessing the need for additional regulations, and implementing and enforcing new

regulations (i.e., upcoming regulation

restricting discharge in State waters).

Change the environmental crimes category

associated with discharges from felony to

civil offense, thereby removing the need to

prove criminal intent.

B.6.a. Additional Enforcement

Add 10 sanctuary enforcement officers to

deploy in high-use and sensitive areas.

B.6.b. Additional Enforcement

Add 30 sanctuary enforcement officers to

deploy in high-use and sensitive areas.

B.6.c. Additional Enforcement

Add 50 sanctuary enforcement officers to

deploy throughout the Sanctuary.

B.5.a. Boat Groundings

Develop a response plan for boat groundings throughout the Sanctuary.

B.5.a. Boat Groundings

Develop a response plan for boat groundings throughout the Sanctuary.

B.5.a. Boat Groundings

Develop a response plan for boat groundings throughout the Sanctuary.

B.4.a. Channel Marking

Establish a channel and “significant

features” marking system and associated

regulations regarding boat speeds and

wakes to reduce natural resource

damages, and implement in sensitive areas

(corals, hardbottoms, some mangrove

creeks, submerged aquatic vegetation).

B.4.b. Channel Marking

Establish a channel/waterway marking

system throughout the Sanctuary.

B.4.b. Channel Marking

Establish a channel/waterway marking

system throughout the Sanctuary.

B.3.a. Derelict Vessels

Develop a removal and disposal plan for

derelict and abandoned vessels throughout

the Sanctuary and streamline the existing

permitting process for the removal of

derelict and abandoned vessels from highuse and sensitive areas.

B.3.b. Derelict Vessels

Develop and implement a removal and

disposal plan for derelict and abandoned

vessels, streamline the permitting process,

and require the removal of all derelict and

abandoned vessels throughout the

Sanctuary.

B.3.b. Derelict Vessels

Develop and implement a removal and

disposal plan for derelict and abandoned

vessels, streamline the permitting process,

and require the removal of all derelict and

abandoned vessels throughout the

Sanctuary.

B.2.a. Habitat Restoration

Continue ongoing habitat restoration

activities and monitor recovery processes.

B.2.b. Habitat Restoration

Conduct a program of restoration research

at representative habitat sites within the

Sanctuary; develop a restoration plan and

implement restoration in severely impacted

areas. Monitor recovery processes.

B.2.c. Habitat Restoration

Conduct a program of restoration research

at representative habitat sites within the

Sanctuary; develop a restoration plan and

implement restoration in all impacted

areas. Monitor recovery processes.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

140

Development of Management Alternatives

B.8.a. User Fees

Conduct a boating fee assessment study to

evaluate and reallocate sanctuary-related

fees.

B.8.b. User Fees

Conduct a boating fee assessment study to

evaluate and reallocate sanctuary-related

fees; implement appropriate impact fees.

B.8.b. User Fees

Conduct a boating fee assessment study to

evaluate and reallocate sanctuary-related

fees; implement appropriate impact fees.

B.16.a. Dock Permitting

Identify subdivisions and coastal areas

where dock construction should be

prohibited due to inadequate surrounding

water depths and the presence of

important marine resources. Coordinate

the Federal, State, and local permitting

process for dock construction.

B.16.a. Dock Permitting

Identify subdivisions and coastal areas

where dock construction should be

prohibited due to inadequate surrounding

water depths and the presence of

important marine resources. Coordinate

the Federal, State, and local permitting

process for dock construction.

B.16.a. Dock Permitting

Identify subdivisions and coastal areas

where dock construction should be

prohibited due to inadequate surrounding

water depths and the presence of

important marine resources. Coordinate

the Federal, State, and local permitting

process for dock construction.

B.15.a. Mooring Buoy Impacts

Conduct an assessment of current mooring

buoy technology to determine impacts to

resources and to evaluate which are the

most environmentally sound, cost-effective,

and functional for use in sanctuary waters.

Develop a comprehensive mooring buoy

plan providing for the maintenance of

buoys, the placement of buoys as needed,

and the implementation of vessel size limits

at mooring buoys in sensitive areas.

B.15.b. Mooring Buoy Impacts

Conduct an assessment of current mooring

buoy technology to determine impacts to

resources and to evaluate which are the

most environmentally sound, cost-effective,

and functional for use in sanctuary waters.

Develop a comprehensive mooring buoy

plan providing for the maintenance of

buoys, the placement of buoys as needed,

and the implementation of vessel size limits

at mooring buoys throughout the Sanctuary.

B.15.b. Mooring Buoy Impacts

Conduct an assessment of current mooring

buoy technology to determine impacts to

resources and to evaluate which are the

most environmentally sound, cost-effective,

and functional for use in sanctuary waters.

Develop a comprehensive mooring buoy

plan providing for the maintenance of

buoys, the placement of buoys as needed,

and the implementation of vessel size limits

at mooring buoys throughout the Sanctuary.

B.13.a. Salvaging/Towing

Establish regulations and procedural

guidelines for commercial salvaging and

towing of vessels in need of assistance.

B.13.b. Salvaging/Towing

Establish regulations and procedural

guidelines for commercial salvaging and

towing of vessels in need of assistance.

Implement permitting for salvaging and

towing throughout the Sanctuary and

establish an operator training program.

B.13.c. Salvaging/Towing

Establish regulations and procedural

guidelines for commercial salvaging and

towing of vessels in need of assistance.

Implement permitting for salvaging and

towing throughout the Sanctuary and

require operator training.

B.12.a. Cross Deputization

Expand Federal/State/local cooperative law

enforcement and cross-deputization

programs and prioritize enforcement areas.

B.12.a. Cross Deputization

Expand Federal/State/local cooperative law

enforcement and cross-deputization

programs and prioritize enforcement areas.

B.12.a. Cross Deputization

Expand Federal/State/local cooperative law

enforcement and cross-deputization

programs and prioritize enforcement areas.

B.11.a. Special-use Permits

Establish permits (e.g., for researchers,

educators, emergency response personnel,

salvors, salvage operators, animal rescue

operations) to conduct activities otherwise

prohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitate

simplified permitting.

B.11.a Special-use Permits

Establish permits (e.g., for researchers,

educators, emergency response personnel,

salvors, salvage operators, animal rescue

operations) to conduct activities otherwise

prohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitate

simplified permitting.

B.11.a Special-use Permits

Establish permits (e.g., for researchers,

educators, emergency response personnel,

salvors, salvage operators, animal rescue

operations) to conduct activities otherwise

prohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitate

simplified permitting.

B.10.a. Damage Assessment

Establish damage assessment standards

for vessel groundings in the Sanctuary.

B.10.a. Damage Assessment

Establish damage assessment standards

for vessel groundings in the Sanctuary.

B.10.a. Damage Assessment

Establish damage assessment standards

for vessel groundings in the Sanctuary.

B.9.a. Visitor Registration

Establish a voluntary visitor registration

program to assess user activity in the

Sanctuary.

B.9.a. Visitor Registration

Establish a voluntary visitor registration

program to assess user activity in the

Sanctuary.

B.9.a. Visitor Registration

Establish a voluntary visitor registration

program to assess user activity in the

Sanctuary.
141

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

B.17.a. PWC Management

Develop and implement regulations for the

operation of PWC and other motorized

vessels within 100 yards of sensitive or

critical areas, other boats, and people in

the water. Develop and implement

regulations and procedural guidelines for

commercial PWC rental operations.

B.17.b. PWC Management

Develop and implement regulations for the

operation of PWC and other motorized

vessels within 200 yards of sensitive or

critical areas, other boats, and people in

the water. Develop and implement

regulations and procedural guidelines for

commercial PWC rental operations.

B.17.c. PWC Management

Develop and implement regulations for the

operation of PWC and other motorized

vessels within 300 yards of sensitive or

critical areas, other boats, and people in

the water. Develop and implement

regulations and procedural guidelines for

commercial PWC rental operations.

F.6.a. Fisheries Sampling

Enhance the resolution of existing

commercial and recreational fisheriesdependent sampling programs to provide

statistics on catch and effort at the

sanctuary level. Initiate a fisheriesindependent sampling program to measure

sanctuary-level prerecruitment of economically important species. Conduct a fisheries

inventory of species, sizes, ages, harvest,

by-catch, timing, distribution, users,

socioeconomics, and gear.

F.6.b. Fisheries Sampling

Enhance the resolution of existing

commercial and recreational fisheriesdependent and independent sampling

programs to provide statistics on catch and

effort. This will be accomplished by

establishing statistical areas based on

"completeness criteria" including scientific

need. Initiate fisheries-independent

sampling programs to measure the

prerecruitment of economically important

species within the statistical areas.

F.6.b. Fisheries Sampling

Enhance the resolution of existing

commercial and recreational fisheriesdependent and independent sampling

programs to provide statistics on catch and

effort. This will be accomplished by

establishing statistical areas based on

"completeness criteria" including scientific

need. Initiate fisheries-independent

sampling programs to measure the

prerecruitment of economically important

species within the statistical areas.

F.5.a. Limited Entry

Assess limited-entry fisheries options for

specific sanctuary fisheries. Develop

appropriate regulations that ensure the

long-term sustainability of sanctuary

fisheries.

F.5.b. Limited Entry

Assess limited-entry fisheries options for

specific sanctuary fisheries. Develop

appropriate regulations that ensure the

long-term sustainability of sanctuary

fisheries. Implement appropriate regulations on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

F.5.c. Limited Entry

Assess limited-entry fisheries options for

specific sanctuary fisheries. Develop

appropriate regulations that ensure the

long-term sustainability of sanctuary

fisheries. Implement regulations for all

sanctuary fisheries.

F.4.b. Mariculture Alternatives

Assess, develop, and promote mariculture

alternatives for all commercially harvested

marine species. Support efforts to eliminate

the harvest and landing of live rock.

F.4.c. Mariculture Alternatives

Develop and implement mariculture

alternatives for all commercially harvested

marine species. Support efforts to eliminate

the harvest and landing of live rock.

F.3.a. Stocking

Develop and conduct a research program

to assess the impacts of stocking programs

on the genetic integrity of native stocks

within the Sanctuary. The program will

also be used to develop and implement

appropriate regulations on the stocking of

native and non-native species to protect

the genetic integrity of native stocks.

F.3.b. Stocking

Implement a moratorium on stocking

activities. Assess existing research on the

impacts of stocking on the genetic integrity

of native stocks. Conduct research on

natural stock recovery and its role in

maintaining genetic integrity. Conduct a reevaluation of stocking options. The length

of the moratorium will depend on the length

and results of the assessment.

F.3.b. Stocking

Implement a moratorium on stocking

activities. Assess existing research on the

impacts of stocking on the genetic integrity

of native stocks. Conduct research on

natural stock recovery and its role in

maintaining genetic integrity. Conduct a reevaluation of stocking options. The length

of the moratorium will depend on the length

and results of the assessment.

 Fishing

F.1.a. Consistent Regulations

Establish a protocol for developing and

revising regulations and implement a

consistent set of fisheries regulations

throughout the Sanctuary.

F.1.a. Consistent Regulations

Establish a protocol for developing and

revising regulations and implement a

consistent set of fisheries regulations

throughout the Sanctuary.

F.1.a. Consistent Regulations

Establish a protocol for developing and

revising regulations and implement a

consistent set of fisheries regulations

throughout the Sanctuary.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

142

Development of Management Alternatives

F.7.a. Artificial Reefs

Conduct research on the impacts of

artificial reefs on fish and invertebrate

populations for long-term management

including location, size, materials, etc.

Monitor and evaluate habitat modifications

caused by the installation of marine

structures. Assess and develop regulations

for artificial reef construction and evaluate

habitat suitability for artificial reefs.

F.7.a. Artificial Reefs

Conduct research on the impacts of

artificial reefs on fish and invertebrate

populations for long-term management

including location, size, materials, etc.

Monitor and evaluate habitat modifications

caused by the installation of marine

structures. Assess and develop regulations

for artificial reef construction and evaluate

habitat suitability for artificial reefs.

F.7.c. Artificial Reefs

Implement a three-year moratorium on

artificial reef development. Conduct

research on the impacts of artificial reefs

on fish and invertebrate populations for

long-term management including locations,

size, materials, etc. Monitor and evaluate

habitat modifications caused by the

installation of marine structures. Assess

and develop regulations for artificial reef

construction and evaluate habitat suitability

for artificial reefs.

F.15.a. Sponge Harvest

Develop and conduct a research program

to assess the impacts of current sponge

harvest methods on the resource and the

habitats in which they occur. Develop and

implement regulations for high-priority

areas.

F.15.b. Sponge Harvest

Develop and conduct a research program

to assess the impacts of current sponge

harvest methods on the resource and the

habitats in which they occur. Develop and

implement regulations throughout the

Sanctuary.

F.15.c. Sponge Harvest

Establish a three-year moratorium on the

harvest of sponges. Develop and conduct a

research program to assess the impacts of

current sponge harvest methods on the

resource and the habitats in which they

occur. Develop regulations for implementation after the moratorium.

F.9.a. Gear Removal

Develop a program for the removal of lost

or out-of-season fishing gear, and

implement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.9.a Gear Removal

Develop a program for the removal of lost

or out-of-season fishing gear, and

implement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.9.a Gear Removal

Develop a program for the removal of lost

or out-of-season fishing gear, and

implement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.12.a. Finfish Traps

Eliminate all finfish traps within the

Sanctuary, excluding those set for bait fish.

F.12.a. Finfish Traps

Eliminate all finfish traps within the

Sanctuary, excluding those set for bait fish.

F.12.a. Finfish Traps

Eliminate all finfish traps within the

Sanctuary, excluding those set for bait fish.

F.14.a. Spearfishing

Conduct an assessment of spearfishing

practices and impacts to develop and

implement regulations in high-priority

areas.

F.14.a. Spearfishing

Conduct an assessment of spearfishing

practices and impacts to develop and

implement regulations in high-priority

areas.

F.14.c. Spearfishing

Conduct an assessment of spearfishing

practices and impacts to develop and

implement regulations throughout the

Sanctuary.

F.11.b. Gear/Method Impacts

Conduct research on alternative fishing

gear and methods that minimize impacts

on habitat. Implement a voluntary program

to encourage the use of low-impact gear

and methods. Implement regulations to

require the use of low-impact gear and

methods in priority areas. Characterize

harvesting stresses affecting outer and

inshore reefs and hardbottom ecosystems.

F.10.a. Bycatch

Conduct an assessment of methods used

to harvest commercial and recreational

marine species including corals, fish, and

invertebrates. Develop and implement

regulations to reduce the effects of current

fishing practices on nontargeted species.

F.10.a. Bycatch

Conduct an assessment of methods used

to harvest commercial and recreational

marine species including corals, fish, and

invertebrates. Develop and implement

regulations to reduce the effects of current

fishing practices on nontargeted species.

F.10.a. Bycatch

Conduct an assessment of methods used

to harvest commercial and recreational

marine species including corals, fish, and

invertebrates. Develop and implement

regulations to reduce the effects of current

fishing practices on nontargeted species.

F.11.a. Gear/Method Impacts

Conduct research on alternative fishing

gear and methods that minimize impacts

on habitat. Implement a voluntary program

to encourage the use of low-impact gear

and methods. Characterize harvesting

stresses affecting outer and inshore reefs

and hardbottom ecosystems.

F.8.a. Exotic Species

Implement regulations to prevent the

release of exotic species into the Sanctuary.

F.8.a. Exotic Species

Implement regulations to prevent the

release of exotic species into the Sanctuary.

F.8.a. Exotic Species

Implement regulations to prevent the

release of exotic species into the Sanctuary.

F.11.c. Gear/Method Impacts

Conduct research on alternative fishing

gear and methods that minimize impacts

on habitat. Implement regulations to

require the use of low-impact gear and

methods sanctuary-wide. Characterize

harvesting stresses affecting outer and

inshore reefs and hardbottom ecosystems.
143

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

 Land Use

L.1.a. Marina Pumpout

Require marinas that have pump-out

requirements to install pump-out facilities.

L.1.a. Marina Pumpout

Require marinas that have pump-out

requirements to install pump-out facilities.

L.1.a. Marina Pumpout

Require marinas that have pump-out

requirements to install pump-out facilities.

L.6.b. Mobil Pumpout

Establish a mobile pump-out service

through the local government or a

franchise with a private contractor which

would serve to pump-out live-aboard

vessels moored outside of marina facilities.

Encourage the use of existing, and the

construction of additional, shore-side

facilities such as dingy docks, parking

areas, showers, and laundries for use by

live-aboards.

L.6.b. Mobil Pumpout

Establish a mobile pump-out service

through the local government or a

franchise with a private contractor which

would serve to pump-out live-aboard

vessels moored outside of marina facilities.

Encourage the use of existing, and the

construction of additional, shore-side

facilities such as dingy docks, parking

areas, showers, and laundries for use by

live-aboards.

L.5.a. RV Waste Reduction

Expand enforcement activities to reduce

illegal waste disposal from RVs.

L.5.a. RV Waste Reduction

Expand enforcement activities to reduce

illegal waste disposal from RVs.

L.5.a. RV Waste Reduction

Expand enforcement activities to reduce

illegal waste disposal from RVs.

L.3.a. Fueling/Maintenance

Evaluate procedures to avoid or reduce

fuel spillage during refueling operations.

Initiate remedial solutions to any problems

identified.

L.3.b. Fueling/Maintenance

Evaluate procedures to avoid or reduce

fuel spillage during refueling operations.

Initiate remedial solutions to any problems

identified. Require the establishment of

paved and curbed containment areas for

boat maintenance activities such as hull

scraping and repainting, mechanical

repairs, and lubrication. Require the

creation of secondary containment,

generally in the form of curbing or synthetic

liners, for areas where significant quantities

of hazardous or toxic materials are stored.

L.3.b. Fueling/Maintenance

Evaluate procedures to avoid or reduce

fuel spillage during refueling operations.

Initiate remedial solutions to any problems

identified. Require the establishment of

paved and curbed containment areas for

boat maintenance activities such as hull

scraping and repainting, mechanical

repairs, and lubrication. Require the

creation of secondary containment,

generally in the form of curbing or synthetic

liners, for areas where significant quantities

of hazardous or toxic materials are stored.

L.4.a. RV Pumpout

Revise regulations to require public and

private RV parks to provide pump-out

facilities, and implement requirements

within three years.

L.4.a. RV Pumpout

Revise regulations to require public and

private RV parks to provide pump-out

facilities, and implement requirements

within three years.

L.4.a. RV Pumpout

Revise regulations to require public and

private RV parks to provide pump-out

facilities, and implement requirements

within three years.

L.2.a. Marina Operations

Conduct an assessment of marina (10 slips

or more) compliance with current regulations and standards, including OSHA

standards for marina operations. Evaluate

interagency cooperation in marina permit

review process and initiate action to

eliminate conflicts in agency jurisdictions.

Improve marina siting criteria to ensure that

only appropriate deep water access will be

permitted and to provide for the proper

handling of noxious materials.

L.2.a. Marina Operations

Conduct an assessment of marina (10 slips

or more) compliance with current regulations and standards, including OSHA

standards for marina operations. Evaluate

interagency cooperation in marina permit

review process and initiate action to

eliminate conflicts in agency jurisdictions.

Improve marina siting criteria to ensure that

only appropriate deep water access will be

permitted and to provide for the proper

handling of noxious materials.

L.2.a. Marina Operations

Conduct an assessment of marina (10 slips

or more) compliance with current regulations and standards, including OSHA

standards for marina operations. Evaluate

interagency cooperation in marina permit

review process and initiate action to

eliminate conflicts in agency jurisdictions.

Improve marina siting criteria to ensure that

only appropriate deep water access will be

permitted and to provide for the proper

handling of noxious materials.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

144

Development of Management Alternatives

L.7.a. SWD Problem Sites

Conduct an assessment to identify solid

waste disposal sites that pose threats to

water quality and/or sensitive areas, based

on the results of EPA's Water Quality Plan.

Intensify existing monitoring programs

around landfills to ensure that no leaching

is occurring into marine waters. If

problems are discovered, evaluate and

implement appropriate remedial actions

such as boring or mining, upgrading

closure, collecting and treating leachate,

constructing slurry walls, and excavating

and hauling landfill contents.

L.7.a. SWD Problem Sites

Conduct an assessment to identify solid

waste disposal sites that pose threats to

water quality and/or sensitive areas, based

on the results of EPA's Water Quality Plan.

Intensify existing monitoring programs

around landfills to ensure that no leaching

is occurring into marine waters. If

problems are discovered, evaluate and

implement appropriate remedial actions

such as boring or mining, upgrading

closure, collecting and treating leachate,

constructing slurry walls, and excavating

and hauling landfill contents.

L.7.a. SWD Problem Sites

Conduct an assessment to identify solid

waste disposal sites that pose threats to

water quality and/or sensitive areas, based

on the results of EPA's Water Quality Plan.

Intensify existing monitoring programs

around landfills to ensure that no leaching

is occurring into marine waters. If

problems are discovered, evaluate and

implement appropriate remedial actions

such as boring or mining, upgrading

closure, collecting and treating leachate,

constructing slurry walls, and excavating

and hauling landfill contents.

L.8.b. Containment Options

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of various solid waste containment/

relocation options. Implement containment/

relocation options where appropriate within

five years.

L.8.b. Containment Options

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of various solid waste containment/

relocation options. Implement containment/

relocation options where appropriate within

five years.

L.9.a. SWD Policy Compliance

Comply with Monroe County policies on

solid waste disposal.

L.9.a. SWD Policy Compliance

Comply with Monroe County policies on

solid waste disposal.

L.9.a. SWD Policy Compliance

Comply with Monroe County policies on

solid waste disposal.

L.10.a. HAZMAT Handling

Conduct an assessment and inventory of

hazardous materials handling and use in

the Florida Keys including facilities, types

and quantities of materials, and transport/

movement. Add information to the FDEP/

EPA/Monroe County GIS database.

L.10.a. HAZMAT Handling

Conduct an assessment and inventory of

hazardous materials handling and use in

the Florida Keys including facilities, types

and quantities of materials, and transport/

movement. Add information to the FDEP/

EPA/Monroe County GIS database.

L.10.a. HAZMAT Handling

Conduct an assessment and inventory of

hazardous materials handling and use in

the Florida Keys including facilities, types

and quantities of materials, and transport/

movement. Add information to the FDEP/

EPA/Monroe County GIS database.

L.11.a. HAZMAT License

Establish licensing requirements for

commercial handlers of hazardous

materials and biohazardous waste within

three years to reduce mishandling and

illegal disposal.

L.11.a. HAZMAT License

Establish licensing requirements for

commercial handlers of hazardous

materials and biohazardous waste within

three years to reduce mishandling and

illegal disposal.

L.11.a. HAZMAT License

Establish licensing requirements for

commercial handlers of hazardous

materials and biohazardous waste within

three years to reduce mishandling and

illegal disposal.

L.12.b. HAZMAT Collection

Establish a program to increase the

availability of hazardous materials

collection and transfer stations for

nonlicensed users (e.g., households, etc.)

within three years.

L.12.b. HAZMAT Collection

Establish a program to increase the

availability of hazardous materials

collection and transfer stations for

nonlicensed users (e.g., households, etc.)

within three years.

L.14.a. Dredging Prohibition

Prohibit new dredge and fill permits unless

public interest is demonstrated.

L.14.b. Dredging Prohibition

Prohibit new dredge and fill permits unless

public interest is demonstrated and there

will be little or no environmental degradation.

L.14.c. Dredging Prohibition

Prohibit new dredge and fill permits.

L.15.b. Dredging Regulation

Conduct an inventory and assessment of

maintenance dredging activities throughout

the Sanctuary. Implement low-impact

dredging methods for all maintenance

dredging. Avoid maintenance dredging

whenever possible.

L.15.b. Dredging Regulation

Conduct an inventory and assessment of

maintenance dredging activities throughout

the Sanctuary. Implement low-impact

dredging methods for all maintenance

dredging. Avoid maintenance dredging

whenever possible.

L.15.a. Dredging Regulation

Conduct an inventory and assessment of

current or recent maintenance dredging

activities throughout the Sanctuary.

L.8.a. Containment Options

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of various solid waste containment/

relocation options.
145

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

L.16.a. Water-use Reduction

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of water-use reduction and re-use options

and thresholds.

L.16.b. Water-use Reduction

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of water-use reduction and re-use options

and thresholds. Implement a plan for

water-use reduction and re-use for major

users within five years.

L.16.c. Water-use Reduction

Initiate a study to investigate the feasibility

of water-use reduction and re-use options

and thresholds. Implement a plan for

water-use reduction and re-use for all

users within five years.

R.2.a. Recreation Survey

Establish a routine survey of recreational

activities and use levels within the

Sanctuary through a survey of charter and

recreational-for-hire vessels, intercept

surveys at access points and launch sites,

and periodic field surveys.

R.2.a. Recreation Survey

Establish a routine survey of recreational

activities and use levels within the

Sanctuary through a survey of charter and

recreational-for-hire vessels, intercept

surveys at access points and launch sites,

and periodic field surveys.

R.2.c. Recreation Survey

Establish a routine survey of recreational

activities and use levels within the

Sanctuary through a survey of charter and

recreational-for-hire vessels, intercept

surveys at access points and launch sites,

and periodic field surveys. Establish a

permitting and enforcement system to

regulate use levels (e.g., number of boats,

divers, etc.) for charter and recreationalfor-hire vessels.

 Recreation

R.1.a. SCR Management

Develop and implement a program to

manage submerged cultural resources

(SCRs). Conduct an inventory of SCRs and

assess survey and extraction techniques

within the Sanctuary. Require permitting

throughout the Sanctuary.

R.1.b. SCR Management

Develop and implement a program to

manage SCRs. Conduct an inventory of

SCRs and assess survey and extraction

techniques within the Sanctuary. Require

permitting throughout the Sanctuary.

R.1.c. SCR Management

Develop and implement a program to

manage SCRs. Conduct an inventory of

SCRs and assess survey and extraction

techniques within the Sanctuary. Require

permitting throughout the Sanctuary.

L.20.a. Public Access

Conduct an assessment of existing public

access to shoreline areas. Develop

standards and guidelines for improvements

to, and construction of, public access

areas.

L.20.b. Public Access

Conduct an assessment of existing public

access to shoreline areas. Develop

standards and guidelines for improvements

to, and construction of, public access

areas. Acquire shoreline areas for

developing and/or regulating public access.

L.20.b. Public Access

Conduct an assessment of existing public

access to shoreline areas. Develop

standards and guidelines for improvements

to, and construction of, public access

areas. Acquire shoreline areas for

developing and/or regulating public access.

L.19.a. Growth Impacts

Conduct an evaluation of the Monroe

County Growth Plan for ecological impacts

on the Sanctuary. Identify and recommend

additional options to minimize short- and

long-term impacts.

L.19.a. Growth Impacts

Conduct an evaluation of the Monroe

County Growth Plan for ecological impacts

on the Sanctuary. Identify and recommend

additional options to minimize short- and

long-term impacts.

L.19.a. Growth Impacts

Conduct an evaluation of the Monroe

County Growth Plan for ecological impacts

on the Sanctuary. Identify and recommend

additional options to minimize short- and

long-term impacts.

L.18.b. Wetland Dredge and Fill

Restrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.18.b. Wetland Dredge and Fill

Restrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.18.a. Wetland Dredge and Fill

Restrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.17.a. Dredge and Fill Authority

Establish consistent interagency regulatory

authority addressing all dredge and fill

activities.

L.17.a. Dredge and Fill Authority

Establish consistent interagency regulatory

authority addressing all dredge and fill

activities.

L.17.a. Dredge and Fill Authority

Establish consistent interagency regulatory

authority addressing all dredge and fill

activities.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

146

Development of Management Alternatives

R.5.a. Carrying Capacity

Conduct a program to study and implement

carrying-capacity limits for recreation

activities by: 1) assessing the effects of

recreation and boating activities on

sanctuary resources; 2) establishing

recreational user carrying capacities that

minimize wildlife disturbances and other

adverse impacts on natural resources; and

3) enforcing carrying-capacity limits in

highly sensitive areas.

R.5.b. Carrying Capacity

Conduct a program to study and implement

carrying-capacity limits for recreation

activities by: 1) assessing the effects of

recreation and boating activities on

sanctuary resources; 2) establishing

recreational user carrying capacities that

minimize wildlife disturbances and other

adverse impacts on natural resources; and

3) enforcing carrying-capacity limits in highuse areas and for highly sensitive habitats

throughout the Sanctuary.

R.5.c. Carrying Capacity

Conduct a program to study and implement

carrying-capacity limits for recreation

activities by: 1) assessing the effects of

recreation and boating activities on

sanctuary resources; 2) establishing

recreational user carrying capacities that

minimize wildlife disturbances and other

adverse impacts on natural resources; and

3) enforcing carrying-capacity limits

throughout the Sanctuary.

 Water Quality

W.1.a. OSDS Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate alternate, nutrient-removing

OSDSs.

W.1.a. OSDS Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate alternate, nutrient-removing

OSDSs.

W.1.a. OSDS Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate alternate, nutrient-removing

OSDSs.

R.7.a. Coral Touching

Prohibit contact with corals in high-use,

sensitive, and vulnerable areas.

R.7.a. Coral Touching

Prohibit contact with corals in high-use,

sensitive, and vulnerable areas.

R.7.a. Coral Touching

Prohibit contact with corals in high-use,

sensitive, and vulnerable areas.

W.3.a. Wastewater Management

Systems

Establish authority for and implement

inspection/enforcement programs to

eliminate all cesspits and enforce existing

standards for all OSDSs and package

plants.

W.3.b. Wastewater Management

Systems

Establish authority for and implement

inspection/enforcement programs to

eliminate all cesspits and enforce existing

standards for all OSDSs and package

plants. Develop targets for reductions in

wastewater nutrient loadings necessary to

restore and maintain water quality and

sanctuary resources. Develop and

implement a Sanitary Wastewater Master

Plan that evaluates options for upgrading

existing systems beyond current standards

or constructing community sewage

treatment plants based on nutrient

reduction targets, cost and cost effectiveness, reliability/compliance considerations,

and environmental and socioeconomic

impacts.

W.3.b. Wastewater Management

Systems

Establish authority for and implement

inspection/enforcement programs to

eliminate all cesspits and enforce existing

standards for all OSDSs and package

plants. Develop targets for reductions in

wastewater nutrient loadings necessary to

restore and maintain water quality and

sanctuary resources. Develop and

implement a Sanitary Wastewater Master

Plan that evaluates options for upgrading

existing systems beyond current standards

or constructing community sewage

treatment plants based on nutrient

reduction targets, cost and cost effectiveness, reliability/compliance considerations,

and environmental and socioeconomic

impacts.

W.2.a. AWT Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate the installation of a small

expandable AWT plant to serve an area of

heavy OSDS use with associated water

quality problems.

W.2.a. AWT Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate the installation of a small

expandable AWT plant to serve an area of

heavy OSDS use with associated water

quality problems.

W.2.a. AWT Demonstration Project

Conduct a demonstration project to

evaluate the installation of a small

expandable AWT plant to serve an area of

heavy OSDS use with associated water

quality problems.
147

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

W.8.a. OSDS Permitting

Improve interagency coordination for

industrial wastewater discharge permitting.

Combine OSDS permitting responsibilities

in one agency for commercial establishments, institutions, and multi-family

residential establishments utilizing injection

wells.

W.5.a. Water Quality Standards

Develop and implement water quality

standards, including biocriteria, appropriate

to sanctuary resources.

W.5.a. Water Quality Standards

Develop and implement water quality

standards, including biocriteria, appropriate

to sanctuary resources.

W.5.a. Water Quality Standards

Develop and implement water quality

standards, including biocriteria, appropriate

to sanctuary resources.

W.6.a. NPDES Prog. Delegation

Delegate administration of the NPDES

program for Florida Keys dischargers to the

State of Florida.

W.6.a. NPDES Prog. Delegation

Delegate administration of the NPDES

program for Florida Keys dischargers to the

State of Florida.

W.6.a. NPDES Prog. Delegation

Delegate administration of the NPDES

program for Florida Keys dischargers to the

State of Florida.

W.7.b. Resource Monitoring of

Surface Discharge

Require all NPDES-permitted surface

dischargers to develop resource monitoring

programs.

W.7.b. Resource Monitoring of

Surface Discharge

Require all NPDES-permitted surface

dischargers to develop resource monitoring

programs.

W.9.a. Laboratory Facilities

Establish an interagency laboratory

capable of processing monitoring and

compliance samples.

W.9.a. Laboratory Facilities

Establish an interagency laboratory

capable of processing monitoring and

compliance samples.

W.9.a. Laboratory Facilities

Establish an interagency laboratory

capable of processing monitoring and

compliance samples.

W.10.a. Canal WQ

Inventory and characterize dead-end

canals/basins and investigate alternative

management strategies to improve their

water quality.

W.10.b. Canal WQ

Inventory and characterize dead-end

canals/basins and investigate alternative

management strategies to improve their

water quality. Implement improvements

(consistent with the strategies developed

for wastewater and stormwater) in known

hot spots throughout the Sanctuary.

W.10.c. Canal WQ

Inventory and characterize dead-end

canals/basins and investigate alternative

management strategies to improve their

water quality. Implement improvements

(consistent with the strategies developed

for wastewater and stormwater) throughout

the Sanctuary.

W.11.c. Stormwater Retrofitting

Identify and retrofit stormwater hot spots

and degraded areas using Best Management Practices", such as grass parking,

swales, pollution control structures, and

detention/retention facilities. Control

stormwater runoff in areas handling toxic

and hazardous materials. Install swales

and detention facilities along numerous

sections of US 1.

W.11.b. Stormwater Retrofitting

Identify and retrofit stormwater hot spots

using "Best Management Practices", such

as grass parking, swales, pollution control

structures, and detention/retention

facilities. Control stormwater runoff in

areas handling toxic and hazardous

materials. Install swales and detention

facilities along limited sections of US 1.

W.4.a. Wastewater Disposal, City of

Key West

Upgrade effluent disposal for the City of

Key West’s wastewater treatment plant.

Evaluate deep-well injection, including the

possibility of effluent migration through the

boulder zone into sanctuary waters.

Evaluate options for the re-use of effluent,

including irrigation and potable re-use.

Discontinue use of ocean outfall and

implement deep-well injection, aquifer

storage, and/or re-use. Implement nutrient

reduction technologies for effluent prior to

disposal or re-use.

W.4.a. Wastewater Disposal, City of

Key West

Upgrade effluent disposal for the City of

Key West’s wastewater treatment plant.

Evaluate deep-well injection, including the

possibility of effluent migration through the

boulder zone into sanctuary waters.

Evaluate options for the re-use of effluent,

including irrigation and potable re-use.

Discontinue use of ocean outfall and

implement deep-well injection, aquifer

storage, and/or re-use. Implement nutrient

reduction technologies for effluent prior to

disposal or re-use.

W.4.a. Wastewater Disposal, City of

Key West

Upgrade effluent disposal for the City of

Key West’s wastewater treatment plant.

Evaluate deep-well injection, including the

possibility of effluent migration through the

boulder zone into sanctuary waters.

Evaluate options for the re-use of effluent,

including irrigation and potable re-use.

Discontinue use of ocean outfall and

implement deep-well injection, aquifer

storage, and/or re-use. Implement nutrient

reduction technologies for effluent prior to

disposal or re-use.

W.8.a. OSDS Permitting

Improve interagency coordination for

industrial wastewater discharge permitting.

Combine OSDS permitting responsibilities

in one agency for commercial establishments, institutions, and multi-family

residential establishments utilizing injection

wells.

W.8.a. OSDS Permitting

Improve interagency coordination for

industrial wastewater discharge permitting.

Combine OSDS permitting responsibilities

in one agency for commercial establishments, institutions, and multi-family

residential establishments utilizing injection

wells.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

148

Development of Management Alternatives

W.18.a. Pesticide Research

Develop and implement an independent

research program to assess and investigate the impacts of, and alternatives to,

current pesticide practices. Modify the

Mosquito Control Program as necessary on

the basis of research findings.

W.18.a. Pesticide Research

Develop and implement an independent

research program to assess and investigate the impacts of, and alternatives to,

current pesticide practices. Modify the

Mosquito Control Program as necessary on

the basis of research findings.

W.18.a. Pesticide Research

Develop and implement an independent

research program to assess and investigate the impacts of, and alternatives to,

current pesticide practices. Modify the

Mosquito Control Program as necessary on

the basis of research findings.

W.12.a. Stormwater Permitting

Require that no development in the Florida

Keys be exempted from the stormwater

permitting process.

W.12.a. Stormwater Permitting

Require that no development in the Florida

Keys be exempted from the stormwater

permitting process.

W.12.a. Stormwater Permitting

Require that no development in the Florida

Keys be exempted from the stormwater

permitting process.

W.13.a. Stormwater Management

Require local governments to enact and

implement stormwater management

ordinances and comprehensive stormwater

management master plans. Petition the

EPA to include the Florida Keys in the

stormwater NPDES program if adequate

stormwater management ordinances and

administrative capabilities to manage such

ordinances are not in place by a certain

date.

W.13.a. Stormwater Management

Require local governments to enact and

implement stormwater management

ordinances and comprehensive stormwater

management master plans. Petition the

EPA to include the Florida Keys in the

stormwater NPDES program if adequate

stormwater management ordinances and

administrative capabilities to manage such

ordinances are not in place by a certain

date.

W.13.a. Stormwater Management

Require local governments to enact and

implement stormwater management

ordinances and comprehensive stormwater

management master plans. Petition the

EPA to include the Florida Keys in the

stormwater NPDES program if adequate

stormwater management ordinances and

administrative capabilities to manage such

ordinances are not in place by a certain

date.

W.19.a. FL Bay Freshwater Flow

The Steering Committee for the Water

Quality Protection Program shall take a

leading role in restoring the historical

freshwater flow to Florida Bay. In addition,

sanctuary representatives should work with

the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to ensure that restoration plans

and surface water management and

improvement plans for South Florida and

the Everglades are compatible with efforts

to maintain water quality within the

Sanctuary.

W.14.a. Best Management Practices

Institute a series of Best Management

Practices and a public education program

to prevent pollutants from entering

stormwater runoff.

W.14.a. Best Management Practices

Institute a series of Best Management

Practices and a public education program

to prevent pollutants from entering

stormwater runoff.

W.14.a. Best Management Practices

Institute a series of Best Management

Practices and a public education program

to prevent pollutants from entering

stormwater runoff.

W.15.a. HAZMAT Response

Improve and expand oil and hazardous

materials response programs throughout

the Sanctuary.

W.15.a. HAZMAT Response

Improve and expand oil and hazardous

materials response programs throughout

the Sanctuary.

W.15.a. HAZMAT Response

Improve and expand oil and hazardous

materials response programs throughout

the Sanctuary.

W.16.a. Spill Reporting

Establish a reporting system to ensure that

all spills in and near the Sanctuary are

reported to sanctuary managers and

managers of impacted areas within the

Sanctuary. Establish a geo-referenced

sanctuary spills database.

W.16.a Spill Reporting

Establish a reporting system to ensure that

all spills in and near the Sanctuary are

reported to sanctuary managers and

managers of impacted areas within the

Sanctuary. Establish a geo-referenced

sanctuary spills database.

W.16.a Spill Reporting

Establish a reporting system to ensure that

all spills in and near the Sanctuary are

reported to sanctuary managers and

managers of impacted areas within the

Sanctuary. Establish a geo-referenced

sanctuary spills database.

W.17.a Mosquito Spraying

Refine the aerial spraying program to

further reduce aerial spraying over marine

areas.

W.17.a. Mosquito Spraying

Refine the aerial spraying program to

further reduce aerial spraying over marine

areas.

W.19.a. FL Bay Freshwater Flow

The Steering Committee for the Water

Quality Protection Program shall take a

leading role in restoring the historical

freshwater flow to Florida Bay. In addition,

sanctuary representatives should work with

the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to ensure that restoration plans

and surface water management and

improvement plans for South Florida and

the Everglades are compatible with efforts

to maintain water quality within the

Sanctuary.

W.19.a. FL Bay Freshwater Flow

The Steering Committee for the Water

Quality Protection Program shall take a

leading role in restoring the historical

freshwater flow to Florida Bay. In addition,

sanctuary representatives should work with

the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to ensure that restoration plans

and surface water management and

improvement plans for South Florida and

the Everglades are compatible with efforts

to maintain water quality within the

Sanctuary.

W.17.c. Mosquito Spraying

Eliminate all aerial pesticide spraying within

five years.
149

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

W.20.a. WQ Monitoring

Conduct a long-term, comprehensive water

quality monitoring program as described in

the EPA Water Quality Protection Program.

W.20.a. WQ Monitoring

Conduct a long-term, comprehensive water

quality monitoring program as described in

the EPA Water Quality Protection Program.

W.20.a. WQ Monitoring

Conduct a long-term, comprehensive water

quality monitoring program as described in

the EPA Water Quality Protection Program.

W.26.a. Indicators

Develop diagnostic indicators of water

quality problems (e.g., tissue C:N:P ratios,

alkaline phosphate activity, and shifts in

community structure by habitat). Conduct

research to identify and evaluate indicators

(biochemical and ecological measures to

provide early warning of widespread

ecological problems) in each type of

ecosystem.

W.26.a. Indicators

Develop diagnostic indicators of water

quality problems (e.g., tissue C:N:P ratios,

alkaline phosphate activity, and shifts in

community structure by habitat). Conduct

research to identify and evaluate indicators

(biochemical and ecological measures to

provide early warning of widespread

ecological problems) in each type of

ecosystem.

W.26.a. Indicators

Develop diagnostic indicators of water

quality problems (e.g., tissue C:N:P ratios,

alkaline phosphate activity, and shifts in

community structure by habitat). Conduct

research to identify and evaluate indicators

(biochemical and ecological measures to

provide early warning of widespread

ecological problems) in each type of

ecosystem.

W.25.a. WQ Impact Research

Conduct research to identify and document

causal linkages between water quality

(e.g., levels of pollutants, nutrients, salinity,

temperature, etc.) and ecological problems

in each major ecosystem.

W.25.a. WQ Impact Research

Conduct research to identify and document

causal linkages between water quality

(e.g., levels of pollutants, nutrients, salinity,

temperature, etc.) and ecological problems

in each major ecosystem.

W.25.a. WQ Impact Research

Conduct research to identify and document

causal linkages between water quality

(e.g., levels of pollutants, nutrients, salinity,

temperature, etc.) and ecological problems

in each major ecosystem.

W.24.a. Florida Bay Influence

Conduct research to understand the effect

of water transport from Florida Bay on

water quality and resources in the

Sanctuary.

W.24.a. Florida Bay Influence

Conduct research to understand the effect

of water transport from Florida Bay on

water quality and resources in the

Sanctuary.

W.24.a. Florida Bay Influence

Conduct research to understand the effect

of water transport from Florida Bay on

water quality and resources in the

Sanctuary.

W.23.a. Leachate Transport

Conduct a hydrologic/geologic assessment

of leachate transport (e.g., from injection

wells, land fills, storage tanks, etc.) into

nearshore waters. Determine whether, and

in what quantities, groundwater nutrients

are reaching sanctuary waters including

the Florida Reef Tract.

W.23.a. Leachate Transport

Conduct a hydrologic/geologic assessment

of leachate transport (e.g., from injection

wells, land fills, storage tanks, etc.) into

nearshore waters. Determine whether, and

in what quantities, groundwater nutrients

are reaching sanctuary waters including

the Florida Reef Tract.

W.23.a. Leachate Transport

Conduct a hydrologic/geologic assessment

of leachate transport (e.g., from injection

wells, land fills, storage tanks, etc.) into

nearshore waters. Determine whether, and

in what quantities, groundwater nutrients

are reaching sanctuary waters including

the Florida Reef Tract.

W.22.a. Pollutant Assessment

Develop a segmentation framework to

identify surface water areas sharing

common hydrographic properties affecting

water quality. Determine the susceptibility

of each segment to pollutants based upon

all loadings (i.e., land- and water-based)

and segment specific hydrographic

properties affecting their retention.

W.22.a. Pollutant Assessment

Develop a segmentation framework to

identify surface water areas sharing

common hydrographic properties affecting

water quality. Determine the susceptibility

of each segment to pollutants based upon

all loadings (i.e., land- and water-based)

and segment specific hydrographic

properties affecting their retention.

W.22.a. Pollutant Assessment

Develop a segmentation framework to

identify surface water areas sharing

common hydrographic properties affecting

water quality. Determine the susceptibility

of each segment to pollutants based upon

all loadings (i.e., land- and water-based)

and segment specific hydrographic

properties affecting their retention.

W.21.a. Predictive Models

Develop phased hydrodynamic/water

quality models and coupled, landscapelevel ecological models to predict and

evaluate the outcome of in-place and

proposed water quality management

strategies.

W.21.a. Predictive Models

Develop phased hydrodynamic/water

quality models and coupled, landscapelevel ecological models to predict and

evaluate the outcome of in-place and

proposed water quality management

strategies.

W.21.a. Predictive Models

Develop phased hydrodynamic/water

quality models and coupled, landscapelevel ecological models to predict and

evaluate the outcome of in-place and

proposed water quality management

strategies.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

150

Development of Management Alternatives

W.33.a. Ecological Monitoring

Develop and implement a sanctuary-wide,

intensive ecosystem monitoring program.

The objective of the program will be to

monitor the status of various biological and

ecological indicators of system components throughout the Sanctuary and

adjacent areas in order to discern the local

and system-wide effects of human and

natural disturbances and assess the overall

health of the Sanctuary.

W.33.a. Ecological Monitoring

Develop and implement a sanctuary-wide,

intensive ecosystem monitoring program.

The objective of the program will be to

monitor the status of various biological and

ecological indicators of system components throughout the Sanctuary and

adjacent areas in order to discern the local

and system-wide effects of human and

natural disturbances and assess the overall

health of the Sanctuary.

W.33.a. Ecological Monitoring

Develop and implement a sanctuary-wide,

intensive ecosystem monitoring program.

The objective of the program will be to

monitor the status of various biological and

ecological indicators of system components throughout the Sanctuary and

adjacent areas in order to discern the local

and system-wide effects of human and

natural disturbances and assess the overall

health of the Sanctuary.

W.27.a. Other Monitoring Tools

Conduct research to identify and evaluate

innovative monitoring tools and methodologies to detect pollutants and identify cause/

effect relationships involving water quality

and biological resources.

W.27.a. Other Monitoring Tools

Conduct research to identify and evaluate

innovative monitoring tools and methodologies to detect pollutants and identify cause/

effect relationships involving water quality

and biological resources.

W.27.a. Other Monitoring Tools

Conduct research to identify and evaluate

innovative monitoring tools and methodologies to detect pollutants and identify cause/

effect relationships involving water quality

and biological resources.

W.32.a. Advisory Committee

Establish a technical advisory committee

for coordinating and guiding research and

monitoring activities.

W.32.a. Advisory Committee

Establish a technical advisory committee

for coordinating and guiding research and

monitoring activities.

W.32.a. Advisory Committee

Establish a technical advisory committee

for coordinating and guiding research and

monitoring activities.

W.31.a. Global Change

Examine the effects of global climate

change on the organisms and ecosystems

of the Keys.

W.31.a. Global Change

Examine the effects of global climate

change on the organisms and ecosystems

of the Keys.

W.31.a. Global Change

Examine the effects of global climate

change on the organisms and ecosystems

of the Keys.

W.28.a. Regional Database

Establish a regional database and data

management system for recording

research results and biological, physical,

and chemical parameters associated with

sanctuary monitoring programs.

W.28.a. Regional Database

Establish a regional database and data

management system for recording

research results and biological, physical,

and chemical parameters associated with

sanctuary monitoring programs.

W.28.a. Regional Database

Establish a regional database and data

management system for recording

research results and biological, physical,

and chemical parameters associated with

sanctuary monitoring programs.

W.29.a. Diss. of Research Findings

Develop a program to disseminate

scientific research results including an

information exchange network, conferences, and support for the publication of

research findings in peer-reviewed

scientific journals.

W.29.a. Diss. of Research Findings

Develop a program to disseminate

scientific research results including an

information exchange network, conferences, and support for the publication of

research findings in peer-reviewed

scientific journals.

W.29.a. Diss. of Research Findings

Develop a program to disseminate

scientific research results including an

information exchange network, conferences, and support for the publication of

research findings in peer-reviewed

scientific journals.

 Zoning

Z.1.a. Wildlife Management Areas

Establish wildlife management areas that

restrict access to especially sensitive

wildlife populations and habitats. Such

areas would include bird nesting, resting,

or feeding areas and turtle nesting

beaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,

modify the way areas are used or

accessed, and specify time periods when

use is prohibited.

Z.1.b. Wildlife Management Areas

Establish wildlife management areas that

restrict access to especially sensitive

wildlife populations and habitats. Such

areas would include bird nesting, resting,

or feeding areas and turtle nesting

beaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,

modify the way areas are used or

accessed, and specify time periods when

use is prohibited.

Z.1.c. Wildlife Management Areas

Establish wildlife management areas that

restrict access to especially sensitive

wildlife populations and habitats. Such

areas would include bird nesting, resting,

or feeding areas and turtle nesting

beaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,

modify the way areas are used or

accessed, and specify time periods when

use is prohibited.
151

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

Z.2.a. Replenishment Reserves

Replenishment Reserves are designed to

encompass large, contiguous diverse

habitats. They are intended to provide

natural spawning, nursery, and permanent

residence areas for the replenishment and

genetic protection of marine life and to

protect and preserve all habitats and

species. These reserves are intended to

protect areas that represent the full range

and diversity of resources and habitats

found throughout the Sanctuary. The

intent is to meet these objectives by

minimizing human influences within these

areas.

Z.2.b. Replenishment Reserves

Replenishment Reserves are designed to

encompass large, contiguous diverse

habitats. They are intended to provide

natural spawning, nursery, and permanent

residence areas for the replenishment and

genetic protection of marine life and to

protect and preserve all habitats and

species. These reserves are intended to

protect areas that represent the full range

of diversity of resources and habitats found

throughout the Sanctuary. The intent is to

meet these objectives by minimizing

human influences within these areas.

Z.2.c. Replenishment Reserves

Replenishment Reserves are designed to

encompass large, contiguous diverse

habitats. They are intended to provide

natural spawning, nursery, and permanent

residence areas for the replenishment and

genetic protection of marine life and to

protect and preserve all habitats and

species. These reserves are intended to

protect areas that represent the full range

of diversity of resources and habitats found

throughout the Sanctuary. The intent is to

meet these objectives by minimizing

human influences within these areas.

Z.5.a. Special-use Area

Establish zones to address special-use

activities and concerns within the Sanctuary. These zones can be used to set aside

areas for educational and scientific

purposes, restorative, monitoring, or

research activities or to establish areas that

confine or restrict activities such as power

boat racing and personal watercraft use in

order to minimize impacts on sensitive

habitats and to reduce user conflicts. This

zone type will also establish live-aboard

areas and mooring fields in areas where

adverse environmental impacts will be

minimal.

Z.3.a. Sanctuary PreservationAreas

Establish nonconsumptive Sanctuary

Preservation Areas in a select number of

areas that are experiencing a high degree

of conflict between consumptive and

nonconsumptive uses and in discrete areas

that are currently experiencing significant

population or habitat declines. These areas

will provide for the protection and sustenance of resources, particularly select

marine species in high-use and biologically

important areas.

Z.3.b Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Establish nonconsumptive Sanctuary

Preservation Areas in a number of areas

that are experiencing a high degree of

conflict between consumptive and

nonconsumptive uses, and in discrete

areas that are currently experiencing

significant population or habitat declines.

These areas will provide for the protection

and sustenance of resources, particularly

select marine species in high-use and

biologically important areas.

Z.3.c Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Establish nonconsumptive Sanctuary

Preservation Areas in numerous areas that

are experiencing a high degree of conflict

between consumptive and nonconsumptive

uses, and in discrete areas that are

currently experiencing significant population or habitat declines. These areas will

provide for the protection and sustenance

of resources, particularly select marine

species in high-use and biologically

important areas.

Z.4.a. Existing Management Areas

Establish an Existing Management Area

that recognizes areas that are managed by

other agencies where restrictions already

exist. Management of these areas within

the Sanctuary may require additional

regulations or restrictions to adequately

protect resources. Any additional

management measures will be developed

and implemented in coordination with the

agency having jurisdictional authority.

Z.4.a. Existing Management Areas

Establish an Existing Management Area

that recognizes areas that are managed by

other agencies where restrictions already

exist. Management of these areas within

the Sanctuary may require additional

regulations or restrictions to adequately

protect resources. Any additional

management measures will be developed

and implemented in coordination with the

agency having jurisdictional authority.

Z.4.a. Existing Management Areas

Establish an Existing Management Area

that recognizes areas that are managed by

other agencies where restrictions already

exist. Management of these areas within

the Sanctuary may require additional

regulations or restrictions to adequately

protect resources. Any additional

management measures will be developed

and implemented in coordination with the

agency having jurisdictional authority.

Z.5.a. Special-use Area

Establish zones to address special-use

activities and concerns within the Sanctuary. These zones can be used to set aside

areas for educational and scientific

purposes, restorative, monitoring, or

research activities or to establish areas that

confine or restrict activities such as power

boat racing and personal watercraft use in

order to minimize impacts on sensitive

habitats and to reduce user conflicts. This

zone type will also establish live-aboard

areas and mooring fields in areas where

adverse environmental impacts will be

minimal.

Z.5.c. Special-use Areas

Establish zones to address special-use

activities and concerns within the Sanctuary. These zones can be used to set aside

areas for educational and scientific

purposes, restorative, monitoring, or

research activities or to establish areas -

limited in size and number - that confine or

restrict activities, such as powerboat racing

and personal watercraft use, in order to

minimize impacts on sensitive habitats and

to reduce user conflicts. This zone type

will also establish a limited number of liveaboard areas and mooring fields in areas

where adverse environmental impacts will

be minimal.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

152

Development of Management Alternatives

 Education

E.1.a. Printed Materials

Develop printed materials to promote

public awareness, specifically targeting

boaters and divers/snorkelers, of the

impacts of their activities on the

Sanctuary's resources and environmental

quality. Promote the proper use of

equipment used for these activities in order

to minimize adverse impacts to natural

resources. Materials will include brochures, posters, newsletters and contributions to periodicals. Distribute materials in

bulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,

marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, etc.).

E.1.b. Printed Materials

Develop printed materials to promote

public awareness of the impact of their

activities, both land- and water-related, on

the Sanctuary's resources and environmental quality. Promote the proper use of

equipment used for these activities in order

to minimize adverse impacts to natural

resources. Materials will include brochures, posters, newsletters, contributions

to periodicals, environmental nautical

charts, color environmental atlases, and a

color periodical. Distribute materials in

bulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,

marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, other

businesses etc.) and include bulk mailings

as a means of distribution.

E.1.b. Printed Materials

Develop printed materials to promote

public awareness of the impact of their

activities, both land- and water-related, on

the Sanctuary's resources and environmental quality. Promote the proper use of

equipment used for these activities in order

to minimize adverse impacts to natural

resources. Materials will include brochures, posters, newsletters, contributions

to periodicals, environmental nautical

charts, color environmental atlases, and a

color periodical. Distribute materials in

bulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,

marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, other

businesses etc.) and include bulk mailings

as a means of distribution.

E.3.a. Signs/Displays/Exhibits

Develop signs/displays at high-use areas

and public and private boat ramps to inform

participants in water-based activities of

regulations and environmentally sound

practices, provide navigation information,

and promote awareness of sensitive areas.

Produce portable displays with information

on sanctuary resources, regulations,

environmental quality, etc. A limited

number of signs will be multi-lingual.

E.3.b. Signs/Displays/Exhibits

Develop signs/displays at high-use areas,

all public and some private boat ramps,

and some public beach access areas to

inform participants in water-based activities

of regulations and environmentally sound

practices, provide navigation information,

and promote awareness of nearby

sensitive areas. Portable displays will also

be produced with information on sanctuary

resources, regulations, environmental

quality, etc. Most of the signs will be multilingual. Targeted multi-media displays will

be developed with information and impacts

on the Sanctuary relevant to the activity

targeted. A number of wayside exhibits will

be installed.

Develop a user-friendly computer system

containing information on regulations,

access, recreational sites, environmental

etiquette, etc. for visitor use at selected

sites throughout the Sanctuary within five

years.

E.3.b. Signs/Displays/Exhibits

Develop signs/displays at high-use areas,

all public and some private boat ramps,

and some public beach access areas to

inform participants in water-based activities

of regulations and environmentally sound

practices, provide navigation information,

and promote awareness of nearby

sensitive areas. Portable displays will also

be produced with information on sanctuary

resources, regulations, environmental

quality, etc. Most of the signs will be multilingual. Targeted multi-media displays will

be developed with information and impacts

on the Sanctuary relevant to the activity

targeted. A number of wayside exhibits will

be installed.

Develop a user-friendly computer system

containing information on regulations,

access, recreational sites, environmental

etiquette, etc. for visitor use at selected

sites throughout the Sanctuary within five

years.

E.2.b. Audio-Visual Media

Inventory and use existing videos, films,

and audio/visual environmental education

materials portraying activities in the Florida

Keys and their impacts on sanctuary

resources. Produce a limited number of

audios/videos to address gaps in available

materials and to address major activities

including boating, fishing, diving, etc.

Materials will be available at sanctuary

offices and will be distributed to key

locations (dive shops, etc.) throughout

South Florida.

E.2.a. Audio-Visual Media

Inventory and use existing videos, films,

and audio materials portraying activities in

the Florida Keys and their impacts on

sanctuary resources. Materials will be

available from sanctuary offices.

E.2.b. Audio-Visual Media

Inventory and use existing videos, films,

and audio/visual environmental education

materials portraying activities in the Florida

Keys and their impacts on sanctuary

resources. Produce a limited number of

audios/videos to address gaps in available

materials and to address major activities

including boating, fishing, diving, etc.

Materials will be available at sanctuary

offices and will be distributed to key

locations (dive shops, etc.) throughout

South Florida.
153

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

Development of Management Alternatives

E.9.c. Ecotourism Promoter

Establish an ecotourism coordinator/

promoter position for the Sanctuary within

three years.

E.5.b. PSAs

Establish a program to promote Sanctuary

goals and activities through public service

announcements (PSAs) in South Florida,

with some national and international public

exposure, that presents an overview of the

Sanctuary, its resources and their

ecological significance for routine distribution to radio, cable television stations, and

newspapers. Develop editorial/contributions for other printed media. Funds will be

spent on routine media exposure. PSAs

would focus on participants in water-related

and other activities that affect the Sanctuary (boaters, divers, household etc.).

These materials will also be organized into

a press packet.

E.5.a. PSAs

Establish a program to promote Sanctuary

goals and activities through public service

announcements (PSAs) in Monroe County

that presents an overview of the Sanctuary,

its resources, and their ecological

significance for limited "no-cost" distribution

to radio, cable television stations, and

newspapers. Develop limited editorial/

contributions for other printed media.

PSAs will focus on participants in waterrelated activities (boaters, divers, etc.).

These materials will also be organized into

a press packet.

E.5.b. PSAs

Establish a program to promote Sanctuary

goals and activities through public service

announcements (PSAs) in South Florida,

with some national and international public

exposure, that presents an overview of the

Sanctuary, its resources and their

ecological significance for routine distribution to radio, cable television stations, and

newspapers. Develop editorial/contributions for other printed media. Funds will be

spent on routine media exposure. PSAs

would focus on participants in water-related

and other activities that affect the Sanctuary (boaters, divers, household etc.).

These materials will also be organized into

a press packet.

E.7.a. Promotional

Promote educational materials and other

information about the Sanctuary and its

resources at existing sanctuary offices.

E.7.b. Promotional

Promote educational materials, including

bilingual materials and other information

about the Sanctuary and its resources, at

existing sanctuary offices and Chambers of

Commerce. Establish an interagency

visitor center with the U.S. DOI and the

Florida DEP.

E.7.c. Promotional

Promote educational materials, including

bilingual materials and other information

about the Sanctuary and its resources, in a

visitor center established by and dedicated

solely to the Sanctuary. Other smaller

centers will be established at major resort

locations. Booths/displays will be

established in remote locations.

E.6.b. Advisory Council

Establish an education advisory council to

advise educators on education goals,

priorities and funding sources for the

Sanctuary. A full-time staff person will be

provided.

E.6.b. Advisory Council

Establish an education advisory council to

advise educators on education goals,

priorities and funding sources for the

Sanctuary. A full-time staff person will be

provided.

E.4.a. Training/Workshops/School

Programs

Develop oportunities for instruction and

training. This will include programs

conducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,

and volunteers. Training programs (e.g.,

Coral Reef Classroom, submerged cultural

resources, etc.) will also be provided for

teachers, environmental professionals,

business owners and operators, and law

enforcement officials.

E.4.b. Training/Workshops/School

Programs

Develop oportunities for instruction and

training. This will include programs (both

on the primary and secondary level)

conducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,

and volunteers. Participation in existing

environmental education programs would

also be established, and some programs

would be expanded. Training programs

(e.g., Coral Reef Classroom, submerged

cultural resources, etc.) will also be

provided for teachers, environmental

professionals, business owners and

operators, and law enforcement officials.

E.4.b. Training/Workshops/School

Programs

Develop oportunities for instruction and

training. This will include programs (both

on the primary and secondary level)

conducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,

and volunteers. Participation in existing

environmental education programs would

also be established, and some programs

would be expanded. Training programs

(e.g., Coral Reef Classroom, submerged

cultural resources, etc.) will also be

provided for teachers, environmental

professionals, business owners and

operators, and law enforcement officials.
Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II

154

Development of Management Alternatives

E.10.a. Public Forum

Establish a program to ensure public

involvement throughout South Florida in

Sanctuary activities by holding public

meetings and promoting Sanctuary

awareness to extracurricular groups.

E.10.b. Public Forum

Establish a program to ensure public

involvement throughout South Florida in

Sanctuary activities by holding public

meetings and promoting Sanctuary

awareness to extracurricular groups. A

Sanctuary "hot line" will be established for

the public to report information concerning

the Sanctuary. A program will also be

established to provide Sanctuary sponsorship of contests/awards.

E.10.b. Public Forum

Establish a program to ensure public

involvement throughout South Florida in

Sanctuary activities by holding public

meetings and promoting Sanctuary

awareness to extracurricular groups. A

Sanctuary "hot line" will be established for

the public to report information concerning

the Sanctuary. A program will also be

established to provide Sanctuary sponsorship of contests/awards.

E.11.a. Special Events

Organize, support, and/or participate in

special events (e.g., trade shows,

expositions, grand openings, etc.) that

allow for the exchange of Sanctuary

information. The Sanctuary will co-sponsor

a limited number of conferences and

workshops.

E.11.b. Special Events

Organize, support, and/or participate in

special events (e.g., trade shows,

expositions, grand openings, etc.) that

allow for the exchange of Sanctuary

information.The Sanctuary will co-sponsor

a number of conferences and workshops,

with selected sole sponsorship of some

events. This would include a "Sanctuary

Awareness Week" and a "grand opening"

to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Program

would co-sponsor other "awareness"

events/weeks (e.g., National Fishing Week,

etc.).

E.11.b. Special Events

Organize, support, and/or participate in

special events (e.g., trade shows,

expositions, grand openings, etc.) that

allow for the exchange of Sanctuary

information.The Sanctuary will co-sponsor

a number of conferences and workshops,

with selected sole sponsorship of some

events. This would include a "Sanctuary

Awareness Week" and a "grand opening"

to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Program

would co-sponsor other "awareness"

events/weeks (e.g., National Fishing Week,

etc.).
155

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

This chapter compares the differences in environmental impacts among the management alternatives

being considered for the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Management Plan, focusing primarily on

three mid-range alternatives that achieve the purposes of the FKNMSPA. Evaluating and comparing

the potential environmental impacts of each alternative involve assessing the impacts to the natural

environment of implementing the proposed management strategies. This is an important step in the

process of selecting a preferred management

alternative.

Review of Management Alternatives. The development and review of management alternatives are

required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) as a part of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) development process. A series of

alternatives with varied levels of resource protection

and use restrictions was generated from the strategies developed at the February 1992 Strategy Work

Session in Marathon, FL. Specific strategies were not

produced for Alternatives I (total restriction of uses,

except for research) and V (status quo/no action),

because these alternatives do not meet the requirements of the FKNMSPA and NMSA to protect

resources and facilitate multiple uses. Strategies

included in Alternative IV are generally included in

Alternatives III and II; the latter contain increased

levels of protection, additional regulations or management actions, or require implementation over a

broader area. Alternatives III and II also contain

strategies not included in Alternative IV.

Environmental Impact Characterizations. Environmental impact characterizations were developed by

Federal, State, local, and private resource managers

and scientists, were refined by the Core Group, and

further refined by NOAA as the strategy revision

process progressed. In describing the environmental

impacts of each alternative, it was assumed that all

strategies would be implemented completely.

The process used to determine the environmental

impacts of the management alternatives paralleled

the strategy development process. The environmental impacts of 137 proposed "high-priority" strategies

were initially characterized during the February 1992

Strategy Work Session. Strategies were characterized based on their potential impacts on specific

attributes of three thematic categories: water quality,

habitats, and species (Figure 30). The criteria used to

characterize strategies included whether impacts

were considered positive or negative, the degree of

impact (high, medium, or low), and the spatial and

temporal attributes of the proposed management

actions.

NOAA and the Core Group revised the initial characterizations to reflect any changes in the level of

protection offered by the strategies, as graded across

the three mid-range alternatives. Characterizations

were also updated to complement any additional

information included during the development of a

particular strategy. Strategies developed by the

Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), other nongovernmental organizations, the public, and the EPA were

characterized using the same criteria as those

developed at the February 1992 Strategy Work

Session.

Development and Organization of Impacts Information. The revised strategy characterizations were

organized in tables to compare the environmental

Environmental Consequences of

Management Alternatives

 Introduction Figure 29. Environmental Impact Attributes by Theme

 Water Quality

• Nutrients

• Toxics

• Temperature/Salinity

• Dissolved Oxygen

 Habitats

• Corals

• Hardbottom

• Seagrasses

• Algal Communities

• Mangroves

• Sediments

• Submerged Cultural Resources

 Species

• Commercial/Recreational Food

• Commercial/Recreational Ornamental

• Keystone

• Diversity

• Distribution

• Wildlife
156

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

impacts of each alternative. The tables identified the

attributes that were the focus of protection, and the

relative impacts of individual strategies. The overall

impacts of each alternative were also summarized

and compared. The Core Group used these tables to

develop the draft text describing the environmental

impacts of each alternative. NOAA edited and

organized this material and created summary tables

comparing strategy impacts across alternatives.

These tables were then further reviewed and edited

by the Core Group over several months.

The overall description of environmental impacts was

given to the SAC in June 1993 to help them recommend a preferred management alternative. The

descriptions were also reviewed by NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division and Office of General

Counsel, and were revised to focus only on those

strategies that will either have a significant level of

action during the first year after implementation of the

Management Plan, or will have a high degree of

potential environmental impact (i.e., "key strategies").

Organization. This chapter contains an overall

description of the environmental impacts of each

alternative, providing a detailed assessment of

potential environmental impacts. It is organized by

theme, and includes a list of "key strategies" for each

theme. Three summary tables, organized by alternative and issue, compare potential impacts,

environmental impacts, and significant management

actions across alternatives. The major differences

among the environmental impacts of each alternative

are also included in a separate column, providing a

simple means of comparing these impacts.

Constraints and Limitations. These characterizations provide sufficient detail to objectively compare

the various environmental impacts of proposed

actions for the three mid-range management alternatives. However, the Management Plan also proposes

an ongoing management process that will implicitly

involve a continued assessment of environmental

impacts as strategies are implemented over time.

 Environmental Impacts: Water Quality

Pollution from both land-based and water-related

activities degrades water quality and habitats and

can harm the species dependent on them. Strategies

in the three mid-range alternatives address water

quality problems by focusing on reducing nutrients,

toxicants, and other pollutants. The potential for

reducing pollutant levels increases from Alternative

IV to II. Several strategies also provide for limited

improvements in hydrographic properties such, as

salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Each

alternative addresses point and nonpoint pollutant

sources, and concentrates on improving confined

and nearshore waters. Because of their increasingly

restrictive measures, Alternatives III and II have a

greater potential for providing long-term, Sanctuarywide benefits (Table 19). The key strategies most

likely to affect water quality are listed below.

Key Strategies Affecting Water Quality

L.19 Growth Management

W.3 Wastewater Management Systems

W.19 Florida Bay Freshwater Flow

W.24 Florida Bay Influence

W.25 Water Quality Impacts

W.33 Ecological Monitoring

 Key Issues

Growth Management. Coordinating with Monroe

County on issues related to growth management

(L.19) is more likely to lead to improvements in all

water quality parameters than any other strategy.

This strategy will link the research activities and

water quality improvement goals of the Sanctuary

Management Plan and the EPA Water Quality

Protection Plan with Monroe County's growth management policies, potentially resulting in significant

improvements in confined and nearshore waters in

the short term, and offshore water quality improvements in the long term. This strategy offers the same

level of protection across the three mid-range alternatives, and provides a significant improvement in

water quality protection compared to the status quo

(Alternative V) by ensuring that the Federal, State,

and local governments work together to limit the

negative impacts of future growth.

Marinas/Boat Discharge. Recent evidence suggests

that nutrients and toxicants related to marina opera-
Comparative

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

157

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

Table 19. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Water Quality (continued)

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reducing toxicants

• Slight reduction in nutrients

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

* Further actions:

- Hire 30 new enforcement officers

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reducing toxicants

• Significant reduction in toxicants in sensitive

areas

• Slight reduction in nutrients

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

* Further actions:

- Hire 50 new enforcement officers

• Alternative III offers slightly greater

water quality protection than Alternative

IV through increased enforcement

• Alternative II offers slightly greater

water quality protection than Alternative

III through increased enforcement

Boating

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reducing toxicants

• Slight reduction in nutrients

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

• Significant actions:

- Hire 10 new enforcement officers

- Prohibit discharges from vessels

- Initiate cross-deputization

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality

• Recreation strategies in all Alternatives

offer negligible improvement in existing

water quality

Recreation

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality

• Significant improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reductions in nutrients and

toxicants

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

• Some Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:

- Establish containment areas for boat

maintenance

- Initiate water-use reduction and re-use for

major users

Land Use

• Moderate improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reductions in nutrients and

toxicants

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

• Some Sanctuary-wide impacts

• Significant actions:

- Coordinate growth management policies

- Restrict wetland dredge and fill

- Install pump-out facilities

- Reduce fuel spillage during refueling

• Significant improvement in existing water

quality

• Emphasis on reductions in nutrients and

toxicants

• Some improvement in hydrographic

parameters

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

• Some Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:

- Initiate water-use reduction and re-use for

all users

• Alternative III offers significantly more

water quality protection than Alternative

IV

- Toxicant levels will be significantly

reduced by containment areas

- Hydrographic parameters such as

salinity, temperature, and dissolved

oxygen will be improved by water-use

reduction and re-use for major users

• Alternative II offers slightly more water

quality protection than Alternative III

- Hydrographic parameters such as

salinity, temperature, and dissolved

oxygen will be improved by water-use

reduction and re-use for all users

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality

• Fishing strategies in all Alternatives offer

negligible improvements in existing water

quality

Fishing

• Negligible improvement in existing water

 quality
Comparative

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

Table 19. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Water Quality (continued)

158

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Slight reduction in nutrients and toxicants

• Significant improvement in site-specific

locations

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of research

and restoration zones

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Slight reduction in nutrients and toxicants

• Significant improvement in site-specific

locations

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of research

and restoration zones

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

• The level of water quality protection

increases from Alternative IV to

Alternative II

- Increasing the size and number of

protected areas and decreasing the

size and number of areas where highimpact activities can occur will increase

the potential for improvements in water

quality across Alternatives

Zoning

• Minimal improvement in existing water

quality

• Slight reduction in nutrients and toxicants

• Significant improvement in site-specific

locations

• Significant actions:

- Establish zones for research and

restoration activities

- Establish zones to restrict high-impact

activities

- Establish live-aboard areas

• Significant improvement in existing water

quality

• Reduction in nutrients and toxicants is

greater than Alternative IV

• Some improvement in hydrographic

parameters

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

and Florida Bay

• Moderate Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:

- Initiate techniques to improve water quality

in dead-end canals and basins in known

hot spots/critical areas

- Implement improvements to control

stormwater runoff in known problem areas

- Develop a Sanitary Wastewater Master

Plan

• Significant improvement in existing water

quality

• Reduction in nutrients and toxicants same

as Alternative III

• Some improvement in hydrographic

parameters

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

and Florida Bay

• Moderate Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:

- Initiate techniques to improve water quality

in dead-end canals and basins throughout

the Sanctuary

- Implement improvements to control

stormwater runoff in degraded areas and

along more sections of US 1

• Alternative III offers substantially more

water quality protection than Alternative

IV

- Using engineering techniques to

improve water quality in confined

waters and to control runoff in sitespecific areas will potentially improve

all water quality parameters in many

locations

- Development of a Sanitary Wastewater

Master Plan addresses water quality

problems in the long term

• Alternative II offers slightly more water

quality protection

- Using engineering techniques to

improve water quality in confined

waters and to control runoff in more

areas has the potential to improve all

water quality parameters in many more

locations

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

Water Quality

• Significant improvement in existing

water quality

• Emphasis on reducing nutrients and

toxicants

• Some improvement in hydrographic

parameters

• Focus on confined and nearshore

waters and Florida Bay

• Minimal Sanctuary-wide impacts

• Significant actions:

- Conduct research on hydrographic

parameters

- Conduct research to reduce pollutants

- Conduct research to restore benthic

communities

- Conduct research on the impacts of

land use practices

- Implement Sanctuary-wide ecosystem

monitoring program

- Implement efforts to restore freshwater flow to Florida Bay

- Enforce existing standards for OSDS

and package plants

- Eliminate all cesspits

- Upgrade the Key West wastewater

treatment plant
Comparative

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

159

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

Table 19. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Water Quality (continued)

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

• No direct improvements in water quality

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Conduct field trips and on-site training

- Coordinate with existing environmental

education programs

- Establish interagency visitor centers with

Federal and State agencies

• No direct improvements in water quality

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations greater than Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Establish a Sanctuary visitor center

Education

• No direct improvements in water quality

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations

• Significant actions:

- Develop/distribute print and audiovisual materials

- Conduct formal and informal training

- Establish a volunteer support base

- Develop public forums and special

events

• The level of educational outreach

increases from Alternative IV to

Alternative II

- Expanding training programs, promotional activities, and visitor contact will

increase the opportunities to educate

people about water quality issues
160

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

(L.16.a, Alternative IV) would indirectly improve

conditions in confined and nearshore waters. This

plan also would help to reduce nutrient loadings to all

Sanctuary waters. The potential for improvements

will increase through the implementation of a wateruse reduction and re-use plan for major users

(L.16.b, Alternative III), and would increase even

more significantly if all users are included (L.16.c,

Alternative II).

Dredge and Fill. Wetlands act as a natural buffer by

filtering stormwater before it enters the marine

environment. Dredge and fill activities increase

stormwater runoff and the potential for nutrients,

toxicants, turbidity, and reduced dissolved oxygen

levels to impact confined and nearshore waters. To

address these problems, the Sanctuary would

support Monroe County's policies to eliminate dredge

and fill activities in undisturbed wetlands (L.18.a,

Alternative IV), and mitigation banking will be considered to replace impacted wetlands. Strategy L.18.b

(Alternatives III and II) will provide increased wetland

protection by requiring that all new dredge and fill

projects in functional disturbed wetlands pass a

public interest test.

Research and Monitoring. Each of the three midrange alternatives addresses the lack of available

data regarding water quality problems and impacts.

They include base strategies to confront the problems and influences of Florida Bay, initiate general

water-quality research, and provide for the establishment of comprehensive monitoring programs. These

activities alone will provide a significant improvement

in research and monitoring efforts compared to the

status quo (Alternative V).

Florida Bay. Over the past century, the flow of

freshwater reaching Florida Bay has been significantly reduced, affecting temperature, salinity, and

dissolved oxygen levels (Richards, 1989; EPA,

1992). The quality, quantity, timing, and distribution

of freshwater flow have been linked to the vitality and

distribution of habitats supporting the Bay's fauna

and flora (Lindall and Saloman, 1977; Schomer and

Drew, 1982). A reduction in freshwater flow, coupled

with a lack of significant hurricanes impacting the

Bay, has also been associated with the current

seagrass die-off and resulting increase in nutrient

levels (Zieman, 1989). Strategy W.19 will pursue

short- and long-term solutions designed to improve

these flows. In addition, the water management plans

for Florida Bay and adjacent areas will be reviewed

to ensure that water quality improvement goals are

not compromised.

tions are directly linked to degraded water quality in

confined and nearshore waters (Heatwole, 1987;

Rios, 1990; Snedaker, 1990). Only eight marinas in

the Keys have sewage pump-out facilities, with two of

these servicing private clubs (Antonini et al., 1990).

As a result, many boats pump waste directly into the

water, increasing nutrient levels. Requiring the

installation of pump-out facilities at marinas (L.1) will

encourage boaters to properly dispose of their waste,

leading to reduced nutrient and turbidity levels and

increases in dissolved oxygen levels. This strategy

offers the same level of protection across the three

mid-range alternatives, and provides a significant

improvement compared to the status quo (Alternative

V).

Toxicant loads will also be slightly reduced by

implementing short-term remedial actions to reduce

fuel spillage (L.3.a, Alternative IV). However, these

pollutants would be significantly reduced by both

attempting to reduce fuel spillage and establishing

containment areas for boat maintenance and repair

(L.3.b, Alternatives III and II). Although existing

marina operation regulations, including OSHA

standards, indirectly address water quality problems,

compliance has been inconsistent. Stricter enforcement of OSHA regulations (L.2) will lead to improved

water quality in confined and nearshore areas.

Water quality studies have linked the discharge of

sewage from boats and live-aboard vessels to

degradation in confined and nearshore waters

(Heatwole, 1987; Rios, 1990). There are almost

9,000 boat slips in the Keys (Kearney/Centaur,

1990), approximately 16,000 pleasure boats registered in Monroe County (Shermyen, 1991), and an

estimated 1,400 live-aboard vessels in the Sanctuary. The environmental impact of discharges from

these vessels, especially in concentrated areas such

as Boot Key Harbor, can be significant (FDER,

1990). Strategy B.7 provides significant improvements in water quality compared to the status quo

(Alternative V) by aggressively enforcing current

regulations, assessing the need for additional regulations, and supporting the upcoming regulation

restricting discharge in State waters. In addition,

modifying the environmental crimes category associated with illegal discharges by adding a civil offense

component will make it easier to enforce and discourage illegal discharges.

Water Use and Re-use. Developing a plan to

encourage improved wastewater treatment and

increased water re-use through new re-use options,

thresholds, and water-use reduction incentives
161

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Sanctuary (EPA, 1993). Implementing an aggressive

inspection/enforcement program (W.3.a, Alternative

IV) would improve water quality by eliminating

cesspits and requiring that all on-site disposal

systems and package plants operate according to

established standards. Increased benefits are

expected if the inspection/enforcement program is

complemented by the development and implementation of a Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan that

requires existing systems to be upgraded beyond

current standards (W.3.b, Alternatives III and II).

Strategy W.4 addresses the problems associated

with wastewater disposal in the City of Key West.

Discontinuing the use of the ocean outfall, upgrading

the wastewater treatment plant, and evaluating

options for the re-use of properly treated effluent will

significantly reduce the level of nutrients discharged

to Sanctuary waters (EPA, 1993).

Stormwater. Uncontrolled stormwater runoff can

lead to water quality degradation through increases

in sediment, toxicant, and nutrient loading. Despite

their vulnerability to the impacts of stormwater, the

Keys have a limited number of stormwater management systems (EPA, 1993). Strategy W.11.b (Alternative III) will identify and retrofit stormwater systems

in "hot spots"/critical areas throughout the Sanctuary

that exhibit obvious adverse impacts, and will require

the installation of control systems in areas that

handle toxic and hazardous materials. Sediment,

toxicant, and nutrient loads will be significantly

reduced in these areas. Strategy W.11.c (Alternative

II) requires the application of these same methods in

more areas throughout the Sanctuary. However, it is

not known whether this action would have a significantly greater positive impact on water quality than

concentrating only on hot spots.

Canals. Canals and dead-end basins act as traps for

nutrients, toxicants, sediments, and weeds, and are

particularly susceptible to pollutant impacts. This has

been indicated through low dissolved oxygen and pH

levels, and elevated biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD) in several canals throughout the Keys. Low

dissolved oxygen levels are also found where these

canals empty into nearshore waters (FDER, 1987).

Conducting an inventory and assessment of canals

and developing solutions to improve their water

quality (W.10.a, Alternative IV) would provide the

information needed to develop programs to limit

pollution in these areas. Strategy W.10.b (Alternative

III) will improve water quality more significantly by

implementing mitigation actions in canals and basins

identified as hot spots throughout the Sanctuary.

Strategy W.10.c (Alternative II) would lead to inFlorida Bay's water quality problems may also impact

the Florida Reef Tract; studies have shown that tidal

currents and storms can transport Bay waters to the

reef, adversely affecting the ecosystem (Voss, 1988;

Jaap, 1990; Szmant, 1991). Implementing strategy

W.24 will continue this research and complement

efforts to re-establish the Bay's environmental

quality.

General Research. Other research strategies address water quality conditions throughout the Sanctuary, and provide baseline information for making

management decisions addressing water quality

variability and its impact on resources. Research

efforts include: the development of predictive ecological models (W.21); the assessment of physical

processes and their interaction with pollutants

(W.22); an examination of the impacts of groundwater transport and leachate (W.23); the identification of

causal linkages between poor water quality and

ecological problems (W.25); the development of

diagnostic indicators of poor water quality (W.26);

and the development of new tools and methods to

help determine water quality impacts (W.27). Each of

these strategies provides the same level of research

for the three mid-range alternatives.

Monitoring. Two Sanctuary-wide comprehensive

monitoring programs are proposed in each of the

three mid-range alternatives. Strategy W.20 will

implement a long-term comprehensive water quality

monitoring program to identify areas with poor water

quality, and to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions designed to improve water quality.

Strategy W.33 will establish a Sanctuary-wide

ecosystem monitoring program that will: 1) provide

resource managers with information on the status of

the health of living resources and the ecosystem; 2)

help to determine relationships between water quality

and the ecosystem as a basis for management

action; and 3) evaluate the effectiveness of management actions such as zoning.

Domestic Wastewater. The proper treatment and

disposal of domestic wastewater are critical to

reducing adverse water quality impacts. The use of

an estimated 30,000 septic systems and cesspits,

coupled with soils and bedrock with high porosity and

low organic content, has resulted in substandard

wastewater treatment and an increase in the potential for nutrients and toxicants to degrade groundand surfacewater in confined and nearshore areas

(EPA, 1992). Evidence suggests that domestic

wastewater is the main source of increased nutrient

levels in the confined and nearshore waters of the
162

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

creased improvements by requiring mitigation actions

in all canals and basins throughout the Sanctuary.

Zoning. Although zoning will have little direct impact

on improved water quality, strategy Z.5.a (Alternative

IV) could be used to set aside areas for scientific

research, monitoring, or restoration activities, or to

confine high-impact activities that have detrimental

impacts on the Sanctuary's water quality. These

areas may completely restrict any water-related

activities that may negatively impact water quality.

Strategies Z.5.b (Alternative III) and Z.5.c (Alternative

II) add to the overall water quality improvements

provided by these zones by increasing the number of

research, restoration, and monitoring areas, and by

reducing the size and number of areas where highimpact activities will be allowed.

 Environmental Impacts: Habitats

The habitats of the Keys are closely interrelated and

are influenced by both natural stresses and humangenerated pollution. Coral reefs and seagrass

communities are vulnerable to weather and climate

fluctuations, physical damage resulting from human

activities, and water quality degradation. In addition,

the Keys' once-extensive mangrove forests have

declined, primarily due to residential and commercial

development (Snedaker, 1990).

Strategies within the three mid-range alternatives

address habitat-related issues by focusing on coral,

seagrass, and mangrove communities, with a general

increase in the level of restrictions from Alternative IV

to Alternative II (Table 20). Because of the interrelationships among habitats, other habitats, such as

hardbottom, algal communities, and sediments, will

also benefit from the actions in these alternatives.

Each alternative addresses site-specific locations, as

well as specific habitats throughout the Sanctuary.

Alternatives III and II, however, provide more habitat

protection over a broader area than Alternative IV.

Alternative V, which represents the "no-action" status

quo, would not protect habitats from continued

degradation. Alternative I would provide maximum

habitat protection by placing severe restrictions on

numerous activities currently allowed in the Sanctuary. The key strategies most likely to affect Sanctuary

habitats are listed below.

Key Strategies Affecting Habitats

B.6 Additional Enforcement

B.12 Cross-deputization

L.19 Growth Management

R.5 Carrying Capacity

Z.1 Wildlife Management Areas

Z.2 Replenishment Reserves

Z.3 Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Z.5 Special-use Areas

 Key Issues

Growth Management. In 1990 the total resident

population of the Keys was over 78,000, an increase

of 15,000 people since 1980, and a 160 percent

increase since 1950. Development and other growthrelated activities have severely impacted the area's

already limited terrestrial habitats (Kruer, 1992), and

have led to the decline of many confined and

nearshore habitats (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990). Strat-
Comparative

Impacts

163

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats (continued)

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

• Emphasis on coral and seagrass protection

• Some protection for mangrove and hardbottom habitats, and sediments

• Focus on high-use and sensitive areas

* Further actions:

- Hire 30 new enforcement officers

- Initiate habitat restoration in severely

impacted areas

- Implement a permitting system for

salvaging and towing activities

- Mark channels in high-use and sensitive

areas

- Modify existing access sites

- Implement vessel size limits at buoys in

high-use and sensitive areas

• Emphasis on coral and seagrass protection

• Some protection for mangrove and hardbottom habitats, and sediments

• Focus on entire Sanctuary

* Further actions:

- Hire 50 new enforcement officers

- Initiate habitat restoration for impacted

areas throughout the Sanctuary

- Manage public access

- Restrict new access

- Mark channels throughout the Sanctuary

- Require salvaging/towing operator training

- Implement vessel size limits at buoys

throughout the Sanctuary

• Alternative III provides moderate

increases in protection to coral, seagrass,

mangrove and hardbottom habitats, and

sediments compared to Alternative IV

- Developing a habitat restoration program

significantly benefits critical habitats such

as coral and seagrass

- Exhibiting environmentally sound

salvaging and towing techniques will be a

prerequisite for obtaining a permit

- Modifying existing access sites will

improve habitats in nearshore areas

- Marking channels in more locations will

allow for additional habitat improvements

• Alternative II offers slightly greater

protection to hardbottom, seagrass, and

mangrove habitats compared to Alternative

III

- Habitat restoration will be significantly

expanded

- Managing and restricting public access

will benefit sensitive sites, primarily

seagrass, mangrove, and other

nearshore habitats

- Marking channels throughout the

Sanctuary will allow for additional habitat

improvements

Boating

• Emphasis on coral and seagrass

protection

• Some protection for mangrove and

hardbottom habitats

• Focus on sensitive areas

• Significant actions:

- Implement and enforce existing and

proposed protective measures

- Hire 10 new enforcement officers

- Mark channels in sensitive areas

- Establish damage assessment

standards

- Regulate boat discharges

- Regulate salvaging and towing

activities

- Support existing restoration activities

- Direct new access to low-impact areas

- Manage existing access sites

- Implement vessel size limits at buoys in

sensitive areas

• Moderate impact on habitat improvement

• Focus on coral, hardbottom, and seagrass

habitats

• Regulatory and spatial components of many

strategies increase compared to Alternative

IV

* Further actions:

- Require low-impact biodegradable fishing

gear in selected areas

- Reduce the number of fishing devices

through limited entry for selected fisheries

• Moderate impact on habitat improvement

• Significant benefits to coral, hardbottom, and

seagrass habitats

• Regulatory and spatial components of many

strategies increase compared to Alternative

III

* Further actions:

- Require low-impact biodegradable fishing

gear throughout the Sanctuary

- Reduce the number of fishing devices

through limited entry for all fisheries

• Alternative III provides moderate

increases in protection to coral, seagrass,

& hardbottom habitats compared to

Alternative IV

- Increasing the use of biodegradable

fishing gear will benefit critical habitats

- Limited entry on a fishery-by-fishery basis

will help reduce the total number of

fishermen and fishing devices

• Alternative II provides slightly more

protection to coral, seagrass, and

hardbottom habitats than Alternative III

Fishing

• Limited impact on habitat improvement

• Focus on coral, hardbottom, and

seagrass habitats

• Significant actions:

- Address fisheries-related habitat issues

through implementation of consistent

regulations

- Prevent the release of exotic species in

the Sanctuary

- Increase the use of biodegradable

fishing gear
Alternative IV

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Comparative

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats (continued)

164

• Moderate impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral, seagrass, and hardbottom

habitats

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations

* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for highly

sensitive habitats and in high-use areas

throughout the Sanctuary

• Significant impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral, seagrass, and hardbottom

habitats

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations throughout the Sanctuary

* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for all habitats

throughout the Sanctuary

• Alternative III offers slightly more habitat

protection than Alternative IV

- Instituting carrying capacities in sitespecific areas will reduce direct and

cumulative impacts of recreational

activities

• Alternative II significantly increases the

level of protection compared to Alternative

III

- Instituting carrying capacities for all

habitats throughout the Sanctuary offers

the most habitat protection

Recreation

• Moderate impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral and hardbottom

habitats

• Some improvements in seagrass areas

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations

• Significant actions:

- Identify and implement carrying

capacities in highly sensitive areas

- Identify and inventory habitats found

in conjunction with submerged

cultural resources (SCR)

- Restrict extraction techniques for

SCR

• Minimal impact on improving habitats

• Focus on seagrass, algal, and mangrove

habitats

• Benefits to habitats in confined and

nearshore areas greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Require containment areas at marinas to

trap toxic and hazardous materials

• Minimal impact on improving habitats

• Focus on seagrass, algal, and mangrove

habitats

• Benefits to habitats in confined and

nearshore areas same as Alternative III

* Further actions:

- None

• Alternatives III and II offer the same level

of increased protection to habitats when

compared to Alternative IV

- Containment areas will reduce the risk of

pollutants harming habitats in confined

and nearshore areas

• Growth management would have the

greatest overall impact in each Alternative

Land Use

• Minimal impact on improving habitats

• Focus on seagrass, algal, and

mangrove habitats

• Benefits most noticeable in confined

and nearshore areas

• Significant actions:

- Reduce impacts of nutrient loading,

stormwater discharge, dredge and fill,

and solid waste disposal through

growth management

- Install pump-out facilities

- Implement OSHA marina regulations

- Reduce fuel spillage from marina

operations

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

Fishing (cont.)

- Requiring biodegradable fishing gear

throughout the Sanctuary and limited

entry to all fisheries will increase the

benefits to critical habitats

- Limited entry for all fisheries will help

reduce the total number of fishermen and

fishing devices

• Significant actions (cont.) Not Applicable Not Applicable

 - Remove lost or out-of-season

 fishing gear
Comparative

Impacts

165

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats (continued)

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

Water Quality

• Actions are specifically designed to

improve water quality

• Improvements in water quality could

significantly improve habitats

• Actions are specifically designed to

improve water quality

• Improvements in water quality could

significantly improve habitats

• Actions are specifically designed to

improve water quality

• Improvements in water quality could

significantly improve habitats

• Water Quality strategies in all Alternatives offer similar levels of habitat

protection

• High level of protection for all habitats

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

increase compared to Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of Sanctuary

Preservation Areas and Replenishment

Reserves

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

• The level of protection increases from

Alternative IV to Alternative II

- Increasing the size and number of

protected areas and decreasing the size

and number of areas where high-impact

activities can occur will increase the

potential for improvements to habitats

across Alternatives

• High level of protection for all habitats

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

increase compared to Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of Sanctuary

Preservation Areas and Replenishment

Reserves

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

Zoning

• High level of protection for all habitats

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

• Significant actions:

- Restrict access to representative

habitats; areas with high biological

diversity; and shallow, heavily used

reefs

- Restrict high-impact activities

- Establish live-aboard areas

- Establish habitat restoration areas

• No direct habitat improvement

• Initial focus on habitats at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of activities, and regulations

greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Conduct field trips and on-site training

- Coordinate with existing environmental

education programs

- Establish interagency visitor centers with

Federal and State agencies

- Conduct a “Sanctuary Awareness Week”

- Install a permanent wayside exhibit station

• No direct habitat improvement

• Initial focus on habitats at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of activities, and regulations

greater than Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Establish a Sanctuary visitor center

- Conduct a series of “Environmental

Awareness Weeks”

- Conduct training programs on habitat

restoration techniques

- Install several wayside exhibit stations

• Level of educational outreach increases

from Alternative IV to Alternative II

- Expanding training programs, promotional activities, and visitor contact will

increase the opportunities to educate

users about habitat issues

Education

• No direct habitat improvement

• Initial focus on habitats at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about

issues, consequences of activities, and

regulations

• Significant actions:

- Develop/distribute print and audiovisual materials

- Install informational signs/displays at

high-use areas

- Develop public forums and special

events
166

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

egy L.19 addresses these problems by linking the

research activities and habitat-improvement goals of

the Sanctuary's Management Plan and the EPA

Water Quality Protection Plan with Monroe County's

growth management policies. This will result in

significant improvements in the protection and

enhancement of terrestrial habitats and marine

habitats in confined and nearshore areas. Important

components of this strategy include: the establishment of a population "build-out" to reduce residential

impacts on the surrounding environment; a program

to direct new development to high-density, disturbed

subdivisions supported by centralized facilities; and

the development of an intergovernmental land

acquisition program to preserve natural lands. This

strategy offers the same level of habitat protection

across each of the three mid-range alternatives, and

provides significant environmental protection compared to the status quo (Alternative V), by ensuring

that Federal, State, and local government agencies

work together to limit the negative impacts of future

growth.

Zoning. The Keys contain habitats found nowhere

else in North America, which together form a diverse,

interrelated ecosystem that has become increasingly

vulnerable to human disturbances. The growth of the

resident population and increase in the level of

tourism have added to the stress on the region's

natural resources, and led to numerous user conflicts. Marine zoning is a new concept, but has

proved to be a valuable management tool for protecting habitats and addressing user conflicts in other

areas (Dugan and Davis, 1993; Bohnsack, pers.

comm.). Four zoning strategies, each of which

provides a high level of habitat protection, have been

developed for the three mid-range alternatives.

Wildlife Management Zones (Z.1) will limit access to

sensitive habitats, especially in backcountry areas.

Replenishment Reserves (Z.2) and Sanctuary

Preservation Areas (Z.3) will provide significant

protection to representative habitats; areas that

support high levels of biological diversity; areas

important for sustaining other natural resources;

shallow, heavily used reefs; and areas experiencing

a high degree of conflict between consumptive and

nonconsumptive uses. Special-use Zones (Z.5) will

protect seagrass, mangrove communities, and

sediments by confining activities known to have

adverse environmental impacts. Zoning will also be

used to set aside areas requiring habitat restoration.

The level of protection provided by each type of zone

increases from Alternative IV to Alternative II through

the designation of larger and more numerous areas.

Zones where restricted activities are allowed would

be smaller and less numerous as the level of protection increases.

Carrying Capacity. Recreational and commercial

activities are important to the Keys' economy, and

are dependent on a healthy and diverse ecosystem.

Recreational activities, particularly fishing, snorkeling,

and scuba diving, have become increasingly popular,

further stressing already vulnerable habitats. In 1990,

for example, 1.3 million people visited John

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, 339,000 visited

Bahia Honda State Park, and 19,400 visited Dry

Tortugas National Park (White, 1991). In addition,

commercial fishing, combined with population growth

and a growing demand for fisheries products, has

raised concerns about the increasing impacts of

commercial activities on habitats (Bohnsack, 1991).

Evidence suggests that the direct and cumulative

impact of the increasing number of people using the

limited and sensitive habitats of the Keys can lead to

damage and degradation (Voss, 1988). The level of

use that different habitats can tolerate, however, is

not well-understood. Strategy R.5.a (Alternative IV)

would address this problem by establishing a program to identify the carrying-capacity levels of

different habitats and areas. This would provide the

basis for managing carrying-capacity limits in areas

deemed highly sensitive to overuse. Strategy R.5.b

(Alternative III) increases habitat protection by

managing identified carrying-capacity limits in highly

sensitive habitat areas and high-use areas throughout the Sanctuary. Strategy R.5.c (Alternative II)

would provide even more protection by establishing

and managing carrying-capacity limits for all habitats

throughout the Sanctuary. The enforcement of

carrying-capacity limits primarily benefits those

habitats at greatest risk, such as corals. Carryingcapacity limits would not be necessary in the most

restrictive alternative (Alternative I), because all highimpact activities would be prohibited in most, if not

all, areas of the Sanctuary.

Restoration. Restoration projects in the Keys can

enhance habitats after disruptive events. For example, in 1981 the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

authorized a new pipeline, contingent on the restoration of the seagrass beds north of Key Largo that

would be impacted by its construction. A survey of

the impacted area showed a high level of regrowth

10 months after the project was completed

(Thorhaug, 1983). The continuation of ongoing

habitat restoration efforts is vital for the protection

and enhancement of the Sanctuary's resources.
167

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Strategy B.2.a (Alternative IV) encourages continued

restoration activities, and establishes a monitoring

program for restoration sites. Strategy B.2.b (Alternative III) increases the potential for more areas to be

restored by developing and adopting a restoration

plan for severely impacted areas. Strategy B.2.c

(Alternative II) offers additional enhancement by

implementing the plan in all impacted areas throughout the Sanctuary. Strategies in all three alternatives

focus on those habitats considered at highest risk:

coral, seagrasses, mangroves, and hardbottoms.

Vessel Groundings. Vessel groundings of even

small boats can significantly damage corals,

seagrasses, and other habitats. Damage occurs both

through direct habitat destruction, and as a result of

fuel and cargo spills. As vessel traffic continues to

increase throughout the Keys, the need to establish

improved standards regarding damage assessment

procedures, litigation practices, and response times

increases as well. Strategy B.10 addresses this need

by establishing a standard assessment methodology

for vessel groundings. This strategy provides the

same level of restriction in each of the three midrange management alternatives, and provides more

habitat protection than the status quo (Alternative V).

Grounding-related damages also can occur through

improper towing and salvaging techniques. Establishing and encouraging environmentally sound methods

of towing and salvaging (B.13.a, Alternative IV) offer

some habitat improvement compared to the status

quo (Alternative V). However, implementing towing

and salvage standards through a permit system

(B.13.b, Alternative III) will provide more significant

improvements. Requiring training for towing and

salvage operators (B.13.c, Alternative II) would

provide some additional improvements.

Access. Users traveling within the Sanctuary can

impact habitats at their point of entry (e.g., boat

ramps, marinas, etc.), along their travel route, and at

their final destination. Three strategies have been

designed to address these impacts. First, an inventory of public and private boat ramps and use levels

will be conducted to provide information for restricting

the development of new access points to locations

where access has less impact on the environment,

and for managing existing access locations (B.1.a,

Alternative IV). Strategy B.1.b (Alternative III) addresses existing problem areas by requiring that

modifications be made to public ramps currently

having an adverse impact on adjacent sensitive

areas. Strategy B.1.c (Alternative II) provides additional protection by requiring modifications to both

public and private ramps, and implementing restrictions on new public access areas.

Properly marked channels will reduce the short- and

long-term impacts of boat traffic on all shallow-water

habitats. The channel marking scheme proposed in

Alternative IV (B.4.a) focuses only on sensitive areas.

Strategies B.4.b and B.4.c (Alternatives III and II) will

implement channel marking in high-use and sensitive

areas and throughout the Sanctuary, respectively,

increasing the amount of habitat protected.

Mooring buoys have been used successfully at the

Key Largo and Looe Key national marine sanctuaries

and at other locations throughout the Keys to minimize the direct impacts of anchoring and the cumulative effects of overuse. Mooring buoys may result in

habitat damage in specific areas by attracting more

users to them. However, when used, monitored and

managed properly, mooring buoys have positive

benefits by minimizing anchor damage and controlling resource use. Strategy B.15.a (Alternative IV)

would protect habitats by establishing a comprehensive mooring buoy plan that includes site-selection

criteria, a program to monitor use and impacts, and

the implementation of vessel size limits at buoys in

sensitive areas. Alternatives III and II offer more

habitat protection than Alternative IV by implementing

vessel size limits in high-use and sensitive areas and

throughout the Sanctuary, respectively.

Marinas/Boat Discharge. The relatively high levels

of nutrients and toxicants found in waters near

marina operations (Heatwole, 1987; Rios, 1990;

Snedaker, 1990) can have a detrimental impact on

adjacent nearshore habitats. Eutrophic conditions,

resulting from increased nutrient inputs, can have a

particularly harmful impact on seagrasses in these

areas (Zieman, 1975b). Nutrient levels in site-specific

locations will be reduced by ensuring that all marinas

which have pump-out requirements install pump-out

facilities (L.1). This will also enhance habitat health

by reducing turbidity and increasing dissolved oxygen

levels. Habitats will also benefit from short-term

remedial actions designed to reduce toxicant loads

due to fuel spillage during refueling operations (L.3.a,

Alternative IV). Establishing containment areas for

boat maintenance and repair activities (L.3.b, Alternatives III and II), in conjunction with reducing fuel

spillage, will provide additional habitat benefits. Also,

stricter enforcement of OSHA regulations regarding

marina operations (L.2) would improve water quality

and enhance habitat growth.
168

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Eutrophic and polluted conditions associated with

sewage discharge from boats and live-aboard

vessels in confined and nearshore waters can also

adversely impact habitats (Heatwole, 1987; Rios,

1990). Strategy B.7 will provide significant habitat

improvements compared to the status quo (Alternative V) by aggressively enforcing current regulations

regarding pollution discharges from vessels, assessing the need for additional regulations, and supporting the upcoming regulation restricting discharge in

State waters. In addition, an effort to change the

environmental crimes category associated with boat

discharges by adding a civil offense will make it

easier to obtain a conviction and discourage illegal

discharges.

Fishing. Commercial and recreational fishing activities can have both direct and indirect adverse

impacts on habitats. Lost, abandoned, or improperly

used gear can destroy corals and seagrass, and

overstressing individual species may have detrimental impacts on the habitats in which they are found.

Several strategies within the mid-range alternatives

address these problems.

Consistent Regulations. The implementation of a

consistent set of fisheries regulations throughout the

Sanctuary (F.1) will benefit almost all habitats by

comprehensively addressing many habitat-related

fisheries issues. This strategy provides the same

level of protection in each of the mid-range alternatives, and will significantly improve current fisheries

management practices compared to the status quo

(Alternative V). The strategy complements the work

being done by the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

fishery management councils.

Limited Entry. One of the objectives of limited entry is

to reduce damage to the habitats on which species

depend for food and survival. This will result from a

reduction in the number of fishing devices affecting

these habitats. Limited-entry options will be assessed

through Strategy F.5.a (Alternative IV). Strategy F.5.b

(Alternative III) adds the operational detail necessary

to protect habitats by implementing limited-entry

options for selected fisheries, including those associated with habitats that are either damaged or in

severe decline. Implementing limited-entry options for

all Sanctuary fisheries (F.5.c, Alternative II) would

result in a slight increase in habitat protection through

further restrictions on the number of fishing devices

that could harm habitats.

Gear/Methods. Seagrass, coral, and hardbottom

habitats are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of

fishing gear and methods (Bohnsack, 1993). Lobster

traps can damage corals or seagrasses on which

they rest. Developing a program to remove gear that

has been lost, abandoned, or is being used out of

season (F.9) will benefit the habitats currently being

impacted. Volunteers are an important component of

this strategy, and will be trained to remove gear with

minimal damage to the environment. No comprehensive gear-removal program currently exists within the

Keys (Alternative V, status quo).

Developing and promoting the use of gear and

methods that minimize harmful impacts to corals,

seagrasses, and other vulnerable habitats (F.11.a,

Alternative IV) will also help protect these areas.

Requiring the use of low-impact gear and methods in

priority areas (F.11.b, Alternative III) or throughout

the Sanctuary (F.11.c, Alternative II) will further

increase the level of habitat protection provided by

this strategy.

Exotic Species. The uncontrolled release of nonnative species can seriously impact Sanctuary habitats.

For example, a newly introduced species may feed

exclusively on a particular plant or animal, causing

unforeseen changes in the native community, or it

may host a damaging disease or parasite

(Courtenay, 1979). Implementing regulations to

prevent the release of exotic species in the Sanctuary (F.8) will address this issue and provide significant protection to the Keys' ecosystem. There are

currently few safeguards to prevent the introduction

of exotic species into Sanctuary waters.

Submerged Cultural Resources. Habitat threats

from activities related to submerged cultural resources range from damage incurred by large

numbers of divers and snorkelers visiting a site, to

disturbances caused by large-scale exploration and

recovery techniques (Clausen, 1990). The "mailbox"

technique, using prop wash to uncover buried

treasure, can be particularly destructive to the wreck/

artifact, the wreck site, and the surrounding habitats

(particularly coral and seagrasses) that may be

impacted by prop wash or buried by the displaced

sediment (Hudson, pers. comm.). The development

of a Submerged Cultural Resources Management

Plan (R.1.a-c, Alternatives IV, III, and II) addresses

these concerns, and ensures that habitats and

resources are not damaged by unsound exploration

and recovery methods. This strategy will provide the

same level of habitat protection across each of the

three mid-range alternatives, offering significant

improvements in protection compared to the status

quo (Alternative V).
169

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

growth and development on species by preserving

the habitats on which they depend, and reducing the

levels of pollutants that threaten them. This strategy

provides the same level of protection in each of the

three mid-range alternatives, and offers significantly

increased species protection compared to the status

quo (Alternative V) by ensuring that Federal, State,

and local government agencies work together to limit

the negative impacts of future growth.

Zoning. Species depend on a variety of habitats for

food, shelter, and areas for reproduction during their

life stages. Some are migratory and utilize numerous

habitats, while others are critically linked to one

habitat type. The degradation of a particular habitat

can, therefore, have a dramatic impact on the health

of the species that depend on it to survive. Overharvesting may also impact species, altering the structure of year classes, and ultimately impacting community composition (Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990;

Bohnsack, 1990; Rowley, 1992).

Zoning is a method of protecting species populations

that has had demonstrated success in wildlife

management and in other national marine sanctuaries, particularly by enhancing diversity, abundance,

and distribution patterns. Wildlife Management Zones

(Z.1) are designed to limit access to sensitive areas

for the benefit of marine and terrestrial species,

including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Replenishment Reserves (Z.2) are designed to

enhance species biodiversity, serve as ecological

monitoring sites, and separate incompatible activities.

They protect species by limiting consumptive activities in selected contiguous habitat areas, and also

provide natural spawning, nursery, and permanent

residence areas for a variety of species. Sanctuary

Preservation Areas (Z.3) are designed to protect

species by limiting consumptive activities on and

around selected reefs and nearshore habitats. They

protect intensively used areas that are critical to

sustaining and protecting certain marine species.

Special-use Zones (Z.5) provide significant protection

to species by setting aside areas for research,

restoration, and recovery efforts. The number and/or

size of Special-use Zones increases from Alternative

IV to II. Maintaining the status quo (Alternative V)

would allow for the continued degradation of species

and their habitats, and would increase the risk of

population declines among certain species.

Carrying Capacity. The overuse of Sanctuary

resources causes habitat degradation that can

disrupt the community structure of an area and

seriously impact species. Easy access to recreational

 Environmental Impacts: Species

The Keys' ecosystem supports a diverse assemblage

of species, including those commercially and

recreationally important, unique to the area, or

spatially limited due to habitat constraints. Stresses

on species within the Sanctuary include the impacts

of land-based activities, habitat declines, and recreational and commercial fishing (Alevizon and

Bannerot, 1990). The impacts of fishing are particularly significant because recreational fishing is the

area's primary tourist-related boating activity, and

commercial fishing is the fourth largest industry in the

region (White, 1991). The strategies in each of the

three mid-range management alternatives will protect

species by focusing on economically important food

and ornamental species, keystone species, and

wildlife. These alternatives will help enhance species

diversity, abundance, and distribution. Alternatives III

and II will provide benefits to more species over a

larger area of the Sanctuary than Alternative IV

(Table 21) or the status quo (Alternative V). The key

strategies most likely to affect species are listed

below.

Key Strategies Affecting Species

F.1 Consistent Regulations

F.5 Limited Entry

F.8 Exotic Species

F.9 Gear Removal

L.19 Growth Management

Z.1 Wildlife Management Areas

Z.2 Replenishment Reserves

Z.3 Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Z.5 Special-use Areas

 Key Issues

Growth Management. The land-based activities of a

growing coastal population pose serious threats to

many species within the Sanctuary, including fishes,

invertebrates, and wildlife (Antonius, 1982; Deisler,

1982; FWS, 1992). Habitat destruction resulting from

coastal development, water quality degradation, and

overharvesting can also lead to species declines.

The criteria for developing the Monroe County

Comprehensive Plan include the preservation of

marine resource areas, terrestrial wildlife resource

areas, and habitat-related resource areas such as

wetlands (Roberts and Todd, 1991). Federal and

State agency coordination with Monroe County to

develop a plan that meets these criteria (L.19) will

reduce the direct and indirect impacts of population
Comparative

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species (continued)

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

170

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

• Moderate overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife, important

food and ornamental species, and keystone

species

• Slight increase in species diversity and

distribution

* Further actions:

- Hire 30 new enforcement officers

- Initiate habitat restoration in severely

impacted areas

• Significant overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife, important

food and ornamental species, and keystone

species

• Moderate increase in species diversity and

distribution

* Further actions:

- Hire 50 new enforcement officers

- Initiate habitat restoration for all impacted

areas throughout the Sanctuary

- Establish channel marking throughout the

Sanctuary

• Alternative III provides moderate

increases in species protection

compared to Alternative IV

- Restoring damaged habitats will benefit

species dependent on them for survival

- Additional enforcement will protect

species

• Alternative II offers slightly greater

species protection compared to

Alternative III

- Increasing restoration efforts will

increase the benefits to species

- Marking channels throughout the

Sanctuary will significantly benefit

wildlife and other species

- Additional enforcement will protect

species

Fishing

• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food

and ornamental species and keystone

species

• Significant actions:

- Implement consistent fisheries

regulations

- Prevent the release of exotic species

- Eliminate finfish traps

- Develop a removal plan for lost and

out-of-season fishing gear

- Promote low-impact fishing gear and

methods

• Alternative III offers moderately greater

species protection than Alternative IV

- Limited entry for specific fisheries will

benefit species by matching the

number of fishermen and fishing

devices with species productivity and

carrying capacity

- Requiring low-impact fishing gear in

priority areas will increase species

protection by protecting their habitats

• Alternative II offers significantly greater

species protection than Alternative III

- Limited entry for all fisheries will

increase species protection

- Requiring low-impact fishing gear

throughout the Sanctuary will protect

more habitats and therefore more

species

• Significant benefit to species

• High level of protection for all species

• Regulatory and spatial components of many

strategies increase compared to Alternative

III

* Further actions:

- Implement regulations to establish limited

entry for all fisheries

- Require low-impact biodegradable fishing

gear throughout the Sanctuary

• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food and

ornamental species and keystone species

• Significant benefits to wildlife and species

diversity and distribution

• Regulatory and spatial components of many

strategies increase compared to Alternative

IV

* Further actions:

- Implement regulations to establish limited

entry for specific fisheries

- Require low-impact fishing gear in priority

areas

Boating

• Moderate overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife,

important food and ornamental species,

and keystone species

• Slight increase in species diversity and

distribution

• Significant actions:

- Hire 10 new enforcement officers

- Increase enforcement of fishery laws

- Confine boat traffic to properly marked

channels

- Use mooring buoys to confine boating

impacts to manageable areas

- Support existing restoration activities
Comparative

Impacts

171

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species (continued)

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative

• Benefit to species same as Alternative III

• Focus on keystone species, wildlife, and

species diversity and distribution

• Nutrient and toxicant reductions in confined

and nearshore areas will benefit species in

those areas

* Further actions:

- None

• Benefits to species increase slightly

compared to Alternative IV

• Focus on keystone species, wildlife, and

species diversity and distribution

• Nutrient and toxicant reductions in confined

and nearshore areas will benefit species in

those areas

* Further actions:

- Require containment areas at marinas to

trap toxic and hazardous materials

Land Use

• Minimal benefit to species

• Focus on keystone species, wildlife, and

species diversity and distribution

• Nutrient and toxicant reductions in

confined and nearshore areas would

benefit species

•Significant actions:

- Reduce impacts of nutrient loading,

stormwater discharge, dredge and fill,

and solid waste disposal through growth

management

- Install pump-out facilities

- Implement OSHA marina regulations

- Reduce fuel spillage from marina

operations

• Alternatives III and II offer a similar level

of species protection

- Reducing the amount of pollutants

entering confined and nearshore waters

will directly benefit the species in those

areas

• Growth management would have the

greatest overall impact in each Alternative

• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food and

ornamental species, keystone species, and

wildlife

• Improvements in species diversity and

distribution

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations

* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for highly

sensitive habitats and in high-use areas

throughout the Sanctuary

• Significant benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food and

ornamental species, keystone species, and

wildlife

• Improvements in species diversity and

distribution

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations

* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for all habitats

throughout the Sanctuary

• Alternative III offers slightly more

species protection than Alternative IV

- Instituting carrying capacities in more

locations will reduce direct and

cumulative impacts of recreational

activities

• Alternative II significantly increases the

level of species protection over

Alternative III

- Instituting carrying capacities for all

habitats throughout the Sanctuary

offers the most species protection

Recreation

• Minimal benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food

and ornamental species, keystone

species, and wildlife

• Improvements primarily in site-specific

locations

• Significant actions:

- Identify and implement carrying

capacities in highly sensitive areas

Water Quality

• Actions are specifically designed to

improve water quality

• Improvements to water quality could

benefit species

• Actions are specifically designed to improve

water quality

• Improvements to water quality could benefit

species

• Actions are specifically designed to improve

water quality

• Improvements to water quality could benefit

species

• All Alternatives offer the same level of

species protection
Comparative

Impacts

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species (continued)

Alternative IV

Impacts

Alternative III

Impacts

Alternative II

Impacts

172

• High level of species protection

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

increase compared to Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of Sanctuary

Preservation Areas and Replenishment

Reserves

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

• High level of species protection

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

increase compared to Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of Sanctuary

Preservation Areas and Replenishment

Reserves

- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and liveaboard areas

• The level of protection increases from

Alternative IV to Alternative II

- Increasing the size and number of

protected areas and decreasing the size

and number of areas where high-impact

activities can occur will increase the

potential for protecting species across

Alternatives

• No direct benefits to species

• Initial focus on species at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Conduct field trips and on-site training

- Coordinate with existing environmental

education programs

- Establish interagency visitor centers with

Federal and State agencies

• No direct benefits to species

• Initial focus on species at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations greater than Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Establish a Sanctuary visitor center

- Train volunteers for specific species-related

tasks

• The level of educational outreach

increases from Alternative IV to

Alternative II

- Expanding training programs, promotional activities, and contact with visitors

will increase the opportunities to educate

users about species issues

Education

• No direct benefits to species

• Initial focus on species at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,

consequences of their activities, and

regulations

• Significant actions:

- Develop/distribute print and audiovisual materials focusing on critical

species

- Install informational signs/displays at

high-use areas

- Establish training and volunteer

programs related to species problems

- Develop public service announcements

(PSA) targeted at Sanctuary rules and

regulations governing species

- Develop public forums and special

events

Zoning

• High level of species protection

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

• Significant actions:

- Limit consumptive activities within

selected contiguous areas

- Limit consumptive activities within

Sanctuary Preservation Areas

- Establish Wildlife Management Areas

* Further actions: Actions different than, or in addition to, those proposed in the previous alternative
173

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

sites in the Keys has increased the burden on

numerous habitats and the species with which they

are associated. In addition, commercial and recreational fishing activities have increased, raising

concerns about the direct and cumulative impacts of

harvesting methods and overfishing on species

populations (Bohnsack, 1990,1991). The impacts of

these activities and others, such as boating, scuba

diving, and snorkeling, must be studied further to

establish viable carrying-capacity levels. Once such

information is collected, it could be used to develop

additional management actions aimed at reducing

the impacts resulting from overuse. After activity

levels are identified, carrying capacities will be

implemented in highly sensitive areas (R.5.a, Alternative IV), helping to reduce wildlife disturbances;

enhance species diversity, abundance, and distribution; and protect species from the direct impacts of

overuse. Strategy R.5.b (Alternative III) increases the

level of species protection by enforcing identified

carrying-capacity limits in highly sensitive habitats

and high-use areas throughout the Sanctuary.

Strategy R.5.c (Alternative II) would increase species

protection and enhancement even more significantly

through the enforcement of carrying-capacity limits in

all habitats throughout the Sanctuary.

Consistent Regulations. Implementing consistent

fisheries regulations throughout the Sanctuary (F.1)

will significantly benefit species. Reducing the

administrative complexity and duplication of regulations will expedite enforcement, increase public

awareness, and promote compliance with fisheries

regulations. The strategy will ensure that the goals of

long-term ecosystem maintenance and optimum

sustainable yields are addressed. It provides the

same level of protection across each of the three

mid-range alternatives, and comprehensively addresses the impacts of current regulations, as well as

the need for new regulations. This strategy provides

a significant improvement in species protection

compared to the status quo (Alternative V), and

complements the work of the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf of Mexico and South

Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.

Limited Entry. The limited spatial distribution of

many species in the Keys, combined with an increasing demand for fisheries products, has already

adversely impacted the distribution and abundance of

certain species (Bohnsack, 1991). For example,

evidence suggests that fishing pressure has been a

factor in the decline of species such as sponge,

queen conch, and snook (Seaman and Collins,

1983). Limited entry is one method of managing the

overharvest of certain species. Strategy F.5.a

(Alternative IV) assesses existing limited-entry

programs to determine their applicability in the

Sanctuary. Alternative III (F.5.b) will implement

limited-entry options for fisheries in need of protection or with low stock abundance. Implementing

limited-entry options for all fisheries (F.5.c, Alternative II) would further increase species protection.

Gear/Methods. The use of improper fishing gear and

methods can have a negative impact on both targeted and nontargeted species. It is well documented

that lost, abandoned, and improperly designed gear

has historically impacted many species, including

amphibians, reptiles (specifically turtles), birds, fish,

and mammals (Lund, 1978c-e; Odell, 1990). Establishing a gear-removal program (F.9) will help prevent

species from being killed in traps or other gear that

has been lost, abandoned, or used out of season.

The strategy provides increased species protection

compared to the status quo (Alternative V), because

no comprehensive gear-removal program currently

exists within the Sanctuary.

Finfish traps can kill numerous nontargeted species

as well. Strategy F.12 complements existing State

laws and the South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council regulations that make the use of such traps

illegal. Increased enforcement and the eventual

elimination of these traps will benefit species abundance, diversity, and community composition, and

reduce pressures on vulnerable species such as

grouper. Strategy F.11.a (Alternative IV) addresses

the issue of damage to the habitats upon which

species depend by requiring research on low-impact

fishing gear and methods and promoting their use.

Requiring the use of low-impact gear and methods in

priority areas (F.11.b, Alternative III) or throughout

the Sanctuary (F.11.c, Alternative II) will increase the

level of habitat protection and benefit species. In

Alternative I, the most restrictive alternative, these

strategies are unnecessary, as all high-impact

activities would be prohibited in most, if not all, of the

Sanctuary.

Exotic Species. Releasing nonnative species into an

environment can disrupt the ecology of that area. For

example, exotic species can out-compete native

species for food, shelter, and spawning areas;

introduce devastating diseases or parasites; or alter

the host community, causing other species to decline

or become extinct (Courtenay, 1979; Courtenay and

Robins, 1989). Regulations prohibiting the release of

nonindigenous species (F.8) will be implemented to

protect native species and the habitats they utilize.
174

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

The level of species protection this strategy provides

is the same for each of the three mid-range alternatives, and will be a significant improvement over the

status quo (Alternative V), because few safeguards

currently exist to prevent the introduction of

nonindigenous species.

Marina Operations. Declining water quality and the

resulting habitat degradation affect species abundance, diversity, distribution, and health. Increased

concentrations of nutrients and toxicants can lead to

these conditions, and have been found in confined

and nearshore waters associated with marina

operations in the Sanctuary (Heatwole, 1987; Rios,

1990; Snedaker, 1990). Benthic organisms are

particularly vulnerable to toxicants that become

trapped in sediments. Therefore, species will benefit

from short-term remedial actions to reduce fuel

spillage (L.3.a, Alternative IV). In addition, the

installation of containment areas for boat maintenance and repair operations (L.3.b, Alternatives III

and II), combined with reductions in fuel spillage, will

significantly reduce the amount of toxic materials

entering the water column. Species will also benefit

from reduced nutrient levels resulting from the

installation of pump-out facilities at marinas (L.1), and

water quality improvements resulting from stricter

enforcement of OSHA regulations regarding marina

operations (L.2).

Access. With approximately 125 boat ramps and 165

marinas having direct access to Sanctuary waters,

access to habitats and species is relatively easy. The

heavy use of these access points impacts wildlife and

marine species that utilize nearshore areas. Strategy

B.1.a (Alternative IV) addresses species-related

problems by using the data from an inventory of

access points and use levels to manage existing

sites, and to restrict the development of new access

points to areas where access will have less of an

effect on the environment. This strategy will protect

species in heavily used nearshore areas and help to

protect the habitats on which they depend. Strategy

B.1.b (Alternative III) will further protect species by

requiring modifications to existing public ramps that

currently have an adverse impact on adjacent

sensitive areas. Modifying both public and private

ramps and implementing restrictions on new public

access areas (B.1.c, Alternative II) would provide

additional protection to the habitats on which species

depend.

To complement the carrying-capacity strategy (R.5),

Alternative IV protects species at heavily used sites

by establishing a comprehensive mooring buoy plan

that includes site-selection criteria, a program to

monitor use and impacts, and vessel size limits at

buoys installed in sensitive locations. Species will

benefit from reduced use levels in these areas.

Alternatives III and II offer an increased level of

species protection by requiring vessel size limits in

high-use and sensitive areas and throughout the

Sanctuary, respectively.

Restoration. Species abundance, diversity, and

distribution are intricately related to the habitats on

which they depend for their survival. As habitats

decline, the indigenous species with which they are

associated must find new areas to utilize and/or

adapt to changing conditions. Many species in the

Keys are vulnerable to changing habitat conditions,

and their populations decline with the loss of habitat

(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990; Florida Natural Areas

Inventory, 1990). Restoration activities and restoration site monitoring (B.2.a, Alternative IV) will help to

reduce the decline of vulnerable habitats and their

associated species. Strategies B.2.b (Alternative III)

and B.2.c (Alternative II) will increase the number of

restoration activities, providing additional benefits to

species through improved habitats or habitat gains.

 Additional Activities Affecting

 All Themes

Enforcement. Increasing the number of enforcement

officers (B.6) and establishing cross-deputization

(B.12) will lead to more consistent enforcement of

regulations related to improving water quality and

protecting habitats and species. Implementing crossdeputization and improving coordination among the

agencies responsible for enforcement are included in

each of the three mid-range alternatives, and provide

significantly improved resource protection compared

to the status quo (Alternative V). In addition, increasing the number of enforcement officers from Alternative IV to Alternative II will directly improve the ability

to enforce regulations over a wider area of the

Sanctuary. Specific enforcement activities in each

mid-range alternative focus on protecting high-risk

habitats such as corals, seagrasses, and mangroves;

protecting threatened or endangered species, or

those exhibiting low stock abundance; and improving

the Sanctuary's water quality.

Education. Education, interpretation, and the

promotion of public awareness of the Sanctuary's

natural resources, and the impacts to these resources, are important goals of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program. Although difficult to quantify, the

benefits of a sound education program include the

establishment of a knowledgeable volunteer base;
175

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

the development of programs to provide Sanctuaryrelated information to the public; and the encouragement of community cooperation, participation, and

pride in the Sanctuary. The education strategies in

the three mid-range alternatives provide an increasing level of educational activities designed to inform

users about the Sanctuary's resources, and the

environmental consequences of their actions. The

strategies build on and expand existing educational

programs, such as those currently in place at the Key

Largo and Looe Key National Marine Sanctuaries.

The benefits of the education strategies are similar

for water quality, habitats, and species, and represent a significant improvement over the status quo

(Alternative V).
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

177

D

Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

economy. The types of impacts are discussed in

qualitative terms. The extent of economic impacts

(e.g., sales, employment, income, etc.) and economic

values (i.e., net values above costs to produce a

good or service) associated with various uses are

quantified where practicable. In some cases, specific

scenarios are used to illustrate the possible magnitude of impacts. However, only general assessments

of the magnitude of potential impacts are possible.

Focus of Assessment. Of the 98 proposed management strategies, the Core Group and NOAA selected

24 that are expected to have the largest impacts in

terms of either benefits or costs, or that differed

significantly across alternatives. These 24 strategies

became the focus of a socioeconomic assessment

conducted by Bell and Sorensen (1993) to complement this management plan. In addition, strategies

that are regulatory in nature, or that will be implemented in the short term, are also included in this

socioeconomic impacts discussion. Collectively,

these are called "key strategies."

Additional Sources of Information. To supplement

the work of Bell and Sorensen on treasure hunting,

NOAA researched additional information sources,

including Florida State files, Admiralty Court files, and

periodicals (Varmer et al., 1993) to provide a more

complete picture of this issue.

Information on the effects of proposed actions on

human activities was also derived as part of the

process to develop a Sanctuary zoning scheme. The

criteria developed for, and used by, the Sanctuary

Advisory Council and the constituent groups they

represent in identifying potential Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Replenishment Reserves included a

consideration of the economic impacts of establishing

these areas. The criteria for establishing Sanctuary

Preservation Areas (SPAs) included identifying and

evaluating an area's economic value, user accessibility, and user conflicts. Specific information was

gathered on the types of activities/users, relative

level of use, relative value of the area, current user

conflicts and levels of conflict, and the activities

occurring adjacent to the site that could be impacted.

In addition, field observations at seven SPAs in the

Upper Keys provided information on the number and

type of boats present, and uses of these areas at one

point in time. This information included input from

local fishermen and dive operators who accompanied

Advisory Council members to the proposed sites.

Please note: This section has been supplemented

by the assessment of cost and benefits conducted

pursuant to E.O. 12866 and attached in Appendix M

of Volume III.

 Introduction

This chapter compares the differences in socioeconomic impacts among the management alternatives

being considered for the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Management Plan, focusing primarily on

three mid-range alternatives that achieve the purposes of the FKNMSPA. Evaluating and comparing

the potential socioeconomic impacts of each alternative involve assessing how implementing the proposed management strategies will directly and

indirectly affect user groups and/or industries, as well

as the local economy. In conjunction with evaluating

and comparing impacts on the natural environment,

this socioeconomic assessment is an important step

in the process of selecting a preferred management

alternative.

Review of Management Alternatives. The development and review of management alternatives are

required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) as a part of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) development process. This DEIS

evaluates the potential positive and negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of proposed

management actions and their significance, given the

goals and purposes of the NMSA and FKNMSPA.

As noted in the previous chapter describing impacts

to the natural environment, specific strategies were

not produced for either Alternative I (total restriction

of uses, except for research) or V (status quo/no

action), because these alternatives do not meet the

requirements of the NMSA and FKNMSPA to protect

resources and facilitate multiple uses. Strategies in

Alternative IV are generally included in Alternatives III

and II, with the latter containing increased restrictions, additional regulations or management actions,

or requiring implementation over a broader area.

Alternatives III and II also contain strategies not

included in Alternative IV.

 Intent of the Assessment

This socioeconomic impact assessment summarizes

the potential impacts of proposed management

strategies on various user groups and the local
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

178

The criteria for establishing Replenishment Reserves

included describing long-term economic value and

identifying economic effects on displaced user

groups; impacts on other areas and users caused by

restrictions or displacement to other areas; and the

ownership of adjacent property. Specific information

provided to support the establishment of each

proposed area included the types of activities and

users affected, type of impact (e.g., restriction,

displacement), alternative sites for displaced users,

and the impact(s) of these users on other areas.

This information, although qualitative in nature, was

used to refine the zones and minimize negative

impacts on users. It provides reliable data on the

relative effects of strategy implementation on human

activities, and is included in the issue discussions

that follow.

Costs. The cost information provided refers to

negative impacts such as expected losses in user

values, income, or employment. Management cost

estimates developed at the November 1992 Institutional Arrangements and Approximate Costs Work

Session, a meeting of Federal, State and local

officials with responsibilities in the Keys, were

reviewed and included in this assessment. These

cost estimates represent the participants' educated

estimates, based on their experience. Low- and highrange estimates were given for both capital and

annual operating costs, and costs for each proposed

management strategy across the mid-range alternatives. Another source of cost information is the EPAfunded study (EPA, 1993) completed as part of the

development of the Water Quality Protection Program. This study provided cost estimates for the

major water quality strategies, based on engineering

studies.

Organization. Summaries of the socioeconomic

impacts are organized by issue. For each issue, key

strategies are identified. The impacted user groups

and expected socioeconomic costs and benefits are

described for each key strategy, noting any long-term

versus short-term socioeconomic impacts. A discussion of impacts on the businesses and institutions

dependent on affected user groups for sales, employment income, and tax revenues are included where

practicable. The remaining strategies are then

summarized, and are followed by a comparison of

the expected impacts and benefits for each of the

mid-range alternatives. A tabular summary of impacts

is also provided for each issue.

The interrelated nature of the issues around which

this DEIS/Management Plan is organized results in

discussions of the socioeconomic impacts of implementing management actions on various topics of

significant concern in several places. Table 22

indicates the issues in which discussions of zoning,

submerged cultural resources, and fishing are found.

Constraints. Although little information is available for

some strategies, value and economic impact information is provided where data are available. For water

quality, education, and zoning strategies, management costs and cost-effectiveness were the only

quantitative measures included. In addition, an

assessment of the economic efficiency and economic

impact measures was added for water quality strategies. Despite the lack of comprehensive and consistent data, the relative nature of this assessment

provides sufficient information on the positive and

negative impacts and benefits to evaluate and

compare proposed alternatives, and select a preferred alternative.

 Interpretation of Assessments

Short-term and long-term impacts on society and the

local economy are two key aspects of this assessment. The magnitude of an activity, its economic

value, and the degree of the local community's

economic dependence on the activity are detailed.

Some strategies may have short-term negative

impacts on certain segments of the local economy.

For example, some water quality strategies require

capital investment, and may result in indirect costs.

Short-term negative impacts are derived by assuming

all other factors remain constant. However, if no

water quality management actions are taken, water

quality will continue to degrade. Continued degradaPrimary Concerns

Issues

Zoning

Boating

Education

Fishing

Land Use

Recreation

Water Quality

Zoning

Submerged Cultural 

Resources

Fishing

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Table 22. Tracking of Primary Concerns
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

179

D

tion threatens tourism and recreation activities, such

as scuba diving, snorkeling, and fishing, which have

high economic values, and account for a high percentage of the local employment and income.

Without proper management, the local economy

could experience large losses in economic values,

employment, and income. On the other hand, proposed management actions to protect or improve

water quality will have significant long-term benefits.

Increases in the quantity or quality of the Sanctuary's

natural and historic resources, increases in local

incomes, and declines in water quality in other areas

may all increase demand for Sanctuary resources

and offset the effects of cost increases. Thus, cost

increases for certain users may not result in decreased demand. Demand may increase less than it

would have without the cost increases. Demand may

even increase over time, despite certain cost increases, because of conservation of the Sanctuary

and its resources. Long-term potential impacts are

discussed to the extent to which an activity is at risk

by factors affecting the quantity and quality of natural

and historic resources.

 Overview of the Local Economy

The economy of Monroe County and the Florida

Keys is driven by recreation and tourism, commercial

fishing activities, and retirement communities. These

three “industries” account for over 80 percent of the

local economy (Bell, 1991). In addition, the U.S.

military and State government also contribute significantly to the local economic base. The remainder of

the local economy largely supports these basic

industries.

In 1990 about two million tourists visited the Keys,

totalling about 13 million days, with a direct spending

impact of almost $800 million. With total gross sales

amounting to approximately $1.6 billion, tourist

visitors account directly for about half of all gross

sales in the region. In addition, Keys' residents

participated in about 17 million days of recreation

activities, with a total expenditure impact of about

$16 million in 1990. Recreation and tourism activities

(and their associated support structures) account for

about 51 percent of employment and 58 percent of

income by place of work (Kearney/Centaur, 1990).

By 1992 the tourist population was estimated to

range between 3.6 million and 4.1 million persons

(MacMinn, pers. comm.). The spending impact

associated with this larger tourist population will have

also increased significantly.

Water-related activities account for about 61 percent

of all recreation and tourism. The nonmarket user

value of such activities to both residents and tourists

is estimated at approximately $660 million per year.

Using extremely conservative assumptions (i.e., no

growth in total recreation activity and constant value

per activity day) and a real rate of interest of three

percent (i.e., interest net of inflation), the asset value

of the Keys for water-related recreation is approximately $22 billion (1990 dollars) (Leeworthy, 1991).

Commercial fishing in the Sanctuary had an exvessel value of about $46 million in 1990. The

economic impact of commercial fishing in the Keys

was estimated by Rockland (1988). In 1986, the exvessel value of all Monroe County seafood landings

was approximately $27.4 million. The value at the

harvesting, wholesale, retail, and restaurant levels

was estimated to be about $41 million, $14.8 million

of which was income supporting almost 1,200 jobs.

Another significant aspect of the local economy is the

magnitude of its "retirement community." Florida is a

popular area for retirees because of the climate, low

taxes, low cost of living, and variety of natural

resources that support leisure activities. Accordingly,

major sources of income in Monroe County include

social security, pensions and return from investments

outside the county.

 Overview of Common Themes

The $1.6 billion economy of the Keys is dependent

on the maintenance of a high-quality marine environment. Over the last decade, that environment has

been increasingly degraded. The provisions and

regulations of the management plan address the

major issues in order to protect the quality of the

resources. Consequently, there are some common

themes from natural resource and environmental

economics that are relevant to assessing management strategies. All proposed strategies impact some

aspect of Sanctuary resources, either directly or

indirectly. Sanctuary resources (both natural and

historic) can be considered assets that produce a

flow of goods and services with both market and

nonmarket values to users and nonusers.

Nonmarket Value. The concept of nonmarket value

is relevant to the Keys. The area's natural resources

are considered public resources, not common

property or privately owned. Total market value

cannot be determined for some natural resources,

known as "nonmarket goods and services." For

example, coral reefs have both a market and
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

180

nonmarket value. While a market value for the

amount of live rock collected and other uses of coral

can be determined, there are intrinsic benefits/values

to the public that cannot be readily defined in monetary terms, such as the role of coral in providing

habitat for tropical fish, or the aesthetic appeal that

attracts many divers and snorkelers to the Keys. In

addition, coral reefs are also valued by those who

appreciate their existence, although they may not use

the resource. Nonmarket value is important to

acknowledge because when these common, public

resources are damaged or lost, their value often

cannot be readily quantified for damage assessment

and/or restoration purposes. Accordingly, nonmarket

goods and services are an integral part of the Keys'

economy.

Trade-offs. There may be cases where trade-offs

occur between the effects of strategy implementation

on economic values and economic impact. Restrictions may increase the costs of consumptive use.

However, protecting a resource may not only increase its quality and value, but have a long-term

economic benefit to both consumptive and

nonconsumptive users. This possibility of trade-offs

exists for all user groups. For example, some of the

proposed SPAs will displace current commercial and

recreational fishermen, as well as tropical fish

collectors, to nonzoned areas. This may result in

increased costs to fishermen and consumers from

displacement, as well as decreased sales, employment, income, and tax revenues for the local

economy dependent on this activity. The protection

provided by these zoned areas may have economic

value to nonconsumptive users. In addition, there

may be long-term benefits for consumptive users if

resource degradation can be stopped or reversed.

The assessments attempt to indicate if such a tradeoff might be expected.

Interrelationships of Strategies. The interrelationships among strategies that impact user groups and

the local economy cannot be overlooked. For example, both the marina pump-out and mobile pumpout strategies attempt to limit vessel pollution.

Implementation of just one of these strategies would

provide only limited benefits. Both strategies are

designed to improve water quality conditions, and

produce benefits that will affect the many waterrelated activities on which the local economy depends.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Boating

The user groups most likely to be impacted by the

proposed boating strategies are those participating in

water-related recreation/tourism activities, commercial fishing, marina use, and commercial shipping.

 Key Boating Strategies

The boating strategies are expected to provide

positive socioeconomic benefits (Table 23). The

strategies that will have the most significant socioeconomic effect on user groups are: Channel Marking (B.4), Pollution Discharges (B.7), Special-use

Permits (B.11), Salvaging/Towing (B.13), and PWC

Management (B.17). Since recreational boating

demand is relatively price-inelastic, it will continue to

be strong regardless of cost increases. Only small

negative impacts on the local tourist trade would be

expected. These impacts may not be actual declines

from current use and associated income levels, but a

slower expansion of future demand than would have

occurred otherwise.

Key Boating Strategies

B.4: Channel Marking

B.7: Pollution Discharges

B.11: Special-use Permits

B.13: Salvaging/Towing

B.17: PWC Management

B.4: Channel Marking. This strategy will likely have

an overall positive impact on boaters, as a result of

decreased degradation of seagrass meadows. While

the use of regulatory markers instructing boaters to

travel in marked channels may result in increased

fuel costs for those currently boating in seagrass

meadows, this cost will be offset by increased access

to previously inaccessible areas. This strategy would

be implemented throughout the Sanctuary in Alternatives II and III, and only in sensitive areas in Alternative IV. Consequently, Alternatives II and III will

provide the greatest benefit. If no action is taken, as

would be mandated in Alternative V, resource

degradation will continue.

B.7: Pollution Discharges. This strategy addresses

threats of pollution from the disposal of waste and the

exploration for, and development of, hydrocarbons.

The FKNMSPA prohibits the exploration and development of minerals throughout the Sanctuary. All of

the strategies address the threat of pollution, the
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

181

D

Alternative II Impacts

Table 23. Boating Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

enforcement of existing laws, the application of

supplemental Sanctuary regulations to improve the

enforcement of existing laws, and the provision of

additional protection from pollution. The difference in

the strategies is best evaluated by comparing the

variations in zoning strategy alternatives. As the

demand for recreation is price-inelastic, it will not

decrease substantially in the face of rising costs. The

negative impacts on boating costs should be minimal,

and would be offset by an increase in value and

enjoyment.

There should be no additional adverse economic

impact if existing restrictions on minerals and wastes

are incorporated into Sanctuary regulations. There

may be some economic impacts from supplemental

Sanctuary regulations by precluding the discharge of

wastes or other pollution threats throughout the

Sanctuary. There may also be additional economic

impacts on boaters due to the restriction on any

discharges from vessels in zoned areas. However,

the water quality improvement that will result should

increase the value of the Sanctuary to recreational

users and the tourist industry. In addition, since the

demand for recreation is price-inelastic, it should not

decrease the demand even if prices rise. The economic impact on boaters is expected to be minimal.

However, even if costs are greater than expected,

they may be offset by the economic benefits associated with resource conservation.

Positive economic impacts would occur, assuming

improvements in water quality and other natural

resources take place due to the restrictions on

Alternative IV Impacts Alternative III Impacts

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: increased incomes

• Costs: increase in negative impacts

 from slower expansion in tourism

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Vessel operation

• Costs: increased

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: increased incomes

• Costs: negative impacts from slower

 expansion in tourism

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Vessel operation

• Costs: increased

Strategies

Increased restriction

• B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6, B.8, B.13,

 and B.15

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: increased incomes

• Costs: negative impacts from slower

 expansion in tourism

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Vessel operation

• Costs: increased

Strategies

Increased restriction

• B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6, B.13, and

 B.15

pollution discharges throughout the Sanctuary. These

restrictions would not include wastes from traditional

fishing operations and vessel discharges allowed by

Coast Guard regulations. Additional positive economic impacts are expected in connection with the

restrictions on any vessel discharge in zoned areas,

with the only exceptions being engine exhaust and

cooling water. The resulting improvements in water

quality and other natural resources will economically

benefit recreational uses of the Sanctuary, as well as

research, education, and other Sanctuary activities.

Scuba diving, snorkeling, glass-bottom boat rides,

and recreational and commercial fishing would

directly benefit from a reduction in pollution. The

improved water quality may improve the value of

Sanctuary resources to users, in turn resulting in

increased charges to users from operators and

tourist-related industries. However, this cost to direct

users would have a related benefit to the local

economy.

Overall, operators may experience minimal economic

impacts, but those costs would likely be passed on to

the consumers, who are generally willing to pay for

improvements in water quality and other natural

resources. The additional restrictions on pollution will

not only improve the physical and natural environment, but also the socioeconomic conditions of

tourism industries related to the Sanctuary's recreational use. Pollution prevention may also benefit

fishing activities, if there is a corresponding increase

in the size and quality of fish stocks.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

182

personnel available who are trained in first aid and

CPR. These requirements are not currently part of

State or Federal law. Consequently, PWC rental

operations would incur additional costs that would

likely be passed on to renters. However, the benefits

gained from imposing these restrictions (e.g., increased operator safety) could exceed the costs of

implementing the strategy. No specific regulations for

PWC operations are proposed at this time, but such

regulations will be considered as part of the ongoing

management process.

The only component of this strategy proposed for

immediate implementation would require that any

motorized vessel (including PWC) operate at idle

speed within 200 yards of sensitive areas, including

residential shorelines, edges of flats, and locations

used by wading or nesting birds. These requirements

would benefit Sanctuary users by reducing adverse

impacts on natural resources and wildlife. However,

they would impose additional restrictions on boaters

and PWC operators.

Other Boating Strategies

Each of the remaining boating strategies would either

protect or restore resources damaged by boating

activities. Snorkeling, scuba diving, and recreational

and commercial fisheries activities would benefit

most significantly from the implementation of these

strategies. Recent damage assessment cases

regarding boat groundings in the Key Largo National

Marine Sanctuary have shown that even extremely

small amounts of habitat destruction (relative to

Sanctuary-wide resources) can have significant

negative impacts on economic user values. Thus, all

boating strategies are expected to have relatively

high socioeconomic benefits.

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV. The low level of restriction provided

by this alternative would cause low short-term costs

to boaters. However, serious socioeconomic impacts

are associated with the inevitable decline in resource

quality allowed by this alternative. This less-restrictive alternative would, in the long term, result in

decreased user value and net income, as well as

decreased employment, if water quality declines

significantly.

Alternative III. This alternative offers moderate

increases in resource protection compared to Alternative IV. Increased restrictions would occur in the

Boat Access (B.1), Habitat Restoration (B.2), Derelict

B.11: Special-use Permits. The Special-use Permits

strategy should not have an adverse economic

impact on most users. Within the Sanctuary, it will

establish a permitting scheme for concession-type or

commercial activities that would otherwise be prohibited. It may increase costs for those permittees

currently operating commercial or concession-type

activities in the Sanctuary, by potentially placing

conditions on their activities or imposing a permit

user fee.

B.13: Salvaging/Towing. The Salvaging/Towing

strategy is expected to have minimal socioeconomic

impacts. The primary user groups that would be

affected by this strategy are commercial salvage and

towing businesses. There are no standards or

requirements proposed specifically for salvaging/

towing at this time. However, this activity is subject to

future regulation. To the extent that any salvaging/

towing involves activities prohibited by the regulations, or otherwise injures Sanctuary resources, such

as coral reefs or seagrass meadows, a permit would

be required. Through permits or subsequent regulations, salvaging/towing operations may be required to

meet specific requirements (e.g., notification of

authorities, authorized site observer, use of trained

operators, use of environmentally sound techniques).

While such requirements may involve some increase

in cost of salvaging/towing operations, these requirements should benefit user groups involved in waterrelated activities by decreasing the potential for

damage to Sanctuary resources.

This strategy would include more direct and immediate costs to salvaging/towing operations under

Alternative II, because a permit and training program

would be required before any salvaging/towing is

conducted in the Sanctuary. No additional costs

would be involved under Alternative IV, since no

salvaging/towing permits or training would be required. There will be some incremental costs under

Alternative III, as permits would be required on a

case-by-case basis, depending on whether the

salvaging/towing involves an activity that would

otherwise be prohibited. Training for salvaging/towing

will not be required under Alternative III.

B.17: PWC Management. The user group that would

be most affected by this strategy is PWC rental

operators, who would be required to train their

employees in safe and environmentally sound

methods of PWC use. These operations would also

be required to have emergency communication

capabilities, have rescue and chase vessels available, mark their rental operation areas, and have
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

183

D

Alternative II Impacts

Vessels (B.3), Channel Marking (B.4), Additional

Enforcement (B.6), User Fees (B.8), Salvage/Towing

(B.13), and Mooring Buoy Impacts (B.15) strategies.

Minimal increases in potential long-term socioeconomic benefits are directly linked to this increased

resource protection. The costs associated with

implementing this alternative would be between those

of Alternatives II and IV.

Alternative II. Within this alternative, strategies B.1,

B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6, B.13, and B.15 would provide

increased protection compared to Alternative III. This

more-restrictive alternative would result in long-term

increases in user value, but possibly a small decline

in income and employment. A much smaller decline is

likely over the long term than would occur without

protection. Insufficient information is available to draw

conclusions about the relative socioeconomic benefits

of increased levels of protection. This alternative

would be the most expensive to implement.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Fishing

The Sanctuary is among the nation’s most popular

recreational fishing destinations. Rockland (1988)

estimated that in 1986 the Keys' recreational fisheries

generated $63.6 million in local output, $21.3 million

in local income, and approximately 1,800 local jobs.

The Keys also support an important commercial

fishing industry. For example, in 1986 commercial

fisheries in the area generated about $14.8 million in

local income and about 1,200 jobs (Rockland, 1988).

Recreational fisheries currently account for about five

percent of all local income, and commercial fisheries

make up an additional three percent. Eight percent

of all local income, therefore, is dependent on the

Sanctuary's fishery resources.

The cumulative impacts of all fishing strategies are

expected to be positive, with relatively low impacts

on any particular user group. There may, however,

be small negative impacts on the commercial shrimp

fishery and commercial sponge harvesters due to

regulatory requirements that affect gear and methods of harvest.

 Key Fishing Strategies

Eight of the 13 fishing strategies are assessed in this

section. Five strategies, Aquaculture Alternatives

(F.4), Limited Entry (F.5), Bycatch (F.10), Gear/

Method Impacts (F.11), and Sponge Harvest (F.15),

are expected to have the greatest socioeconomic

impact on user groups. The remaining strategies,

Artificial Reefs (F.7), Finfish Traps (F.12), and

Spearfishing (F.14), will also impact Sanctuary

users, but will be addressed in proposed NOAA

regulations. Table 24 provides a summary comparison across Alternatives II, III, and IV.

F.4: Aquaculture Alternatives. Aquaculture alternatives will be permitted in the Sanctuary to minimize or offset the negative impacts to tropical fish

collectors and live rock harvesters whose activities

are being prohibited. This strategy would result in

additional costs from consultation with the Sanctuary

Program.

Alternative IV Impacts Alternative III Impacts

User Groups

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Recreational fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: small increases, personal

 income increases

User Groups

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Recreational fishing

• Benefits, increased incomes

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: moderate increases,

 personal income increases

Strategies

Increased restriction

• F.3, F.5, F.6, F.11, and F.15

Additional

• F.4

User Groups

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Recreational fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Water-related recreation/tourism

• Benefits: moderate increases,

 personal income increases

Strategies

Increased restriction

• F.4, F.5, F.6, F.7, F.11, F.14, and

F.15

Table 24. Fishing Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

184

NMFS OF-6, 1985) establishes Federal guidance for

the design, construction, and location of artificial

reefs permitted under section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and

section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

The State of Florida has its own comprehensive

artificial reef management plan, which embraces the

National Plan and allows for individual county or

regional plans (Florida Artificial Reef Development

Plan, 1992).

Artificial reefs are generally designed to enhance

recreational and commercial fishing opportunities,

and fishermen are the primary users. However, other

users could include glass-bottom boat charters and

recreational divers. As a result of these activities, the

construction of artificial reefs may contribute positively to South Florida’s economy.

Within Alternative II, which would not allow the

construction and placement of any new artificial reefs

in the Sanctuary, fishermen and other users may be

impacted by this strategy. Within Alternative IV,

artificial reefs would be allowed throughout the

Sanctuary, so user impacts would be minimal. Within

Alternative III, the construction of new artificial reefs

would not be permitted in zoned areas or in the

vicinity of natural reefs, but would be permitted in

other areas of the Sanctuary. In both Alternatives III

and IV, those constructing and placing artificial reefs

may incur additional costs due to additional requirements above and beyond the existing artificial reef

plans for protecting and managing Sanctuary resources and uses.

F.10: Bycatch. Bycatch is the catch of nontargeted

or undersized targeted species by commercial fishing

operations. Although no bycatch regulations are

proposed currently, this activity may be regulated

under the Magnuson Act, State law, and/or the

NMSA. Any such fishing regulation would only be

proposed in coordination with NMFS, the Fishery

Management Councils and the State as part of the

continuing management process. The issue of

bycatch compounds the problem of overfishing in the

Sanctuary. Finfish stocks have been reduced dramatically by shrimp fishery bycatch. The implementation of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), as proposed in this strategy, would decrease the conflicts

between these fisheries and improve finfish stocks.

However, as bycatch is reduced, the shrimp catch

may decrease, causing operating costs to increase,

and pricing some shrimpers out of business. Economic impacts on the finfish industry may be minimal

or negative due to assimilation of capital and labor

from the shrimp industry. In addition, if overfishing in

Key Fishing Strategies

F.4: Aquaculture Alternatives

F.5: Limited Entry

F.7: Artificial Reefs

F.10: Bycatch

F.11: Gear/Method Impacts

F.12: Finfish Traps

F.14: Spearfishing

F.15: Sponge Harvest

However, there would be additional costs for aquaculture operations due to limitations or conditions

placed on where and how the aquaculture operations

may be conducted. In addition, this activity may

require a special-use permit. Within Alternative IV,

aquaculture may be conducted throughout the

Sanctuary. Within Alternative II, aquaculture is not

permitted in the Sanctuary. Within Alternative III,

aquaculture may be permitted in areas of the Sanctuary that lack significant natural resource habitats,

such as corals and seagrass meadows.

F.5: Limited Entry. Open access commercial

fisheries have faced exploitation, overcapitalization

and stock depletion. Both the State of Florida and

NMFS have initiated limited entry, in the form of a

trap-reduction program for spiny lobster, to address

these problems. However, limited-entry schemes that

focused on effort were not successful in achieving

management objectives (i.e., either improving total

catch or increasing the total catch value) (Bell and

Sorensen, 1993). The use of individual transferable

quotas (ITQs), however, has been successful. Such

quotas allocate shares of the total allowable catch.

Fish can then be harvested by the most efficient

methods, at whatever time maximizes return. Under

a limited-entry scheme using ITQs, fisheries could

realize significant socioeconomic benefits. This

strategy would be implemented by the State and the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.

This strategy would vary from an assessment of

limited-entry options (Alternative IV) to the protection

of all fisheries (Alternative II). In Alternative III, it

would impose regulations on a fishery-specific basis.

Limiting the scope of applications to selected fisheries would result in negative impacts on other fisheries

that are already overfished or fully exploited.

F.7: Artificial Reefs. Artificial reefs are currently

subject to State and Federal regulation. The National

Artificial Reef Plan (NOAA Technical Memorandum
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

185

D

restrictions as Alternative III, but the zoned areas

would be smaller, and there would be less impact on

spearfishermen. However, the impacts on

spearfishermen should be minimal, since the activity

would still be allowed in most of the Sanctuary. In

addition, the zoned areas prohibiting such fishing are

not those currently preferred by spearfishermen.

There may be some benefits to habitat, species

composition, and abundance as a result of these

restrictions. If so, there would be a corresponding

economic benefit for nonconsumptive users. Research on the impacts of spearfishing will be conducted as part of the continuous management

process.

F.15: Sponge Harvest. Within Alternative II, a threeyear moratorium on sponge harvesting would be

implemented. Regulations would be developed for

sponge harvesting after the moratorium. This would

have a significant effect on sponge harvesters, who

rely primarily on sponges in the Sanctuary for their

livelihood. These harvesters would incur costs due to

relocating operations to areas outside the Sanctuary.

Under Alternative III, regulations would be developed

that govern the harvest of sponges throughout the

Sanctuary. These regulations may include bag limits,

an increase in minimum size, and/or the designation

of areas closed to harvesting. This would adversely

impact sponge harvesters, but the overall costs

would be less than Alternative II. Under Alternative

IV, sponge harvesting would be prohibited in highpriority areas. Only sponge harvesters operating in

areas to be closed would be impacted.

Other Fishing Strategies

The Consistent Regulations strategy (F.1) is expected to have significant socioeconomic benefits.

Inconsistent regulations currently make enforcement

difficult and promote a lack of compliance. The two

levels of protection (Alternative IV and Alternatives II/

III) offered by the Stocking strategy (F.3) would range

from a research program to assess the impacts of

stocking programs, to the implementation of an

indefinite moratorium on stocking activities. The

Fisheries Sampling strategy (F.6) would improve the

statistical data on commercial and recreational

fisheries stocks. The information developed would be

useful in the protection and proper management of

economically important species. The Exotic Species

strategy (F.8) would prevent the release of such

species into the Sanctuary, thereby protecting the

native species and benefiting user groups that

depend on them. The Gear Removal strategy (F.9)

would involve voluntary compliance, and would have

common areas is not addressed, this strategy may

result in decreased yields in recreational and commercial finfisheries.

F.11: Gear/Method Impacts. Restrictions on fishing

gear and methods designed to minimize impacts on

coral, hardbottom areas, seagrass meadows and

other significant habitat will have socioeconomic

benefits for recreation users. Some commercial

fishermen may encounter additional costs from such

restrictions. However, this may be offset by fisheries

improvements due to the prevention of further habitat

degradation. Modifying the type of gear used by

commercial fishermen will reduce overfishing,

bycatch, and ghost fishing. Modifying fishing gear will

also alleviate negative impacts on coral reefs,

hardbottom, and seagrasses, preserving the recreational value to divers. A decrease in habitat destruction will benefit fishermen by enhancing stocks of

finfish.

Alternative II would apply gear/method restrictions

throughout the Sanctuary, and would thus have

positive socioeconomic impacts on recreational

users, and possibly commercial fishermen, if stocks

or fishery quality improve along with the habitat.

Alternative III would only restrict use in certain areas,

minimizing various costs for some commercial

fishermen, but having relatively fewer benefits for

recreational users and other fishermen. Alternative IV

would only utilize voluntary compliance with regulations. The draft regulations would prohibit the use of

explosives, poisons, electrical charges, bleach, and

oil as fishing methods. There are also proposed

prohibitions against bottom trawls, dredges, fish

sleds, and similar gear. The cost of switching to lowimpact gear and methods is outweighed by the

socioeconomic benefits to other recreational and

commercial users.

F.12: Finfish Traps. This strategy, which would

require the removal of finfish traps except those set

for bait fish, would adversely impact commercial

fishermen operating in a small portion of the Sanctuary within the Gulf of Mexico. However, because it

will eliminate ghost traps and the catch of

nontargeted species, the strategy will benefit fishery

stocks, and ultimately commercial fishermen.

F.14: Spearfishing. This strategy includes restrictions on the type of gear, bag limits, and closure of

areas to spearfishing. Within Alternative II, restricting

the activity throughout the Sanctuary would impact

spearfishermen. Within Alternative III, spearfishermen who primarily use zoned areas would incur

relocation costs. Alternative IV would have the same
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

186

Alternative II Impacts

Table 25. Land-use Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

User Groups

Boaters

• Costs: minimal income impacts

Marinas

• Costs: possible short-term decrease

 in income from increased cost to

 boaters

• Benefits: potential for long-term

 increases in income from wetland

 development and dredge and fill

 activities that will restrict the supply

 of future marinas

Other water-related recreation

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Strategies

Increased restriction

• L.14 and L.16

User Group

Boaters

• Costs: minimal income impacts

Marinas

• Costs: possible short-term decrease

 in income from increased cost to

 boaters

• Benefits: potential for long-term

 increases in income from wetland

 development and dredge and fill

 activities that will restrict the supply

 of future marinas

Other water-related recreation

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Strategies

Increased restriction

• L.3, L.8, L.14, L.15, L.16, L.18 and

 L.20

Additional

• L.6 and L.12

Alternative IV Impacts

User Groups

Boaters

• Costs: minimal income impacts

Marinas

• Costs: possible short-term decrease

 in income from increased cost to

 boaters

• Benefits: potential for long-term

 increases in income from wetland

 development and dredge and fill

 activities that will restrict the supply

 of future marinas

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Alternative III Impacts

little or no socioeconomic impact on fishermen. It

may, however, have positive impacts on boaters and

scuba divers.

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV. While this alternative would have the

lowest short-term costs and lowest level of restriction

across the mid-range alternatives, the long-term

implication is resource depletion with corresponding

negative socioeconomic impacts.

Alternative III. This alternative would offer moderate

increases in resource protection compared to Alternative IV, with minimal increases in potential longterm socioeconomic benefits.

Alternative II. This alternative would be the most

costly to implement, and the level of protection

offered would differ significantly from Alternative III.

Socioeconomic benefits would increase moderately,

while costs would increase significantly.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Land Use

Land-use management in the Keys is vital to the

Sanctuary's environmental health. Although the

Sanctuary does not include land above the mean

high-tide mark, land-use activities that are likely to

destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any Sanctuary

resource are subject to the National Marine Sanctuary Act consultation process. The relationship

between land use and water quality is critical, because a significant portion of the Keys' economy is

dependent on income from water-related activities

such as diving, boating, wildlife observation, and

fishing. As water quality and the quantity and quality

of the related habitat declines, the demand for these

activities decreases as participants seek substitute

sites. In some cases, making land-use decisions in

favor of conservation may cause short-term losses in

income; however, the long-term sustainability of a

healthy economy and the value of the many

nonmarket goods and services are dependent on

good environmental quality (Table 25).
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

187

D

improved. All user groups associated with marinas

and water-related activities would benefit from

reduced pollutant loading.

L.3: Fueling/Maintenance. Within Alternatives II and

III, this strategy would require the establishment of

paved and curbed containment areas for boat

maintenance activities such as hull scraping and

repainting, mechanical repairs, fueling, and lubrication. These options would be quite expensive, and it

is unclear whether the socioeconomic benefits would

equal or exceed the costs of implementation. Within

Alternative IV, this strategy would require an evaluation of procedures and remedial solutions, with

minimal socioeconomic benefits.

L.6: Mobile Pump-out. This strategy is included in

Alternatives II and III, but not in Alternative IV. Mobile

pump-out provisions will help mitigate the impacts of

boating activities and marina operations within the

Sanctuary. Although this strategy would result in

small positive socioeconomic benefits through a

decrease in pollution from live-aboards, the impact

on live-aboards is unknown, as the strategy does not

specify what facilities would be supplied, or how they

would be paid for.

L.7: SWD Problem Sites and L.9: SWD Policy

Compliance. High levels of demand for development, and a limited amount of usable land, make

solid waste disposal a significant problem in the

Keys. Solid waste is currently transported to a landfill

in Pompano Beach at a cost of $75/ton. This landfill

has a remaining life of 46 years. Strategy L.7 would

provide for the evaluation and implementation of

appropriate remedial actions at problem sites.

Strategy L.9 would require compliance with Monroe

County policies on solid waste disposal. Participants

in water-related recreation and commercial fishermen

would be positively impacted if a viable option for the

containment and/or relocation of solid waste is

implemented.

L.8: Containment Options. The provisions of this

strategy would require both a study of various

containment/relocation options and the implementation of appropriate options within five years. Within

Alternative IV, the strategy would only require a

feasibility study of options, with no commitment to

implementation. The implementation of containment/

relocation options would increase the cost of waste

disposal, while protecting water quality. These costs

would be incurred by residents and businesses. As

good water quality is vital to the Keys' economy, the

long-term benefits of this strategy would exceed the

costs.

 Key Land-use Strategies

Eleven of the 19 land-use strategies are discussed in

this section. The cumulative socioeconomic benefit

from all land-use strategies would be significant.

Protective measures would restrict supply relative to

demand, potentially resulting in increases in economic rents (returns above normal profits) for existing

establishments. Property values would rise as land

use and other supply restrictions are put into effect.

In a study of environmental regulations and land-use

restriction, Beaton (1991) found that property values

increased after regulations and restrictions were

imposed. The cumulative impact of the land-use

strategies within the three mid-range alternatives

would likely have the same type of impact on income

and property values in the Keys.

Key Land-use Strategies

L.1: Marina Pump-out

L.2: Marina Operations

L.3: Fueling/Maintenance

L.6: Mobile Pump-out

L.7: SWD Problem Sites

L.8: Containment Options

L.9: SWD Policy Compliance

L.14: Dredging Prohibition

L.15: Dredging Regulations

L.18: Wetland Dredge and Fill

L.20: Public Access

L.1: Marina Pump-out. The provisions of this

strategy are consistent across the three mid-range

alternatives. The secondary containment options

included in this strategy (e.g., additional paving and

curbing) would be very costly, especially considering

the uncertainty of the socioeconomic benefits. For

example, a $19,000 pump-out facility was recently

installed at John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park,

but it would have cost over $1 million if a package

plant had not been in place to accept the waste

produced. Still, studies have shown that the cost of

pump-out facilities could be passed on to vessel

owners, as the demand for marina services is

relatively inelastic (Bell and Leeworthy, 1984).

L.2: Marina Operations. The provisions of this

strategy are consistent across the mid-range alternatives. The strategy would require a comprehensive

assessment of marina compliance with current

regulations. Marina siting criteria would also be
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

188

because saved wetlands provide runoff buffers and

habitats for threatened and endangered species.

L.20: Public Access. There is increasing concern

that access to public resources is being restricted by

increased privatization of the coastline. Florida

addresses this concern through a program that

leases submerged lands to marinas at a 30 percent

discount if they open the marina on a first-come, firstserve basis. However, the costs of increased public

access, both in economic terms and in damage to

resources, must be considered. Resource damage

includes anchor damage, groundings, impacts

caused by scuba divers on the reef, and impacts of

fishing and spearfishing on target species. Also with

increased public access, the marginal socioeconomic

benefit received is expected to decrease as congestion produces diminishing returns. In this case,

crowding is considered a negative externality.

Public access must be addressed in conjunction with

the carrying-capacity of the resource, both in physical

and economic dimensions. Restricting public access

would, in the long term, have significant socioeconomic benefits. However, trade-offs will occur

between the total amount of use and its total value.

Maximizing the economic value of the resource may

conflict with maximizing sales, employment, and

income impacts in the short term.

This strategy would provide greater protection in

Alternatives III and II (compared to Alternative IV)

through the acquisition of shoreline areas to improve

public access while protecting habitat. Florida

currently has three programs to acquire land: Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL); Save Our

Coasts (SOC); and the Land Acquisition Trust Fund

(LATF). Alternative III has the potential to provide

significant benefits if the provision of public access is

consistent with the resource's carrying-capacity.

Within Alternative IV, no actions would be taken to

improve public access.

Comparative Impacts

The majority of the land-use strategies offer two

levels of protection (Alternative IV and Alternatives II/

III). Only the Dredging Prohibition strategy (L.14)

offers three different levels of protection. The differences in costs and benefits among these three levels

constitute the bulk of the differences among the midrange alternatives.

Alternative IV. This alternative proposes no further

action in a number of the strategies, and therefore

provides no socioeconomic benefits.

L.14: Dredging Prohibition. Alternative II would

prohibit new dredge and fill permits; Alternative III

would allow permits if public interest is demonstrated,

and little or no environmental degradation is likely,

and Alternative IV would allow permits if public

interest is demonstrated. The socioeconomic benefits

of restricting all new permits would be significant, but

the cost burden placed on new development would

be significant as well. Conversely, Alternative IV

would allow costly degradation of area wetlands,

benefiting development interests at the expense of

long-term public needs.

L.15: Dredging Regulations. In the mid-range

alternatives, this strategy would provide for an

inventory and assessment of current and recent

maintenance dredging activities throughout the

Sanctuary. Only Alternatives II and III, however,

would require low-impact dredging methods for all

maintenance dredging. While low-impact dredging

may increase the operational costs of maintenance,

the reduced impacts to sensitive Sanctuary habitats

(e.g., corals, seagrasses, and mangroves) would

benefit all user groups.

L.18: Wetland Dredge and Fill. Wetlands represent

a market failure, because owners are unable to

charge for the economic services these areas

provide. Unless prevented, wetland owners will

convert such land to uses that may be suboptimal

from an economic standpoint. There are many varied

socioeconomic benefits derived from wetlands. They

provide habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife; act

as a pollution filter; remove sediment; and provide

flood control, groundwater recharge, and recreational

opportunities. Saltwater or marine wetlands are

linked to nearly 92 percent of the value of Florida’s

commercial fish harvest. Bell (1989) estimated the

recreational fishery value per wetland acre to be

$7,082 and $923 on the east and west coast of

Florida, respectively (1984 dollars). Using the saltwater marsh acre value of approximately $1,450 (1992

retail) for commercial fisheries, and approximately

$5,500 (1992 dollars) for recreational fisheries, the

estimated value that saltwater marsh contributes to

fisheries surrounding Monroe County (using the 645

km2

 reported by NOAA in 1986) is $246 million for

commercial fisheries, and $877 million for recreational fisheries.

Within both Alternatives II and III, this strategy would

reduce the degree of wetland destruction currently

occurring. The cost of residential and business

development would increase as the supply of suitable

land becomes limited. However, while this strategy

would increase costs, Sanctuary users would benefit
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

189

D

Alternative IV Impacts

Table 26. Recreation Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

User Groups

SCR divers

• Benefits: increased incomes

Treasure hunters

• Costs: potential lost incomes

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased incomes

Strategies

Increased restriction

• R.2 and R.5 (Benefits unclear due to

 possible negative externalities)

User Groups

SCR divers

• Benefits: increased incomes

Treasure hunters

• Costs: potential lost incomes

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased incomes

Strategies

Increased restriction

• R.5 (Responsible for an increase in

 benefits and cost)

Alternative III Impacts Alternative II Impacts

User Groups

SCR divers

• Benefits: increased incomes

Treasure hunters

• Costs: Potential lost incomes

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased incomes

Alternative III. This alternative effectively limits costs

while maximizing socioeconomic benefits.

Alternative II. This alternative contains many of the

same provisions as Alternative III. The difference in

estimated costs and benefits between the alternatives is undetermined, however, and the complete

prohibition of dredging activities proposed in strategy

L.14 would raise the cost of this alternative.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Recreation

The Keys are a major tourist destination. In 1990

1.86 million out-of-state tourists visited Monroe

County, totalling 12.87 million tourist-days. Although

estimating the number of instate tourists is more

difficult, the uniqueness of the Keys' climate and the

reef system also make it a major tourist destination

for Florida residents. Given the area's high level of

use, proper management is crucial to maintaining its

recreational value.

People who visit the Keys participate in a wide

variety of activities that affect the Sanctuary (e.g.,

boating, fishing, diving, etc.). The overuse or misuse

of Sanctuary resources will lead to a lessening of

both the utility and value of the area.

 Key Recreation Strategies

Of the recreation strategies, the SCR Management

(R.1) and Carrying Capacity (R.5) strategies have the

potential for causing the greatest socioeconomic

impact. The Coral Touching (R.7) strategy will benefit

Sanctuary resources, but restrictions will make dive

operations more difficult. The impacts of the Recreation Survey (R.2) strategy are negligible, except

within Alternative II, where charter boat operators will

be affected. Table 26 provides a summary comparison across Alternatives II, III, and IV.

Key Recreation Strategies

R.1: SCR Management

R.2: Recreation Survey

R.5: Carrying Capacity

R.7: Coral Touching

R.1: SCR Management. Because of the Keys'

importance as a major trade route, as well as its

natural reef structure, a significant number of shipwrecks have occurred in the waters in and around

the Sanctuary. Four-hundred-and-fifty submerged

cultural resources (SCRs) have been logged within

the Keys, and an estimated 900 sites may be located

in the area. Many direct and indirect socioeconomic

benefits are derived from these SCRs. They attract

scuba divers, snorkelers, souvenir collectors, historians, and marine archaeologists. Kearney/Centaur

(1990), for example, estimated that over 846,000

scuba divers and snorkelers visit the Keys annually,

with a large portion participating in SCR diving.

Leeworthy (1991) estimated that each diver in the

Keys has a daily recreational user value of $319.36,

for a total user value of $197.6 million annually. The

wrecks also provide a unique habitat for tropical and

sport fish, contributing to the area's recreational

fishing value, and provide educational opportunities
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

190

for historians. The minimum total regional impact

attributed to SCR visitors in 1990 was $163.5 million

(Bell and Sorensen, 1993).

Most shipwrecks in the Keys have already been

salvaged. New technological developments have

helped locate wrecks in deeper waters, but because

most of the waters surrounding the Keys are relatively shallow, this technology is not likely to lead to a

significant number of new wreck discoveries. This

hypothesis is supported by files of the State and the

Admiralty Court. There are currently no significant

salvage contracts in the State-managed portion of

the Sanctuary and, except for the ATOCHA and the

MARGUERITA, there have been no significant

treasure finds in the Sanctuary's Federal portion,

either. Accordingly, there has been a shift in treasure

hunting to the Caribbean and other areas of the

world. Also, recent changes in various laws have

occurred, making it less likely that the treasure

hunters will gain title to future finds.

Based on these laws, and the unlikelihood of new

significant finds in the Keys, the regulation and

management of SCRs within the Sanctuary is not

expected to have a significant socioeconomic impact.

While the likelihood of another significant treasure

find is speculative, private recovery will still be

possible, and the negative economic impacts on

treasure hunters from the proposed SCR management strategies should be minimal (Varmer et al.,

1993). Such impacts could result from prohibitions on

recovery operations in protected zones and areas

containing coral and/or seagrass meadows. The

costs involved with managing SCRs include establishing a staff, organizing the SCR survey, and

continuing the supervision of the sites.

R.2: Recreation Survey. Information from the

recreation survey established by this strategy will

enable management decisions to be made on costs

(associated with permits, regulations, and other

requirements) that may be imposed on users.

Alternatives III and IV should not impact any user

groups. However, within Alternative II, survey information would be used to establish a permitting and

enforcement system to regulate use levels (e.g.,

number of boats, divers, etc.), and the strategy would

have a negative impact on charter and rental boat

operations.

R.5: Carrying Capacity. High levels of recreational

use have major physical and biological impacts on

Sanctuary resources. The effects of this use may

reduce the value of the recreational experience in the

Keys. This strategy would establish recreational

carrying capacities to minimize wildlife disturbances

and other adverse effects. It would be enforced only

in highly sensitive areas in Alternative IV, in high-use

and highly sensitive habitats in Alternative III, and

throughout the Sanctuary in Alternative II. If specialuse permits are implemented, additional user fee

costs would be incurred.

Because the regional economy is dominated by

recreation, any limitation on carrying capacities that

reduces the level of recreational activity would have a

negative socioeconomic effect. For example, Bell and

Sorenson (1993) estimated that a five percent

reduction in visitation would result in the loss of

approximately $23 million in regional incomes, and

over 1,000 jobs. However, because the annual user

value of recreation (estimated at $653 million)

exceeds the annual value of income generated by

the regional economy (estimated at $463 million), the

benefits of a carrying-capacity management policy

have the potential to exceed the losses incurred by

the local economy, assuming user values rise as a

result of the imposed limits. Implementing carryingcapacity limits would also involve increased costs.

However, the benefits gained from such limits may

balance or exceed the costs incurred.

R.7: Coral Touching. This strategy should have a

positive impact on most user groups (e.g., divers,

snorkelers, and charter operators) because it will limit

the potential damage to corals, protecting this

primary resource attraction. However, there are

concerns that the restrictions could negatively impact

the dive charter industry, by making it potentially

liable for damages caused by divers and charter

vessels anchoring near corals. Within Alternative II,

coral touching would be prohibited throughout the

Sanctuary, resulting in potentially significant impacts

on the dive/charter industry. In addition, some

revenues may be lost if divers choose not to dive to

avoid accidentally touching coral. There may also be

additional costs for gear or other buoyancy-control

methods designed to help divers avoid coral touching. Within Alternative III, coral touching is only

prohibited in protected zones, but the removal or

injury of coral is prohibited throughout the Sanctuary.

Accordingly, there would be some of the same costs

and impacts as in Alternative II, but they should be

significantly less severe. In addition, there may be

some shifting of dive/charter sites that would involve

some additional costs that could be passed on to the

users. The impacts of Alternative IV would be similar

to Alternative III, but because the protected zones

are smaller, they would not be as significant.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

191

D

to users, these higher costs may result in a lower

number of visitors participating in water-related

activities. High-cost improvements may also result in

site substitution in the short term, until costs level off.

However, over the long term, water quality would

improve, and the costs of implementing protective

strategies would also decrease over time. Increases

in income and water quality would, in the long term,

increase demand and, therefore, the value of waterrelated activities, offsetting any short-term losses.

Unless the Keys' wastewater treatment problem is

properly addressed with a balanced plan, irreversible

environmental damage may result. The costs of

implementing protective strategies may be insignificant compared to the consequences of taking no

action. The negative long-term economic impacts

from lost revenues could threaten the livelihood of

county residents. Conversely, negative impacts may

also be compounded by expensive and relatively

ineffective strategies, with low cost/benefit ratios. An

alternative must be selected that maximizes both

environmental and economic benefits.

 Key Water Quality Strategies

Most user groups, especially water-related recreation

users and commercial fishermen, will benefit from the

water quality strategies in the mid-range alternatives.

All benefits are assumed, and are considered longterm potential benefits (Table 27). The key assumption is that if water quality strategies are not implemented (Alternative V), the goods and services upon

which these user groups depend will degrade and

may eventually be eliminated. Of the 32 water quality

strategies, seven, OSDS Demonstration Project

(W.1); AWT Demonstration Project (W.2); Wastewater Management Systems (W.3); Wastewater Disposal, City of Key West (W.4), Canal Water Quality

Key Water Quality Strategies

W.1: OSDS Demonstration Project

W.2: AWT Demonstration Project

W.3: Wastewater Management Systems

W.4: Wastewater Disposal, City of Key West

W.6: NPDES Program Delegation

W.10: Canal Water Quality

W.11: Stormwater Retrofitting

W.12: Stormwater Permitting

W.15: HAZMAT Response

W.32: Advisory Committee

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV. This alternative would offer the least

restriction, and the least positive socioeconomic

impact.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide more

restrictions than Alternative IV, or the same restrictions over a larger area. Carrying-capacity limits

would be enforced in highly sensitive and high-use

areas, and the recreational users of these areas

would be impacted.

Alternative II. This alternative would be the most

restrictive, as it requires a permitting and enforcement system to regulate use levels (e.g., number of

boats, divers, etc.) for charter and recreational-forhire vessels. It would also establish carrying-capacity

limits for recreational activities throughout the Sanctuary, displacing some users. This alternative would

have the greatest socioeconomic impact on both

commercial and recreational users.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Water Quality

Monroe County's economic base is heavily dependent on tourism and water-related activities. These

activities, in turn, depend on waters of consistently

high quality. However, pollutant discharges in the

Sanctuary, most of which can be attributed to wastewater treatment methods in Monroe County, have

degraded the area's water quality.

Because water-related activities such as snorkeling

and scuba diving depend on clean, clear water to

maintain high user values, the tourist industry would

suffer the greatest losses if the county's wastewater

disposal problems are ignored. Other water-related

activities/user groups that rely on good water quality

include beach users, boaters, PWC users, glassbottom boat operators, and visitors observing wildlife.

In addition, the continuing and improved health of

commercial and recreational fisheries depends on

maintaining a satisfactory level of surface and

groundwater quality. These resources are currently

overfished, and may disappear if the habitats used by

target species (e.g., seagrasses, coral, and sponge

beds) are reduced by diminishing water quality.

If wastewater management strategies are implemented, the county's economy would encounter

short-term losses due to higher costs, with no

immediate improvement in water quality. Passed on
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

192

Alternative IV Impacts

nomic benefit of lowering overall costs of wastewater

treatment for residents and business establishments.

W.3: Wastewater Management Systems. Under

each of the mid-range alternatives, this strategy

would require inspection/enforcement programs for

OSDS and package plants, and the elimination of

cesspits. Alternatives II and III also include targets for

wastewater nutrient loadings, and the development

and implementation of a Stormwater Master Plan.

Although no single water quality strategy is expected

to have a significant socioeconomic impact on any

user group, this strategy may have larger socioeconomic benefits on those activities dependent on

water clarity, such as scuba diving and snorkeling.

Although glass-bottom boat operations also depend

on low turbidity, positive impacts would be minimal,

due to the small number of user days associated with

this activity. The commercial fishing industry would

receive only small positive impacts, assuming the

issue of common property is properly addressed (see

fishing issue discussion). Commercial fisheries rely

on a combination of strategies designed for stock

enhancement and improved management. Recreational fisheries have greater economic value than

commercial fisheries, and historically, management

efforts to control catch have been more successful

when targeting recreational users.

W.4: Wastewater Disposal, City of Key West. This

strategy would require that the effluent disposal at

Table 27. Water Quality Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

Alternative III Impacts Alternative II Impacts

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

 industry

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Residents and business owners

• Costs: increase, but many incomes

 depend on industries tied to water

 quality

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

 industry

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Residents and business owners

• Benefits: possible advanced

 wastewater treatment cost

 decrease

Strategies

Increased restriction

• W.3 and W.10

Additional

• W.7 and W.11

User Groups

Water-related recreation/tourism

 industry

• Benefits: increased incomes

Commercial fishing

• Benefits: increased incomes

Residents and business owners

• Benefits: possible advanced

 wastewater treatment cost

 decreases

Strategies

Increased restriction

• W.10, W.11, and W.17

(W.10); Stormwater Retrofitting (W.11); and HAZMAT

Response (W.15), are expected to have the greatest

socioeconomic impact on users. Three other strategies are addressed in this section because their

implementation is expected before or within the first

year following the adoption of the Management Plan.

Qualitative discussions of impacts on user groups are

provided for all strategies except W.15, which

includes quantitative estimates as well.

W.1: OSDS Demonstration Project and W.2: AWT

Demonstration Project. In general, little is known

about the impacts of long-term on-site disposal

system (OSDS) use, illegal cesspit use, or the

effectiveness of advanced wastewater treatment

plants (AWTs) in Monroe County. Forty-four percent

of all wastewater flow is currently treated by OSDSs

(24,000) and cesspits (5,000), 16 percent is treated

by package plants (200), and 40 percent is treated by

wastewater treatment plants in Key West (Sorensen,

1993). Cesspits have a much greater negative

environmental impact than OSDSs. The implementation of the AWT Demonstration Project strategy (W.2)

would address this uncertainty through a demonstration and monitoring project. If the results reveal

economic and environmental benefits, coupled with

decreased operational costs over the long run, users

may convert to cleaner AWT plants. In addition,

AWTs may be the most cost-efficient method of

reducing nutrient loads, if economies of scale exist

for AWTs. This would entail the added socioeco-
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

193

D

Key West's wastewater treatment plant be upgraded

through the implementation of nutrient reduction

technologies, deep-well injection aquifer storage and/

or re-use, and discontinuing the use of ocean outfall.

This strategy would reduce direct nutrient loadings to

surface waters, providing equal benefits and requiring equal costs, regardless of the alternative chosen.

W.6: NPDES Program Delegation. Within each of

the mid-range alternatives, this strategy would

delegate administration of the NPDES program for

Florida Keys' dischargers to the State of Florida. The

program would benefit permittees and the State of

Florida by streamlining the current process. No costs

are expected.

W.10: Canal Water Quality. The provisions of this

strategy are progressively more restrictive from

Alternative IV to Alternative II. For example, although

all of the alternatives would require an inventory of

dead-end canals and basins, only Alternative II would

require that improvements be implemented throughout the Sanctuary. Alternative III would only require

improvements in known hot spots. The impacts of

this strategy regarding the connection between canal

water quality, overall Sanctuary water quality, and

water-based activities are unknown. Due to uncertainties about the impacts of nutrient loadings in

dead-end canals on Sanctuary nearshore waters,

only small positive benefits can be predicted where

improvements are implemented.

W.11: Stormwater Retrofitting. This strategy would

not be implemented under Alternative IV, and would

be more restrictive within Alternative II than Alternative III. Within all alternatives, loadings of sediment,

toxics, and nutrients to Sanctuary waters would be

reduced through engineering methods. Due to

uncertainties about the impacts of nutrient loadings in

dead-end canals on Sanctuary nearshore waters,

only small positive benefits can be predicted where

improvements are implemented.

W.12: Stormwater Permitting. This strategy would

require that no development in the Keys be exempted from the stormwater permitting process. This

action would benefit all user groups by potentially

decreasing the negative impact that stormwater has

on Sanctuary waters. However, due to uncertainties

about the impacts of nutrient loadings in dead-end

canals on Sanctuary nearshore waters, only small

positive benefits can be predicted.

W.15: HAZMAT Response. In assessing this

strategy, a survey addressing tourist response to a

simulated oil spill was used to estimate economic

impacts on the county. The hypothetical study

showed that in 1987, 55.2 percent of all tourists

would leave the Keys if an oil spill occurred, resulting

in an estimated loss of between $22 million and $55

million in personal income. Annual user value losses

were estimated at between $60 million and $160

million, as a result of a similar hypothetical spill in

1990 (Bell, 1993). The provisions of this strategy are

consistent across the mid-range alternatives.

W. 32: Advisory Committee. This strategy would

require the establishment of a technical advisory

committee to coordinate and guide research and

monitoring activities. The undetermined costs and

benefits of this strategy would be the same across

the mid-range alternatives.

Other Water Quality Strategies

Other strategies that are expected to have socioeconomic impacts include Mosquito Spraying (W.17) and

Pesticide Research (W.18), both of which would

reduce pesticide use in the Sanctuary. In general, the

individual positive impacts of implementing water

quality strategies would be minimal, compared to the

strategies in combination. Across all strategies there

is a potential for large socioeconomic benefits, both

in terms of economic value, and sales and employment in the local economy.

Comparative Impacts

Wastewater Management Systems (W.3), Canal WQ

(W.10), Stormwater Retrofitting (W.11), and Mosquito

Spraying (W.17) are the only water quality strategies

that differ by level of protection across alternatives.

These strategies have therefore become the basis for

determining the comparative impacts of the midrange alternatives.

Alternative IV. Alternative IV would provide few

measures designed to limit water quality degradation;

therefore, few socioeconomic benefits would occur.

While short-term costs would be low, the long-term

costs of continued water quality degradation would

be high, and would affect all user groups.

Alternative III. Alternative III would provide significant increases in water quality, regarding both

nutrient and toxic inputs. It would, therefore, have

significant long-term potential benefits for water

quality-dependent activities.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

194

Alternative IV Impacts

Table 28. Zoning Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

Alternative III Impacts Alternative II Impacts

User Groups

Commercial fishermen

• Costs: short-term loss of fishing

 area

• Benefits: potential for long-term

 increase in stock abundance

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased income

User Groups

Commercial fishermen

• Costs: short-term loss of fishing

 area

• Benefits: potential for long-term

 increase in stock abundance

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased income

Strategies

Increased restriction

• Z.1, Z.2, and Z.3 (Responsible for

 an increase in benefits. Costs are

 unknown)

User Groups

Commercial fishermen

• Costs: short-term loss of fishing area

• Benefits: potential long-term

 increase in stock abundance

Other water-related recreation users

• Benefits: increased income

 Strategies

Increased restriction

• Z.1, Z.2, Z.3, and Z.5 (It is unclear

 which strategies would have the

 greatest benefits)

Key Zoning Strategies

Z.1: Wildlife Management Areas

Z.2: Replenishment Reserves

Z.3 Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Z.4: Existing Management Areas

Z.5 Special-use Areas

Table 28 provides a summary comparison across

Alternatives II, III, and IV.

Z.1: Wildlife Management Zones. This strategy

would affect user groups participating in wildlife

observation, or seeking access to these areas. Users

participating in wildlife observation would see a small

socioeconomic benefit, due to greater assurances of

continued wildlife and habitat protection. However,

most of these zones are already within three national

wildlife refuges and are under restrictions established

by the FWS. As a result, the strategy is likely to have

minimal socioeconomic impacts on Sanctuary users.

Z.2: Replenishment Reserves. These zones will

limit consumptive activities, while allowing recreational activities that are compatible with resource

protection. The proposed Key Largo Replenishment

Reserve may displace some users, such as commercial lobster fishermen. Lobster fishermen, tropical

species collectors, and recreational and commercial

fishermen may also be displaced by the Sambos

Reserve. Although these zones would prohibit

commercial and recreational fishing, they are expected to have an overall benefit by protecting

Alternative II. Alternative II would involve only small

additional Sanctuary-wide reductions in both nutrients and toxics compared to Alternative III, and

would therefore result in few additional socioeconomic benefits. The costs associated with implementing strategies W.3 and W.11 make implementing this

alternative impractical.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Zoning

As mandated by FKNMSPA, zoning has been

proposed to ensure the protection of Sanctuary

resources. Each of the five proposed zone types is

designed to reduce damage to resources and threats

to environmental quality, while allowing uses that are

compatible with resource protection. The zones will

protect habitats and species by limiting consumptive

and/or conflicting user activities, allowing resources

to evolve in a natural state, with minimal human

influence. The protection of these resources is also

vital to the local economy, which is dependent on the

preservation of the Keys' unique natural resources.

 Key Zoning Strategies

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) and Replenishment Reserves are expected to have the greatest

socioeconomic impact on user groups, while Wildlife

Management Zones and Special-use Zones are

expected to have a negligible socioeconomic impact

due to their size and location. Existing Management

Areas are expected to have no additional socioeconomic impact, since these areas are already in place.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

195

D

spawning and recruitment stocks from overfishing,

promoting genetic diversity within the fishery, producing “spill-over” benefits to other nonprotected areas

through the migration of individuals across boundaries, and providing important baseline data for use

in managing fisheries in other areas. The zones

become slightly larger and/or more numerous moving

from Alternative IV to Alternative II.

Z.3: Sanctuary Preservation Areas. These zones

will focus on the protection of shallow, heavily used

reefs where user conflicts occur, and where concentrated visitor activity leads to resource degradation.

As with Replenishment Reserves, the groups that will

benefit are those that value an abundance and

diversity of marine wildlife, including commercial and

recreational fishermen and participants in waterrelated recreation activities. However, tropical fish

collectors, lobster fishermen, recreational fishermen,

and spearfishermen displaced from these areas, will

be negatively impacted. The zones become slightly

larger and/or more numerous moving from Alternative IV to Alternative II.

Z.4: Existing Management Areas. Because these

areas are already established by Federal, State, or

local authorities with competent jurisdiction in the

Sanctuary, this strategy will have minimal socioeconomic impact.

Z.5: Special-use Zones. This strategy will have

negligible socioeconomic impacts on users because

only a small number of areas will be established.

Academic and scientific communities will be the

primary beneficiaries of this zone type. The areas

proposed under Alternative III should have minimal

impact on primary user groups, since one zone (Looe

Key) is already protected, and two of the remaining

zones are low-use areas. This strategy is the same

for Alternatives IV and III. Alternative II would limit the

number of zones that may be established for highimpact activities.

Comparative Impacts

The primary zoning differences between alternatives

are the size and number of the SPAs and Replenishment Reserves that would be established. Moving

from Alternative IV to Alternative II, the benefits to

user groups from enhanced fish stocks would increase. However, increasing the number of these

zones would displace more users, such as recreational fishermen. Overall, the benefits of these

zones are expected to outweigh the costs to displaced user groups.

Key Education Strategies

E.1: Printed Materials

E.3: Signs/Displays/Exhibits

E.4: Training/Workshops/School Programs

E.5: Public Service Announcements

Alternative IV. This alternative would provide the

least protection and socioeconomic benefits. The

SPAs and Replenishment Reserves would not

provide the level of protection and resulting long-term

benefits offered by the other alternatives.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide slightly

larger and more numerous SPAs and Replenishment

Reserves than Alternative IV. The increased number

and size of these zone types would provide a moderate increase in benefits to user groups.

Alternative II. This alternative would provide the

greatest level of Sanctuary protection through the

use of SPAs, Replenishment Reserves, and Specialuse Zones. It would, therefore, provide the greatest

socioeconomic benefits associated with resource

protection, such as long-term stock abundance.

 Socioeconomic Impacts: Education

The education strategies within the three mid-range

alternatives are expected to have significant positive

socioeconomic impacts (Table 29). Educating the

public through workshops and school programs,

special events (e.g., poster contests and a “Kids'

Week”), brochures and newsletters, signs and

displays, and public service announcements, for

example, would increase public awareness about the

Sanctuary. This heightened awareness would result,

both directly and indirectly, in improved environmental conditions and equal socioeconomic benefits to all

user groups.

 Key Education Strategies

Of the 10 education strategies, the Printed Materials

strategy (E.1) is expected to have the greatest

socioeconomic impact on user groups. In addition,

the Signs/Displays/Exhibits (E.3) and Public Service

Announcements (E.5) strategies are expected to

result in significant positive socioeconomic impacts,

as they will affect all users. Positive impacts would
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

196

Alternative II Impacts

Table 29. Education Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

Alternative IV Impacts Alternative III Impacts

User Groups

All user groups

User Groups

All user groups

Strategies

Increased restriction

• E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5 E.7, E.10,

 and E.11

Additional

• E.6

User Groups

All user groups

Strategies

Increased restriction

• E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5 , E.6, E.7,

 and E.11

Additional

• E.9

also result from the Training, Workshops, and School

Programs (E.4) strategy's provisions to increase the

knowledge and appreciation of Sanctuary resources,

promote and support environmental education in

Monroe County and State schools, provide environmental education workshops for educators, and

support adult environmental education.

E.1: Printed Materials, E.3 Signs/Displays/Exhibits and E.5 Public Service Announcements.

Encouraging voluntary compliance with Sanctuary

regulations through education may prove an invaluable alternative to using enforcement personnel.

Through the Education Program, identical goals of

Sanctuary resource preservation may be achieved

with lower operational costs. The distribution of

printed materials (E.1) is expected to have the

greatest positive impact on user groups. Other

strategies, such as Signs/Displays/Exhibits (E.3) and

Public Service Announcements (E.5), would also

prove economically beneficial through renewed

public awareness and respect for the Sanctuary and

its habitats. In Alternative IV, Signs/Displays/Exhibits

would establish an information program using

portable informative displays, some of which would

be multilingual. In addition, Alternatives IV and II

would require the development of a user-friendly

computer system with information on regulations,

access, recreational opportunities, etc.

E.4 Training/Workshops/School Programs.

Although the benefits for specific user groups from

Sanctuary education and training programs are

difficult to predict, their overall success has been

illustrated at sanctuaries where similar programs

have been adopted. Strategy E.4 would increase the

knowledge and appreciation of Sanctuary resources

through classes, workshops, and in-school presentations. Alternatives II and III have similar provisions for

more sophisticated technical training, while the

requirements for Alternative IV would provide only

some basic training. All user groups would benefit

equally from increased environmental awareness,

and a clearer understanding of Sanctuary goals and

objectives. The benefits of this strategy would be

greatest in Alternatives II and III.

Other Education Strategies

All of the remaining education strategies would have

positive socioeconomic impacts. These strategies

would establish audio-visual materials (E.2), an

interagency visitor center (E.7), an education advisory council (E.6), and a forum for special events

(E.11). The cumulative effects of these strategies

would benefit all Sanctuary users.

Comparative Impacts

The Printed Materials (E.1), Audio-visual Materials

(E.2), Signs/Displays/Exhibits (E.3), PSAs (E.5),

Advisory Council (E.6), Promotional (E.7), Public

Forum (E.10), and Special Events (E.11) strategies

vary in their level of protection across alternatives. In

each strategy, the scope of services and the targeted

audience would increase from Alternative IV to

Alternative II, with greater expected benefits occurring in the more protective alternatives.

Alternative IV. This alternative would provide a

limited level of educational services. While low in

operating costs, it would produce far fewer benefits

than either Alternative II or Alternative III.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide moderate increases in educational services compared to

Alternative IV, with moderate increases in potential

long-term socioeconomic benefits as a result.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

197

D

Alternative II. This alternative would be the most

ambitious and the most costly to implement. Benefits

under this alternative would be minimal compared to

those expected within Alternative III. Costs, however,

would increase significantly because of the expense

of programs that are unique to this alternative,

particularly the development a new visitor center.

 Implementation Costs

The total annual operations and maintenance costs

for implementing each mid-range management

alternative range from approximately $4 million, for a

minimal amount of resource protection, to $12

million, for significantly more resource protection

(Table 30). These estimates are based on implementation cost ranges generated by resource managers

and experts at a workshop held in Marathon, FL on

October 21-22, 1992, and are approximations only.

These costs will be borne by the Federal, State, and

county governments and NGO partners who have a

stake in the long-term health of the Sanctuary. A

discussion of possible funding sources is found in

the Preferred Alternative/Management Plan chapter

in Volume I.

These estimates do not include major capital improvements. The Water Quality Protection Program

developed by EPA and the State of Florida identified

several strategies that require costly capital improvements. For example, Strategy W.3 calls for a range

of activities, such as upgrading septic systems at a

cost of over $42 million, to constructing community

sewage plants at a cost of over $200 million. Strategy W.11 calls for stormwater retrofitting along

sections of US 1; this strategy will cost up to $200

million, depending on the size and number of sites

retrofitted. These costs are contained in the Phase II

report of the Water Quality Protection Program (EPA,

1993).

 Future Considerations

In the future, it may be appropriate to conduct a more

detailed socioeconomic impact analysis of selected

strategies, using traditional methods such as costbenefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. Such

a determination would be based on the nature of the

problem, as well as the limitations on available data

and resources. Cost-benefit analyses examine the

socioeconomic implications of proposed actions by

comparing economic impacts with values. They

provide decisionmakers with more comprehensive

information about the overall result of a given project

or policy change than the rather limited picture

conveyed by economic impact analyses.

Table 30. Estimated Annual Operations and Mainte-

 nance Costs for Implementing Mid-range

 Management Alternatives

Cost 

(millions of dollars)

Issue Alternative IV

Alternative III

Alternative II

Administration

Boating

Education

Fishing

Recreation

Total

0.90

2.70

0.10

1.70

1.20

6.60

1.24

3.50

1.70

4.10

1.20

11.74

0.62

1.60

0.10

1.50

0.30

Total 4.12

Water Quality Improvements. The total annual

operations and maintenance costs for improving

water quality in each mid-range alternative vary from

over $4 million for Alternative IV, $9.3 million for

Alternative III, and $12 million for Alternative II.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

199

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

representing the Advisory Council’s consensus of

opinion, and individual concerns regarding the

environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the

alternatives.

The Council found Alternative III to be the most

reasonable for managing the Sanctuary, but suggested changes to some strategies to provide the

level of resource protection required to fulfill the

intent of the statutes. Consequently, the Council

recommended Alternative III with modifications to

selected strategies. The Council passed this recommendation by a vote of 17 to 0, with one abstention.

 Core Group Recommendation

The Core Group met in Silver Spring, Maryland on

August 4-6, 1993 to review the Advisory Council’s

recommendation, and agreed with the Council’s

Preferred Alternative and most of their suggested

modifications. After carefully reviewing the Council’s

recommendation and examining all available information on environmental and socioeconomic impacts,

the Core Group unanimously selected Alternative III

as the Preferred Alternative.

 General Rationale

Alternatives I and V were eliminated from consideration early in the evaluation process because they

would not adequately achieve the environmental and

economic requirements of the NEPA, NMSA,

FKNMSPA, and other applicable Federal, State, and

local laws. Alternative I focuses solely on resource

protection, and would not allow for compatible uses

of the Sanctuary. While it would have positive

environmental impacts, this alternative would have

significant negative socioeconomic impacts, such as

virtually closing down commercial and recreational

fishing and prohibiting many other recreational uses.

Alternative I would not satisfy the FKNMSPA goal not

to restrict activities that do not adversely affect

Sanctuary resources.

Alternative V (no action) would have negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts over the long

term, and would not accomplish the resource protection goals of the NMSA and FKNMSPA. Without the

implementation of a management plan, continued

environmental degradation will occur. This environ-

 Introduction

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Protection Act of 1990 (FKNMSPA) mandate the

development of a management plan that protects

Sanctuary resources, facilitates Sanctuary use, and

is compatible with the primary objective of resource

protection. These requirements relate directly to the

environmental and socioeconomic concerns of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, the FKNMSPA requires NOAA to incorporate

the Water Quality Protection Program regulations

developed by the U.S. EPA and Florida Department

of Environmental Protection in the Sanctuary's

Comprehensive Management Plan, where consistent

with the goals of the Sanctuary.

After considering the five proposed management

alternatives and conducting an extensive analysis of

Alternatives II-IV, NOAA has selected Alternative III

as the Preferred Management Alternative. The

process used to select the Preferred Alternative

included considering recommendations of both the

Sanctuary Advisory Council and the Core Group. It

also required carefully examining the impacts of each

alternative on the region's natural resources and

human activities. This chapter outlines the process

used to select Alternative III as the Preferred Alternative. It describes the Federal, State, and local benefits of this alternative, and describes how Alternative

III compares with the other alternatives on key

strategies by issue.

 Advisory Council Recommendation

The FKNMS Advisory Council was established to

provide a forum for public input into the management

planning process. The Council has met regularly

since it was formed in early 1992 to provide NOAA

with commentary and guidance on all aspects of

management plan development, and to receive input

from their constituencies. On July 29-30, 1993, the

Advisory Council met in Marathon, Florida to:

1) receive public comment on the five proposed

alternatives submitted for their review; 2) consider

the merits of each alternative; and 3) provide NOAA

with a recommendation for a preferred alternative.

The Council did not find Alternative I and V to be

reasonable, and, therefore, focused on Alternatives

II, III, and IV. It provided NOAA with comments
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

200

mental degradation is inconsistent with the

FKNMSPA mandate, and ultimately will lead to

significant losses of revenue, jobs, and investments

in the marine-based tourism, recreation, and commercial fishing industries. These impacts are not

consistent with the FKNMSPA goal of facilitating

multiple Sanctuary uses.

The following section describes how Alternative III is

consistent with the goals and policies of overlapping

jurisdictions and concerns of Federal, State, and

local governments.

 Federal Concerns

Alternative III provides the level of comprehensive

Sanctuary management that assures adherence to

the policy and purpose of the Sanctuary’s designation (Sec. 3 [a] and [b]) as stated in the FKNMSPA.

The impacts of activities adversely affecting Sanctuary resources, as defined in section 302(8) of the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972 (16

USC, 1431 et seq. as amended), are mitigated with

the greatest level of environmental protection, while

producing the least adverse socioeconomic impact

on affected user groups.

Alternative III complies with the mandates for the

development of a comprehensive management plan

for the FKNMS, and promotes all public and private

Sanctuary uses consistent with resource protection. It

includes a zoning scheme that minimizes negative

socioeconomic impacts on Sanctuary users, while

providing positive environmental and socioeconomic

consequences commensurate with the Sanctuary’s

purpose. Zoning proposals included in Alternative III

will provide resource protection for heavily used

portions of the Sanctuary that are economically

important to many commercial activities (such as dive

operations, which represent a large user group),

while not overly restricting other commercial and

recreational interests in the Sanctuary.

In addition, NOAA has involved Federal, State, and

local agencies; resource managers; scientists; a

citizens’ Sanctuary Advisory Council; and user

groups in compiling the management strategies

contained in all alternatives. These groups were also

instrumental in helping NOAA select Alternative III as

the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative III incorporates elements of the Water

Quality Protection Program developed by the EPA

and FDEP. Strategies addressing water quality were

selected because of their anticipated effectiveness in

resolving water quality issues with the most beneficial

environmental consequences, and the least negative

socioeconomic impacts.

In contrast, in the short term, Alternative IV would

have fewer negative socioeconomic impacts on

Sanctuary users, but would not adequately address

the long-term environmental impacts that currently

are degrading Sanctuary resources. Alternative II

would provide greater environmental protection than

Alternatives IV and III, but would place a greater

economic burden on some of the Sanctuary's commercial and recreational users.

 State Concerns

Alternative III provides the best option to accomplish

the Sanctuary’s intended goals to protect the resources of the Florida Keys, educate the public about

the marine environment, and manage human uses in

a manner that will not restrict activities that do not

have an adverse effect on Sanctuary resources.

The management strategies in Alternative III will

provide a balanced set of actions for managing

marine resources throughout the entire Sanctuary,

and will help protect the invaluable natural resources

upon which the local economy depends. This comprehensive set of strategies addresses all resource

management issues related to recreation, boating,

fishing, land use, environmental education, water

quality, and zoning. These strategies provide the

policy basis for the new regulations required to

effectively manage marine resources and avoid

conflicts among user groups. They are designed to

sustain resources, while allowing users who depend

on them for their livelihood to continue their activities

in a fair and reasonable manner that will not cause

degradation.

The principles of marine ecosystem management

incorporated into Alternative III will provide benefits to

the State of Florida that will be realized through

effective marine resource protection, positive socioeconomic impacts, and increased administrative

efficiency. The State’s focus on ecosystem management will also be enhanced by the Federal legislation

and the resulting management strategies of this

alternative.

Geographically, the Sanctuary covers an area large

enough to allow for effective ecosystem management. Since the Sanctuary incorporates virtually all

Florida Keys' State waters, effective coordinated

management of the Sanctuary ecosystem must be
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

201

compatible with Florida's management goals. Alternative III provides that compatibility, as well as the

enhanced opportunity for Florida to accomplish these

goals under the authority of NMSA and FKNMSPA.

Alternative III’s holistic ecosystem management

approach will enable effective, cooperative resource

management among all involved Federal, State, and

local agencies. It will allow the management goals of

all agencies with sites within or near the Sanctuary’s

boundaries to be accomplished more easily and

successfully, and will allow each of the existing

management programs and the Sanctuary to complement each other and support resource protection

throughout the ecosystem. Through crossdeputization, the State can substantially increase the

ability of officers to regulate the destruction of vital

marine resources in State waters under the authority

of the civil enforcement provisions of the NMSA. The

management capability provided in Alternative III is

also consistent with State protected areas, including

aquatic preserves; State parks and recreation areas;

outstanding Florida waters; the Area of Critical State

Concern designation. It is also consistent with StateFederal management agreements, such as cooperative efforts designed to manage the federally designated national wildlife refuges that overlap with State

sovereign submerged lands, and regulations of the

Florida Marine Fisheries Commission.

 Local Concerns

Many of the strategies in Alternative III support the

current regulations or planned goals, objectives, and

policies set forth in the Monroe County Comprehensive Management Plan. In the long run, the FKNMS

management effort can help the County in its own

planning efforts. Significant public dollars will be

required to accomplish either set of planning goals.

Many of these are common to both management

efforts, and can be developed cooperatively, and with

joint resources. For example, Alternative III incorporates elements of the Water Quality Protection

Program developed by the EPA and FDEP. This plan

has contributed significantly to the County’s growth

management plan, saving considerable time and

effort that would have been spent to develop similar

information.

Monroe County also has an opportunity to coordinate

the implementation of its land use and water quality

strategies with those of the Sanctuary. The management capability provided in Alternative III is also

consistent with local resource protection efforts, such

as the Boating Impacts Management Plan and the

Growth Management Plan developed for Monroe

County.

Public involvement has been substantial during the

Management Plan development phase. NOAA’s

foresight in involving government agencies at all

levels, resource managers and scientists, a citizens’

Sanctuary Advisory Council, and user groups in

developing management strategies and alternatives

is commendable. These groups were instrumental in

providing NOAA with their recommendation for the

Preferred Alternative. Early participation and the

advocacy of the Sanctuary Advisory Council have

provided opportunities for public participation

throughout the planning process.

Alternative III’s management approach will allow

effective, cooperative management among all

government agencies both within or adjacent to

Sanctuary boundaries. It will allow the existing

management programs and Sanctuary to complement each other and support resource protection.

This integrated, coordinated approach to management will reduce the redundancy of overlapping

agency authorities and fill in gaps. In addition, the

resource protection it provides will benefit many user

groups. Few users will be negatively impacted by

restrictions on their activities, as such restrictions are

site-specific and not Sanctuary-wide, to fulfill the

Sanctuary goals. The presence of the Sanctuary is

also expected to increase property values because of

improved environmental conditions.

 Basis for Selection

This section describes why Alternative III has been

selected over Alternatives II and IV. The discussion is

organized by issue, and focuses on those strategies

whose impacts vary across alternatives, or those with

the greatest environmental and socioeconomic

impacts.

 Boating Strategies

Alternative III offers the greatest environmental

protection with the least negative socioeconomic

impacts of the three mid-range alternatives. Although

Alternative II generally would provide greater environmental protection than Alternatives III and IV, the

cost of implementation and the burden on Sanctuary

users render this alternative impractical. Alternative

IV would have a lower negative economic impact and
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

202

be less of a burden on users, but would not provide

the environmental protection specified as most

desirable by the NMSA and FKNMSPA.

Strategy B.1 (Boat Access). This strategy will

reduce resource impacts from boating activities

throughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative III will provide environmental

protection by initiating a boating access plan

that: 1) directs new public access to low-impact

areas (i.e., marinas and mooring areas); and

 2) requires the modification of access ramps

directly affecting sensitive areas (e.g.,

seagrasses, mangroves, and hardbottoms)

throughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative IV would not offer the geographic

coverage necessary for this strategy to be

effective, nor does it represent a comprehensive solution regarding access concerns in

sensitive areas.

• Alternative II would provide broader geographic

coverage and, therefore, would be more

effective; however, strategy implementation

throughout the Sanctuary would be very costly.

Strategy B.2. (Habitat Restoration). This strategy

will promote research and development of new

technologies to restore and enhance coral, seagrass,

and mangrove habitats in the Sanctuary.

• Alternative III would allow for the development

and implementation of a restoration plan for

severely impacted areas.

• Alternative IV would only allow for the continuation of ongoing restoration activities, and

would not adequately address other impacted

areas.

• Alternative II would provide greater environmental protection than Alternatives III and IV;

however, implementation at all impacted areas

within the Sanctuary would be cost-prohibitive.

Strategy B.3 (Derelict Vessels). This strategy will

reduce direct and indirect impacts to natural resources from derelict and abandoned vessels.

• Alternatives III and II would provide the greatest environmental protection by providing a

plan for removing derelict vessels throughout

the Sanctuary, based on the prioritization of

problem areas and the consideration of funding

constraints. Accordingly, high-use and sensitive areas will receive the greatest focus.

• Alternative IV would not provide adequate

resource protection, as it would not require the

removal of derelict vessels, even from high-use

and sensitive areas.

Strategy B.4 (Channel Marking). This strategy will

reduce damage to natural resources caused by

boating activities.

• Alternatives III and II will reduce the damage to

natural resources by implementing a detailed

and comprehensive plan for high-use and

sensitive areas within the Sanctuary. This will

include setting priorities and identifying problem areas to be addressed first. Environmental

benefits will result from: 1) marking frequently

used channels, shallow-water reefs, shoals,

and other significant features; and 2) reducing

erosion from various causes.

• Alternative IV would not effectively protect

Sanctuary resources, due to the limited spatial

extent of strategy implementation (i.e., sensitive areas only).

Strategy B.6 (Additional Enforcement). This

strategy will increase the presence of law enforcement officers (LEOs) on the water to protect Sanctuary resources and reduce user conflicts.

• Alternative III will increase resource protection

by adding 30 LEOs to patrol Sanctuary waters.

• Alternative IV would add only 10 LEOs, which

would not ensure an adequate level of resource protection.

• Alternative II would add 50 LEOs, which will be

very costly to fund without impacting users.

Strategy B.8 (User Fees). This strategy examines

mechanisms for generating funds for Sanctuary

management and related research.

• Alternatives III and II will provide sound resource protection and management by applying mechanisms, including user fees, for

generating funds for use in Sanctuary management. A fair and equitable method of determining impact fees that will not cause undue

burdens on user groups will be provided.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

203

• The 100-yard buffer proposed in Alternative IV

would not provide adequate resource protection from improper PWC/motorized vessel

operations.

• The 300-yard buffer zone proposed in Alternative II would create an undue burden on users,

particularly on PWC operators, because such a

wide separation prevents reasonable use and

access from shore.

 Fishing Strategies

As the Preferred Alternative, Alternative III will

provide beneficial environmental impacts through an

increased protection of natural resources. It offers

greater protection than Alternative IV, but less

protection than Alternative II, which would provide

more natural resource protection at a significantly

higher economic and social cost to users.

Strategy F.3 (Stocking). This strategy will build on

stock research conducted elsewhere to determine the

effect of fish stocking on the genetic integrity of native

species in the Sanctuary.

• Alternatives III and II will protect species and

habitats by implementing a moratorium on

stocking activities until adequate research is

conducted to prevent damaging impacts

resulting from such activities. Through appropriate research, these alternatives will prevent:

1) the spread of diseases from hatcheries to

wild populations; 2) the genetic alteration of

wild stocks from hatchery selection; and 3)

economic waste by ensuring the survival of

released species. This strategy should have no

detrimental economic impacts because wild

stocking is not currently practiced in the

Sanctuary.

• Alternative IV would not provide for a moratorium on stocking programs while potential

problems are being adequately researched.

This would increase the chances for environmental damage from ill-advised stocking

activities.

Strategy F.4 (Aquaculture Alternatives). This

strategy will reduce fishing pressures on commercially harvested marine species, and help to satisfy

the commercial demand for these species.

• Alternative IV would provide less potential

funding for future Sanctuary management by

not committing to an impact fee plan.

Strategy B.13 (Salvaging/Towing). This strategy

will reduce damage to natural resources resulting

from improper vessel salvage procedures.

• Alternative III will provide an appropriate level

of Sanctuary resource protection by: 1) establishing regulations and procedural guidelines

for commercial salvaging and vessel towing

operations; 2) requiring permits for commercial

salvaging and towing operations; and

 3) establishing a salvage operator training

program that will reduce the impacts of inexperienced salvage operators.

• Alternative IV would not provide adequate

resource protection, as this strategy would not

be implemented throughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative II would require training for all

commercial salvaging and towing operations

as part of the permit process, a program that

would be too costly to implement.

Strategy B.15 (Mooring Buoys). This strategy will

decrease user conflicts, prolong mooring buoy life,

and reduce the risk of vessel groundings.

• Alternatives III and II will provide adequate

resource protection through the development

and implementation of a comprehensive

mooring buoy plan throughout the Sanctuary.

Areas of immediate concern will be prioritized,

with problem areas given principle consideration.

• Under Alternative IV, the mooring buoy plan

would be implemented in sensitive areas only,

providing limited resource protection.

Strategy B.17 (Personal Watercraft Management).

This strategy will reduce damage to natural resources in the Sanctuary due to the improper operation of motorized boats and personal watercraft

(PWC), and will address user conflicts.

• Alternative III will reduce conflicts between

Sanctuary visitors and PWC users. It provides

adequate resource protection by offering the

most enforceable options regarding the distance PWCs and other motorized vessels must

maintain from other Sanctuary users, edges of

flats, and other sensitive areas.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

204

• Alternative III will provide moderate protection

for harvested species by reducing the fishing

pressure on wild populations. Research and

promotion of appropriate aquaculture operations help to satisfy public demand. This

alternative will mostly benefit species with

particularly high economic value, such as those

in the ornamental aquaria trade and expensive

food species. Research and regulations will

protect the environment by ensuring that

aquaculture operations are environmentally

compatible.

• Alternative IV would not provide any strategy

for aquaculture, thus allowing continued and

possibly increasing pressure on wild stocks.

• Alternative II would increase environmental

protection by developing regulations to reduce

or eliminate the harvest of wild stocks, once

effective aquaculture techniques are developed

for particular species. However, this alternative

could cause economic hardship among those

fishery participants who cannot make the

transition to aquaculture operations. The

increased environmental protection provided

does not justify the additional costs.

Strategy F.5 (Limited Entry). This strategy will

access existing fishery regulatory programs that limit

the number of persons, vessels, or fishing gear units

using specific Sanctuary fisheries.

• Alternative III would require the implementation

of appropriate limited-entry mechanisms for

selected fisheries in the Sanctuary. By adjusting fishing efforts and harvests to support such

activities, specific habitats will be better protected and certain species will be protected

from overexploitation. This alternative will

provide economic benefits to the fishing

industry by reducing the chances of fishery

collapse and overexploitation. Also, economic

revenue to fishermen would be higher and

more stable, and overcapitalization of the

fishery is less likely to occur.

• Alternative IV does not require the implementation of regulations to ensure the longterm sustainability of Sanctuary resources,

thus increasing the chances of economic

disruption from overfishing and overcapitalization. Fishing interests in applicable fisheries

are, therefore, likely to generate less income

than in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would require the implementation

of regulations limiting entry to all Sanctuary

fisheries. The cost of implementing this alternative could be considerable, due to data needs

and administrative requirements. Also, this

alternative would not provide significant

economic benefits to many currently overfished

fisheries.

Strategy F.6 (Fisheries Sampling). This strategy

will evaluate and modify existing commercial landing

and recreational creel census programs, which

provide statistically based management data for

regulating take.

• Alternatives III and II will improve fisheries

sampling, effort levels, and catch, thereby

providing more precise and accurate data on

resource status and use. This data can be

used by managers to protect the resource and

the economic viability of fisheries by allowing

more response from appropriate fishery

management agencies. Fishery problems are

more likely to be anticipated or detected during

early development stages, before they become

acute and cause detrimental environmental

and economic consequences. Fishery management agencies will then be able to better

respond to local conditions and individual

fisheries. Fishermen will benefit economically,

because recruitment monitoring will provide

better anticipation of future stock conditions

and allow them to act accordingly. Also, the

effects of environmental changes caused by

human and natural events will have a greater

chance of being recognized and associated

with specific causal mechanisms. Distinct

statistical areas will be established under

Alternatives III and II.

• Alternative IV would provide significantly less

resolution in fishery sampling, allowing for

overexploitation and environmental damage to

stocks from fishery operations. Poorer sampling will also increase the chances of economic disruption.

Strategy F.11 (Gear/Method Impacts). This strategy

will reduce impacts to corals, hardbottoms,

seagrasses, and other habitats through the development of alternative gear designs and types.

• Alternative III will increase habitat protection

through regulations requiring low-impact gear

and methods in priority areas. It will provide the
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

205

This would create a hardship on fisheries with

questionable benefits, because no scientific

basis exists for adopting such a moratorium.

 Recreation Strategies

The recreation strategies in each of the mid-range

alternatives provide increased resource protection in

site-specific areas through carrying-capacity limits

and submerged cultural resource management. Their

implementation will have positive impacts on habitats

and species compared to the status quo. However,

they will have little direct impact on water quality. A

prohibition on the unauthorized removal of historic

resources throughout the Sanctuary appears in each

of the mid-range alternatives. A permit may be

available if proper research and recovery is documented in the permit application, and minimal

adverse impact to Sanctuary resources is expected.

Alternative III will provide immediate increased

protection to coral reefs and other natural resources

by prohibiting commercial salvage in areas where

such resources may be harmed, and by prohibiting

coral touching in certain areas. Protecting the integrity of natural resources will, in the long term, provide

benefits to recreational divers, charter boat operators, boaters, and other users involved in tourism,

whose activities require good water quality, a diverse

and healthy ecosystem, and the protection of Sanctuary resources of historical significance.

Strategy R.1 (Submerged Cultural Resource

Management). This strategy protects submerged

cultural resources (SCR) from disturbances through

an SCR Management Plan/Program and maintains

these resources for research, education, science,

and recreational activities. Habitat protection increases from Alternative IV to II.

• Alternative III provides immediate protection to

submerged cultural resources and natural

resources. Objectives are not duplicated by

requiring permits for charter/rental vessels and

carrying capacities. This alternative is primarily

based on the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA)

guidelines, NOAA policy statements, NOAA

permit decisions, and various meetings and

discussions between representatives of NOAA

and the State of Florida. Alternative III is

needed because the current State regulation

on SCRs does not adequately protect natural

resources. Alternative III is also based on

cooperation with the State on interim permits

best balance between environmental protection

and implementation costs.

• Alternative IV would rely on voluntary programs

to reduce habitat damage caused by destructive fishing methods, and would be significantly

less effective than Alternative III.

• Alternative II would mandate the use of lowimpact gear throughout the Sanctuary. In nonsensitive habitats, this alternative would

provide only minor environmental benefits, but

at much greater overall costs to the fishery.

Strategy F.14 (Spearfishing). This strategy will

determine the impacts of spearfishing on species

composition and abundance, reduce incidental

habitat damage, and reduce user conflicts.

• Alternatives III and IV will develop and impose

spearfishing regulations in high-priority areas

(i.e., areas exhibiting a low stock abundance,

and areas vulnerable to resource depletion due

to high use or extreme user conflicts).

• Alternative II would develop and implement

regulations throughout the Sanctuary, but at

considerable administrative, enforcement, and

social costs, that are unnecessary in

nonsensitive habitats or locations. The additional environmental benefits are not likely to

be justified by the increased costs and hardships imposed on users.

Strategy F.15 (Sponge Harvest). This strategy will:

1) determine harvesting methods with low adverse

impacts on both species and habitats through

research and assessment activities; and 2) identify

areas exhibiting low abundance, low recovery rates,

and habitat damage.

• Alternative III will increase the protection of

habitat and certain sponge species from

overharvesting throughout the Sanctuary by

implementing appropriate research-based

regulations.

• Alternative IV would provide less protection

than Alternative III by requiring the development and implementation of appropriate

regulations for sponge harvesting only in high

priority areas.

• Alternative II would impose a three-year

moratorium on sponge harvesting to allow for

the development of appropriate regulations.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

206

granted to: 1) the Scott/SMRI for the NORTHERN LIGHT; 2) Dr. Molinari; 3) Chapman/

Fisher for the ATOCHA and the

MARGUERITA; 4) Duncan Mathewson; and

5) Don Washington. This alternative does not

permit commercial salvage in certain areas

(e.g., protected areas, coral/seagrass areas, or

areas with significant natural/historical resources) that potentially would be harmed by

excavation, but permits private recovery in

relatively barren areas where natural resources

will not be adversely harmed. Restoration

conditions will be considered case-by-case,

where possible, and privately financed. Recovery will be conducted in an environmentally

and archaeologically sound manner using the

ASA guidelines and the Federal Archaeological

Program for land sites in the marine environment.

 Alternative III also requires individuals interested in treasure hunting to obtain a permit for

conducting their activities. The purpose of the

permit is to protect natural resources that will

generate long-term benefits to resource users.

Permits require a professional archaeologist to

supervise research and recovery efforts, and

contain an agreement for the division of

recovered items. The artifacts will be divided

equally between discoverer/recoverer and the

government, with possible case-specific

exceptions.

 Alternative III is preferred and consistent with a

zoned management approach. It promotes the

spirit of compromise by utilizing different parts

of the ASA guidelines prohibiting treasure

hunting in zoned areas and near coral and

seagrass beds, while allowing private recovery

in other areas when conducted in an environmentally and archaeologically sound manner.

• Alternative IV would allow treasure hunting

throughout the Sanctuary, and extend the 80/

20 split between discoverer/recoverer and the

government in current Florida agreements to

Federal submerged lands and waters. The

qualifications and methodology requirements

are also more lax under Alternative IV than

under Alternatives II and III. Thus, Alternative

IV would have negative environmental and

socioeconomic impacts on tourism over the

long term. The State also reports that historical

resource protection under the current system is

of concern, due to the lack of compliance with

archaeological guidelines. This alternative

would not have a negative impact on the

treasure hunting industry. However, Alternative

III will provide greater control mechanisms to

ensure that an environmentally and

archaeologically sound recovery is conducted.

• Alternative II would be based primarily on

existing regulations and policies applied in

other national marine sanctuaries, including the

MONITOR and Monterey Bay. Current policy/

guidelines/regulations in other national marine

sanctuaries would be strictly applied throughout the FKNMS. The ASA guidelines reflect a

compromise among preservationists, recreational users, and treasure hunters. While strict

adherence to the ASA guidelines prohibiting

treasure hunting and souvenir collection in

sanctuaries and reserves would justify this

alternative, it would eliminate the treasure

hunting industry throughout the Sanctuary.

While Alternative II would provide increased

resource protection, it would have a negative

socioeconomic effect on many users. By

comparison, Alternative III allows commercial

treasure hunting activities to the extent compatible with resource protection.

Strategy R.2 (Recreation Survey). This strategy will

provide data on the types, levels, users, and locations of recreational activities within the Sanctuary to

enable better planning for management concerns

(e.g., access to sensitive or heavily used areas, user

conflicts, and adverse impacts to resources).

• The plan for routine surveys of recreational use

in Alternatives III and IV will assist in identifying

specific access and carrying-capacity problems

and issues, as well as high-use areas where

user conflicts occur.

• In addition to the surveys, Alternative II would

require a permitting system to regulate use for

charter and rental vessels. This is very restrictive, and may place an economic burden on

charter and rental facilities, which make up a

significant sector of the local economy.

Strategy R.5 (Carrying Capacity). This strategy will

provide information used to reduce impacts to

Sanctuary resources from recreational activities, by

determining the carrying capacities of different

habitats.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

207

protect Sanctuary resources, such as habitats and

species, by limiting consumptive activities while

continuing to allow recreational activities compatible

with resource protection. These reserves will:

1) protect the habitat and food supply of commercially important fish; 2) protect many fisheries from

collapse; 3) provide critically needed, long-term

control areas in currently exploited areas where

scientific research can be conducted without direct

human disturbance; and 4) improve resource monitoring to distinguish between changes caused by

human and natural events.

• The size and distribution of the Replenishment

Reserves proposed in Alternative III will not

cause undue hardship on any single user

group in the Sanctuary, but will result in

significant areas being protected from harvesting activities. The short-term economic burdens on a limited number of fishermen (who

will be displaced to other areas of the Sanctuary) will be compensated for over the long term

by an improvement in the Sanctuary’s environment and resources. Specifically, the Replenishment Reserves proposed in Alternative III

will be the most effective tool used by Sanctuary managers to protect the biodiversity of

Sanctuary resources as described in Section

7(a)(2) of the FKNMSPA.

• The Reserves that would be established in

Alternative IV would be smaller and fewer in

number than those in Alternative III, thus

providing inadequate protection of diverse

habitats.

• In Alternative II, the number and size of

reserves would increase, but the increased

protection would be very costly in terms of

management, enforcement, and user impacts.

For this reason, Alternative II is not financially

practical.

Strategy Z.3 (Sanctuary Preservation Areas). This

strategy will establish nonconsumptive Sanctuary

Preservation Areas to enhance the reproductive

capabilities of renewable resources, protect areas

critical for sustaining and protecting important marine

species, and reduce conflicts in high-use areas.

• Alternative III will provide economic benefits by

providing an enhanced habitat and greater

resource protection, while allowing traditional

activities to continue in areas surrounding the

zones.

• Alternative III offers more protection than would

Alternative IV by increasing the geographic

coverage to both high-use and highly sensitive

areas throughout the Sanctuary.

• In Alternative IV, carrying-capacity limits would

be enforced only in highly sensitive areas.

• Alternative II would have a significant socioeconomic impact on all users through the

enforcement of carrying-capacity limits, and the

regulation of charter and rental vessels

throughout the Sanctuary. Alternative II would

also detract from the ability to focus on areas

needing protection. In contrast, Alternative III

limits will be enforced only in select areas, and

will not regulate charter and rental vessel use.

 Zoning Strategies

Alternative III will adequately protect diverse habitats.

Alternative II would provide more protection of

habitats than Alternatives III and IV, but at a significantly higher economic and social cost to users than

Alternative III. Alternative IV would provide increased

resource protection over the status quo, but far less

protection than Alternative III.

Strategy Z.1 (Wildlife Management Areas). This

strategy will reduce the disturbance to wildlife populations and their habitats.

• Alternative III complements the management

efforts of the FWS. The Wildlife Management

Areas contained in this alternative include all

the areas proposed by the FWS in their

Backcountry Management Plan, as well as

other areas. Providing a regulatory framework

under the cooperative enforcement agreement

makes it possible to apply Sanctuary enforcement within the boundaries of wildlife refuges

and other existing management areas.

• Alternative IV would protect fewer areas than

Alternative III, and thus, would inadequately

protect diverse habitats.

• Alternative II would protect more areas than

Alternatives III and IV. However, management

of these areas would be very difficult and

costly.

Strategy Z.2 (Replenishment Reserves). This

strategy will establish Replenishment Reserves to
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

208

• Alternative IV would provide minimal protection

of diverse habitats. The proposed Sanctuary

Preservation Areas would be smaller and fewer

than those in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would provide larger and more

numerous Sanctuary Preservation Areas than

either Alternatives III or IV. Managing these

areas would be more difficult and costly, and

many users would be impacted, as sites where

commercial and recreational activities currently

occur are designated for protection.

Strategy Z.5 (Special-use Areas). This strategy will

be used to set aside areas for specific uses to reduce

user conflicts and adverse environmental effects from

high impact activities.

• Alternative III will provide numerous areas for

research and other special uses. The number

and size of these areas will not cause undue

hardship on any user group.

• Alternative IV would contain more of these

areas, and the areas may be larger in size.

This alternative would not provide the level of

resource protection found in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would allow for fewer and smaller

areas, and the types and levels of activities

permitted in these areas would be more

restricted than in Alternative III. The increased

resource protection provided by this alternative

would be minimal, while the management costs

and negative socioeconomic impacts would be

much higher than in Alternative III.

 Land Use Strategies

The strategies in Alternative IV will result in direct

positive environmental impacts such as water quality

improvement, particularly near improved marine

facilities, docks, marinas, and other shoreside

facilities. Alternatives II and III, however, will provide

more water quality improvements in the long term by

reducing the level of heavy metals and other toxicants entering Sanctuary waters from boat maintenance operations. Alternative III is preferred when

environmental impacts are evaluated against costs,

because several strategies in Alternative II would be

far more costly to implement, and would provide no

significant improvement in environmental conditions.

Strategy L.3 (Boat Maintenance). This strategy

requires an evaluation of refueling operations through

a detailed inventory of fueling facilities and an

assessment of typical fuel-handling techniques. Little

effort is now directed at containing and collecting

wastes associated with boat maintenance activities

(e.g., bottom scraping and mechanical repairs) within

the Sanctuary.

• Alternatives III and II contain the same proposed actions, and will provide water quality

improvements by reducing pollution. Containment areas will be established to prevent paint

chips, paint dust, and other toxicants from

entering surface waters. Also, the establishment of secondary containment for hazardous

or toxic material storage areas will reduce the

chance of these substances entering the

ground or surface waters.

• Alternative IV would provide fewer water

quality improvements in containment areas

than Alternatives II and III, and would not

adequately meet Sanctuary goals.

Strategy L.8 (Containment Options). This strategy

involves researching methods of solid waste disposal

(other than landfill creation) to determine what

regulations are necessary to meet State recycling

goals, implement retail packaging standards, and

require source separation.

• Alternatives III and II require the study of

containment and relocation options for solid

waste facilities within the Sanctuary, and the

implementation of appropriate recommendations within five years. Leachate from solid

waste facilities within the Keys includes nutrients, heavy metals, and other toxicants. The

environmental impacts of implementing these

alternatives are low and site-specific, but will

include water quality, species, and habitat

improvements. Small negative socioeconomic

impacts will result for various users. All landowners within the Sanctuary will be impacted

by additional solid waste fees; however, this

negative impact could be mitigated by Federal

and State grants/assistance in implementing

the improvements, thus reducing any economic

burden. These alternatives also provide a

mechanism for implementing the recommendations of containment and relocation studies that

will improve nearshore water quality and the

character of associated biota at a limited direct

cost to the public. The overall socioeconomic

impact to the Sanctuary will be positive.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

209

existing public access areas, including habitat

damage and user conflicts.

• Alternatives III and II will require an assessment of existing public access to shoreline

areas and the Sanctuary. In addition, they will

provide for the development of standards for

improving and constructing public access

areas, and emphasize the acquisition of some

access areas through existing acquisition

programs. These alternatives will provide

primarily for the improvement of shallow-water

habitats within the Sanctuary by controlling

access to damage-prone areas. Some negative socioeconomic impacts will result from the

potential reduction of easily developed sites

with marine access, or through the acquisition

of some of these sites. This strategy would limit

future development on some properties with

marine access. However, most user groups,

including commercial fishermen, fishing guides,

and dive operators, will not be negatively

impacted.

• Alternative IV would not involve the acquisition

of marine access points. Socioeconomic

benefits would be high, as the development

potential for properties with marine access

would remain higher than that of property

acquired to control public access. Damage to

sensitive shallow-water habitats would continue, due to uncontrolled access. Alternative

IV would not provide for resource protection as

adequately as Alternatives III and II.

 Water Quality Strategies

These strategies will focus on reducing the amount of

nutrients and toxicants entering Sanctuary waters. A

combination of engineering, management, and

institutional options will address known problems. In

addition, a research and monitoring program will

allow for the effectiveness of pollution control strategies to be measured, and the relationships between

water quality and living resources to be examined.

Alternative III contains all of the strategies in the

Water Quality Protection Program developed by the

EPA and FDEP. It is a comprehensive list that

addresses all water quality problems, including farfield influences. Accordingly, it meets the resource

protection purposes for which the Sanctuary was

designated. These strategies will have positive

socioeconomic impacts on users who are dependent

on water-related activities requiring good water

• Alternative IV would not require the implementation of any recommendations made in the

containment and relocation studies. Accordingly, there would be no environmental or

socioeconomic impacts. Monroe County has

already assessed containment options, but the

options for solid waste facility relocation and

alternative disposal technologies have not

been examined in detail.

Strategies L.14 (Dredging Prohibitions), L.15

(Dredging Regulations), and L.18 (Wetland

Dredge and Fill). Positive environmental impacts will

result from the implementation of these strategies.

However, some negative socioeconomic impacts

may result from development restrictions on wetlands, which may decrease the property values of

undeveloped lands. Developed residential and

commercial properties should increase in value,

which may offset ad valorem deficits due to restrictive

guidelines. In contrast, the positive environmental

impacts of these strategies are significant, and will

result from the reduction and/or elimination of resource destruction. As wetland resource degradation

will be halted, Sanctuary users may continue to use

the resources at current levels.

• Alternative III will: 1) reduce and/or eliminate

the destruction of wetland and submerged

resources; 2) improve water quality in areas

that might have otherwise been dredged; 3)

eliminate the suspension of sediments and

associated toxicants; and 4) maintain species

and habitat character. This alternative will

prohibit new dredging permits unless they are

in the public interest, or if no environmental

degradation will occur.

• Alternative IV would provide fewer restrictions

on dredge and fill activities, and no new

restrictions on maintenance dredge and fill

operations would be considered. The positive

environmental impacts that result from Alternative IV would be significantly less than for

Alternatives II and III.

• Alternative II would prohibit new dredging

altogether, even where no environmental

degradation would occur and the public would

benefit from these activities. The economic

burden associated with implementing this

alternative would be significant.

Strategy L.20 (Public Access). This strategy will

provide information on problems associated with
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

210

quality. Scuba diving, snorkeling, and commercial

and recreational fishing may be directly affected by

changes in water quality conditions.

Strategy W.3 (Wastewater Management Systems).

This strategy will reduce the amount of pollutants

entering the groundwater by enforcing existing

standards.

• Alternatives III and II will involve research to

estimate the level of wastewater nutrient

loading reduction needed to restore/maintain

water quality and Sanctuary resources. They

will have positive environmental impacts by

significantly improving existing water quality

conditions within the Sanctuary. These alternatives are comprehensive, and address all

known water quality problems, including farfield influences. They also recognize that

limited information is available in certain areas,

and recommend an extensive research and

monitoring program. Implementing engineering, management, and institutional options

addressing known problem areas within the

Sanctuary will reduce the amount of nutrients

and toxicants entering Sanctuary waters.

Additionally, exhibits will be used to educate

local residents and visitors about Sanctuary

regulations and the South Florida ecosystem.

The education program implemented by this

strategy will facilitate compatible uses, and

reduce user conflicts by educating the public

about environmental sensitivity and the specific

needs of various users. Public awareness and

appreciation of Sanctuary resources will

increase significantly, and behavior that results

in the degradation of Sanctuary resources will

decrease.

• Although it would be the least costly to implement, Alternative IV would rely on the enforcement of, and compliance with, existing regulations and technologies to address water quality

problems, while focusing primarily on research

and monitoring and assessment activities. The

implementation of specific actions to address

known problem areas, such as dead-end

canals and basins, is minimal in this alternative, and would result in further water quality

degradation. Alternative III, however, addresses all known problem areas and calls for

the application of improved technologies where

feasible.

Strategy W.7 (Surface Discharges). This strategy

requires all NPDES-permitted surface discharges to

develop resource monitoring programs.

• Alternatives III and II will provide additional

positive benefits by establishing a mechanism

to evaluate the environmental impacts of point

source discharges.

• Alternative IV does not contain this strategy,

and therefore is less desirable in terms of

resource protection.

Strategy W.10 (Canal Water Quality). This strategy

examines water quality in nearshore confined areas,

with an emphasis on dead-end canals and basins

where reduced circulation increases the risk of:

1) dissolved oxygen reduction; 2) dissolved and

particulate pollutant retention; and 3) benthic/pelagic

environment impacts. Water quality in dead-end

canals influences real estate values. Property on

canals with good water quality is more marketable,

and subsequently has a higher value, than similar

property on canals with poor water quality. Implementing improvements in dead-end canals will be a

learning process, as managers use monitoring to

assess which improvements significantly impact

water quality, and what improvements have the

highest cost/benefit ratios.

• Alternative III will provide a logical approach to

implementing improvements in critical areas

and dead-end canals that are recognized as

hot spots. It meets the purpose for which the

Sanctuary was designated and it complies with

the requirements of Section 8 of the

FKNMSPA. As required by the Act, this alternative recommends priority corrective actions

and compliance schedules that address point

and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore

and maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the Sanctuary.

• Alternative IV would focus only on the inventory and assessment of dead-end canals and

basins. No improvements are planned for

implementation. This would be the least costly

alternative in the short term, but would allow

current resource degradation to continue and

possibly increase. Alternative IV would not

provide improvements in current or future

water quality.

• Alternative II would implement improvements in

dead-end canals and basins throughout the
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

211

Sanctuary. Without knowing how effective

certain improvements will be, implementing a

Sanctuary-wide improvement program could

result in great expense with minimal improvements to water quality, as emphasis is not

focused on critical areas.

Strategy W.11 (Stormwater Retrofitting) This

strategy will reduce sediments, toxicant, and nutrient

loadings using various engineering methods.

• In Alternative III, the geographic coverage will

include hot spots and limited sections of US 1.

• Alternative IV does not contain this strategy,

and therefore, is less desirable in terms of

resource protection.

• In Alternative II, stormwater retrofitting would

be extended to degraded areas and numerous

sections of US 1. The additional financial

burden of extending this strategy would be

cost-prohibitive and not realistically achievable

through traditional funding mechanisms.

 Education Strategies

The NMSA and the FKNMSPA recognize that public

education regarding the Sanctuary and its resources

is essential to effective resource protection and

management. Although the impact of educational

strategies is hard to gauge, awareness is clearly a

key to environmental stewardship.

Strategies E.1 (Printed Materials), E.2 (Audiovisual Media), E.3 (Signs/Displays/Exhibits), E.4

(Training/Workshops/School Programs), E.5

(Public Service Announcements), E.7 (Promotional Materials), E.9 (Ecotourism Promoter), E.10

(Public Forum), and E.11 (Special Events). These

strategies provide for the development of printed

materials; audiovisual materials; a library for private

and public use; displays and signs; training programs; public service announcements; an education

advisory council; visitor booths; periodic public

meetings; and presentations to promote Sanctuary

awareness, resources, and environmental quality.

• Alternative III will provide an education program that fulfills the purposes of the Acts.

Programs established through this alternative

will include such public outreach endeavors as

support of local school systems through

teacher training and field trips; environmental

education of law enforcement officers; educational opportunities for adults; regular public

meetings on Sanctuary issues; special events

such as “Kids' Week,” “Sanctuary Awareness

Week,” and festivals; lecture series; interagency visitor centers; and a “hotline” to assist

in enforcement. The education program will

facilitate compatible uses and reduce user

conflicts by educating the public about environmental sensitivity and the specific needs of

various users. Alternative III will significantly

increase the public’s awareness of the importance of Sanctuary resources and will help

decrease behavior that results in resource

degradation. Outside of areas where there is

targeted, direct regulation, the education

programs in Alternative III will provide the best

means to change user behavior that adversely

affects Sanctuary resources. While education

cannot totally replace enforcement, a welldesigned program is necessary to effectively

enforce all Sanctuary regulations. Therefore,

without an effective education program, the

mandate of resource protection as instructed in

the MPRSA and the FKNMSPA will not be met.

The increased awareness brought about by the

educational program in Alternative III will, in the

long term, generate positive environmental

impacts for all users once resource protection

increases.

• Alternative IV would not provide as many broad

educational opportunities as Alternatives II and

III. It would provide for the development of a

limited number and type of printed materials to

educate residents and visitors about the

impacts of their land-based activities on

Sanctuary resources. The lower profile and

smaller audience addressed by actions in this

alternative would not provide an adequate level

of public awareness, resulting in a continued

decline in environmental quality. In addition,

Alternative IV would not provide for the development of additional audio-visual products or

the translation of educational materials into

other languages. Failure to provide these

additional translated materials and educational

products would result in the inability to relate

messages to many in the South Florida population and international audiences. This alternative would not establish an education advisory

council, an expanded volunteer program, or

visitor centers that would make the Sanctuary

program more efficient.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

212

• Alternative II is very similar to Alternative III.

The main differences are the creation of an

ecotourism promoter position, and the establishment of a visitor center dedicated solely to

the FKNMS. The Sanctuary Advisory Council

recommends, and NOAA concurs, that

ecotourism promotion is a commercial endeavor better left to private enterprise. A

shared facility would provide interagency

cooperation and collaboration more efficiently

than a visitor center dedicated solely to the

Sanctuary. However, building and operating

such a facility would be fiscally prohibitive.

Recognizing that unlimited funding for Sanctuary

programs does not exist, Sanctuary managers must

find new and innovative ways to accomplish resource

protection. Cooperative agreements with nongovernmental organizations and other Federal, State, and

local agencies are a very effective way to stretch

financial resources while providing for increased

interagency communication. Using volunteers to

assist staff in implementing strategies will also stretch

financial resources, while providing an opportunity for

participants to develop a sense of trusteeship of

Sanctuary resources. Redundancy must be avoided.

An education advisory council would guard against

duplication and help to identify cooperative opportunities. Alternative III provides the best mechanisms to

meet these needs.

 Conclusions

Under NEPA, the management alternatives were

assessed with respect to their environmental and

socioeconomic impacts. The positive environmental

impacts and associated beneficial economic impacts

to the tourist industry outweigh any potential negative

impacts.

Alternative III was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it most closely meets the resource

protection goals of the NMSA and the FKNMSPA,

while facilitating current Sanctuary uses and user

activities. It focuses on the resource problems

identified through the planning process, and provides

flexibility in addressing issues as they are raised as

part of a dynamic and continuous management

process. In addition, this alternative recognizes the

role of Federal, State, and local management in

meeting Sanctuary objectives, and seeks to integrate

them for maximum effectiveness.

Table 31 contains a list of the strategies in the

Preferred Alternative, organized by issue. Complete

descriptions of these strategies are found in Appendix H in Volume III.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative

213

Table 31. Management Strategies Organized by Issue

E.3 Signs/Displays/Exhibits

E.4 Training/Workshops/School Programs

E.5 PSAs

E.6 Advisory Council

E.7 Promotional

E.10 Public Forum

E.11 Special Events

Recreation

R.1 SCR Management

R.2 Recreation Survey

R.5 Carrying Capacity R.7 Coral Touching

L.7

Boating

B.1 Boat Access

B.2 Habitat Restoration

B.3 Derelict Vessels

B.4 Channel Marking

B.5 Boat Groundings

Water Quality

Zoning

Z.1 Wildlife Management Areas

Z.2 Replenishment Reserves

Z.3 Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Z.4 Existing Management Areas

Z.5 Special-use Areas

B.6 Additional Enforcement

B.7 Pollution Discharges

B.8 User Fees

B.9 Visitor Registration

B.10 Damage Assessment

B.11 Special-use Permits

Education

E.1 Printed Materials

E.2 Audio-Visual Media

B.12 Cross Deputization

B.13 Salvaging/Towing

B.15 Mooring Buoy Impacts

B.16 Dock Permitting

B.17 PWC Management

Fishing

F.1 Consistent Regulations

F.3 Stocking

F.4 Aquaculture Alternatives

F.5 Limited Entry

F.6 Fisheries Sampling

F.7 Artificial Reef 

F.8 Exotic Species

F.9 Gear Removal

F.10 Bycatch

F.11 Gear/Method Impacts

F.12 Finfish Traps

F.14 Spearfishing

F.15 Sponge Harvest

Land Use

L.1 Marina Pumpout

L.2 Marina Operations

L.3 Fueling/Maintenance

L.4 RV Pumpout

L.5 RV Waste Reduction

L.6 Mobile Pumpout

W.1 OSDS Demonstration Project

W.2 AWT Demonstration Project

W.3 Wastewater Management Systems

W.4 Wastewater Disposal, City of Key West

W.5 Water Quality Standards

W.6 NPDES Program Delegation

W.7 Resource Monitoring of Surface Discharge

W.8 OSDS Permitting

W.9 Laboratory Facilities

W.10 Canal WQ

W.11 Stormwater Retrofitting

W.12 Stormwater Permitting

W.13 Stormwater Management

W.14 Best Management Practices

W.15 HAZMAT Response

W.16 Spill Reporting

W.17 Mosquito Spraying

W.18 Pesticide Research

W.19 Florida Bay Freshwater Flow

W.20 WQ Monitoring

W.21 Predictive Models

W.22 Pollutant Assessment

W.23 Leachate Transport

W.24 Florida Bay Influence

W.25 WQ Impact Research

W.26 Indicators

W.27 Other Monitoring Tools

W.28 Regional Database

W.29 Dissemination of Research Findings 

W.31 Global Change

W.32 Advisory Committee

W.33 Ecological Monitoring

SWD Problem Sites

L.8 Containment Options

L.9 SWD Policy Compliance

L.10 HAZMAT Handling

L.11 HAZMAT License

L.12 HAZMAT Collection

L.14 Dredging Prohibition

L.15 Dredging Regulation

L.16 Water-use Reduction

L.17 Dredge and Fill Authority

L.18 Wetland Dredge and Fill

L.19 Growth Impacts

L.20 Public Access
215

References

References

 Description of the Affected Environment

 Introduction

Antonini, G.A., L. Zobler, H. Tupper, and R.H. Ryder.

1990. Boat live-aboards in the Florida Keys: A

new factor in waterfront development. Report no.

98. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Cartographic Research Laboratory in Applied Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990.

Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve management

plan. Division of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, Marathon, FL. 156

pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991a.

Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve management

plan. Division of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, Marathon, FL. 198

pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991b.

Biscayne Bay/Carol Sound Aquatic Preserve

management plan. Division of State Lands,

Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves,

Marathon, FL. 180 pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991c.

Florida State parks guide 1990-91. Division of

Recreation and Parks, Office of Communications.

47 pp.

Minerals Management Service. 1990. Synthesis of

available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for

the South Florida area. N. Phillips and K. Larson,

eds. OCS Study MMS 90-0019. Prepared by

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 657 pp. +

appendices.

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.

1986. Florida Keys comprehensive plan: Volume

I. Background data element. Approved by the

Department of Community Affairs and the

Administration Commission of the State of

Florida. Key West, FL. 583 pp.

Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010

comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for the

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners

by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-Aschman

Associates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,

Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar and

Ray, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and the Growth

Management Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810

pp.

National Audubon Society. 1990. Audubon sanctuary

directory. Sanctuary Department, Sharon, CT. 61

pp.

National Park Service. 1989. The national parks:

Index, 1989. Office of Public Affairs and the

Division of Publications, National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

112 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Key Largo

National Marine Sanctuary management plan.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sanctuary Programs Division. 89 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984. Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary management plan.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sanctuary Programs Division. 58 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Annual report of

lands under control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service as of September 30, 1990. Compiled by

the Division of Realty, Washington, DC. 39

pp.White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.

Personal Communications

Ferris, S., Monroe County Building and Planning

Department, Marathon, FL.

Olson, C., Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust, Marathon, FL.

Robertson, M., The Nature Conservancy, Key West,

FL.

Wick, P.R., Monroe County Land Authority, Key West,

FL.
216

References

 Physical Environments

Brooks, I.H. and P.P. Niiler. 1975. The Florida Current

at Key West:, Summer 1972. J. Mar. Res.

33(1):83-92.

Cooper, R.M. and J. Roy. 1991. An atlas of surface

water management basins in the Everglades:

The water conservation areas and Everglades

National Park. South Florida Water Management

District technical memorandum. West Palm

Beach, FL.

Cross, J.A. 1980. Residents’ concerns about hurricane hazard within the Lower Florida Keys.

National Conference on Hurricanes and Coastal

Storms Proceedings. pp. 156-161.

Duever, M.J. et al. 1985. The Big Cypress National

Preserve. National Audubon Society research

report no. 8. 444 pp.

Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in South

Florida. In: P. Enos, and R.D. Perkins, eds.

Holocene sediment accumulations of the South

Florida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem.

147:1-130.

Everling, A. 1987. Waterspouts. WTHWA. 40:208.

Gardner, T., ed. 1991. Draft management plan for

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, Card Sound.

Florida Department of Natural Resources,

Division of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged

Lands and Preserves. 174 pp.

Ginsburg, R.N., and E.A. Shinn. 1964. Distribution of

the reef-building community in Florida and the

Bahamas (abstract). Bull. Mar. Assoc. Petrol.

Geol. 48:527.

Golden, J.H. 1971. Waterspouts and tornadoes over

South Florida. Monthly Weather Rev. 99:146-

153.

Herbert, P.J. and J.G. Taylor. 1975. Hurricane experience levels of coastal populations - Texas to

Maine. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NWS.

53 pp.

Hoffmeister, J.E. 1974. Land from the sea: The

geologic story of South Florida. Coral Gables, FL:

The University of Miami Press. 143 pp.

Hoffmeister, J.E., J.I. Jones, J.D. Milliman, D.R.

Moore, and H.G. Multer. 1964. Living and fossil

reef types of South Florida. Miami, FL: Miami

Geological Society. 28 pp.

Hoffmeister, J.E. and H.G. Multer. 1968. Geology and

origin of the Florida Keys. G. Soc. Am. B.

79:1487-1502.

Holmes, C.W. 1981a. Late neogene and quaternary

geology of the southwestern Florida shelf and

slope. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological

Survey. 25 pp.

Holmes, C.W. 1981b. Late tertiary-quaternary

geology of the southwestern Florida shelf and

slope. Supplement to Transactions, Gulf Coast

Association of Geologic Societies. 1:460.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coastal and

nearshore communities: Coral reefs. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates,

Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Johnston, R.H. and P.W. Bush. 1988. Summary of

hydrology of the Floridan aquifer system in

Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina,

and Alabama. United States Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1403-A. 24 pp.

Jordan, B. 1991. Weather and climate. In: J. Gato,

ed. The Monroe County environmental story. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Lapointe, B.E. 1991. Hydrology. In: J. Gato, ed. The

Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine

Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Lee, T.N. 1975. Florida Current spin-off eddies.

Deep-Sea Res. 22:753-765.

Lee, T.N. and D. Mayer. 1977. Low-frequency current

and spin-off eddies on the shelf off southeast

Florida. J. Mar. Res. 35:193-220.

Lee, T.N., C. Rooth, and E. Williams. 1992. Influence

of Florida Current, gyres, and wind-driven

circulation on larvae transport and recruitment in

the Florida Keys coral reefs. Submitted to

Continental Shelf Research.
217

References

Merriam, D.F. 1989. Overview of the geology of

Florida Bay, review of recent developments. Bull.

Mar. Sci. 44: 519.

Meyer, F.W. 1989. Hydrogeology, groundwater

movement, and subsurface storage in the

Floridan aquifer system in southern Florida.

USGS Professional Paper 1403-G. 59 pp.

Minerals Management Service. 1990. Synthesis of

available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for

the South Florida area. N. Phillips and K. Larson,

eds. OCS Study MMS 90-0019. Prepared by

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 657 pp. +

appendices.

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.

1986. Florida Keys comprehensive plan: Volume

I. Background data element. Approved by the

Department of Community Affairs and the

Administration Commission of the State of

Florida. Key West, FL. 583 pp.

Monroe County. 1991. Monroe County working paper

#3. Monroe County, FL.

Mueller, E., and G.O. Winston. 1991. Geologic

history of the Florida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. The

Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine

Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Multer, H.G. 1977. Field guide to some carbonate

rock environments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt

Publishing Co. 415 pp.

Nalivkin, D.V. 1969. Hurricanes, storms, and tornadoes. Leningrad, USSR: Navka Publishers. 597

pp.

Nuemann, C.J., et al. 1990. Tropical cyclones of the

north Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1986. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National

Weather Service, NCDC. 186 pp.

Richards, W.J., ed. 1989. Bulletin of marine science.

Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric

Science. University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Schmidt, T.W. and G.E. Davis. 1978. A summary of

estuarine and marine water quality information

collected in Everglades National Park, Biscayne

National Monument, and adjacent estuaries from

1879 to 1977. South Florida Research Center

report T-519. 59 pp.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological

characterization of the Lower Everglades, Florida

Bay, and the Florida Keys. Washington, DC: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological

Services. 246 pp.

Shinn, E.A. 1963. Spur-and-groove formation on the

Florida Reef Tract. Journal of Sedimentary

Petrology. 33:291-303.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, J.H. Hudson, J.L. Kindinger,

and R.B. Halley. 1989. Reefs of Florida and the

Dry Tortugas: IGC field trip guide T176. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. 53 pp.

Simpson, R.H. and M.B. Lawrence. 1971. Atlantic

hurricane frequencies along the U.S. Coastline.

Fort Worth, TX: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum

NWS-SR-58. 14 pp.

South Florida Water Management District. 1990.

Monitoring and operating plan for C-111 interim

construction project (permit 131654749): Final

draft, revision 3 (May 16, 1990). West Palm

Beach, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary: Phase I report.

Prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Jupiter, FL and Battelle Ocean Sciences,

Duxbury, MA. 329 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary Program: Phase II

report. Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences.

Duxbury, MA. 460 pp.

Valleau, D.N. 1977. Nature and distribution of nearsurface suspended particulate matter contributing to the turbidity stress-field through a coral

reef tract of the Florida Keys. University of

Florida. 89 pp.

Voss, G.L. 1988. Coral reefs of Florida. Sarasota, FL:

Pineapple Press. 80 pp.
218

References

Vukovich, F.M. 1988. On the formulation of elongated

cold perturbations off the Dry Tortugas. Am.

Meteorological J. 18:1051-1059.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.

Winsberg, M.D. 1990. Florida weather. Orlando, FL:

University of Central Florida Press. 171 pp.

Personal Communications

Lee, T.N., University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Smith, N., Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute,

Ft. Pierce, FL.

 Natural Resources

Albury, L. 1991. The overseas railroad. In: J. Gato,

ed. The Monroe County environmental story. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Antonius, A. 1974. Final report of the coral reef group

of the Florida Keys project for the project year

1973. Harbor Branch Foundation, Fort Pierce,

FL. 201 pp.

Antonius A. 1982. Health problems of the Florida

coral reefs. Fla. Sci. 38(1):21.

Antonius, A., A.H. Weiner, J.C. Halas, and E.

Davidson. 1978. Looe Key reef resource inventory. Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce. 51 pp.

Bancroft, G.T., R. Bowman, R.J. Sawicki, and A.M.

Strong. 1991. Relationship between the reproductive ecology of the white-crowned pigeon and

the fruiting phenology of hardwood hammock

trees. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program technical report. Tallahassee, FL.

Bert, T.M., R.E. Warner, and L.D. Kessler. 1978. The

biology and Florida fishery of the stone crab,

Menippe mercenaria, with emphasis on southwest Florida. Florida Sea Grant technical paper

no. 9. 82 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper, D.B. McClellan, D.L.

Sutherland, and M.W. White. 1987. Resource

survey of fishes within Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration technical memorandum, National

Ocean Service memorandum no. 5. 108 pp.

Booker, J. 1991. Nearshore communities. In: J. Gato,

ed. The Monroe County environmental story. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Briggs, J.C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. McGrawHill. 475 pp.

Browder, J., C. Littlejohn, and D. Young. 1973. South

Florida: Seeking a balance of man and nature.

University of Florida, Center for Wetlands,

Gainesville, FL.

Brown, L.N. 1978. Key Largo wood rat (Neotoma

floridana smallii). In: J.N. Layne, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.

pp. 11-12. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 52 pp.

Burgess, G.H., 1980. Snook (Centropomus

undecimalis). In: D.S. Lee, ed. Atlas of North

American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State

Museum of Natural History. 867 pp.

Carr, N.G. and B.A. Whitton, eds. 1973. The biology

of blue-green algae. In: Botanical Monographs,

vol. 9. Los Angeles, CA: University of California

Press. 676 pp.

Clark, S.H. 1971. Factors affecting the distribution of

fishes in Whitewater Bay, Everglades National

Park, Florida. University of Miami. Florida Sea

Grant Tech. Bull. 8. 100 pp.

Collard, S. and C. D’Asaro. 1973. Benthic invertebrates of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J. Jones, R.

Ring, M. Rinkel, and R. Smith, eds. St. Petersburg, FL: State University System of Florida,

Institute of Oceanography. IIIG-1 to IIIG-27.

Craighead, F.C. 1971. The trees of South Florida.

Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.

Davis, G.E. 1979. Outer continental shelf resource

management map: Coral distribution. Fort

Jefferson National Monument, the Dry Tortugas.

New Orleans OCS Office, Bureau of Land

Management.
219

References

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Guide to the

natural communities of Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Land Use

Planning and Biological Services, Tallahassee,

FL.

Fogarty, M.J. 1978. American alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians and reptiles. pp. 65-67. Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida.

Fogg, G.E., W.D.P. Stewart, P. Fay, and A.E. Walsby.

1973. The blue-green algae. London, England:

Academic Press. 459 pp.

Fourqurean, J.W. 1992. The roles of resource

availability and resource competition in structuring seagrass communities of Florida Bay. Graduate dissertation, Department of Environmental

Sciences, University of Virginia, Chartottesville,

VA.

Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman, and G.V.N. Powell.

1992. Phosphorus limitation of primary production in Florida Bay: Evidence from C:N:P ratios of

dominant seagrass Thalassia testudinum.

Limnol. Oceanogr. 37(1):162-171.

Gilbert, C. 1972. Characteristics of the western

Atlantic reef fish fauna. Quart. Journ. Fla. Acad.

Sci. 35:130-144.

Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Key silverside (Menida

conchorum ). In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 4, fishes. pp. 1-

2. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 58

pp.

Gilbert, C.R. 1992. Key silverside (Menida

conchorum). In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, fishes. pp.

213-217. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 247 pp.

Ginsburg, R.N. 1956. Environmental relationships of

grain size and constituent particles in some

South Florida carbonate sediments. Bull. Am.

Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 40(10):2384-2427.

Ginsburg, R.N., and E.A. Shinn. 1964. Distribution of

the reef-building community in Florida and the

Bahamas (abstract). Bull. Mar. Assoc. Petrol.

Geol. 48:527.

Davis, G.E. 1982. A century of natural change in

coral distribution at the Dry Tortugas: A comparison of reef maps from 1881 and 1976. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 32:608-623.

Davis, J.H. 1943. The natural features of southern

Florida, especially the vegetation and the Everglades. Fla. Geol. Surv. Bull. 25:311.

Dawes, C.J., S.A. Earle, and F.C. Croley. 1967. The

offshore benthic flora of the southwest coast of

Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17(1):211-230.

Deisler, J.E. 1982. Stock Island tree snail (Oralicus

reses reses). In: R. Franz, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 6, invertebrates. pp.

8-9. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

52 pp.

Douglas, M.S. 1947. The Everglades: River of grass.

New York: Rinehart.

Dunson, W.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Salinity as a

limiting factor in the distribution of reptiles in

Florida Bay: A theory for the estuarine origin of

marine snakes and turtles. Bull. Mar. Sci.

44(1):229-244.

Dustan, P. 1985. Community structure of reefbuilding corals in the Florida Keys: Carysfort

Reef, Key Largo, and Long Reef, Dry Tortugas.

Atoll Research Bulletin. 288:1-27.

Eiseman, N.J. 1981. Algae. In: S.C. Jameson, ed.

Key Largo Coral Reef National Marine Sanctuary

deep water resource survey. National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration technical report

CZ/SP-1. Washington, DC.

Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in South

Florida. In: P. Enos, and R.D. Perkins, eds.

Holocene sediment accumulations of the South

Florida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem.

147:1-130.

Enos, P. 1989. Islands in the bay: A key habitat of

Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):365-386.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., LGL

Ecological Research Associates, Inc., and

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. Southwest Florida shelf ecosystems study. Data

synthesis report. Submitted to the Minerals

Management Service, New Orleans, LA.
220

References

Humphrey, S.R. 1992a. Lower Keys wood rat

(Neotoma floridana smallii). In: S.R. Humphrey,

ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1,

mammals. pp. 119-130. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392 pp.

Humphrey, S.R. 1992b. Lower Keys population of

rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus). In: S.R.

Humphrey, ed. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 300-309.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392

pp.

Hunt, J.H., T.R. Matthews, R.D. Bertelsen, B.S.

Hedin, and D. Forcucci. 1991. Management

implications of trends in abundance and population dynamics of the Caribbean spiny lobster,

Panulirus argus, at the Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary. Report submitted to National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration. Contract no. 50-

DGNC-6-00093. pp. 1-75

Ingle, R.M., B. Eldred, H. Jones, and R.F. Hutton.

1959. Preliminary analysis of Tortugas shrimp

sampling data, 1957-1958. Florida Board of

Marine Conservation. Mar. lab. tech. ser. no. 32.

Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the South Florida

coral reefs: A community profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and Minerals Management Service

Publication FWS/OBS 82/08 and MMS 84-0038.

138 pp.

Jaap, W.C., W.G. Lyons, P. Dustan, and J.C. Halas.

1989. Stony coral (Scleractinia and Milleporina)

community structure at Bird Key reef, Ft.

Jefferson National Monument, Dry Tortugas,

Florida. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 46:1-31.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coastal and

nearshore communities: Coral reefs. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates,

Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Jameson, S.C., ed. 1981. Biological zonation. In: Key

Largo Coral Reef National Marine Sanctuary

deep water resource survey. National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration technical report

CZ/SP-1. Washington, DC.

Glazer, R.A. and C.J. Berg, Jr. 1993. Queen conch

research in Florida: An overview. In: R.S.

Appeldoorn and B. Rodriquez, eds. Queen conch

biology, fisheries, and mariculture. Fundaciones

Scientifica, Los Roques, Caracas, Venezuela.

Gleason, P.J., ed. 1974. Environments of South

Florida, present and past. Memoir 2 of the Miami

Geological Society.

Hardin, D.E. 1991. Pinelands. In: J. Gato, ed. The

Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine

Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Herrnkind W.F. and M.J. Butler IV. 1986. Factors

regulating postlarval settlement and juvenile

microhabitat use by spiny lobsters Panulirus

argus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 34:23-30.

Hilsenbeck, C.E., R.H. Hofstetter, and T.R.

Alexander. 1979. Preliminary synopsis of major

plant communities in the east Everglades area:

Vegetation map supplement. Unpublished.

Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral

Gables, FL.

Hoffmeister, J.E. and H.G. Multer. 1968. Geology and

origin of the Florida Keys. G. Soc. Am. B.

79:1487-1502.

Holmquist, J.G., G.V.N. Powell, and S.M. Sogard.

1989. Sediment, water-level, and water temperature characteristics of Florida Bay’s grasscovered mud banks. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):348-

364.

Hovis, J.A. and M.S. Robson. 1989. Breeding status

and distribution of the least tern in the Florida

Keys. Fla. Field Nat. 17(3):61-66.

Hudson, J.H. 1985. Growth rate and carbonate

production in Halimeda opuntia, Marquesas

Keys, Florida. In: D.F. Toomey and M.H. Nitecki,

eds. Paleoalgology: Contemporary research and

applications. Berlin. pp. 257-263.

Hudson, J.H., D.M. Allen, and T.J. Costello. 1970.

The flora and fauna of a basin in central Florida

Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service special

scientific report. Fish. 604:1-14.
221

References

Kale, H.W., ed. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Vol. 2, birds. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida.

Klimstra, W.D. 1992. Key deer (Odocioleus

virginianus clavium). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 201-215. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 392 pp.

Kraus, S.D. 1985. A review of the status of right

whales in the western North Atlantic with a

summary of research and management needs.

Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC.

MMC-84/08.

Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of

mortality in North Atlantic right whales

(Eubalaena glacialis) Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6(4):278-

291.

Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida’s remaining coastal upland natural communities: Florida

Keys. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 244 pp.

Kruer, C.R. and L.G. Causey. 1992. The use of large

artificial reefs to enhance fish populations at

different depths in the Florida Keys (draft).

NMFS/SERO, St. Petersburg, FL, MARFIN

#NA89AA-H-MF179. 160 pp.

Kushlan, J.A. 1979. Feeding ecology and prey

selection in the white ibis. Condor. 81:376-389.

Kushlan, J.A. 1980. The status of crocodilians in

South Florida. IUCN Crocodile Specialists Group.

Unpublished.

Lapointe, B.E., N.P. Smith, P.A. Pitts, and M.W. Clark.

1992. Baseline characterization of chemical and

hydrographic processes in the water column of

Looe Key NMS. Final report to U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management.

Layne, J.N., ed. 1977. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida. 54 pp.

Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys.

Washington DC: Island Press. 254 pp.

Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1991. Cotton mouse and wood rat. In:

J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmental

story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Lidz, B.H., D.M. Robbin, and E.A. Shinn. 1985.

Holocene carbonate sedimentary petrology and

facies accumulation, Looe Key National Marine

Sanctuary, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 36(3):672-700.

Lidz, B.H., A.C. Hine, E.A. Shinn, and J.L. Kindinger.

1991. Multiple outer reef tracts along the South

Florida bank margin: Outlier reefs, a new windward-margin model. Geol. 19:115-118.

Lindall, W.N., Jr. and C.H. Saloman. 1977. Alteration

and destruction of estuaries affecting fishery

resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev.

1262:1-7.

Little, E.J. and G.R. Milano. 1980. Techniques to

monitor recruitment of postlarval spiny lobsters,

Panulirus argus, to the Florida Keys. Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Fla. Mar. Res.

Pub. 37.

Littler, M.M., D.S. Littler, and B.E. Lapointe. 1986.

Baseline studies of herbivory and eutrophication

on dominant reef communities of Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary. Washington, DC:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum no. 1.

Lugo, A.E. and S.C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology of

mangroves. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:39-64.

Lund, F. 1978a. Atlantic leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3,

amphibians and reptiles. pp. 54-55. Gainesville,

FL: University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978b. Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas

mydas). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 23-24. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978c. Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys

imbricta imbricata). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians and reptiles. pp. 24-25 Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida.
222

References

Lund, F. 1978d. Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys

kempii). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 25-26. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978e. Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta

caretta). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 35-36. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Lyons, W.G. 1980. Possible sources of Florida's

spiny lobster population. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.

Inst. 33: 253-266.

Lyons, W.G and D. Camp. 1982. Zones of faunal

similarity within the Hourglass study area.

Proceedings of the Third Annual Gulf of Mexico

Information Transfer Meeting. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

Washington, DC. pp. 44-46.

Marszalek, D., G. Babashoff, M. Noel, and P. Worley.

1977. Reef distribution in South Florida. In:

Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef

Symposium. Miami, FL. Vol. 2. pp. 223-230.

Marszalek, D. 1981. Florida Reef Tract marine

habitat and ecosystems (map series). Published

in cooperation with the Florida Department of

Natural Resources, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and the

University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Marx J.M. and W.F. Herrnkind. 1985a. Factors

regulating microhabitat use by young juvenile

spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus: Food and

shelter. J. Crust. Biol. 5(4): 650-657.

Marx J.M., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1985b. Macroalgae

(Rhodophyta: Laurencia spp.) as habitat for

young juvenile spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus:

Bull. Mar. Sci. 36(3): 230-243.

McNulty, J.K., W.N. Lindall, Jr. and J.E. Sykes. 1972.

Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory

and study, Florida: Phase I, area description.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical report NMFS CIRC368. 126 pp.

McPherson, B.F. 1971. Hydrobiological characteristics of Shark River estuary, Everglades National

Park, Florida. USGS Open-file report 71002.

Miller, J. 1987. The echinoderms of the Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary. Report submitted to

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Cooperative agreement no. NA84AA-HCZ017. Harbor Branch Foundation.

Minerals Management Service. 1987. Southwest

Florida shelf regional biological communities

survey: Year 3 final report. OCS Study MMS 86-

0109. U.S. Department of the Interior. Prepared

by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., New

Orleans, LA.

Minerals Management Service. 1989. Southwest

Florida nearshore benthic habitat study, narrative

report. OCS Study MMS 89-0080. U.S. Department of the Interior. Prepared by Continental

Shelf Associates, Inc., New Orleans, LA. 55 pp.

Minerals Management Service. 1990. Synthesis of

available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for

the South Florida area. N. Phillips and K. Larson,

eds. OCS Study MMS 90-0019. Prepared by

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 657 pp. +

appendices.

Moler, P.E. 1991. American crocodile population

dynamics. Florida’s endangered wildlife/reptile

and amphibian research: American crocodile

recovery plan implementation. Study no. 7532.

Federal no. E-1 II-C-3.

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.

1986. Florida Keys comprehensive plan: Volume

I. Background data element. Approved by the

Department of Community Affairs and the

Administration Commission of the State of

Florida. Key West, FL. 583 pp.

Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010

comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for the

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners

by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-Aschman

Associates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,

Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar and

Ray, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and Growth Management Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810 pp.

Mueller, E. and G.O. Winston. 1991. Geologic history

of the Florida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe

County environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL:

Monroe County Environmental Education Task

Force. 370 pp.
223

References

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S.

population of Atlantic green turtle. National

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 52

pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S.

population of loggerhead turtle. National Marine

Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 64 pp.

Nielsen, A.F. 1991. Tropical hardwood hammocks. In:

J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmental

story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1990. Marine mammals and turtles. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. pp. 267-302. Continental

Shelf Associates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-

30417. 657 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992a. Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).

In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 140-147.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392

pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992b. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 148-

153. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992c. Fin whale (Balaenoptera

physalus). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.

pp. 154-159. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992d. Humpback whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.

pp. 160-167. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992e. Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.

pp. 168-175. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 392 pp.

Odum W.E., C.C. McIvor, and T.J. Smith III. 1982.

The ecology of the mangroves of South Florida:

A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Office of Biological Services. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 81/24. 144 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978a. Wood stork (Mycteria

americana). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 3-

4. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978b. Louisiana heron (Egretta tricolor). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 77-78.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121

pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978c Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja).

In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biota

of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 52-54. Gainesville,

FL: University Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978d. Snowy egret (Egretta thula). In:

H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 75-76. Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978e. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). In:

H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida: Vol. 2, birds. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent wood

stork population trends in the United States.

Wilson Bull. 91:512-523.

Olmstead, I.C., L.L. Loope, and R.E. Rintz. 1980. A

survey and baseline analysis of aspects of the

vegetation of Taylor Slough, Everglades National

Park. South Florida Research Center report T586.

Orr. 1991. Sea turtles. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe

County environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL:

Monroe County Environmental Education Task

Force. 370 pp.

O’Shea, T.J. and M.E. Ludlow. 1992 .Florida manatee

(Trichechus manatus). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1,

mammals. pp. 199-200. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392 pp.
224

References

Robertson, W. and K. Kushlan. 1974. The South

Florida avifauna. In: P.J. Gleason, ed. Environments of South Florida: Present and past. Miami

Geol. Soc. Mem. 2. pp. 414-452.

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. 1978. Species of special concern.

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea). In: H.W. Kale

II, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol.

2, birds. pp 72-73. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Ross, M.S., J.J. O’Brien, and L.J. Flynn. In press.

Ecological site classification of Florida Keys

terrestrial habitats. Ecosystems Studies Department of Scientific Policy and Research, National

Audubon Society. Tavernier, FL. 38 pp.

Sadove, S.S. and S.J. Morreale. 1989. Marine

mammal and sea turtle encounters with marine

debris in the New York Bight and the northeast

Atlantic. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, April 1989.

Saloman, C.H., D.M. Allen, and T.J. Costello. 1968.

Distribution of three species of shrimp (genus

Penaeus) in waters contiguous to southern

Florida. Bill. Mar. Sci. 18(2): 343-350.

Schmidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and the Gulf of

Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

81/41. 165 pp.

Schmidt, T.W. 1991. Scientific studies in the coastal

and estuarine areas of the Everglades National

Park: An annotated bibliography. National Park

Service. Research/Resource annual report.

Series 91/02.

Scholl, D.W. 1966. Florida Bay: A modern site of

limestone formation. In: R.W. Fairbridge, ed. The

encyclopedia of oceanography. New York, NY:

Reinhold. pp. 282-288.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological

characterization of the lower Everglades, Florida

Bay, and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 82/58.1. 246 pp.

Schreiber, R.W. 1978. Eastern brown pelican

(Pelecanus occidentalis). In: J.W. Kaley, II, ed.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2,

birds. pp. 23-25. Gainesville, FL: University Press

of Florida. 121 pp.

Owre, O.T. 1990. Coastal and marine birds. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. pp. 303-366. Continental

Shelf Associates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-

30417. 657 pp.

Parker, G.G., N.D. Hoy, and M.C. Schroeder. 1955.

Geology. In: G.G. Parker, G.E. Ferguson, S.K.

Love et al., eds. Water resources of southeastern

Florida. USGS Supply Paper 1255. pp. 57-125.

Patillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E.

Monaco. In Prep. Distribution and abundance of

fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico

estuaries, volume II: Life history summaries.

ELMR rept. no. 11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service,

Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,

Silver Spring, MD.

Phillips, N.W. and M.J. Thompson. 1990. Offshore

benthic communities. In: N. Phillips and K.

Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,

geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and

cultural resource information for the South

Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Pomponi, S.A. and K. Rützler. 1984. An illustrated

field guide to the sponges of Looe Key and Key

Largo national marine sanctuaries. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical report OCRM/SPD. Contract no. NA-83-AAA03072.

Powell, G.V.N., J.W. Fourqurean, W.J. Kenworthy,

and J.C. Zieman. 1991. Bird colonies cause

seagrass enrichment in a subtropical estuary:

Observational and experimental evidence.

Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science. 32:567-

579.

Puri, H.S. and R.O. Vernon. 1964. Summary of the

geology of Florida and guidebook to the classic

exposures. Fla. Geol. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5,

revised.

Robertson, W.B. Jr. 1978. Reddish egret. (Egretta

rufescens). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 51-52.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121

pp.
225

References

Seaman, W. Jr. and M. Collins. 1983. Species

profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South

Florida)-Snook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FWS/OBS 82/11.16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 pp.

Shinn, E.A. 1963. Spur and groove formation on the

Florida reef tract. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 33:291-303.

Shinn, E.A. 1975. Coral reef recovery in Florida and

in the Persian Gulf. Shell Oil Environmental

Conservation Department. Geol. 1:241-254.

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, R.B. Halley, and B.H. Lidz.

1977. Topographic control and accumulation rate

of some Holocene coral reefs, South Florida and

Dry Tortugas. In: Proceedings of the Third

International Coral Reef Symposium. Miami, FL:

University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marine

and Atmospheric Science. Vol. 2. pp. 1-7.

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and B.H

Lidz. 1981. Spurs and grooves revisited - Construction versus erosion, Looe Key reef, Florida.

In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral

Reef Symposium. Manila: Quezon City, University of the Philippines Marine Science Center.

Vol. 2. pp. 475-483.

Shinn, E.A., D.W. Holmes, J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robin,

and B.H. Lidz. 1982. Nonoolitic high-energy

carbonate sand accumulation: The Quicksands,

southwest Florida Keys (abstract). Am. As.

Petroleum G. B. 66:629-630.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, J.H. Hudson, J.L. Kindinger,

and R.B. Halley. 1989. Reefs of Florida and the

Dry Tortugas: IGC field trip guide T176. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. 53 pp.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, C.W. Holmes. 1990. Highenergy carbonate-sand accumulation, the

Quicksands, southwest Florida Keys. J. Sediment Petrol. 60 (6):952-967.

Simberloff, D.S. 1976. Experimental zoogeography of

islands: Effect of island size. Ecology. 57(4):629-

642.

Smith, F.G.W. 1948. Atlantic reef corals. Miami, FL:

University of Miami Press. 112 pp.

Smith, G.B. 1976. Ecology and distribution of eastern

Gulf of Mexico reef fishes. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ.

19:1-78.

Smith, G.M., ed. 1951. Manual of phycology: An

introduction of the algae and their biology. New

York, NY: The Ronald Press Co. 373 pp.

Smith, N.P. and P. Pitts. 1993. An annotated compilation of current, temperature, salinity, and waterlevel data from the Florida Keys. Unpublished

data.

Smithsonian Institution. Unpublished data. Dr. James

Mean, curator of marine mammals.

Snedaker, S.C. 1989. Overview of ecology of mangroves and information needs for Florida Bay.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):341-347.

Snelson, 1978. Rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). In:

C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida: Vol. 4, fishes. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 58 pp.

Snyder, J.K., A. Herndon, and W.B. Robertson, Jr.

1990. South Florida rockland. In: R.L. Meyers

and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida.

Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press.

pp. 230-280.

Sogard, S.M., G.V.N. Powell, and J.G. Holmquist.

1989. Spatial distribution and trends in abundance of fishes residing in seagrass meadows on

Florida Bay mudflats. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):179-

199.

South Florida Research Center. 1980. Wildlife survey

and freshwater fish study. Final report to East

Everglades Resource Planning Project. 95 pp.

Spendelow, J.A. and S.R. Patton. 1988. National

atlas of coastal waterbird colonies in the contiguous United States: 1976-82. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 88(5). 326 pp.

Stein, J.R., ed. 1973. Handbook of phycological

methods: Culture methods and growth measurements. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press. 448 pp.

Stephenson, T.A. and A. Stephenson. 1950. Life

between the tide marks in North America. I.

Florida Keys. J. Ecol. 38(2):354-402.
226

References

Stevenson, 1978. Bachman’s warbler (Vermivora

bachmani). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. Gainesville,

FL: University Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Stockman, K.W., Ginsburg, R.N., and Shinn, E.A.,

1967. The production of lime mud by algae in

South Florida. J. of Sed. Petrology. 37:633-648.

Tabb, D.C. and R.B. Manning. 1961. A checklist of

the flora and fauna of northern Florida Bay and

adjacent brackish waters of the Florida mainland

collected through the period July 1957 through

September 1960. Bull. Mar. Sci. 11(4):552-649.

Tabb, D.C. and R.B. Manning. 1962. Aspects of the

biology of northern Florida Bay and adjacent

estuaries. Florida Board of Conservation. Tech.

ser. no. 39.

Tabb, D.C., D.L. Dubrow, and R.B. Manning. 1962.

The ecology of northern Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries. Florida Board of Conservation.

Tech. ser. no. 39.

Taylor, D.S. 1992. Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus

marmoratus) In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, fishes. pp.

200-207. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 247 pp.

Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby, and W.F. Hettler, Jr. 1987.

Utilization of the red mangrove prop root habitat

by fishes in South Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

35:25-38.

Thayer, G.W. and A.J. Chester. 1989. Distribution

and abundance of fishes among basin and

channel habitats in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci.

44(1):200-219.

Thomas, J.D. 1984. An illustrated guidebook to the

common amphipods of the Florida Reef Tract.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical report.

Thue, E.B., E.S. Rutherford, and D.G. Buker. 1982.

Age, growth, and mortality of the common snook,

Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch) in Everglades

National Park, Florida. South Florida Research

Center report t-683. 32 pp.

Tomlinson, P.B. 1986. The botany of mangroves.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turney, W.J. and R.F. Perkins. 1972. Sedimenta III.

Molluscan distribution in Florida Bay. Rosenstiel

School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

University of Miami, Miami, FL.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1990. Environmental

assessment of underwater explosion testing near

Key West, Florida, and Amendment 1, short-term

limited testing at test areas D and H. Prepared

for the Department of Navy, Southern Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Contract

no. N62467-88-D-0628.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Schaus’s

swallowtail butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. Stock Island

tree snail recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Atlanta, GA. 15 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984a. American

crocodile recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984b. Marine turtle

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Atlanta, GA. 366 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Florida key deer

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Atlanta, GA. 46 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Florida manatee recovery plan. Prepared by the Florida

Manatee Recovery Team for the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 98 pp.

VanMeter, V.B. 1987. Florida’s alligators and crocodiles. Florida Power and Light Company. 41 pp.

Vaughan, T.W. 1914a. Building of the Marquesas and

Tortugas atolls and a sketch of the geologic

history of the Florida reef tract. Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC: Papers of the Department

of Marine Biology. Publication 182. Vol. 5, pp. 55-

67.

Vaughan, T.W. 1914b. The reef corals of southern

Florida. Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC: Year

Book 12:181-183.

Vaughan, T.W. 1918. The temperature of the Florida

coral reef tract. Washington, DC: Publication 213.

pp. 321-339.
227

References

Voss, G.L. and N.A. Voss. 1955. An ecological survey

of Soldier Key, Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar.

Sci. Gulf. Carib. 5(3):203-229.

Weaver, W.G. 1978. Florida brown snake (Storeria

dekayi victa). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 44-45. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Weiner, A. 1979. The hardwood hammocks of the

Florida Keys: An ecological study. National

Audubon Society and the Florida Keys Land

Trust.

Werner, H.W. 1978. Cape Sable seaside sparrow

(Ammodramus maritimus miabilis). In: H.W. Kale

III, ed. Rare and endangered biota in Florida: Vol.

2, birds. pp. 19-20. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 121 pp.

Wheaton, J.L. and W.C. Jaap. 1988. Corals and

other prominent benthic cnidaria of Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Fla. Mar.

Res. publ. no. 43. 25 pp.

Williams, 1978. Florida sandhill crane (Grus

canadensis pratensis). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds.

Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121

pp.

Williams, L.C. 1991. Southern Florida vessel traffic

study. TMA Corporation, Inc., Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Coast Guard. Contract no. DTCG23-90-CHNN128-2.

Wilmers, T. 1991. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus). In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe

County environmental story. pp. 257-259. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Wilmers, T. 1991. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus). In: J.

Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmental

story. pp. 260-261. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe

County Environmental Education Task Force.

370 pp.

Wolfe, J.L. 1992. Lower Keys marsh rabbit

(Sylvilagus palustris herneri). In: S.R. Humphrey,

ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1,

mammals. pp. 71-75. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 392 pp.

Woolfenden, 1978. Snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus tenuirostris). In: H.W. Kale II, ed.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2,

birds. pp. 8-10. Gainesville, FL: University Press

of Florida. 121 pp.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1983. Rare, threatened, and

endangered vertebrates of southwest Florida and

potential OCS activity impacts. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 82/03. 64 pp.

Yochem, P.K. and S. Leatherwood. 1985. Blue whale

(Balaenoptera musculus). In: S.H. Ridgeway and

R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals:

Vol. 3. The sirenians and baleen whales. pp.

193-240. London: Academic Press. 362 pp.

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of

South Florida: A community profile. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 82/25. 158 pp.

Zieman, J.C. 1990. Coastal and nearshore communities: Seagrass beds. In: N. Phillips and K.

Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,

geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and

cultural resource information for the South

Florida area, geologic setting. Jupiter, FL:

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 657 pp.

Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean, and R.L. Iverson.

1989. Distribution, abundance, and productivity

of seagrasses and macroalgae in Florida Bay.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 44 1:292-311.

Personal Communications

Felder, D., Southwest Louisiana State University,

Lafayette, LA.

Hoffman, W., National Audubon Society, Plantation

Key, FL.

Kruer, C.R., private consultant, Summerland Key, FL.

Sprunt, A., National Audubon Society, Tavernier, FL.

Wells, P., Lignumvitae State Botanical Site, FL.

Wilmers, T., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National

Key Deer Refuge, Big Pine Key, FL.
228

References

Gato, J., ed. 1991. The Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe County

Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Gray, H.H. 1984. Archaeology sedimentology of

overbank silt deposits on the floodplain of the

Ohio River near Louisville, Kentucky. Journal of

Archaeological Science. 11:421-432.

Grayson, D.K. 1984. Archaeological associations with

extinct Pleistocene mammals in North America.

Journal of Archaeological Science. 11:213-221.

Halas, J. 1988. An inventory of shipwrecks, groundings, and cultural marine resources within the

Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary region.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum/National Ocean

Service memorandum no. NA87AA-H-CZ007.

Unpublished data.

Hoffecker, J.F. 1988. Applied geomorphology and

archaeological survey strategy for sites of

Pleistocene age: An example from central

Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science. 15:

683-713.

Lane, E. 1986. Karst in Florida. State of Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Florida

Geological Survey, special publication no. 29.

Tallahassee, FL.

Lidz, B. and E. Shinn. 1991. Paleoshorelines, reefs,

and a rising sea: South Florida, U.S.A. Journal of

Coastal Research. 7:203-229.

Marx, R. 1971 (rev. 1987). Shipwrecks of the western

hemisphere, 1492-1825. New York: Dover

Publications, Inc. 544 pp.

Masters, P.M. and N.C. Flemming, eds. 1993.

Quaternary coastlines and marine archaeology.

London: Academic Press.

Monroe County. 1986. Monroe County comprehensive land use plan. Monroe County Planning

Commission. Monroe County, FL.

National Park Service, 1979. National Register of

Historic Places: Nomination form. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Zieman, J.C., University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

VA.

 Cultural and Historic Resources

Ballard, R. and E. Uchupi. 1970. Morphology and

quaternary history of the continental shelf of the

Gulf coast of the United States. Bull. Mar. Sci.

20: 546-559.

Bedarnik, R.G. 1989. On the Pleistocene settlement

of South America. Antiquity. 63:101-111.

Carr, R. 1987. Early man in South Florida. Arch.

1987:62-63.

Clausen, C. and A.B. Weslowsky. 1975. The early

man site and Warm Mineral Springs, Florida.

Journal of Field Archaeology. 2:192-213.

Clausen, C., et al. 1979. Little Salt Spring, Florida: A

unique underwater site. Science. 203:609-614.

Cockrell, W.A. and L. Murphy. 1978. Pleistocene man

in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North

America. 6:1-13.

Dean, L. 1982. Reef lights: Sea-swept lighthouses of

the Florida Keys. Historic Key West Preservation

Board. Tampa, FL: Joe Klay and Sons.

Delgado, J.P. 1988. Underwater archaeology proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. Reno, NV.

Dunbar, J., et al. 1989. Archaeological sites in the

drowned tertiary karst region of the eastern Gulf

of Mexico. Florida Anthropologist. 41:177-181.

Faught, M. 1988. Preliminary report of excavations at

the Econfina channel site. University of Arizona,

unpublished manuscript on files at the Department of Anthropology.

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp,

and G.A. Wolff. 1989. Historic shipwrecks and

magnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf of

Mexico: Reevaluation of archaeological resource

management zone 1. Volume 2: Technical

narrative. OCS Study /MMS 89-0023. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office,

New Orleans, LA. 242 pp.
229

References

National Park Service, 1990. National Register of

Historic Places: Registration form. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Winsberg, M.D. 1988. Florida’s history through its

places: Properties in the National Register of

Historic Places. Department of Geography,

Florida State University. Prepared by the Institute

of Science and Public Affairs with the cooperation

of the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of

Historical Resources, Florida Department of

State. 93 pp.

Personal Communications

Miller, J., Bureau of Archeological Research, Division

of Historical Resources, Department of State,

Tallahassee, FL.

Shinn, E., United States Geological Survey, St.

Petersburg, FL.

 Human Activities and Uses

Alevizon, W.S. and S.P. Bannerot. 1990. Fish communities and fisheries biology. In: N. Phillips and

K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,

geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and

cultural resource information for the South

Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Arnold, D. 1991. Treasure hunting becoming a

growth industry. The Boston Globe. October 21,

1991. p. 27.

Bauer, R. 1986. Play looto. Forbes. June 16, 1986.

pp. 146-150.

Bender, R. 1978. A sports fishing editor’s views on

reef fishing. In: D.Y. Aska, ed. Artificial reefs in

Florida. Florida Sea Grant College Program. 69

pp.

Blout, S. 1981. Why sportdivers like artificial reefs. In:

D.Y. Aska, ed. Artificial reefs: Conference proceedings. Florida Sea Grant College Program.

229 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at

artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or

behavioral preference? Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):631-

645.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1991. Fishing trends. In: J. Gato, ed.

The Monroe County environmental story. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial

reef research: A review with recommendations

for future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37: 11-39.

Clark, R.R. 1990. The carbonate beaches of Florida:

An inventory of Monroe County beaches. Florida

Department of Natural Resources. Beaches and

shores technical and design memorandum 90-1.

63 pp.

Comp G.S. and W. Seaman. 1988. Estuarine habitat

and fishery resources of Florida. pp. 337-436 In:

W. Seaman, ed. Florida aquatic habitat and

fishery resources. Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Eustis, FL.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., LGL

Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. Southwest

Florida shelf ecosystems study. Data synthesis

report. Submitted to the Minerals Management

Service, New Orleans, LA.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990.

Printout of public and private recreation data.

Tallahassee, FL: Department of Natural Resources. Recreation and Parks management

information system. Florida Recreation and

Parks Facility Inventory.Florida Department of

Natural Resources. 1991. Unpublished data.

Gerard, S. 1992. Caribbean treasure hunt. Sea

Frontiers. pp. 49-62.

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 1982. Fishery management plan

and environmental impact statement. Regulatory

review for spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and

South Atlantic. National Marine Fisheries Service. St. Petersburg, FL.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1978.

Final impact statement and fishery management

plan for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf of

Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service. St.

Petersburg, FL.
230

References

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981.

Fishery management plan for the shrimp fishery

of the Gulf of Mexico: United States waters. Gulf

of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Tampa,

FL.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coral reefs. In: R.L.

Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida.

Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press.

765 pp.

Kearny/Cenatur. 1990. Impact of oil and gas development on the recreation and tourism off the

Florida Straits.

Kruer, C.R. 1991. Preserving marine life with artificial

reefs. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County

environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe

County Environmental Education Task Force.

370 pp.

Kruer, C.R. and L.G. Causey. 1992. The use of large

artificial reefs to enhance fish populations at

different depths in the Florida Keys (draft).

NMFS/SERO, St. Petersburg, FL, MARFIN

#NA89AA-H-MF179. 160 pp.

Little, E.J. 1991. A history of the fishing industry in the

Florida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County

environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe

County Environmental Education Task Force.

370 pp.

Milon, J.W. 1989a. Economic evaluation of artificial

habitat for fisheries: Progress and challenges.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):831-843.

Milon, J.W. 1989b. Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation behavior by sport anglers

and divers. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):853-862.

Monroe County. 1990. The Monroe County comprehensive plan: 1990-2010. Technical document.

Key West, FL: Monroe County.

Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010

comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for the

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners

by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-Aschman

Associates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,

Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar and

Ray, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and Growth Management Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810 pp.

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.

1986. Florida Keys comprehensive plan: Volume

I. Background data element. Approved by the

Department of Community Affairs and the

Administration Commission of the State of

Florida. Key West, FL. 583 pp.

National Geographic Society. 1986. Atocha: Quest for

treasure. National Geographic Video Series.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Fisheries of

the United States, 1990: Current fisheries

statistics. No. 9000, Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Phillips, N.E. 1990. Offshore oil and gas operations in

South Florida: History, status, and potential

environmental effects. In: N. Phillips and K.

Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,

geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and

cultural resource information for the South

Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp. +

appendices.

Powers, J.E. and D.L. Sutherland. 1989. Spiny

lobster assessment, CPUE, size, frequency, yield

per recruit and escape gap analyses. National

Marine Fisheries Service. Coastal Resources

Division. No. CRD-88/89-24.

Pybas, D.W. 1992. Atlas of artificial reefs in Florida.

Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of

Florida, Gainesville, FL. 40 pp.

Rockland, 1988. The economic impact of sport and

commercial fisheries of the Florida Keys. Sport

Fishing Institute. Prepared for the Monroe

County Industrial Development Authority.

Rockland, D.B. 1990. The economic value of the

sport fisheries of the Florida Keys. Washington,

DC: Sportfishing Institute. Prepared for the

National Marine Fisheries Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 157 pp.

Schoenbaum. 1987. Admiralty law and maritime law.

West Publishers. pp. 512-518.

Seaman, W., Jr., R.M. Buckley, and J.J. Polovina.

1989. Advances in knowledge and priorities for

research, technology, and management related

to artificial aquatic habitats. Bull. Mar. Sci.

44(2):527-532.
231

References

Shermyen, A.H., ed. 1991. Florida statistical abstract. Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, College of Business Administration,

University of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University

Press of Florida. 736 pp.

Smith, R.C., J.J. Miller, S.M. Kelley, and L.G. Harbin.

In press. An atlas of maritime Florida. Florida

Department of State. Tallahassee, FL.

Sorenson, P.E., P. Bogenrieder, and D. Sauer. 1990.

Socioeconomics. In: N. Phillips and K. Larson,

eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural

resource information for the South Florida area.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Contract no.

14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Throckmorton, P. 1990. The world's worst investment: The economics of treasure hunting, with

real life comparisons. In: T. Carrell, ed. Underwater Archaeology: Proceedings of the Society

for Historical Archaeology's Conference.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Statistical abstract

of the United States, 1991. U.S. Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. 986 pp.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1990. Environmental

assessment of underwater explosion testing

near Key West, Florida, and Amendment 1,

short-term limited testing at test areas D and H.

Prepared for the Department of Navy, Southern

Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Contract no. N62467-88-D-0628. 212 pp +

appendices.

Viehl, J. 1991. Sponging. In: J. Gato, ed. The

Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine

Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.

Whitney, D. 1991. Impact of sportfishing on the

Florida Keys economy. In: J. Gato, ed. The

Monroe County environmental story. Big Pine

Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Williams, L.C. 1991. Southern Florida vessel traffic

study. TMA Corporation, Inc. Riverdale, MD. U.S.

Coast Guard. Contract no. DTCG23-90-CHMN128-2.

Personal Communications

Beaver, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Bert, T., Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, FL.

Bertlesen, R., Florida Marine Research Institute,

Florida Department of Natural Resources,

Marathon, FL.

Bohnsack, J., Southeast Fisheries Center, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL.

Chapman, G., Salvors, Inc., Key West, FL.

Crusoe, E., Key West, FL.

Feddern, H., Florida Marine Life Association,

Tavernier, FL.

Garrett, G., Monroe County Department of Marine

Resources, Marathon, FL.

Glazer, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Gregory, D., Florida Sea Grant College Program, Key

West, FL.

Hamlin, C., Key West Port and Transit Authority, Key

West, FL.

Helbling, R.J., Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation, Marathon, FL.

Hunt, J., Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Kruer, C.R., private consultant, Summerland Key, FL.

Little, E.J., U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Key West, FL.

Mathewson, D., National Center for Shipwreck

Research, Ltd. Islamorada, FL.

Miller, J., Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida

Department of State, Tallahassee, FL.
232

References

Muller, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, FL.

Pybas, D., Florida Sea Grant College Program,

Gainesville, FL.

Schmahl, G.P., Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,

Looe Key, FL.

Sweat, D., Florida Sea Grant College Program, Key

Largo, FL.

Varmer, O., National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

 Development of Management

 Alternatives

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at

artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or

behavioral preference? Bull Mar. Sci. 44:631-

645.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial

reef research: A review with recommendations

for future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37:11-39.

Causey, B. 1993. Physical impacts to coral reefs in

the Florida Keys resulting from small boat and

ship groundings - The scope of the problem.

Abstract and presentation before the Second

Annual Coral Reef Coalition Conference. May

13-15, 1993. Islamorada, FL. Cheeca Lodge. pp.

15-25.

Florida Marine Patrol. 1993. Incident report database

(unpublished computer database). Marathon, FL:

Marathon Marine Patrol Office.

Hartsing R.K. and G. Carver. 1993. Internal report:

Vessel groundings in the Looe Key National

Marine Sanctuary, 1982-1992. 3 pp.

Kearney/Centaur. 1990. Impacts of oil and gas

development on the recreation and tourism off

the Florida Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior. p. 115.

Kruer, C.R. 1993. Mapping assessment of vessel

damage to shallow seagrasses in the Florida

Keys: A report to the Florida Department of

Natural Resources and the University of South

Florida/Florida Institute of Oceanography. 17 pp.

+ maps.

Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary. 1983-1993.

Daily visitor-use surveillance reports compiled by

Sanctuary staff (unpublished database). Big Pine

Key, FL.

Miller, J. ed. 1988. Results of a workshop on coral

reef research and management in the Florida

Keys: A blueprint for action. National Undersea

Research Program research report 88-5.

Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 49 pp.

Polovina, J.J. 1991. Fisheries applications and

biological impacts of artificial habitats, Chapter 5.

Pages 154-176 in Seaman, W., Jr. and L.M.

Sprague, eds. Artificial habitats for marine and

freshwater fisheries, Academic Press, Inc., 285

pp.

Sargent, F. 1993. Statewide assessment of propeller

damage to seagrass. Florida CZM report 331-93.

Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL.

Tagliareni, M. 1993. Internal report: Vessel groundings in the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary,

1980-1992. 24 pp.

Throckmorton, P. 1990. The world's worst investment: The economics of treasure hunting with

real life comparisons. In: T. Carrell, ed. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings of the Society for

Historical Archaeology Conference. Tuscon, AZ.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1992. Vessel traffic study. U.S.

Coast Guard database.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary: Phase I report.

Prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Jupiter, FL and Battelle Ocean Sciences,

Duxbury, MA. 329 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Management

Agreement for Submerged Lands within the

Boundary of Key West and Great White Heron

National Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, GA USDOI/

FWS. 80 pp.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.
233

References

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and C.R. Robbins. 1989. Fish

introductions: Good management, mismanagement, or no management?

Deisler, J.E. 1982. Stock Island tree snail (Oralicus

reses reses). In: R. Franz, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 6, invertebrates. pp.

8-9. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

52 pp.

Dugan, J. and G. Davis. 1993. Application of fisheries

refugia to coastal fishery management. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

50:2029-2042.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

1987. Florida Keys monitoring study: Water

quality assessment of five selected pollutant

sources in Marathon, Florida Keys. Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation. 196

pp.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

1990. Boot Key harbor study: Preliminary draft

manuscript. Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation. Marathon, FL.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Guide to the

natural communities of Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Office of Land Use

Planning and Biological Services. Tallahassee,

FL. 111 pp.

Heatwole, D.W. 1987. Water quality assessment of

five selected pollutant sources in Marathon,

Florida Keys. Florida Keys Monitoring Study:

1984-85. Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation, South Florida District, Marathon

Branch Office. Marathon, FL. 195 pp.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coastal and

nearshore communities: Coral reefs. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates,

Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Kearny/Cenatur. 1990. Impact of oil and gas development on the recreation and tourism off the

Florida Straits.

Personal Communications

Crusoe, E., Key West, FL.

 Environmental Consequences

Alevizon, W.S. and Bannerot, S.P. 1990. Fish communities and fisheries biology. In: N. Phillips and

K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,

geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and

cultural resource information for the South

Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Antonini, G.A., L. Zobler, H. Tupper, and R.H. Ryder.

1990. Boat live-aboards in the Florida Keys: A

new factor in waterfront development. Report no.

98. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Cartographic Research Laboratory in Applied Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 192

pp.

Antonius. 1982. Health problems of the Florida coral

reefs. Fla. Sci. 38(1):21.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1990. The potential of marine fishery

reserves for reef fish management in the U.S.

southern Atlantic. Snapper-Grouper Plan Development Team report for the South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council. National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC-261. 45 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1991. Fishing trends. In: J. Gato, ed.

The Monroe County environmental story. Big

Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environmental

Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1993. The impacts of fishing on coral

reefs. Global aspects of coral reefs: Health,

hazards, and history. University of Miami. C8-

C12.

Clausen, C.J. 1990. Submerged cultural resources.

In: N. Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of

available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for

the South Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657

pp.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1979. Exotic species in mariculture. R. Mann, ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA;

London, England. pp. 237-257.
234

References

Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida’s remaining coastal upland natural communities: Florida

Keys. Prepared for the Florida Natural Areas

Inventory. Tallahassee, FL. 33 pp.

Lindall, W.N., Jr., and C.H. Saloman 1977. Alteration

and destruction of estuaries affecting fishery

resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Fish. Rev.

1262:1-7.

Lund, F. 1978c. Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys

imbricta imbricata). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians and reptiles. pp. 23-24. Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978d. Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys

kempii). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 25-26. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978e. Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta

caretta). In: R.E. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibians

and reptiles. pp. 35-36. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S.

population of Atlantic green turtle. National

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 52

pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S.

population of loggerhead turtle. National Marine

Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 64 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1990. Marine mammals and turtles. In: N.

Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the

South Florida area. pp. 267-302. Continental

Shelf Associates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-

30417. 657 pp.

Richards, W.J., ed. 1989. Bulletin of marine science.

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric

Science. University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Rios, G. 1990. Boot Key harbor study. Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation,

Marathon Office, Marathon, FL.

Roberd and Todd, et al. 1991. Monroe County year

2010 comprehensive plan: Working paper 2:

Inventory and analysis, proposed levels of

service, measures of carrying capacity. Prepared

for Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.

Rowley, R.J. 1992. Impacts of marine reserves on

fisheries: A report and review of the literature.

Head Office, Department of Conservation,

Wellington, New Zealand. Science and research

series no. 51. 50 pp.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological

characterization of the Lower Everglades, Florida

Bay, and the Florida Keys. U.S. Department of

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office

of Biological Services. Washington, DC. FWS/

OBS-82/58.1 246 pp.

Seaman, W., Jr. and M. Collins. 1983. Species

profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South

Florida) - snook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FWS/OBS-82/11.16. U.S. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. TR EL-82-4. 16 pp.

Shermyen, A.H., ed. 1991. Florida statistical abstract.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research,

College of Business Administration, University of

Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida. 736 pp.

Snedaker, S.C. 1990. Water quality problems and

issues in the Florida Keys. A report for The

Nature Conservancy. 37 pp.

Szmant, A.M. 1991. Inshore-offshore patterns of

nutrient and chlorophyll concentration along the

Florida Reef Tract. Seakeys phase I: Sustained

ecological research related to the management

of the Florida Keys seascape. pp. 42-62.

Thorhaug, A. 1970. Habitat restoration after pipeline

construction in tropical estuary seagrasses.

Marine Pollution Bulletin. 14 (11): 422-425.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil survey of

Monroe County, FL. Unpublished report. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service. 37 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary: Phase I report.

Prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.
235

References

Jupiter, FL and Battelle Ocean Sciences,

Duxbury, MA. 329 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary Program: Phase II

report. Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences.

Duxbury, MA. 460 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Marine turtle

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Atlanta, GA. 366 pp.

Voss, G.L. 1988. Coral reefs of Florida. Sarasota, FL:

Pineapple Press. 80 pp.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.

Zieman, J.C. 1975. Tropical seagrass ecosystems

and pollution. In: E.J.F. Woods and R.E.

Johannes, eds. Tropical marine pollution. Oceanography Section 12. Elsevise Press, New York,

New York and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp.

63-74.

Zieman, J.C. et al. 1989. The Florida Bay seagrass

die off: Process changes, potential causes, and a

conceptual model. Tenth International Estuarine

Research Conference, October 8-12, 1989.

Baltimore, MD. Abstract. p. 92.

 Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Beaton, P.W. 1991. The impact of regional land-use

controls on property values: The case of the New

Jersey pinelands. Land Economics 67(2):172-94.

Bell, F.W. 1989. Application of wetland valuation

theory of Florida fisheries. Tallahassee, FL:

Florida State University. 188 pp.

Bell, F.W. 1991. An analysis of the economic base of

Monroe County, Florida with implications for oil

and gas exploration. Tallahassee, FL: Florida

State University.

Bell, F.W. and V.R. Leeworthy. 1984. Estimation of

the demand and supply of marina services in the

state of Florida, 1969-1988. Tallahassee, FL:

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 136

pp.

Bell, F.W. and P.E. Sorensen. 1993. A socioeconomic

impact assessment of selected management

strategies. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. 359 pp.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons.

Science 162: 1243-1248.

Kearney/Centaur. 1990. Impacts of oil and gas

development on the recreation and tourism off

the Florida Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior. p. 115.

Leeworthy, V.R. 1991. Recreational use value for

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key

Largo National Marine Sanctuary. Rockville, MD:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 14 pp.

Monroe County, 1993. Monroe County year 2010

comprehensive plan, policy document. Marathon,

FL. 359 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1986. An inventory of coastal wetlands of the

USA. Washington, DC. 25 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1992. Summary of institutional arrangements and

approximate costs work session. Washington,

DC: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division and Office of Resources Conservation and

Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 7 pp.

Rockland, D.B. 1988. The economic impact of the

sport and commercial fisheries of the Florida

Keys. Washington, DC: Sports Fishing Institute.

211 pp.

Skin Diver Magazine. 1991. Subscriber’s survey.

Peterson Publishing Co., Los Angeles, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Waterquality protection program for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary Program. Prepared

by Battelle Ocean Sciences. Duxbury, MA.
236

References

Varmer, O., M. Weiss, and P.C. Wiley. 1993. Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary management

plan. Strategy R.1.a.: Submerged cultural

resources (SCRs) management. Washington,

DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Waters, J.R. 1991. Restricted-access vs. openaccess methods of management: Toward more

effective regulation of fishing effort. Marine

Fisheries Review. 53(3):1-10.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statistical

abstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.

295 pp.

Personal Communications

MacMinn, L., Tourist Development Council, City of

Key West, FL.
311

Acronyms

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

ACSC Areas of Critical State Concern

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zones

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ASA Abandoned Shipwreck Act

ATBAs Areas to be Avoided

ATCA Atlantic Tuna Convention Act

AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

BMES Bureau of Marketing and Extension Services

BMRRD Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development

BP Before Present

BRD Bycatch Reduction Devices

LP Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves

BSRR Bureau of Sanctuaries and Research Reserves

CAA Clean Air Act

CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1972

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System

CCC Coastal Coordinating Council (Florida)

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

 and Liability Act

CDP Census Designated Place

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMWG Channel Marking Working Group

CSA Continental Shelf Associates

CWA Clean Water Act

CZM Coastal Zone Management

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

DARRF Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund

DBS Division of Beaches and Shores

DCA Department of Community Affairs

DEIS/MP Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan

DEMA Dive Equipment Manufacturers Association

DMR Department of Marine Resources (Monroe County)

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DRI Development of Regional Impact

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMAP Environment Monitoring and Assessment Program

ENP Everglades National Park

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

F.S. Florida Statutes

FAA Federal Aviation Act of 1958

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FAP Federal Archaeological Program

FCD Flood Control District

FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program

FCREPA Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals

FCRES Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Species

FDA Florida Department of Agriculture

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
312

Acronyms

FDBS Florida Division of Beaches and Shores

FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDHR Florida Division of Historical Resources

FDHRS Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

FDMR Florida Division of Marine Resources

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

FDNR Florida Department of Natural Resources

FDOC Florida Department of Commerce

FDOI Florida Department of the Interior

FDOS Florida Department of State

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FDRP Florida Division of Recreation and Parks

FDSL Florida Division of State Lands

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

FDHRS Florida Department of Health and Rehabilatative Services

FDMR Florida Division of Marine Resources

FIO Florida Institute of Oceanography

FIRE Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Trades

FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

FKARA Florida Keys Artificial Reef Association

FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

FKNMSPA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act

FMFC Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

FMP Florida Marine Patrol

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute

FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory

FPS Florida Park Service

FWIA Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Dept. of Interior)

GDM General Design Memorandum

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HAZMAT Hazardous Materials

IMC Interagency Management Committee

ITQ Individual Transferrable Quota

JPCRSP John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park

LA Lacey Act

LATF Land Acquisition Trust Fund

LEO Law Enforcement Officer

LKNMS Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCMCD Monroe County Mosquito Control District

MFCMA Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MOA Memoranda of Agreement

MOU Memoranda of Understanding

MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

Acronym Meaning
313

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

NCP National Contingency Plan

NDP Natural Disaster Planning

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve

NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service (NOAA)

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NPS Nonpoint Source

NURC National Underwater Research Center

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

ODA Ocean Dumping Act of 1972

OFMAS Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Services

OFW Outstanding Florida Water

ONRW Outstanding Natural Resource Waters

OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990

OPS Office of Protected Species

ORCA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and

 Assessment (NOAA)

OSDS On-site Disposal System

OSP Optimum Sustainable Population

PADI Professional Association of Dive Instructors

PAED Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District

PL Public Law

PRP Potentially Responsible Parties

PSA Public Service Announcement

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions

PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SCR Submerged Cultural Resources

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division

 (ORCA, NOAA)

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center

SFRC South Florida Research Center

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SLA Submerged Land Act of 1953

SOC Save Our Coasts

SOR Save Our Rivers

SPAs Sanctuary Preservation Areas

SPF Standard Project Flood

SPL Saltwater Products License

SRD Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (OCRM, NOAA)

SRS Shark River Slough

SWD Solid Waste Disposal
314

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management Act

SWM Stormwater Management

TDC Tourism Development Council

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TSRP Taylor Slough Rainfall Plan

UIC Underground Injection Control

ULV Ultra Low Volume

UNCW University of North Carolina, Wilmington

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDOC United States Department of Commerce

USDOI United States Department of the Interior

USDOS United States Department of State

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USGS United States Geological Survey

VTSS Vessel Traffic Separation Schemes

WCAs Water Conservation Areas

WQBELs Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Glossary of Technical Terms

315

Glossary of Technical Terms

accretion- growth or increase in size by gradual

external addition

ad valorem- according to value; imposed at a rate

percent of the value as stated in an invoice

ahermatypic- non reef-building corals

anaerobic- capable of living or growing in an environment lacking free oxygen

annelids- any of various worms with cylindrical

segmented bodies

aquaculture- the cultivation of marine life for harvest

and utilization by humans

arboreal- relating to, or like, a tree; in referring to

species, those that inhabit or frequent trees

ascidians- “sack-like” tunicates; animals in which the

larval stage resembles a tadpole but the adult is

sedentary and sack-like (e.g. sea squirts)

backcountry- primarily referring to the Florida Bay

area of the Keys' islands and waterways

bathymetry- water depth measurement information

used to produce depth-contoured charts

benthic communities- bottom-dwelling flora and

fauna

Bermuda/Azores high- the subtropical anticyclone

positioned over the southern Atlantic Ocean in the

Northern Hemisphere; it is most pronounced in spring

and summer

bioherm- a mound, dome, or reef-like structure built

up by, and composed almost exclusively of, the

remains of sedentary organisms, such as corals,

algae, or molluscs

biota- animal or plant life of a region considered as a

total ecological entity

block-faulted- a type of normal faulting in which the

Earth's crust is divided into structural or fault blocks

of different elevations and orientations

calcareous- containing characteristics of calcium

carbonate, calcium, or limestone

capital facilities- those buildings and structures

required for the provision of public services

Carolinian- refers to organisms and physical characteristics of the southeastern U.S. coastline

Census Designated Place- closely settled communities without corporate limits or status

common property resources- resources that are

not exclusively controlled by a single agent or source.

Access to such resources is not restricted, and

therefore the resources can be exploited on a firstcome, first-served basis

convective storm- storm characterized by vertically

rising air

corallimorphs- false corals

coralline- any animal related to or resembling corals

crenulated (corals)- corals having tiny notches or

scallops

crinoids- “sea lilies”; echinoderms that are suspension feeders with jointed arms and appendages that

give a feathery appearance resembling a plant

cyclonic storms/systems- a windstorm with a

violent whirling movement; a system of rotating winds

over a vast area, spinning inward to a low pressure

center (counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere)

generally causing stormy weather

defaunated- indigenous animals are removed from a

particular area

desiccation- removal of moisture; drying out

detrital- the accumulation of disintegrated material

diurnal- pertaining to or occurring in a day or each

day; daily

downzoning- the practice of rezoning a parcel or

parcels in a “lower” or more restrictive zoning category (e.g., a rezoning from multifamily residential to

single-family residential) is considered downzoning;

downzonings are often part of a growth management

program employed when communities find that they

have overzoned for the population growth which is

desired
Glossary of Technical Terms

316

downwelling- a reverse vertical flow of water,

moving from the ocean’s surface to great depths;

occurs at oceanic convergences

echinoderms- radially symmetrical animals that are

exclusively marine and possess a spiny skin and a

system of water filled canals that aids in feeding and

locomotion. (e.g., sea urchins, sand dollars, and sea

cucumbers)

endangered species- a species in danger of becoming extinct that is protected by the Endangered

Species Act

endemic- restricted to or native to a particular area

or region

epibenthic- organisms that live on the surface of a

substrate, including motile organisms such as

gastropods, sea urchins, sea stars, sea cucumbers,

sea biscuits, and a wide variety of crustacea

epifauna- animals that live on the ocean bottom,

either attached or moving freely over it

epiphytic- any organisms that grow on the blades of

seagrasses, including algae, diatoms, and other

encrusting organisms

eutrophication- the process by which nutrient-rich

waters bring about a high level of biological productivity that may ultimately lead to reduced dissolved

oxygen levels

fauna- animal life of a particular region

flora- plant life of a particular region

Florida Current- the segment of current between the

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and the Gulf Stream

from the Dry Tortugas to the Southeastern tip of

Florida, and confined by the 250-meter and 500-

meter isobaths

Florida reef tract- the third largest barrier reef in the

world, running from the Miami area southwest to the

Dry Tortugas

Floridan Aquifer- the rock mass of South Florida

that contains groundwater

foraminifera- an order of planktonic and benthic

protozoans having a calcareous shell; perforations

through which numerous pseudopodia protrude

gastropods- “Stomach footed" class of molluscs that

have only one shell and usually move about on a

muscular “foot” (e.g., snail, slug, cowry, limpet)

gorgonian- a type of octocoral (soft coral) commonly

found in southeast Florida reefs at depths less than

30 meters; they include sea fans, sea plumes, sea

whips, and sea rods

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current- major surface current

in the Gulf of Mexico; enters through Yucatan Straits,

flows clockwise into the east central portion of the

Gulf, and exits through the Straits of Florida becoming the Florida current and eventually the Gulf

Stream

gyre- circular spiral form; used mainly in reference to

the circular motion of water in major ocean basins

centered in the subtropic high-pressure regions

halophytic- type of plant that can survive in saltwater

environments

Holocene Era- designating the present epoch of

geologic time

hookah- an underwater breathing apparatus that

supplies air to one or more divers through hoses

attached to a compressor located on the surface

hot spot- an area of actual or potential trouble

hydrography- the study, description, and mapping of

oceans, lakes, and rivers with an emphasis on

navigation

hydrology- the science dealing with the nature,

distribution, and movement of water on and below

the Earth's surface

hydroperiod- hydrologic conditions that contribute to

seasonally elevated surficial and groundwater flow

conditions

incorporated lands- land areas under the jurisdiction of a municipal government; in Monroe County

there are three incorporated areas: the cities of Key

West, Layton, and Key Colony Beach; all other areas

in the Keys fall under Monroe County’s jurisdiction

infaunal- organisms that live buried in sediments,

including a variety of polychaetes, burrowing crustaceans, and molluscs
Glossary of Technical Terms

317

infrastructure- basic installations and facilities, such

as roads, power plants, transportation, and communication systems

iron-pile lighthouse- a lighthouse built on iron

pilings that are threaded like a screw; the piling legs

are screwed into the surface; this design allows water

to pass through during storms

isobath- line connecting points of equal depth

keystone species- a single species whose activities

determine community structure; a species whose

presence is critical to that community

lithology- the scientific study of rocks usually with

the unaided eye or little magnification

live rock- rock to which living marine organisms are

attached

Lower Keys- that part of incorporated Monroe

County south and/or west of the Seven Mile Bridge

(i.e., Little Duck, Missouri and Ohio Keys, Bahia

Honda, West Summerland/Spanish Harbor, and

south to Stock Island)

mailboxes- propeller-wash device treasure hunters

use to blow sediment away from wrecks buried

beneath the seabed

management alternative- a bundle of management

strategies that, when employed together, represent

the means for achieving a desired level of protection

within the Sanctuary

management strategy- an action or physical measure taken to address a specific issue; a management strategy is combined with an implementation

incentive or mechanism to induce behavior; an

institutional arrangement with authority to act; and a

financing scheme to support the costs of implementation

Middle Keys- that part of unincorporated segment of

Monroe County between Seven Mile Bridge and

Whale Harbor Bridge (i.e., Islamorada, Upper and

Lower Matecumbe, Fiesta Key, Long Key, Conch

Key, Walkers Island, Duck Key, Fat Deer Key,

Marathon, and Pigeon Key)

military exclusion area- a region or tract reserved

for military uses, where unauthorized persons may

not enter

National Register of Historic Places- a congressionally authorized register of historically significant

places, and or objects that receive protection from

alteration or demolition under law; alterations are

subject to Historic Preservation Council approval and

must not significantly change the character or

associations of the place or object in question

nektonic- highly motile organisms, such as fishes

and squids that live in, or above, the seagrass

canopy

nonpoint source pollutant discharges- those

pollutant discharges not associated with a specific

location (e.g., urban and agricultural pesticide runoff)

nutrients- any number of organic or inorganic

compounds used by plants in primary production

(typically nitrogen and phosphorous)

octocorals- coral type that includes sea plumes, sea

whips, gorgonians, and soft corals

oolitic- made of a limestone composition consisting

of many small grains of carbonate of lime cemented

together

patch reef- small circular or irregular reefs that arise

from the floor of lagoons, behind barrier reefs, or

within an atoll

pathogens- any agent, most commonly a microorganism, capable of causing disease

personal watercraft- a shallow-draft, jet drive

watercraft on which the operator sits, kneels, or

stands; excludes those vehicles piloted from inside

the craft

planktonic- organisms dependent on water movement and currents as their means of transportation,

including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and

ichthyoplankton

Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration Districtaggregated subcounty areas used as a framework for

compiling and analyzing census data; aggregated

into three areas: Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys

Pleistocene epoch- the first epoch of the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era, beginning approximately 10,000 years ago; characterized by major

worldwide climatic fluctuations, the spreading and

recession of continental ice sheets with concomitant

rise and fall of sea levels, and the appearance of

modern humans
Glossary of Technical Terms

318

point source pollutant discharges- the discharge

of pollutants from a distinct and identifiable source,

such as a sewer or industrial outfall pipe

polychaeta- class of annelid worms that includes

bristle and feather duster worms

potable water- water that is safe to drink

puerulus- the transitional swimming stage of the

spiny lobster

seasonal population- any group of organisms of the

same species that occupy a given space at a particular time of year (defined as winter, spring, summer,

fall, wet, or dry)

sessile- immobile organisms that are permanently

fixed to the substrate

sheet flow- surface water runoff

slough- swamp bog or marsh; especially one that is

part of an inlet or backwater

solution holes- depression in the Earth’s surface

caused by dissolving of substrate composed primarily

of calcium carbonate

southwest continental shelf- the submerged shelf

of land that slopes gradually from the exposed edge

of the continent for a variable distance to the point

where the steep descent to the ocean floor begins

spur and groove- coral formation endemic to

fringing or bank reefs; spurs are usually composed of

a framework or Acropora palmata that form ramparts

protruding at right angles to the axis of the reef and

projecting into the prevailing wind pattern; the spaces

between the spurs are sand channels referred to as

grooves

storm surge- water elevation change due especially

to tropical or extratropical storms

threatened species- plant or animal species believed likely to move into the endangered category in

the near future if causal factors at work continue to

persist

tourism units- hotel/motel rooms, sites for camping

and recreational vehicles, and vacation rentals

toxicant- a poisonous or toxic substance

turbid- the state of being clouded, opaqued, or

obscured by suspended sediment

unincorporated lands- lands not under the jurisdiction of (and not receiving services from) a town or city

Upper Keys- that part of unincorporated portion of

Monroe County north of Whale Harbor Bridge;

geologically, the segment of the Keys comprised of

exposed Miami Limestone substrate; includes the

area from Marathon to Soldier Key

vascular- typically describes tubular structures

involved in fluid transport

viviparous- bearing or bringing forth live young, as

with most mammals

zoanthids- generally small anemone; may be

colonial or solitary, and both symbiotic and free-living;

the most common on the Florida reef tract is

Palythoa caribbea, referred to as “golden sea mat”

zone- an area or region considered as separate and

distinct from others because of its designated use,

plant or animal life, etc.

zoning- the act of partitioning areas of land or water

into sections dedicated to specific purposes and

activities
319

Metric Conversion Table

Linear Measurement

1 foot

= 0.3048 meter

1 meter

= 3.28084 feet

= 0.001 kilometer

1 kilometer

= 1,000 meters

= 0.621371 statute mile

1 statute mile

= 5,280 feet

= 1.60934 kilometers

= 0.8689 nautical mile

1 nautical mile

= 6,076.12 feet

= 1.852 kilometers

= 1.15078 statute miles

Mass Measurement

1 pound

= 0.002 ton

= 0.453592 kilogram

1 ton

= 2,000 pounds

= 0.907185 metric ton

1 kilogram

= 2.20462 pounds

= 0.001 metric ton

1 metric ton

= 2,240 pounds

= 1.10231 tons

Area Measurement

1 acre

= 43,560 square feet

= 4,046.86 square meters

= 0.404686 hectare

= 0.0015625 square statute mile

1 hectare

= 2.47105 acres

= 10,000 square meters

= 0.01 square kilometer

= 0.003861 square statute mile

1 square kilometer

= 247.105 acres

= 100 hectares

= 0.386102 square statute mile

1 square statute mile

= 640 acres

= 258.999 hectares

= 2.58999 square kilometers

= 0.755 square nautical mile

1 square nautical mile

= 847.5443 acres

= 3.43 square kilometers

= 1.324288 square statute miles

Unit Abbreviations

foot (ft)

hectare (ha)

kilometer (km)

meter (m)

nautical mile (nmi)

pound (lb)

square kilometer (km2)

square meter (m2)

square nautical mile (nmi2)

square statute mile (mi2)

statute mile (mi)