Strategy for Stewardship Florida Keys National Marine ...€¦ · Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Congress, recognizing the degradation of this unique ecosystem due to direct

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and CoastalResource Management

Sanctuaries andReserves Division

Florida KeysNationalMarineSanctuary

Strategy for Stewardship

Final ManagementPlan/EnvironmentalImpact Statement

Volume II of IIIDevelopment of theManagement Plan:

EnvironmentalImpact 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 SecretaryRon Brown and George Barley. Their dedicated work furthered the goals of the National Marine SanctuaryProgram 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 ora gray whale is sighted, or the wrinkled grin of a fisherman when the catch is good. We must honorthe tradition of this land's earliest caretakers who approached nature's gifts with appreciation anddeep 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 KeysNationalMarineSanctuary

Final ManagementPlan/EnvironmentalImpact Statement

Volume IIDevelopment of theManagement Plan:

EnvironmentalImpact Statement

1996

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In 1955, renowned naturalist and marine biologist Rachel Carson describedthe Florida Keys this way in her book The Edge of the Sea:

"I doubt that anyone can travel the length of the Florida Keyswithout having communicated to his mind a sense of theuniqueness of this land of sky and water and scattered man-grove-covered islands. The atmosphere of the Keys isstrongly and peculiarly their own. This world of the Keyshas no counterpart elsewhere in the United States, and in-deed few coasts of the Earth are like it."

This unique environment is the reason for the existence of the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary, and the reason why so many people havecontributed so much of their time and energy to making the ManagementPlan as comprehensive and fair as possible.

Since 1989, numerous environmental organizations and individuals haveworked long and hard to provide input into the legislation designating theSanctuary and into developing the Final Management Plan/EnvironmentalImpact Statement (FMP/EIS). They provided useful and objective commentsat numerous workshops, Advisory Council meetings, and other publicforums held during the planning process. The contributions of each of theseindividuals, and the organizations they represent, is appreciated.

The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff wish to thank everyone whohas participated in the development of this plan, especially members of thepublic who gave of their time to offer objective and useful input during themany public comment periods offered during the planning process.

Special thanks go to the members of the Sanctuary Advisory Council fortheir major contribution to the planning process. Their diligent work andsacrifice of time and expenses will be remembered as the key to thesuccess of developing a comprehensive management plan. With theleadership of their chairman and vice-chairman, they navigated waters neverbefore charted for a National Marine Sanctuary or, for that matter, anymarine protected area in the United States. Their role was crucial in thisplanning process, especially the leadership they exhibited in developing theSanctuary's final plan. Never before has such a comprehensive plan beenassembled by such a diverse interest group to solve complex problems inone of the Nation’s most ecologically diverse regions.

In addition, Program staff would like to thank our local, State, and Federalagency planning partners for their assistance during the development of thisplan. Those individuals who worked diligently for over four years on the plansacrificed an enormous amount of time and effort to assist in this project.Dozens of agency scientists, managers, and planners have devoted time tothis planning process, especially during the various workshops and strategyassessment planning sessions, extended review sessions, and deliberationson the compact agreement. The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff isgrateful to all of you.

Also, special thanks to all of those individuals who reviewed various portionsof the document, especially sections of the Description of the AffectedEnvironment. Your thorough review has served to make this section animportant reference for future use.

We also extend our appreciation to the Sanctuary Volunteers and staff andstudents of Indiana University who have helped assess some shipwrecksidentified in the management plan.

Particularly, the Program owes special recognition and thanks to the staff ofNOAA’s Strategic Environmental Assessments Division for their enormousamount of time and sacrifice in assisting in the planning and development ofthis plan.

Acknowledgments

Abstract

This abstract describes the Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (FMP/EIS) for theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Congress, recognizing the degradation of this unique ecosystem dueto direct physical impacts and indirect impacts, passed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary andProtection Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-605) designating the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Actrequires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive manage-ment plan with implementing regulations to govern the overall management of the Sanctuary and to protectSanctuary resources and qualities for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act also estab-lishes the boundary of the Sanctuary, prohibits any oil drilling and exploration within the Sanctuary, prohibitsthe operation of tank ships or ships greater than 50 meters in the Area to Be Avoided, and requires thedevelopment and implementation of a water quality protection program by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 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 thesubmerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys, and extending westward to encompass the DryTortugas, but excluding the Dry Tortugas National Park. The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is themean high-water mark. Within these waters are spectacular, unique, and nationally significant marine environ-ments, including seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs. These marineenvironments support rich biological communities possessing extensive conservation, recreational, commer-cial, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values that give this area special nationalsignificance. These environments are the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support highlevels of biological diversity, are fragile and easily susceptible to damage from human activities, and possesshigh value to human beings if properly conserved.

The economy of the Keys is dependent upon a healthy ecosystem. Approximately four million tourists visit theKeys annually, participating primarily in water-related sports such as fishing, diving, boating, and otherecotourism 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 thegross 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 fishingindustry accounted for $17 million of the Keys’ economy, more than 20 percent of Florida’s total gross earn-ings from commercial fishing. All of these activities depend on a healthy marine environment with good waterquality.

The purpose of the proposed Management Plan is to ensure the sustainable use of the Keys' marine environ-ment by achieving a balance between comprehensive resource protection and multiple, compatible uses ofthose resources. Sanctuary resources are threatened by a variety of direct and indirect impacts. Directimpacts 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 marinedischarge of wastes, land-based pollution, and external sources of water quality degradation. These and othermanagement issues are addressed by the comprehensive Management Plan.

Volume I contains the final comprehensive Management Plan and includes the discussion of the PreferredAlternative and socioeconomic analysis as well as 10 action plans composed of management strategiesdeveloped with substantial input from the public, local experts, and the Sanctuary Advisory Council to addressmanagement issues. The action plans provide an organized process for implementing management strate-gies, including a description of the activities required, institutions involved, staffing requirements, and anestimate 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 andMonitoring; 7) Submerged Cultural Resources; 8) Volunteer; 9) Water Quality; and 10) Zoning. These actionplans include several critical activities designed to manage and protect the natural and historic resources ofthe Sanctuary, including:

• Establishing water-use zones providing focused protection for 60 to 70 percent of the well-developed reef formations, prohibiting consumptive activities in a small portion of the Sanctu-ary, buffering important wildlife habitat from human disturbance, and protecting several largereserves for species diversity replenishment, breeding areas, and genetic protection.

• Establishing Sanctuary regulations to designate nonconsumptive zones, prohibit damage tonatural resources, establish special-use permits, and restrict other activities that may nega-tively impact Sanctuary resources.

• Expanding and coordinating the Enforcement Program to enforce the regulations, particularlyin the zoned areas.

• Implementing an Ecological Monitoring Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the zoned areasand the health of the Sanctuary.

• Expanding the Mooring Buoy Program to include the new zones and protect important coralreef and seagrass habitat.

• Implementing a Channel and Reef Marking Program to protect seagrasses, coral reefs, andmangroves in shallow-water areas.

• Implementing a Submerged Cultural Resources Plan to protect the numerous historicallyimportant shipwrecks and other submerged cultural resources.

• Expanding the Education and Volunteer programs to reach more users and the millions ofvisitors coming to the Keys each year.

Volume II describes the process used to develop the draft management alternatives and includes environ-mental and socioeconomic impact analyses of the alternatives used in the draft management plan andenvironmental impact statement.

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

LeadAgency: U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Ocean ServiceOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementSanctuaries and Reserves Division

Contact: Mr. Billy Causey, SuperintendentNOAA/Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryP.O. Box 500368Marathon, Florida 33050(305) 743-2437

-or-

Mr. Edward Lindelof, Chief, Gulf and Caribbean BranchSanctuaries and Reserves DivisionOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementNational Ocean Service/NOAA1305 East-West Highway - SSMC4Silver 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 ...................................................................................................... 8Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8Physical Environments .............................................................................................................. 11Natural Resources .................................................................................................................... 26Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................ 69Human Activities and Uses ....................................................................................................... 75Existing Jurisdictional Responsibilities and Institutional Arrangements .................................... 101

Development of Management Alternatives ............................................................................................ 113Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 113Management Issues .................................................................................................................. 113Management Strategies ............................................................................................................ 129Management Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 132

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives ................................................................. 155Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 155Environmental Impacts: Water Quality ...................................................................................... 156Environmental Impacts: Habitats .............................................................................................. 162Environmental Impacts: Species ............................................................................................... 169Additional Activities Affecting all Themes.................................................................................. 174

Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives ........................................................................... 177Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 177Socioeconomic Impacts: Boating .............................................................................................. 180Socioeconomic Impacts: Fishing ............................................................................................... 183Socioeconomic Impacts: Land Use ........................................................................................... 186Socioeconomic Impacts: Recreation ......................................................................................... 189Socioeconomic Impacts: Water Quality .................................................................................... 191Socioeconomic Impacts: Zoning ............................................................................................... 194Socioeconomic Impacts: Education .......................................................................................... 195Implementation Costs ............................................................................................................... 197Future Considerations ............................................................................................................... 197

Selection of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................... 199Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 199General Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 199Basis for Selection .................................................................................................................... 201Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 212

BackmatterReferences ................................................................................................................................ 215Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 237Glossary of Technical Terms .................................................................................................... 241Metric Conversion Table ........................................................................................................... 245

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. The Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys .................................................................................... 8Figure 2. Physiographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Area ..................... 11Figure 3. Natural Hydrology................................................................................................................. 17Figure 4. The South Florida Canal System and Water Conservation Areas ....................................... 19Figure 5. Regional Circulation ............................................................................................................. 22Figure 6. Nearshore Transport ............................................................................................................ 23Figure 7. Biogeographic Regions of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

and Surrounding Areas ........................................................................................................ 27Figure 8. Profile of the Florida Keys Reef Tract .................................................................................. 50Figure 9. Locations of Historic Lighthouses and Selected Shipwrecks ............................................... 72Figure 10. Resident Population of Monroe County and Key West, 1870-1990 ..................................... 75Figure 11. Planning Analysis Areas/Enumeration Districts and Census Designated Places

in the Florida Keys................................................................................................................ 77Figure 12. Number of Workers by Employment Sector in Monroe County............................................ 79Figure 13. Land Use by Geographic Area ............................................................................................. 81Figure 14. Recreational Boat Registrations per 100 Persons in Monroe County, 1971-1989 ............... 85Figure 15. Percent of Visitor Days by Outdoor Activity.......................................................................... 86Figure 16a. Landings of Invertebrates in Monroe County, 1970-1990 ................................................... 88Figure 16b. Landings of Finfish in Monroe County, 1970-1990 ............................................................. 88Figure 17. Major Ports Within the Keys and Distribution of Landings by Port, 1990 ............................. 90Figure 18. Distribution of Saltwater Product Licenses by Fishing Method, July 1989 to June 1990 ..... 91Figure 19. Artificial Reefs in the Florida Keys........................................................................................ 92Figure 20. Military Areas Within the Keys.............................................................................................. 94Figure 21. Commercial Shipping Routes in the Region......................................................................... 97Figure 22. Monthly Cruiseship Passengers in Key West Harbor, 1988-1990 ....................................... 98Figure 23. Summary of the Management Plan Development Process.................................................. 114Figure 24. Part 1: Strategy Identification and Description .................................................................... 131Figure 25. Part 2: Strategy Characterization ........................................................................................ 132Figure 26. Zoning Scheme for Alternative IV......................................................................................... 136Figure 27. Zoning Scheme for Alternative III ......................................................................................... 137Figure 28. Zoning Scheme for Alternative II .......................................................................................... 138Figure 29. Environmental Impact Attributes by Theme ......................................................................... 155

ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Florida Keys Statistics...................................................................................... 8Table 2. Existing Management Areas ................................................................................................ 9Table 3. Chronology of Modifications to Central and South Florida Hydrology, 1882-1980s ............. 20Table 4. Middle Keys Tidal Passes .................................................................................................... 42Table 5. Lower Keys Tidal Passes ..................................................................................................... 42Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction ............................. 63Table 7. Status of Florida Keys Protected Plant Species ................................................................... 66Table 8. Prominent Shipwrecks by Era and Integrity ......................................................................... 73Table 9. Database Comparison of Ships Lost or Wrecked in the Keys by Century ........................... 74Table 10. Estimated Resident and Seasonal Population, 1990 ........................................................... 76Table 11. Functional Population by Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District, 1990-2010 ........... 78Table 12. Submerged Area of Public Recreation Sites in the Florida Keys ......................................... 84Table 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 ................................................. 102Table 15. Dates and Locations of Scoping Meetings ........................................................................... 115Table 16. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Workshops ........................................................... 116Table 17. Impact Categories Used to Characterize Strategies ............................................................ 132Table 18. Mid-Range Alternative Strategies......................................................................................... 139Table 19. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Water Quality .............................................. 157Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats ...................................................... 163Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species ....................................................... 170Table 22. Tracking of Primary Concerns .............................................................................................. 178Table 23. Boating Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ............................................ 181Table 24. Fishing Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives............................................. 183Table 25. Land-use Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ......................................... 186Table 26. Recreation Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ....................................... 189Table 27. Water Quality Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives .................................. 192Table 28. Zoning Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ............................................. 194Table 29. Education Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives ........................................ 196Table 30. Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs for Implementing

Mid-Range Management Alternatives .................................................................................. 197Table 31. Management Strategies Organized by Issue ....................................................................... 213

iii

General Introduction

1


This is the second of three volumes describing theFinal Management Plan/Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary. Volume I contains the selection of theFinal Preferred Alternative, which is the Final Man-agement Plan, including 10 detailed action plans.The Final Preferred Alternative explains the modifica-tions to the Draft Preferred Alternative (III) based onpublic comments, the FKNMSPA, the NMSA andother considerations. Volume II describes theManagement Plan/EIS development process,including the process for selecting the Draft Pre-ferred Alternative that underwent a nine-month publicreview. Volume III contains the appendices refer-enced in Volumes I and II. The Final Plan is basedon the EIS analysis in Volumes I, II, and III.

Authority for Designation

National marine sanctuaries are routinely designatedby the Secretary of Commerce through an adminis-trative process established by the National MarineSanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431 etseq., as amended, including activation of candidatesites selected from the National Marine SanctuaryProgram Site Evaluation List. Sanctuaries also havebeen designated by an Act of Congress. The FloridaKeys National Marine Sanctuary was designatedwhen the President signed the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary and Protection Act. Appendix A inVolume III contains a copy of this Act.

Terms of Statutory Designation

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that theterms of designation set forth the geographic areaincluded within the Sanctuary; the characteristics ofthe area that give it conservation, recreational,ecological, historical, research, educational, oraesthetic value; and the types of activities that will besubject to regulation by the Secretary of Commerceto protect those characteristics. This section alsospecifies that the terms of designation may bemodified only through the same procedures by whichthe original designation was made. Thus, the termsof 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 resourcesand their conservation, recreational, ecological,historical, research, educational, or aesthetic valuesthrough comprehensive long-term management.National marine sanctuaries may be designated incoastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and theirconnecting waters, and submerged lands over whichthe United States exercises jurisdiction consistentwith international law. They are built around distinc-tive natural and historical resources whose protectionand beneficial use require comprehensive planningand management.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion (NOAA) administers the National Marine Sanctu-ary Program through the Sanctuaries and ReservesDivision (SRD) of the Office of Ocean and CoastalResource Management (OCRM).

In accordance with the NMSA, the mission of theNational Marine Sanctuary Program is to identify,designate, and comprehensively manage marineareas of national significance. National marinesanctuaries are established for the public's long-termbenefit, use, and enjoyment. To meet these objec-tives, the following National Marine SanctuaryProgram goals have been established (15 CFR, Part922.1(b)):

• Enhance resource protection through compre-hensive and coordinated conservation andecosystem management that complementsexisting regulatory authorities.

• Support, promote, and coordinate scientificresearch on, and monitoring of, the site-specific marine resources to improve man-agement decisionmaking in national marinesanctuaries.

• Enhance public awareness, understanding,and the wise use of the marine environmentthrough public interpretive, educational, andrecreational programs.

• Facilitate, to the extent compatible with theprimary objective of resource protection,multiple uses of national marine sanctuaries.

2


The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is oneof a system of national marine sanctuaries that hasbeen established since the Program’s inception in1972. Sanctuaries are not new to the Florida Keys;there is a twenty year history of National MarineSanctuaries in the Keys.

Background

Historical Perspective. The lure of the Florida Keyshas attracted explorers and visitors for centuries.The clear tropical waters, bountiful resources, andappealing natural environment were among themany fine qualities that attracted visitors to the Keys.However, warning signs that the Keys’ environmentand natural resources were fragile, and not infinite,came early. In 1957, a group of conservationists andscientists held a conference at the EvergladesNational Park and discussed the demise of the coralreef resources in the Keys at the hands of thoseattracted there because of their beauty and unique-ness. This conference resulted in action that createdthe world’s first underwater park, the JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park in 1960. How-ever, in just a little over a decade following theestablishment of the park, a public outcry wassounded that cited pollution, overharvest, physicalimpacts, overuse, and use conflicts as continuing tooccur in the Keys. These concerns continued to bevoiced by environmentalists and scientists alikethroughout the decade of the 1970’s and indeed, intothe 1990’s.

Other management efforts were instituted to protectthe coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The Key LargoNational Marine Sanctuary was established in 1975to protect 103 square nautical miles of coral reefhabitat stretching along the reef tract from north ofCarysfort Lighthouse to south of Molasses Reef,offshore of the Upper Keys. In 1981, the 5.32 squarenautical mile Looe Key National Marine Sanctuarywas established to protect the very popular Looe KeyReef located off Big Pine Key in the Lower Keys.Throughout the 80’s, mounting threats to the healthand ecological future of the coral reef ecosystem inthe Florida Keys prompted Congress to take actionto protect this fragile natural resource. The threat ofoil drilling in the mid-to-late 1980’s off the FloridaKeys, combined with reports of deteriorating waterquality throughout the region, occurred at the sametime scientists were assessing the adverse affects ofcoral bleaching, the die-off of the long-spined urchin,loss of living coral cover on reefs, a major seagrassdie-off, declines in reef fish populations, and thespread of coral diseases. With the reauthorization of

the National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1988,Congress directed the Sanctuary Program to conducta feasibility study of possible expansion of Sanctuarysites in the Keys. Those study sites were in thevicinity of Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and west-ward from American Shoals. This endorsement forexpansion of the Sanctuary program in the Keys wasa Congressional signal that the health of the re-sources of the Florida Keys was of National concern.The feasibility study was overtaken by severalnatural events and ship groundings that precipitatedthe designation of the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary.

Three large ships ran aground on the coral reef tractwithin a brief 18 day period in the fall of 1989.Coincidental as it may seem, it was this final physi-cal insult to the reef that prompted Congress to takeaction to protect the coral reef ecosystem of theFlorida Keys. Although most remember the shipgroundings as having triggered Congressionalaction, it was in fact the cumulative events of envi-ronmental degradation, in conjunction with thephysical impacts that prompted Congressman DanteFascell to introduce a bill into the House of Repre-sentatives in November of 1989. CongressmanFascell had long been an environmental supporter ofSouth Florida and his action was very timely. The billwas sponsored in the Senate by Senator BobGraham, also known for his support of environmentalissues both in Washington, and as a Florida Gover-nor. It was passed by Congress through bi-partisansupport and was signed. On November 16, 1990,President George Bush signed into law the FloridaKeys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act(FKNMSPA) (Appendix A in Volume III).

Florida Keys Environmental Setting. The FloridaKeys National Marine Sanctuary extends approxi-mately 220 miles southwest from the southern tip ofthe Florida peninsula. Located adjacent to the Keys’land mass are spectacular, unique, and nationallysignificant marine environments, including seagrassmeadows, mangrove islands, and extensive livingcoral reefs. These support rich biological communi-ties possessing extensive conservation, recreational,commercial, ecological, historical, research, educa-tional, and aesthetic values that give this areaspecial national significance. They are the marineequivalent of tropical rain forests, in that they supporthigh levels of biological diversity, are fragile andeasily susceptible to damage from human activities,and possess high value to humans if properlyconserved.


3

occasion, the recklessness of ship captains, boaters,divers, fishermen, snorkelers and beachgoers. Over30,000 acres of seagrasses have been damaged byboat propellers. Direct impacts to resources alsoresult from careless divers and snorkelers standingon coral, improperly placed anchors, and destructivefishing methods. In the period between 1993 and1994, approximately 500 vessels were reportedaground in the Sanctuary. These groundings have acumulative effect on the resources. Over 19 acres ofcoral reef habitat has been damaged or destroyed bylarge ship groundings.

Indirect human impacts. The overnutrification ofnearshore waters is a documented problem in theSanctuary. A major source of excess nutrients issewage-25,000 septic tanks, 7,000 cesspools, 700shallow injection wells, and 139 marinas harboringover 15,000 boats. These nutrients are carriedthrough the region by more than 700 canals andchannels. Removing nitrogen and phosphorous fromwastewater requires a technology that, at present, islacking from sewage treatment facilities in the Keys.

Management Plan Requirements

The FKNMSPA directs the Secretary of Commerce todevelop a comprehensive management plan andimplement regulations to protect Sanctuary re-sources. The Act requires that the plan:

• facilitate all public and private uses of theSanctuary consistent with the primary objectiveof resource protection;

• consider temporal and geographic zoning toensure protection of Sanctuary resources;

• incorporate the regulations necessary toenforce the comprehensive water qualityprotection program developed under Section 8of the FKNMSPA;

• identify needs for research, and establish along-term ecological monitoring program;

• identify alternative sources of funding neededto fully implement the Plan’s provisions andsupplement appropriations authorized underSection 10 (16 U.S.C., §1444) of theFKNMSPA and Section 313 of the NMSA;

• ensure coordination and cooperation betweenSanctuary managers and other Federal, State,

The marine environment of the Florida Keys supportsover 6,000 species of plants, fishes, and inverte-brates, including the Nation’s only coral reef that liesadjacent to the continent, and one of the largestseagrass communities in this hemisphere. Attractedby this natural diversity and tropical climate, approxi-mately four million tourists visit the Keys annually,where they participate primarily in water-relatedsports such as fishing, diving, boating, and otheractivities.

Sanctuary Boundary. The Act designated 2,800square nautical miles of coastal waters off the FloridaKeys as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.The Sanctuary boundary extends southward on theAtlantic Ocean side of the Keys from the northeasternmost point of the Biscayne National Parkalong the approximate 300-foot isobath for over 200nautical miles to the Dry Tortugas. From there itturns north and east, encompassing a large portion ofthe Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay, where it adjoinsthe Everglades National Park. The landward bound-ary is the mean high water mark. The Key Largo andLooe Key National Marine Sanctuaries, the StateParks and Aquatic Preserves, and the Florida KeysRefuges of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service areoverlapped by the Sanctuary; whereas the Ever-glades National Park, Biscayne National Park, andDry Tortugas National Park are excluded from theboundary of the Sanctuary.

Threats to the Environment. The deterioration ofthe marine environment in the Keys is no longer amatter of debate. There is a decline of healthycorals, an invasion by algae into seagrass beds andreefs, a decline in certain fisheries, an increase ofcoral diseases and coral bleaching. In Florida Bay,reduced freshwater flow has resulted in an increasein 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 peoplereside in the Keys full time. Since 1965, the numberof registered private recreational vessels has in-creased over six times. There are significant directand indirect effects from the high levels of use ofSanctuary resources resulting from residents andtourists. The damage done by people hinders theability of marine life to recover from naturally occur-ring stresses. Human impacts can be separated intodirect and indirect impacts.

Direct human impacts. The most visible and familiarphysical damage results from the carelessness or, on

4


and local authorities with jurisdiction within oradjacent to the Sanctuary;

• promote education among users of the Sanctu-ary about coral reef conservation and naviga-tional safety; and

• incorporate the existing Looe Key and KeyLargo national marine sanctuaries into theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

All of these requirements have been addressed in theManagement Plan.

In addition to the above statutory objectives, theSanctuary Advisory Council, early on in the planningprocess in 1992, developed a set of goals andobjectives for the Sanctuary that NOAA lateradopted. The goal is:

“To preserve and protect the physical and biologicalcomponents of the South Florida estuarine andmarine ecosystem to ensure its viability for the useand enjoyment of present and future generations.”

The objectives include:

• Encouraging all agencies and institutions toadopt an ecosystem and cooperative approachto accomplish the following objectives, includ-ing the provision of mechanisms to addressimpacts affecting Sanctuary resources butoriginating outside the boundaries of theSanctuary;

• Providing a management system which is inharmony with an environment whose long-termecological, economic, and sociological prin-ciples are understood, and which will allowappropriate sustainable uses;

• Managing the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary for the natural diversity of healthyspecies, populations, and communities;

• Reaching every single user and visitor to theFKNMS with information appropriate to theiractivities; and

• Recognizing the importance of cultural andhistorical resources, and managing theseresources for reasonable, appropriate use andenjoyment.

NOAA incorporated the Sanctuary Advisory Council’sobjectives into the Final Comprehensive Manage-

ment Plan, and some progress has already beenmade toward accomplishing these objectives. Forexample, steps have been taken to meet the firstobjective of ecosystem management. SanctuaryStaff have been involved in the efforts of the SouthFlorida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and theGovernor’s Commission for a Sustainable SouthFlorida. These two efforts have focused on therestoration of the South Florida ecosystem, of whichthe Sanctuary is the downstream component. Thesecombined efforts recognize the importance of protect-ing and preserving the natural environment for thesustainable use of future generations. The naturaland built environments have to be managed inharmony to sustain the healthy environment uponwhich South Florida economy is dependent.

Overview of the Planning Process

The size of the Sanctuary and the diversity of itsusers required that NOAA adopt a holistic, ecosys-tem-based management approach to address theproblems facing the Sanctuary. This meant using aproblem-driven focus, relying on partnerships, andbuilding consensus around the identification of issuesand their short- and long-term solutions.

A Comprehensive Approach. The FKNMSPArequires NOAA to develop a comprehensive man-agement plan. To meet this mandate, NOAA hasaddressed many problems and issues, such as waterquality and land use, that are outside the "traditional"scope of Sanctuary management. The processinvolved unprecedented participation by the generalpublic, user groups, and Federal, State, and localgovernments.

Because of the size of the Sanctuary and the varietyof resources it contains, many problems never beforeencountered by Sanctuary management had to beaddressed. For example, significant declines in waterquality and habitat conditions in Florida Bay arethreatening the health of Sanctuary resources. Theseconditions are thought to be the result of waterquality and quantity management in the South Floridaregion. Such problems must be addressed bymanagement to ensure adequate protection ofSanctuary resources. There is a need, therefore, toexplicitly include the agencies with responsibilities inthese areas in an ecosystem management approach.

Knowledge-based Consensus Building. A seriesof workshops followed a set of public scoping meet-ings, and laid the foundation for building this Plan. Atthese work sessions, NOAA used a systematic


5

process for obtaining relevant information fromexperts with knowledge of Sanctuary problems.

NOAA recognized that a useful management plancould not be developed and implemented withoutforging working teams to help provide the vision andknowledge necessary to accomplish the goals setforth in the FKNMSPA. Four teams were formed toensure that input was provided by major Federal,State, and local interests in the Sanctuary, and to seethat a plan was produced that met the goals andobjectives set forth by the FKNMSPA and NOAA.There was considerable interaction, and someoverlap in membership and function, among theseteams.

• In July 1991, the Interagency Core Group,composed of Federal, State, and local agen-cies with direct jurisdictional responsibility inthe Sanctuary, was formed to develop policies,and direct and oversee the management plandevelopment process (Appendix B in VolumeIII lists the members of this Core Group).

• Sanctuary Planners held a series of work-shops, from July 1991 through January 1992,which focused on a range of topics. Theworkshop topics included mooring buoys,education, photobathymetry, research, sub-merged cultural resources, and zoning.

• A Strategy Identification Work Group, com-posed of 49 local scientists and managementexperts, generated the initial set of strategiesand details on implementation requirements.

• The Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) wasestablished by the FKNMSPA to ensure publicinput into the Plan, and to advise and assistNOAA in its development and implementation.The SAC first met in February 1992 andconducted over 30 meetings that were open tothe public (Appendix B in Volume III contains alist of SAC members). The SAC became anintegral part of the Sanctuary planning processby serving as a direct link to the Keys' usercommunities, such as the dive industry,environmental groups, and commercial andrecreational fishermen. In addition, the SAChas been instrumental in helping NOAA toformulate policy, particularly with regard to:1) the marine zoning plan, 2) activities needingregulation, and 3) recommending a preferredalternative for the Management Plan.

• A NOAA team composed of the Sanctuariesand Reserves Division, the Strategic Environ-mental Assessments Division, and the Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for OceanServices was responsible for developing andimplementing the process to produce the DraftPlan. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Divisionis responsible for coordinating the review andproducing the Final Management Plan andEnvironmental Impact Statement.

Focus on Management and Action. From thebeginning of the Plan development process, it hasbeen recognized that management is a continuousactivity that must involve those responsible forimplementing actions. The process has mademaximum use of existing knowledge and experienceto identify, characterize, and assess alternativemanagement actions. Much of the planning processwas devoted to identifying short- and long-termmanagement actions or strategies, including theiroperational requirements. These managementactions can be found in the detailed action planscontained in this volume. These plans addressmanagement issues ranging from channel marking,to volunteer programs, to regulations. They providedetails on institutional needs, personnel, time require-ments, and implementation costs. These details arenecessary for the decisions that will have to be madeupon Plan implementation by the managers in theregion.

Toward Integrated, Continuous Management. Acentral purpose of the Management Plan is to takethe disparate threads of protection and regulationthat currently apply to the Florida Keys' ecosystemand weave them into a fabric of integrated coastalmanagement (ICM). ICM is not a new idea or con-cept; what is new is the notion of applying it in acomprehensive and continuous manner. ICM is aprocess that begins with direct participation ofmanagers, planners, analysts, scientists, and aconcerned public. Developing an integrated manage-ment approach does not take place quickly; it evolvesover time, based on incremental gains that buildupon one another.

A major component of the Management Plan is theconsideration of water quality issues and problems.The FKNMSPA called upon the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the State of Florida to developa comprehensive water quality protection program forthe Sanctuary. NOAA has incorporated this protec-tion program into the Management Plan as the WaterQuality Action Plan found in this volume.

6


pose, objectives, and ground rules for theWorking Group’s public review of the draftplan. The purpose of the Working Groups wasto broaden the public’s review of the draft planin order to get the best and most comprehen-sive review possible. An objective of theprocess was to help the SAC formulate theircomments on the draft plan. The ground ruleswere: that membership on the Working Groupswas open and the public was encouraged tosign up and participate; no voting (strive forconsensus, but record both sides when split);all suggestions were to be recorded; theWorking Group meetings were to be held indifferent parts of the Keys; and Sanctuary staffwere to serve in a support role.

Each of the Working Groups held multiplemeetings in various parts of the Keys. Thepublic was given enormous opportunity toprovide their input on the draft plan.

• Public Hearings. There were six public hear-ings held on the draft plan. The hearings wereheld in Miami, Key Largo, Marathon, Key West,St. Petersburg, and Silver Spring, Maryland.The Sanctuary Advisory Council was encour-aged to attend as many of the meetings aspossible in order to help the SAC furtherdevelop their comments on the draft plan. Thismade it possible for the SAC to take fulladvantage of the public’s comments in theirdeliberations on the draft plan in Novemberand December.

As a result of the public review process, NOAAreceived over 6,400 statements of public commenton the draft management plan and environmentalimpact statement. Clearly, the use of the SanctuaryAdvisory Council Working Groups assisted theadvisory council in the development of their com-ments on the draft plan. As a result of their reviewprocess, the input at public hearings, and writtenpublic comments, NOAA has been able to develop aFinal Management Plan that reflects a broad range ofpublic comments.

The Environmental Impact Statement Process

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) requires any Federal agency proposing amajor action that significantly affects the quality of thehuman environment to develop an environmental

Overview of the Public Review Process

The Draft Management Plan and EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary was released to the public at aSanctuary Advisory Council meeting on April 4, 1995.This initiated a nine month public review of the draftplan that ended December 31, 1995. During thisreview period Sanctuary staff facilitated the public’sreview of the plan in a variety of ways that weredesigned to maximize the public’s full understandingof the components and contents of the draft plan.

The nine month public review process included thefollowing opportunities:

• Sanctuary Advisory Council Preview. On April4, the draft plan was released in a publicmeeting. At this meeting, each of the authors ofthe Action Plans contained in the PreferredAlternative (Volume I) gave a verbal summaryof the contents of the Action Plans. This day-long, detailed preview, initiated the public’sreview of the draft plan and served to introduceand familiarize the public with the plan.

• Info-Expos. The Sanctuary staff held twoseries of three-day-long Info-Expos in April andMay of 1995 and October 1995. The Info-Expos were held in the Upper, Middle, andLower Keys. They were set up like a tradeshow and individual tables served as informa-tion booths manned by Sanctuary staff, Sanc-tuary Advisory Council members, Core Groupmembers, and a Spanish interpreter. The Info-Expo staff passed out materials and answeredthe public’s questions about the draft plan.Each of the booths represented a specifictheme such as water quality, fishing, boating,zoning, etc. Additionally, staff distributedcopies of the draft plan to the public if they hadnot received one by mail.

• Working Groups. In June 1995, the SanctuaryAdvisory Council established 10 WorkingGroups, one for each action plan, to assist inthe public review of the draft plan. The SACappointed a Chairperson for each of theWorking Groups and other SAC members wereencouraged to sign up to participate in theWorking Groups that they were interested inmonitoring.

In August 1995, the Sanctuary Staff gave theWorking Groups a briefing outlining the pur-


7

impact statement that describes both the positive andnegative impacts that may result from implementa-tion. Accordingly, an EIS has been drafted to accom-pany the Management Plan, and both have gonethrough a public review and comment process priorto adoption in this Final Plan. The Draft EIS evalu-ated a range of reasonable alternative approaches toSanctuary management. These alternatives arepresented in Volume II to facilitate analysis of theireffects. The Preferred Alternative for Sanctuarymanagement is presented based on NOAA’s analysisof its impacts and the public comments.

Contents of Volume II

This volume contains the EIS for the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan.The EIS provides the problem analysis and basis forthe Final Plan to manage the Sanctuary. Volume IIconsists of the following chapters: 1) Description ofthe Affected Environment; 2) Development ofManagement Alternatives; 3) Environmental Conse-quences of Management Alternatives; 4) Socioeco-nomic Assessment of Management Alternatives; and5) Selection of the draft Preferred Alternative. Theselection of the Final Preferred Alternative is inVolume I. Brief descriptions of these chapters follow.

Description of the Affected Environment . Thischapter describes the Florida Keys’ ecosystem,Sanctuary resources, and their characteristics.Human activities and uses impacting Sanctuaryresources, such as population growth, tourism, andfishing, are also described. This chapter also con-tains an overview of the existing jurisdictional respon-sibilities and institutional arrangement for managingand protecting Sanctuary resources. Recognizingand understanding the mix of institutions that regu-late and manage in the region is critical to making themost efficient use of NOAA’s resources. Thissection was changed pursuant to public comment onthe Draft EIS.

Development of Management Alternatives . Thissection sets forth management alternatives fordealing with the problems identified in the planningprocess. This chapter describes how those alterna-tives were developed in the draft MP/EIS. Theprocess involved identifying themes for problem(issue) areas (e.g., boating, fishing, recreation, etc.)and describing those issues in detail; developingmanagement actions (strategies) for dealing with theproblems; and building the alternatives from thestrategies. The five alternatives described in this

document provide a range of environmental protec-tion for the complete restriction of uses (Alternative I)to the status quo (Alternative V). Three mid-rangealternatives (II, III, and IV) are considered acceptablebecause they more adequately address the require-ments of the FKNMSPA and the NMSA. Accordingly,the EIS focuses on these mid-range alternatives.

Environmental Consequences of ManagementAlternatives. This chapter provides information onthe potential impacts of the proposed mid-rangealternatives on the environment. It contains asummary of each issue (e.g., boating fishing, etc.), adescription of each environmental impact theme (i.e.,water quality, habitats, and species), and overalldescription of the environmental impacts of proposedmanagement actions under those themes, andsummary tables comparing environmental impactsacross the three mid-range alternatives for eachtheme. The purpose of this assessment is to facili-tate a reasoned decision making process for choos-ing the Preferred Alternative in the Draft and FinalPlan, and inform the public of the basis for proposedactions.

Socioeconomic Assessment of ManagementAlternatives. In additional to assessing the impactson the natural environment, the draft MP/EIS alsoassesses the economic and social aspects of thehuman environment. This chapter includes informa-tion on the groups and/or industries likely to beimpacted by various management strategies. Itdiscusses the qualitative nature of impacts that mightoccur given changes in quantity and/or quality ofSanctuary resources and their uses. It is organizedaround the issues outline in the Development ofManagement Alternatives chapter. Within eachissues, management strategies are evaluated acrossalternatives. This section has been supplementedby the assessment of costs and benefits conductedpursuant to E.O. 12866 and attached in Volume III.

Selection of the Draft Preferred Alternative . Thischapter describes why Alternative III was chosen asthe Preferred Alternative, at the Draft MP/EIS stage,including Federal, State, and local perspectives, andprovides a comparison of the alternatives by man-agement issue (e.g., boating, fishing, etc.). Thissection is supplemented by the discussion of theFinal Preferred Alternative in Volume I.

To the extent public comments suggested additionalalternatives or modifications of II, III, IV, or V, see thediscussion of the selection of the Final PreferredAlternative in Volume I.

Description of the Affected Environment: Introduction

8

Description of the Affected Environment

Introduction

The Keys and the Sanctuary Area. The FloridaKeys are a limestone island archipelago extendingsouthwest over 320 km from the southern tip of theFlorida mainland to the Dry Tortugas, 101 km westof Key West. They are bounded on the north andwest by the relatively shallow waters of BiscayneBay, Barnes and Blackwater sounds, Florida Bay—all areas of extensive mud shoals and seagrassbeds, and the Gulf of Mexico. Hawk Channel lies tothe south, between the mainland Keys and anextensive reef tract 8 km offshore. The Straits ofFlorida lie beyond the reef, separating the Keys fromCuba and the Bahamas.

The Keys are made up of over 1,700 islands encom-passing approximately 266 km2. They are broad,with little relief (generally less than one meter), havea shoreline length of 2,989 km, and are inhabitedfrom 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 tothe Seven Mile Bridge; and 3) the Lower Keys, fromLittle Duck Key to Key West (Figure 1). The cities ofKey West, Layton, and Key Colony Beach aretypically discussed separately, as they are the onlyincorporated areas in the Keys (Monroe County,1992).

The Sanctuary encompasses approximately 9,500km2 of submerged lands and waters between thesouthern tip of Key Biscayne and the Dry TortugasBank (Table 1). North of Key Largo it includesBarnes and Card sounds, and to the east and souththe oceanic boundary is the 300-foot isobath. TheSanctuary 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 inthe continental United States.

Approximately 5,500 km2 (58%) of Sanctuary watersare under State jurisdiction, and numerous State andFederal parks and reserves are located within theSanctuary's boundaries. The Key Largo and LooeKey national marine sanctuaries will be incorporatedinto the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, butthe area within Dry Tortugas National Park will beexcluded.

The Keys' Population . The Keys have both perma-nent and seasonal residents. In 1990 the peakpopulation was estimated at 134,600, including78,000 permanent residents. The remainder wereseasonal residents and tourists/visitors. About one-third of the population was located in Key West, KeyColony Beach, and Layton, the three incorporatedcities. There were also almost 1,400 live-aboardvessels, accounting for over 2,500 residents.

The population of the Keys varies considerably byseason. The annual influx of residents and visitorsduring the winter months causes the population toincrease by over 70 percent. Visitors staying either attourist facilities or with friends or relatives accountedfor approximately 37 percent of the estimated popula-tion in 1990.

Accessibility. Visitors to the Keys arrive either byairplane, car, bus, or boat. The number of visitors isrestricted primarily by limited access, as only onehighway (US 1, the Overseas Highway) runs throughthe area. This highway replaced the Keys' railroadsystem, which was destroyed by the Labor Dayhurricane of 1935. Forty-two bridges along US 1connect 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

17Florida Keys Incorporated Cities

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


roads connecting the islands north of Key Largo (i.e.,Sands, Elliott, and Old Rhodes keys).

The Upper Keys, particularly Key Largo, receive alarge number of weekend visitors. Fewer visitorsmake short trips further down the Keys, but thosetravelling to Key West stay for longer periods. Manyvisitors also travel to the area's large public recre-ation sites. Approximately 1.3 million visited JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park in 1990, 339,000visited Bahia Honda State Park, and 19,400 visitedDry Tortugas National Park (White, 1991).

Existing Management Areas. Federal, State, local,and private organizations currently protect, preserve,and regulate over 120 sites throughout and adjacentto 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, preventingdamage to sensitive environmental habitats. Others,encompassing ecosystems that are already im-pacted, are protected from further degradation.Additional protection is provided for archaeologicaland historical site preservation, environmentalconservation, recreation, public access, education,and scientific research. Many needs are served ateach site through multi-use management. Table 2summarizes the Federal, State, and local existingmanagement areas within or near the Keys.

Federally Protected Areas. The Federal governmentmanages 96 percent of all protected areas in theKeys, including four national wildlife refuges, threenational parks, and two national marine sanctuaries.In the Upper Keys region, Everglades National Park,Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and the KeyLargo National Marine Sanctuary account for almost7,000 km2. The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,off Big Pine Key, protects about 18 km2. The GreatWhite Heron and Key West national wildlife refugesprotect nearly 1,700 km2 in the Lower Keys region.The National Key Deer Refuge is dedicated toprotecting that species alone, and almost entirelyoverlaps the Great White Heron National WildlifeRefuge. Dry Tortugas National Park contains about261 km2 surrounded by Sanctuary waters.

State Protected Areas. Florida's Division of Recre-ation and Parks (FDRP) and Division of State Lands(FDSL) maintain almost five percent (approximately356 km2) of all protected areas in the Keys. TheFDRP protects nine sites: Bahia Honda State Park,Long Key Recreation area, the Indian Key and FortZachary Taylor areas, Lignumvitae Key and Key

Jurisdiction Areakm2 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 boundariesNote: 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 ofNatural Resources; Monroe County Planning/Building Department.Pers. Comm.: Chuck Olson, Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust;Mark Robertson, Nature Conservancy; Paul R. Wick, Monroe CountyLand Authority

376

376

120

Largo Hammocks state botanical sites, San PedroUnderwater Archaeological Preserve, Windley KeyFossil Reef State Geological Site, and JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park, the nation's firstunderwater State park. Each of these sites is in theUpper Keys, except Fort Zachary Taylor and BahiaHonda State Park, which are in the Lower Keys.

The FDSL manages three areas: Biscayne Bay/CardSound and Lignumvitae aquatic preserves in theUpper Keys, and Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve inthe Lower Keys. Together with John PennekampCoral Reef State Park, these four sites account for 96percent of all areas protected by the State. The Stateof Florida has also designated the Keys as an "Areaof Critical State Concern." Approximately 80 km2

have been set aside for conservation purposes bythe Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (MineralsManagement Service, 1990).

Locally Protected Areas. The governments of MonroeCounty and the City of Key West manage 55 commu-nity parks that provide recreation and waterfrontaccess. Thirty-six county parks, most of which areless than 1 km2, provide picnic tables, ball fields,playing equipment, and restrooms. Boat ramps have

Table 2. Existing Management Areas


10

also been built in many waterfront areas. Marathonand 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 Westinclude 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 AudubonSociety, and Monroe County Land Authority protectand conserve an estimated 4 km2 in the Keys, withThe Nature Conservancy and the Monroe CountyLand Authority managing 88 percent of the total area(1.5 and 2.0 km2, respectively). The South FloridaWater Management District (SFWMD) manages a"Save Our Rivers" (SOR) property on Big Pine Key.The Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust manages nineareas, with the largest site (0.25 km2) on Vaca Key.The remaining sites, four in the Lower Keys, one inthe Middle Keys, and three in the Upper Keys, arealso each smaller than 1 km2. In addition, the Na-tional Audubon Society manages one site in theMiddle 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

81°W82°W83°W 80°W

Key Largo Limestone

Miami Oolite

Florida Bay

SouthwestContinentalShelf

Dry TortugasMiddle Keys

Lower Keys

Straits ofFlorida

Everglades

Carbonate Sand Banks

MarquesasKeys

Reef Tract

Upper Keys

20m

20m

20m20m

of bays and lagoons in South Florida, while a largereef complex flourished to the east. To the south, tidalexchange between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf ofMexico formed a large series of cross-bedded, carbon-ate (oolitic) sand bars.

Sea level fluctuations attributed to glaciation arelargely responsible for the region's current morphology(Holmes, 1981; Minerals Management Service, 1990).During the Wisconsin Glaciation, sea level droppedbetween 15 and 30 m, exposing the entire platform tomarine and subaerial erosion. Sea level rose againapproximately 6,000 years ago, flooding the area andforming the current physiographic regions(Hoffmeister, 1968 and 1974). Lithified remnants of theancient reef complex formed the Upper Keys, while theLower Keys were formed from the oolitic sand bars.Florida Bay occupies the southern portion of the oldlagoonal structure.

The Sanctuary contains components of five distinctphysiographic regions: Florida Bay, the SouthwestContinental Shelf, the Florida Reef Tract, the FloridaKeys, and the Straits of Florida (Figure 2). The regionsare environmentally and lithologically unique, andtogether they form the framework for the Sanctuary'sdiverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Physical Environments

The Florida Keys are located at the southern edge ofthe Floridan Plateau, a large carbonate platformcomposed of 7,000 m of marine sediments. Theplateau incorporates all of Florida and the adjacentcontinental shelves of the Gulf of Mexico and AtlanticOcean (Minerals Management Service, 1990; Mueller,1991). Sediments have been accumulating in theregion for 150 million years and have been structurallymodified by subsidence and sea level fluctuation(Mueller, 1991).

The crystalline and sedimentary basement rocks of theSouth Florida Basin underlie the plateau. The basin isa block-faulted feature associated with the breakup ofNorth America and Africa during the Mesozoic era.Further block-faulting during this era created theStraits of Florida, the water body separating theplateau from the Bahamas and Cuba (Hoffmeister,1968; Mueller, 1991). Subsequent sea level transgres-sions flooded the area, initiating episodic reef buildingand marine deposition. Between 100,000 and 125,000years ago, sea level was approximately 6 m higherthan it is today. Sediments were deposited in a series


12

The shelf can be divided into two main morphologiczones based on water depth and bottom structure. Theinner shelf is between 10 and 70 m deep, extendingapproximately 210 km from Florida Bay. It slopesgradually seaward at a 0.02° angle. Pulley Ridge, a 10-km wide inactive bioherm complex, marks the innershelf's western edge. Sediment transport is basedprimarily on tide- and wind-generated currents. Intru-sions from the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current are rare(Minerals Management Service, 1990).

The outer shelf is between 90 and 100 m deep andslopes seaward from Pulley Ridge at an angle of 0.07°to 1.0°. A fossilized double-reef complex marks theouter shelf's western edge, and the southern sectioncontains the sediment banks that make up theMarquesas and Dry Tortugas (Holmes, 1981; MineralsManagement Service, 1990). The outer shelf containsnumerous large sand waves, reflecting the effect of thenearby Gulf of Mexico Loop Current.

The Florida Reef Tract . The Florida Reef Tract is anarcuate band of living coral reefs paralleling the Keys.The reefs are located on a narrow shelf that drops offinto the Straits of Florida. The shelf slopes seaward ata 0.06° angle into Hawk Channel, which is severalkilometers wide and averages 15 m deep. From HawkChannel, the shelf slopes upward to a shallower areacontaining numerous patch reefs. The outer edge ismarked by a series of bank reefs and sand banks thatare subject to open tidal exchange with the Atlantic.The warm, clear, nutrient-deficient waters in this regionare conducive to reef development (Voss, 1988; Jaap,1990; Minerals Management Service, 1990).

Approximately 130 km of bank reefs stretch fromFowey Rocks to the Marquesas. One of their mostnoticeable structures are seaward-facing spur-and-groove formations, constructional features formed inpart by wave energy (Shinn, 1963). Spurs are com-posed of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), whilegrooves 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 high-energy environment and absorb the full impact of waveaction. Primary corals include Monastrea annularis (astony star coral), Acropora palmata; and Acroporacervincoris (staghorn coral). The red algae Goniolithonadds to the reef structure and exists in a symbioticrelationship with the corals (Hoffmeister, 1974; Enos,1977; Shinn et al, 1989; Jaap 1990; Minerals Manage-ment Service, 1990). (See the Natural Resourcessection of this chapter for more detail on the reefenvironment).

Physiographic Regions

Florida Bay . Roughly triangular in shape, Florida Bayis defined by the Everglades to the north and the Keysto the east and south. It has an area of approximately1,550 km2 and an average depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Its mostdistinct feature is a patchwork of interconnected mudbanks composed of shelly calcareous silt, which formsa series of oval-shaped basins 4.8 to 6.4 km long, 5.1to 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 sedi-ments of the southwest continental shelf.

The bay has been termed an active lime-mud factory(Stockman et al, 1967; Multer 1977), with silts andmuds composed of 90 percent calcium carbonate, witharagonite the primary constituent mineral. Biogenicsediments derived from a variety of marine organisms(primarily the green algae Penicillus) (Stockman et al,1967; Multer, 1977; Valleau, 1977; Minerals Manage-ment Service, 1990) continually accumulate.

Because of the bay's shallow depth, large seasonalvariations in temperature and salinity are common, andabundant sediment contributes to turbidity levels. Aswinter storms pass through the area, large amounts ofsediment-rich cool water are transported through thechannels between the Keys to the Florida Reef Tract.During periods of warm, stable weather, tidal currentscan transport high-temperature water in the samedirection. This influx directly affects reef production bychanging water temperature, salinity, and turbiditylevels (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Jaap, 1990; Miner-als Management Service, 1990).

Southwest Continental Shelf . In the South Floridaarea, the southwest continental shelf is composed ofthe southern portion of the west Florida continentalshelf and is bordered by Florida Bay to the east, thewestern extension of the Keys and Florida Reef Tractto the south, and the Florida Canyon to the west. Theshelf area is a marine environment that contains avariety of benthic habitats dependent on substrate andthe quantity and quality of available light.

Most of the shelf's carbonate-rich surface sedimentswere formed in the Holocene epoch and are continuallydeveloping. As sediment deposition continues, theshelf margin builds seaward (Minerals ManagementService, 1990). Continued sediment accumulation canbe attributed to both the marine erosion of existinglithologic features and the biogenic production ofcarbonate sediments from flora and fauna (Multer,1977; Holmes, 1981).


13

Approximately 6,000 patch reefs lie along the FloridaReef Tract, with over 80 percent between northernElliott Key and North Key Largo. They are circular tooval in shape, 30 to 700 m in diameter, and occur inwater between 2 and 9 m deep in the low-energyenvironment on the back side of the outer reefs. Theyexhibit zonation based on water depth, and many haveformed on antecedent Pleistocene topography.Grasses and other flora are not found at the reef'sfringe (primarily because of reef-dwelling herbivores),leaving a ring of clean sand. Many are hollow due tosolution weathering by seawater.

Corals grow best in warm, clear, nutrient-deficientwaters, and their distribution within the Sanctuaryreflects the exchange of water between Florida Bay,the southwest continental shelf, and the AtlanticOcean. Reefs are well-developed seaward of theelongated Upper Keys and off the compact Lower Keysbut absent or poorly developed near the wider chan-nels in the Middle Keys, where conditions for optimalgrowth are adversely affected by water-quality varia-tions (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Voss, 1988; Shinn etal, 1989; Jaap, 1990).

Both patch and outer reefs maintain a balance betweenphysically constructive elements (including corals,algae, and other flora) and destructive elements (e.g.,salinity and water temperature changes, turbidity due toweather events, exposure to air, and changes innutrient levels). By altering the physical characteristicsof the reef environment, human activities may furtherstress an already stressed ecosystem (Jaap, 1990;Voss, 1988).

The Florida Reef Tract is dependent on the warmwaters of the Florida Current for its survival, anddiverse hyperthermic conditions can occur when thewaters are heated during long-lasting summer dol-drums. These events have been linked to coral bleach-ing (Voss, 1988).

The Florida Keys . The Keys extend southwest over320 km from Biscayne Bay to the Dry Tortugas. Theydo not contain the wide expanses of sandy beachescharacteristic of much of the Atlantic coast, andbeaches of any significant size and width are rare. Ofthe total 50 km of beaches, most are between 4.5 and7.5 m wide (Monroe County, 1991). The Keys can bedivided into four areas based on morphology, lithology,and location: the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, andthe Marquesas and Dry Tortugas.

The Upper Keys extend from Soldier Key to LowerMatecumbe Key and are composed of the Key LargoLimestone. They are long and narrow, with their main

axis paralleling the axis of the chain. They are low-lying, with an average elevation of 1 to 2 m and amaximum elevation of 6 m at Windley Key (MineralsManagement Service, 1990). Only a few narrowchannels connect Florida Bay with the Atlantic.

The Middle Keys extend from Lower Matecumbe Keyto the Seven Mile Bridge. Like the Upper Keys, theyare composed of the Key Largo Limestone. Althoughsmaller than the Upper Keys, they are similar in shapeto these islands, and have numerous wide channelsseparating each island.

The Lower Keys extend from Little Duck Key to KeyWest and (with the exception of Little Duck Key, theNewfound Harbor Keys, and a portion of Big Pine Key)are composed of the Miami Oolite. They are broad andextremely flat, are separated by long, narrow channels,and their long axis is perpendicular to the axis of thechain (Minerals Management Service, 1990). To thewest lie the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas, recentlyformed isolated clusters of carbonate sand shoals onthe southern edge of the southwest continental shelf.Their continuing formation is dependent on sedimentstransported to the area and the growth of surroundinghermatypic coral reefs (Multer, 1977; Minerals Manage-ment Service, 1990).

The Key Largo Limestone. The Key Largo Limestone,which composes the Upper and Middle Keys, wasformed by the lithification of a coral reef that developed100,000 to 125,000 years ago. Below the surface, thelimestone extends under Miami, Florida Bay, and theDry Tortugas. At the surface it extends 180 km, fromSoldier Key to the Newfound Harbor Channel. Thethickness of the formation ranges from 23 to 52 m, withfossilized corals indicating that the Upper and MiddleKeys are the remnants of patch reefs (Hoffmeister,1968; Voss, 1988). It exhibits high porosity and perme-ability, both factors in the movement and retention ofgroundwater and pollutant transport throughout theKeys (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

The Miami Oolite. The Miami Oolite, which makes upthe Lower Keys, is a lithified series of oolitic sandshoals that developed at the same time as the KeyLargo Limestone. The oolitic formation is thin over thesouthern border of the Lower Keys, reaching a maxi-mum thickness of 10 m on the northern part of StockIsland. The channels between the Lower Keys are theremnants of the original tidal channels that developedin the sand shoals (Hoffmeister, 1968; Voss, 1988;Minerals Management Service, 1990). The MiamiOolite exhibits high porosity but low permeability (EPA,1992).


14

Temperatures are also influenced by the amount ofsolar radiation the area receives. The Keys are locatedbetween the latitudes of 24° 30' and 25° 30' north, andthe sun’s rays strike the Earth at a greater angle in theKeys than anywhere else in Florida (Winsberg, 1990).Key West receives an average of 3,300 hours ofsunshine per year, more than any other area in thestate (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Monroe County Boardof County Commissioners, 1986).

Average temperatures show little variance over therange of the Keys, and those in Tavernier, in the UpperKeys, are typically within 1° C of those in Key West. AtKey West, the average annual maximum temperatureis 28° C and the average annual minimum is 23° C.The highest normal daily maximum is 32° C, andtypically occurs in July and August. The lowest normaldaily minimum is 19° C, and typically occurs in Febru-ary (White, 1991). The record high (35° C) occurred inJuly 1951 and August 1957, and the record low (5° C)occurred in January 1981 (Jordan, 1991). Tempera-tures below freezing have never been recorded.

Air temperature is modified by and reflects surfaceconditions. Land masses heat more rapidly, reach ahigher temperature, and cool more quickly than water,but water retains heat much longer. Compared to theSouth Florida peninsula, the Keys have very little landmass and are, therefore, constantly influenced by airassociated with the surrounding warm waters. Theinland areas on the peninsula typically experience agreater range of temperatures than the Keys.

Similarly, humidity levels reflect the maritime environ-ment. The mean average annual relative humidity is 75percent, and does not vary significantly by month(Schomer and Drew, 1982). Relative humidity alsoshows only a slight diurnal variation, with the highesthumidities occurring in the early morning and thelowest 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 meanrainfall, 16.5 cm, occurs in September and the lowest,3.3 cm, occurs in March (White, 1991). This lack ofprecipitation can be attributed to minimal well-estab-lished land/sea breezes and the limited number oflarge-scale synoptic systems in the area (MonroeCounty Board of County Commissioners, 1986; Jordan,1991). Convection is weak and normally occurs overopen water because of the small land area. East windscan push these storms ashore at any time (Jordan,1991).

Straits of Florida . The Straits of Florida is a largeblock-faulted basin paralleling the Keys that containsan open-ocean, deepwater environment. Seaward ofthe Florida Reef Tract, the ocean floor slopes graduallyfor several kilometers to a depth of 300 m, beforedropping off sharply to an average depth of 800 m. Oneof the Straits' most significant features is the PourtalesTerrace, a well defined plateau (200 km long by 30 kmwide; 200-400 m deep) that borders the Lower Keys(Multer, 1977; Minerals Management Service, 1990).Currents associated with the terrace have a significanteffect on the reef tract off the Lower Keys. The Straits'morphology is controlled by the Florida Current, whichlinks the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current to the GulfStream. Surveys have shown evidence of erosionaland depositional structures related to sea level fluctua-tions. The basin slowly accumulates detrital sedimentscomposed of the skeletons of planktonic foraminifera(Multer, 1977).

Climatology

The Keys have a tropical maritime climate with moder-ate temperatures, and essentially two seasons: longwet summers and mild dry winters (Schomer and Drew,1982; Jordan, 1991). Summer lasts from May toOctober and is characterized by numerous thunder-storms. Winter lasts from November to April and ischaracterized by dry conditions and infrequent, fast-moving cold fronts (Schomer and Drew, 1982;Winsberg, 1990). The climate is primarily influenced bythe warm waters of the Gulf and Atlantic and thecirculation patterns of the Florida Current and GulfStream.

Weather in the Keys is directly related to the tropicalmaritime air associated with the Bermuda/Azores high-pressure system. Its movement, seasonal position, andinteraction with other pressure systems affect winddirection and speed, temperature, and precipitation(Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991). Winds are from theeast-southeast during the summer and the east-northeast during the winter, shifting to the northwestinfrequently and for short periods during the passage ofcold fronts (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Localizedconvective storms and intense low-pressure systems(in the form of tropical storms and hurricanes) are alsointegral climate components.

Temperature and Humidity . The Keys have the mostmoderate temperatures in Florida. The prevailingeasterlies pass over the Gulf Stream and transportwarm air across the islands, while cold fronts reachingthe area are quickly modified by the warm waters of theGulf and Florida Bay (Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).


15

Most rainfall occurs during the summer in the form oflocally intense convective storms. Only 18 to 33 percentof the area's precipitation occurs during the winter, withlarge-scale synoptic systems distributing small amountsof rain over a broad area (Schomer and Drew, 1982).Precipitation peaks in June and again in late Septem-ber/early October as the unstable edges of the Ber-muda/Azores High become positioned over the area(Jordan, 1991). Tropical disturbances primarily occurbetween June and November and contribute a signifi-cant amount of precipitation.

Although drought can occur at any time, it is mostcommon in May, June, September, and October.Drought is related to large-scale weather patterns andis initiated by stable, stationary air masses that inhibitconvection (Winsberg, 1990). Drought conditionsdecrease the supply of fresh water (Winsberg, 1990)and stress marine ecosystems by raising water tem-peratures and salinity levels (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990).

Storm Systems

Large-scale Synoptic Systems . During the winter,large-scale, mid-latitude cyclonic systems may betransported over the Keys by fluctuations in the winterpolar jet stream (Winsberg, 1990). These systemsoccur approximately once a week, but are quicklymodified by the surrounding warm waters (Schomerand Drew, 1982). Although they do not spread muchprecipitation, they can have a significant effect on theKeys' marine environment. Shallow areas may experi-ence a decrease in water temperature and an increasein turbidity, and nutrient and salinity levels also may beaffected. During the passage of an especially strongcold front, fish and coral kills may occur, with recoverytaking several decades (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990).

Tropical Depressions and Hurricanes . South Floridaexperiences more tropical depressions and hurricanesthan any other area in the United States (Schomer andDrew, 1982). Storms normally occur between June andNovember, peaking in late September/early October(Schomer and Drew, 1982; Jordan, 1991). In MonroeCounty, hurricanes have been reported as early asAugust and as late as November (White, 1991).

On average, there is a 13 to 16 percent annual prob-ability of a hurricane occurring in the Keys (Winsberg,1990; Jordan, 1991). There were 20 hurricanes inMonroe County between 1900 and 1990, 11 of whichwere Class 3 or greater (Nuemann, 1991), and KeyWest averages one hurricane every eight years(Winsberg, 1990). The Keys are the only area in thenation besides Texas to have experienced a Class 5

hurricane (Herbert, 1975), the Labor Day storm of1935, which was the most violent ever to make landfallin the United States.

With the exception of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (whichwas a Class 4 on landfall), the Keys have only experi-enced two Class 1 hurricanes since 1966, and approxi-mately 36 percent of Monroe County’s population hasnever experienced a major hurricane (Class 3 orgreater). Residents are vulnerable, however, becausethe Keys are considered more likely than any area inthe state to experience a major hurricane within thenext 20 years. Public shelters are only available for asmall percentage of the current population, and evacu-ation times have been estimated at between 27 and 30hours (Monroe County Board of County Commission-ers, 1986). Still, many residents remain unconcernedand consider the threat of hurricanes only a minorproblem (Cross, 1980).

The topography of the Keys contributes to their vulner-ability to such storms. Ninety-six percent of the area'sland mass is less than 2 m above sea level (Cross,1980). The worst-case scenario would involve a fast-moving, powerful hurricane with extremely low pres-sure reaching the shore at high tide (Winsberg, 1990).In such a case, storm waters would dome up and overthe islands in the hurricane’s path, completely inundat-ing many areas.

Effects. Tropical depressions are reclassified ashurricanes when maximum sustained winds exceed120 km/h. Hurricanes are further classified according towind, storm surge, and pressure (Herbert, 1975).Although winds seldom extend more than 80 km fromthe eye, speeds can reach 120 to 160 km/h or moreand can exert up to 75 pounds of pressure per squarefoot (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986). The Keys have experienced hurricane winds inexcess of 200 km/h several times in the last century(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Both tropical storms and hurricanes can cause majordamage to the Keys' natural environment, with a singlestorm causing changes that would normally take yearsto occur. Storm waves and currents can destroy entireecosystems, large blocks of coral can be broken fromreefs and moved great distances, sediments canabrade corals or bury them completely, and entireislands can be defoliated. In addition, storm surges canflood aquifer recharge areas with saline water and soilscan be completely eliminated (Monroe County Board ofCounty Commissioners, 1986; Jaap, 1990). Recoveryfrom such storms may take several decades (Nalvikin,1969; Jaap, 1990).


16

The storm surge can be the most devastating elementof a hurricane. The height of a surge depends on waterdepth, the shape of the coast that will be impacted, thespeed of the storm, the direction and strength of thewinds, and the air pressure in the eye (Winsberg,1990). Low air pressure can cause the underlyingwater to dome upward as much as 6 m (MonroeCounty Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Stormwaves of between 6 and 15 m may be superimposedon the storm surge, and often contribute to damages.Record storm surges in the Keys range from 3 to 5.5 mabove the mean tide level (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

System Dynamics. Systems affecting the Keys origi-nate in either the western Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, orAtlantic Ocean. Most approach the islands from theeast-southeast and are steered by adjacent pressuresystems and the jet stream (Schomer and Drew, 1982;Jordan, 1991).

Precipitation normally associated with tropical depres-sions and hurricanes ranges from approximately 13 to26 cm (Schomer and Drew, 1982), but may exceed 50cm (Winsberg, 1990). Most precipitation is produced bymassive thunderstorms that ring the eye of the systemoutward to 48 km and up to altitudes of over 12,000 m(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986).

Thunderstorms . Most thunderstorms in the Keysoccur during the summer and are caused by convec-tion. The Sanctuary has an average of 64 thunderstormdays per year, with 90 percent occurring between Mayand October and the greatest number in July (Schomerand Drew, 1982; Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).Lightning is common during these storms, and it isestimated that any given square mile in South Floridawill be hit by 25 bolts per year (Winsberg, 1990).

Waterspouts . Waterspouts are common within theSanctuary, and the Lower Keys have the nation'sgreatest point frequency of occurrence (Everling,1987). Spouts are associated with areas of unstabledisturbed airflow, and may form in conjunction with therising currents of developing cumulus clouds. Fair-weather spouts are often short-lived, have weak winds,and occur most often around noon when solar heatingpeaks (Golden, 1971; Winsberg, 1990; Jordan, 1991).In general, waterspouts form most frequently betweenMay and October, with most occurring in July (Jordan,1991). Waterspouts associated with thunderstorms,squall lines, and hurricanes are stronger than averageand exhibit characteristics closer to those of a tornado(Winsberg, 1990). True tornadoes are infrequent,however, occurring only when a waterspout movesover land (Winsberg, 1990).

Hydrology

South Florida has serious freshwater problems thatthreaten the resources of its estuaries (especiallyFlorida Bay) and ultimately the entire Sanctuary. Duringthe past century, the pattern and intensity of freshwaterflows to these estuaries have been significantly af-fected due to intense municipal and agricultural activi-ties and the construction of the Central and SouthernFlorida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes(commonly known as the Project). The Project is asurface-water management facility designed by theU.S. ACOE in the 1950s to drain land, provide floodprotection, and regulate South Florida's water supply.Through the Project, enormous volumes of freshwateroriginally intended for the Everglades and its estuarieshave been drained, diverted, or stored in "conservationareas." The resulting alteration of the natural freshwa-ter cycle has interrupted the method and timing offreshwater delivery through South Florida. The impactsassociated with this alteration have been studied butare still unknown (EPA, 1992).

Historic Hydrologic Patterns (Pre-1880). Historically,freshwater discharge to the Sanctuary was determinedby direct precipitation to its restricted basin and runofffrom the South Florida peninsula. South Florida'seffective watershed once encompassed more than22,500 km2, extending inland to the headwaters of theKissimmee River basin in Central Florida. Peak precipi-tation and runoff in the basin between June andOctober filled Lake Okeechobee, causing periodic spill-over at its southern boundary. Shallow groundwateraquifers were quickly saturated during the early sum-mer months, promoting sheet flow (surface runoff)through South Florida. This spill-over, confined to theeast by the southeastern Atlantic coastal ridge, wastransported south through the Everglades via TaylorSlough and southwest through Big Cypress via theShark and East River sloughs (Figure 3). By latesummer, estuarine salinities were suppressed by thefreshwater pulse. As the rainy season abated, thesheet flow of water slowed or ceased, leaving only thesloughs filled with water. As the dry season progressed(November through May), the area of standing watersteadily diminished (Duever et al., 1985).

Alteration of Historic Hydrologic Patterns . Begin-ning in the late 1800s, drainage canals were con-structed in South Florida to "open up" the region'sinterior to agricultural and urban development. Con-struction continued into the early 1900s, with approxi-mately 708 km (440 miles) of canals completed.


17

Figure 3. Natural Hydrology

27°N

26°N

25°N

80°W81°W82°W

LakeOkeechobee

Shark River Slough

Taylor Slough

Biscayne Aquifer

SoutheasternAtlantic CoastalRidge

Sloughs

Coastal Ridge

Aquifer

Major Features


18

While this drainage system allowed an initial burst ofgrowth and development, hurricanes in 1927, 1928,and 1947 caused devastation on a scale that clearlyshowed that these early drainage works could notadequately protect either Florida's present or futureresidents from the natural extremes of the region'sweather and hydrology.

At the request of the State, the Federal governmentdirected the U.S. ACOE to construct the Central andSouthern Florida Flood Control Project, a comprehen-sive design for a water control system that wouldprovide improved control over water flows, supplies,and levels; protection from floodwaters and saltwaterintrusion in coastal wellfields; and the ability to pre-serve fish and wildlife habitats. This vast project wascomprised of a network of over 1,600 km (1,000 miles)of canals and levees, huge water storage areas, andhundreds of pump stations and gated water controlstructures. The Project was built on top of theKissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades system, with theintent of modifying or controlling flows within the naturalsystem that limited or threatened human development.The Project was built over a period of more than 20years, with most construction completed by 1975.

Table 3 summarizes canal construction and modifica-tion through the early 1980s. While the Project wasdesigned and built by the ACOE, the State was respon-sible for operating and maintaining it. In 1949 theFlorida Legislature created the Central and SouthFlorida Flood Control District (FCD), a special taxingdistrict charged with operating and maintaining thoseportions of the project not retained by the ACOE.

The Florida Water Resource Act, which was adopted in1973, paved the way for the State's system of regionalwater management by designating five water manage-ment districts whose boundaries were based on naturalhydrologic patterns. This legislation broadened thescope of the regional water managers' responsibilities.The FCD was reconfigured as one of the State's fivewater management districts, and its boundaries wereredrawn to encompass all of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades system, from the chain oflakes in the Kissimmee River valley south to FloridaBay. Within the almost 47,000 square kilometers(18,000 square miles) included in those boundaries aremore than 2,500 square kilometers (1,500 squaremiles) of canals, many levees, almost 200 primarywater control structures, and over 2,000 smaller watercontrol structures.

In 1976, the agency's name was changed to the SouthFlorida Water Management District (SFWMD). Sincethat time, its resource management and protectionresponsibilities have continued to expand. Today, theSFWMD is responsible for operating and maintainingthe Project to provide for urban and agricultural devel-opment in coordination with flood and water supplyprotection.

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 maintainpredetermined, ACOE-mandated surface water levelsin the system's canals, lakes, rivers, and Water Con-servation Areas (WCAs). The system is designed toaccommodate the Standard Project Flood (SPF),defined as "that rainfall amount that occurs during a100-year storm event, increased by 25 percent"(Cooper and Roy, 1991). These operation schedulesare very complex, but their major pathways have beensummarized in Figure 4. At the same time, the agencyis also responsible for maintaining and protecting theunderlying natural water and land ecosystems that theProject was built to change.

These two divergent responsibilities are often inconflict. For example, required regulatory releases fromLake Okeechobee may have to be channeled east orwest, toward the sensitive estuaries fed by the St.Lucie and Caloosahatchee rivers. Today, wheneverpossible, water managers channel flows south (ratherthan east or west) into the New North River and Miamicanals, so they can be stored in the WCAs and keptwithin the natural hydrologic system. This affordsadditional opportunities for water storage and use, andlimits the amount of freshwater "lost to tide."

Still, the operation of this vast project has been associ-ated with reduction of freshwater discharge to theLower Everglades, alterations in timing and volume ofinflow, and increases in downstream coastal salinities.In the Everglades basin, the effective watershed hasbeen reduced to 7,800 square kilometers. In 1970,Congress established PL91-282 in an attempt toguarantee minimum water deliverances to EvergladesNational Park (ENP) and to authorize construction ofthe necessary conveyance facilities. Delivery sched-ules were established that required minimum monthlydischarges to three areas of ENP: Shark River Slough(SRS), Taylor Slough, and the Park's eastern pan-handle. Flows to SRS were made via S-12. The SouthDade Conveyance System was also constructed toprovide minimum deliveries to Taylor Slough and thepanhandle.


19

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

27°N

26°N

25°N

80°W81°W82°W

LakeOkeechobee

WCA 1

WCA 2A

WCA 3A

WCA 3B

Caloosahatchee

St.

Hillsboro

Canal

Canal

LucieCanal

Canal

North

Miam

i

Miam

i

Canal

L-31

N

L-31

W

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 DadeConveyanceSystem


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 (destroyed1926 by hurricane)

1935 St. Lucie Canal reconstructed

1920s Tamiami Canal and others near Miami

1920s-late 1930s Hoover Dike levee around south and eastLake Okeechobee

Late-1930s Saltwater intrusion to southeast Floridacoast seen as problem; intensified bydrought of 1943-45

1949 Central and Southern Florida Flood ControlDistrict (FCD) established to control floodwaters and saltwater intrusion

1953 FCD had constructed levees along theeastern Everglades to retain freshwaterrunoff during the dry season

1960 Levees expanded to enclose WCAs 1 and 2 inthe northern Everglades

1962 Levee parallel to the Tamiami Canal partiallyenclosed WCA 3

1967 Western boundary of WCA 3 completed

1967 Canal C-111 constructed as an extension of theAtlantic Ridge to provide flood control, drainage,and navigation benefits for the region betweenFlorida Bay and the Tamiami Canal

1968 Salinity barrier (S-197) constructed

1971 Kissimmee River flooding controlled; meandersremoved and 300 foot wide canal constucted inits place; reduced river length from 100+ milesto 52 miles; Kissimmee River renamed Canal38.

Late-1970s to South Dade Conveyance System conveys watersouth of Tamiami Canal for urban and agricul-tural supply and for Biscayne Aquifer recharge

Early-1980s

The Interim C-111 Plan, which includes the installationof gates along the length of the canal, is intended to: 1)reduce the duration of large discharge events at S-197once associated with the removal of the earthen plug atthe end of C-111; 2) increase the frequency anddistribution of flow to the ENP panhandle by increasingflow through gaps in C-111; 3) control the groundwaterstage near L-31N to enhance the hydroperiod of thenortheast SRS; and 4) maintain the current level offlood protection (SFWMD, 1990). These activities willbe supported by an extensive monitoring programdesigned to evaluate changes in baseline hydrologyresulting from implementation.

Relationship of Hydrology to the Sanctuary .Changes in the volume, timing, and method of freshwa-ter delivery to the South Florida peninsula that occurredafter the Project was constructed have been some ofthe principal features associated with estuarine degra-dation in the Sanctuary. Normal operation of the canalstructures has been associated with reduced dischargeto ENP tributaries and a reduction in runoff to itsestuarine waters. Operation during major storm eventshas historically contributed excessive freshwater toManatee Bay.

During the 1970s, however, it became apparent thatthese minimum delivery schedules did not resolve theproblems in ENP, because minimum deliveries werebased on the calendar, rather than the region's naturalrainfall runoff response. The minimum delivery sched-ule also ignored both the inter- and intra-annualvariability of rainfall. In response to these problems, theSFWMD created an alternative water managementplan based on historic rainfall distribution. This planwas implemented in the SRS basin in 1985. That"Rainfall Plan" is still being used. However, in theTaylor Slough and eastern panhandle basins, theminimum delivery schedule remained in effect untilrecently.

Proposed Future Alterations . The Taylor SloughDemonstration Project and C-111 Interim ConstructionPlan are recent SFWMD plans designed to reestablishthe natural hydrology patterns in South Florida. TheDemonstration Project addresses the volume andtiming of surface-water flow through Taylor Slough. Itsobjective is to improve water supply deliveries byrestoring the rainfall-runoff response that was in placebefore construction of the Project (SFWMD, 1990). Theproposed plan includes added pumping capacity todirect water from the L-31W canal directly to TaylorSlough.


21

Although current conditions may be attributed todisruption of the natural surface-water patterns, ex-changes with the surficial aquifer layer occur easily,complicating the ability to isolate the relative impor-tance of each mechanism. Recent Project modifica-tions have sought to reestablish natural surface andgroundwater hydrologic regimes. The monitoringprogram associated with the C-111 Interim Plan isexpected to improve the understanding of issuesrelated to South Florida's water quality and transport.

Groundwater . Because of the slight geographic reliefand pervious nature of the Key Largo Limestone andMiami Oolite rock formations, most rainfall in the Keysinfiltrates the surficial aquifer and forms shallowfreshwater lenses. Groundwater in South Florida andthe Keys is restricted to these shallow lenses and thedeeper waters of the Floridan Aquifer (Schomer andDrew, 1982). The size of a freshwater lense is con-trolled by several factors, with the lens generallybecoming thicker during the rainy season and thinnerduring the dry season. Permeability of the subsurfacesediments, proximity to seawater and tidal fluctuations,and the rate of freshwater pumpage or seepage fromthese lenses are also significant (Schomer and Drew,1982).

The Floridan Aquifer. The 259,000 km2 Floridanaquifer underlies all of Florida and portions of Georgia,South Carolina, and Alabama (Johnston and Bush,1988). The aquifer's surface in South Florida is gener-ally 150 to 300 m deep and its average thickness isabout 900 m (Meyer, 1989). It is divided into threehydrogeologic units: 1) the upper Floridan aquifer; 2)the middle confining unit; and 3) the lower Floridanaquifer. The upper Floridan aquifer contains brackishgroundwater, while the lower Floridan aquifer containsseawater. Groundwater movement in the upper aquiferis generally toward the Keys, from the area of highesthead in central Florida, southward to the Straits ofFlorida, and westward to the Gulf of Mexico. Studiessuggest saltwater upwelling occurs from the lower toupper aquifer (Meyer, 1989).

The aquifer system in South Florida is used mainly forsubsurface storage of liquid wastes, primarily injectedtreated municipal wastewater, oil field brine, andindustrial wastewater (Meyer, 1989). The impact ofgroundwater on the habitats and water quality withinthe Sanctuary is currently unknown.

Hydrography

Hydrography is the study of the physical properties

affecting marine water and its movement. It determinesthe extent to which water quality is affected by changesin salinity, temperature, and circulation both in theocean and adjacent nearshore environments. TheSanctuary's nearshore waters are affected by regionalcirculation in the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexicoand adjacent Atlantic Ocean as determined by the Loopand Florida currents, respectively. The variability ofthese boundary currents, in conjunction with localmeteorology and runoff, affects the nature of the waterand its transport into and within the Sanctuary.

Regional Currents. Circulation over the outer tomiddle part of the southwest continental shelf is domi-nated by the Loop Current (Figure 5), which enters theGulf of Mexico through the Yucatan Straits and movesin a northerly direction as far landward as the 100-misobath. Turning in a clockwise direction to the south, itparallels the southwest continental shelf before shiftingto the east, just southwest of the Dry Tortugas. It thenbecomes the Florida Current, meandering through theStraits of Florida confined by the 250-m and 500-misobaths. It pinches landward south of the Marquesasand is deflected seaward by the Pourtales Terrace. Itturns to the northeast near the Middle Keys, againpinching landward near the Upper Keys and continuingon as the Gulf Stream. Periodic changes in the loca-tions of these currents result in the formation of circula-tion gyres that affect both the transport and entrainmentof Sanctuary waters.

These gyres, cold cyclonic features of various sizesmoving at speeds ranging from 2 to 20 km per day(Vukovich, 1988), are found along the Loop Current’slandward boundary. Off the Dry Tortugas, at the Straitsof Florida, they can grow to 100 by 200 km and canbecome quasi-stationary and elongated to the south-west. They may then move easterly along the northernboundary of the Florida Current (Lee, pers. comm.),decreasing in size to about 50 by 100 km over thePourtales Terrace, before decaying near the MiddleKeys.

A significant gyre has been observed to upwell and trapnutrients along the bank reefs near the Lower Keys.Because of its size and sluggish movement, it maycontribute to increased phytoplankton concentrations(Lee et al., 1992). A mean westward countercurrent,located just seaward of the Lower Keys, has beenobserved (Brooks and Niiler, 1975) and identified (Leeet al., 1992) as part of the Dry Tortugas Gyre. Posi-tioned over the Pourtales Terrace, this gyre mayenhance mean westerly transport within Hawk Chan-nel.


22

FLORIDA

Everglades Nat' l Park

Cape Sable

Bis

cayn

e B

ay

Marquesas KeysDry Tortugas

Key W est

Florida Bay

Pourtales Terrace

Florida Current

Yucatan

Cuba

Bahamas

Florida

LoopCurrent

Florida Current

Gulf Stream

Gulf of Mexico Regional Circulation

Figure 5. Regional Circulation

to the Lower Keys and enhancing exchanges betweenthe Gulf and the Atlantic through the Middle Keys tidalpasses. In the Lower Keys, surface waters are forcedonshore due to shoreline orientation and the rotation ofthe Earth, causing an offshore movement of water atdepth.

Along the southwest continental shelf, transportprocesses are complex and relatively unstudied, butare important to exchanges throughout the Middle andLower Keys. Prevailing trade winds dominate most ofthe region, forcing water in a westerly direction. Otherprocesses, however, control shelf-water movementalong the western boundary of Florida Bay and portionsof the Middle and Lower Keys backcountry. In both theMiddle and Lower Keys, net transport appears to benorth-to-south from the Gulf to the Atlantic (Smith, pers.comm.). A weak along-shore current on the lee side ofthe South Florida peninsula potentially transports thenear-coastal waters of southwest Florida toward theMiddle and Lower Keys. This effect appears to be

Near the Upper Keys, landward deflection of theFlorida Current sets up small frontal eddies (10-30 kmin diameter) just seaward of the reef tract (Lee, 1975;Lee and Mayer, 1977). These disturbances occur oncea week on average and provide cool, nutrient-enrichedwater to the reef tract through core upwelling. Incontrast to the sluggish Dry Tortugas Gyre, thesefeatures move quickly, requiring only one to two daysto pass a fixed point. Accordingly, the Upper Keysregion is relatively well-flushed and has limited nutrient-retention capacities.

Local Transport. Wind dominates the circulation andtransport landward of the regional boundary currents. Amean westward current occurs in Hawk Channel(Figure 6) due to the prevailing southeasterly windscaused by the persistence of the Bermuda/AzoresHigh. The current is most pronounced during the springand summer, conveying waters from the Middle Keys


23

Figure 6. Nearshore Transport

Prevailing Easterlies

Florida Keys

Bank Reef

Hawk Channel

Outer Shelf

Slope

FloridaCurrent

InteractionZone

Longshore flow toward viewer

Longshore flow away from viewer

Stronger flow

within the Sanctuary include the ocean dumping ofglass, wood, aluminum, and paper and the release ofvarious potentially hazardous materials during com-mercial shipping operations. A separate, but equallysignificant, concern involves the potential for a major oilspill which could have catastrophic environmentalimpacts. Although the Keys have not experienced sucha spill, since World War II, small spills from refuelingactivities degrade water quality on a daily basis (EPA,1992).

Sources of Pollutant Inputs . Pollutant sourcesaffecting the Sanctuary's water quality are consideredeither point, nonpoint, or external.

Point Sources. Point sources are defined as thosefacilities that release effluents directly to surfacewaters. Significant point source dischargers includewastewater treatment facilities, water supply treatmentplants, industrial facilities, and power plants. The CleanWater Act requires that a Federal permit be issuedwhenever pollutants are discharged into navigablewaters. There are currently 19 facilities actively dis-charging to Sanctuary waters, but several are planningto eliminate these surface discharges by connecting toan existing treatment facility. Ten domestic wastewatertreatment plants make up the largest component of thisgroup. The major discharger is the Key West SewageTreatment Plant which discharges into the AtlanticOcean. Two facilities are industrial dischargers, Key

enhanced during the fall, when an atmospheric highdevelops over the southeastern United States, produc-ing southward winds that persist for 5 to 10 days (Leeet al., 1992). In the extreme, frontal passages occurringduring the winter and spring can intensify the flow overthe entire shelf region, resulting in significant fluxesfrom the Gulf to the Atlantic.

Water Quality

Preserving the Sanctuary's water quality is essential tomaintaining the richness and diversity of its variedenvironments. Water quality is both a spatial andtemporal phenomenon and is affected by both naturaland human influences. Recent declines in coral recruit-ment, increases in the frequency and size of fish kills,and seagrass die-offs are examples of the impacts ofdeclining water quality within the Sanctuary. Undercertain conditions, external sources adjacent to theSanctuary (such as the influences of Florida andBiscayne bays, the Loop and Florida currents, land-based activities, and atmospheric inputs) can dominatewater quality impacts.

Types of Pollutant Inputs . Pollutants associated withland-based sources include toxicants and nutrients.Toxicants are mainly hydrocarbons, pesticides, herbi-cides, and heavy metals. Nutrients are derived prima-rily from fertilizers and wastewater, and include nitro-gen and phosphorus. Other water quality concerns


24

West Utility and the Ocean Reef Club's desalinationunit (EPA, 1993).

Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint sources involve dis-charges not made directly to surface waters. Theyinclude discharges to the groundwater and contribu-tions from stormwater runoff. The most importantnonpoint contributor within the Sanctuary is domesticwastewater. There are 670 injection wells in the area,ranging in depth from 18 to 27 m which are used byschools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels/motels, trailerparks, campgrounds, condominiums, resorts, andshopping centers (EPA, 1992).

The majority of the domestic wastewater contributing tothe nonpoint load, however, comes from on-sitedisposal systems (OSDSs). OSDSs do little to removenutrients, and there is reason to believe they areresponsible for a portion of the Sanctuary's nearshorewater quality degradation. In general, package plants,which provide secondary treatment, remove four toseven times more suspended solids and decreasebiological oxygen demand more than OSDSs.

There are approximately 30,000 septic tanks andcesspits within the Keys as well (EPA, 1992). Cesspitsare not regulated, and discharge directly into localgroundwater without waste treatment. Septic tanks withconventional soil absorption can provide effectivetreatment, but due to the Keys' unique soil conditionsand water table elevations additional design criteria arerequired. The State developed supplemental require-ments in 1986 setting allowable densities and setbacksfor new development. Septic leachate from OSDS isdegrading water quality in confined waters and may bedegrading water quality in nearshore waters (EPA,1993).

Other potential nonpoint sources within the Sanctuaryinclude existing and abandoned landfills, marinas/live-aboards, and stormwater runoff. Preliminary evalua-tions of the impacts of these sources have beeninconclusive, and additional monitoring efforts areneeded. However, site-specific examples, such asconditions within confined waters, suggest the impor-tance of understanding these sources in relation tonearshore water quality degradation.

External Sources. External sources can also affect theSanctuary's water quality. Examples include FloridaBay, Biscayne Bay, the region's boundary currents, andthe canal structures operated by the South FloridaWater Management District. Florida Bay has periodi-cally experienced poor water quality due to bothphysical and biotic factors affecting salinity, tempera-

ture, suspended particulates, and nutrient concentra-tions. Seagrass decomposition, and the associatedbiologic activity, has been observed to create lowdissolved oxygen concentrations and high concentra-tions of suspended particulates. In addition, historicalflow modifications in both the Shark River and Taylorsloughs have resulted in both a reduction in total flowand a change in the delivery rate of freshwater inflow toFlorida Bay. This has, in turn, affected water tempera-ture, salinity, and retention times (Richards, 1989). Thebay's poor water quality may also affect the reef tract, asituation that may be enhanced during periods of wind-induced transport.

Owing to alongshore transport from the north, BiscayneBay, another external source, may have detrimentaleffects on the Biscayne National Park reef tract as wellas the Sanctuary. The bay is surrounded by numerouspotential pollutant inputs. Flows from Miami, other localmunicipalities, and Metro-Dade County contribute to itswater quality conditions. The Miami River consistentlyhas the poorest water and sediment quality in theBiscayne Bay area (EPA, 1992).

In addition to the influences of Florida and Biscaynebays, external sources influence the Sanctuary's waterquality via water mass movement. The scale of thisproblem is related to the region's physical oceano-graphic and circulation features. The Loop and Floridacurrents transport most of the water from Florida's westcoast, Mississippi River outfall, contributions fromCentral America and northern South America (OrinocoFlow), and the various islands of the Caribbean.However, due to the large dilutive effects of the oceanenvironment, only the immediate waters of Florida'swest coast and the Mississippi appear to be likelyinfluences.

Other locally important external sources are derivedfrom eddies that form along the boundary currentsparalleling the shoreline. These small-scale featurescan cause the periodic upwelling of cold, nutrient-richwaters (e.g., the Pourtales Gyre that forms off KeyWest).

Environmental Effects. Because they are generallymore soluble than toxicants, nutrient and organic inputsmay affect the environment over a greater spatial area.They are deposited and retained more easily withinsediments. In addition, while toxicants affect localizedenvironments such as marinas, canals, and areassurrounding industry, nutrients are more susceptible totransport and represent a greater threat to seagrassand coral reef communities.


25

Seagrass Beds. Seagrass beds and submergedaquatic vegetation within the Sanctuary consist mainlyof turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass. Intotal, the seagrass beds of South Florida, includingFlorida Bay and the Florida Reef Tract, cover anestimated 5,500 km2 (EPA, 1992). However, littleinformation exists on the relationship between humanuses and recent declines.

In the summer of 1987, a massive seagrass die-offbegan in Florida Bay that resulted in 40 km2 ofseagrass loss (MMS, 1990) and damage to another231 km2 (EPA, 1992). This trend has persisted at aslower pace since 1990. Possible explanations includea reduction in the freshwater inflow that has historicallydrained to the bay and the fact that relatively fewhurricanes have affected the area over the last 20years. These factors resulted in a condition favorablefor the invasion of Thalassia testudinum in areashistorically too fresh or variable for its colonization.Organic accumulation due to possible nutrient enrich-ment and a reduction in events such as hurricanes,which tend to cleanse the system and physically cropthe seagrasses, have allowed sustained growth andexpansion of the Thalassia beds (EPA, 1992).

While toxic effects have been blamed for the loss ofseagrass beds in nearshore and confined waters,reductions in the quantity and quality of light reachingthe seagrasses is often considered the dominantlimiting water-quality factor. Nutrient-induced phy-toplankton blooms and the enhanced growth of epi-phytes that directly shade seagrasses are the primarymechanisms affecting light quantity and quality. Inaddition, nearshore and confined waters (especially inartificial waterways and canals in developed areas)exhibit increased organic content and reduced dis-solved oxygen concentrations, further stressingseagrass communities (EPA, 1992).

Coral Reefs. Various factors, both natural and human-induced, affect coral reefs. Among these factors arebiological competition, predation, disease, stress fromvarious pollutants, algal fouling and smothering,sedimentation, temperature extremes, salinity varia-tions, decreases in water clarity, and physical damage.Even minor changes in water temperature or nutrientlevels, as affected by the regional water quality sur-rounding the Sanctuary, can influence coral develop-ment. Extensive reefs occur where continuous barriers(e.g., the Upper Keys) limit the intrusion of variableFlorida Bay waters that are at times incompatible withreef development and survival (EPA, 1992).

An example of an impacted coral reef community isAlgae Reef, an octocoral community off Key Largo thathas suffered severe damage over the past two yearsdue to algal fouling. Evidence suggests that this foulingis spreading to nearby Horseshoe Reef and may berelated to the leaching of nutrient-enriched groundwa-ter. For the past three years, similar effects have beenobserved during the summer months off the southeastcoast of Broward and Palm Beach counties, wherelarge concentrations of the green alga Codiumisthmocladum have fouled the reefs from depths of30 m inshore to nearshore reefs (EPA, 1992).

Description of the Affected Environment: Natural Resources

26

fast-moving current serves as a zoogeographic barrierbetween the fauna of Florida and other portions of theCaribbean Province (Briggs, 1974) and parts of theWest Indian Province (which includes Cuba, theBahamas, and the West Indies). The current is alsoresponsible for the dispersion of larval fauna and florato the region, and it plays an important role in providingthe physical requirements necessary for coral reefdevelopment (Smith, 1948; Jaap, 1984). Because itssource is tropical, it also moderates the Keys' wintershelf waters (Jaap, 1984).

While numerous scientists have described theSanctuary'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 nottake a holistic approach in examining the region'svaried natural resources. Schomer and Drew (1982)have made an attempt to comprehensively characterizethe ecology of the Lower Everglades, Florida Bay, andKeys areas and to describe the complexity and interde-pendence of the various marine communities.

A Holistic View. Most descriptions of the marine biotaof South Florida and the Florida Keys have not empha-sized the biogeographical variation and interconnectionbetween the area's Gulf and Atlantic regions. The Keysact as a barrier to cross-shelf water transport from theGulf's shallow bays and sounds (Ginsburg and Shinn,1964; Shinn, 1975; Enos, 1977; Jaap, 1984; Shinn etal., 1989). These areas are influenced by seasonalmeteorological events that determine temperature,salinity, turbidity, and oxygen concentrations. Changesin these parameters are significant to the dispersal oforganisms between the Gulf and the Atlantic, andwinter cold fronts, summer doldrums, heavy rainfalls,and droughts can all have a negative impact on theestablishment of tropical biota. The natural resourcesof the two coastal regions are, therefore, tied togetherand no discussion of the Sanctuary's biota would becomplete without examining the region in a holisticmanner.

Natural Resources

The South Florida and Florida Keys region containsone of North America’s most diverse assemblages ofterrestrial, estuarine, and marine fauna and flora.Formed by significant geological, physical, and biologi-cal processes, the area is one of the most complexecosystems on Earth, and includes mangrove-fringedshorelines, mangrove islands, seagrass meadows,hardbottom habitats, thousands of patch reefs, and oneof the world's largest coral reef tracts.

Biogeographic Overview

Peninsular Florida and the archipelago established bythe emergent Florida Keys serve as a partial biogeo-graphic barrier between the warm-temperate waters ofthe Gulf of Mexico and the tropical to subtropicalwaters of the Atlantic Ocean. This division has resultedin a distribution of marine fauna and flora characterizedas having both a warm-temperate and tropical Carib-bean component.

Biogeographic Variation. Florida's Gulf coast sup-ports a complex assemblage of biota (Tabb andManning, 1961 and 1962; Collard and D'Asaro, 1973;Briggs, 1974; Lyons and Camp, 1982), with warm-temperate and tropical species mixing at various pointsfrom north to south as they reach the limit of theirrange. For example, a large number of warm-temper-ate species, some only common during winter months,have been noted in northern Florida Bay (Tabb et al.,1961). There is also a notable onshore/offshorevariation in distribution, with subtropical species foundin deeper waters (Gilbert, 1972; Smith, 1976).

While the marine fauna and flora on the northern sideof the Keys are characteristic of warm-temperateareas, a distinct tropical biota becomes apparent in thenearshore waters where Gulf of Mexico and AtlanticOcean mixing occurs. The Keys serve as a partialbarrier between the two regions, with numerous majortidal passes separating the islands of the Lower toMiddle Keys. Although distinct species assemblagesare found on both sides of the Keys, water exchangethrough these passes allows for a mixing of biota in thearea's nearshore transitional habitats.

The biota on the Atlantic side of the Keys is predomi-nantly Caribbean in character. The region is consideredpart of the Caribbean Province, and tropical waters aresupplied by the Florida Current (Briggs, 1974; Jaap,1984). Often described as an enormous thermostat, the

27


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

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

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°N80°W82°W

5

25°N3

west Florida continental shelf (dominated by low-reliefhard and soft coral communities and stands of theseagrass Halophila decipiens ); 2) Florida Bay (domi-nated by communities of Thalassia testudinum,Syringodium filiforme, and Halodule wrightii); 3) theLower Florida Keys (dominated by Thalassia,Syringodium, and Halodule stands, hardbottom, andpatch reefs); and 4) the Tortugas/ Marquesas ReefBanks (dominated by sand banks and coral reefs).

Four major ecological zones have also been identifiedin the region as well: 1) terrestrial and freshwaterwetlands; 2) estuarine and saltwater wetlands; 3)Florida Bay and mangrove islands; and 4) the FloridaKeys (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Although thesezones generally characterize the major ecologicalcomponents within the region, the diversity andcomplexity of the Sanctuary's natural resources can bebetter described using more specific biogeographicregions. In this document, five regions (Figure 7) havebeen identified to more precisely describe the aquaticand marine biota of the Sanctuary:

1. Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida2. Florida Bay3. Gulf of Mexico4. Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels5. Atlantic Ocean

Biogeographic Regions

Note: Within this document, major biogeographicregions are considered to be those comprising themarine components of the Sanctuary. However, as theKeys' terrestrial habitats and species are also signifi-cant, a section discussing these environments hasbeen included after the section on the Atlantic Oceanbiogeographic region.

Visitors have traditionally viewed the Keys' marineresources as wholly tropical, and the lack of majorcoral reef structures and the seasonal appearance ofwarm-temperate fauna on the Gulf side often escapethe casual observer. However, to better understandthe complexity and interactions of the natural re-sources within the Sanctuary, it is important to accu-rately characterize their distribution by biogeographicregion.

In 1989 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. used aerialimagery and ground survey data to map 9.6 millionacres of Florida's southwest continental shelf. Thestudy area included the waters north of the Keys (to adepth of 36 m, west of the Dry Tortugas) to SanibelIsland, and ranged from the west coast of Florida tothe Gulf's 36-m depth contour. Four geomorphicallydistinct subareas were identified: 1) the inner south-


28

26°N80°W82°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico

southeast of Taylor Slough. Cape Sable, the south-western extent of the South Florida mainland, exhibitsbeaches, salt marshes and prairies, mangroves, andtropical hardwood hammocks (Craighead, 1971;Schmidt, 1991).

Biological Components

Freshwater Wetlands. Seven terrestrial and freshwa-ter wetland habitats (including disturbed habitats) havebeen identified based on species distributions withinthe inland physiographic areas of Broad River/Lostmans River Drainage, Shark River Slough, TaylorSlough, and Rocky Glades (South Florida ResearchCenter, 1980). In order of increasing hydroperiod,these areas include: pinelands, hammocks, wetprairies, cypress, thickets, and marshes. Disturbedhabitats occur in all hydroperiods.

Wet prairies, which occur on either side of Shark RiverSlough and in Taylor Slough, make up the largestportion of the terrestrial/freshwater zone (Olmstead etal., 1980). They are dominated by Muhlenberghiafilipes, often associated with sawgrass (Mariscusjamaicense) and other graminoids (Schomer andDrew, 1982).

Sawgrass-dominated marshes are another extensiveand ecologically important habitat found mainly in thesloughs, where the hydroperiod is the longest. Spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa), beak rush (Rhynchosporatracyi), maidencane (Panicum hemitoma), and pick-erelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) are the less-domi-nant species found, along with low-lying pickerelweedcommunities that provide important habitat for theAmerican alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

The remaining terrestrial/freshwater habitat types areless extensive, tend to have patchy distributions, andare found in areas of shorter hydroperiod. Pinelandsare fire-arrested climax communities dominated byCaribbean slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa)(Olmstead et al., 1980). Without periodic low-intensityground fires, pineland communities will be out-com-peted by hammock communities. These hammockhabitats represent the upland climax communities, aredominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana) andstrangler fig (Ficus aurea), and occur in the areas ofshortest hydroperiod.

Cypress communities occur in close association withwet prairie habitats or in dome forests in Taylor Sloughand are dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium

Although the Lower Everglades/South PeninsularFlorida and Florida Bay regions are not within theboundaries of the Sanctuary, their interrelationshipswith the other regions and their influence on physical,chemical, and ecological processes cannot be ignored.Sanctuary management will require that each of theseregions be assessed, and the entire area monitoredholistically as a single ecosystem. The geographicextent, biological components, and ecological impor-tance of each region are described below.

Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida

Geographic Extent

The Lower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida regionmay be divided into distinct physiographic subunitsbased on previously published literature and biologicaland hydrographic factors (Schomer and Drew, 1982).Shark River Slough (the “river of grass” segment of theEverglades) (Douglas, 1947; Gleason, 1974) andTaylor Slough, the central components of the FloridaBay drainage basin, are the region's major physi-ographic subunits (Parker et al., 1955). Rocky Glades,a transitional area between these two broad regions, ischaracterized by surficially exposed limestone, typi-cally referred to as pinnacle rock (Davis, 1943).Northwest of Shark River Slough lies Broad River/Lostmans River Drainage, a slightly elevated freshwa-ter wetland and upland area. A low salt marsh andmangrove-dominated area of coastal swamps andlagoons lies to the southwest, extending from thefurthest inland point of saltwater influence to the Gulfof Mexico (Puri and Vernon, 1964) and receiving themajor portion of the runoff from the Everglades(Schomer and Drew, 1982).

A similar coastal swamp and lagoon region, consistingof a series of lagoons, coastal prairies, and mangrovecommunities (Puri and Vernon, 1964), lies south-

29


distichum) (Hilsenbeck et al., 1979). Thickets areassociated with marshes and prairies, are dominatedby wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and saltbush(Baccharis halimifolia), and provide important habitatfor wading birds and other marsh fauna.

Disturbed habitats are found with associated vegeta-tion that is dependent on the type and intensity ofdisturbance. In the privately owned areas of the eastEverglades, they most commonly occur due to inten-sive agricultural practices, drainage, and fires. Theexotic Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia),cajeput or bottle brush (Melaleuca quinquenervia), andBrazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) usuallycolonize these disturbed lands (Schomer and Drew,1982).

Freshwater Wetland Inhabitants. The freshwaterwetlands of the Lower Everglades/South PeninsularFlorida region support the following biota:

Invertebrates. Ecological information on the inverte-brates in the region is only available for a few keyspecies including the crawfish (Procambrus alleni),freshwater prawn (Paleomonetes paludosus), andapple snail (Pomacea paludosa) (Schomer and Drew,1982).

Fishes. Like other aquatic organisms that inhabit theLower Everglades, fishes have developed adaptivemechanisms to help them survive the widely fluctuat-ing drought and flood conditions. The South FloridaResearch Center (SFRC) reported 34 species of fish,representing 17 families, in the region (1980), the mostprevalent being the Centrarchidae (bluegill) andCyprinodontidae (topminnow) (Schomer and Drew,1982).

Amphibians and Reptiles. The SFRC reported 18species of amphibians, ranging over all habitats, and47 species of reptiles in the Lower Everglades, includ-ing nine turtles, 10 lizards, 25 snakes, and two croc-odilians. The American alligator and the Eastern indigosnake (Drymarchon corais couperi) are listed asthreatened at the State and Federal levels respec-tively, while the American crocodile (Crocodylusacutus) is on both endangered species lists.

Birds. More birds utilize the terrestrial and freshwaterhabitats of the Lower Everglades than any otherwildlife group (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The SFRClisted 221 species in the area, with 27 listed by theFlorida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plantsand Animals (FCREPA). Four species are on thefederally endangered list, including the wood stork

(Mycteria americana). Eight are considered threatenedand nine are species of special concern, including thebrown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and roseatespoonbill (Ajaia ajaja).

Mammals. The SFRC listed 28 mammal species thatutilize habitats in the Lower Everglades. Severalspecies ranging into the region have been identified asrare or endangered (Layne, 1977).

Estuarine, Saltwater Wetlands, and TransitionalHabitats. Within the low salt marsh and mangrove-dominated coastal areas of the southwesternmostportions of the Florida mainland, four general habitatzonations have been identified: mangrove forests, saltmarshes and transitional habitats, open waters, andbeach and dune habitat (limited to the shoreline ofCape Sable) (Browder et al., 1973).

Mangrove forests are the most extensive habitat typein the Lower Everglades, and are ecologically unique.(Schomer and Drew, 1982; Minerals ManagementService, 1990). Accordingly, these highly productive,tropical ecosystems merit a more detailed discussionthan the habitats previously described.

In 1974 Florida's Coastal Coordinating Council (CCC)estimated that there were between 162,000 and220,000 hectares of mangroves in the state, with95,000 hectares in Monroe County. Mangrove commu-nities are composed of an association of facultativehalophytes, adapted to anaerobic saline soils andperiodic inundation. The major factors limiting theirdistribution and determining the extent of the ecosys-tem are climate, salinity, tidal fluctuation, and substrate(Odum et al., 1982).

Mangroves are a tropical species and do not requiresaltwater for survival. However, the presence ofsaltwater gives them a competitive advantage overless tolerant species. Tidal flow is not critical, but doesbenefit mangroves through nutrient import/export, theprevention of excessive soil salt loading, andpropagule dispersion. In addition, mangroves growbest in low-energy environments that promotepropagule establishment, do not stress the rootsystem, and allow for sediment and peat accumulation(Odum et al., 1982).

The red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black man-grove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove(Laguncularia erectus) are the three “true” speciesfound in South Florida (Tomlinson, 1986). Red man-groves have prop roots and viviparous cigar-shapedseedlings, while black mangroves have a


30

pneumataphore root system and gray-green leaves,the undersides of which are encrusted with excretedsalt. White mangroves have rounded leaves, with apair of salt glands on each petiole. Buttonwood(Conocarpus erectus), an associated species occur-ring with mangroves, is found in transitional wetlandareas between mangrove and upland areas.

A mangrove classification system has been developedthat identifies six major forest types based on geologi-cal and hydrological processes: riverine, overwash,fringe, basin, dwarf, and hammock (Lugo andSnedaker, 1974). Riverine forests do not occur insoutheast Florida due to a lack of freshwater riversand the associated floodplains (Davis, 1943; MineralsManagement Service, 1990). They do occur alongcreeks and rivers in southwest Florida, however,where red mangroves dominate and productivity dueto nutrient import/export from daily tidal flushing is high(Odum et al., 1982).

Overwash and fringe forests are similar in that theyboth occur along shorelines inundated by high tides,dominated by red mangroves, and exposed to openwater. While tidal flow follows the same directionalpath along the fringe forest, resulting in sediment andlitter accumulation, tidal waters pass completelythrough the overwash community at high tide, produc-ing high nutrient-export rates and low sedimentaccumulation.

Basin forests mainly occur inland along drainagedepressions, where upland runoff is channeled to thecoast and inundation occurs at only the highest of hightides (Odum et al., 1982). All three mangrove speciesare found in basin forests, but red mangroves domi-nate where the tidal influence is strongest. Dominanceshifts to black and then white mangroves as tidalinfluence decreases. Hammock forests are similar tobasin communities, but occur in slightly elevated areaswhere all species of mangroves may be present(Odum et al., 1982).

Dwarf forests have small mangrove trees that lack thecanopy height and high productivity of other foresttypes due to seasonal inundation and flushing. Dwarf-ism is a function of shallow soil depth and low nutrientlevels (Kruer, pers. comm.).

Salt prairies in the northern part of the region, inland ofthe mean influence of saline conditions, are transi-tional areas between mangrove communities and saltor freshwater marshes (Schomer and Drew, 1982).Along northern Florida Bay, these areas are ofteninterspersed with basin-type mangroves and are

dominated by saltwort (Batis maritma) and glasswort(Salicornia virginica).

Salt marshes dominated by Spartina spp. or Juncusspp. are generally found between estuarine open-water areas upland of salt prairies, in association withblack mangroves (Craighead, 1971). In the LowerEverglades, they are found along the interior areas ofthe Buttonwood levee, Cape Sable, and some largermangrove islands (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Thebuttonwood transitional habitats are found betweensalt marsh areas and the upland hardwood hammocksof lower Taylor Slough (Hilsenbeck et al., 1979).

In addition, various algal forms are present in SouthFlorida's inland bays and lagoons, depending on thesalinity levels in these areas. During winter months,when low-salinity conditions (0-10 ppt) are prevalent,Chara hornemani and Bataphora oerstedi form theirgreatest areal coverage in Coot and Whitewater bays,with widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) also reachingmaximum density (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Otheralgal species, including Acetabularia crenulata,Caulerpa verticillata, and Udotea wilsoni, dominate theopen-water areas during periods of intermediate- tohigh-saline conditions. The red algae Dasyapedicellata and Gracilaria confervoides are observedwhen salinities are greater than 20-25 ppt (Tabb et al.,1962).

Estuarine, Saltwater Wetlands, and TransitionalHabitats Inhabitants . Due to the widely fluctuatingdrought and flood conditions of inland Evergladesareas, many organisms have developed adaptivemechanisms, such as burrowing or moving with thewater to receding pools, to survive (Schomer andDrew, 1982).

Invertebrates. Large information gaps exist on theinvertebrates of the salt marsh, salt prairie, and beachand dune communities (Schomer and Drew, 1982).Invertebrates of the estuarine and saltwater zone havebeen studied more extensively than those of thefreshwater zone. Odum et al. (1982) divided inverte-brates into three communities: 1) arboreal arthropod;2) prop root and associated mud surface; and 3) watercolumn.

The arboreal community is composed of insects,molluscs, and crustaceans, with the mangrove treecrab (Aratus pisonii) an important ecological compo-nent (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The prop root andassociated mud surface community is made up ofbarnacles, mussels, oysters, coffee snails, and ascid-ians (Odum et al., 1982). Various species of zooplank-

31


ton (the most abundant being Acartia tonsa), prawns,mysids, mussels, oysters, ostracods, ivory barnacles(Balanus eburneus), and the pink shrimp (Penaeusduorarum duorarum) are also found in the watercolumn.

Fishes. Mangrove-related fish communities can beorganized along various environmental gradientsincluding salinity, mangrove detritus dependence, andsubstrate (Odum et al., 1982). The sheltered backwa-ter pools of the black mangrove basin forest commu-nity are harsh environments inhabited by killifishes(Cyprinodonts) and live bearers (Poeciliids)(McPherson, 1971; Odum et al., 1982).

Riverine forest fish communities oscillate seasonallydue to a number of factors. During freshwater flooding,Everglades marsh and slough species such as Floridagar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus), sunfish (Enneacanthusgloriosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),and catfish (Hypostomus spp.) are present. As theflooding subsides, the freshwater species moveupstream and marine species such as stingray(Dasyatis spp.), needlefish, and jacks become preva-lent (Odum et al., 1982).

There are large numbers of relatively few species incommunities fringing estuarine bays, with Clark (1971)reporting silver jenny (Eucinostomus gula) and pinfish(Lagodon rhomboides) making up over half the totalcatch in Whitewater Bay. This community can bedivided into a benthic habitat dominated by drums(Sciaenidae), mojarras (Gerreidae), and snappers(Lutjanidae) and a mid- to upper-water column habitatdominated by anchovies, herrings, and needlefishes(Odum et al., 1982).

Amphibians and Reptiles. Twenty-four species ofamphibians and reptiles have been identified inmangrove and other upland habitats (Odum et al.,1982). Of these, five are considered federally endan-gered: the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydasmydas), Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbrictaimbricata ), Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempii),Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta ) and theAmerican crocodile. The Eastern indigo snake isconsidered threatened.

Birds. Odum et al. (1982) listed 181 birds that utilizethe South Florida mangrove zone, and classified theminto six categories based on feeding habits: wadingbirds, probing shorebirds, floating and diving waterbirds, aerially searching birds, birds of prey, andarboreal birds. Wading, aerially searching, and floatingand diving birds are the most prominent. The tricoloredheron (Louisiana heron) (Egretta tricolor) and snowy

egret (Egretta thula) are the most abundant wadingbirds, while the white ibis (Eudocimus albus) and woodstork are found less frequently (Kushlan, 1979;Schomer and Drew, 1982). The double-crestedcormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) is the most promi-nent floating and diving bird.

Of the 25 probing shorebird species, only two, theWilson's plover and willet, are permanent residents ofthe mangrove zone. Most of the surface and divingbirds are present all year (Odum et al., 1982). Nestingcolonies of aerially searching birds are restricted to themangrove islands of Florida Bay, but utilize the inlandmangrove zone for foraging.

Eighteen species of birds of prey are found in themangrove and upland habitats, but only seven exten-sively utilize the mangrove habitat for feeding. Odumet al. (1982) listed 71 species of arboreal birds thatnest and feed within the study area. Kale (1978) listed40 species of birds considered endangered, threat-ened, rare, of special concern, or of undeterminedstatus.

Mammals. Twenty species of mammals have beenidentified in the mangrove zone (Odum et al., 1982).Of these, the mangrove fox squirrel (Sciurus nigeravicennia) and the West Indian manatee (Trichechusmanatus ) are endangered.

Ecological Importance

The quality, distribution, quantity and timing of fresh-water passing through the Everglades influences thearea's capability to support its distinctive fish andwildlife resources (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Thefreshwater, estuarine, and saltwater wetlands of theLower Everglades/South Peninsular Florida regionprovide a variety of habitat features that encourage acomplex mixture of invertebrates, fishes, amphibians,reptiles, birds, and mammals. In addition, the area'sdiverse wetland and successional communitiesprovide food, shelter, and nesting sites for manyresident and migratory organisms.

The communities in the region not only affect the localecosystem, but ecosystems elsewhere through thespecies they support. For example, Robertson andKushlan (1974) reported that 60 percent of the birdsregularly seen in South Florida are winter or migratoryspecies. In addition, mangrove leaf litter provides thebasis for the detrital food web and is utilized by manyorganisms outside the immediate community (Odum etal., 1982).


32

prevalent, but most abundant by mass. The algaePenicillus produces much of the lime mud that buildsthe islands (Stockman et al., 1967).

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

of benthic vascular plants that are probably the mostproductive photoautotrophic communities in SouthFlorida (Zieman, 1982; Zieman et al., 1989; Zieman,1990).

Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) is the dominantsubmerged macrophyte in both areal extent andbiomass. It produces extensive root and rhizomesystems and appears to be phosphorus-limited andnitrogen-saturated (Fourqurean et al., 1992). Manateegrass (Syringodium filiforme) and shoal grass(Halodule wrightii) are found where conditions preventdense turtle grass growth. Manatee grass is prevalentin deep channels on the outer fringes of Florida Bay,while shoal grass is common in shallow waters onbanks or adjacent to mangrove islands. Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima) is less common, and is foundin Florida Bay from freshwater to salinities of 60 ppt. Inaddition, small-grass species Halophila decipiens, H.engelmannii, and H. johnsonii are sparsely distributedthroughout the bay (MMS, 1990).

In 1987 a major seagrass die-off, almost exclusivelyaffecting extremely dense areas of turtle grass, beganin the bay. By November 1988 approximately 2,000hectares were eliminated and 5,900 acres wereseverely impacted (Minerals Management Service,1989). Hypotheses proposed to account for thisphenomenon include pathogens, eutrophication,abnormally high temperatures and salinities, anddisease (Minerals Management Service, 1989; Ziemanet al., 1989). (For a further discussion of the seagrasscommunity, see the Gulf of Mexico biogeographicregion section.)

Mangrove Islands. Some islands in Florida Bay arecomprised entirely of mangrove communities, andexhibit the characteristics of overwash mangroveforests (Enos, 1989) as classified by Lugo andSnedaker (1974). Most islands are fringed by redmangroves, which form a narrow outer border of tallertrees at the periphery and exhibit the characteristics ofthe fringe mangrove forest. A broader zone of blackmangroves generally dominates inside the red man-grove fringe, with larger islands containing areas thatare open, free of trees, and covered by mats of blue-green algae. A small proportion of islands is partiallycovered by beach cord grass (Spartina spp.), andpalm or hardwood hammocks mixed with buttonwoodare found at higher elevations.

Florida Bay

Geographic Extent

Shallow and triangular in shape, Florida Bay isbounded to the north by the freshwater-dominatedEverglades (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Fourqurean,1992). The Keys are the bay's east and southeastboundary, and the broad mud banks extending fromCape Sable toward Lower Matecumbe Key delineateits western extent (Enos, 1989). This western bound-ary was originally defined arbitrarily as 81°05' westlongitude (Scholl, 1966; Fourqurean, 1992).

Florida Bay is a protected low-energy region com-posed of numerous carbonate-sediment mud banksand 237 low-relief mud islands of greater than 100 m2 .These islands provide the only terrestrial habitat in theregion (Enos, 1989), and are dynamic features subjectto physical changes due to erosion and accretion(Fourqurean, 1992). They are generally fringed byvarious mangrove species. Mats of blue-green algaeand low, salt-tolerant vegetation occupy the openareas. Approximately 1,800 km2 of Florida Bay is withinEverglades National Park, the majority carpeted byseagrass (Zieman et al., 1989). Seven percent iscovered by mangroves (McNulty et al., 1972).


Algae. Mats of blue-green algae (Cyanophytes) arefound terrestrially on the area's larger mangroveislands (Enos, 1989). They also occur in ponds andflats in the center of mangrove-fringed mud islands allover Florida Bay (Enos, 1989). Zieman et al. (1989)found four major macroalgal genera in the benthiccommunity: Batophora, Laurencia, Penicillus, andAcetabularia. Bataphora was the most widely distrib-uted macroalgae, with Laurencia the second most

26°N80°W82°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico

33


Seagrass and Mangrove Island Inhabitants. Manyof the organisms in the region utilize both seagrassand mangrove habitats.

Invertebrates. Only molluscs, foraminifera, pinkshrimp, and insects have been extensively studied inFlorida Bay (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Turney andPerkins (1972) identified 140 molluscan species, andTabb et al. (1962) reported 32 species of crustaceansincluding the hermit crab (Pagurus spp.), stone crab(Menippe mercenaria), and pink shrimp, which use thebay as a primary nursery ground before moving intothe Tortugas shrimping grounds (Schomer and Drew,1982). Simberoff (1976) identified 351 species ofinsects inhabiting mangrove islands.

Fishes. Despite the bay's latitudinal location, fishcommunities are dominated by temperate species(Sogard et al., 1989). Those utilizing seagrasses havebeen divided into three groups: small and inconspicu-ous permanent residents, seasonal residents thatspend their juvenile life stages in the habitat, andoccasional residents, such as large carnivores, thatrarely visit the grass beds (Zieman, 1982). Noteworthypermanent residents include the emerald clingfish(Acytrops beryllinus), pipefishes, and seahorses(Syngnathidae). Seasonal residents include thespotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), spot(Leiostomus xanthurus), silver perch (Bairdiellachrysoura), and pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera).

Hudson et al. (1970) reported 64 fish species in abasin in central Florida Bay, many associated withmainland mangroves. In another representative study,Sogard et al. (1989) used throw traps to samplerelatively sedentary, epibenthic species inhabitingseagrass beds at six sites. Fifty-nine species, domi-nated by rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), werecaptured and identified, with the majority found towardthe periphery of the bay. More mobile species weresampled in the water column at these same sites usinggill nets, with 71 species identified.

In another study, Thayer and Chester (1989) usedotter and surface trawls to collect 93 species, mainlyjuveniles and foraging species, in the western regionsof the bay, with rainwater killifish and silver jenny againpredominant. In a separate study, 64 species werecaptured around red mangrove root systems usingblock nets and rotenone at eight sites, with hardheadsilversides (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 ofturtles, snakes, lizards, and frogs have been identifiedin South Florida's mangrove communities (Odum etal., 1982). Six of the 10 turtle species present occur inestuarine or marine habitats. The endangered Atlantichawksbill and Atlantic ridley turtles utilize the area, andthe endangered Atlantic green turtle was once apredominant herbivore (Odum et al., 1982). UpperFlorida Bay is also critical habitat for the endangeredAmerican crocodile (Odum et al., 1982; Schomer andDrew, 1982), and the American alligator is an impor-tant reptile in low-salinity mangrove areas (Kushlan,1980). Other Florida Bay reptiles whose distribution islimited by salinity include the diamondback terrapin(Malaclemys terrapin) and mangrove snake (Nerodiaclarkii compressicavda) (Dunson and Mazzotti, 1989).

Birds. Florida Bay provides significant habitat for manybird species. Most nesting sites of the roseate spoon-bill are located in the bay, and the area's smallermangrove islands shelter most nesting sites of thegreat blue heron (Ardea herodias) and endangeredbrown pelican (Schomer and Drew, 1982; Powell etal., 1991). Odum et al. (1982) compiled a list of 181bird species that use mangroves for nesting, feeding,and roosting. Seagrass beds are also utilized asfeeding areas by numerous birds (Zieman, 1982). Thedouble-crested cormorant is the most common swim-ming bird foraging in the seagrass beds, while theosprey (Pandion haliaetus) is a common raptor in thebay area.

Mammals. The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiopstruncatus), which preys on mangrove-associatedfishes, and the endangered West Indian manatee,which consumes seagrasses, are the most noticeablemammals in the area (Schomer and Drew, 1982).


Regional Importance to Fauna. Florida Bay's man-grove islands and seagrass beds are highly produc-tive, faunally rich ecosystems that provide food,protection, and nesting sites for many species offishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.These areas are critically important to commercial andrecreational fish species, as 70 to 90 percent of theharvested species in the Gulf depend on coastalwetlands and seagrass beds during at least part oftheir life cycle (Lindall and Saloman, 1977). Theshallow mud banks are essential for various species ofwading birds, as they provide the only feeding accessto the bay's fish populations (Holmquist et al., 1989).


34

Seagrasses in the bay accelerate and stabilize sedi-ment deposition, maintaining water clarity in adjacentcoral reef and open-water communities. They alsoprovide rich nursery grounds for ecologically, commer-cially, and recreationally important species (Odum etal., 1982; Zieman, 1982; Zieman, 1990).

Mangrove prop roots and dense seagrass standsprovide protected habitat for a wide variety of juvenilefishes and invertebrates (Thayer et al., 1987). De-cayed, bacterially enriched mangrove leaf litter andseagrass blades are the basic energy source for thedetritus-based food web (Odum et al., 1982; Zieman,1982). Mangroves also provide hard substrate for theattachment of sessile organisms and critical nestingsites for many species of birds that forage in theshallow 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 onthe biogeographic distribution and abundance of theregion's species. Runoff from Taylor Slough and thecoastal wetlands south of Shark River Slough, com-bined with groundwater seepage from the mainland,account for the freshwater drainage flowing into thebay (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The bay's surface-water chemistry has not been well studied, but salinity,temperature, and turbidity are frequently reportedparameters. Turbidity is highly variable due to windeffects in upper Florida Bay, with wind less significanttoward the Gulf of Mexico. Water levels can fluctuateup to 53 cm seasonally due to the bay's restrictedflushing (Turney and Perkins, 1972).

The bay has been divided into four subenvironmentsbased on benthic mollusc distributions, a convenientmeans of discussing hydrology. The northernsubenvironment is adjacent to the mangroves of themainland coast and is, therefore, influenced by sea-sonal freshwater runoff. Salinities in this area rangefrom 13 to 48 ppt and temperatures from 15° C to 38°C. Only the area's western edge is subject to signifi-cant tidal flushing (Turney and Perkins, 1972). Thenortheast half of the bay comprises the interiorsubenvironment, which exhibits widely fluctuatingsalinities (22-52 ppt) and restricted circulation. Littleflushing occurs, except when wind-induced. TheAtlantic subenvironment begins in the Middle Keys andruns southwest along the northern side, where near-normal salinities (34-41 ppt) and moderate watertemperatures (17° C-32° C) exist. In this area, waterfrom the bay is exchanged with oceanic water throughthe tidal channels between the keys. The Gulf subenvi-ronment is located just inside the 1.8 m depth contour,between Cape Sable and Fiesta Key, where water isexchanged between Florida Bay and the Gulf ofMexico (Turney and Perkins, 1972).

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

26°N80°W82°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida BayGulf of Mexico

Gulf of Mexico

The waters north and west of the Keys are within theeastern Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf is a semi-closedsystem with oceanic input through the Yucatan Chan-nel by way of the Yucatan and Loop currents. Itreceives runoff from approximately two-thirds of theUnited States and over half of Mexico. Combined withthe area's temperate waters, this estuarine influencedistinctly separates the physical characteristics of theGulf from the waters supplied by the Florida Currenton the south side of the Keys.

A strong current enters the Gulf from the Caribbeanand carries water as far north as 26°, before turning tothe south as the Loop Current. The principal outflow ofGulf waters is through the Straits of Florida and themajor tidal passes of the Dry Tortugas and Lower-to-Middle Keys. Because of higher sea levels on the Gulfside, the net flow of water is from the Gulf to theAtlantic (except for the ebb and flood of the tide)(Smith and Pitts, 1993). This directional water move-ment, combined with the shallow depths on the northside of the Keys, has a major influence on the biogeo-graphic distribution of organisms in both the Gulf andnearshore regions.

Geographic Extent

The Gulf region's geographic extent is difficult todetermine because there is no definite boundary alongthe Keys' north-side margin, making it impossible toclearly distinguish nearshore habitats and tidal chan-nels from Gulf waters. Although the Gulf supplieswater to the Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channelsarea, there is a distinct biotic variation between the tworegions. Thus, the biogeographic significance of eachregion is discussed separately in this document, withthe understanding that the geographic interfacebetween them remains vague.

35


numerous barren spots and solution holes that providehabitat for reef inhabitants.

Seagrass beds are generally found in protected watersbetween islands, behind barrier islands, and in la-goonal areas. Distribution is controlled by threeprimary variables: light, sediment depth, and turbu-lence/exposure in shallow waters (Zieman, 1982).Seagrasses grow in a variety of sediments, from finemuds to coarse sands. These sediments help anchorthe plants, protecting them from the effects of watersurge and currents and providing a matrix for regen-eration and nutrient supply (Zieman, 1982).

Shoal grass, turtle grass, and manatee grass can befound in mixed beds or alone, between 1 and 10 m,where suitable substrate and favorable physicalconditions exist. Definite zonation (distribution) pat-terns can be observed. Shoal grass tolerates exposurebetter than the other species, and usually grows inshallower water (Zieman, 1982). Although turtle grass,the dominant species in the Sanctuary, often grows inshallow water, there is usually leaf mortality when thebeds are exposed during low tides (especially duringwinter months). Turtle grass forms extensive maturemeadows, 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 turtlegrass, and shoal grass is dominant below 15 m, butdoes not form dense stands. Paddle grass and stargrass can occur deeper than the other species, andhave been reported at 40 m (Zieman, 1982).

Seagrass Inhabitants. The distribution and density ofspecies utilizing the seagrass habitat are dependenton the physical, chemical, and geological environment(Zieman, 1990). Five principal groups have beenidentified that comprise the community of organismsassociated with seagrass habitats (Zieman, 1990).These groups may vary, depending on the composi-tion 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 bladesof seagrasses, including algae, diatoms, bryozoans,and other encrusting organisms (Zieman, 1982).Epibenthic organisms live on the surface of thesubstrate, and include motile organisms such asgastropods, sea urchins, sea stars, sea cucumbers,sea biscuits, and a wide variety of crustacea. Besidesmotile organisms, epibenthic fauna includes sessileorganisms such as sponges, sea anemones, ascid-ians, and macroalgae. Infaunal organisms live buriedin sediments, and include a variety of polychaetes,

The Sanctuary's northern boundary, from EvergladesNational Park to the Dry Tortugas, is 223 km long andlies entirely in the Gulf of Mexico. This jurisdictionalboundary does not separate habitat types or biogeo-graphic regions, and because its location has nobearing on physical or ecological processes, it isunimportant in describing the Sanctuary's naturalresources. On average, the Gulf area within theSanctuary is approximately 16 km wide.


The Sanctuary's Gulf region contains several biologi-cal communities that contribute significantly to thediversity of the area's natural resource base. Althougheach of these communities is also present in the Key'sother biogeographic regions, species diversity anddensity varies. Communities found in the Gulf includemangrove, seagrass, coral, and hardbottom andsoftbottom habitats.

Mangrove. Mangrove islands and mangrove-fringedshorelines similar to those in the Florida Bay regionare present in the Gulf. An estimated 95,000 hectaresof mangrove forests have been reported in MonroeCounty (Odum et al., 1982), and a large percentage ofthe area covered by mangroves is owned by Federal,State, or local government agencies.

Mangrove Inhabitants. The inhabitants of the man-grove habitat in the Gulf are similar to those describedfor the Florida Bay region.

Seagrass. Seagrass communities are among therichest, most productive, and most important of allcoastal systems (Zieman, 1990). Florida has one ofthe world's largest seagrass communities, with anestimated 1.4 million acres within Sanctuary bound-aries (Zieman, 1982).

The submerged vegetation in the Gulf region consistsmainly of turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass.Zieman (1991) estimated that these three seagrassspecies make up approximately 95 percent of the totalsubmerged vegetative biomass in the Sanctuary. Twoother vascular seagrasses, paddle grass (Halophiladecipiens) and star grass (H. engelmannii) are alsofound, but contribute very little to the overall biomass.

The large section of Florida Bay extending fromArsnicker Keys to Big Pine Key is populated bymanatee grass and lesser amounts of turtle grass. Themanatee grass grows on thin sediment and thePleistocene limestone on which the sediment rests isdistinctly different from the rest of the area. It has


36

(Fasciolaria tulipa) and horse conch (Pleuroplocagigantea), and echinoderms such as the cushion seastar (Oreaster reticulatus) and comet star (Echinastersentus). Other common echinoderms include herbivo-rous sea urchins such as Eucidaris tribuloidestribuloides and Lytechinus variegatus spp.

Some sponges of the genus Spongia are present inseagrass beds, but due to the lack of suitable sub-strate for attachment, Alcyonarians (soft corals) arerare (Schomer and Drew, 1982). Scleractinians (stonycorals) are represented by only a few species includ-ing rose coral (Manicina areolata), tube coral(Cladacora arbuscula), and finger coral (Poritesdivaricata, P. porites, and P. furcata).

Numerous species of small crustacea (shrimp andcrabs), echinoderms (brittlestars, sea cucumbers, seastars, etc.), anemones, flatworms, and polychaetesutilize the seagrass habitat as well. Several species ofgastropod snails, including Cerithium muscarum, C.eburneum, Anachis spp., Mitrella lunata, Tegulafasciata, Modulus modulus, and Bittium varium arealso found. In addition, two species of Astraea feedon the epiphytic flora of seagrass blades (Schomerand Drew, 1982). Species of infaunal invertebratesfound include the tube-dwelling annelidsAmericonuphis magna and Arenicola cristata. Otherannelids, such as Terebellides stroemi and Eunicelongicerrata; burrowing bivalves including the penshells Atrina rigida and A. seminuda; the cross-barredvenus Chione cancellata; and several other molluscangenera such as Arca, Anadara, Barbatia, Codakia,Lucina, Laevicardium, and Tellina are also present.

The Gulf's seagrass beds support several commer-cially important species as well, and South Florida'scommercial shrimp fishery is based on the region'spink shrimp population (Saloman, 1968). Although thebrown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus aztecus) and thepinkspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis) are alsopresent, they are not as important (Saloman, 1968).

Pink shrimp are historically common in the estuariesand shallow marine waters surrounding southernFlorida and in the deep waters (approximately 100 m)southeast of the Keys, and are the dominant specieswithin the Dry Tortugas shrimping grounds and FloridaBay (Saloman, 1968). Adult pink shrimp congregate indeep water (>6 fathoms) off the Dry Tortugas tospawn. Larvae can take two routes to the estuarinenursery areas where they spend most of their lifecycle. One route is directly to the shallow-waterestuaries of the Ten Thousand Islands, WhitewaterBay, and Florida Bay. On the other route, larvae areswept southwesterly into the Florida Current by way of

burrowing crustaceans, and molluscs. Planktonicorganisms, which depend on water movement andcurrents for transportation, include phytoplankton,zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton. Nektonic organismsinclude highly mobile species such as fishes andsquids that live in or above the seagrass canopy. Incombination, these organisms help comprise thetightly coupled pelagic food webs in the subtropicaland tropical oligotrophic waters of the Gulf of Mexicoand Straits of Florida (Collard and D'Asaro, 1973;Zieman, 1982; Zieman, 1990).

Benthic Algae. Although seagrass beds and areas ofsoft or sandy substrate are not optimal habitat for mostalgae, it may still attach to sediments, seagrassblades, and scattered rock outcroppings. The onlyalgae consistently utilizing sediments as substrate arethe mat-forming algae and members of the orderSiphonales (Chlorophyta), which have creepingrhizoids that help anchor them in sediments (Zieman,1982). Important genera of these algae includeHalimeda, Penicillus, Caulerpa, Udotea, Avrainvillea,and Rhipocephalus.

Aside from their importance as primary producers oforganic carbon, some of these genera producecalcium carbonate for their skeleton. When the algaedie, the calcium carbonate becomes a source ofsediment, significantly contributing to the overallcomposition of the Keys' carbonate sediments. Off theUpper Keys Ginsburg (1956) found that more than80% of the sediment was Halimeda. Shinn et al.(1990) reported that an average of 48 percent of thesands in an area 50 km west of Key West (the Quick-sands) was composed of fragmented plates of thecalcareous green algae Halimeda. In another study,Lidz et al. (1985) reported that over 13.5 percent of thesediment within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctu-ary was composed of calcareous algae fragments.Ginsburg (1956) and Ginsburg and Shinn (1964) havereported similar findings off Key Largo.

Besides calcareous algae, there are several groups ofdetached drift algae that are found in the seagrasshabitat. Laurencia is one of the most abundant, withother species including Amphiroa spp., Melobesiaspp., Fosliella spp., and Padina spp.

Invertebrates. The invertebrate fauna of the seagrassbeds of the southwest Florida coast is primarilycharacterized as Caribbean-West Indian, with increas-ing Carolinian fauna found to the north (Collard andD'Asaro, 1973). Seagrass bed fauna is diverse andcomplex, with large epibenthic species the mostobvious members (Zieman, 1982). Representativespecies include gastropods such as true tulip

37


the Loop Current, and are carried northeasterly alongthe outer edge of the Florida Reef Tract or east coastof Florida (Ingle et al., 1959). As the postlarval pinkshrimp mature, they enter Florida Bay on incomingtides. Young shrimp spend from two to seven monthsin the bay's seagrass nursery grounds before movinginto the Gulf off the Dry Tortugas (Schomer and Drew,1982; Bielsa et al., 1983).

The commercially important spiny lobster begin theirexistence in the Keys as larvae that arrive in oceaniccurrents. As planktonic larvae they pass through 11 lifestages in more than six months. They then metamor-phose into a transitional swimming stage (puerulus)(Little and Milano, 1980; Lyons, 1980) that is foundalong Florida's southeast coast all year long (Hunt etal., 1991). Pueruli travel through channels between theKeys and enter nursery areas in Florida Bay and theGulf, where they preferentially settle into clumps of thered alga Laurencia (Herrnkind and Butler, 1986). Inseven to nine days they metamorphose into juvenilesand take up solitary residence in the algal clumps fortwo to three months (Marx and Herrnkind, 1985b; Huntet al., 1991).

When juvenile spiny lobsters reach a carapace lengthof 15 to 16 mm they leave the algal clumps and resideindividually within rocky holes, crevices, coral, andsponges. They remain solitary until carapace lengthreaches approximately 25 to 35 mm, when they begincongregating in rocky dens. They remain in thesenurseries for 15 months to two years (Hunt et al.,1991).

Adult lobsters move to deeper waters and the coralreef environment, where they occupy dens or holesduring daylight hours. They are nocturnal feeders andpredominantly prey on molluscs and crustacea,including hermit crabs and conch. Adults move to theoffshore reef to spawn, and larvae are swept up theEast Coast by the Florida Current, where many arelost 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 through-out the Sanctuary's Florida Bay and Gulf of Mexicoregions. They inhabit warm-temperate, subtropical,and tropical waters, and although found in harvestablequantities along parts of Florida’s west coast fromCedar Key to the Ten Thousand Islands, the greatestconcentrations occur in the coastal waters adjacent toCollier County and throughout Florida Bay (Bert et al.,1978). They occur, but are less abundant, in

nearshore habitats and tidal passes with suitablesubstrate. Although stone crab fishermen set traps onthe Atlantic side of the Keys, the majority of the fisheryis within Gulf waters.

The crabs' planktonic stage is not extensive. Theymetamorphose from hatchling to true crab in about sixweeks. Juveniles do not dig burrows, but utilize readilyavailable hiding places that are near food. Theyoccupy muddy bottoms, turtle grass beds, sponges,gorgonians, empty shells, shell bottom, and sargas-sum mats (Bert et al., 1978). Adults inhabit burrows 15to 127 cm deep in turtle grass flats, along the sides ofchannels, in hardbottom areas, and in reef communi-ties. They can tolerate most environmental extremeswithin their distributional area and can withstand abroad range of salinities, making them very adaptableto Florida Bay and Gulf waters (Bert et al., 1978).

Fishes. Diverse and abundant fish assemblages arefound within the Gulf's seagrass habitats. These areasare important nursery and feeding grounds for manyspecies that will ultimately have commercial orsportfishing value (Zieman, 1982). Fish populationsare largely temperate in character, and seagrassespredominately serve as nursery grounds for seasonalresidents (i.e., those fishes that spend only part of theirlife cycle in these areas). Examples include drums(sciaenids), porgies (sparids), grunts (haemulids),snappers (lutjanids), cobia (rachycentrids), andmojarras (gerrids) (Zieman, 1982).

Numerous fish species occur in the Gulf regionecosystem that are not found in the Atlantic waters justa few kilometers away. For example, several speciesof the family Sciaenidae are seasonal residents of theGulf seagrass community but are rarely, if ever,observed on the Atlantic side of the Keys. Examplesinclude the spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus),spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), silver perch (Bairdiellachrysoura), and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Otherfishes frequently observed in the Gulf's seagrasshabitat or within the nearshore tidal passes, but lessfrequently on the Atlantic side of the Keys, includepigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), pinfish (Lagodonrhomboides), sheepshead (Archosargusprobatocephalus), hardhead catfish (Arius felis),gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), and cobia(Rachycentron canadum). All are uncommon seawardof Hawk Channel.

The seagrass community is vital habitat for a variety ofcommercially important fish species. Snapper, acommercially important family of food fish, spendsmuch of its life cycle in the seagrass habitat. Examplesinclude the mangrove (gray) snapper (Lutjanus


38

griseus), lane snapper (L. synagris), schoolmaster(L. apodus), and mutton snapper (L. analis).

Recreationally important species utilizing the seagrasscommunity include spotted seatrout (Cynoscionnebulosus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), bonefish(Albula vulpes), permit (Trachinotus falcatus), tarpon(Megalops atlanticus), great barracuda (Sphyraenabarracuda), and various sharks. These species aresought by professional fishing guides andsportfishermen from all over the world, and form thebasis of an important recreational industry. Althoughthese species are found in the Gulf region andthroughout the Sanctuary, they are most common inthe Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels.

Other resident seagrass fishes include mojarras,killifish, silversides, grunts, inshore lizardfish (Synodusfoetens) and scarids such as Sparisoma rubripinne, S.radians, S. chrysopterum. A number of small, lessmobile cryptic species are also found, including theemerald clingfish (Acyrtops beryllinus) that livesepiphytically on turtle grass blades; pipefishesSyngnathus scovelli, S. floridae, S. louisianae, andMicrognatus crinitus; seahorses Hippocampuszosterae and H. erectus; and several species ofgobies (Gobiidae) and clinids (Clinidae). The codegoby (Gobiosoma robustum) is the most abundantgoby, and the clinids Paraclinus fasciatus and P.marmoratus are the most abundant representatives ofthe clinids.

Hardbottom. A diverse benthic habitat commonlycalled hardbottom is distributed at various depths (<1m to >40 m) from northwest of Tarpon Springs to theKeys. Although the range of this habitat extends farnorth of the Sanctuary, it is important to mention herebecause of its role in replenishing the area's re-sources. In addition, this area will be important forlong-term habitat monitoring to detect change before itreaches the Sanctuary.

Sporadic hardbottom outcroppings parallel the shore-line at approximately the quartz sand/carbonate sandinterface in 6.1 to 18.2 m of water (Minerals Manage-ment Service, 1989). The exposed calcium carbonatesubstrate, dating from the Holocene, is thought to bethe remnants of previous shorelines that were coveredby water as the sea level rose. Although most of theexposed hardbottom has low relief (< 1 m), ledges withover 3 m of relief are found between Tarpon Springsand Sarasota. The density and diversity of sessile,epibenthic organisms in these areas is high for atemperate region. Accordingly, the area has supportedthe commercial sponge industry in Tarpon Springssince Greek sponge divers first settled there in the

early 1900s. It also supports a commercial and recre-ational grouper and stone crab fishery and provideshabitat for recreational scuba divers. Some commer-cial harvest of decorative rock and fish and inverte-brates for the aquarium trade also occurs.

Although the geographic extent of the hardbottomhabitat in Sanctuary waters is not fully known, majorlow-profile hardbottom substrate supports a diversesessile, epibenthic community in the Gulf. In the Keys,the biotic structure resembles that of the temperatewaters off the Tarpon Springs area. Octocorals, whichinclude sea plumes, sea whips and other gorgonians,and soft corals, help characterize the habitat. Generarepresented include Euenicea, Muricea, Plexaurella,and Pseudopterogorgia (Phillips et al., 1990). Softcorals dominate stony corals (Scleractinia) and firecorals (Hydrozoa) throughout the hardbottom habitatand within other areas of the Gulf region.

Hardbottom Inhabitants. The distribution of thediverse assemblage of invertebrates and fishesmaking up the majority of the hardbottom biota helpscharacterize the Gulf biogeographic region as temper-ate.

Algae. Macroalgae are an important component of theGulf's hardbottom community. Continental ShelfAssociates, Inc. (1987) collected over 160 species ofmacroalgae during a survey of the hardbottom habitatof the southwest continental shelf. Some of the mostcommon genera were within the main groupings of redalgae (Eucheuma, Laurencia, Gracilaria, andLithothamnium), green algae (Codium, Caulerpa,Halimeda, Penicillus, and Udotea), and brown algae(Dictyopteris, Dictyota, and Sargassum).

Invertebrates. Although the hardbottom communitydoes not support three-dimensional tropical reefdevelopment, many stony corals (Scleractinians) arepresent (Jaap, 1984). The dominant species are ivorytube coral (Cladocora arbuscula), ivory bush coral(Oculina diffusa), rough star coral (Isophyllastrearigida), sinuous cactus coral (Isophyllia sinuosa),rough starlet coral (Siderastrea siderea), lobed starcoral (Solenastrea hyades) smooth star coral(Solenastrea bournoni), and other species of solitarycorals (Phillips et al., 1990). Crenelated fire coral(Millepora alcicornis), an encrusting and branchingspecies of fire coral, is common but does not formmassive colonies.

Sponges (Porifera) make up another major group ofcolonial, epibenthic organisms that contributes signifi-cantly to the diversity of the region's sessile organ-isms. Representatives include the loggerhead sponge

39


(Spheciospongia vesparia), vase sponge (Irciniacampana), stinker sponge (I. felix), black-ball sponge(I. strobilina), finger sponge (Axinella polycapella), andseveral red and orange branched species of the classDemospongiae. Commercially important spongesinclude 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), andfinger sponge.

Several sponge species are collected for the marineaquarium industry, including red and orange branchedcolonies of Demospongiae. One of the most abundantis a red encrusting Demospongiae found in associationwith the bivalve mollusc turkey wing (Arca zebra). Thissponge and bivalve combination is so abundant insome hardbottom areas that the bottom appears tomove as the bivalves close in reaction to the presenceof an intruder. Other colonial epibenthic organismsfound attached to the hardbottom substrate includebryozoans, hydroids, and ascidians.

Hardbottoms in shallow Gulf waters (< 40 m) support adiverse motile invertebrate epifauna as well. Over 306species of molluscs, 283 species of crustaceans, and120 species of echinoderms have been reported,including species of sea urchins, sea stars, holothuri-ans, numerous shrimps (e.g., anemone shrimp,synalpheid shrimp, etc.), lobsters, portunid andcalappid crabs, conchs, bivalves, nudibranchs, andannelids (Minerals Management Service, 1987).Hardbottom habitats with high-relief ledges or solutionholes often support commercially important speciessuch as palinurid and scyllarid lobsters includingPanulirus argus, P. guttatus, Scyllarides spp., andScyllarus spp. Stone crabs are often found in burrowsor solution holes.

Examples of temperate invertebrates include thepurple-spined sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata) and pincushion urchin (Lytechinus variegatus). Arbaciapunctulata is abundant on hard substrate in 7 to 15 mof water (possibly deeper) within the Gulf. However, itis rarely found on the hardbottom of the Keys' Atlanticside. Another common temperate invertebrate is theGreek goddess nudibranch (Hypselodorisedenticulata), a sponge-feeder commonly found offTarpon Springs. Within the Sanctuary it is only abun-dant in the hardbottom habitats of the Gulf, althoughisolated sightings have been made on the Atlantic sideof the Keys.

Fishes. During their 1987 study of the southwestcontinental shelf, Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

collected 220 fish species from the Gulf's hardbottomhabitats. In these areas, the diversity and density offish species vary considerably depending on both thephysical and structural characteristics of the ecosys-tem (e.g., relief, ledges, crevices, holes, etc.). Habitatswith greater three-dimensional complexity offer moreprotection to populations and support a richer, moreabundant fish fauna.

Like the fish found in other Gulf habitats, populationsin the hardbottom community exhibit an obvioustemperate influence. Several sea basses (Serranidae)commonly occur on the Gulf side of the Keys but arenot found on the Atlantic side. Examples include thebelted sandfish (Serranus subligarius) and the blacksea bass (Centropristis striata). The jackknife fish(Equetus lanceolatus), a species of drum, is found onboth sides of the Keys, but adults are far more abun-dant on the Gulf side than the Atlantic side. Juvenilesare common on the Gulf hardbottom as well, but noton the Atlantic side. Similarly, the sheepshead iscommon in the Gulf's hardbottom areas, but infre-quently observed on the Atlantic side of the Keys.These are but a few of the numerous species com-monly found in Gulf waters but not in the Atlantic,further supporting the characterization of the northernside of the Keys as temperate.

Gulf Coral Reef Habitats and Inhabitants. There isno tropical coral reef development off the west coast ofFlorida, and the only major reef complex in the easternGulf is the Florida Middle Ground, a fossil limestonetopographic 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 arethose off the Keys (Jaap, 1984).

Coral patch reefs and hardbottom communities arerare within Florida Bay proper (Minerals ManagementService, 1989), but areas of hardbottom and patch reefon the far western end of the bay have been studied(Zieman et al., 1989). Some mixed finger coral, rosecoral, and seagrass communities occur in the shallowwaters surrounding mangrove islands. However,significant coral communities do not occur on the Gulfside until the Lower Keys. In the Middle Keys, the areasouthwest of Conch Key and northeast of Big Pine Keyis influenced by environmental extremes brought on bylarge tidal exchanges (Minerals Management Service,1989). The seasonal and annual extremes that affectcoral distribution (and other biotic communities) inFlorida Bay and the Gulf side of the Middle and LowerKeys result from hydrographic changes in the Gulf ofMexico (Smith and Pitts, 1993).


40

The reefs off the Dry Tortugas have many characteris-tics of other South Florida reefs (Jaap and Hallock,1990). One notable exception, however, is the densestaghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) thickets thatoccur west and north of Loggerhead Key. Reportsfrom as early as 1878 (Jaap and Hallock, 1990) havedescribed these dense stands and the changes in theirdensity and distribution as a result of environmentalperturbations such as cold fronts. Staghorn coralproliferation during favorable periods is characterizedby rapid growth and fragmentation.

Softbottom. A large portion of the Sanctuary's Gulfregion, especially west of Key West, containssoftbottom habitat, where the sediment may be up to7.6 m thick (Shinn et al., 1989). North of the Sanctu-ary, an area of silty sand extends from the mouth ofFlorida Bay westward to the Dry Tortugas, roughlyparalleling the 25° N latitude line (Minerals Manage-ment Service, 1989). This area effectively divides anorthern habitat characterized by low-relief,hardbottom algal stands and the seagrass Halophiladecipiens from the hardbottom and reef communitiesjust north of the Keys. The area corresponds to theTortugas shrimping grounds (Zieman, pers. comm.).

Westward of Northwest Channel off Key West, there isa broad shallow bank or series of flats and shoalsmade up of the Boca Grande Bank, the Marquesas,and the Quicksands. Patch reef development is pooron the north side of these banks, especially in theQuicksands, due to the sand's shifting nature. How-ever, major growths of the carbonate sand-producingalga Halimeda opuntia have been reported by severalinvestigators (Shinn et al., 1982; Hudson, 1985). Shinnet al. (1991) described the Quicksands near theMarquesas.

No major reef development occurs inshore betweenthe Quicksands and the Dry Tortugas, except nearRebecca Shoal and New Ground Shoal. On average,the passage between Rebecca Shoal and PulaskiLight is approximately 24 m deep. The bottom consistsof current-swept sand, sparsely covered by theseagrass Halophila decipiens and the green algaCaulerpa prolifera (Shinn et al., 1989).

Softbottom Inhabitants . Softbottom communitiessupport a diverse infauna assemblage in continentalshelf environments. At least 1,121 species have beenidentified in the southwest Florida region (MineralsManagement Service, 1987), with crustaceans ac-counting for the largest percentage (40%), followed bypolychaetes (37%) and molluscs (21%).

On the northern side of the Lower Keys, scatteredpatch reefs are common, forming a generally continu-ous band approximately 7 km from shore. The bandcontains larger, head-forming coral species (e.g.,Montastrea annularis and species of Diploria andColpophyllia) and is surrounded by areas of lowerrelief that have solitary (e.g., Siderastrea siderea,Solenastrea spp., and Dichocoenia stokesii) and softcorals. The band runs from Key West northeastwardpast Big Pine Key, where it becomes less distinct dueto 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 habitatson the north side of the Keys is the "rock pile" locatedalong the 5.5 m depth contour, north to northwest ofthe Content Keys. This area of high-relief, boulder-likecoral heads supports a diverse mix of temperate andtropical fauna, and has distinct seasonal variations infish density and diversity. Each year since the early1970s a bloom of long, filamentous algae (possiblyblue-green) has occurred during the summer months,totally covering the coral heads.

Another coral reef community north of the Keysincludes New Ground Shoal and the tract extendingeast to Ellis Rock. At up to 7.6 m of relief, these reefsare higher than some Atlantic formations (Shinn et al.,1989). They are constructed of massive corals includ-ing M. annularis and Siderastrea spp.

Located at the westernmost extent of the Keys are theDry Tortugas Banks. These banks are separated fromthe remainder of the Keys by a 24 m-deep channel.Described as an atoll by Vaughan (1914), the bankshave a rim of Holocene coral reef developmentsurrounding an inner basin containing several sandyislands including Loggerhead Key, Garden Key, BushKey, and Hospital Key (Shinn et al., 1989).

Numerous scientists have worked in the Dry Tortugassince the Carnegie Institution Marine Laboratoryoperated on Loggerhead Key between 1910 and 1939.Jaap (1984) provided an excellent historical record ofthe research on Florida’s coral reefs, including thework accomplished at the Carnegie Laboratory. Davis(1979) used aerial photography to construct a detailedhabitat map for the Fort Jefferson National Monument(renamed Dry Tortugas National Park in 1992). Otherrecent studies of the area's reefs include those byDavis (1982) and Jaap et al. (1989). In addition,Wheaton and Jaap are currently conducting long-termcoral monitoring studies.

41


In addition to the diverse infauna, sand and softbottomcommunities support a motile epifauna. Commoninhabitants include several echinoids (Meomaventricosa ventricosa, Clypeaster rosaceus, andPlagiobrissus grandis) and Encope michelini,Clypeaster subdepressus, and Leodia sexiesperforatawhich burrow in clean, grassless sand areas (Schomerand Drew, 1982).


The importance of the Sanctuary's Gulf of Mexicoregion as a fisheries resource cannot be overstated, inthat it serves as the nursery grounds for manyrecreationally and commercially important species offishes and invertebrates, including groupers, snappers,pink shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab. Theregion's location “upstream” of the Keys is alsosignificant, in that the anthropogenic processesnegatively influencing the waters of the Gulf ultimatelyimpact the habitats and natural resources of the Keys.The region, therefore, must be considered as anintegral part of the overall Sanctuary ecosystem.

Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels

The Holocene geology of the emergent Keys sets thescene for the distribution of marine communitiesthroughout the Sanctuary and adjacent areas. TheUpper Keys are composed of the 120,000-year-oldKey Largo Limestone, a fossil reef formation thatprogresses to the west. The Miami oolite (oolitic faciesof the Miami Limestone) begins at Big Pine Key andoverlies the Key Largo Limestone formation(Hoffmeister and Multer, 1968). This oolitic formationplunges 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 arefossilized oolitic sandbars, are oriented in a northwestto southeast direction, allowing for greater water

exchange between the Gulf and Atlantic than theUpper Keys.

The Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels aretransitional areas of species mixing between the Gulfand the Atlantic, and the presence or absence of tidalpasses, coupled with their bathymetric features (e.g.,depth, width, current velocity, etc.), plays an importantrole in the distribution of biota and the establishment ofmarine communities within the Sanctuary (Schomer etal., 1982; Zieman, 1982; Jaap, 1984; Minerals Man-agement Service, 1989). Studies have shown that thenet flow of water is from Florida Bay and the Gulf tothe Atlantic (Smith and Pitts, 1993). Once in theAtlantic, the principal flow in the Lower to Middle Keysis westward during most of the year. This flow also hasa significant influence on the distribution and mixing ofthe biota in the region.

Geographic Extent

The Nearshore Habitats and Tidal Channels biogeo-graphic region extends from the northernmost portionof the Sanctuary (except for a narrow strip parallelingthe offshore boundary of Biscayne National Park) tothe south, southwest, and westernmost reaches. Theregion is narrowest in the Upper Keys and reaches itsmaximum width in the Big Pine Key area. The habitatsdiscussed below are located in the nearshore watersnorth of the Keys and surrounding the islands inFlorida 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 throughthe Lower Matecumbe area and restricting water flowbetween the Gulf and the Atlantic. Beyond thesenatural features, water exchange was further limited,and water-flow resistance increased, by the bridgepiles of the Overseas Railroad, built between 1904 and1907 (Albury, 1991). Twenty-seven kilometers ofbridges were built across open water and 32 km ofcauseways were constructed to connect islands wherenatural passes had once existed (e.g., Indian Key Fill).

Middle Keys . Several major passes between LowerMatecumbe and Big Pine Key connect Florida Bay andthe Gulf to the Atlantic (Table 4). In addition to allowingfor the mixing of temperate and tropical biota, thesepasses allow the exchange of warm, saltier water inthe summer and cold, less saline water in the winter.

Heavy rainfall, drought, summer doldrums, and wintercold fronts influence temperature, salinity, nutrientsupply, and turbidity in the shallow waters north of the

.

26°N80°W82°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico


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 5Seven Mile Bridge Pass and Moser Channel 10,719 5Little 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 mwide/3.1 m deep), and Bow Channel (400 m wide/2.7m deep).

To the west of Bow Channel is a series of passes inthe Sugarloaf and Saddlebunch Keys area. Most ofthese channels are shallow, ranging from 70 m to 380m wide and .3 m to .6 m deep. The last wide channelin the Lower Keys (before Key West) is the BocaChica Channel, which is approximately 790 m wideand 3.1 m deep.

Northwest Channel . The last deep natural pass in theLower Keys before Boca Grande Channel is NorthwestChannel, which lies immediately west of Key West.This pass is 4.44 km wide and 8.5 m deep and is thenorthern extension of the Key West ship channel. Itseastern margin has been used as deepwater anchor-age. To the north, the eastern and western margins ofthe Northwest Channel have man-made submergedgranite jetties that serve as habitat for a variety ofspecies.

The Lakes Passage . Ten keys are found betweenKey West and Boca Grande, with each separated by ashallow tidal pass. The Lakes refers to the shallow andexpansive seagrass habitat primarily north of theislands in this area. The seafloor is predominantlycovered with seagrasses, and scattered patches ofhardbottom supporting sponges, soft corals, andsolitary corals are also found. Solution holes, depres-sions in the seafloor of varying size, are sometimesfound in association with the hardbottom habitat.These holes are formed by various geological pro-

Middle Keys (Jaap and Hallock, 1990). Extremevariations in these parameters affect the distribution oforganisms from the nearshore habitats to the outerbank reefs. In areas exposed to wide seasonal varia-tions in environmental and hydrographic parameters,the sessile, benthic epifauna are hardier and morecapable of withstanding a broader range of environ-mental stresses. This ability is characteristic of thecommunities in the nearshore habitats and tidalchannels of the Middle Keys.

Seven Mile Bridge . In the Lower to Middle Keys, thewidest bridged gap is the open body of water spannedby the Seven Mile Bridge. Several deep cuts allow forwater 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 KeyWest, north of the open Atlantic waters, is a complexsystem of shallow-water bays and basins surroundedby hundreds of mangrove-fringed keys and developedshorelines. The Lower Keys are oriented predomi-nantly in a northwest to southeast direction, and formthe widest land mass in the Sanctuary. Water ex-change occurs through several deepwater passes onthe north side of the Keys. Although these tidal passesallow for water exchange between the Gulf and theAtlantic, the cluster of islands protects the reef tractfrom 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), CudjoeChannel (1,000 m wide/6.4 m deep), Johnston KeyChannel (700 m wide/6.1 m deep), and numeroussmaller channels. After flowing through the Keys, thewater exits through several major ocean-side passesincluding Bahia Honda Channel (1,560 m wide/8.2 mdeep), Bogie Channel (595 m wide/5.2 m deep), PineChannel (1,000 m wide/6.4 m deep), Niles Channel

43


cesses during subaerial exposure when sea level waslower, and offer protection for both fish and inverte-brates. This habitat often provides an oasis of reef lifein the middle of dense seagrass communities. TheLakes, which are separated by islands, mud banks,and a rock ridge along the north and south margin, arealso an important fishing area for flats guides. Theshallow waters support bonefish, tarpon, permit,barracuda, and shark, and are a nursery area fornumerous commercially important species.

Boca Grande Channel . Boca Grande Channel is 9.8km wide and separates Boca Grande Key from theMarquesas. The channel has a maximum depth of 9.1m and exhibits strong tidal exchange. There areseveral deep cuts in the channel and the entire pass isgenerally deeper than 4.6 m. The seafloor is coveredby seagrasses, hardbottom, corals, and soft sub-strates, and in some areas there are numerous stonycoral colonies, some of which are over 1 m tall. Thechannel is an area of major mixing between the Gulfand the Atlantic.

The Quicksands . West of the Marquesas is a vastcurrent-swept sand flat referred to as the Quicksands.Sand waves as high as 2.7 m have been reported inthis area of high current velocity (Shinn et al., 1982;Hudson, 1985; Shinn et al., 1990). Shifting sands haveprevented the development of extensive reef habitats,but have allowed major growths of the carbonate-sand-producing alga Halimeda spp. (Hudson, 1985).At the westernmost tip of the Quicksands is HalfmoonShoal, which is separated from the Rebecca Shoalreef community by a broad pass 17 to 18 m deep.From Rebecca Shoal west to the Dry Tortugas thedepth of the passage is approximately 24.4 m, and thebottom is current-swept sand (Minerals ManagementService, 1989).


The Keys' nearshore habitats and tidal channels areexposed to a wide range of environmental conditions.Water depths are generally less than 2.5 m (except inthe deeper passes) and radical changes in weatherconditions and the velocity of water flow can adverselyaffect the distribution of biota. The structure of thebiological community changes considerably based onthe speed at which water is transported through thearea, the depth of the water, and the type of substrate.In a representative study, Enos (1977) groupedorganisms into habitat communities based on thesubstrate on which characteristic assemblages lived,and on circulation and bottom morphology.

Intertidal Shoreline Habitats . All major biologicalcommunities are present in the nearshore habitats andtidal channels including mangroves, intertidal shore-lines, seagrasses, hardbottoms, and soft substrates.The most detailed attempt to describe the varioushabitats in the region was made by Schomer and Drew(1982). Nine shoreline habitats were identified, includ-ing those described below.

Exposed Vertical Rocky Shores and Seawalls. Thesehabitats occur both naturally and as a by-product ofhuman activities. Natural formations occur in areaswhere steep scarps in the limestone bedrock havebeen created by erosion due to waves and currents.Man-made formations include seawalls, bridge piles,structural supports, power poles, piers, docks, andother vertical structures entering the water. Bridgepiles exposed directly to the open ocean and thoselocated in channels with high-velocity currents exhibitdiverse attached biota. Several species of stonycorals, hydrozoans, gorgonians, sponges, tunicates,barnacles, and algae make up a rich sessile commu-nity that supports an equally diverse epifauna com-posed of fishes and invertebrates. Bridge piles notexposed to high-velocity currents exhibit lower sessilespecies diversity and organism density.

Exposed Rocky Platforms. Exposed rocky platformsare one of the most extensively studied intertidalshoreline communities within the Keys, and abundantliterature is available describing the biota in this habitat(Schomer and Drew, 1982). Stephenson andStephenson (1950) described three separate zones.The first is an upper platform that varies greatly inwidth, angle of slope, and pattern of seaward termina-tion, extending from the edge of dry land vegetation tothe seaward edge of the lime rock platform. Thesecond is a lower platform that occurs as discontinu-ous patches of low rock, running seaward from the footof the upper platform to a level slightly above thespring tide low-water level. The third zone is a low-lying area (usually submerged) in which rocky patchesalternate with sand, mud, and gravel.

Fine-grained Sand Beaches. Sand beaches arecomposed of fine-grained calcareous fragments ofshell, coral, and coralline algae. Most of these "pocketbeaches" are limited in size, are in the Middle Keys,and face the Straits of Florida. Their formation is ofteninfluenced by wave activity. Examples include LongKey Beach, Bahia Honda Beach, and SombreroBeach.

Coarse-grained Sand Beaches. These areas arephysically similar to fine-grained beaches, but are


44

composed of coarse-grained carbonate sands and areusually narrower (<10 m) between the dunes and lowwater. Coarse-grained sand beaches are found in theDry Tortugas and Marquesas, primarily in high-energyareas.

Mixed Sand/Gravel Beaches and Fill. This habitat typeis found in areas exposed to high wave energy, whichcreates beaches of coarse shell and coral fragments.Man-made beaches of this type are composed ofpoorly sorted mixtures of sediments in a variety ofsizes, sometimes resulting in a hard-packed surfacelayer.

Gravel Beaches and Riprap. All forms of gravelbeaches and riprap in the Keys are man-made. Thehabitat is usually made of materials ranging fromgravel to boulder-sized riprap revetments, most oftencomposed of local limestone. Examples includeshorelines bordering causeways.

Exposed Tidal Flats. The most common exposed tidalflats in the Keys are the seagrass flats. Generallylocated in open bays, lee of offshore islands or neartidal inlets, these flats are exposed during low springtides, vary in size, and are subject to moderate- tohigh-energy wave activity and tidal currents. Thesediments are dominated by carbonate sands, andsome muds are often found accompanying migratingcarbonate sand bars on the flats' seaward edge.

Sheltered Rocky Shores and Seawalls. Shelteredrocky shores occur when canals are dug throughlimestone bedrock. The vertical faces are oftenirregular, with holes, pockets, and crevices providingmicrohabitat. Depending on where the canals havebeen dug, the exposed rock may be Key LargoLimestone, Miami Oolite, or both. Both sheltered rockyshores and seawalls often line shorelines along theinterior and sheltered areas of populated regions.Each extends below the low-water mark. Waves andcurrents usually do not have an influence wherecanals have been dug. However, boating activities cancause shoreline erosion in canals.

Sheltered Tidal Flats. This habitat is found associatedwith interior island lagoons and is unaffected by evenmoderate waves or tidal currents. The carbonate mudsediments of this habitat are less consolidated thanthose of the exposed tidal flats. The habitat is mostcommon in the Lower Keys.

Intertidal Shoreline Inhabitants . The biota associ-ated with intertidal shoreline habitats is diverse andvaries according to the habitat type and physicalfeatures. Sessile, epibenthic, and infaunal organisms

all help comprise this community type. They arethoroughly described by Schomer and Drew (1982).

Hardbottom Habitats and Inhabitants . Exposedlimestone is a common bottom type in the Keys'nearshore waters. This rocky surface, whether ofgeological or biological origin, provides the substratenecessary for the attachment of sessile organisms.Hardbottom habitats are typically dominated by algae,sponges, gorgonian corals, hydrozoans, bryozoans,stony corals, anemones, molluscs, and tunicates. Theactual composition of these species depends on thelocation of the hardbottom and the physical influenceson the community. There are two types of nearshorehardbottom habitats: restricted-circulation and high-velocity.

Nearshore Restricted-circulation Hardbottom Habitats.These habitats are located in restricted embayments,and their distribution is controlled by minimal watermovement, low turbidity, and/or suspended sediments.Epilithic and drift algae (previously attached specieswhich have broken loose) that attach directly tolimestone usually dominate. Common species includeseabottles (Ventricaria ventricosa), green bubble algae(Dictyospaeria cavernosa), mermaid’s wine glass(Acetabularia crenulata), star algae (Anadyomenestellata), and squirrel tail algae (Dasycladusvermicularis). Common species of brown algae includeforked tumbleweeds (Dictyota spp.) and severalspecies of sargassum. Representative red algaeinclude Laurence’s weed (Laurencia papillosum and L.poitei), spiny seaweed (Acanthophora spicifera), andEucheuma isiforme. The coralline red algaNeogoniolithon strictum is also abundant (Booker,1991).

Nearshore Restricted-circulation Hardbottom Inhabit-ants. This habitat is characterized by slow watermovement, and fish species are not abundant. Com-mon groups include the needlefishes (Belonidae),killifishes (Cyprinodontidae), livebearers (Poeciliidae),silversides (Atherinidae), mullets (Mugilidae), andbarracudas (Sphyraenidae). These species are allcapable of withstanding changes in a broad range ofenvironmental parameters including temperature,salinity, and dissolved oxygen levels. Still, abrupttemperature changes can result in fish kills.

Nearshore High-velocity Hardbottom Habitats. Locatedin tidal channels between islands and on the open-water side of the Keys facing either the Gulf of Mexicoor the Atlantic, these communities are swept by strongcurrents that prevent sediment accumulation. They

45


Seagrass distribution was previously described for theGulf of Mexico biogeographic region. Although thesame species occur in the nearshore passes, distribu-tions differ in some areas. For example, Halophila spp.commonly occurs in the deeper portions of the tidalpasses on the Gulf side, but is not as common closerto the Atlantic passes. Various factors, includingturbidity and light penetration, influence its distribution.

Invertebrates. Sponges of class Demospongiae arethe 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 importantspecies found include sheepswool sponge, yellowsponge, grass sponge, glove sponge, velvet sponge,wire sponge, reef sponge, and finger sponge.

In passes closer to the Gulf, sponges of classDemospongiae 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 repre-sented in the backcountry hardbottom community.Several commercial species are also common, includ-ing sheepswool sponge, yellow sponge, grass sponge,glove sponge, velvet sponge, wire sponge, reefsponge, and finger sponge. Corals are not as abun-dant in this subhabitat, however, with only lobed starcoral, smooth star coral, smooth and rough starletcoral, rough star coral, sinuous cactus coral, andencrusting fire coral (Millepora alcicornis) representa-tive species. All of these species are characteristic ofthe corals previously described for the Gulf biogeo-graphic region.

Fishes. Nearshore high-velocity tidal passes close tothe Atlantic also support a diverse assemblage offishes, and a large number of species spend the earlyportion of their life history in these areas. Juveniles ofmany species popular in the aquarium trade spend theearly portion of their life cycle in high- to moderate-velocity tidal passes. Most angelfish (Pomacanthidae),butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae), and surgeonfish(Acanthuridae) are commonly found in nearshore tidalpasses that have strong tidal influences. Other familiesof fish common in this habitat include sea basses,jacks (Carangidae), snappers, grunts (Haemulidae),porgies, drums, damselfish (Pomacentridae), barracu-das, wrasses (Labridae), parrotfish (Scaridae), clinids,combtooth blennies (Blenniidae), and gobies.

In contrast, the deep backcountry tidal passes close tothe Gulf exhibit mixed temperate and tropical fishspecies. They serve as important migratory routes for

generally exhibit a greater diversity of sessile biotathan restricted-circulation hardbottom communities.

High-velocity hardbottom habitats can be subdividedbased on their proximity to the Atlantic. The firstsubcategory is composed of habitats located nearmajor deepwater passes such as Moser Channel,Bahia Honda Channel, Boca Grande Channel. Thesecond includes those in close proximity to the Gulf ofMexico.

High-velocity habitats near major deepwater passesare dominated by stony corals and sponges. BahiaHonda Channel for example, one of the deepestnatural passes in the Lower-to-Middle Keys, has adiverse stony coral population dominated by ivorybush coral, brain corals (Diploria spp. and Colpophyllianatans), smooth and rough starlet coral, club fingercoral (Porites porites), golf ball coral (Favia fragum),and others. Most are relatively small (< 1 m), low-profile colonies.

Passes near the Gulf exhibit a completely differentbenthic and epibenthic community than those near theocean. Examples include Rocky Channel, Big SpanishChannel, Harbor Channel, Cudjoe Channel, andJohnston Key Channel. The dominant feature is thetopographic relief and structure of the hardbottom.Deep and wide holes in the center of some of thesechannels indicate long-term erosion; some have steepledges and undercut overhangs that provide excellenthabitat. Some overhangs are extensive (2 to 3 m) andmay serve as refuge for a host of marine organismsincluding turtles, spiny lobsters, stone crabs, and avariety of fishes.

Nearshore High-velocity Hardbottom Inhabitants.Despite the similarities between the two habitatsubcategories, variation exists between the speciescomposition of these areas.

Benthic Algae and Seagrasses. The flora of thedeepwater passes on the Gulf side of the Keys alsodiffers with that of other areas. Although many of thegreen (including both calcareous and noncalcareous),brown, and red algae exhibit similar species composi-tions as those found near the Atlantic, noticeabledifferences exist. Red algae dominate by mass insome of the deeper channels on the Gulf side.Eucheuma isiforme exhibits a very different, massivemorphological form throughout much of the year indeeper channels with strong tidal influences andrestricted light penetration. Laurencia spp. formsmassive clumps and contributes significantly to thearea's algal biomass.


46

The region exhibits coral reef communities similar tothose found in the Caribbean and other tropicalAtlantic areas (Jaap, 1984). However, the Keys' coralreefs occur at an environmental threshold because oftheir northern distribution, and therefore exist in adelicate ecological balance (Vaughn, 1914a). Becausescientists have studied the area's coral reefs since1852, much literature exists on their biology, ecology,physiology, geology, and community composition(Jaap, 1984). Throughout the development of themanagement plan, this information has been useful informulating strategies to reduce potential impacts onthese complex areas.

Geographic Extent

The Sanctuary boundaries in the Atlantic Ocean regionare established by the seaward shoreline east andsouth of the Keys approximately to the 91-m depthcontour. The region's northern limit is Fowey Rocks atthe northern end of Biscayne National Park; thesouthern limit approximates the westernmost boundarynear Dry Tortugas National Park. The region extendsalong the entire length of the Sanctuary and encom-passes all waters on the ocean side of the Keys.


Despite its size, the region is one of the most homoge-neous in the Keys. Habitats occur in parallel bandsfrom the extreme north to the southwest, and similarcoral reef communities are found when progressingfrom onshore to offshore environments in the Upper,Middle, and Lower Keys. In addition, reef communitydistribution by depth correlates with sea-level fluctua-tions and the changing shoreline (Shinn et al., 1989;Lidz et al., 1991). Although the biota described be-tween Soldier Key and the Dry Tortugas is predomi-nantly Caribbean in character, Kruer and Causey(1992) found numerous fish species common to Gulfwaters surrounding artificial reefs in Hawk Channelbetween Big Pine Key and Upper Sugarloaf Key.

Most of the regional habitat types and biologicalcommunities described previously are also found inthe Sanctuary's Atlantic Ocean region. However, thebiological and ecological composition of the communi-ties within these regions varies greatly. Specifically,the variety of habitat types is greater in the Atlanticregion, and the area's more tropical habitats support asignificantly greater biodiversity of organisms. MajorAtlantic Ocean habitats include: 1) the mangrovefringe and nearshore hardbottom; 2) inshore patchreef; 3) Hawk Channel (mid-channel) reef; 4) HawkChannel (mid-channel) seagrass and softbottom; and5) reef tract habitats. The complex reef tract commu-

many of the snappers and groupers that move to openwater during spawning. Spadefishes, porgies, sheeps-head, and drums occur, but are less common near thedeep tidal passes closer to the Atlantic.


The size and geography of the Sanctuary's NearshoreHabitats and Tidal Channels region help set the Keys'coral reefs apart from the fringing reefs of much of theCaribbean. The biological diversity supported by thearea's habitats makes the Keys' ecosystem ecologi-cally and aesthetically unique within the United States.The region is an area of ecological and biologicalmixing where the temperate waters of the Gulf meetthe tropical waters of the Atlantic, producing one of themost complex habitats in the Sanctuary. The majorityof the commercially and recreationally importantspecies in the region forage and seek shelter in thenearshore habitat both in their early life stages and asadults. In addition, much of the consumptive recre-ational and commercial activities in the Keys occur inthese areas, and the region has the highest potentialfor environmental damage as a result of human use.Dredging, development, water quality degradation, andthe overuse of resources are but a few of the human-use activities within the region that may result inresource damage.

Atlantic Ocean

26°N80°W82°W

25°N

Atlantic Ocean

Florida Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Like an enormous thermostat, the Florida Currentsupplies the Atlantic side of the Keys with a constantflow of tropical waters. Although they become dilutedthrough mingling with nearshore waters, these tropicalwaters are capable of supporting and sustainingcomplex coral reef communities. Accordingly, coralreefs and their associated subhabitats are the domi-nant biological and ecological features of theSanctuary's Atlantic Ocean biogeographic region.

47


nity is composed of habitats including offshore patchreef, seagrass, back reef/reef flat, bank reef/transi-tional reef, intermediate reef, deep reef, outlier reef(Lidz et al., 1991), and sand and softbottom environ-ments.

Mangrove Fringe and Nearshore Hardbottom . Thespecies composition of mangrove communities in theAtlantic's fringe and nearshore hardbottom habitat issimilar to that of Florida Bay's fringing mangrovehabitat. Nearshore hardbottom is the dominant eco-logical community, extending seaward to a depth ofapproximately 5.5 m. This depth varies between theUpper and Middle Keys, but remains relatively con-stant from the Middle to Lower Keys. Immediatelyseaward of some Upper Keys is a broad seagrasscommunity that extends to the nearshore hardbottom.In general, the substrate is composed of exposedfossil corals or limestone formed by biological andgeological processes.

Although seagrasses are not a major habitat compo-nent, turtle grass and manatee grass are often foundin sediment-filled depressions. Rhizophytic algalspecies are dominant, and attach to sediments byforming rhizoidal "root balls," or by affixing themselvesdirectly to the substrate with holdfasts (Croley andDawes, 1970; Booker, 1991). The most commonspecies are members of the green algae familyCodiaceae, including shaving brush (Penicillus spp.),halimeda (Halimeda spp.), ripweed (Rhipocephalusphoenix), mermaid’s fan (Udotea spp.), and featheralgae (Caulerpa spp.). Several brown algae (includingSargassum, Padina, and Dictyota) and some speciesof calcareous red algae (including Gonolithion) arealso found.

Mangrove Fringe and Nearshore HardbottomInhabitants. The habitat does not actively accrete orbuild massive reef structures, but does support adiverse sessile and motile biota and provides impor-tant nursery and foraging habitat for a variety ofrecreationally and commercially important speciesincluding spiny lobster, snapper, and grouper (Jaap,1984).

Invertebrates. Colonial gorgonian corals are thedominant sessile organism. Gorgonians (octocorals)are typically found in areas exhibiting considerablewater exchange, and are therefore able to survive inwaters with high levels of sediment loading (Booker,1991). Octocoral species include the reticulate seafan(Gorgonia ventalina), knobby candelabra (Euniceamammosa and E. calyculata), double-forked sea rod(Plexaurella dichotoma), gray sea rod (P. grisea), drysea plume (Pseudopterogorgia acerosa), slimy sea

plume (P. americana), and spiny candelabra (Muriceamuricata). Solitary or non-reef-building ahermatypic,stony corals are also found, with common speciesincluding club finger coral (Porites divaricata), mustardhill coral (P. astreoides), smooth and rough starletcorals, golf ball coral, rose coral, elliptical star coral(Dichocoenia stokesii), knobby brain coral (Diploriaclivosa), and smooth brain coral (D. strigosa). Encrust-ing 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 inareas of strong water movement. Commerciallyimportant sponges include sheepswool sponge, yellowsponge, grass sponge, glove sponge, velvet sponge,wire sponge, reef sponge, and finger sponge.

This habitat also supports a diverse assemblage ofanemones, polychaete worms, shrimps, crabs, mol-luscs, echinoderms, and other invertebrates. Coralrubble, limestone rock, and solution holes and ledgesprovide habitat for a host of organisms seeking refugefrom predators.

Fishes. Many fish species, including juveniles popularin the aquarium trade, spend the early portion of theirlife history in the nearshore hardbottom habitat.Juveniles of most angelfish, butterflyfish, surgeonfish,and drums are common. Other juveniles found includesea bass, snappers, grunts, porgies, damselfish,barracuda, wrasses, and parrotfish. Several otherfamilies, including clinids, combtooth blennies, andgobies are present as adults.

Inshore Patch Reef . A diverse inshore patch reefcommunity overlaps the nearshore hardbottom be-tween the depths of 3.7 and 5.5 m. The corals of thishabitat attach to the hardbottom substrate, forming adiscontinuous line of reefs that varies in topographicrelief but is found seaward of nearly every islandbordering the open ocean. The line approximatelyparallels (and is restricted to) the chain of emergentKeys, and the age and size of the corals vary tremen-dously. Many colonies are small, with a low profile, butsome rival the offshore bank reefs in size.

Inshore Patch Reef Inhabitants.

Invertebrates. Stony corals dominate the inshore patchreef's sessile biota, and all species in the nearshorehardbottom habitat (except rose coral) also occur here.Some massive corals such as mountain star coral(Montastrea annularis), cavernous star coral, and giantbrain coral (Colpophyllia natans) form colonies that


48

may be up to 2 m across. Small colonies of lettucecoral (Agaricia agaricites) and scattered colonies ofstaghorn coral occasionally occur.

The habitat's wide diversity of invertebrates is alsosimilar to that of the nearshore hardbottom area.However, inshore patch reefs are primarily occupiedby adults of various species, as opposed to juveniles(except for cryptic invertebrates that hide underrubble). Prior to a massive die-off in 1983, the long-spined urchin (Diadema antillarum) was a commoninhabitant of these reefs. The species grazed effec-tively and kept algae away from the reefs, producing ahalo around certain patch reefs.

Fishes. All families of fishes in the Atlantic's nearshorehardbottom habitat are also found in the inshore patchreef environment. However, like invertebrates, adultsare more common than juveniles, especially whereadequate relief and shelter afford protection frompredators. Herbivorous and omnivorous fish andinvertebrate species keep the plants grazed backaround the reefs.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Reef. The mid-channel reef habitat is a third coral reef communityparalleling the Keys, lying approximately in the centerof Hawk Channel. The reefs vary in topographic relief:some have a low profile (1 m or less), while othershave relief of over 7 m. This variation is related, inpart, to water depth and proximity to the major passesopening to the Gulf. Depths in Hawk Channel varyfrom 8.5 m off Key Largo to 13.7 m off Big Pine Keyand 9.1 m off Key West.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Reef Inhabitants.

Invertebrates. The mid-channel reef habitat is com-posed of massive corals including mountain star coral,cavernous star coral, smooth starlet coral, and giantbrain coral. Many other coral species are present, withdiversity and density exceeding that of the inshorepatch reef habitat.

Cnidarians dominate the benthic biota, with colonialcorallimorphs such as false coral (Ricordea florida),zoanthids (Palythoa spp.), and a variety of anemonescontributing to the array of organisms. Octocorals areboth large and numerous, with species compositionsimilar to that of the nearshore hardbottom habitat.Encrusting sponges are diverse and abundant andcover much of the reef. Polychaete worms, includingsabellids and serpulids, are also common. Numerousspecies of molluscs and echinoderms add to the reefs'diversity, and encrusting tunicates cover large surfaceareas.

Fishes. Mid-channel reefs are a significant habitat formany commercially and recreationally important fish,and species diversity and density is greater than thatof inshore areas. Many species are the same as thosefound near inshore patch reefs, but representativespecies of some families begin to replace their inshorecounterparts. For example, species of damselfish notcommonly found inshore begin to occur in abundance.Mid-channel reefs also serve as an important habitatfor species migrating offshore to spawn, and due tothe turbidity of Hawk Channel throughout most of theyear, they are natural biological "recharge" areas formany species targeted by fishing activities.

Hawk Channel (Mid-channel) Seagrass andSoftbottom. Starting approximately 5.5 m seaward ofthe inshore patch reefs, turtle grass, manatee grass,and sparse Halophila spp. become the dominantseagrasses on portions of the seafloor in HawkChannel. A number of algae are also found, andCaulerpa prolifera is common. In the Lower Keys, theseagrass and softbottom habitat extends to theseaward edge of Hawk Channel, marking the landwardside of the reef tract habitat. It is interrupted by scat-tered rock outcroppings that support sparsehardbottom communities. For example, in the UpperKeys the seaward edge is White Bank.

Hawk Channel (Mid-Channel) Seagrass andSoftbottom Inhabitants. Portions of the seafloor notcovered by seagrasses and algae have soft sedimentsthat serve as habitat for a variety of invertebratesincluding polychaete worms, gastropods, and echino-derms. However, the fauna and flora of this area arenot well-known.

Florida Reef Tract

Florida’s coral reef tract comprises one of the largestcommunities of its type in the world, extending fromFowey Rocks near Miami to the Dry Tortugas. Thereef tract parallels the emergent Keys for 356 km,arcing in a southwesterly direction before terminatingwest of the Dry Tortugas. The coral reef community isalmost continuous except for the area betweenRebecca Shoal and the Dry Tortugas. An outer reeftract lies east and south of the Keys at a distance of4.8 to 11.3 km. Because the Upper and Lower Keysare protected from the direct flow of Gulf water, theyare considered to have greater reef development thanthe Middle Keys (Ginsburg and Shinn, 1964; Shinn etal, 1989; Jaap and Hallock, 1990). All but the northern-most extent of the reef tract lies within the boundariesof the Sanctuary.

49


While there are many references in the popularliterature describing the area as a barrier reef, there isa strong belief in the scientific community that it doesnot fit the definition of such a system (Vaughn, 1914b;Jaap, 1984; Dustan, 1985). To avoid entering into thisdebate, the reef tract is described in this document asincluding a “bank reef margin” or as a “bank reefsystem” (Jaap, 1984). Shinn (personal communication)has suggested it be called a "discontinuous barrierreef." However, it is important to note that within theSanctuary it is an almost continuous reef community,and that the linear or elongated reef habitats that lieparallel to one another in a discontinuous reef tractoften resemble a barrier reef community (Figure 8). Inthe Keys, such reefs parallel the shoreline and arelocated between Hawk Channel and the Straits ofFlorida.

Existing Studies. Although the reef ecosystem hashistorically been one of the Keys' most widely exam-ined marine communities (Smith, 1948; Voss andVoss, 1955), most scientific studies have focusedprimarily on the shallow bank reef habitat. In manycases, scientists have ignored the deeper and moreexpansive intermediate-to-deep reef habitats, and onlyrecently have these areas been rigorously investigated(Jameson, 1981; Pomponi and Rützler, 1984;Bohnsack et al., 1987; Miller, 1987; Wheaton andJaap, 1988; Lidz et al., 1991; Kruer and Causey, 1992;Lapointe et al., 1992).

Numerous scientists have identified and described theorganisms comprising the Keys' coral reef ecosystem.Jaap (1984) and Jaap and Hallock (1990) thoroughlydescribed the ecology of South Florida's coral reefecosystems and provided a historical overview of coralreef research and the resulting published literature.Other scientists who have studied the ecosysteminclude Starck (1968), who published the most com-prehensive list of fishes (517) in the Keys, and Longleyand Hildebrand (1941), who listed 442 fish species inthe Dry Tortugas.

Numerous studies have also been completed thatspecifically describe the inhabitants of the Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary. Because Looe Key Reefand its surrounding habitats generally are inhabited byspecies found along the entire reef tract, these studiesmay be used as a basis for characterizing speciescommon in these areas.

In a general survey at Looe Key, Littler et al. (1985)reported a diverse tropical flora among the hermatypiccorals, gorgonians, and nonarticulated coralline algaethat help form Looe Key Reef. Ninety algal taxarepresenting 28 families were identified, and similar

communities are believed to exist along the Keys' reeftract. Wheaton and Jaap (1988) surveyed fire corals,octocorals, stony corals, zoanthids, andcorallimorpharians (false corals) and found twospecies of fire coral, 42 species of octocorals, and 63taxa 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 amphipodsand detailed their distribution and ecology. Miller(1987) identified 82 species of echinoderms, and bothMiller and Felder (1984) sampled invertebratesthroughout all habitats. Bohnsack et al. (1987) re-ported 188 fish species within Looe Key NationalMarine Sanctuary, and Kruer and Causey (1992)surveyed three depths near Big Pine Shoals, reporting104 species in shallow depths, 114 in mid depths, and109 on the deep reef.

Reef Tract Habitats. While the Florida Keys reef tractis itself considered a bank reef system, the studiesmentioned above (and others) have led to the delinea-tion of several distinct habitats including areas of:

1. Offshore Patch Reef2. Seagrass3. Back Reefs/Reef Flat4. Bank Reef/Transitional Reef5. Intermediate Reef6. Deep Reef7. Outlier Reef8. Sand and Softbottom

Note: Because many studies have been published onthe biota of the Keys' coral reef system, references tospecies found in reef habitats have been limited tosignificant species and those unique to a specific area.

Offshore Patch Reef. The Florida Keys reef tract hasa distinct profile along most of its length, with depthsdecreasing seaward of Hawk Channel toward the reeftract. Scattered dead coral outcroppings supportingsparse hardbottom biota are dispersed in seagrassbeds, marking the landward edge of the bank reefcommunity. Just seaward is a discontinuous band ofoffshore patch reefs that parallel the Keys and com-prise the first major habitat encountered in a seawardprogression toward the reef tract.

The topographic relief of patch reefs varies dependingon their proximity to the more seaward back reef andbank reef communities. Sediment accumulationlandward and behind some bank reefs is rapid, andmay have an effect on the relief of offshore patchreefs. For example, sediments are accumulating in theback reef habitat at Looe Key at a rate of 2 m per


50

Figure 8. Profile of the Florida Keys Reef Tract

Florida Keys Inshore Patch Reef

OffshorePatch Reefs

Bank Reef/Transitional Reef

Hawk ChannelMid-channel PatchReef

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 theoffshore patch reefs in the area are 6.5 m deep andthe surrounding seafloor is 7.5 m deep, giving thereefs 1 m of relief. Along the same line 2.4 km to theeast, however, the tops of the reefs are also 6.5 mdeep, but the surrounding seafloor is 11.5 m deep. Asa result, some of the reefs have over 5 m of relief.Such three-dimensional topography results in bothcomplex and diverse reef assemblages.

Offshore Patch Reef Inhabitants. The offshore patchreef habitat is a transitional zone between the mid-channel and inshore habitats and the outer reef tractcommunity. Accordingly, the area exhibits a subtlemixing of biota.

Invertebrates. Stony corals and octocorals dominatethe habitat, with the species of stony corals presentvery similar to those of the mid-channel reef. Massivecorals include mountain star coral, cavernous starcoral (M. cavernosa), smooth starlet coral, giant braincoral, and pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus). Coloniesof staghorn coral are often located near patch reefs,but not in the dense colonies found seaward of thebank reefs. Octocorals form large colonies that maygrow to over 2 m high. Colonial corallimorphs such asfalse coral, zoanthids, and a variety of anemones arealso abundant. In addition, Hunt et al. (1991) reportedthat the Caribbean spiny lobster uses the habitat whenmigrating through Hawk Channel.

Fishes. Due to their proximity to Hawk Channel andthe Florida Keys reef tract, offshore patch reefs attracta diverse assemblage of reef fish. Both resident andtransient species including wrasses, angelfish, tangs,

surgeonfish, porkfish, cardinals, blennies, damselfish,grunts, and hogfish frequent the reefs. Commerciallyimportant species such as grouper and snapper areseasonally abundant, and migrate shoreward andseaward between spawning events. In addition,several species uncommon inshore begin to appear,demonstrating the habitat's increasingly tropicalinfluence. Examples include the blue chromis(Chromis cyanea), redspotted hawkfish (Ambiycirrhituspinos), and Spanish hogfish (Bodianus rufus).

Reptiles. Loggerhead turtles are frequently observedresting under ledges and overhangs in offshore patchreef areas.

Seagrass Community. An important seagrasscommunity surrounds the offshore patch reefs, extend-ing further seaward toward the outer reef tract. Thishabitat is composed mainly of turtle grass and mana-tee grass, although various species of algae (particu-larly green algae) may be present. Rock outcroppingssupporting diverse miniature reef assemblages arescattered throughout the habitat.

Seagrass Community Inhabitants. Like theSanctuary's Gulf region, the seagrass communityexhibits a high density and diversity of organisms.Species composition varies considerably, however,between the Gulf's seagrass environment and that ofthe Atlantic.

Invertebrates. The Atlantic's seagrass community is animportant habitat for a wide variety of invertebrates,most conspicuously those of the class mollusca. Thequeen conch, for example, spends much of its life

51


history grazing the beds. A wide variety of echino-derms, such as the cushion sea star and long-spinedsea urchin, are often found. In addition, patches ofhardbottom with associated reef inhabitants such assponges, octocorals, small solitary stony corals,tunicates (ascidians), bryozoans, anemones, andalgae frequently occur, and a variety of other inverte-brates (including polychaetes, mollucsa, and crusta-cea) help comprise this mini-reef environment. Inaddition, the Caribbean spiny lobster may seek shelterunder ledges created by blowouts (Hunt et al., 1991)and forage in the seagrass beds.

Fishes. A variety of juvenile and adult reef fishesincluding wrasses, parrotfishes, surgeons, gobies, andothers use the seagrass community as both a habitatand food source. Nocturnal species foraging over thebeds include snappers, grunts, and porgies.

Amphibians and Reptiles. The endangered Atlanticgreen turtle is known to graze on turtle grass within thehabitat.

Back Reefs/Reef Flat. In back reef areas, where theseagrass community is protected by the shallow bankreef habitat and its associated fossilized coral rubbleridges, a reef flat community often forms. This shallow-water habitat is dominated by turtle grass and mana-tee grass, with scattered coral heads and small patchreefs providing shelter for community inhabitants.

Back Reefs/Reef Flat Inhabitants. Coral rubble is aprominent feature of the back reef/reef flat habitat,providing shelter and habitat for a wide variety offishes and invertebrates. Echinoderms, mollusca,polychaetes, and decapod crustacea all seek shelterunder the rubble, and it is also important as a noctur-nal foraging area for the spiny lobster.

Invertebrates. The back reef/reef flat habitat is impor-tant to a variety of invertebrates including the queenconch, which lays eggs in the shallow sand patchesbetween the grass beds (Glazer and Berg, 1993). Allspecies found in the Atlantic's seagrass beds alsooccur in this habitat.

Fishes. Bohnsack et al. (1987) described back reef/reef flat fishes within the Looe Key National MarineSanctuary. Their findings included a visual assess-ment of species comparable to those found alongother portions of the reef tract.

Bank Reef/Transitional Reef. The Keys' bank reefsare estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000 yearsold and, in the Lower Keys, stopped growing about

800 years ago (Shinn et al., 1977). This may corre-spond to sea-level rise that results in the mixing of Gulfand Atlantic waters. Bank reefs are considered uniquedue to the presence of elkhorn coral (Acroporapalmata), coral zonation by depth, and seawardlyoriented 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 contributeto their complexity, making them both biologically andaesthetically appealing. Accordingly, they are popularamong scuba divers and snorkelers.

Although the well-known shallow bank reefs (e.g.,Carysfort Reef, Molasses Reef, Sombrero Reef) maybreak the surface at mean low water, less prominenttransitional reefs are found from 4.6 to 6 m below thesurface. Located on the same continuous reef line asthe bank reefs, these transitional reefs stoppeddeveloping 1,500 to 2,000 years ago, possibly inrelation to rising sea levels. Like the other habitatsalong the reef tract, the transitional reef communityparallels the Keys.

Bank Reef/Transitional Reef Inhabitants. The bandof habitat that comprises the bank reef/transitional reefcommunity is almost continuous, except in areaswhere sediments have smothered the reef.

Plants. Dominant plants of the fore reef includeencrusting red algae of the genera Lithothamnium,Goniolithon, and Peyssonellia. Other plants presentinclude Halimeda opuntia, Bryopsis pennata, andDictyota spp. (Antonius, 1978; Littler et al., 1986).

Invertebrates. The shallow fore reef zone makes uppart of the bank reef community. Within this zone atLooe Key Reef, for instance, high-profile spur-and-groove formations descend from the shallow reef crestseaward to the tip of the coral fingers. Shinn (1963)demonstrated that the spurs at the reef are made offossilized elkhorn coral. Wheaton and Jaap (1988)described reef zonation in the Keys' fore reef habitatsand listed the major inhabitants.

Bank reefs and transitional reefs exhibit a high diver-sity of invertebrate species. The shallow fore reefhabitat consists of massive growths of bladed firecorals (Millepora complanata) in an area known as thereef crest. Seaward of the reef crest, the reef's shallowsurface is covered by yellow sea mat (Palythoacaribbea) and colonies of fire coral. Some species ofhardy stony coral are also present.


52

Slightly seaward, the spurs plunge in depth, andcolonies of elkhorn coral begin to appear in theAcropora Zone. Although some elkhorn coral ispresent on most shallow bank reefs, it is uncommonon the deeper transitional reefs as it is less tolerant ofenvironmental changes and succumbs easily toextreme water temperatures, increased turbidity, anddeteriorating water quality. The presence or absenceof this fragile coral seems related to water depth,exposure to waters derived from the Florida Current,proximity to Hawk Channel, and location relative tomajor inshore tidal passes. The boulder and headcorals previously described for the offshore patch reefhabitat occupy the deepest portion of the spurs. Thesemassive coral colonies make up the Buttress Zone ofthe fore reef. Wheaton and Jaap (1988) reported 23species of soft coral, 31 species of stony coral, andtwo species of fire coral in this habitat at Looe KeyReef.

Fishes. Several fish species not found on the offshorepatch reefs begin to appear in the bank reef/transi-tional reef habitat. Juvenile and adult rock beauties(Holacanthus tricolor), adult reef butterflyfish(Chaetodon sedentarius), creole wrasses (Clepticusparrae), and many other species are common, but arerarely found just a few kilometers inshore. Althoughthe significance of this zoogeographic distribution hasnot been studied, it suggests physical, biological, andenvironmental requirements that help characterize thedistribution of various species. Bohnsack et al. (1987)compiled a comprehensive list of fish species withinthis habitat. Kruer and Causey (1992) identified fish ata 6 to 8 m deep transitional reef 7.5 km east of LooeKey Reef.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Atlantic hawksbill turtles arefrequently observed in the fore reef areas of the bankreefs.

Intermediate Reef. Seaward of the shallow bank reefsand transitional reefs are the deeper intermediate reefcommunities. This habitat, which forms the majority ofavailable reef substrate along the reef tract, begins atan approximate depth of 10 m and extends out to adepth of approximately 19 to 21 m. The slope isgradual, decreasing only about 11 m over 1 km,making the area a very broad reef habitat. Because itextends almost the entire length of the Keys, theintermediate reef occupies a significant geographicalportion of the bank reef community. The reef is com-posed of a drowned spur-and-groove system exhibit-ing low-profile coral spurs. This habitat is older thanbank and transitional reefs, and may have been leftbehind during the rapid sea level rise during the earlyHolocene. The rock is Pleistocene limestone with a

veneer of corals and gorgonians. This zone extendsdown to about 115' when the toe of the limestone isburied in sediment.

Intermediate Reef Inhabitants.

Plants. Eiseman (1981) reported 10 species of algaeat depths of 20 to 30 m off Molasses Reef, with themost characteristic being Halimeda opuntia (f.minor)and Dictyota dichotoma. Two other species, Udoteaconglutiata and Galaxura obtusat, were common butnot as abundant.

Invertebrates. The benthic biota of the intermediatereef is extremely diverse and may rival that of thesessile organisms found in the bank reef environment.Soft corals, enormous sponges, and a large variety ofstony corals are present. Boulder corals are mostprominent, but some staghorn coral colonies andfinger corals are also found. Colonies of porites areoften massive in size (sometimes measuring over 1 min diameter) and brain corals may get quite large.Before 1977, acres of staghorn coral colonies werecommon.

Fishes. Most of the species found in the bank reef'sfore reef environment also occur in the intermediatereef habitat, but the numbers and sizes of somespecies are noticeably different. For example, juvenilerock beauties, angelfish, and adult reef butterflyfish arecommon. In addition, several species of hamlets thatare uncommon in shallower waters also occur, includ-ing black hamlet (Hypoplectrus nigricans), butterhamlet (H. guttavarius), and blue hamlet (H. gemma).Other common species include the blue chromis,which occurs in all size classes but is more commonas a juvenile than in other habitats, and variousseabass and grouper species such as the tobaccofish(Serranus tabacarius) and the coney (Epinephelusfulvus). Much of the seasonal commercial and recre-ational fishing for yellowtail snapper (Ocyuruschrysurus), mangrove (gray) snapper (Lutjanusgriseus), and king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)occurs in this often overlooked reef environment. Dueto diving limitations, Bohnsack et al. (1987) wereunable to count and identify fish in this habitat. Noobservations were made deeper than 15 m, andaccordingly, the study may not be representative of thediversity and abundance of species found below thisdepth.

Deep Reef. At approximately 20 to 21 m, the interme-diate reef begins to slope at a greater angle, and thedeep reef habitat is formed as it descends to a depthof 29 to 33.5 m. The angle of the slope varies along

53


the reef tract, but is more gradual off Key Largo andsteeper off the Lower Keys. At several locationsbetween Sombrero Reef and American Shoals, theslope is almost vertical. Deepwater lace coral (Acariciaspp.), an octocoral occurring along the upper edge ofthe deep reef, consistently marks the transition fromthe intermediate reef environment. The deepwaterresources of the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary(stony corals, octocorals, fishes, algae, echinoderms,molluscs, decapod crustaceans, sponges, geology,and archaeology) were described by several scientistsin a report based on a survey conducted with asubmersible (Jameson, 1981).

Deep Reef Inhabitants. Although the deep reefhabitat contains much barren fossilized coral coveredwith fine sediment, the area is extremely diverse inboth invertebrate and fish species (Jameson, 1981).

Plants. The algae within the deep reef habitat are verysimilar to those in the intermediate reef environment(Eiseman, 1981).

Invertebrates. The most conspicuous invertebrates inthe deep reef environment are the giant basketsponges (Xestospongia muta), Atlantic thorny oyster(Spondylus americanus), and several species ofcrinoids (Davidaster spp.). However, the presence ofcrinoids has decreased since the early-to-mid 1980s.Common coral species include platelike growth formsof lettuce coral, mountain star coral, cavernous starcoral, and yellow pencil coral. Deepwater octocoralssuch as Ellisella barbadensis and Iciligorgia schrammiare also found.

Fishes. The number and abundance of chromisspecies increases at this depth. Purple reef fish(Chromis scotti) and sunshinefish (C. insolata) areextremely abundant in large schools along the deepreef drop-off. The cherubfish (Centropyge argi) isanother frequently observed species, and the spotfinhogfish (Bodianus pulchellus), which rarely occurs inwaters shallower than 15.2 m, is common in all sizeclasses. During the 1970s and early 1980s, it was notuncommon to observe up to six longsnout butterflyfish(Chaetodon aculeatus) per dive, although Kruer andCausey sighted none during a two-year study con-ducted from 1991 to 1992.

Outlier Reef. At the deepest margin of the deep reefhabitat, the reef terminates into soft sand/mud sub-strate. This softbottom extends seaward, graduallysloping until it reaches a deeper reef communityapproximately 1 km from the base of the deep reef(Antonius, 1974; Jameson, 1981). This habitat hasbeen called the deep reef ridge by Antonius (1974).

More recently, however, Lidz et al. (1991) referred to asimilar habitat as outlier reefs, reporting 57 km offormations parallel to the outer reef tract from Ameri-can Shoals to west of Sand Key off Key West. Thestructures were located .5 to 1.5 km seaward of thebank reef margin, at an approximate depth of 30 to 40m, and had 21 to 28 m of relief (Lidz et al., 1991).Fishermen have used this habitat for years alongportions of the entire reef tract. In another study,Jameson (1981) used side-scan sonar and visualobservations from a submersible to survey deep reefsoff South Carysfort Reef, The Elbow, and French Reef.The habitat consisted of mounds, generally 1 to 2 m inrelief, interspersed with sand channels.

Outlier Reef Inhabitants.

Plants. Eiseman (1981) reported a Lithothamnioncobble zone in the Keys’ deepest reef habitats. Whilethere was no dominant species, virtually all hadligulate, foliose, or filamentous growth forms.

Invertebrates. Characteristic outlier reef invertebratesinclude platelike growth forms of lettuce coral, moun-tain star coral, cavernous star coral, yellow pencil coral(Madracis mirabilis), and the barrel sponge(Xestospongia muta). Deepwater octocorals such asEllisella barbadensis and Iciligorgia schrammi are alsopresent. (Antonius, 1974).

Fishes. The fish species in this habitat are very similarto those found in the deep reef environment.

Sand and Softbottom . Unconsolidated soft sedimentscomprise the final habitat in the bank reef community.Several scientists (Enos, 1977; Lidz et al., 1985; Shinnet al., 1989) have described the origin of sedimentsfound along the reef tract. Recent work by Lidz et al.(1985) has shown that the majority of sand-sizedsediments in the Lower Keys are composed primarilyof coral fragments, and not Halimeda fragments aspreviously thought. West of Key West, however,Halimeda fragments are the main sediment source(Shinn et al., 1989).

Sand and Softbottom Inhabitants. The habitatoccurs throughout the reef tract, and it is much largerthan the reefs themselves. Still, its importance is oftenunderstated, and it is an area of high polychaete,mollusc, and echinoderm diversity.

Invertebrates. The most conspicuous epifauna areechinoderms including the sea stars (Luidia spp.;Astropecten spp.), sand dollars, and sea cucumbers.Many molluscs occur on sand, including the Florida


54

fighting conch (Strombus alatus), hawkwing conch (S.raninus), and queen helmet shell (Cassismadagascarensis).

Fishes. Many fish species are found in the habitat thatare not as common in reef areas. Examples includethe yellowhead jawfish (Opistognathus aurifrons),dusky jawfish (Opistognathus whitehursti), sailfinblenny (Emblemaria pandionis), sand tilefish(Malacanthus plumieri), and lantern bass (Serranusbaldwini). Several seabass species also occur.


The enormous size of the Sanctuary's Atlantic Oceanbiogeographic region sets the Florida Keys' coral reefcommunity apart from the fringing reefs of much of theCaribbean. The biological diversity that the regionsupports makes the Keys' ecosystem ecologically,economically, aesthetically, and biogeographicallyunique within the United States.

The region's reefs are highly complex and diversecommunities whose success is limited by the presenceof suitable substrate and a narrow range of environ-mental and hydrographical parameters. Corals are theprincipal builders of the reef community and form themain source of spatial complexity and shelter. Biogeo-graphic and environmental factors determine thedensity 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, incombination, help make the system ecologicallyunique. Few places have the environmental andgeological setting that has made it possible for such anecosystem to form, and when combined with the otherbiogeographic regions of the Sanctuary, the entireecosystem is unique to much of the Caribbean.

55


Threatened and Endangered Species

A variety of plants, invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, birds,and mammals in the Keys are protected at the Federaland/or State level. Each of these species is a valuablenatural resource that contributes to the ecologicalbalance of the Sanctuary. This section provides ashort description of the species within the Sanctuarythat are endangered, threatened, or of special concern(as defined by the State). Each description defines thespecies' distribution, range, and use of habitats, aswell as the degree of risk posed by certain human-useactivities.

Because Federal and State classifications do notalways match, the protected status of each specieshas been summarized in Table 6. A species is definedas endangered if it is at risk of extinction throughoutall, or a significant part, of its range. A threatenedspecies is one that is likely to become endangered inthe near future, and a species of special concern hasreceived this classification based on either unfavorableregional factors or a decline in population (Owre,1990). The Federal designation of both plants andanimals is classified by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) and State designation is classified bythe Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission(FGFWFC). A list of threatened and endangeredplants is also developed by the Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services (FDA) and theFlorida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI).

Plants

Although some of Florida's 3,500 vascular plantspecies have been introduced through horticultural oragricultural practices, the majority are native to thestate. Many of these native plants are unable towithstand human impacts or the competition of invad-ing exotic species, and the number of individuals andpopulations is declining. The primary causes ofdeclines include the selective horticultural collection/removal of species and habitat destruction or clearingfor development (FGFWFC, 1978 [rev. 1988]). Due tothese human-induced pressures, as well as naturalthreats from fires and hurricanes, 71 species of plantsin the Keys are listed as threatened or endangered bythe FDA, two species are listed as federally endan-gered, and one as federally threatened.

Both the Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii) and Small’smilkpea (Galactia smallii) are listed as federallyendangered by the FWS. The tree cactus ranges fromCuba to the Keys, where five small populationsremain. The cactus's endangered status is a result of

the destruction of hardwood hammocks for commercialand residential development. Small’s milkpea is anendemic plant restricted to seven pine rockland areasin South Florida. It has been classified as endangeredbased on the destruction of pine rockland and theexclusion of fire in these habitats.

Garber’s spurge (Euphorbia garberi) is an endemicplant listed as federally threatened by the FWS. Itoccurs in only four areas of Everglades National Parkand one area of the Keys. Like the tree cactus andSmall’s milkpea, it is classified as threatened due tohabitat destruction.

Table 7 summarizes the status, habitat type, range(when available), and cause of decline for plantspecies in the Keys listed as endangered or threat-ened by the FDA.

Animals

Animal species in the Keys are dependent on thearea’s diverse habitats, including beaches, coral reefs,pine rockland, transitional wetlands, freshwaterwetlands, mangroves, and hardwood hammocks. Asthese habitats are altered, a species' chance ofsurvival diminishes. The species described below arethreatened primarily by direct or indirect habitat lossand habitat alteration as a result of human activities.Those that are either threatened or endangered arelisted in Table 6, along with the juridiction responsiblefor protecting them.

Invertebrates

Florida Tree Snail (Liguus fasciatus). Florida treesnails have historically been found from Grassy Key toKey West, and museum specimens exist from LowerMatecumbe Key (Deisler, 1982). They are found on avariety of native hammock trees and a few introducedornamentals (Deisler, 1982). Primary threats includethe loss of habitat through development and recre-ational 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 subspeciesoccurred in a small area on Stock Island and wasconfined to a patch of natural hardwood hammocks(FWS, 1982). However, only a captive populationremains (Wilmers, pers. comm.) Major threats includehabitat alteration and loss, human recreational use ofsnail habitat, pesticide application, overcollection forshells (Antonius, 1982), fire ants (Wilmers, pers.comm.), and relocation by collectors (Sprunt, pers.comm.).


56

Mangrove Rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). Mangroverivulus occurs throughout the Keys and has beencollected from Key West to Biscayne Bay. The speciesprimarily inhabits shallow mosquito ditches and baysassociated with estuarine mangroves and high-saltmarsh shorelines (Snelson, 1978; Taylor, 1992). It isthreatened by development near estuarine boundaries(Snelson, 1978; Taylor, 1992).

Amphibians and Reptiles

American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). TheAmerican alligator primarily ranges from Little PineKey to Sugarloaf Key, inhabiting wetland areas,including the edges of natural basins, freshwatermarshes, and mosquito ditches on Little Pine, NoName, and Big Pine keys (Kruer, pers. comm.). Thegreatest concentrations are on Big Pine Key. Alligatorholes and ponds may be important refuges for otheranimals during periods of drought (Woolfenden, 1983),and the maintenance of such ponds plays a significantrole in preserving the health of the area's wetlands.Nests are usually constructed on mounds of vegeta-tion, raised banks, or slightly higher ground so eggswill be above the high-water mark (VanMeter, 1987).The species is threatened by the loss of freshwaterand wetland habitats (Fogarty, 1978) and humaninteraction (e.g., poaching, road kills, and removal)(Kruer, pers. comm.).

American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). A tropical,typically estuarine species that reaches its northernlimit in southern Florida, American crocodiles havebeen reported in the Upper Keys from lower PlantationKey to Key Largo and along Cross Key to the main-land of Barnes and Card sounds. They have also beensighted from southern Biscayne Bay north to Turkeyand Black points (FWS, 1984; Moler, 1991). Croco-diles may occur in the Lower Keys, mainly withinboundaries of the National Key Deer and Great WhiteHeron wildlife refuges (FWS, 1984a), and have alsobeen found in Key West (Wilmers, pers. comm.).However, there is no recent proof to verify continuedpresence in these areas (FWS, 1984a).

Crocodiles primarily inhabit mangrove-lined creeks,bays, and other swampy areas. Adult females oftenconstruct low nest mounds or holes in sand, marl, orpeat soils on abandoned canal levees in mangroveswamps, along creek banks, or on small beaches(FWS, 1984). Of the 25 to 30 nests constructed inFlorida each year, 80 percent are in Monroe County oron adjacent beaches in Dade County (Moler, 1991).Most known nests occur in the Florida Bay portion ofEverglades National Park, in Barnes and Card sounds,

Pillar Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus). Pillar coral isfound scattered throughout the Florida Reef Tract inshallow, protected areas of the outer reefs and onshallow patch reefs. Because of its ornamental shape,it has been overcollected by marine life collectors(Antonius, 1982).

Schaus’s Swallowtail Butterfly (Heraclidesaristodemus ponceanus). The range of Schaus'sswallowtail butterfly is known only from the southeast-ern tip of the Florida peninsula and in the Keys (FWS,1982). Adults occur most frequently along overgrowntrails in relatively undisturbed hardwood hammocks.Although reports from Lower Matecumbe and UpperMatecumbe keys exist, the species is most often foundin northern Key Largo and Biscayne National Park(FWS, 1982; Monroe County, 1992; Kruer, 1992).Primary threats include the widespread aerial applica-tion of insecticides, overcollection, hurricanes, andprimary habitat destruction (FWS, 1982; Wilmers,pers. comm.).

Fishes

Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis). Asubtropical estuarine species, common snook gener-ally inhabits brackish estuaries, particularly mangrove-fringed bays and tidal streams (Seaman and Collins,1983). The species is also found in salt marsh andcoral reef environments and in man-made ditches andcanals (Thue et al., 1982; Patillo et al., in prep.). Thespecies occurs from Everglades National Park to theDry Tortugas (Burgess, 1980) and is prized by recre-ational fishermen as a sport and food fish (Thue et al.,1982). Primary threats include loss of habitat, lowwater temperatures, and overfishing (Seaman andCollins, 1983; Patillo et al., in prep.).

Key Blenny (Starksia starcki). Key blenny are knownonly within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,and although Gilbert (1978) has suggested the speciesmay inhabit other areas within the Keys, sightings arerare. All specimens collected have come from isolatedcoral formations in depths of less than 5 m. Majorthreats include the loss of coral habitat (Gilbert, 1978).

Key Silverside (Menidia conchorum). Key silversidesare 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 essentiallymarine, and typically occupies shallow open bays(Gilbert, 1978). Since it has a limited range and itsnumbers fluctuate dramatically, an undisturbed habitatis crucial (Gilbert, 1978). Accordingly, the species isthreatened by habitat alteration.

57


marine debris and tar balls, entanglement in active andpassive fishing gear, water quality degradation, andcollisions with vessels (Lund, 1978e; FWS, 1984b;NMFS and FWS, 1991b).

Atlantic Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Al-though Atlantic ridley turtles have a range that includesthe waters of the Keys, they are rarely sighted (Lund,1978d). Like other sea turtle species, they have apelagic juvenile stage. Adults and subadults usuallyinhabit nearshore waters, mangrove creeks, and bays.Although there are no known nesting areas in theKeys, knowledge of nesting, subadult distribution, andrecent strandings off Marathon indicate that much, ifnot all, of the population migrates through the Straits ofFlorida (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threats include eggcollecting and shrimp trawl drownings, ingestion of orentanglement in marine debris, and water qualitydegradation (Lund, 1978d; FWS, 1984b).

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Thoughsomewhat scarce, leatherback turtles occur throughoutthe waters of the Keys (Lazell, 1989). They are themost pelagic of the area's turtles and can dive to greatdepths. There are no records of nesting beaches in theKeys (Lund, 1978a; Wilmers, pers. comm.), althoughone leatherback unsuccessfully attempted to nest inthe Marquesas in 1989. Primary threats include eggcollecting on beaches outside the Keys; the killing offemales for food; entanglement in fishing gear; and theingestion of plastic bags that are mistaken for jellyfish(Lund, 1978a; Odell, 1990).

Striped Mud Turtle (Klinosternon bauri). Striped mudturtles range from Big Pine Key to Stock Island in theLower Keys (Monroe County Board of County Com-missioners, 1986). Optimal habitats include small freshor slightly brackish ponds, mangrove swamps, and theedge of hardwood hammocks (Weaver, 1978). Primarythreats include land development, which alters fresh-water/brackish ponds and the surrounding terrestrialenvironment (Weaver, 1978).

Big Pine Key Ringneck Snake (Diadophispunctatus). Big Pine Key ringneck snakes have themost restricted range of any snake in the Lower Keys(Lazell, 1989). They are found from No Name Key toSugarloaf Key, but may be restricted to Middle Torch,Little Torch, and Big Pine keys (Monroe County Boardof County Commissioners, 1986; Kruer, 1992). On theTorch Keys they have only been found on the edges orwithin the disturbed portions of tropical hardwoodhammocks (Lazell, 1989). The principal threat isincreasing residential development, which destroys

Black Point, North Key Largo, Turkey Point, and LakeSurprise (Moler, 1991; FWS, 1984a; Monroe County,1992). Threats include habitat loss/alteration anddirect disturbance by humans, including camping,boating and fishing near nesting sites, hunting, androad kills (FWS, 1984a).

Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas). TheAtlantic green turtle occurs throughout the marinewaters of the Keys and is highly migratory (Lund,1978b). There are recent reports of nesting on BocaGrande, Sawyer Key, and the Marquesas (Wilmers,pers. comm.). The Keys' nearshore waters are crucialdevelopmental areas (Hoffman, pers. comm.) andmanatee grass and turtle grass provide the species'main food source (Zieman, 1982; Zieman, pers.comm.). Primary threats include the loss of seagrassfeeding areas; human disturbances; entanglements inactive, passive, and lost fishing gear; water qualitydegradation; the loss or alteration of nesting beaches(FWS, 1984b; NMFS and FWS, 1991a); and cutane-ous fibropapilomas found on immatures (Wells, pers.comm.) that increase the chance of entanglement infishing gear (Hoffman, pers. comm.).

Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbrictaimbricata). Atlantic hawksbill turtles occur throughoutthe waters of the Keys, with nesting sites reported atBoca Grande Key (Wilmers, pers. comm.) and SoldierKey in Biscayne National Park (Hoffman, pers.comm.). The species is most often observed nearcoral reefs and is considered the most endangered ofthe Keys' sea turtles. (Lund, 1978c). Primary threatsinclude the degradation of nesting beaches and coralreefs, decreased water quality, hunting and eggcollecting, and entanglements in active and passivefishing gear (Lund, 1978c; FWS, 1984b).

Atlantic Loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta).Inhabiting waters throughout the Keys, Atlantic logger-heads are the most common marine turtle in theSanctuary and the only species regularly utilizingKeys' beaches for nesting (Monroe County, 1992).Nests occur from Upper Matecumbe Key to the DryTortugas, and sites have been reported in areasincluding the Marquesas Keys, Woman Key, BocaGrande Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, Coco PlumBeach, Bahia Honda, Big Munson, Sawyer, LowerSugarloaf Key, and Everglades National Park (MonroeCounty Board of County Commissioners, 1986;Wilmers, pers. comm.). Hatchlings are often associ-ated with sargassum rafts (Odell, 1990). Major threatsinclude shrimp trawl drownings, the destruction ofnesting beaches by coastal development, artificiallights near nesting beaches that cause hatchlings tomove away from their ocean destination, ingestion of


58

tropical hardwood hammock and slash pinelandhabitats. The destruction of freshwater wetlands bydevelopment 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; MonroeCounty Board of County Commissioners, 1986). Thespecies is most often found on Big Pine Key (Wilmers,pers. comm.) and utilizes tropical hardwood ham-mocks, slash pinelands, freshwater wetlands, tidalmangroves, transitional habitats, and disturbed landsrecolonized by non-native vegetation. The species isthreatened by habitat loss, collection for pets (by bothrecreational and commercial collectors), and road kills(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986; Lazell, 1989).

Florida Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi victa). Floridabrown snakes occur in the Upper Keys (Sprunt, pers.comm.), but primarily range from No Name Key toSugarloaf Key and are endemic to the Lower Keys(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986; Lazell, 1989). They inhabit slash pinelands andfreshwater wetlands, and are vulnerable to habitat lossresulting from development (Monroe County Board ofCounty Commissioners, 1986).

Florida Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritassackeni). Florida ribbon snakes are found in the LowerKeys from No Name Key to Sugarloaf Key and havealso been reported on Cudjoe, Middle Torch, and BigPine keys (Monroe County Board of County Commis-sioners, 1986; Lazell, 1989). They also occur on KeyLargo and Plantation Key (Sprunt, pers. comm.).Primary habitats include freshwater and tidal (man-grove and transitional) wetlands. A primary threat isthe elimination or degradation of habitat through landdevelopment (Monroe County Board of County Com-missioners, 1986; Lazell, 1989).

Miami Black-headed Snake (Tantilla oolitica). Al-though mostly found from Key Largo to Grassy Key(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986), Miami black-headed snakes have also beenreported in southeastern Dade County (Sprunt, pers.comm.). They mainly inhabit cavities in the Key Largolimestone underlying Upper Keys' hardwood ham-mocks (Monroe County Board of County Commission-ers, 1986). A primary threat is the loss of tropicalhardwood hammocks through land development(Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986).

Red Rat Snake (Elaphe guttata guttata). Perhaps themost common snake in the Upper Keys uplands(Sprunt, pers. comm.), red rat snakes have also beenreported in the Lower Keys on Bahia Honda Key, BigPine Key, Vaca Key, Key West, Indian Key, Little PineKey, Stock Island, Sugarloaf Key, and the Marquesas(Weaver, 1978). Pine woods are the preferred habitatand the species is threatened by habitat destruction asa result of land development (Weaver, 1978).

Florida Keys Mole Skink (Eumeces egregiusegregius). Although rarely seen, the Florida Keys moleskink has been reported on Middle Torch Key, KeyVaca, the Dry Tortugas, Key West, Indian Key, StockIsland, Upper Matecumbe Key, Key Largo, andPlantation Key (Lazell, 1989; Sprunt, pers. comm.). Anendemic subspecies, it is confined to the Keys and isfound in sandy areas, usually near the shoreline.Human development is the primary threat to thespecies (Lazell, 1989).

Birds

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius). Amigratory species seen in the winter throughout theKeys, American kestrels are found in open habitats,particularly pine forests and clearings with dead trees.There are no known nesting sites in the Keys. Theyare threatened by habitat destruction resulting fromhuman development (Wilmers, pers. comm.).

American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus).Although rare in the Keys (Sprunt, pers. comm.),American oystercatchers are occasionally seen in theUpper Keys on sandy beaches and oyster and molluscbeds 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 Keysduring the fall and winter, Arctic peregrine falconsinhabit sea coasts, estuaries, bays, and tree-rimmedmarshes (Owre, 1990). Over half of the total popula-tion may pass through the Keys during the fall migra-tion, using Boot Key and other sites as roosting areas(Hoffman, pers. comm.; Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threatsinclude chemical pollution and the loss of roostingareas.

Bachman’s Warbler (Vermivora bachmani). Althoughvery rare and possibly extinct (Lazell, 1989),Bachman's warblers have been reported in the LowerKeys as far south as Key West (Stevenson, 1978).The species' habitats include mangroves and hard-wood hammocks (Stevenson, 1978; Lazell, 1989).

59


1990) and the Dry Tortugas (Hoffman, pers. comm.).They prefer wet prairies, grasslands, sparsely veg-etated marshes, and open areas that are shallow andflooded (Williams, 1978). They nest in mounds ofaquatic vegetation and in sloughs of water about .3 mdeep (Woolfenden, 1983). Because of the species'very low reproductive potential and subsequentinability to respond quickly to environmental change(Williams, 1978), threats include drainage area alter-ation and wetland loss.

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). Least terns are foundthroughout the Keys, with nesting sites in areasincluding Lake Edna, Grassy Key, Big Pine Key, OhioKey, and Everglades National Park (Hovis andRobson, 1989; Spendelow and Patton, 1988). Theyprefer to nest on open, flat areas with sparse vegeta-tion and coarse substrates such as sand or shell. Theyare opportunistic, and have begun to nest on a varietyof man-made habitats including gravel rooftops,dredge material sites, highway easements, rock pits,roadside shoulders, and parking lots (Spendelow andPatton, 1988; Hovis and Robson, 1989). These siteswill ultimately threaten the species, however, as mostdredge material sites are not stable for nesting be-cause they are temporary and subject to high levels ofhuman disturbance. Also, although rooftops arepermanent structures, they flood and may be hazard-ous to young that cannot fly (Hovis and Robson,1989).

Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea). Little blue heronpopulations are scattered throughout the Keys and canbe found in exposed tidal flats, intertidal seagrassbanks, shallows bordering mangrove islands (Wilmers,pers. comm.), and the wet meadows of wetland areas(Rodgers, 1978). Threats include the loss of foragingand nesting habitats (Rodgers, 1978; Hoffman, pers.comm.).

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). Scattered throughout theKeys, snowy egrets are common in fresh and saltwatermarshes but prefer salt and brackish habitats (Ogden,1978d). Nesting occurs in shrubs, small trees, man-groves, and cacti. Although populations are concen-trated in South Florida, a few breed in the Keys(Spendelow and Patton, 1988). As with other wadingbirds, snowy egret survival is dependent upon theamount of productive wetlands available for nestingand feeding (Ogden, 1978d).

Tricolored Heron; Louisiana Heron (Egretta tricolor).Although tricolored herons occur in a variety of envi-ronments throughout the Keys, they are most commonin estuarine and wetland habitats. Like most waders,herons nest on islands or in woody vegetation over

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In the LowerKeys, bald eagles range from Little Pine Key to theMarquesas (Monroe County Board of County Commis-sioners, 1986). Eagles nesting in the Lower Keys arethe southernmost breeders in the United States(Wilmers, 1991). In the Upper Keys, they range northand east of Lower Matecumbe to the mainland (includ-ing adjacent islands and waters) and throughoutFlorida Bay (Monroe County Board of County Commis-sioners, 1986). They are usually observed in woodedareas near the coast and large lakes, and breed inmangroves (Owre, 1990; Wilmers, 1991; Sprunt, pers.comm.). Threats include lead pellet and pesticidepoisoning, nest flushing by boats, and habitat lossfrom coastal development and acid rain (Wilmers,1991; Sprunt, pers. comm.), especially near lakes andcoastal areas, both of which are crucial nesting androosting habitats.

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Brownpelican populations are scattered throughout the Keys(Sprunt, pers. comm.), and birds nest on coastalislands in mangrove trees (Schreiber, 1978). Threatsinclude human disturbance of nesting areas, de-creases in the availability of prey, and pesticidepoisoning (e.g., DDT and chlorinated hydrocarbons)that decreases reproductive success (Schreiber, 1978;Lazell, 1989).

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Although rarewithin the Sanctuary, burrowing owl populations areconcentrated in the Middle Keys. Because they nestseveral feet below ground, the local water table mustremain low or their burrows may be flooded(Woolfenden, 1983). They are generally seen on highshady ground with little growth (particularly prairies,sand hills, and pastures) and on prairie-like expansesof airports, industrial plants, and campuses (Owre,1990). In Marathon they have been seen around theairport, golf course, and at Sombrero Beach Park(Wilmers, pers. comm.; Hoffman, pers. comm.).Threats include development and the domestic catpopulation (Hoffman, pers. comm.).

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramusmaritimus mirabilis). Cape Sable seaside sparrows arefound primarily in Everglades National Park andadjacent areas (Owre, 1990; Hoffman, pers. comm.),in freshwater marshes and sites with fresh to slightlybrackish water. Primary threats include the alterationof drainage areas and the loss of wetland habitat(Werner, 1978).

Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis).Although rare in the Keys, Florida sandhill cranes havebeen reported in Everglades National Park (Owre,


60

Florida Bay (Ogden, 1978c), with colonies on SandyKey and Porjoe Key (Hoffman, pers. comm.). Mostrecently, they have been sighted near ponds withweedy bottoms in the town of Layton on Long Key,around shallow ponds on Cudjoe Key, and occasion-ally on Big Pine Key (Lazell, 1989). Nonbreeders occursouth of Long Key (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Threatsinclude habitat loss and food resource declinesresulting from an inadequate flow of freshwater fromthe Everglades (Owre, 1990).

Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii). Roseate ternsprimarily range from the Middle Keys to the DryTortugas (Spendelow and Patton, 1988), preferring tonest on shell/sand beaches, broken coral heaps, anderoded limestone in open or sparsely vegetated sites.They have historically been reported in areas includingCoco Plum Beach (Marathon), islands off the SevenMile Bridge, the Spoil Islands in Key West Harbor, andMolasses Reef Dry Rocks (Spendelow and Patton,1988). Threats include the loss of nesting sites due todevelopment, the disturbance of nest sites by humans,and the predation of nest sites by raccoons and blackrats (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,1986).

Southeastern Snowy Plover (Charadriusalexandrinus tenuirostris). Southeastern snowy ploversrequire open, dry sandy beaches for breeding andboth dry and tidal flats for foraging. No other birdspecies feeds and breeds on open, dry sand(Woolfenden, 1978). Although rare in the Keys andmost common on Gulf coast beaches (Woolfenden,1978) and Marco Island (Hoffman, pers. comm.), theyhave been sighted in the Middle Keys and Florida Bay.They are threatened by human beach use and domes-tic cats and dogs (Woolfenden, 1978).

White-crowned Pigeon (Columba leucocephala).White-crowned pigeons nest on small mangroveislands, from Elliott Key south to the Marquesas, andusually fly into large hardwood hammocks to feed(Bancroft et al., 1991). Breeding populations aredependent on hammocks for food, but because thesehammocks occupy high ground they have beenextensively developed for human habitation. Accord-ingly, hammock destruction is a major threat to thespecies (Bancroft et al., 1991).

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). Wood storks areuncommon in the Keys, except in Barnes and Cardsounds. Although nesting once occurred in the man-grove islets in Florida Bay (Spendelow and Patton,1988), these colonies no longer exist (Hoffman, pers.comm.). Wood storks generally inhabit trees overstanding water (including freshwater swamps and

standing water (Owre, 1990). Nests are often locatedin mangroves, willow, buttonbush, marsh elder, waxmyrtle, pond apple, or similar woody plants character-istic of interior wetland or estuarine areas (Ogden,1978b). Threats include wetland loss (Ogden, 1978b).

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Ranging from EvergladesNational Park to the Lower Keys, osprey nests areconcentrated between Florida Bay and the TenThousand Islands (Ogden, 1978e; Wilmers, 1991).Nesting usually occurs in the tops of large cypress,mangrove, pine, or swamp hardwood trees near seacoasts, interior lakes, large swamps, or large rivers.However, nests may also occur close to the ground(Ogden, 1978e; Wilmers, 1991) or on man-madeobjects including utility poles, radio towers, channelmarkers, and high signs (Wilmers, 1991). Althoughthreatened by pesticides that can greatly reducenesting success, the primary threat to nesting ospreysis habitat destruction (Ogden, 1978e). In addition,severe prolonged disturbances by boaters duringsensitive pre-nesting and incubation periods havedrastically reduced productivity in several local areasof Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge(Wilmers, pers. comm.).

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Piping ploversare found in Everglades National Park and the LowerKeys, primarily inhabiting beaches, tidal sand flats,mud flats, and sandfills. The wetlands on Ohio,Woman, and Boca Grande keys provide a majorwintering ground (Monroe County, 1992; Wilmers,pers. comm.). Threats include habitat loss and humandisturbance (Owre, 1990; Wilmers, pers. comm.).

Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens). Reddish egretpopulations are scattered throughout Florida Bay andthe Lower Keys. Nesting sites are most common withinEverglades National Park and on Hemp Key(Robertson, 1978; Kruer, pers. comm.). Reddishegrets are generally associated with red mangroves,usually nesting near or over saltwater or hypersalinewater and feeding in nearby shallows (Robertson,1978; Hoffman, pers. comm.). Because much of thepopulation occurs in areas with submarginal food-source productivity (e.g., Florida Bay), the species isthreatened by habitat loss (Owre, 1990).

Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja). Roseate spoonbillsbreed in Florida Bay, primarily in Everglades NationalPark (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Although primarily scat-tered throughout the Upper Keys, some breeders feedin areas of water lagoons and marshes with mangrovezones (Spendelow and Patton, 1988), and most go tothe mainland (Sprunt, pers. comm.). Roseate spoon-bills usually nest in the red and black mangroves of

61


marshes) or on islands, and feed on fish in shallowwater (Ogden, 1978a). Population declines result fromhabitat loss and reduced fish productivity (which hasreduced reproductive success) in altered freshwaterwetlands such as the Everglades (Ogden and Nesbitt,1979).

Mammals

Note: Current threats for each of the whales listedbelow include the ingestion of chemical pollutants(e.g., pesticides, trace metals) passed through thefood chain, marine debris (e.g., plastic bags and lost ordiscarded fishing gear) (Sadove and Morreale, 1989),entanglement in fishing gear, and collisions with boats(Odell, 1990). Threats to food resources include oceanpollution and competition from commercial fisheries(Odell, 1992). Also, because whales have such vastmigration patterns, activities occurring outside theSanctuary can ultimately have harmful impacts onindividuals and populations travelling through the area.Threats considered specific to a particular specieshave been listed for that species.

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). There are norecords of blue whales in the waters of the Keys.However, because at least one has stranded on theTexas coast, it is possible that the species passesthrough the Sanctuary (Odell, 1990).

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). The incidence ofseveral historical strandings throughout the Keys(Smithsonian Institution, unpublished data; Schmidley,1981) suggests that fin whales pass through theStraits of Florida (Odell, 1990). Threats include fishinggear entanglements, collisions with vessels, ingestionof pollutants through the food chain, competition withthe fisheries industry, and stress caused by whale-watching activities outside the Sanctuary (Odell,1992c).

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Al-though there are no historical records of humpbackstrandings in the Keys (Smithsonian Institution,unpublished data), the species has been sighted onboth coasts of Florida (Schmidley, 1981), and maymigrate through the region (Odell, 1990). Threatsinclude fishing gear entanglements, collisions withvessels, pollutant ingestion through the food chain,natural biotoxins, stress caused by whale-watchingactivities outside the Sanctuary, and habitat modifica-tion caused by oil exploration and other humanactivities (Odell, 1992d).

Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Because rightwhales have overwintering and calving grounds offFlorida's east coast (Kraus, 1985) and because therehave been recent sightings in Dade County andstrandings in the Gulf of Mexico, it can be assumedthat they pass through the waters of the Keys (Odell,1990). Threats include entanglement and collisionswith vessels, and recent photograph analysis indicatedthat 57 percent of North Atlantic right whales havescars indicative of such activities (Kraus, 1990). Inaddition, coastal pollution may affect food distributionand abundance, impeding whale recovery (Odell,1992a).

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Although there areno historical records of sei whales in the Keys, thereare several stranding records for the Gulf of Mexico,Caribbean, and Florida's east coast (SmithsonianInstitution, unpublished data), suggesting that thespecies passes through Sanctuary waters (Odell,1990). Primary threats include a reduction of foodresources by ocean pollution and competition fromcommercial fisheries (Odell, 1992b).

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Historicalrecords indicate that sperm whales have stranded inareas throughout the Keys (Smithsonian Institution,unpublished data), and because they feed throughoutthe year (Schmidley, 1981), it is likely that they feedwithin the Sanctuary. The occasional stranding ofcalves suggests that Sanctuary waters may also be acalving area (Odell, 1990). Threats include entangle-ment in fishing gear and underwater cables, habitatmodification by offshore oil development, and theingestion of pollutants accumulated in the food chain(Odell, 1992e).

Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus). A subspeciesof the West Indian manatee, Florida manatees rangefrom Upper Key Largo to Key West. They generallyinhabit canals, creeks, and surrounding watersthroughout the year, but are not exclusive to MonroeCounty, travelling to various coastal areas and riversthroughout the southeastern United States (FWS,1989). They are frequently found in the fresh orbrackish 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, andemergent vegetation, movements and aggregations ofmanatees can be correlated with the distribution ofseagrasses and vascular freshwater aquatic vegeta-tion (FWS, 1989). Human destruction and/or alterationof the species' habitat (i.e., seagrass) is a primary


62

threat that has already caused population declines.Other human-induced threats include collisions withboats and barges, fishing gear entanglements, crush-ing in flood gates or canal locks, and intentional killing(FWS, 1989; O'Shea and Ludlow, 1992).

Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium ). A smallersubspecies of the Virginia white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus), Key deer range from theJohnson Keys/Little Pine Key complex west to LowerSugarloaf Key (FWS, 1985). Their range is currentlyrestricted to the Lower Keys (Klimstra, 1992), with thegreatest concentrations on Big Pine Key and No NameKey (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992). They are known toswim between Keys, particularly when searching forfresh water in times of drought. Like most white-taileddeer, they utilize various habitats depending onavailability, activity, and time of day (FWS, 1985).They most frequently occupy mangroves and hard-wood hammocks during the day, as these areasprovide escape cover, bedding, and loafing sites. Theyfeed on a variety of plants but prefer red mangroves(FWS, 1985). Habitat use is affected by the availabilityof fresh water. The primary cause of species decline isthe destruction or alteration of habitat by humandevelopment. Other threats include road kills, watersource reductions (e.g., alteration or decreases offreshwater wetlands), harassment, dog attacks,poaching, and drowning (particularly of fawns inmosquito ditches) (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992).

Key Largo Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinusallapaticola). The Key Largo cotton mouse is foundonly in and around the hardwood hammocks ofnorthern Key Largo (Brown, 1978; Lazell, 1991). Ashuman development has increased, there has been acorresponding decrease in available hammock habitat.The increase in human settlement has also led to anincrease in the number of competing European ratsand predatory house cats, causing a subsequentdecline 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 woodrat utilizes the island's hardwood hammocks as itsprimary habitat. The species is threatened by the lossof habitat resulting from human development (Lazell,1989). An increase in human settlement has also ledto a corresponding increase in competing Europeanrats and predatory house cats, causing a subsequentdecline in the wood rat population (Brown, 1978;Lazell, 1989; Humphrey, 1992).

Silver Rice Rat (Oryzomys argentatus). Ranging fromLittle Pine Key to Saddlebunch Keys, silver rice ratpopulations 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 inmarsh and buttonwood zones. Most populationsdepend on wetland habitat containing intertidal redmangroves, salt marsh, and buttonwood. Because thisspecies is not found outside the Lower Keys, a primarythreat to its long-term survival is habitat loss due toland development (Lazell, 1989; Humphrey, 1992).

Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustrishefneri). Found on only a few islands in the LowerKeys, the Lower Keys marsh rabbit is an endemicspecies that ranges from Boca Chica Key to Big PineKey (Lazell, 1989), living in transition lands at theedges of mangrove islands and in hardwood ham-mocks. Recent declines have resulted from habitatdestruction due to human development, road kills, andjuvenile mortalities caused by feral and domesticatedhouse cats (Lazell, 1989; Wolfe, 1992).

63


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

Species Jurisdiction

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State

InvertebratesFlorida tree snail Liguus fasciatus S

Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus ESchaus' swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus E E

Stock Island tree snail Orthalicus reses reses T E

FishCommon snook Centropomus undecimalis SKey blenny Starksia starcki SKey silverside Menidia conchorum TMangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus S

Amphibians and ReptilesAmerican alligator Alligator mississippiensis SAmerican crocodile Crocodylus acutus E EAtlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas mydas E EAtlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricta imbricata E EAtlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta caretta T TAtlantic ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E E

Big Pine Key ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus TEastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi TFlorida brown snake Storeria dekayi victa EFlorida Keys mole skink Eumeces egregius egregius SFlorida ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritas sackeni T

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E

Miami black-headed snake Tantilla oolitica TRed rat snake Elaphe guttata guttata S

Striped mud turtle Klinosternon bauri E

Birds

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SArctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius T EBachman's warbler Vermivora bachmani E EBald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E TBrown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SBurrowing owl Athene cunicularia SCape Sable seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis E EFlorida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis TLeast tern Sterna antillarum TLittle blue heron Egretta caerulea S

Osprey Pandion haliaetus SPiping plover Charadrius melodus T TReddish egret Egretta rufescens S

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii T TRoseate 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 TWood stork Mycteria americana E E

MammalsBlue whale Balanoptera musculus EFin whale Balaenoptera physalus EHumpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae ERight whale Eubalaena glacialis ESei whale Balaenoptera borealis ESperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E

Abbreviations: E, Endangered; T, Threatened; S, Species of Special ConcernFederal designation classified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceState designation classified by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

T*

Key Largo cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus E EKey deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium E E

E E

*Due to similarity of appearance to American crocodile


64

S

PlantsAboriginal prickly apple Cereus gracilis var. aboriginum EApalachicola milkweed; green milkweed Asclepias viridula TAspidium fern (unnamed) Thelypteris kunthii TBahama sachsia Sachsia bahamensis EBalsam apple (unnamed) Clusia rosea EBay cedar Suriana maritima EBeach creeper Ernodia littoralis TBig Pine partridge pea; Florida Keys senna Casia keyensis TBird's nest spleenwort; wild bird nest fern Asplenium serratum EBlodgett's wild-mercury Argythamnia blodgettii EBoston fern (unnamed) Nephrolepis biserrata TBuccaneer palm; Sargent's cherry palm Psuedophoenix sargentii EBurrowing four-o'clock Okenia hypoganea EButterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis TCarter's small-flowered flax; Everglades flax Linum carteri var. certeri ECowhorn orchid; cigar orchid Cyrtopodium punctatum ECupania Cupania glabra EDildoe cactus Cereus pentagonus TDollar orchid; dogtooth orchid Encyclia boothiana var. erythronioides EEverglades poinsettia Poinsettia pinetorum EFlorida Keys noseburn, South Florida tragia Tragia saxicola EFlorida peperomia Peperomia obtusifolia EFlorida three-awned grass; Key West three-awn Aristida floridana EGarber's spurge Euphorbia garberi T EGeiger tree Cordia sebestena EGiant leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium TGolden leather fern Acrostichum aureum EInkberry Scaevola plumieri TInkwood Hypelate trifoliata TJoewood Jacquinia keyensis T

Ladder brake fern Pteris longifolia TLignum-vitae tree Guaiacum sanctum ELittle strongback Bourreria cassinifolia EMahogony mistletoe Phoradendron rubrum EManchineel Hippomane mancinella TMand adder's tongue fern Ophioglossum palmatum EMichaux's orchid; long-horned orchid Habenaria quinquesta TParsley fern Sphenomeris clavata TPepper (unnamed) Peperomia humilis EPine fern Anemia adiantifolia TPine pink Bletia purpurea TPolypody fern (unnamed) Microgramma heterophylla TPolypody fern (unnamed) Polypodium dispersum TPorter's broom spurge Chamaesyce porteriana var. scoparia EPorter's hairy-prodded spurge Chamaesyce porteriana var. porteriana EPowdery catopsis Catopsis berteroniana EPrickly pear cactus (unnamed) Opuntia stricta TPride-of-big-pine Strumptia maritima ERed berry ironwood Eugenia confusa TRed stopper Eugenia rhombea ESand flax Linum arenicola ESatinleaf Chrysophyllum olivaeforme ESea lavendar Mallotonia gnaphalodes E

E

Mammals (cont.)




Key Largo wood rat Neotoma floridana smallii E E

Key Vaca raccoon Procyon lotor auspicatusLower 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


Table 6. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species by Jurisdiction (cont.)

Semaphore cactus Opuntia spinossisima EShell orchid; clamshell orchid Encyclia cochleata TShoestring fern Vittaria lineata TSmall's milkpea Galactia smallii E ESmall-flowered lilly-thorn; dune lilly-thorn Catesbaea parviflora ESouthern ladies' tresses Spiranthes tortilis TStrap fern (unnamed) Campyloneurum phyllitidus TTamarindillo Acacia choriophylla ETree cactus Cereus robinii E ETwisted air plant Tillandsia flexuosa TWest Indian mahogany Swietenia mahogani TWhiskfern; forkfern Psilotum nudum TWild cotton Gossypium hirsutum EWild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia circinata TWild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia paucifolia TWild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia setacea TWild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia valenzuelana TWild thyme spurge, wedge spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea serpyllum EWild pine; air plant (unnamed) Tillandsia balbisiana TWorm vine orchid; link vine Vanilla barbellata EYellowheart Zanthoxylum flavum E

Plants (cont.)





66

Tab

le 7

. Sta

tus

of F

lorid

a K

eys

Pro

tect

ed P

lant

Spe

cies

Tropic

al Ham

moc

ks

Coasta

l Dun

es

Rocky

Pine

lands

Brack

ish W

etlan

ds

Not A

vaila

ble

Main

land

Collec

tion

Develo

pmen

t Nuisan

ce R

emov

al

Natur

al

Unkno

wn

Lower

Key

s

Thicke

ts

Upper

Key

s

Not A

vaila

ble

Man

grov

es

Rea

son

fo

r D

eclin

eR

ang

eH

abit

at

Abo

rigin

al p

rickl

y ap

ple

Apa

lach

icol

a m

ilkw

eed;

gre

en m

ilkw

eed

Asp

idiu

m fe

rn (

unna

med

)

Bah

ama

sach

sia

Bal

sam

app

le (

unna

med

)

Bay

ced

ar

Bea

ch c

reep

er

Big

Pin

e pa

rtrid

ge p

ea; F

lorid

a K

eys

senn

a

Bird

's n

est s

plee

nwor

t; w

ild b

ird n

est f

ern

Blo

dget

t's w

ild m

ercu

ry

Bos

ton

fern

(un

nam

ed)

Buc

cane

er p

alm

; Sar

gent

's c

herr

y pa

lm

Bur

row

ing

four

-o'c

lock

But

terf

ly o

rchi

d

Car

ter's

sm

all-f

low

ered

flax

; Eve

rgla

des

flax

Cow

horn

orc

hid;

cig

ar o

rchi

d

Cup

ania

Dild

oe c

actu

s

Dol

lar

orch

id; d

ogto

oth

orch

id

Eve

rgla

des

poin

setti

a

Flo

rida

Key

s no

sebu

rn, S

outh

Flo

rida

trag

ia

Flo

rida

pepe

rom

ia

Flo

rida

thre

e-aw

ned

gras

s; K

ey W

est t

hree

-aw

n

Gar

ber's

spu

rge

Gei

ger

tree

Gia

nt le

athe

r fe

rn

Gol

den

leat

her

fern

Inkb

erry

Inkw

ood

Joew

ood

Ladd

er b

rake

fern

Lign

um-v

itae

tree

Littl

e st

rong

back

Mah

ogon

y m

istle

toe

Sp

ecie

s

John

son’

s se

agra

ss

67


Mic

haux

's o

rchi

d; lo

ng-h

orne

d or

chid

Par

sley

fern

Pep

per

(unn

amed

)

Pin

e fe

rn

Pin

e pi

nk

Pol

ypod

y fe

rn (

unna

med

)

Pol

ypod

y fe

rn (

unna

med

)

Por

ter's

bro

om s

purg

e

Por

ter's

hai

ry-p

rodd

ed s

purg

e

Pow

dery

cat

opsi

s

Pric

kly

pear

cac

tus

(unn

amed

)

Prid

e-of

-Big

-Pin

e

Red

ber

ry ir

onw

ood

Red

sto

pper

San

d fla

x

Sat

inle

af

Sea

lave

ndar

Sem

apho

re c

actu

s

She

ll or

chid

; cla

msh

ell o

rchi

d

Sho

estr

ing

fern

Sm

all's

milk

pea

Sm

all-f

low

ered

lilly

-tho

rn; d

une

lilly

-tho

rn

Sou

ther

n la

dies

' tre

sses

Str

ap fe

rn (

unna

med

)

Tam

arin

dillo

Tre

e ca

ctus

Tw

iste

d ai

r pl

ant

Wes

t Ind

ian

mah

ogan

y

Whi

skfe

rn; f

orkf

ern

Wild

cot

ton

Wild

pin

e; a

ir pl

ant (

unna

med

)

Wild

pin

e; a

ir pl

ant (

unna

med

)

Man

chin

eel

Man

d ad

der's

tong

ue fe

rn

Tropic

al Ham

moc

ks

Coasta

l Dun

es

Rocky

Pine

lands

Brack

ish W

etlands

Not A

vaila

ble

Main

land

Collec

tion

Develo

pmen

t Nuisance

Rem

oval

Natur

al

Unkno

wn

Lower

Key

s

Thicke

ts

Upper

Key

s

Not A

vaila

ble

Man

grov

es

Rea

son

fo

r D

eclin

eR

ang

eH

abit

at

Sp

ecie

s

Tab

le 7

. Sta

tus

of F

lorid

a K

eys

Pro

tect

ed P

lant

Spe

cies

(co

nt.)


68

Wild

pin

e; a

ir pl

ant (

unna

med

)

Wild

pin

e; a

ir pl

ant (

unna

med

)

Wild

pin

e; a

ir pl

ant (

unna

med

)

Wor

m v

ine

orch

id; l

ink

vine

Yel

low

hear

t

Tropic

al Ham

moc

ks

Coasta

l Dun

es

Rocky

Pine

lands

Brack

ish W

etlands

Not A

vaila

ble

Main

land

Collec

tion

Develo

pmen

t Nuisance

Rem

oval

Natur

al

Unkno

wn

Lower

Key

s

Thicke

ts

Upper

Key

s

Not A

vaila

ble

Man

grov

es

Rea

son

fo

r D

eclin

eR

ang

eH

abit

at

Sp

ecie

s

Wild

thym

e sp

urge

, wed

ge s

purg

e

Tab

le 7

. Sta

tus

of F

lorid

a K

eys

Pro

tect

ed P

lant

Spe

cies

(co

nt.)

69

Description of the Affected Environment: Cultural and Historic Resources

A recent discovery by Eugene Shinn of the UnitedStates Geological Survey has raised the possibility ofPleistocene archaeological sites in the Florida Keys(Mathewson 1977, 1992). In 1991 aerial surveysrevealed a submarine feature that appeared to be asinkhole in approximately 10 meters of water off ofKey Largo. The 600-meter diameter feature wasprobed with a high pressure jet, and was found to befilled with impermeable lime muds overlain by aboutfour meters of carbonate reef sand (Shinn, pers.comm.). Investigators feel that this feature may besimilar to the famous “Blue Holes” or underwatersinkholes found in the Bahamas and elsewhere. Dueto its shallow depth, this feature would have been acenote (sinkhole) on dry land for most of its history. Itwould have contained fresh water, not unlike LittleSalt Spring. The steep banks of this feature make theprospects for human habitation very good. Thus, theKeys have an excellent prospect for human andanimal remains that are between 12,000 and 15,000years old. In addition, because the mud overburdenis impermeable, any remains found will likely be wellpreserved. As research and industry continue torequest permission to conduct activities on the outercontinental shelf, managers and legislators must beaware of the possible existence of cultural resourcesin these areas, and must guard against their destruc-tion.

Seafaring Legacy

1500-1700 Exploration and Early Colonial Develop-ment

This period begins with the Spanish “discovery” ofthe Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and the peninsula ofFlorida and ends with the English settlement of thenearby Bahamas just prior to the establishment ofcolonies in neighboring Georgia and South Carolina.Early explorations in Florida waters by Ponce deLeon and others discovered the shallow depths of theGulf, the rocky islands of the Keys, and the swiftcurrent of the Florida Straits. With the establishmentof a routine convoy system between Spain and hernew colonies, Havana became a major port forreturning fleets. After a Spanish failure to settle atPensacola due to a devastating loss of ships in ahurricane, and after a decline in French rivalry on theeast coast, again accompanied by a loss of ships in astorm, the founding of St. Augustine in 1565 estab-lished uncontested Spanish control over the Straits ofFlorida well into the 18th century. By the mid 1600s,a chain of missions stretched across northern Floridafrom the Gulf to the Atlantic, and was supplied by a

Cultural and Historic Resources

The history of the Keys can be most easily observedthrough the region's land-based cultural and historicresources. The numerous buildings in “old town” KeyWest, for example, represent a time when the townwas the crossroads of the Caribbean, and thebridges of Henry Flagler suggest the transition from aseafaring to an industrial age. Despite this shift, thesea remains the common thread through the region’scultural and historic sites. From the prehistoric Indianmounds of the Upper Keys to the Customs House ofKey West, ties to the sea are everywhere, indicatinga strong regional connection to the Bahamas and theCaribbean.

Because of the Keys’ significant maritime history,submerged cultural and historic resources are asrepresentative of the area's past as those on land.Such sites provide clues to deciphering the area’shistorical settlement patterns and may be useful indetermining global climate change through theexamination of the stratigraphic record. Also, be-cause of Florida's unique position on European andAmerican trade routes, shipwrecks in the Keyscontain a record of the 500-year European occupa-tion of the Americas.

Submerged Paleo-Indian Sites

The inaccessibility of underwater sites has ensuredthat many delicate artifacts remain undisturbed. Inaddition, the environment of reduced oxygen, tem-perature, and light permits many artifacts to remainwell preserved for thousands of years. The impor-tance of the submerged cultural resources of theFlorida Keys is great, and the possibility exists fordiscovering some of the earliest sites in NorthAmerica. Such archaeological finds will provide cluesto answering such important questions as the peo-pling of the Americas and global climate change inthe past (Mathewson 1991).

Archaeologists have unearthed remarkable finds inFlorida using a hypothesis for site formation basedupon geologic and climatologic constraints in the lastphases of the Wisconsin Glaciation. As discoverieshave shown, sinkholes commonly found in limestoneareas contain some of the earliest records of man inNorth America. The possibility of discovering suchsinkholes exists in the Keys (Clausen et al,1975,1979).


70

network. Settlements in the interior were serviced bya growing steamboat trade along Florida’s riversystems, and coastal commerce in lumber, navalstores, and fish accompanied an increase in popula-tion at the end of the Seminole wars. Florida’s rise inmaritime importance was marked not only by hercommercial role, but also by her strategic geographi-cal role as the nation’s southern boundary, as coastalforts were built to defend this maritime frontier. Nearthe end of this period, sectional disputes erupted intoa civil war, which, in Florida was played out on thewater, rather than on land. The end of the Civil Warin 1865 is chosen as the concluding date of thisperiod.

1866 - 1912 Reconstruction, the Dominance ofSteamship Technology

After the Civil War, Florida, as well as other southernstates, underwent a period of reconstruction thatlasted for decades. Coastal urbanization continuedhand in hand with increased maritime mercantiledevelopment. The ports of Jacksonville, Pensacola,Tampa, Cedar Key, Apalachiacola, and Key Westcame into their prime, as the dominance of steam-ship technology made sailing vessels obsolescent inoceangoing commerce. On the Florida Reef, aswreckers continued to salvage cargos from groundedships to be sold at Key West auctions, a system oflighthouses was established to aid in coastal naviga-tion. On Florida’s rivers, steamboat commerceentered a twilight period, as improved railroadnetworks serviced the interior of the peninsula. Thisperiod saw the emergence of the American MerchantMarine, and the Modern Navy appeared towards theend of the century as the United States responded toa growing naval buildup in Europe and Asia. Floridabecame a routine port-of-call for the newest steelfighting ships; Tampa was a major staging area forthe Spanish-American War.

1913-1945 World Wars and the Coming of theModern Era

Beginning with the completion of the Flagler railroadin 1913, this period saw the development of SouthFlorida accompanied by more diversified and moderncommerce. The United States became increasinglyinvolved in world politics, as it had with world com-merce in the preceding period. This involvementeventually drew the nation into the first World War,when, for the first time its neutral maritime commercewas subjected to attack by German submarines.Following World War I came Prohibition, with itsrumrunners and coastal blockade established tothwart them.

small but growing maritime trade network based fromCuba.

With the growth of other European colonies at theend of this period, ships of other nations plying thesame homeward route past Florida unintentionallyended their voyages along the shores including theEnglish wreck of the “Reformation” along with two ofher consorts in 1696 on the east coast.

1701-1820 Early Maritime Development of the UnitedStates

During this period the British colonies of North andSouth Carolina, and Georgia developed a firmeconomic base and experienced a major increase inpopulation. While the Spanish colony in Floridastagnated, these northern colonies matured intoprospering mercantile communities, as did thoseEnglish possessions in the Caribbean. The period ismarked by a tremendous increase in the volume ofshipping past Florida over the previous period, asboth maritime technology and overseas trade under-went a rapid evolution. The Spanish convoy systemexperienced a gradual decline, accompanied by twomajor fleet disasters along the coast of Florida, in1715 and in 1733. The Spanish presence in WestFlorida was briefly challenged by the French in theearly years of the period; by the Treaty of Paris in1763 both East and West Florida fell under Britishcontrol. Despite Spanish sympathy with the Ameri-can Revolution, Britain managed to retain her strate-gic naval outposts in Florida until 1781, whenPensacola fell to Spanish naval forces. The mostoutstanding cultural phenomena of the later years ofthis period was a rapid development of Americanmaritime dominance in the region, as both politicalcontrol and an increasing share of maritime com-merce passed to the United States. The year inwhich ownership of Florida passed from Spain to theUnited States is chosen as the closing date of thisperiod.

1821-1865 Establishment of the United States as aNaval Power

This period is marked by unprecedented economicexpansion and national development, but is an erawhich ultimately led to war. Commercial sailingvessels reached their highest stage of evolution withthe appearance of the great clipper ships, and steambegan to be widely utilized in maritime commerceand naval power. In Florida, major shipping portsbegan to flourish on both coasts, bringing the stateinto the rapid expansion of a global American trade

71


During these years steamships underwent furthertechnological improvements as fuel oil began toreplace coal as the major energy source. With theoutbreak of World War II in 1939, the United Statesonce again started on the path to conflict as itprovided needed support to its traditional allies inEurope. Beginning with a formal declaration of war in1941, a savage naval conflict commenced along theeastern North American seaboard. Staggeringlosses to American merchant vessels were causedby German submarines, especially off the east coastof Florida. This period ends in 1945 with the end ofthe war.

Lighthouses

There are currently 16 lighthouses within or justoutside the Sanctuary, with three listed in the Na-tional Register of Historic Places (Dean, 1992). Thereare also three land-based lighthouses in the Keys.

Before permanent lighthouses were built to saveships and their cargo from the reef, lightships wereused at various sites to warn of danger. The firstlightship stationed in the Keys was built in 1824 towarn ships of the Carysfort reef. Early lightshipsoccasionally broke free from their moorings, causingother ships to strike the reef as their captains tried toplot a safe course. A lightship was stationed at thereef, 13 km off Key Largo, until 1852, when anironpile light was built directly on the coral.

Construction of the lighthouses in Key West and onGarden Key (Fort Jefferson) was begun in 1825.Construction was also begun on a 70-foot tower inthe Dry Tortugas, on Loggerhead Key, only a fewmiles from Fort Jefferson. The following year, amasonry lighthouse was constructed on Sand Key. Ahurricane toppled both the 60-foot Sand Key Lightand the 85-foot Key West Light in 1846. The KeyWest Light was rebuilt in 1847, while Sand Key Lightwas replaced with an ironpile light. The originalGarden Key Light was built in the middle of theisland, surrounded by Fort Jefferson. A 157-foot lightreplaced it in 1858, but eventually burned down andwas replaced by a new harbor light on the wall of thefort.

Once improved construction materials and tech-niques were developed, lighthouses could be con-structed directly on the reef. Construction of the firstof six original reef lighthouses was begun in 1852.These reef lights were located in shallow waterseveral kilometers from the main chain of islands.

The most common type was the ironpile, a derivativeof the screwpile lighthouses common in northernwaters. Ironpiles have an iron framework that is opento wind and waves. The legs are screwed into thecoral, and a keeper’s quarters is built about one-thirdof the way up. The open structure allows most of thewind and wave action to pass through withoutencountering much resistance, while an enclosedcircular stairwell protects the keeper up to the lighthousing. Significant early reef lighthouses include:Fowey Rocks Light (1878), Carysfort Reef Light(1852), Sombrero Key Light (1858), Alligator ReefLight (1873), American Shoal Light (1880), and SandKey Light (1853).

Shipwrecks

Location and Causes. In attempting to predict thelocation of shipwrecks in the Keys, several factorsmust be considered, including where high shippingconcentrations have occurred, which areas havebeen used most consistently over time, the depth ofthe water navigated, and the existence of naturalhazards which may increase the probability of wrecks(Mathewson 1981,1991; Halas 1988).

High concentrations of ships are commonly foundalong trade routes (Figure 9). Because the Keys arelocated at the southernmost point of the continentalUnited States and at the end of a peninsula, all shipstravelling from one side of the continent to Europemust pass through the area. In addition, the narrow-ness of the Straits of Florida and the speed of thenorthward-flowing Gulf Stream mean that shipstravelling north will use this route over most others.

The use of trade routes over time also influences thenumber of shipwrecks in an area. If the shippingroute is important for only a short time and is thendiscontinued, one can expect a lower abundance ofwrecks and less historic diversity among those found.Because the Keys have remained on important traderoutes for centuries, shipwreck losses occurring inthe area represent the full spectrum of maritimehistory (Table 8).

Water depth is also a factor in determining thenumber of shipwrecks in an area. For example, it hasbeen proposed that up to 98 percent of all wrecks inthe western hemisphere before 1825 occurred inwater less than 10 m deep (Marx, 1971). In addition,a 1989 Gulf of Mexico study sponsored by the UnitedStates Minerals Management Service (MMS) pro-duced shipwreck distribution plots across the colo-


72

nial-modern period, showing 75 percent of all lossesoccurred in nearshore waters (Garrison et al., 1989).Accordingly, with their abundant shallows, the Keysoffer an above-average possibility for shipwrecklocation.

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, sporadi-cally occurring corals are difficult to see from adistance. Combined with a low land profile, it isextremely difficult to determine a ship’s positionrelative to the reef. Even with today’s modern naviga-tional aids, ship groundings occur (e.g., the M.V.WELLWOOD in 1984 and the ALEC OWENMAITLAND in 1989), and the constantly curving reeftract presents additional problems for navigators,especially when coasting.

In addition, the prevalence of hurricanes in the Keyshas influenced the number of ships wrecked. At leasttwo Spanish flotas were wrecked by hurricanes, andas a result the Keys contain the largest concentration

of 18th-century Spanish colonial shipwrecks in theAmericas.

Florida is situated along what once was a major traderoute between the Empire of Spain and her coloniesin the Americas. As the great treasure fleets begantheir journeys back to Spain laden with coinage fromthe American mints and other riches from the NewWorld, even the safest route known — the straitsbetween Florida and the Bahamas or the NewBahamas Channel — was fraught with enormousdanger and uncertainty. Hurricanes and reefsclaimed hundreds of Spanish ships — in somecases, entire fleets such as the 1622, 1715, and the1733 Fleets. Scores of vessels sank during thisperiod due to errors in navigation, poor ship construc-tion, 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 shoalwaters to those sunk through direct military engage-ment. 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

80°30'W81°00'W81°30'W82°00'W82°30'W83°00'W

4

Cape Florida Lighthouse

Fowey Rocks Lighthouse

Carysfort Lighthouse

Molasses ReefLighthouse

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 disp layed 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


Era Hig

h

Mod

erat

e

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*

Granite Wreck**Northern Lights

Eagle

Sueco de Arizon

USS Alligator

HMS Looe

Duane

Bibb

San JoseHenrietta 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 Indianwars, the American Civil War, the Spanish-AmericanWar, the prohibition period, and World Wars I and II.

Shipwreck Concentration . There is strong statisticalevidence indicating that the Keys contain a highconcentration of shipwreck sites. This evidence isderived from both actual ship remains found on theseabed and historical and other documentation.However, documentary evidence may not accuratelyreflect the true number of ships on the bottom. Andalthough many ships that sank in the Upper Carib-bean are undocumented and are likely to be found inKeys' waters, most were salvaged shortly afterwrecking. Countries such as Spain, for example, hadeffective salvage teams and an excellent communi-cations system to report sinkings and recover sup-plies.

Throughout the history of shipwreck losses in theKeys, there were salvors. From the mid 1500’s to themid 1800’s, Calusa Indians, Spaniards, French,Dutch, English, Bahamian and others carried outextensive recovery on vessels lost in the Keys andthroughout Florida. Though recovery peaked in thelate 1700’s through the 1800’s, it was alwayspresent. The commercial salvage of ships andcargos in distress became profitable for small groupsof determined sailors in Key West and the UpperKeys in the early-to mid-1800’s. These sailors in theKeys became known as “wreckers” and legend has itthat some deliberately lured vessels into hazardouswaters. Wreckers were a choice of last resort formasters of ships in distress, however, as they were

usually more interested in salvaging cargo thansaving ships. The number of vessels used in wreck-ing increased from 20 in 1835 to 57 licensed vesselsin 1858. But as the first formal coastal survey of thereefs and keys began in 1849, and a system oflighthouses was constructed along the reef, thenumber of shipwrecks began to decline. The busi-ness of wrecking, however, continued into the nextcentury; between 1900 and 1910, more than$220,000 was awarded by court decree, and morethan $100,000 was paid for claims out of court. In1921, the wrecking register of the Key West DistrictCourt was closed.

During the Keys’ American period, there were salvorsas well. These “wreckers” were professionals whooperated in Key West and the Upper Keys in theearly- to mid-1800s. Wreckers were a choice of lastresort for shipmasters, however, as they were usuallymore interested in salvaging cargo than saving ships.

Historical Data Bases. To demonstrate the Keys'potential shipwreck resources, four databases havebeen selected for analysis. These databases, how-ever, do not reflect actual recorded finds. Instead,they represent a combination of recorded finds andarchival references that together provide a represen-tative view of the area’s shipwreck resources.

Table 9 illustrates the large number of documentedshipwrecks in the Keys, possibly the richest reposi-tory in the world. Information is based on datacompiled by Judy Halas (Halas, 1988), by RobertMarx (Marx, 1971), and by Duncan Mathewson et al,1981. Additional analytical information was takenfrom an outer continental shelf study funded by theMMS (Garrison et al., 1989).

The independent database covers the entire colonial-modern period and integrates State records, treasuresalvage records, and independent archival sources.The Halas study is based on archival information,and is the most accurate for American vessel trafficinto the 19th and 20th century. It focuses primarily onthe greater Key Largo area, but includes informationon other keys as well. The Marx data is rich in 16thcentury vessel reports, many of Spanish origin, as aresult of the researcher’s interest in treasure huntingoperations. Although the vessels cited are notexclusive to the Keys, and precise wreck location isnever cited, however, based on the public comments,other records and opinions, it is reasonable toassume that many of these 16th - 18th centurywrecks lie within Sanctuary waters. The 1981 MMSstudy delineates probablity zones for shipwrecks


74

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

Century

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

IndependentDatabase

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. Themore recent 1989 MMS (Garrison, et al) study dealswith the projected shipwreck populations in the DryTortugas-Marquesas area west of Key West.

Modern Era Shipwrecks. Recent shipwrecks andships sunk to form artificial reefs may also be consid-ered cultural resources. The BENWOOD, for ex-ample, a World War II-era vessel scuttled off KeyLargo, is over 85 years old and may soon qualify forhistoric status under Federal Historic Preservationlaw. Divers generally enjoy modern wrecks, such asthe Duane and the Bibb, because more of theirstructure remains intact and identifiable, i.e. highintegrity.

Vessels such as the NEPTUNE, an early 20thcentury wreck located in 60 m of water off Key Largo,may present a dilemma in the future, however. Asdiving technology improves, historically valuablewrecks that are currently inaccessible to thesportdiving community will become more popular.These deeper wrecks have many artifacts that maybe pilfered by the uneducated or unscrupulous diver.Only by protecting these submerged resources cantheir historic value be preserved.

Description of the Affected Environment: Human Activities and Uses

75

thon (Vaca Key and Key Colony Beach), Big PineKey, Summerland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Stock Island,and Key West.

Historic Population . The City of Key West hashistorically been the hub of population and activity inthe Keys. Prior to 1940, Key West was home to 90percent of the population of Monroe County. Growthwas sporadic during this time, with the county's rategenerally mirroring that of Key West. The Keys'population more than tripled between 1870 and 1890.From 1890 to 1900 and 1910 to 1930 there weresignificant declines in both populations, and from1940 to 1960 the population of both areas grew at asimilar rate. However, between 1960 and 1990 thepopulation of Key West declined or became stable,while in the remainder of the county the populationgrew at a rate of 1.0 to 2.4 percent per year onaverage. The decline in Key West's population maybe attributed to a decrease in the area's militarypopulation, while the lure of vacant land has allowedthe rest of Monroe County to grow independently.Figure 10 shows historical population trends in KeyWest and Monroe County between 1870 and 1990.

Seasonal Population. Monroe County's economy isessentially based on tourism and tourist-relatedservice industries, and the Keys' population fluctu-ates seasonally. Peak tourist populations occur in the

Source: White, 1991

*

Human Activities and Uses

Human activities and uses have a major impact onSanctuary resources. One of the most valuable ofthese resources is water, and because of its recre-ational, commercial, and transportation value, its useand conservation are directly linked to the economyof Monroe County.

Water and other Sanctuary resources have beenincreasingly impacted by the area's growth. As thenumber of visitors to the Keys has increased over thepast several decades, so has the number of resi-dents, homes, jobs, and businesses. The populationof Monroe County has grown by 160 percent duringthe past 40 years, an increase of almost 50,000people. In recent years, areas such as Key Largo,Marathon, and Big Pine Key have seen dramaticincreases in population and development. As popula-tion grows and the Keys accommodate ever-increas-ing resource-use pressures, the quality and quantityof land and water resources are diminished. Thissection summarizes the major human activities anduses that directly or indirectly affect the waters of theSanctuary.

Population

Of the 1,700 islands in the Keys, only 51 are con-nected to or by US 1, and fewer than 70 are inhab-ited. In 1990 the total resident population was78,024, an increase of about 15,000 since 1980.Seasonal visitors, including those living in residentialaccommodations, in tourist facilities, aboard vessels,or with friends and relatives, accounted for anadditional 56,643 people during the peak period of1990. Dade and Collier counties, which are neigh-bors of Monroe County, had estimated 1990 popula-tions of 1.94 million and 152,000, respectively.

Because of the region's unique geography, the Keysare divided into discreet population centers. Largerislands, such as Key Largo, have multiple populationfoci, while other islands have just one. Severalinhabited Keys have never been the focus of concen-trated growth, however, and remain rural. Certainareas 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 isoften determined by the boundaries of the islands onwhich it is located. Examples include Ocean ReefClub (North Key Largo), Key Largo, Tavernier(Southern Key Largo), Plantation Key, Islamorada(Upper Matecumbe Key), Layton (Long Key), Mara-

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

19901970195019301910189018700

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year

Tho

usan

ds o

f Per

sons

Key West

Monroe County

*Although Key West is within MonroeCounty, it is highlighted separatelyhere because of its larger share ofthe population.


76

Table 10. Estimated Resident and Seasonal Population, 1990

first quarter (January to March) of each year. Thetourist season is longer in the Upper Keys than in theLower Keys, extending from January to August, andis based on weekend tourists from Miami and SouthFlorida.

The sum of the peak seasonal and resident popula-tions is known as the functional population. In 1990the Keys' functional population was about 134,600,with a population density of 1,300 persons persquare mile. This combined population is importantbecause of its impact on infrastructure requirements,resources, and the government's ability to managethese resources. The seasonal population accountsfor nearly 42 percent of the functional populationduring the peak tourist season.

Table 10 gives resident and peak seasonal popula-tion estimates for 1990 by Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District (PAED) for the unincorporatedareas of the county, and Census Designated Place(CDP) for the three incorporated areas. PAEDs are

areas where contiguous boundaries exist betweenaggregated planning area boundaries and censusenumeration districts. The estimates in the tablerepresent the 1990 total resident, seasonal, andfunctional populations for each area. In addition, thepopulation density for each PAED or CDP is given(Figure 11).

Population Characteristics . Monroe County has alarge retirement community, with 29 percent of thepopulation 55 years old or older and 16 percent 65years old or older, both above the national average.Forty-seven percent of the population is between 25and 54, and the remaining 24 percent is under 25years old. The large elderly population is reflected inthe local economy: about 48 percent of all income isfrom nonwage sources (e.g., transfer payments,Social Security, and retirement pensions).

The military also makes up a significant segment ofthe Keys' population. In the 1980s the militarypopulation accounted for between seven and nine

Resident Percent Seasonal Percent Population Areas*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.


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

LaytonLower 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'

80°30'81°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 one-quarter of the population (Monroe County Board ofCounty Commissioners, 1986; White, 1991). Still,despite defense cutbacks in the early 1970s whenthe military force in Key West and the Boca ChicaNaval Air Station was reduced by almost 4,000, themilitary remains a major employer in the Key Westarea and has a major impact on the local economy.

Future Population Trends . The Keys are arriving ata critical point in their history. The population hasgrown steadily since the 1940s, while the landavailable for development has dwindled and popula-tion densities have increased. In 1975 the Keys weredesignated as an Area of Critical State Concernbecause of increasing pressures from populationgrowth and associated development. As a result,issues such as hurricane evacuation and transporta-tion have come to the forefront of local planningefforts. Development is now being severely reducedto allow the public infrastructure to catch up with pastgrowth.

The projection of future growth may be based on arate of growth ordinance developed for the unincor-porated county and adopted in July 1992. Under this

ordinance, development is limited to 256 residentialunits per year (including hotel, motel, and condo-minium units). To date, these projections are notavailable, but a single projection based on averagehousehold size (2.05 persons per household) andpermission of all allocated units, provides 2,560 unitsover the next 10 years and a population increase ofslightly over 26,000 individuals.

Based on past growth rates, Key Largo, the incorpo-rated areas of Monroe County, Plantation Key,Marathon (Boot, Knight, Stirrup, and Vaca keys), BigPine Key, and Cudjoe, Summerland and Torch keysare projected to have the largest increases in abso-lute population over the next 20 years (Table 11).This corresponds to relatively high rates of increasein the populations of Plantation Key (44%), KeyLargo (39%), Big Pine Key (36%), Cudjoe,Summerland, and Torch keys area (34%), andMarathon (28%). The unincorporated area is pro-jected to have a small rate of increase because italready has a large population (almost 35% of thecounty's residential total). Relatively high populationdensity increases are projected in many areas,including Duck, Walker’s, and Conch keys; PlantationKey; Marathon; and the incorporated areas of thecounty. Relatively low density increases are pro-jected from Boca Chica to Big Pine Key because of


78

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

1990Population

% Changein 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.

2010PopulationProjected

Source: Garrett, pers. com.

the large amount of wetland, unserviced, or refugeacreage on these islands.

Economic Characteristics

The Keys' economy is unique because of the area'slocation and geography. Monroe County’s economyis dominated by the tourism industry, and the Keysattract both seasonal residents and short-termvisitors because of their abundant recreationalresources. The military and the commercial fishingindustry are also important sectors of the region'seconomy. The Monroe County economic baseexpanded during the 1980s, with income and em-ployment increasing at a faster rate than those ofFlorida or the nation.

Personal Income . Personal income includes rev-enue received by county residents from all sources,including wages, salaries and other income, divi-dends, interest, rent, and transfer payments. Transferpayments include private pensions, transfers fromgovernment funds (such as Social Security, militaryretirement pensions, Medicare, and Medicaid), and

direct government payments, such as unemploy-ment, food stamps, and aid to families with depen-dent children.

Between 1970 and 1989, total earnings by place ofwork in Monroe County increased by 450 percent.The largest increases in earned income were in theservice, public utility, and fishing industry sectors.However, the aggregate wage figures reflect trendssimilar to those of employment, and together theretail trade and service industries accounted for themajority of all earnings in Monroe County. Thesecond-largest wage generator was the government,with most wages going to military and State/localemployees.

In 1989 Monroe County wage earnings accounted for52 percent of total personal income, while dividendsand transfer payments accounted for 36 percent and12 percent, respectively (White, 1991). Across thenation, however, wages accounted for over 68percent of total personal income, while dividendsaccounted for just 18 percent and transfers 15percent. Almost half of all personal income in MonroeCounty is derived from nonwage sources, compared


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

Tho

usan

ds o

f Em

ploy

ees

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 retirementsector's strong role in the local economy (Bureau ofthe Census, 1991). The county’s high percentage ofdividend, interest, and rent income reinforces theimportance of retirees and indicates that a significantsegment of the population is affluent.

Per capita income provides another view of theMonroe County economy. From 1980 to 1989,growth in per capita income exceeded both State andnational increases. During this time, per capitaincome increased at an average annual rate of eightpercent. In 1980, per capita income in MonroeCounty was $8,917, nearly nine percent below that ofFlorida and 10 percent below that of the nation forthat year. By 1989, however, per capita income hadincreased to $17,896, higher than that of both thestate and the nation.

Employment—Private Sector . The service andretail trade industries are by far the largest private-sector employers in Monroe County (Figure 12). Theservice sector includes the hotel and restauranttrades, while retail trade establishments include giftshops, apparel stores, and businesses that providespecific products such as hardware, boating equip-ment, and photography supplies. These two indus-tries make up 52 percent of the total employment inthe county and 66 percent of total private-sectoremployment. The strength of these industries indi-cates 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 nearly75 percent of the new jobs created in Monroe Countyduring this period in either the service or retail tradesectors.

The finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) tradesform a secondary, but similarly important, employ-ment sector. Although not necessarily tied to theservice and retail trade industries, real estate busi-nesses make up the largest part of the FIRE sector,and it is fair to assume that the resources that bringtourists to the Keys also bring those interested inbuying real estate. In 1989 the FIRE trades ac-counted for 11 percent of all private-sector employ-ment. Tied to the large expansion of residentialconstruction, this industry grew by almost 60 percentduring the 1980s.

The commercial fishing industry represents thefourth-largest employment sector in the county,comprising nine percent of the work force. Growth inthis industry has been sporadic, exhibiting both largeincreases and declines during the past decade. Theturbulent employment levels are a result of severalfactors, including the cyclic nature of harvestableresources, changes in catch quotas, and the risingcost of living and doing business in the Keys.

The construction industry ranks fifth among thecounty's private-sector employers. Reflecting trendsin the FIRE trades, it showed significant growthbetween 1980 and 1989. The industry represented


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 themining and manufacturing industries and wholesaletrade businesses. Mining represents a small, butsignificant, portion of the Keys' economy. Althoughthe work force is small (less than 1% of the total), theindustry contributes greatly to the construction of newhomes, businesses, and roads. It was slightly largerin the 1970s because of canal construction andsubdivision development. The manufacturing andwholesale trade businesses are represented primarilyby “cottage industries.” The lack of large land areasfor manufacturing facilities has limited the develop-ment of these industries as major employers.

Employment—Public Sector. Public-sector employ-ment makes up approximately 23 percent of the totalwork force in the Keys. About nine percent of theseworkers are State and county employees, sevenpercent are employed by the military, and sevenpercent are Federal employees. The number of Stateand local government employees increased substan-tially during the 1970s, but grew at a slower rateduring the 1980s. The public-sector component of thework force has increased at a significant rate inrecent years, but has yet to reach its previous level.There was a large decline in the number of militarypersonnel employed in the Keys during the 1970s,but it appears that the military's strategy has been tohire additional civilian employees when possible.

Land Use

In 1975 Florida designated Monroe County an Areaof Critical State Concern under the authority ofChapter 380, F.S. This legislation was designed topreserve and protect the county’s unique naturalresources, which were being degraded by largedevelopment projects. It gave the State Departmentof Community Affairs (DCA) the responsibility ofoverseeing all development activities within thedesignated area. The legislation required both thedrafting of a comprehensive plan and developmentregulations designed to set the county's growth-management standards, over which the State hasfinal review and approval.

Significant features of the plan include the “down-zoning” of large natural areas (excluding Key West,Key Colony Beach, and Layton), and the establish-ment of the Monroe County Land Authority, which isresponsible for purchasing these down-zoned areas.

The plan was also designed to preserve the contigu-ous areas of habitat as biologically functional units,specifying that required open-space areas may notbe altered. It also contained the rudiments of theconcept of “concurrency,” which requires that aproject cannot be completed without the publicinfrastructure necessary to support it.

Monroe County and its sister municipalities arecurrently revising their comprehensive plans underChapter 163, F.S. In general, Chapter 163 legislatesmore specific standards, significantly expands theconcept of concurrency, and allows the local govern-ment to set a "level of service" for hurricane evacua-tion that cannot be exceeded as a result of newdevelopment. However, because the county is anArea of Critical State Concern, the County must stillmeet the standards of Chapter 380, F.S.

Existing Land Use . The inhabited Keys make uponly five percent of Monroe County's total land area(65,500 of 1.2 million acres). The county also con-tains over 99,000 acres of the Everglades, but thisarea is almost entirely within Everglades NationalPark and Big Cypress National Preserve. Themajority of the county, consequently, is classified as"conservation land."

Within the county, the unincorporated area is distin-guished from the three incorporated areas of KeyWest, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. The zoningand land development regulations and proportions ofland uses are quite different in each. Within theunincorporated area, land use is also apportioneddifferently between the Upper, Middle, and LowerKeys. However, the types of land use can be catego-rized similarly. In general, they are defined asresidential, commercial, industrial, or public facilitiesand buildings; historical buildings and districts;military facilities; and recreation, conservation, andvacant land (Figure 13).

Residential Land. The proportion of land used forresidential purposes ranges from 12 percent in theLower Keys to 58 percent in Key Colony Beach. Thesmall percentage of residential use in the Lower Keysis due to the high proportion of conservation land,primarily in the National Key Deer Refuge. Therelatively high proportion of residential developmentin Key Colony Beach reflects the city's reliance onMarathon for commercial and other use categories.Within the unincorporated area, the majority ofresidential development (78%) consists of single-family units. The unincorporated area also has themajority of the county's mobile homes, although the


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 Westand Key Colony Beach have substantial duplexdevelopment. In the City of Key West, the single-family/duplex zoning category accounts for 62percent of all residential area. Key Colony Beach hassimilar percentages.

Commercial Land. The proportion of commercial landin each area is similar, although there are significantdifferences between the Upper, Middle, and LowerKeys. In general, commercially zoned land accountsfor about four percent of land-use acreage within theKeys. The Middle Keys contain significantly higherproportions because of the large amount of commer-cial land in Marathon. The lower levels in the LowerKeys reflect the large amount of refuge conservationland.

Industrial Land. The cities of Key West, Key ColonyBeach, and Layton contain no significant industrialdevelopment, and rely on the adjacent unincorpo-rated areas for their industrial needs. Two industries,rock mining and marine repair and salvage, defineindustrial use in the Keys. The majority of rock miningoperations are in Stock Island and Marathon. Othersmall-scale industrial businesses are located in StockIsland, Big Pine Key, Marathon, and Key Largo.

Public Facilities and Buildings. As much as eightpercent of Key West is allocated to public buildingsand facilities (excluding recreational uses), while theunincorporated area, Key Colony Beach, and Laytonprovide one percent or less.

Historic Buildings and Districts. Within the cities ofKey Colony Beach and Layton, and in the unincorpo-rated areas of the Keys, virtually no acreage isallocated for historical lands. There are, however,historic structures and buildings outside Key West,including those on Pigeon Key and the CarysfortLight off North Key Largo, both of which are listed inthe National Register of Historic Places. The City ofKey West also considers large areas of "old town"historic and, as a result, requires additional permitsbefore allowing development. In addition, the Cityhas established an Historic Architectural ReviewCommission to ensure that the traditional characterand appearance of the area is maintained.

Military Facilities. Military facilities are locatedexclusively in Key West and the Lower Keys. About25 percent of Key West’s land is used for militarypurposes. In the Lower Keys there are three militaryfacilities that make up five percent of all land in theunincorporated area.


82

land also limits Monroe County’s capability to man-age solid waste, and the interisland transportationnetwork has reached its limits in some areas. Be-cause the Keys are so dependent on the mainland,the difficulty and cost of providing services to thepublic have become increasingly apparent.

Potable Water. South Florida's Biscayne Aquiferprovides the Keys with its primary source of publicpotable water. Through this aquifer, the countyextracts water from well fields in the Homestead areasouth of Miami. Ocean Reef Club, in North KeyLargo, is the only area in the Keys that uses analternative source of water (the Floridan Aquifer anda reverse-osmosis plant).

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) man-ages the distribution of potable water within the Keys.It is permitted by the SFWMD to withdraw up to 19.77million gallons per day (mgd). About 15 mgd arecurrently being used. The total permitted yearlywithdrawal is 5.56 billion gallons. The FKAA iscurrently operating at approximately 90 percent ofcapacity.

Sewage Treatment. Three basic methods of sewagetreatment are utilized in the Keys: 1) centralizedfacilities; 2) individual aeration units that utilize eitherdrainfield or borehole discharge; and 3) septic tankswith drainfields. Florida's Department of Environmen-tal Protection and Department of Health and Reha-bilitative Services are responsible for permitting thesefacilities.

The cities of Key West and Key Colony Beachoperate centralized sewage treatment facilities. Aftersecondary treatment, effluent is discharged tosurface waters. The remainder of the county (ap-proximately 32,000 residential units and the associ-ated commercial development) uses septic tanks,individual aeration units, or small-scale, centralizedpackage treatment plants.

Stormwater. The City of Key West is the only area inthe county with a centralized system for stormwaterconveyance. However, this system provides littleretention and generally leads to nearshore outfalls.Estimates of total discharge volume are currentlyunavailable. The county's unincorporated area andthe cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton have nocentralized drainage facilities. Key Colony Beachdoes, however, have injection wells. Because of theirsize, many larger residential and commercial unitshave on-site retention facilities that are permittedthrough the SFWMD. In addition, recent improve-

Recreational Facilities. The proportion of landdedicated to active and passive recreation variesconsiderably throughout the Keys. The City of KeyWest provides about seven percent of its land areafor recreational purposes, while the Lower and UpperKeys provide less than two percent each. The MiddleKeys provide 11 percent, Key Colony Beach ninepercent, and Layton none. These numbers may besomewhat misleading, however, as they are derivedprimarily from a list of publicly and privately ownedlands that provide recreational activities. Manyprivate owners of resort areas provide recreationalfacilities geared toward water activities, but mayinclude swimming pools and/or tennis courts. Inaddition, recreational needs are generally assessedbased on standard estimates of the acreage requiredper unit of the functional population for a givenrecreational activity type.

Conservation Land. Conservation land makes upabout 34 percent of all unincorporated land usewithin the Keys. The largest proportion is in theLower Keys, and is associated with the National KeyDeer and Great White Heron refuges (28%). In theUpper Keys (51%), conservation land is locatedprimarily in North Key Largo. The cities of Layton andKey Colony Beach have no conservation land. Withinthe City of Key West, conservation land is undevel-oped and categorized as open water, freshwaterislands, tidal wetlands, mangrove, and hammock.Some of the land is in private ownership and, there-fore, could be subject to future development. How-ever, substantial areas around the “Salt Ponds” areaof Key West have been (and are currently being)acquired by the Monroe County Land Authority. Atotal of 550 acres remains undeveloped in Key West.

Vacant Land. About 210,000 acres of land arepotentially available for development--just over 34percent of the Keys' total land area. In the unincorpo-rated area of the county, vacant land is the largestland-use category. Ten percent of the county'svacant land is divided into nearly 15,000 vacant lots.These lots represent the only reasonably buildableproperty remaining in the Keys, and make up asubstantial proportion of the total potential single-family development area.

Capital Facilities

Public infrastructure is extremely important in shap-ing current and future growth in the Keys. A largepart of the Keys’ power and virtually all of its potablewater originate in South Florida. The availability of


83

ments to US 1 have required stormwater convey-ances and, in some instances where roads havetraditionally flooded, storm drainage trenches or wellshave been installed.

Solid Waste. Solid waste management currentlyentails incineration and subsequent landfilling orhaul-out. The City of Key West incinerates combus-tible materials in a “waste-to-energy” plant on StockIsland. Ash is placed in the adjacent landfill. Noncom-bustible materials are either processed through thecity’s recycling program or placed in the landfill. TheCity of Key West generates almost 60,000 tons ofsolid waste per year. As the Stock Island site reachescapacity, alternate facilities will be required.

The incorporated area of Monroe County managesits own solid waste and that of Key Colony Beachand Layton. There are three landfills in the unincor-porated county, two of which have remaining capac-ity. However, these sites are currently only used astransfer sites as part of a solid waste haul-outprogram. Non-recyclable materials are transported toa landfill in Broward County.

Transportation. The highway network in the Keys isunique, with just one major 100-mile roadway (US 1)connecting the chain of islands with 42 bridges.Numerous local roads are connected to the highwayand serve the area's many subdivisions. Key West’sroadway network is perhaps the only area in MonroeCounty that is characteristic of traditional urbansettings. There are major traffic constraints on US 1in four locations: Plantation Key, Upper Matecumbe,Lower Matecumbe, and Big Pine Key. Without furtherroadway improvements, these constraints will restrictthe growth potential of these areas.

Other forms of transportation between islands andfrom the mainland include airplanes and boats. Thereare two public airports in the Keys, at Key West andMarathon, and four private airstrips. There are also163 marinas within the Sanctuary, and Key Westaccommodates considerable cruiseline activity.

Energy Consumption. The Florida Keys ElectricCooperative and the City Electric System provideelectric power to the Keys. The former is a privatelyowned utility that serves the Upper and Middle Keys.The latter is owned and operated by the City of KeyWest and is run by a publicly elected board. Incombination, the two utilities sold over 1.2 millionkilowatt hours of electricity to approximately 48,500customers in 1990 (Garrett, pers. comm.).

Development

Development in the Keys is constrained by the lackof adequate public infrastructure. A significant limitingfactor is highway capacity. US 1 restricts both day-to-day travel and the rate of potential hurricane evacua-tion transportation. Currently approved developmentwill add to the factors constraining new growth, asinsufficient infrastructure support exists.

Since the current development revisions wereundertaken, the county has carefully tracked itspermitting process because of the ultimate impactapprovals will have on existing facilities deficits andfuture growth capacity. In 1990 there were about45,000 residential units (both single- and multifamily)in the Keys, with about 72 percent located outsideKey West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. Approxi-mately one-third of all improved, buildable, andresidential lots remained vacant. From April 1990 toOctober 1991, over 1,800 single- and multifamilyunits, mobile homes, and motel/hotel units wereapproved in the unincorporated area.

Future Development. Key West, Key Colony Beach,and Layton currently have no capital facilities con-straints that would limit growth within their bound-aries. However, because residents of the threemunicipalities must be evacuated on US 1 along withthe rest of the area's residents, the county mustconsider how this influx would affect overall evacua-tion rates.

Current evacuation times for the Keys have beenprojected at 27 to 30 hours. Continued populationgrowth would increase traffic during an evacuation,thus increasing evacuation times. State law man-dates that no such increases can take place, and thecounty has suggested that two major stretches of US1 be improved to offset this problem. Improvementsto these road segments would allow for the develop-ment of almost 3,700 new residential units through-out the county, without a further increase in projectedevacuation times.

The county has agreed to allocate a portion of theseunits to the three incorporated municipalities, basedon the percentage of the total county population ineach. This allocation will take place over a 10-yearperiod, with 370 permits allowed annually. This wouldconstitute an approximate 75 percent reduction in thenumber of residential units permitted each year. Theresulting "loan" in residential permit allocation wouldbe paid off within a decade if these improvements are


84

completed. Whether they are or not, and assumingthe current law doesn’t change, growth after the 10-year period could be restricted even further due toinfrastructure limitations similar to those that currentlyexist.

Recreation and Tourism

Recreation and tourism are critical to the Keys'economy, and businesses supporting the area'srecreational use (e.g., dive shops, charter fishingboats, marinas, hotels, etc.) are vital to its economiclivelihood. Retail trade and services, for example, aremajor employment sectors, accounting for half ofMonroe County's work force.

The Keys have an abundance of recreational andopen-space resources, and the tropical setting is amajor attraction for both seasonal residents andshort-term visitors. Because the Keys are a naturalchain of islands located between two of the world’sgreat water bodies, the focus of recreation andtourism is on water-related activities (e.g., boating,fishing, scuba diving, and snorkeling).

Recreation/Tourism Infrastructure. The Keys havean extensive public/private recreational infrastructure.There are 257 public and private recreation sites,ranging from single-lane boat ramps along US 1, toprivate marinas and large public recreational sitessuch as John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park.

Beach Facilities. Although participating in beachactivities is often a primary objective of touriststravelling to the Keys, the area does not have thewide, sandy beaches characteristic of Florida's eastcoast. There are 58.4 km of beaches in the Keys'portion of Monroe County (Clark, 1990). Thesebeaches are typically very narrow (8 m wide or less)and many are on unbridged islands, especially westof Key West (e.g., the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas).

Boating Facilities. There are 163 marinas, both publicand private, in the Keys, with large numbers in KeyLargo (57), Marathon (39), Islamorada (31), and KeyWest (20). These extensive boating facilities provide5,127 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 scatteredthroughout the Keys that provide direct access toSanctuary waters.

Recreation Sites. Public sites are major touristattractions because they offer a wide range of

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

recreational opportunities. For example, Bahia HondaState Park provides snorkeling, beach activities,fishing, picnicking, swimming, boating, camping, anddiving. The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuarycontains several shipwrecks, and its easy accessmakes it an excellent dive site. John PennekampCoral Reef State Park and the adjacent Key LargoNational Marine Sanctuary together account for over580 km2 of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangroveswamps, and are both excellent areas for scuba andsnorkel trips.

There are 24 Federal and State recreation areas,parks, refuges, historic sites, botanical sites, ar-chaeological sites, geological sites, and aquaticpreserves within the Keys, accounting for nearly10,000 km2 of land and water resources. Thirtypercent of the total area is within the boundaries ofthe Sanctuary (Table 12). In addition, there are over35 county recreation sites located on land, with someproviding access to Sanctuary waters.

Private recreation sites include marinas, camp-grounds, RV trailer parks, and golf courses. Thereare approximately 200 private recreation sites in theKeys, most in Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon, andKey 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 20Lignumvitae/Indian Key Aquatic Preserve 33

Abbreviation: nd, no data.


85

February, around Easter, and again in the summer.Residents of neighboring counties in South Floridaoften trailer boats to the Keys during the summer.

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling. Scuba diving and snorkel-ing are also popular recreational activities, in partbecause of the area's many shipwreck sites andextensive coral reefs. Between 20 and 30 percent ofall tourists visiting the Keys scuba dive or snorkelduring their visit (Kearny/Centaur, 1990). Almost 90percent of the significant dive spots are located in theUpper Keys, including the protected waters of theKey Largo National Marine Sanctuary and JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park. These sites, andthe Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary in the LowerKeys, are popular because of their accessibility andthe number of dive operations available.

Recreational Fishing. The waters surrounding theKeys are world-renowned for sport fishing, and thechance of catching species such as marlin, tarpon,bonefish, and permit make the area a popular fishingdestination. The impact on the Keys' economy isenormous. A statewide study has shown that everydollar spent by a fishing tourist gets re-spent 3.23times before leaving the county. It has been esti-mated that recreational fishing brings almost $500million to the local economy each year (Whitney,1991).

1989198619831980197719741971

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Boa

t Reg

istr

atio

ns p

er 1

00 P

erso

ns

Year

Sources: Monroe County, 1990; White, 1991.

Accommodations. There are over 14,600 tourismunits in the Keys, representing the sum of all hotel/motel rooms, sites for camping and recreationalvehicles, and vacation rentals. A hotel/motel room isdefined as a unit in a resort, rooming house, or bedand breakfast. Vacation rental units include apart-ments, condominiums, and houses (Kearny/Centaur,1990). Almost half of all hotel/motel and vacationrentals within the Keys are in Key West. Camp-grounds are distributed through most of the remain-der of the Keys.

In 1990 the hotel/motel occupancy rate in MonroeCounty ranged from 67 percent in the fourth quarterof the year (Oct.-Dec.) to 85 percent in the firstquarter (Jan.-Mar.) (White, 1991). The busiestmonths are typically February and March, when theCity of Key West annually records occupancy ratesexceeding 90 percent (White, 1991). In addition,there are over 600 restaurants in the Keys, withalmost half in the City of Key West.

Recreation Activities. There are numerous recre-ation activities available in the Keys. Most are water-related, but archaeological and historical attractionsare also popular. The rapid growth of tourism overthe past few decades attests to the desirability of theKeys as a destination for outdoor recreation. Popularrecreational activities include boating, fishing, scubadiving and snorkeling, beach activities, sight-seeing,walking, jogging, biking, and swimming.

Recreational Boating. Boating is an integral part oflife within the Sanctuary. To fish, snorkel, or scubadive, a boat is usually required. In 1990, 15,595pleasure 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 timeboating in Sanctuary waters, and such activitiesaccount for about 13 percent of all visitor days. Theprimary boating activity involves recreational fishing,and about 55 percent of all visiting boaters participatein fishing activities. Scuba diving and snorkeling tripsaccount for about 29 percent of all tourist boatingactivities (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Because of the mild tropical climate, tourists fre-quently enjoy recreational boating during the wintermonths (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1990). Recre-ational boating peaks between November and

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


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

EmploymentIncome 6 1 1 8

Total

EmploymentIncome

16,691292

1,69071

2,502100

20,883463

50

57

321 32 20 373 11

5158

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

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Fishing-for-hire services are an important componentof the Keys' tourism industry as well. Several ser-vices are available to tourists, including backcountryand reef expeditions. Backcountry guides accommo-date one or two fishermen in a 5 to 6 m shallow-draftboat. Much of the backcountry fishing is done bysight for bonefish, permit, and tarpon, with boatstypically poled through the clear, shallow waters(Rockland, 1990). Backcountry skiff fishing occursthroughout the Keys, with the greatest concentrationin Islamorada (Rockland, 1990).

Reef fishing is done in deeper waters, often nearwrecks. Activities are concentrated in the Middle andLower Keys, with the greatest number of reef fishingboats in Key West (Rockland, 1990). Methodsinclude bottom-fishing, trolling, and casting. Charterboat fishing is almost always done offshore, beyondthe reef, in Atlantic waters. Large boats (8.5 to 15 min length) designed for catching species such assailfish, mackerel, and dolphin are generally used.Partyboat fishing is done from boats over 12 m longthat are licensed to carry more than six people(Rockland, 1990). These boats offer half-day or full-day trips to the reef.

Fishing from one’s own boat, without any hiredservices, however, remains the predominant methodin the Keys. Because there are over 106,000 boatsregistered in Monroe, Dade, and Broward counties,and since many of these boats frequently operate inSanctuary waters, it is safe to assume that a largenumber of recreational fishermen are operating inSanctuary waters during most days of the year. A1980-81 survey of private-boat fishermen revealedthat 31 percent were from the Keys, 43 percent werefrom Dade and Broward counties, 13 percent werefrom other Florida counties, and 13 percent werefrom outside the state (Rockland, 1990).

Figure 15. Percent of Visitor Days by Outdoor Activity

Most fishing not done from boats takes place at oneof the 42 bridges that connect the islands of theKeys. Bridge fishing is also done on several retiredbridges, such as the Old Seven Mile Bridge, and fromcatwalks beneath bridges. Because of their access todeeper waters, bridges provide a better “shore”location than piers or the shoreline.

Beach Activities. Although the Keys do not have thebeaches characteristic of the eastern and Gulf coastsof Florida, beach activities still represent a majortourist interest, accounting for about 41 percent of allvisitor-days (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Architectural and Historical Tourist Attractions. TheKeys have a variety of architectural and historicaltourist attractions. For example, Dry Tortugas Na-tional Park (accessible only by boat), attracted more


87

and tourism supported about half of all employmentin the county, and half of all personal income byplace of work came from these activities.

Commercial Fishing

Commercial fisheries are among the Keys' mostvaluable natural resources. The area is one of therichest fishing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Phillips,1990) and commercial fishing is the fourth-largestindustry in the region, representing nine percent ofMonroe County's private-sector employment (White,1991).

The diversity of the Keys' aquatic habitats andcommunities (including coral reefs, seagrass beds,and softbottom and hardbottom areas) provides foodand shelter for these invertebrates and fishes (Envi-ronmental Science and Engineering, Inc. et al., 1987;Comp and Seaman, 1985), and ninety percent of theregion's commercially important species use thesehabitats for shelter, food, or nurseries during at leastone stage of their life history (Comp and Seaman,1985).

Population growth in Monroe County has raisedmanagement concerns about demands on theregion's fisheries and potential overfishing(Bohnsack, 1991). Commercial harvest is regulatedby measures including annual catch quotas, closedseasons, gear restrictions, and guidelines settingminimum catch sizes. These regulations have beendeveloped for most commercially important inverte-brates, finfish, and corals through management planswritten by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexicofishery management councils, the Florida MarineFisheries Commission, and the Florida Cabinet(Bohnsack, 1991).

Catch Statistics . In southwest Florida (includingMonroe County), decapod crustaceans (shrimp,stone crab, and spiny lobster), snappers (e.g.,yellowtail), groupers, king mackerels, and Spanishmackerels dominate commercial catches (Williams,1991). In Monroe County, the total annual commer-cial landings for these species average almost 15million pounds (Bohnsack, 1991). In recent years,crustaceans have comprised 81 to 92 percent of thetotal catch value, while finfish made up the remainder(Rockland, 1988).

The State collects landings information on approxi-mately 400 kinds of fish, invertebrates, and plantsharvested in Monroe County. Information is collected

than 19,000 visitors in 1990 (Shermyen, 1991). InKey West there are numerous architectural/historicalattractions such as Fort Zachary Taylor, the Old PostOffice and Customs House, the Ernest HemingwayHouse, and the Armory. Visits to archaeological andhistoric attractions account for about seven percentof all visitor days.

Walking, Jogging, Biking, Swimming. These activitiesare 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 forfishing. Within the Keys, about 31 percent of allvisitor days are spent walking, jogging, biking, orswimming (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

Other. Other recreational activities includewindsurfing, which is popular throughout the Keysdue to the many available access points, and the useof personal watercraft, especially in the calmerwaters of the backcountry.

Economic Impact of Recreation/Tourism. Recre-ation and tourism activities create economic impactswhen the natural resources, historic attractions, orleisure opportunities combine to attract visitors fromother areas or to induce local residents to pursueleisure activities. Such activities can also result in aseries of purchases that enter the local economy.Visitor expenditures can be viewed as a regionalexport and, therefore, make up a base sector of thelocal economy (Kearny/Centaur, 1990).

A direct economic impact occurs in the Keys, forexample, when a vacationer books a fishing or scubatrip. Indirect impacts occur when the provider ofthese services, such as a boat captain, purchasesbait and fuel from other local businesses. Thesesuppliers, in turn, need to make purchases from theiraffiliates. These effects are further compoundedwhen the charter boat captain and the other busi-nesses supplying the operation take their moneyhome. These are induced impacts that have addi-tional indirect and induced effects (Kearny/Centaur,1990).

The impact of recreation/tourism on the MonroeCounty economy is shown in Table 13. The directimpact of tourists and residents is measured in termsof employment—in 1990, 16,691 jobs in MonroeCounty were dependent on the tourism/recreationindustry. Recreation activities also had an indirect orinduced effect, creating over 2,500 jobs (Kearny/Centaur, 1990). Consequently, outdoor recreation


88

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

199019851980197519700

4

8

12

16

Year

Mill

ions

of P

ound

s

Pink Shrimp Lobster Stone Crabs

Source: Muller, pers. com.

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

199019851980197519700

1

2

3

4

5

6

Year

Mill

ions

of P

ound

s

Mackerel Snappers Groupers

from every commercial fishing trip (including thoseinvolving marine-life collecting). In 1990 commerciallandings of food and bait species were 19.7 millionpounds (approximately 10 percent of Florida’s totallandings) (FDEP, unpublished data). Figures 16a and16b show annual landings for major crustaceans andfinfish between 1970 and 1990. Landings are im-pacted by the cyclical and migratory patterns ofvarious species and quotas that have been imposedon certain commercial seafood.

Spiny lobster has recently surpassed pink shrimp,and leads the county in both landings and value. In1990 spiny lobster landings totaled 5.3 millionpounds, followed by pink shrimp (3.7 million pounds)and stone crab (2.6 million pounds). Of the finfish,yellowtail snapper accounted for the greatest land-ings (1.6 million pounds), followed by Spanishmackerel (1.1 million pounds).

Major Species . The major commercial invertebratespecies in the Keys are the spiny lobster, Tortugaspink shrimp, and stone crab. All three (particularlyspiny lobster) are also caught by recreational fisher-men. Queen conch was once an important nearshore

fishery, but a harvest moratorium has been in effectin State waters since 1985 and in Federal waterssince 1986 (Glazer, pers. comm.) because of severedepletions in local populations due to overfishing(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990). Snappers, groupers,and mackerels are the most valuable commercialfinfish.

Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). Commercial fishingfor spiny lobster occurs on both sides of the Keys. Inthe Atlantic, most fishing is done on the back side ofthe reef, west to just beyond the Dry Tortugas.Fishing activities are evenly distributed from JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park to Key West, withmost done in water less than 9 m deep (Beaver,pers. comm.). In the Gulf of Mexico, fishing rangesfrom the Everglades National Park (ENP) boundarywest to beyond the Dry Tortugas in depths of about 2to 18 m. The highest trap concentrations occur fromENP to the northern side of Big Pine Key and west ofKey West to the Marquesas (Beaver, pers. comm.).Most legal-size adults are harvested during theAugust-March fishing season, except within ENP, DryTortugas National Park, and Biscayne Bay/CardSound (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery


89

Management Councils, 1982; Schmahl, pers.comm.).

Over the past 15 years, annual commercial harvestshave ranged from about 3.6 to 7.2 million pounds,with a yearly average of approximately five millionpounds (Powers and Sutherland, 1989). In 1990about 5.3 million pounds were landed, valued at$21.2 million (FDEP, unpublished data). Approxi-mately 88 percent of the nation's spiny lobster isharvested in Monroe County (NMFS, 1991), and thefishery is the most important in the Sanctuary interms of economic value. Recreational harvest is alsoimportant, and one recent survey estimated thatrecreational fishing accounts for 20 percent of thetotal harvest, much higher than previously believed(Hunt, pers. comm.).

Tortugas Pink Shrimp (Penaeus duorarum). Gulfwaters yield 99 percent of the total landings ofTortugas pink shrimp in the Keys, with Atlantic watersyielding the remainder. Other shrimp species, suchas rock shrimp and deepwater royal red shrimp, areincluded in the area's catches, but are of only minorcommercial importance (Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council, 1981).

Two major pink shrimp fishing areas are the Tortugasand the Sanibel grounds (Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council, 1981), which exhibit thehighest catch levels in the Tortugas. Both areas arerelatively close to estuarine nursery grounds that areessential to the growth and survival of early lifestages (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,1981). The majority of the Keys' shrimp industry islocated on Stock Island, but shrimpers also operatefrom Key West and Marathon. Shrimping is seasonal,with peak landings occurring between October andMarch (Little, pers. comm.).

Although Tortugas pink shrimp used to be the mostvaluable commercial species on the southwestFlorida shelf, their importance has declined in recentyears 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 arecommercially harvested along Florida's southwestcoast from Tampa Bay to the Dry Tortugas, out to the18-m depth contour (Bert, pers. comm.), with mostharvest occurring in the Everglades-Florida Bay area(Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1978).The peak stone crab season is between October andMay, and all crabs must be returned to the waterafter claw removal (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Manage-

ment Council, 1978). The fishery has been stable forthe last two decades. In 1990 about 2.6 millionpounds (valued at $7.3 million) were landed in theKeys (FDEP, unpublished data).

Snapper-Grouper. The snapper-grouper fisheryconsists of demersal tropical and subtropical speciesincluding snappers (Lutjanidae), sea basses andgroupers (Serranidae), porgies (Sparidae), tilefishes(Malacanthidae), grunts (Pomadasyidae), trigger-fishes (Balistidae), wrasses (Labridae), and jacks(Carangidae) (Gulf of Mexico and South AtlanticFishery Management Councils, 1982). Commercialfishing usually occurs outside the reef tract, particu-larly west of Key West, from the Marquesas to theDry Tortugas (Little, pers. comm.).

Some snapper and grouper fishing occurs whenother fishing seasons are closed or when catches ofother species are low (Hunt, pers. comm.). In 1989combined landings totaled 3.0 million pounds (Bea-ver, pers. comm.), and in 1990 the total was approxi-mately 2.5 million pounds valued at $4.3 million(FDEP, unpublished data).

Other Fisheries. The gathering, processing, andmarketing of natural sponges was a major industry inthe Keys for almost a century (Viele, 1991). However,a 1939 blight killed 60 to 90 percent of the region'ssponges, leading to a significant decline in theindustry. Sponging has recently resumed in theregion (Viele, 1991), probably due to an influx ofCubans between the 1960s and 1980s, a prohibitionon sponging in Biscayne National Park, and aMediterranean sponge blight (Schmahl, pers.comm.). Most commercial harvest occurs in FloridaBay (Little, pers. comm.). In 1990 commerciallandings totaled 387,000 pounds, valued at $2.8million (FDEP, unpublished data).

Another significant fishery targets coastal pelagicspecies, including schooling migratory fish such asSpanish mackerel, king mackerel, and bait fish (e.g.,ballyhoo). With the exception of king mackerel, thesefish are seasonally available and are usually caughtwithin five nautical miles of shore (Alevizon andBannerot, 1990). Inshore fisheries target speciessuch as mullet, pompano, and Spanish mackerel(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990). In 1990 approxi-mately 1.8 million pounds of mackerel were landed,valued at $1.26 million. Spanish mackerel dominatedthe catch (FDEP, unpublished data). Commercialfishing for pelagic species occurs offshore of the reeftract and within the Straits of Florida and has tar-geted swordfish, tuna, shark, dolphin, and other bill


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 isconducted through small operations and from indi-vidual homes, it is difficult to accurately assess thetotal 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 Keysin landings and value, with the two areas accountingfor 75 percent of the Keys' poundage and 83 percentof the value in 1990. The traditionally high value ofKey West's landings made it the 25th most importantfishing port in the United States in 1990 (Shermyen,1991).

Florida requires a saltwater products license (SPL)for the sale of marine resources. In Monroe Countyduring the 1989-90 license year, 4,156 SPLs wereissued (Figure 18), the largest number for hook-and-line fishing, followed by traps and spearfishing/diving(FDEP, unpublished data). Because the countyattracts fishermen from outside the Keys, landingswere reported from 4,914 SPLs during this period(FDEP, unpublished data).

Source: Shermyen, 1991

Fishermen typically participate in a variety of fisheriesduring the year. A cycle may begin in August byfishing for spiny lobsters, adding or switching to stonecrabs in mid- to late October, briefly switching to kingand Spanish mackerel in January and February, andshifting to snapper, grouper, and dolphin in earlysummer (Muller, pers. comm.).

In 1989 over 1,700 fishermen regularly operated inassociation with wholesale fish houses, not includingpart-time or independent fishermen (White, 1991). In1989 there were over 1,600 registered commercialfishing vessels in the county (White, 1991). Between1980 and 1990, however, the number of commercialvessels declined by six percent, contributing to a 22percent decline in total commercial landings duringthe period. Factors influencing the declining numberof vessels included the high cost of living in the KeyWest (Stock Island) area, increased dock fees, areduction in available dock space, the retirement ofolder fishermen, and a declining shrimp industry(Monroe County, 1992; Bohnsack, pers. comm.).

Commercial Fishing Methods—Finfish. In theearly 1900s, the two main gear types used in theKeys were hook-and-line and gill nets. During the1960s, however, fishing power per unit effort in-

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

Key West

Marathon

Tavernier

Key Largo

Summerland Key

AAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

Key West

Summerland Key

(45%)

Marathon (29%)

(7%)

Key Largo (6%)

Tavernier (5%)

Other (8%)

25°00'

80°30'81°30'

20 Kilometers

N

25°30'


91

creased considerably due to larger vessels, powerreels, power rollers for hauling gill nets, and the useof electronic navigation devices (e.g., LORAN C) andspotter planes (Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990;Bohnsack, 1991). The main commercial reef-fishinggear currently used includes baited hand lines,electric and hydraulic reels, bottom long lines, andscuba diver spears and powerheads (Alevizon andBannerot, 1990).

Most reef fish are caught with hook-and-line gear,with the baited hand line the most common type. Indeeper water, mechanically operated "bandit" reelsmay be used (Little, pers. comm.). Both methods areused for snappers, groupers, and mackerels. Bottomlong lines, trawls, gill nets, and spears are also usedto catch snappers and groupers (Gulf of MexicoFishery Management Council, 1981). Various nets(e.g., gill and seine) are used to catch Florida pom-pano, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and bait fish(Sweat, pers. comm.). It is currently illegal to use gillnets to catch snappers and groupers (Bertlesen,pers. comm.).

Commercial Fishing Methods—Invertebrates. Forshrimp fishing, double-rigged twin trawls, developedin the late 1950s, have replaced single otter trawls asthe primary gear. However, some small-scale com-mercial bait shrimpers still use single trawls (Alevizonand Bannerot, 1990). Most spiny lobsters and stonecrabs are taken via wooden slat traps (Gulf of MexicoFishery Management Council, 1981). A very smallpercentage of the commercial lobster catch comesfrom 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

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

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 SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council waters since1992. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery ManagementCouncil is also currently considering making suchtraps illegal (Bohnsack, pers. comm.). Sponges aretypically caught by hooking from boats, using a four-pronged iron rake attached to the end of a 5 to 7 mpole (Steveley et al., 1978).

Marine Life Collecting. In addition to the commer-cial food and bait fish industries, a poorly docu-mented fishery has recently been recognized aseconomically important. This "marine-life" fisherysupplies small fishes, invertebrates, algae, and liverock to wholesalers, retailers, hobbyists, and publicaquaria throughout the world (Feddern, pers.comm.).

Although the actual economic value of the marine-lifefishery has not been determined due to its recentlyrecognized significance, the wide variety of speciesinvolved, and the reluctance of fishermen to releasefinancial data, it is estimated to be $30 millionannually. About 260 species are harvested, includingthe juveniles of a small number of species managedin other fisheries (Feddern, pers. comm.). Overallharvest totals are not applicable because marketcategories are given as colonies, individuals, andpounds of material (e.g., live rock). Live rock is animportant resource in the Sanctuary serving as arefuge and food source to many juvenile and crypticspecies and serving as a substrate to filter feeders.However, rock beauty was the most frequentlyreported species collected in 1990 (on 1,913 trips).Angelfish and butterflyfish are the most frequentlycollected fish species in the county (Muller, pers.comm.).

Marine life fishermen are considered small businessoperators (Feddern, pers. comm.), and as such areregulated by Florida permits. Fishermen typicallyoperate from small boats, using scuba, hookah, andsnorkel methods, in depths up to 45 m. Hand nets,barrier nets, and anesthetics are used to capture fish,and invertebrates are either detached from thebottom or picked up by hand. Many marine lifefishermen also buy live organisms from shrimptrawlers and bycatch from lobster fishermen. Littleinformation is available on the impacts of the marine-life fishery on harvested populations and communi-ties (Hunt, pers. comm.).

Aquaculture. Aquaculture, the rearing or husbandryof aquatic organisms, involves human intervention inthe production of marine life. Such operations make


92

Figure 19. Artificial Reefs in the Florida Keys

.

26°

25°

82°83° 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

789

1011

1213

14

15

16

17

5

Source: Pybas, 1992.

40 Kilometers

N

up a relatively minor portion of the Keys' commercialfisheries, and although various aquaculture attemptshave been made, most have failed. There arecurrently several projects operating in the Keysinvolving shrimp, finfish, and conch (Little, pers.comm.). One project, a shrimp farm in the UpperKeys, is attempting to rear adult brine shrimp (Huntand Little, pers. comm.). A second is producingpostlarval Pacific white shrimp to stock shrimp farmsin Honduras (Little, 1991). The FDEP also recentlyset up an experimental culture laboratory for thedepleted queen conch at the Marine Science andConservation Center in Layton (Little, 1991) todetermine the feasibility of laboratory rearing(Glazer, pers. comm.). In addition, Florida is cur-rently 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 permittedartificial reef sites (Figure 19), many of which aremade of more than one structure or material (Pybas,1992). Since many objects are deposited without aproper permit (e.g., abandoned shrimp boats,lobster traps), however, this number is probably a

rather small percentage of the actual number ofartificial habitats in Sanctuary waters (Kruer, pers.comm.; Pybas, pers. comm.).

Most artificial reefs are constructed from discardedmaterials, although some may be accidentally placed(Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985). In the past,surplus auto tires; small craft; and household plumb-ing, cooking, and refrigerating appliances were usedas reef structures. However, corrosion, siltation, andstorm-related turbulence often caused reefs made ofthese objects to deteriorate, and more stable, corro-sion-resistant materials have recently been used(Pybas, 1992). The two major types of artificial reefscurrently used in the Keys are shipwrecks and bridgerubble (Kruer, pers. comm.). Other artificial hard-substrate habitats include engineering structures,piers, wrecked aircraft, pipelines, bridge pilings,culvert materials, large storage tanks, porcelainfixtures, navigational aids, and concrete structures(Jaap and Hallock, 1990; Kruer and Causey, 1992;Pybas, 1992).

In 1980 residents of the Keys formed the nonprofitFlorida Keys Artificial Reef Association (FKARA) todetermine the best use for the many concrete piecescreated during removal of some of the area’s originalbridges. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 35,000tons of rubble were placed at six sites throughout theKeys, creating food and shelter for a variety of fish


93

and invertebrate species (Kruer, 1991). The FKARAhas also placed steel vessels, including the CoastGuard cutters BIBB and DUANE (off Key Largo), theEAGLE (near Islamorada), and the THUNDERBOLT(off Marathon), at several permitted sites (Kruer,1991).

A Fisheries Resource . Artificial reefs are primarilyused to create habitat for marine algae, fishes, andinvertebrates and/or to enhance fisheries (Seaman etal., 1989; Kruer, 1991). As new habitats are created,species diversity and abundance may increaselocally (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Milon,1989a; Jaap and Hallock, 1990; Kruer, pers. comm.).

Artificial structures provide a biota similar tonearshore patch reefs and live-bottom communities(Jaap and Hallock, 1990). Marine algae, smallinvertebrates, and fish inhabit the newly introducedmaterials almost immediately. Smaller organismsprovide food for many fish (e.g., snappers andgroupers) and larger invertebrates (e.g., spinylobster, crabs, and small shrimp) (Bohnsack andSutherland, 1985; Kruer, 1991). Reefs are eventuallycolonized by other organisms including corals,tunicates, sponges, molluscs, bryozoans, andhydrozoans (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Jaapand Hallock, 1990; Kruer, 1991).

The time it takes for an artificial reef to become aneffective fishery resource depends on variablesincluding structure type and design, water columnlocation, tidal current patterns, and bottom type(Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Jaap and Hallock,1990; Kruer, pers. comm.). For example, a structurefive meters tall can provide habitats for severaldifferent organisms, including bottom and mid-waterspecies (Bohnsack, pers. comm.; Kruer, pers.comm.).

Uses and Users. Fishermen and divers are typicallythe primary recreational users of artificial reef envi-ronments, with sport anglers often selecting the sitesbased on expectations of higher catch levels (Milon,1989b). In addition, accessible, well-marked artificialreefs are particularly important to tourists who areunfamiliar with local fishing areas or cannot afford achartered boat (Bender, 1978). Commercial fisher-men and marine-life collectors also use these artifi-cial habitats to catch species including amberjack,cobia, snapper, and spiny lobster (Bohnsack, 1989;Pybas, pers. comm.). Scuba divers often use artificialreefs because they are easily accessible and providea variety of experiences (Milon, 1989b). They oftenconsider dives near these structures to be unique

experiences, rather than substitutes for trips tonaturally formed reefs (Blout, 1981).

Artificial reefs can also be used as a resourcemanagement tool (Kruer, 1991). For example, asnatural reefs become stressed due to fishing ordiving, users can be encouraged to move to alterna-tive artificial structures. However, it cannot beassumed that such sites will always increase fishproduction or be immune to the stress caused byhuman activities (e.g., overfishing) (Bohnsack, 1989).Although these sites may offer the potential toenhance many marine species, integrated manage-ment strategies and research efforts may also beneeded to protect fisheries resources (Bohnsack andSutherland, 1985; Milon, 1989a; Kruer, 1991; Pybas,pers. comm.).

Department of Defense Activities

The U.S. Department of Defense has played animportant role in Monroe County since the early1800s, when the Federal government established asmall naval operation in Key West to control piracy innearby waters (1823).

Current Department of Defense Activities . TheDepartment of the Defense (DOD) currently main-tains several sites in the Keys, including the largestunencumbered airspace available for training on theEast Coast (Figure 20). Although all of the militarydepartments (Navy, Air Force and Army) are repre-sented in the region, the Navy’s presence is the mostsignificant.

The Navy’s location in the Keys has internationalsignificance, as it maintains the closest militaryinstallation in the continental United States to Cuba,Central and South America, and the Caribbean. Allof the Navy’s facilities are in the Lower Keys, with themajority in Key West. The largest is the Naval AirStation on Boca Chica (Monroe County Board ofCounty Commissioners, 1986). Key West harbor,including piers at Trumbo Point and the TrumanAnnex, is also the site of the only active Navy facilitywithin the Sanctuary, where Navy vessels conductingoperations in the Sanctuary area are berthed, andwhere naval acoustic research vessels conductoperations. Fuel deliveries and other logisticalactions are also conducted to support training andoperations.

Economic Significance . DOD has historically been,and will continue to be, an important factor in the


94

Figure 20. Military Areas Within the Keys

26°00'

24°00'

82°00'

84°00' 80°00'

Cuba

Florida

Explosives Dumping Area



Naval OperationalTraining Area

Abandoned MineField Area

N

80 Kilometers

Keys’ economy. Ten percent of all earnings inMonroe County in 1988 were attributed to civilian anduniformed military personnel (White, 1991), and theUnited State’s desire to maintain a strong presencein the Caribbean, combined with a climate ideal forpilot training, makes it likely that the military willcontinue to use the Keys for operations and training.The implementation of recommendations under theBase Closure and Realignment Act, however, mayresult in a decrease in the actual number of Navalpersonnel permanently stationed in the Keys.

Military Activities

Research and Development . DOD conductsresearch and development activities in the FloridaKeys, both on and offshore, including research onradar and missile systems and test missile operationsand evaluation. Other R&D activities include thefollowing:

• Underwater Explosives Testing. The Navyformerly conducted small explosives testing inthe shallow waters (12 to 120 m) of the Keys, butdiscontinued these activities in 1992. The Navynow tests explosives in an area Site “A,” theupper boundary of which is located 18 miles

Site "A"

Patricia Range

southwest of Key West and about 10 miles fromthe Sanctuary boundary. Many of these tests arein connection with weapon systems testing or theshock testing of ship hull designs.

• The Navy prepared two Environmental Assess-ments (one under NEPA and one under Execu-tive Order 12114) to assess the impacts fromthese operations at Site “A.” Water depths at thissite are too great (1,200 - 2,400 feet) to supportbenthic grasses. Concussive effects of thelargest explosives would extend up to one milefrom the detonation site. Thus, a two-mile safetyzone (or smaller, as appropriate to the chargesize) is maintained free of marine mammals andturtles before a charge is detonated. Worst caselevels of explosion by-products immediately afterdetonation are far below levels found toxic tofish, and concentrations drop quickly to ambientlevels. Additionally, no testing is conductedclose to the northern boundary of Site “A”, wherethe safety zone would extend beyond the siteboundary.

• In an emergency, the Navy may dispose ofexplosives at three deepwater sites in the region(although they are outside the Sanctuary). The


95

around the station. For all such aircraft, normalapproaches, transits, and holding patterns occurregularly in accordance with applicable FederalAviation Administration (FAA) guidance. Thisincludes departure and landing patterns that takeaircraft over the FKNMS at altitudes below 1000 feet.Normal transit and training flight operations occuryear round. Search and Rescue (SAR) operationsand any military operations using NAS Key West as astaging base can occur with little or no notice. Muchof the airspace over and close to the station isdesignated as restricted. Air operations at the stationare conducted in accordance with a consultationbetween the Navy and the Fish and Wildlife Service,undertaken pursuant to the Endangered Species Actfor the protection of the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit.

(b) Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM). The reservedairspace areas around NAS Key West are of criticalimportance to the Atlantic Fleet’s aviation training.These areas represent one of the largest areasavailable for overwater and littoral aviation warfaretraining. Marine Corps and Navy fighter and at-tached aircraft squadrons visit the Station andconduct basic and advanced ACM training andcarrier qualification training in the designated air-space areas. This training at times entails super-sonic flight and low level flight, which can result inshort periods of high noise levels. One trainingfighter squadron, VF-45, operates out of the Stationmost of the year as an “adversary” squadron toprovide an “enemy” for aircrews undergoing training.Air Force fighter squadrons also use this airspace forthe same purposes. Live gunnery exercises areconducted from time to time in designated areas withtowed sleeves as targets.

(c) Air to Surface Ordnance. Military aircraft periodi-cally use a designated bombing range located justwest of Marquesas Key, west of the Station and eastof the Dry Tortugas. This range, knows as PatriciaRange, consists of a World War II vintage hulk that isaground just west of Marquesas Key. Aircraft makeruns on this hulk in order to perfect at-sea delivery ofordnance. Authorized ordnance for training at thePatricia Range is limited to inert ordnance withsmoke markers. No live ordnance is dropped. As ofthe date of issuance of this FEIS, operations atPatricia Range had been temporarily suspendedpending an inquiry into the possible presence ofendangered 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 TestArea “A” (south of Key West).

• Mine Countermeasure Research. The Office ofNaval Research occasionally sponsors research,in which allied forces participate, pertinent tomine operations in the shallow-water carbonateenvironment of the Sanctuary, using vesselsgreater than 50 meters in length in the Area ToBe Avoided, and uses this environment to testthe next generation of environmental monitoringand prediction systems for the next generation ofmine countermeasure class ships. According toDOD, Key West is the only location in the conti-nental U.S. where the environmental conditionsare similar to those of the Persian Gulf.

• Corrosion and Coatings Tests. The NavalResearch Laboratory/Marine Corrosion Facility atFlemming Key conducts a wide variety of corro-sion and coatings tests utilizing sea water fromthe Sanctuary.

• Acoustic Research. Naval acoustic researchvessels occasionally operate out of Key Westharbor and conduct research activities in theSanctuary.

Onshore Operations . There are a number ofland-based military facilities in the Keys, accountingfor about 5,200 acres. The Naval Air Station KeyWest, located at Boca Chica, and one communica-tions site on Saddlebunch Keys account for 96percent of all lands. There are also a number ofmilitary facilities in Key West, including storage andsupply sites, military housing, the Navy commissary,and a medical clinic.

The air station at Boca Chica contains more than3,000 acres of facilities for airfield operations, aircraftstorage and maintenance, administration, supply,housing, recreation, general maintenance, and healthcare purposes. An Air Installation Compatible-UseZone (AICUZ) surrounds the air station. The areaexcludes residential and commercial developmentbecause of excessive noise and accident potential.

In addition, the Air Force owns 35 acres on CudjoeKey known as the blimp site. The blimps are used foraerial surveillance of the waters surrounding theKeys.

Offshore Operations. Air Operations. (a) General.The Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West is an opera-tion air station, located at Boca Chica. Various fixedwing and rotary wing aircraft operate from and


96

Sanctuary. Occasionally, submarines fire exercisetorpedoes. These firings take place outside theSanctuary. Exercise torpedoes are nonexplosive andare recovered for reuse.

(b) Sonobuoys. The Naval Air Warfare Center testssonobuoys and conducts diver training operationsapproximately one or two times per month. Typically,buoys are gravity launched from an aircraft intoshallow water and then recovered by divers in scubaequipment.

Special Warfare Operations. NAS Key West sup-ports a Special Warfare Training Center as a tenantcommand. This center is located on Flemming Keyand includes parachute insertions, scuba and re-breather training, and ESAL team training. Suchtraining includes small boat operations, some at highspeed, and insertion and recovery of swimmers anddivers.

Other Department of Defense Activities.

Search and Rescue . This Search and Rescue(SAR) area is the second busiest in the Navy anextends 150 nautical miles form landing facilities inthe Keys and also from Navy ships equipped withlanding facilities that are in the area. According tothe Navy, the Coast Guard does not maintain a SARhelicopter in the lower Keys, so the Navy picks upmost SAR missions. Rotary wing and fixed wingSAR missions and training will fly from NAS KeyWest whenever necessary. These missions will gowherever they are needed and will entail hovering,insertion of swimmers and small boats into the water,and they even have the potential for helicopters toactually land in the water.

General . NAS Key West maintains piers for contractdeliveries and support of small boats and ships atTruman Annex and Trumbo Point. Harbor craft,small military research vessels, surface warships,submarines, and sealift ships call at the Station on aroutine basis. Access to these pier facilities ispossible for large ships by transiting the HawkChannel Cut. Transits, anchorings in designatedanchorages, moorings, and pierside maintenancearea ongoing at the vessels while pierside.

Harbor Management . A variety of small surfacecraft are used in support of harbor management,including training, waters transportation, pollutioncontrol, search and rescue, and other similar man-agement functions. These small craft include oilboom deployment boats, work boats, crew boats,utility boats, and other similar vessels.

Fuel Deliveries . NAS Key West’s fuel suppliescome by sea by way of the Hawk Channel Cut. OneMilitary Sealift Command (MSC) tanker per monthdelivers aviation fuel, and between two and threetankers per year deliver diesel fuel. The Key WestPipeline Company owns three tender tanks forreceipt and storage of aviation fuel and a pipelinethat runs between Trumbo Point Annex and NAS KeyWest. The pipeline is four inches in diameter andabout seven and one-half miles in length. Approxi-mately 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 pres-ence in the region. It has five primary missions:search and rescue, law enforcement, marine safety,marine environmental protection, and the operationand maintenance of navigational aids (e.g., channelmarkers, navigational lights, and lighthouses).Because of these responsibilities and the vastexpanse of waters along the Keys, the Coast Guardprovides an important public function in the Sanctu-ary. It is responsible for over 900 km of coastline and88,500 km2 of ocean area, and typically has severalvessels and over 600 personnel located at threestations (Islamorada, Marathon, and Key West) in thearea. The largest vessels operate out of TrumboAnnex in Key West.

Commercial Shipping

The Straits of Florida have historically been theaccess route for all vessels entering the Gulf ofMexico from the north and east and, consequently,the area is one of the most heavily trafficked in theworld. It is estimated that 40 percent of the world’scommerce passes within 1.5 days' sailing time of KeyWest (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1990). Inaddition, oil tankers transit the coast daily, includingvery large and ultra-large crude carriers.

The Gulf Stream lies offshore, and travels in a west-to-east direction. To take advantage of the additionalspeed afforded by the current, north- and east-boundvessels have historically followed the axis of the GulfStream, which lies about 65 nautical miles south ofthe Dry Tortugas and 45 nautical miles south of KeyWest. To avoid the current, south- and west-boundvessels have historically transited close to the reefs.A general guideline for south- or west-bound shipshas been roughly to follow the 50-fathom curve.


97

Figure 21 shows the major commercial shippingroutes in the region.

Areas to be Avoided. In 1991, as part of theFKNMSPA, several areas were declared off-limits totankers and other vessels over 50 meters in length.These "Areas to be Avoided" (ATBAs) were devel-oped in response to the region's many historicalgroundings, and large vessels have been discour-aged from operating in those located along theFlorida 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 withminimal facilities for cargo commerce; its primarycommercial activities are fishing and tourism. It is aport-of-call for cruiseships principally from Miami,Port Everglades, and Tampa. Ships with drafts of 8.5m or less can transit the main ship channel and dockat Mallory Square, which in 1990 served over127,000 passengers (White, 1991). Because of itsfavorable location, Key West is an important stop forrepair/supply operations and crew changes for shipstravelling through the Straits of Florida.

The U.S. military and the local electric plant at StockIsland receive the only commercial cargo enteringKey West harbor, with tankers importing jet fuel forthe Navy and barges bringing fuel to the electric

plant. In addition to their routine operations at thesite, the Coast Guard supports cutters and Aerostatvessels involved in radar surveillance.

Cruiseship Industry. The cruiseship industry in theKeys has grown rapidly in recent years, and theannual number of passengers disembarking at KeyWest grew from 10,600 in 1985 to over 127,000 in1990. Peak months include February, March, andApril. Figure 22 shows the number of passengersarriving monthly at Key West between 1988 and1990.

Thirteen cruiselines currently use Key West as adestination, and cruiseships made over 300 port callsbetween October 1991 and September 1992. KeyWest is typically a stop for cruiselines that originate inGulf of Mexico or East Coast ports. The majoritycome from the Port of Miami and include Key Westas one stop in trips to various ports in Mexico and theBahamas. Key West is also an occasional stop forworld cruising ships (Hamlin, pers. comm.), rangingfrom 130 to 200 m long and accommodating up to1,200 passengers (Hamlin, pers. comm.).Cruiseships typically arrive in early morning anddepart in late afternoon, providing an almost dailyinflux of tourists to downtown Key West.

26°

24°

22°

76°80°

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


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

Tho

usan

ds o

f Pas

seng

ers

per

Mon

th

Source: White, 1991

Cruiseships usually dock at Mallory Square, but mayalso dock at Pier B at Truman Annex. Twocruiseships anchor offshore at Pier B and ferrypassengers to Key West. A second port is beingproposed at Safe Harbor Marina on Stock Island tohandle increased traffic in the event that Cubabecomes open to the cruiseship industry (Hamlin,pers. comm.). There is only a 4.5 m controlling depthto the marina, however, limiting its use to shallow-draft vessels.

Dredging. Dredging activities in the Keys are usuallylimited to small, private projects, the majority for dockor seawall construction at private residences. Dredg-ing is also occasionally required for maintainingcanals or expanding the dockage of a local marina.Recently, a small State-funded project in Marathonwas completed to restore circulation between FloridaBay and Bonefish Bay (Helbling, pers. comm.). Thereare no Federal dredging projects in the Keys, but it isanticipated that the Key West Ship Channel willrequire maintenance dredging in the future.

Commercial Treasure Salvage Activities

Historical Significance . The Gulf Stream hashistorically been a major shipping route from theCaribbean basin to the North Atlantic. The Keys arelocated on the narrow Straits of Florida, whichcontain some of the most treacherous waters be-

tween the Americas and Europe (Smith et. al., inpress.). Because of Spain’s heavy use of this route,particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, storms,currents, dangerous reefs and shoals, and humanerror have sunk hundreds of Spanish vessels,including the fleets of 1622, 1715, and 1733. Soonafter such disasters, efforts were typically made tosalvage the cargo and ships that were lost. In latercenturies, the salvage of cargos (known as "wreck-ing") became a profitable business for small groupsof sailors in the Keys. Federal courts were estab-lished to determine the award to be paid to the salvorby the owner or from proceeds of the sale of thecargo recovered. The success of these wreckingefforts was mixed and, as a result, some shipwrecksand cargo remained on the seabed and were cov-ered by the sandy bottom.

As modern underwater technology such as scubagear, metal detectors, and remote sensing deviceswere developed, both professional and amateurtreasure hunters were able to search for lost andsubmerged treasures (Gerard, 1992). Federal courtstraditionally applied the maritime Law of Salvage andthe Law of Finds to cargo uncovered from shipwrecksthat had been lost or abandoned for hundreds ofyears (Schoenbaum, 1987). For example, followingthe development of scuba equipment in the 1950s,treasure hunters in the Keys began salvaging theSpanish fleet of 1733. By the 1980s, most of thevessels in this fleet had already been found andsalvaged (Miller, pers. comm.). As more treasure isfound, there is less to discover and therefore thechances of finding more treasure is diminished.Some have the view that most of the treasure in theKeys has been found while others, including com-mercial salvors dispute this view and assert thatmany of the valuable tresures and artifacts, fromwide dispersal patterns, have yet to be found.Regardless of one's point of view, there is an agree-ment that commercial treasure salvage is a veryspeculative venture at best.

The development of propeller-wash deflectiondevices (i.e., "mailboxes") enabled treasure huntersto blow crater-like holes, allowing the discovery ofshipwreck material more than 20 feet below thesurface of the seabed. Such mailboxes were impor-tant in Mel Fisher’s 1985 discovery and recovery ofthe ATOCHA, which was lost with the 1622 Spanishfleet. However, indiscriminate use of mailboxescause significant harm to natural resources as wellas cultural resources, including contextual informa-tion.


99

While there are still recovery operations beingconducted on the ATOCHA, MARGARITA, LACAPITANA EL RUI, and the SAN JOSE DE LASANIMAS within the Sanctuary, most of Florida’scommercial treasure salvage activity is associatedwith the 1715 fleet, which lies outside the Sanctuary.There has not been a significant new find in the Keysin five years.

Under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1988,neither the Law of Salvage nor the Law of Findsapply to abandoned shipwrecks in State waters. Inareas of the Sanctuary under Federal jurisdiction,shipwreck recoveries (including those of theATOCHA, MARGARITA, LA CAPITANA EL RUI),and the SAN JOSE DE LAS ANIMAS are expected tocontinue in a manner which does not terminate validFederal Admiralty Court rights of access grantedprior to congressional designation of the Sanctuaryon November 16, 1990. However, recoveries will besubject to Sanctuary regulations in accordance withthe ASA, ASA Guidelines, NMSA, the NHPA andFKNMSPA, as well as Federal Archeological Pro-gram guidelines.

Categories of Treasure Salvors. For purposes ofanalysis in this document, treasure salvors aregrouped into three categories: 1) professionaltreasure salvors whose search, recovery, sale, and/or display of recovered items is a full-time endeavorand primary source of income; 2) paraprofessionalswho hunt for treasure on a regular part-time basis,but for whom treasure salvage is not their primarysource of income or full-time job; and 3) souvenircollectors/hobbyists who combine the search fortreasure with their recreational diving activities.

Professional Treasure Salvors. The discovery of the1715 Spanish fleet off Vero Beach in the early 1960sresulted in a treasure hunting boom in the Keys(Throckmorton, 1990). In the mid-1980s there wasanother surge of treasure salvage activities in SouthFlorida. From 1985 to 1987, for example, MelFisher’s Salvors, Inc. dove the ATOCHA and theMARGARITA with up to six boats in the water atonce. The operation employed over 100 people asdivers, crew, and support staff for office, laboratory,and museum work (Mathewson, pers. comm.). Inaddition to these activities, it was estimated that 40 to50 people were actively conducting commercialtreasure salvage during the 1980s at sites in Florida,mostly outside the Keys (Miller, pers. comm.).Treasure salvors have stated that 25 companies andover 100 people worked the 1715 Fleet and assertedthat 1,000 to 2,000 people were directly or indirectlyinvolved with tresure operations in Florida in the

heyday of operations in the 1980s. While the poten-tial for commercial treasure salvage operations isprovided for in the plan, the number of companiesand individuals involved directly and indirectly is notexpected to reach those of the peak years in the1980s.

Since the enactment of the ASA in 1988, and per-haps due to the unlikelihood of significant new finds,professional treasure salvors appear to have shiftedtheir efforts to the Caribbean and other areas. Mostprofessional treasure salvage in South Florida iscurrently conducted by Salvors, Inc., which hasfederal admiralty claims to the 1715 Fleet (outsidethe Sanctuary) as well as the ATOCHA and theMARGARITA (inside the Sanctuary). The companyemploys approximately 50 to 100 people, but thisvaries with the number of expeditions planned andfinanced. Some treasure hunters have estimated thatthere are numerous companies employing hundredsof workers in the Keys (Arnold, 1991; Haskins, pers.comm.; Chapman, pers. comm.). While it is difficult toprecisely estimate the number of commercial trea-sure salvors in the Keys, commercial treasure salvorshave been considered as a small business enterprisein developing the plan and permit system.

The equipment used in professional treasure salvageincludes vessels, magnetometers, sonar devices,prop-wash deflectors, air lifts, metal detectors, scubagear, tools, and other devices. The personnel in-volved in boat operations typically include a captain,crew, and divers. A marine archaeologist may bepresent to record information properly. Supportpersonnel or services that may be utilized includeresearchers, conservators, coin experts, metallur-gists, office staff, accountants, and lawyers.

Professional treasure salvage is a very speculativeventure that typically yields little or no return on theinvestment made (Bauer, 1986). The annual costs ofsuch operations can easily reach $1 million a year,and of those operations that do find treasure, few sellenough to repay costs or pay investors(Throckmorton, 1990). Given the business’s specula-tive nature, therefore, even when treasure is discov-ered and recovered, the return on the investment ismodest in light of the high risk involved. Treasuresalvors concur that it is a highly speculative venture,but assert that there is still treasure to be found andthat the public benefit if artifacts are recovered in anarcheologically sound manner.

Paraprofessional Treasure Salvors. Paraprofessionaltreasure salvors use much of the same equipmentand personnel as professional treasure hunters, but


100

operate on a smaller scale. The equipment andresources of a few individuals may be combined for aparticular discovery/recovery operation. A smallcompany may be set up (typically as a limitedpartnership) to formalize the venture. Paraprofession-als may also be involved as subcontractors forprofessional operators. The costs of paraprofessionaloperations are generally much less than that ofprofessional operations. However, the profits fromsuch ventures, if any, are modest. There are approxi-mately 25 to 30 paraprofessionals currently workingin the Keys, as well as some in other areas of Floridaand the Caribbean (Miller, pers. comm.).

Souvenir Collectors and Hobbyists. Souvenir collec-tors and hobbyists conduct treasure hunting primarilyin association with their recreational diving activities.They typically use metal detectors and dive from theirown 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 existingresource protection regime in the Florida Keys, anddetails its effectiveness in managing human activitiesand adequately protecting the Sanctuary's resourcesand environmental quality.

Several Federal, State, and local governmentalagencies and departments and other organizationsare responsible for managing individual resourcesand regulating their uses within the Sanctuary (seeAppendix C in Volume III for a summary of existinglegislative authorities). Table 14 summarizes therelevant resource management authorities. Theseagencies provide a system of comprehensive eco-system management for the long-term protection ofthe Keys' diverse natural resources. Faced withincreasing environmental threats from human activi-ties, their capacity to perform effectively may deterio-rate due to limitations in staffing, equipment, andfunds available for enforcement. Also, because of thefragmentary nature of existing authorities (character-ized by narrowly defined missions), coordinatedpolicy development is difficult. As resource-usepressures continue to increase, overall managementeffectiveness may suffer if inter/intra-agency coordi-nation is not achieved. The existing agencies maycurrently consider it within their mandate to workindividually toward preventing or resolving conflictingmanagement objectives. However, due to the inher-ently complex threats to the resource, a cooperativemulti-agency management program is needed.

Federal

Federal agencies with primary environmental man-agement responsibilities in the Keys are: the Sanctu-aries and Reserves Division (SRD) of the Office ofOcean 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 MineralsManagement Service (MMS) of the U.S. Departmentof the Interior; the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA); the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); and the Depart-ments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion. Several NOAA line offices are directly respon-sible for resource management and regulation in theKeys.

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. The NationalMarine Sanctuary Program is administered by theSRD within NOAA's National Ocean Service. A site-specific, comprehensive management plan is pre-pared for each sanctuary to ensure that resourceprotection, research, and interpretation activities areconducted in a coordinated manner consistent withSanctuary goals and objectives. The SRD estab-lishes policies and procedures in response to issuesspecific to the Sanctuary and develops a budgetdelineating expenditures for program development,operating costs, and staffing levels. Funding levelsare reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect thepriorities and requirements of the National MarineSanctuary Program and evolving conditions in theKeys. The Sanctuary Superintendent is the primaryspokesperson for the Sanctuary and is responsiblefor managing all day-to-day Sanctuary activities.

National Marine Fisheries Service. The NMFS sharesresponsibility with the FWS for implementing both theMarine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and theEndangered Species Act (ESA). Sanctuary resourcesprotected under these Acts include several marineturtle and mammal species. The NMFS is assisted bythe USCG, Florida Marine Patrol (FMP), and Sanctu-ary officers in enforcement operations. Under theMagnuson Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct, the NMFS is also charged with reviewing fisherymanagement plans prepared by the South Atlanticand Gulf of Mexico fishery management councils,and approving all final plans. The Florida MarineFisheries Commission works with the NMFS toensure that the management plans are consistentwith State coastal zone management programs.Sanctuary resources regulated by such plans includecorals and reef fish. For example, the plan for reeffish sets bag and size limits, restricts the use ofcertain types of fishing gear, and establishes report-ing and permit systems.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service. Pursuant to theOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act (as amended), theMMS manages Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)hydrocarbon and mineral exploration, development,and production, including formulating and enforcing


102

Tab

le 1

4. S

umm

ary

of In

stitu

tiona

l Jur

isdi

ctio

ns a

nd R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s

Nat

ural

and

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es L

ivin

g R

esou

rces

Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

Soi

l and

Wat

erC

onse

rvat

ion

Bea

ch a

ndS

hore

Pre

serv

atio

n

Par

ks,

Ref

uges

,an

dP

rese

rves

Land

Aqu

isiti

onfo

r C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

reat

ion

Out

door

Rec

reat

ion,

Rec

reat

iona

lT

rails

, and

Con

serv

atio

n

His

toric

Pre

serv

atio

nS

altw

ater

Fis

herie

sF

resh

wat

erF

ishe

ries

Wat

erR

esou

rces

;W

ater

Man

agem

ent

Dis

tric

ts

Com

mer

cial

Dev

elop

men

tan

d C

apita

lIm

prov

emen

ts

Coa

stal

P

lann

ing

and

Man

agem

ent;

Land

and

Wat

erM

anag

emen

t

Fed

eral

U. S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce

N

OA

A√

√U

. S. D

epar

tmen

t of S

tate

U. S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

C

oast

Gua

rd

F

eder

al A

viat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

U. S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Int

erio

r

F

ish

and

Wild

life

Ser

vice

√√

√√

√√

√

Nat

iona

l Par

k S

ervi

ce√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√

Min

eral

s M

anag

emen

t Ser

vice

U. S

. Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

√U

. S. D

epar

tmen

t of D

efen

se

A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs

A

rmy

N

avy

A

ir F

orce

Adv

isor

y C

ounc

il on

His

toric

Pre

serv

atio

n√

Sta

teD

epar

tmen

t of E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

Flo

rida

Mar

ine

Fis

herie

s C

omm

issi

on√

Gam

e an

d F

resh

Wat

er F

ish

Com

mis

sion

√H

ealth

and

Reh

abili

tativ

e S

ervi

ces

Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce√

√D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

unity

Affa

irs√

√√

√√

√D

eart

men

t of A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Dep

artm

ent o

f Sta

te√

Offi

ce o

f Pla

nnin

g an

d B

udge

t

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ag.

and

Con

sum

er S

ervi

ces

√R

egio

nal

Dad

e C

ount

y

Sou

th F

lorid

a R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Cou

ncil

Sou

th F

lorid

a W

ater

Man

agem

ent D

istr

ict

√√

√√

√√

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Man

agem

ent D

ivis

ion

B

uild

ing

& P

lann

ing

Dep

artm

ents

√√

√√

M

arin

e R

esou

rces

√√

E

nviro

nmen

tal R

esou

rces

√√

√√

√C

ityC

ity o

f Key

Wes

t√

√√

√C

ity o

f Key

Col

ony

Bea

ch√

√√

√C

ity o

f Lay

ton

√√

√√

Oth

erS

outh

Atla

ntic

Fis

hery

Man

agem

ent C

ounc

il√

Gul

f of M

exic

o F

ishe

ry M

anag

emen

t Cou

ncil

√H

ousi

ng A

utho

rity

√F

lorid

a K

eys

Aqu

educ

t Aut

horit

y√

Mos

quito

Con

trol

Dis

tric

t

103


special lease stipulations designed to protect specificgeological and biological features. The MMS alsoregulates activities associated with offshore oil andgas exploration and development based on theprovisions of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)Lands Act. It has established biological lease stipula-tions, applied on a lease sale-by-lease sale basis, tomitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas explora-tion and development activities on high-relief banksand low-relief live-bottom areas of the Gulf of Mexicoouter continental shelf. Additionally, the MMS has: 1)sand mining authority and 2) the ability to use OCSroyalties to support the Land and Water ConservationFund.

Fish and Wildlife Service. The FWS administers theMigratory Bird Conservation Act, the Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, theLacey Act, and a variety of other laws designed toprotect the nation's anadromous fish, migratory birds,and endangered species through regulation, permit-ting, or coordination with other Federal agencies. TheFWS also administers the National Wildlife RefugeSystem according to the National Wildlife RefugeSystem Administration Act. Four national wildliferefuges are within the boundaries of the Sanctuary:National Key Deer Refuge; Great White HeronNational Wildlife Refuge; Key West National WildlifeRefuge; and the Crocodile Lake National WildlifeRefuge.

National Park Service. The NPS administers theNational Park System, which includes national parks,preserves, monuments, memorials, historic sites,seashores, and battlefield parks. Three nationalparks and one national preserve are adjacent toSanctuary: Dry Tortugas National Park, EvergladesNational Park, Biscayne National Park, and BigCypress National Preserve. Although the NPS is notdirectly involved in regulation, their stewardship roleresults in an indirect involvement in programs affect-ing the Sanctuary.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation . TheNational Historic Preservation Act authorizes theSecretary of the Interior to maintain a nationalregister of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects significant in American history, architecture,archaeology, and culture.” Any Federal agencyconducting, licensing, or assisting an undertakingthat may affect a site listed on, or eligible for listingon, the National Register must provide the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation and the StateHistoric Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a reason-able opportunity for comment. The criteria applied bythe Council and the SHPO relate to whether the

undertaking will change the quality of the site’shistorical, architectural, archaeological, or culturalcharacter.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Coast Guard. The USCG enforces all Federal lawsin navigable waters under U.S. jurisdiction, in particu-lar the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response Act, the Compensation andLiability Act, and the Act to Prevent Pollution fromShips. The goal is to prevent pollution caused byvessel discharges of oil, hazardous substances, orother pollutants. The USCG is also the lead agencyresponsible for coordinating the response to oil andhazardous 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-and-rescue operations through the Marine Safety Officeand the Aids to Navigation Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA is responsible for protecting the nation'senvironmental quality and public health throughpollution control and prevention measures. Specifi-cally, the EPA regulates drinking water nationwide(including directing the municipal monitoring ofdrinking water), regulates hazardous waste storageand disposal practices, and monitors air and waterquality. The agency is also responsible for theoversight of Superfund cleanup activities underCERCLA. The EPA also regulates sewage outfallsunder the Clean Water Act via the National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES). Under theNPDES program, a permit is required for the dis-charge of any pollutant from a point source intonavigable U.S. waters, the waters of the contiguouszone, or oceanic waters. Within Florida's Statewaters, the EPA has delegated NPDES permittingauthority to the State government. The EPA also hasregulatory authority over ocean dumping under Title Iof the Marine Protection, Research, and SanctuariesAct (MPRSA). This legislation prohibits the transpor-tation of any materials from the United States for thepurpose of dumping in the territorial sea, the contigu-ous zone, or the ocean without an EPA-issuedpermit. In conjunction with the FDEP, the EPA is alsoresponsible for developing a Water Quality ProtectionPlan for the Sanctuary.


104

U.S. Department of Defense

The Department of Defense maintains numerousfacilities and training areas in the Keys, and trainingmissions are frequently conducted by all branches ofthe armed services. The Navy has conducted militarytraining within the Sanctuary, while the Air Force andArmy maintain facilities in the Keys and conductmilitary training nearby.

Army Corps of Engineers. The ACOE issues andenforces permits for the discharge of dredged or fillmaterial into navigable waterways (including wet-lands) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Ithas jurisdiction over marine construction, excavation,and fill activities in all navigable waters of the UnitedStates. Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act, theACOE must issue a permit before any marineconstruction, excavation, or fill activities in theseareas can be conducted. Permits may be refusedwhen it is believed that dredge-and-fill activities maypose a threat to navigation or will have an adverseimpact on living marine resources. Under Title I of theMPRSA, the ACOE is responsible for regulating thedisposal of dredged materials in accordance withEPA/ACOE guidelines. The ACOE is also respon-sible for determining that the dumping will not de-grade or endanger the marine environment, humanhealth, or economic potentialities. Permit applicationstypically include requests to place fill on lots forhouse pads and driveways or as a base for plantingtrees. The ACOE regularly consults with the EPA,NMFS, and FWS regarding permits issued in theKeys.

State

State agencies with jurisdiction in the Keys are theFlorida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP); Florida Department of Community Affairs(FDCA); Florida Marine Fisheries Commission(FMFC); Department of Health and RehabilitativeServices (DHRS); Game and Fresh Water FishCommission (GFWFC); Department of State (DOS)and Department of Commerce (DOC).

Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection

The FDEP was formed on July 1, 1993 as the resultof a merger of the Florida Department of NaturalResources and the Florida Department of Environ-mental Regulation. In the legislation implementing

the agency, the declaration of policy stated that "theprotection, preservation, and restoration of air, water,and other natural resources, of this state are vital tothe social and economic well-being and quality of lifeof 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 re-sources and to protect the best interests of thepublic.

The FDEP provides policy directives to State agen-cies and regional and local governments. It alsosupervises regional water management districts, anddelegates the authority to carry out programs tothese water management districts, other Stateagencies, and local government agencies. Toachieve these goals, the FDEP conducts regulatoryprograms to control or prohibit air and water pollutionand to clean up or restore polluted land and waterresources. It also supports research on environmen-tal issues, and provides educational and technicalassistance to the public for preventing environmentaldamage.

The divisions of the FDEP with natural resourcemanagement responsibilities in the Keys include:Recreation and Parks; Marine Resources; StateLands; Law Enforcement; Beaches and Shores;Water Management; Waste Management; and WaterFacilities.

Recreation and Parks. The mission of the FloridaPark Service (FPS) is to provide opportunities forFlorida residents and visitors to experience a varietyof resource-based outdoor recreation activities, whileensuring the preservation and restoration of theseareas' natural and cultural resources. To accomplishits mission, the FPS develops, maintains, andoperates a statewide park system that includes Stateparks, recreation areas, archaeological sites, historicsites, geological sites, botanical sites, preserves, andreserves.

Marine Resources. This organization is divided intoseveral bureaus and offices responsible for manag-ing the State marine resources, including: the Bureauof Sanctuaries and Research Reserves (BSRR); theFlorida Marine Research Institute (FMRI); the Bureauof Marine Resource Regulation and Development(BMRRD); the Bureau of Marketing and ExtensionServices (BMES); the Office of Fisheries Manage-ment and Assistance Services (OFMAS); and theOffice of Protected Species (OPS).

The BSRR is responsible for administering andmanaging the Looe Key and Key Largo national

105


marine sanctuaries and the Appalachicola andRookery Bay national estuarine research reserves.

The FMRI has two facilities in the Keys. The long-term objective is to promote wise management of theKeys' ecosystem through research and marineeducation pertinent to South Florida's fisheries andthe marine environment in general.

OFMAS, established in 1990, is responsible forexamining recreational fisheries and fisheries man-agement issues, emergency response to marineenvironmental disasters, mosquito control, aquacul-ture issues, the review of comprehensive manage-ment plans, and environmental education programs.

State Lands . The DSL is responsible for acquiringand managing State properties in the public interesteither by managing the properties or by leasing themto other agencies. The Bureau of Submerged Landsand Preserves (BSLP) manages, protects, andenhances Florida's sovereign submerged lands.(State waters, although within the physical bound-aries of the Sanctuary, are not included within theBureau's management responsibilities.) The Bureaualso manages all sovereign submerged lands withinthe Sanctuary, and any activities conducted on thisland require prior authorization. Most are related todredge-and-fill operations, but others also fall underthe Division's review responsibilities.

Law Enforcement. The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP)enforces all State statutes, rules, and regulationswithin State waters, including the Sanctuary. Whiletheir primary focus is marine protection and boatingsafety, they are also responsible for enforcingFederal regulations in areas beyond Florida's territo-rial limits, under interagency agreements with thefollowing agencies: the Department of Commerce'sNMFS; the Department of the Interior's FWS; theU.S. Customs Service; and the USCG.

Beaches and Shores. The Division of Beaches andShores (DBS) has regulatory jurisdiction for construc-tion and excavation activities on sovereign landsseaward of the high-water line of any State tidalwaters. In addition, the DBS has regulatory jurisdic-tion for specific construction activities within 50 feetof the mean high-water line at any riparian coastallocation fronting the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Oceanshoreline (excluding bays, inlets, rivers, bayous,creeks, passes, etc.). Historically, the DBS has notconsistently asserted regulatory jurisdiction withinMonroe County. However, it has included MonroeCounty in the Florida Beach Restoration Manage-ment Plan.

Water Management. The FDEP manages changesin State surface water quality standards. Responsi-bilities include managing the state’s general anti-degradation policies, water quality uses, classifica-tions and reclassifications, narrative and numericwater quality criteria, and special protection mea-sures such as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)and Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW).In 1985 the Keys were designated as OFW (exclud-ing canals). The OFW program is generally imple-mented through the DEP’s permitting system, andonly affects activities that require a FDEP permit. Theintent is the maintenance of ambient water quality.

The FDEP also conducts water quality monitoring incompliance with the Department’s quality assurancerule. The lack of financial resources devoted tomonitoring efforts in the Keys is reflected by thelimited water quality monitoring activities currentlytaking place. Such monitoring is now only done inresponse to specific requests or permits. The effortsof the FDEP's Marathon office are focused ontracking and enforcing violations in current regula-tions. No specific plans for monitoring have beencompleted for the Keys.

Wetland Resource Management. The FDEP pro-cesses applications for wetland resource (dredge-and-fill) permits for large-scale projects requiringwork in State waters. These projects include thosewith more than 10 acres of dredging or filling, allcommercial marinas and docking facilities, andprivate marinas with more than 10 slips. Permitprocessing is governed by the Warren S. HendersonWetlands Protection Act of 1984. In general, theHenderson Act sets forth the criteria by which thelandward extent of State waters is determined (i.e.,what constitutes a wetland), when a permit is re-quired, procedures for application and processing,and the criteria for issuance or denial.

Of special interest is a State statute on "additionalcriteria for dredging and filling within OutstandingFlorida Waters in Monroe County." This statute isintended to provide the most stringent protection forKeys' waters under the law. It specifically protectscoral, algae, sponge, and seagrass communities;outlines siting and design criteria for piers and boat-mooring facilities; and defines permitting require-ments for marinas and shoreline stabilization. Thecriteria are specific to the natural water bodies inMonroe County.


106

program. However, the implementation of centralizedwastewater treatment plants has not been initiateddue to a lack of justifying data.

Environmental Regulation Commission. Thiscommission consists of unpaid citizens representingvarious interest groups including agriculture, realestate, environmentalists, the construction industry,and private citizens. It sets air and water qualitystandards for the FDEP and has authority overgroundwater and hazardous waste cleanup require-ments, fees, and permitting regulations.

Department of Community Affairs

The DCA is responsible for planning and regulatingland use by approving local government comprehen-sive plans and land development regulations. Plan-ning activities are integrated on the regional, State,and local level. The DCA is made up of the Office ofthe Secretary, three divisions, and the FloridaHousing Finance Agency.

Coastal Management Program. In 1978 the Statelegislature passed the Florida Coastal ManagementAct. NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal ResourceManagement approved the state’s program in 1981,and has provided management grants of approxi-mately $2 million per year in accordance with Section306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.Federal approval of the state’s program also man-dated that Federal activities within and seaward ofthe coastal zone had to be consistent, to the maxi-mum extent possible, with the policies of approvedState coastal management programs.

The DCA administers the Florida Coastal Manage-ment Program (FCMP). Florida's coastal zonecomprises 8,426 statute miles of tidal shoreline,encompassing 35 coastal counties, including MonroeCounty. The FCMP is structured as a network ofState agencies that improves the effectiveness andefficiency of implementing existing laws and pro-grams in the coastal zone.

Areas of Critical State Concern Program. TheAreas of Critical State Concern (ACSC) programidentifies certain regions of the state for specialprotection based on perceived threats to significantnatural resources and/or the need to protect publicfacility investments. The program is authorized by acomponent of the Florida Environmental Land andWater Management Act of 1972. The Act sets forthcriteria and procedures for designating the areas andidentifies the DCA as the State agency responsiblefor administering the program. The objective is to

On November 16, 1992 the FDEP delegated dredge-and-fill permitting authority to the water managementdistricts for those projects requiring a surface watermanagement permit. The FDEP retained dredge-and-fill permitting responsibility for landfills, wastewa-ter treatment facilities, industrial wastewater treat-ment facilities, hazardous waste facilities, and otherprojects involving dredge-and-fill but not requiring asurface water management permit.

Pesticides. The FDEP also administers activitiesrelated to mosquito and arthropod control, particularlyon State-managed lands. No significant work hasbeen conducted on the impacts of pesticides ongroundwater in the Keys.

Waste Management. The impacts of point sourcedischarges in the Keys have been reviewed since1977 in an attempt to improve water quality-basedeffluent limitations (WQBELs) for point sourcesurface water discharges. Other projects are alsoreviewed for their potential water quality impacts.

The FDEP also regulates all underground storagetanks over 100 gallons containing pollutants andhazardous substances defined by CERCLA, andsurface storage tanks with capacities over 550gallons. Because of the Keys' geology and watertable, underground storage tanks have specialrequirements and are more costly than surfacestorage tanks, which are more common in the Keys.As part of the SUPER Act of 1986, the FDEP isrequired to contract with local governments wheneverpossible to perform compliance and enforcementactivities. The Monroe County HRS unit performssuch activities in the Keys.

Water Facilities. The FDEP coordinates permitting,compliance, and enforcement activities for domesticand industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Domes-tic wastewater treatment plants generating over2,000 gallons per day (gpd) flow, and all on-sitewastewater treatment and disposal systems generat-ing over 5,000 gpd are permitted by the FDEP’sdistrict offices or approved local programs. Septictanks and On-site Disposal Systems (OSDS) gener-ating under 5,000 gpd are permitted by FDHRS. TheDomestic Wastewater Section serves as liaison forthe FDEP on septic tank issues, but has no permit-ting authority. The 1979 Monroe County FacilitiesPlan recommended the construction of a centralizedwastewater system only after available data con-firmed the need for centralized facilities based onviolations of water quality standards or threats topublic health. The county’s comprehensive planrecommended a long-term water quality monitoring

107


review the comprehensive plans, land developmentregulations, and activities in each ACSC. Areas aredeemed critical when it is determined that there is aneed to protect public resources from unregulated orinadequately regulated development. The ACSCprogram has very little jurisdiction in the Sanctuarybecause it ends approximately 250 feet below themean high-water mark. However, it is importantbecause of the limits it places on upland develop-ment and the capital improvements in water quality itrequires.

Specific ACSC objectives that address water qualityissues in the Sanctuary include:

• coordinating all local governments in the Keys toensure that their comprehensive plans include adrainage element, a wastewater treatmentelement, and a capital improvement element, andthat they are consistent with the policies of theACSC program and the principles guidingdevelopment;

• strengthening local government planning in theKeys to the extent that the ACSC designationmay be removed;

• protecting marine resources and shorelines,including wetlands, mangroves, seagrasses,coral reefs, and their respective faunas; and

• limiting the adverse effects of development onwater quality throughout the Keys.

The Governor and Cabinet can designate an area byrule, setting the boundaries of an ACSC and theprinciples to be used for guiding developmentactivities. Once an area is designated, affected localgovernments have 180 days to submit land develop-ment regulations consistent with the principles setforth in the rule. If the local government fails tosubmit regulations, or if its proposals are insufficient,the State land planning agency may propose devel-opment regulations for the governor's and cabinet'sapproval. Monroe County and the City of Key Westwere designated as ACSCs by the governor andcabinet in April 1975.

Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

The State legislature created the FMFC in 1983 tomanage and preserve Florida’s renewable marinefishery resources by emphasizing the protection andenhancement of Florida's marine and estuarineenvironments.

The FMFC consists of members appointed by thegovernor and approved by the State Senate. It hasfull rule-making authority for Florida’s marine species(except endangered species) and its regulations aresubject to final approval by the governor and cabinet.The FMFC's rule-making authority relates to gear,bag limits, size limits, protected species, closedareas, seasons, and egg-bearing females of certainspecies.

As of February 1991, the governor and cabinet hadapproved over 460 saltwater fishing rules recom-mended by the FMFC. In addition, the Commission isrequired to make annual recommendations regardingmarine fisheries research priorities and funding forthe FDEP. The Commission also has authority over220 local laws related to saltwater fishing. In develop-ing rules for saltwater fishing, the FMFC holds publicworkshops across the State in which information andviews on issues are presented, and public input issolicited. From this input, the Commission drafts aproposed rule and associated regulations, which aresubject to the State administrative procedures.Before any new rule is approved, the FMFC holds atleast one final public meeting.

The need for comprehensive and consistent fisherymanagement, protected species management, andfishery habitat preservation and restoration is ofparticular concern. Accordingly, the FMFC is workingwith Federal fisheries management councils toachieve the consistent management of Sanctuaryresources.

Department of Health and RehabilitativeServices

The mission of the FDHRS is to protect public health.It oversees the construction, installation, and opera-tion of individual OSDSs and implements a feeschedule designed to recover the cost of conductingthe OSDS program. The FDHRS also permitsinjection wells for stormwater or domestic wastewatereffluents of less than 2,000 gpd, and providescontinuing education courses for septic tank contrac-tors, pump-out operators, environmental healthspecialists, and master plumbers who install orservice septic tanks. The FDHRS is also responsiblefor regulating private water systems, providingmosquito control, implementing beach closures, andissuing public health warnings regarding contami-nated fish.


108

Bureau of Historic Preservation. The Bureau ofHistoric Preservation reviews numerous private andpublic undertakings within the provisions of Federaland State regulations designed to protect archaeo-logical and historical resources. For example, theBureau reviews dredge-and-fill permit applicationssubmitted to the ACOE, as well as any other State-or federally-funded permitted undertakings consistentwith the requirements of the National Historic Preser-vation Act and the Florida Historic Resources Act.

Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices

Within the Keys, this agency is primarily responsiblefor mosquito control, and its Bureau of Entomologyand Pest Control administers the state’s mosquito-control program. Its responsibilities include oversee-ing all local mosquito-control programs, reviewingand approving all county or mosquito-control districtwork plans and work budgets, and administeringState funding programs. In addition, the Bureau ofPesticides registers all pesticides, including mos-quito-control products, for sale and distribution. Usingthe Bureau's authority, the Department may deny,cancel, or modify the conditions of any pesticideregistration.

In Monroe County, the Mosquito Control Authorityhas the lead responsibility for eradicating adultmosquitoes and for conducting larval mosquitocontrol activities. The objectives are to: 1) protecthuman health and safety; 2) promote the state'seconomic development and facilitate the enjoymentof its natural resources by reducing the number ofdisease-carrying arthropods; and 3) conduct arthro-pod control consistent with protecting the environ-mental and ecological integrity of all State lands andwaters. Pesticides are applied under its direction viaaerial or truck spraying.

Department of Commerce

Florida's Department of Commerce is not a regula-tory agency and has no legislative jurisdiction.Accordingly, its efforts are focused on promotingtourism and developing the state's economy. TheFDOC is comprised of three divisions: Tourism,Economic Development, and International Trade andDevelopment. The Division of Tourism stimulates andpromotes coordinated, efficient, and beneficial traveland leisure development under the oversight of theFlorida Tourism Commission. The legislature createdthe Commission in 1991 with the authority to fund,plan, promote, and coordinate the state’s tourism-related activities.

Florida Game and Fresh Water FishCommission

The FGFWFC manages freshwater aquatic life andwild animal life and their habitats to perpetuate adiversity of species and reduce fish and wildlifehabitat losses. Under Florida's constitution, theFGFWFC is responsible for protecting freshwater andupland endangered and threatened species. Inaddition to the specific responsibility to enforce ruleswith respect to the protection of listed species,Commission law enforcement offices are empoweredto enforce State environmental laws.

Department of State

The Department of State has responsibilities withrespect to proposed State, State-assisted, Federal,or federally assisted activities that could have anadverse impact on the Sanctuary's cultural re-sources. The director of the Division of HistoricResources serves as the State Historic PreservationOfficer.

Division of Historical Resources. The FDHR isresponsible for managing the state's historicalresources, specifically those on State-owned sub-merged lands. All treasure, artifacts, and objects withhistorical and archaeological value that have beenabandoned on State-owned or State-owned sover-eign submerged lands belong to the State, with titlevested in the FDHR for administrative and protectivepurposes. With respect to the Sanctuary Manage-ment Plan, the FDHR will be primarily responsible forsubmerged cultural resources, especially historicshipwreck sites and other abandoned objects havinghistorical or archaeological value. The FDHR in-cludes four bureaus: the Bureau of ArchaeologicalResearch; Bureau of Historic Preservation; Bureau ofHistorical Museums; and Bureau of Florida FolklifePrograms.

Bureau of Archaeological Research. The chief of theBureau of Archaeological Research is the StateArchaeologist, and the office is primarily responsiblefor managing State-owned archaeological sites byestablishing shipwreck preserves, conducting sur-veys and assessment studies, granting and monitor-ing research permits, etc. The Bureau manages acontract program for exploring and salvaging historicshipwreck sites, and has been regularly involved incoordinating the state’s legal response to Federaladmiralty arrests in State waters. It also receivesapplications for archaeological research permits forState-owned sites and monitors archaeological workafter permits are granted.

109


South Florida Water Management District

The FDEP has supervisory and legal authority overthe regional water management districts under theFlorida Water Resources Act of 1972. These districtsdesign, construct, operate, and maintain watermanagement facilities. They also administer floodprotection programs, perform water resourcestechnical investigations, develop water resourceplans, regulate the consumption of water, andacquire and manage lands through the "Save OurRivers" program. In addition, they have the primaryauthority to regulate development that impactsfreshwater wetlands and estuarine systems throughtheir dredge-and-fill, groundwater, surface water, andstormwater management permitting programs. Watermanagement districts also plan and administerenvironmental restoration projects, often throughprograms such as Florida's Surface Water Improve-ment and Management (SWIM) Act. District authorityextends to all State waters, and also includes thepower to tax.

In 1982 the State delegated the stormwater qualitypermitting program for the Keys region to theSFWMD. The projects in the Keys qualify for either asurface water management general permit or exemp-tion, due to their small size and/or the amount ofimpervious cover. Projects that would otherwisequalify for an exemption (because they are less than10 acres in size) often require a general permitbecause they have over two acres of imperviousarea.

The majority of the projects in the Keys fall below theDistrict's threshold for permitting and, as a result, aresubject to the county's stormwater managementordinance, adopted in October 1992. Whetherpermitted by the District or the county, all finalstormwater discharges must meet State water qualitystandards.

Regarding nonpoint source management, the FDEPhas worked with the FDHRS to revise statutes forOSDSs, including developing special requirementsfor systems in the Keys. In addition, the 1986 State-wide Nonpoint Source Assessment included theKeys, although less than 10 percent of the area’ssurface waters were assessed.

Existing research needs include an assessment ofthe effectiveness of traditional stormwater manage-ment practices in the Keys. There is uncertaintywhether these practices produce the desired level oftreatment given the region's soil, geology, and

vegetative characteristics. Research is also neededon the effectiveness of traditional erosion andsediment-control practices.

County

Monroe County is a nonchartered county, and itsauthorities and powers emanate from the Statelegislature; the local government functions in accor-dance with the Florida constitution. A Board ofCounty Commissioners performs the executive andlegislative functions of the county government. TheBoard consists of five members elected at large.Each county commissioner represents one of the fivecounty districts for a four-year term (Monroe CountyYear 2010 Comprehensive Plan, 1992). The govern-ment is divided into five divisions: ManagementServices, Public Safety, Community Services,Growth Management, and Public Works.

Monroe County manages individual resources andregulates uses throughout the Keys through itsadapted comprehensive plan, which is predicatedupon specific Florida statutes and administrativecodes. The County has completed an updatedcomprehensive plan that is subject to review andamendment 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 managementplans.

The Monroe County Land Authority

Florida Statute 380.0552 specifies the Keys as anArea of Critical State Concern and mandates thecreation of a local county land authority. It furthermandates that a comprehensive plan affecting the


110

Keys may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by thelocal government, but may only become effectiveupon the approval of the State land planning agency.These statutes are in agreement with the Articles setforth in chapters 28-29 of the Florida AdministrativeCodes.

In 1991 the legislature created the Monroe CountyLand Authority, which functions as an independentarm of the Monroe County government. The MonroeCounty Board of County Commissioners serves asthe Board of Directors, but none of the powers orauthorities of the Commission are given to the LandAuthority. Instead, the Land Authority is responsiblefor purchasing properties made unbuildable by theimplementation of the 1986 land-use plan. A five-member Advisory Council appointed by the LandAuthority considers purchase requests based on thefollowing criteria: preservation of environmentallysensitive lands; preservation of the habitats of rare,threatened, or endangered species of plants andanimals; and protection of open space, sceniccorridors, and viewsheds. Purchases recommendedby the Land Authority must be reviewed and ap-proved by the State Comptroller, the DCA, and theFDEP for statutory and program compliance.

Municipalities

There are three municipalities in the Keys: KeyColony Beach, Layton, and Key West. The cities ofLayton and Key Colony Beach exert jurisdiction tomean high water, and Key West exerts jurisdiction upto 500 feet off its shores. Within Key West, the mainjurisdictional agency is the Port and Transit Authority,which manages operations at Mallory Square andGarrison Bight.

Other

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fish-ery Management Councils

The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic fishery man-agement councils are two of eight councils estab-lished by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation andManagement Act, as amended (Magnuson Act), 16U.S.C. 1801 et seq. to manage fishery resources inthe exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Except wheremodified to accommodate international boundaries,the EEZ encompasses all waters from the seawardboundary of each of the coastal states to a line on

which each point is 200 nautical miles (nm) from thebaseline from which the territorial sea of the UnitedStates is measured. The Councils are charged withpreparing Fishery Management Plans (FMP) thatdefine certain fisheries within their jurisdictions andestablish management measures to prevent overfish-ing. A description of the FMP process, NationalStandards, and a list of the FMP’s that apply in theSanctuary waters is contained in Appendix D inVolume III.

The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic councils’jurisdictions overlap the FKNMS. The boundarybetween these two Councils coincides with a line ofdemarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and theGulf of Mexico that begins at the intersection of theouter boundary of the EEZ and 83"00' W. longitude,proceeds northward along that meridian to 24"35' N.latitude, (near the Dry Tortugas), thence eastwardalong that parallel, through Rebecca Shoal and theQuicksand Shoal, to the Marquessas Keys, and thenthrough the Florida Keys to the mainland at theeastern end of the Florida Bay, the line so runningthat the narrow waters within the Dry TortugasIslands, the Marquessas Keys and the Florida Keys,and between the Florida Keys and the mainland, arewithin the Gulf of Mexico. Because State watersextend 9 nm off the Gulf coast of Florida and only 3nm off the Atlantic side, most of the EEZ within theFKNMS is under the jurisdiction of the South AtlanticCouncil.

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

Because of the limited drinking water sources in theKeys, almost all potable water is supplied via apipeline owned and operated by the Florida KeysAqueduct Authority (FKAA). This public water systemuses well fields and treatment facilities in DadeCounty for its entire supply. The FKAA is the onlypublic water system in the Keys regulated by theDEP’s Public Water System Supervision program.

Monroe County Mosquito Control District

The Monroe County Mosquito Control District(MCMCD) maintains a program of abatement formosquitoes and other insect pests in the Keys. Itsprimary mission is to provide effective mosquitocontrol, responsive to the health and safety of thecounty's residents and visitors, while minimizingadverse environmental impacts.

Policy decisions are made by a five-member, publiclyelected board. Day-to-day management of MCMCDstaff and facilities is provided by a board appointed

111


by the executive director. The district has approxi-mately thirty-seven full-time staff members. TheMCMCD operates from Key West to Key Largo, andserves all municipalities and the unincorporated areaof the county.

Memoranda of Understanding

Federal Agreements

National Marine Fisheries Service and Office ofOcean and Coastal Resource Management,NOAA. In 1992 a memorandum of understandingwas developed within NOAA, between the AssistantAdministrator for Fisheries and the Assistant Admin-istrator for Ocean Sciences and Coastal ZoneManagement, concerning the National MarineSanctuary Program. This agreement established animproved level of coordination between NMFS andNOS regarding the selection and nomination ofproposed marine sanctuaries, the development offisheries regulations in proposed marine sanctuaries,and the consideration of management measures forprotected species. The agreement also establishedimproved coordination between the two agenciesregarding the implementation of sanctuary manage-ment plans.

National Undersea Research Center, UNCW andSanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA. In1993 a cooperative agreement was establishedbetween NOAA’s Sanctuaries and Reserves Divisionand NURC/UNCW to provide a framework forcooperation to aid and promote scientific, educa-tional, planning, and management activities. This willimprove the communication between the two existingorganizations and help facilitate the implementationof future projects, be they educational, scientific, ormanagement-related.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NationalMarine Fisheries Service and Sanctuaries andReserves Division, NOAA. In 1994 an MOU wasestablished between the director of the NMFS’sSoutheast Fisheries Science Center and the chief ofNOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. ThisMOU provides a framework for cooperation to aidand promote scientific research and to translate thescientific findings into educational materials that canbe used in the planning and management activities ofnational marine sanctuaries. An appendix to theMOU specifies that the SEFSC will be responsible formonitoring the status of living marine resources,specifically reef fish, in the Sanctuary.

Federal/State Agreements

NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Florida Depart-ment of Natural Resources. In 1990 a cooperativeenforcement agreement was established betweenNOAA, the USCG, and the FDNR (FDEP) for lawenforcement services related to the Key Largo andLooe Key national marine sanctuaries. State lawenforcement officers designated as sanctuary officersby FDEP were authorized to enforce the authoritiesand regulations established under the Marine Protec-tion, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA),Magnuson Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct (MFCMA), Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Lacey Act,Atlantic Tuna Convention Act (ATCA), and the Fishand Wildlife Improvement Act (FWIA). Actions taken(in conjunction with NMFS special agents) includewarnings, seizure of domestic vessels and cargo,and arrests for violations of the Acts. Arrests orseizures of foreign vessels can be made with theknowledge and consent of the Coast Guard. Sanctu-ary officers may accompany any Coast Guard vesselor aircraft to aid in enforcing regulations, and theCoast Guard may assist law enforcement officers ifnecessary.

Florida Department of Environmental Protectionand National Ocean Service, NOAA. In 1992 theFDEP (formerly the FDNR and FDER), the SoutheastFisheries Science Center (NOAA), the Office ofOcean Resources Conservation and Assessment(NOAA), and the Office of Ocean and CoastalResource Management (NOAA) entered into acooperative agreement to develop aerial photographyof benthic communities in Florida Bay and BiscayneBay. Ecologists and photo-interpreters are transpos-ing data from the photographs into a computer, thenusing stereoplotters to construct precise maps.Initially, these maps will be limited to the area sur-rounding Looe Key. However, addenda to thisagreement will fund the mapping of the remainingareas of the bays within the Sanctuary. Agenciesinvolved in the mapping effort, but not specificallyincluded in the agreement, include ENP, theSFWMD, and the Dade County and Monroe Countylocal governments.

NOAA and the Governor and Cabinet of the Stateof Florida. In 1992 NOAA and the Governor andCabinet of Florida (the “co-trustees”) entered into acooperative agreement concerning the developmentof the Sanctuary's comprehensive management plan.The agreement was developed to promote andensure the cooperation of each party in implementing


112

the FKNMSPA. By entering into the agreement, theco-trustees established the mechanisms for jointconsultation and cooperation to ensure the protectionof Sanctuary resources during the interim period priorto the final approval of the comprehensive manage-ment plan. NOAA entered into this agreementpursuant to its duties and obligations to the citizensof the United States, the FKNMSPA, the MPRSA,and other applicable Federal laws. NOAA is respon-sible for protecting and managing the resources ofdesignated marine sanctuaries, and is specificallycharged with implementing the policy of the UnitedStates to protect and preserve the living and nonliv-ing resources of the Keys' environment.

Under Florida's constitution, the Florida Trustees holdtitle to all State lands, including sovereign submergedlands within the Sanctuary. They are also constitu-tionally charged with conserving and protecting thenatural resources and scenic beauty associated withthose lands. While Sanctuary management does notrequire that this title be conveyed from the State toNOAA (or involve the conveyance of the title), it doesrequire consultation and cooperation between theState and NOAA as co-trustees regarding thecomprehensive management of Sanctuary uses andthe protection of Sanctuary resources. In accordancewith this agreement, NOAA and the State havecooperated in the development of the Sanctuary'sMP/DEIS. In addition, NOAA and the State haveconsulted and coordinated with each other regardinginterim Sanctuary management (through permits), aswell as Sanctuary resource damage cases.

Agreements with Nongovernmental Organizations

NOAA and the Pennekamp Coral ReefInstitute, Inc.

In 1991 a cooperative agreement was establishedbetween NOAA and the Pennekamp Coral ReefInstitute, Inc. to: 1) provide a framework for coopera-tion; 2) promote a program for scientific and educa-tional activities; and 3) solicit private donations for thesupport of cooperative activities related to theadoptive re-use of the Carysfort Lighthouse as aresearch facility within the Sanctuary. ThePennekamp Coral Reef Institute, Inc. agreed to: 1)provide assistance, services, and funding for studiesand projects; 2) conduct fund-raising to support therestoration of the Carysfort Lighthouse; and 3)periodically meet with NOAA to develop, discuss, and

agree on projects and/or studies for the adaptive re-use of the lighthouse. Both parties also agreed toenter into supplemental agreements to accomplishprojects and facilitate additional cooperative activitiesbetween the parties.

NOAA and The Nature Conservancy

In 1991 a cooperative agreement was establishedbetween NOAA's Office of Ocean and CoastalResource Management and The Nature Conser-vancy to: 1) provide a framework for cooperation; 2)promote interpretive, historical, scientific, and educa-tional activities; 3) solicit private donations for thesupport of such activities; 4) provide a framework forcooperation in the establishment, planning, manage-ment, protection, and public understanding of na-tional marine sanctuaries and national estuarineresearch reserves; and 5) establish a FKNMSvolunteer program by jointly funding a volunteercoordinator position. The initial emphasis was on theFKNMS, including the existing Key Largo and LooeKey national marine sanctuaries. The NatureConservancy's programs in the Keys include thosedesigned to conserve the area's marine resources.Its general objectives include exploring and preserv-ing cooperative resource protection opportunities withNOAA in order to provide expertise and assistancethrough contracts or cooperative agreements.

113

Development of Management Alternatives


Introduction

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary andProtection Act (FKNMSPA), signed into law onNovember 16, 1990, mandated that the Secretary ofCommerce develop a comprehensive Sanctuarymanagement plan in coordination with Federal, State,and local government authorities and a publicSanctuary advisory council. This involved an unprec-edented level of planning detail, as the range ofmanagement issues, their effects on the Keys’ abioticand biotic environment, and their impacts on theconservation and consumer interest of the area areas diverse as the ecosystem itself. In addition, thenumber of governmental agencies with varyingdegrees of overlapping jurisdiction within theSanctuary’s boundary adds to the complexity of thismanagement planning process (Figure 23). Thischapter explains the Sanctuary management plan-ning process, which was designed to carefullyconsider the complexity of the issues involved whileincorporating comments and suggestions from publicand private interests.

To develop the most comprehensive managementplan possible, the issues affecting the natural andcultural resources of the Sanctuary had to be identi-fied. Once these issues were defined, a range ofmanagement strategies (with component actions)that vary from being very restrictive regarding the useof Sanctuary resources to nonrestrictive was devel-oped to address them. In order to satisfy NEPArequirements, NOAA considered a range of manage-ment alternatives containing the proposed strategies,and assessed the environmental consequences ofeach alternative. The “Preferred Alternative” formanaging the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu-ary was selected from this range of alternatives. Thischapter is divided into three sections to address themanagement planning process in more detail:1) Management Issues; 2) Management Strategies;and 3) Management Alternatives.

Management Issues

Management issues evolved from several sources ofinformation: technical workshops focused on thestatus of the Keys' ecosystem, public scoping meet-ings related to Sanctuary designation, and a ques-tionnaire associated with the scoping meetings

surveying the public's opinion on issues and theirpriority.

Although the official comments on issues came fromthe public scoping meetings, the issues affecting thehealth of the Keys' ecosystem had been discussedby the scientific community, the public, and thepopular media in the years leading up to the Sanctu-ary designation on November 16, 1990. One of thefirst scientific workshops focusing on the issues orthreats affecting the Keys' ecosystem was describedin Results of a Workshop on Coral Reef Researchand Management in the Florida Keys: A Blueprint forAction (Miller, 1988). Other workshops focusing onenvironmental problems in the Keys included theBlueprint for Action Seminar (1990), sponsored bythe State Attorney’s Office and Reef Relief, Inc.; theBoating Impact Workshop (1990), sponsored by theBoating Impact Work Group; the Florida KeysEnvironmental Summit (1991), sponsored by theFlorida Keys Land and Sea Trust; the Workshop onCoral Bleaching, Coral Reef Ecosystems, and GlobalChange (1991), sponsored by the National ScienceFoundation, EPA, and NOAA; and the Water QualityWorkshop (1991), sponsored by NOAA’s NationalUndersea Research Center. Participants in theworkshops varied in interest, but included represen-tatives from various user groups, concerned citizens,conservation organizations, environmental educators,and scientists. The range of issues and their impor-tance has been reiterated at these workshops andconferences. The basic issues identified at thescoping meetings mirrored those identified in theseworkshops.

Management Issues Identification

Successful management requires a complete under-standing of the full range of issues to be addressedthrough the planning process. Several steps havebeen taken to identify the management issuesaffecting the Florida Keys' ecosystem. The firstofficial forums used to identify these issues were sixpublic scoping meetings, held specifically to gatherpublic input on the scope of problems currentlyaffecting the health of the region. Two-hundred-forty-nine commentors testified at six scoping meetingsheld during 1991 (Table 15). In general, the com-ments received were constructive and focused onissues such as water quality, physical impacts tomarine habitats, the need for long-term research,

114


Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Wo

rksh

op

s

Sco

pin

g

Me

etin

gs

Co

re

Gro

up

M

ee

ting

s

Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Soc

ioec

onom

ic Im

pact

s

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

s• •G

oals

and

Obj

ectiv

es o

f th

e A

ct•

FK

NM

SD

raft

M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

Iden

tify

P

rob

lem

s/Is

sues

Des

crib

e th

e A

ffec

ted

E

nvi

ron

men

tW

ork

sho

ps

Co

re

Gro

up

M

ee

ting

s

Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Iden

tify

M

anag

emen

t S

trat

egie

s

Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Wo

rksh

op

s

Dev

elo

p

Ran

ge

of

Man

agem

ent

Alt

ern

ativ

es

Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Co

re

Gro

up

M

ee

ting

s

Sel

ect

Pre

ferr

ed

Alt

ern

ativ

e

Co

re

Gro

up

M

ee

ting

s

Dev

elo

p

Det

aile

d

Act

ion

P

lan

s

Wo

rksh

op

sC

ore

G

rou

p

Me

etin

gs

Ev

alu

ate

A

lte

rna

tiv

es

Ad

viso

ry

Co

un

cil

Fig

ure

23.

Sum

mar

y of

the

Man

agem

ent P

lan

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

cess

115


each issue, the major impacts, causes, data assess-ment needs, data sources (including those individu-als with available information or expertise), and thelead agency in acquiring information were deter-mined. After the meeting, land use and land-basedpollution were combined into a single issue. Naturalprocesses was renamed water quality to betterdescribe the issue.

The next step was to evaluate the scope and type ofinformation identified on the data assessmentworksheets. These worksheets were sent out forthree rounds of review. They were first sent to theCore Group for comments regarding the accuracy ofthe issues identified, identification of major causesand data assessment needs, and any informationthat could help identify the best data sources avail-able. They were then sent to resource managers,scientists, and others. Finally, they were sent to usergroups, environmental groups, and other interestedcitizens for review. A considerable amount of detailedinformation was obtained in this consensus-buildingprocess; however, there was no significant revision ofthe issues, as these comments reinforced thematerial already compiled by the Core Group.

A series of technical working sessions was anothersource of refining the issues. Table 16 lists workingsessions that have taken place during the manage-ment planning process.

Management Issues Description

In order to focus the development of managementstrategies on specific problems, members of the CoreGroup condensed the major issue groups intodescription statements. The management issuesidentified and described in this section are based onthose statements, and are considered to be activitiesthat may have potential resource impacts, eithernegative or positive, on the Sanctuary. These issuesinclude: 1) Boating; 2) Commercial and RecreationalFishing; 3) Recreation and Cultural/Historical Re-sources; 4) Land Use; and 5) Water Quality. Theyhave become the focus for the development of theSanctuary Management Plan, and are integral indetermining what management actions may benecessary in the future. Each issue identifies activi-ties that may affect the quality and/or quantity ofresources within the Sanctuary, and the problemsthat may arise due to multiple-use conflicts. Eachissue includes a discussion of four potential impactthemes: habitats; species; use and users; and waterquality.

Table 15. Dates and Locations of Scoping Meetings

Date Location

April 10, 1991 Sheraton Key Largo ResortKey Largo, Florida

April 11, 1991 University of MiamiMiami, Florida

April 15, 1991 Marathon High SchoolMarathon, Florida

April 16, 1991 Key West High SchoolKey West, Florida

April 17, 1991 University of South FloridaTampa, Florida

May 6, 1991 U.S. Department of CommerceHerbert C. Hoover BuildingWashington, D.C.

declines in the abundance and health of marineresources, and the protection of cultural and historicresources. Before and during each scoping meeting,NOAA distributed questionnaires requesting thepublic’s help in identifying and ranking issues. Of theseveral thousand forms distributed, several hundredwere returned, providing detailed information onspecific issues. The public was also asked to submitwritten comments addressing these issues, and wasgiven 30 days after the scoping meetings to respond.NOAA has compiled and considered these com-ments. The results of the survey forms and thewritten and oral comments were used to determinethe management issues to be addressed in the Plan.Those issues were: 1) declining water quality;2) physical injury to resources; 3) decline of marineresources; and 4) use conflicts.

Following these scoping meetings, the formal CoreGroup, comprised of Federal, State, and Countyagencies (Appendix B in Volume III) was establishedto oversee the development and implementation ofthe Sanctuary Management Plan. The Core Groupmet July 17-19, 1991 to review the issues that hadbeen identified to date. The group removed redun-dancies by combining similar issues. The detailedspecific issues were placed into broad categoriesrepresenting six major issue areas: boating, commer-cial and recreational fishing, recreation, land use,land-based pollution, and natural processes. For

116


Boating

Boating activities are directly related to the use andenjoyment of the Sanctuary, since watercraft provideaccess to the area and offer significant commercialand recreational opportunities throughout the year.Attention was immediately directed at boatingbecause the FKNMSPA cited vessel groundings asone of many "serious threats to the continued vitalityof the marine environments of the Florida Keys whichmust be addressed in order to protect their values."Impacts and conflicts from boating activities werealso raised at the scoping meetings held in April andMay 1991, and in comments submitted by the publicfollowing these meetings.

Boating activity in Florida has increased significantlyover the last two decades. The number of vesselregistrations (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 andover 3,000 commercial vessels that use Sanctuarywaters (White, 1991). Thousands more are trans-ported into the Keys by trailer and launched from the59 public and private boat ramps or the 163 marinasin Monroe County. When combined with the boatsvisiting the Sanctuary, passing through Sanctuarywaters, and stopping along the reef tract or atindividual keys, the potential impacts of these vesselson the area's natural resources increase sharply.

The issue is even more significant because boatingactivity has increased rapidly within the Keys inrecent years. For example, the number of recre-ational and commercial boats using the Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary more than doubledbetween 1985 and 1991 (Looe Key National MarineSanctuary, 1983-1993). The range of activities(especially recreational) has also increased, resulting

Date Location Topic Participants

1991

July Hawk's Cay Issue Definition 2017-19 Marathon, Florida

July Sombrero Country Club Mooring Buoys 30-5023-24 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 35-4013 Marathon, Florida

1992

January Florida Keys NMS Planning Office Zoning 135-15527-31 Marathon, Florida

July Hawk's Cay Water Quality/Monitoring 2014-16 Marathon, Florida and Research

August Hawk's Cay Water Quality/Institutional 254-6 Marathon, Florida Management and Engineering

Options

February Crowne Plaza Water Quality Technical

403-7 Miami, Florida Workshop

117


in visitor-use conflicts, direct impacts on Sanctuaryresources, and water quality degradation.

Boating impacts can be divided into direct andindirect categories, and further divided into major andminor subcategories. Direct impacts have quantifi-able effects on the natural or cultural resources of theSanctuary and are observable, measurable, andoften long-lasting. They result in the direct loss ofsignificant biological, ecological, economic, oraesthetically important resources. Examples of directimpacts from boating include prop dredging and propscarring in seagrass beds, and boat groundings oncoral reefs and other benthic communities. Indirectimpacts are less easily quantified or qualified, andmay be difficult to distinguish from impacts resultingfrom other activities.

Impacts have the potential to affect either the area'snatural resources (habitats, species, and waterquality) or to cause visitor use conflicts. In general,major impacts occur over large areas and/or inhabitats that recover slowly and perhaps only par-tially after damage occurs (e.g., corals andseagrasses). They also may result from activities thatare cumulative or persistent over time, causingaccelerated degradation of Sanctuary resources.Minor impacts generally occur over smaller areas orin areas that require less time for resource recovery(e.g., groundings in sand habitats).

Habitat Impacts. A number of habitat impacts occuras a result of boating and shipping activities withinthe Sanctuary. The more conspicuous and long-lasting impacts occur primarily in areas ofseagrasses, corals, hardbottom, and dead coralrubble. Injury to these habitats occurs from a varietyof activities associated with boat operation. Some ofthese impacts and activities are described in thefollowing section.

Vessel Groundings. According to a U.S. Coast Guardvessel traffic study, in September and August 1991,and January 1992, 1,500 ships transited the Straits ofFlorida. Shipping historically has presented a risk tothe Keys' coral reefs. For example, on August 4,1984, the M/V WELLWOOD, a 400-foot freighterloaded with animal food bound for Europe, ranaground on Molasses Reef in the Key Largo NationalMarine Sanctuary, resulting in the destruction of over1,282 square meters of reef. Just over five yearslater, between October 25 and November 11, 1989,there were three ship groundings along the Keys'reef tract. According to Sanctuary records, thesegroundings resulted in over 21,000 square meters ofreef being completely destroyed. These groundings,

along with the deterioration of water quality and thehealth of the coral reef resources, were among theevents and problems that led to the designation ofthe Sanctuary. Recent groundings include the 147-foot MISS BEHOLDEN, which caused extensivedamage to the coral habitat on Western Sambo reef(March 1993), and most recently, the 166-footUniversity of Miami Research vessel COLUMBUSISELIN, which ran aground on the Looe Key NationalMarine Sanctuary reef crest (August 1994), spillingdiesel fuel as well as damaging the coral reef.

Small Boat Groundings. Boat groundings are achronic problem within the Sanctuary. According toSanctuary records, over 310 boats have run agroundin the 103 nm2 Key Largo National Marine Sanctuarysince 1980 (Tagliareni, 1993). An additional 98 havegrounded in the 5.3 nm2 Looe Key National MarineSanctuary since 1981 (Hartsing and Carver, 1993).Between July 1992 and May 1993, the Florida MarinePatrol recorded 97 vessel groundings in Sanctuarywaters.

While attention has primarily been focused on boatgroundings in coral and hardbottom habitats, theyalso occur in seagrass meadows, areas of dead coralrubble, and other benthic communities. The long-term impacts of groundings on corals have been welldocumented in the Looe Key and Key Largo sanctu-aries. However, the impacts on other habitats are notwell known. Grounding impacts on seagrasses varyaccording to the size and weight of the boat and thedegree of effort required to dislodge the vessel.These impacts can be short- or long-term, dependingon the amount of disturbance to the habitat and theseverity of injury to the resources (e.g., whether onlythe blades of seagrass were cut or if entire plantswere removed, including their rhizomes).

Because groundings are indiscriminate actions,specific user groups are not easily identified as majorcontributors to the problem. However, trends may beused to characterize small-boat groundings ingeneral. Most small-boat groundings involve boatsthat average approximately 30 feet in length (Cau-sey, 1993) and are most commonly reported alongthe reef tract at shallow bank or patch reefs in depthsof less than 2 meters. In addition, most groundingsoccur at popular dive sites and are due to navigationerrors, including a lack of familiarity with the area andan inability to discern water depth by observingbottom color and texture.

Direct habitat impacts of boat groundings includephysical damage to seagrass beds, corals,hardbottom communities, and mangroves (all major

118


impacts); moderate damage to rubble habitat; andminor damage to sand and softbottom communities.Overall, groundings lead to the degradation ofSanctuary resources, resulting in decreased biologi-cal integrity and a localized negative impact onbiodiversity. They also affect the aesthetic appeal ofthe resources, resulting in a negative economicimpact on the area. The potential for oil and/or fuelspills also increases with the number of groundings,adding to the overall negative impact on the re-source.

Anchoring. Over 350 mooring buoys have beeninstalled on reefs in the Keys by the National MarineSanctuary Program, Florida Park Service, ReefRelief, Inc. (Key West), Florida Keys Marine Sanctu-ary, Inc. (Marathon), and the Coral Reef CommunityFoundation (Islamorada). Still, anchor damagecontinues to have a major impact on Sanctuaryhabitats. Damage occurs in coral and hardbottomhabitats, and is most severe on the heavily usedcoral reefs, especially where mooring buoys are notavailable. Hardbottom areas are one of the mostheavily used habitats by lobster divers and otherusers that anchor their boats while conducting theiractivity. Improper anchoring techniques (e.g., type ofanchor, inadequate scope of anchor line, etc.) canresult in overturned or injured coral heads, injured ordislodged sponges, soft corals, or other hardbottominhabitants. Anchoring impacts on seagrass commu-nities are more difficult to assess, except whereboats remain at anchor in the same location for along period of time.

Most bottom-fishing for snapper and grouper in theSanctuary takes place in the intermediate to deepreef habitat (10-35 meters). This is the most commoncoral reef habitat in the Sanctuary, and is used bymany commercially important fish species duringmuch of their life history. The habitat's depth and fewnarrow sand strips make it difficult for vessel opera-tors to anchor only in the sand and avoid damagingthe reef. The 12 mooring buoys installed in thishabitat within the Looe Key National Marine Sanctu-ary are continuously occupied during the fishingseason (Looe Key Daily Surveillance Reports).However, installing enough mooring buoys to accom-modate even a small percentage of the anchoringactivity in the intermediate and deep reef habitatsand restricting anchoring in these habitats are onlypartial solutions to the anchoring problem. Additionalsolutions will likely depend on the implementation ofother management strategies, including educatingoperators on anchor types and techniques andrestricting the size of vessels anchoring in thishabitat.

Large shrimp boats frequently anchor in the interme-diate and deep reef habitats while resting or waitingfor nightfall. In addition, staff from the Dry TortugasNational Park have reported large ships anchoring onTortugas Bank, west of Fort Jefferson. The largeanchors on these vessels cause significant damagein these habitats.

Prop Scarring and Prop Dredging. Seagrasses arelost through prop scarring and prop dredging, as boatpropellers cut seagrass blades or leave trenches inthe substrate, severing the plants' rhizomes andcausing long-term damage. Seagrass impacts occurnear frequently used marinas, boat ramps, subdivi-sions with shallow-water access to open water andother areas where propeller operation can harmseagrass beds. In these nearshore areas, propscarring and prop dredging are the most commonhabitat impacts, and are often caused by inexperi-enced boaters and/or the lack of properly markedchannels.

Over the past decade, seagrass destruction hasincreased throughout the Sanctuary. Sargent (1993)reported that the Keys have the highest concentra-tion of propeller scar damage in Florida. It wasestimated that approximately 5,970 ha are lightlyimpacted, 4,250 ha are moderately impacted, and2,050 ha are severely impacted. Sargent (1993)defined "lightly impacted" as the presence of propel-ler damage in less than five percent of the area in theobserver's survey plot. "Moderate impact" indicatesthat five to 20 percent of the seagrass was impacted,and impacts were considered severe when morethan 20 percent of the seagrass within a survey plotwas impacted. These impacts occur as a result of alltypes of vessels operating in shallow water, includingpersonal watercraft. This is a Sanctuary-wide issuerequiring a wide range of management strategieswith coordinated interagency implementation.

Pollutant Discharge from Boats. Discharges fromboats can result in major resource damage. Fuel, oil,contaminated bilge water, ballast, litter, and jetsamoriginate from boats within Sanctuary waters or aretransported into the Sanctuary by natural processessuch as currents and winds. Cumulative impacts areof particular concern in commonly used areas.

Backcountry Impacts. Backcountry recreational usehas increased for a variety of reasons including:increased development in the Lower Keys; increaseduse of shallow-draft craft such as personal watercraftand fiberglass boats designed to operate in shallowwater; and an increased interest in exploring thenatural setting of the Keys' backcountry. Many of the

119


issues relevant to the backcountry habitats of theLower Keys have been addressed in a managementplan approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service fortheir refuges. Cross-deputization and interagencycoordination will increase the potential for reducingconflicts between growing recreational use andhabitat impacts in backcountry areas.

Shoreline Erosion. Waves from boating activity cancause erosion along shorelines, especially in con-fined areas, resulting in natural resource damagesand impacts to man-made structures such as sea-walls, bulkheads, etc. Erosion is especially serious insome of the narrow mangrove channels, where highlevels of boating activity wash sediments out fromaround the prop roots of the mangroves.

Derelict Vessels. Boats of various sizes are oftenabandoned in nearshore waters, threatening ordamaging natural habitat resources until the vessel isremoved. Derelict vessels have a major impact iflocated over hardbottom, coral, or seagrass habitats.The source of the problem, in general, lies in therelative ease of abandoning a boat as compared toproperly disposing of it in a landfill. A derelict vesselremoval program, funded by the State and carriedout by local governments, is currently in place.

Live-aboard Vessels. Impacts of live-aboard vesselsvary by location, duration of stay, the size of thevessel, the means of securing or anchoring thevessel, and methods of waste disposal. Many live-aboard vessels in the Sanctuary substitute for low-income housing, and have become permanenthomes. In other cases, they are the residences for atransient population that remains in the Keys for ashort time. These vessels affect the habitat throughdirect impact with the bottom, shading, discharge ofpollutants, and other means.

Elimination of Low-clearance Bridges. A number ofnew, high-clearance bridges were built in the Keys inthe 1980s. As sections of older bridges with lowerclearances were removed, larger boats with deeperdrafts gained more direct access to backcountryareas. These vessels are more likely to impactseagrasses in shallow water because of the amountof water they draw.

Commercial Shipping and Barge Traffic. TheFKNMSPA prohibits vessels over 50 m in length fromentering the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) within theSanctuary. However, certain navigable channelshave been established for commercial shipping andcruise ship traffic into the port of Key West. Therehas been an increase in passenger cruise ships

entering the Port of Key West during the past fiveyears (Crusoe, pers. comm.).

Tug and barge traffic continues in certain areasoutside the ATBA within the Sanctuary. Traffic to andfrom Key West was not prohibited within the ATBAbecause of the economic impracticality of relocatingslow, westerly moving tug and barge traffic offshoreinto the strong easterly flowing Florida Current.

Commercial vessels, especially single-skinned fuelbarges, also put the Sanctuary at risk from oil spillsand substance discharges. Similarly, litter and jetsamhave had a chronic impact on the area's habitatresources. The anchoring of large vessels outside ofdesignated sites, which currently takes place, mayalso be of concern in the future.

Other Habitat Impacts. Although habitat impacts thatresult from boat overcrowding, shading, and the useof bottom paints are currently not well understood, itis clear that these occurrences may have adverseeffects on Sanctuary resources and need to beinvestigated. Overcrowding can lead to increaseduser conflicts, increased pollutant discharges, andhabitat loss through a variety of direct physicalimpacts. Shading of the benthic substrate, caused byboats and barges anchored within the Sanctuary forlong periods of time, limits the productivity of certainareas.

Species Impacts . Boating activities in the Keysresult in three main categories of species impact:1) those caused by increased backcountry activities;2) those caused by derelict vessels; and 3) thosecaused by motor noise.

Backcountry Activities. The increased recreationaluse of shallow-water habitats, including thebackcountry and areas around mangrove islands,has resulted in major wildlife disturbances. Many ofthese impacts can be traced directly to the increaseduse of personal watercraft, which allow visitorsaccess to previously unreachable areas. Conflictsbetween species and visitors lead to impacts onmanatees, birds and their colonies (such as feedingareas, nesting areas, and staging areas), marineturtles, the American crocodile, and shallow-waterfishes, as well as general habitat degradation (FWS,1992).

Derelict Vessels. Derelict vessels can also adverselyaffect species within the Sanctuary, as they mayinjure or destroy the benthic community, whichserves as critical habitat for species development.

120


Noise. Although the effects of motor noise on themarine resources of the Sanctuary are not fullyunderstood, it is recognized that some species aredisturbed 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 fortransportation to areas where they conduct theiractivities. Some conflicts occur between users inheavily used areas such as the shallow bank reefs(e.g., Looe Key, Sombrero Reef, Sand Key, etc.), orbetween recreational and commercial fishing vessels.An example of the latter occurs most commonly atthe beginning of the spiny lobster season, whenfishermen are pulling traps in areas scattered withrecreational dive boats. However, conflicts can alsooccur in areas of less concentrated activity, such astreasure hunters disturbing the seabed in the vicinityof recreational diving.

Safety. Visitor safety is also an issue with increasingboat use of Sanctuary waters. The number of boatingaccidents is monitored by the Florida Marine Patrol.According to their records, there has been an in-crease in boating accidents during the past decade.

Other conflicts occur when vessels run aground,creating safety hazards as well as jeopardizing thehealth of the resource. In addition, the discharge ofuntreated sewage from holding tanks reduces theaesthetic value of Sanctuary resources and maynegatively affect visitor-use experience while partici-pating in water-related recreation, similarly negativelyimpacting local businesses.

Water Quality Impacts . Boating activities can alsohave negative impacts on water quality as a result ofgroundings, pollutant discharges, and erosion.

Groundings. Groundings result in a temporarydecline in water quality as sediment plumes arecreated during grounding and vessel removal,adversely affecting corals and other sediment-sensitive organisms.

Pollutant Discharges. Discharges from boats causewater quality degradation within the Sanctuary andmay increase use conflicts, especially in water-related recreation areas.

Erosion. Erosion degrades water quality, creatingsediment clouds, moving bottom sediment, andaltering the configuration of the shoreline.

Issue Summary . Because boats are the mode oftransportation visitors use to access Sanctuarywaters, managing and regulating boating activityprovides a means for protecting natural resources,balancing resource uses, and reducing or avoidinguser conflicts. For example, by managing access tovarious habitats, such as shallows or other sensitiveareas, specific visitor-use impacts can be reducedand adverse habitat impacts lessened. In this way,the number of visitors allowed access to these areascan also be monitored and managed. The appropri-ate use of channel markers can also reduce boatingimpacts on natural resources by keeping boats inareas already impacted, allowing unmarked areas abetter chance of recovery.

Management must balance the continually increasinglevels of boating activities with actions designed toreduce impacts on the Sanctuary's natural resourceswith a minimum of resource-use conflicts betweenmultiple users.

Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing activities areeconomically important within the Sanctuary. Sincesome species are only caught during certain times ofthe year and/or in specific areas because of theirseasonal movements, fishing pressure varies be-tween areas and over time.

Many fishing methods are employed throughout theSanctuary. Common traditional methods includehook-and-line fishing, trapping, the use of long-lines,spearfishing, hand collection by divers, netting,trawling, and sponge hooking. Other fishing activitiesinclude curio/souvenir collecting for the tourist tradeand the live trade in marine life for hobbyists, com-mercial wholesalers, retailers, and public aquaria.This fishery includes the collection of tropical fishes,invertebrates, algae, and live rock.

Although fishing activities are important and essentialSanctuary activities, there is concern that excessivefishing could deplete certain species, disrupt marineecosystems, and impact economic activities depen-dent on fishery resources. Information is incompleteabout what is intentionally being removed from theSanctuary (i.e., what species, where, when, howmuch, and by whom) and what direct and indirecteffects that removal has on Sanctuary resources andthe ecosystem as a whole. This problem has becomeacute as more people have moved to the Keys to usethe area's resources. Many fishing methods inciden-tally kill organisms that are not utilized (bycatch).

121


Excessive bycatch mortality impacts the ecosystemby reducing the forage base and altering the foodweb. Bycatch mortality can also harm fisheries bykilling juveniles and undersized individuals of tar-geted species. While the impacts of various fishingmethods on habitats and species have not beenadequately studied, it is clear that some fishingmethods are less destructive than others.

Although the Florida Marine Fisheries Commissionand Federal Fishery Management Councils regulatefisheries, they rarely have the resources or detailedinformation necessary to adequately manage afishery on the geographic level of the Sanctuary. TheFishery Management Councils do not regulateornamental fish species. Also, management isusually performed for an entire stock. Because of theintensity of use at the Sanctuary level, resources arelikely to be impacted before problems manifestthemselves at the stock level. Finally, current fisherymanagement practices emphasize individual fisheriesand species. Ecosystem and intraspecific interactionswith fisheries are often not incorporated into suchmanagement. More precise data and improvedgeographic coverage by Sanctuary data collectionprograms would provide more useful information toimprove fishery management at the ecosystem andsanctuary levels.

Information about the harvest and impacts of certainfisheries is particularly inadequate, especially formarine life fisheries and most other segments of therecreational fishery. Improved data collection, suchas fishery dependent sampling, and informationabout various fisheries are critical for management.

Maintaining sustainable commercial and recreationalfisheries is an important Sanctuary goal. An equallyimportant goal, and potentially conflicting one, is themaintenance of biodiversity of the Sanctuary. Inaddition, various fishing interests compete and comeinto conflict within the Sanctuary. Recreational andcommercial fishing activities are often in conflictbecause of their different objectives and potentialimpacts. Different fishing methods can also conflict.Shrimp trawling can destroy stone crab traps if bothare conducted at the same time and place. Theestablishment of the Sanctuary provides a uniqueopportunity to help understand the relationshipsbetween fisheries, and between fishery and non-fishery activities. One mechanism to address theseconflicting goals is the use of marine zoning.

Marine zones provide relatively undisturbed controlareas free from fishing activity. These control areasare a critical requirement for research on the effects

of human activities on fish populations and the rolefish play in structuring the Keys' ecosystem. Scientificresearch and monitoring of resources, particularly theeffects of fishing on the ecosystem, are needed toproperly manage human activities in the Sanctuary.

Because fishing has cumulative, ubiquitous, andchronic effects, undisturbed areas are not availableto conduct scientific research and monitor naturaland man-made changes to Sanctuary ecosystems.Some undisturbed or minimally disturbed areas arenecessary for scientific research and resourcemonitoring.

Other important fisheries issues of public and Sanc-tuary concern include the introduction of exotic(nonnative) species, aquaculture, and artificial reefprograms. Although these are all tools used toenhance fishery production, they can be misused anddamage resources. Introducing nonnative speciescould potentially disrupt Sanctuary ecosystems, ashas occurred in Florida's terrestrial and freshwaterhabitats. Well-developed aquaculture programs couldhelp the regional economy and reduce harvestingpressure on the natural stocks, while poorly designedprograms could spread diseases, damage habitat,and hurt native species. Artificial reefs alter habitat,and can have beneficial or damaging impacts de-pending on how and where they are constructed.Although usually built to improve fishing, some reefsmay aggravate overfishing problems by concentrat-ing depleted resources and making them morevulnerable to overfishing (Bohnsack and Sutherland1985; Bohnsack, 1989; Polovina, 1991).

Conflicting fishery management regulations are alsoan important issue. Sanctuary fisheries are managedby several State and Federal agencies with differentprograms, goals, objectives, and information. As aresult, different rules exist under different jurisdic-tions, confusing the public, reducing compliance, andcreating enforcement problems. Consistent fisheryregulations in the Sanctuary would improve publiccooperation and understanding.

Habitat Impacts. The following activities impacthabitats within the Sanctuary.

Hook-and-Line Fishing. Hook-and-line fishing has nosignificant impact on seagrass habitats, but doesmoderately impact coral and hardbottom habitats asgear becomes entangled and damages fragile coralsand other sessile organisms.

Trapping. Seagrass beds can be displaced byderelict traps and long-soaking traps. Trapping may

122


also impact corals and hardbottoms when thesedevices are placed on them, or when traps aredragged across the bottom by adverse weather or byboats. Damage from lobster and crab traps is prima-rily seasonal (July to April).

Netting or Trawling. Netting impacts on seagrassesoccur primarily inshore as a result of repetitive trawls(e.g., bait shrimping). Impacts on coral andhardbottom habitats include the entanglement of netsand the physical “uprooting” of corals.

Spearfishing. Damage to coral and hardbottomhabitats may be caused by overaggressive andindiscriminate physical contact with sensitive corals,or habitat displacement or damage when capturingspecies. Impacts on these habitats are particularlyintense during the lobster sport-diving season.

Sponging and Tropical Fish Collecting. Spongehooking and tropical fish collecting can result in theinjury of seagrasses and damage to coral/hardbottomhabitats through physical contact or habitat distur-bance and removal. Tropical species collection mayalso involve the use of chemicals.

Live Rock Collecting. Live rock collecting occursmainly in coral and hardbottom and rubble areas.Removal of hardbottom habitat and areas of rubbleare common impacts. Seagrass and coral habitatsmay also be affected by this activity.

Artificial Reefs and Aquaculture. Artificial reefsgenerally increase the area of hardbottom, but theirplacement can directly reduce seagrass and otherhabitats through improper placement. The man-madestructures may also be a physical threat to coral reefsunder extreme storm conditions. Aquaculture activi-ties can have a similar effect.

Other Concerns. Indirect effects may occur as aresult of other fishing activities, including gear use,human contact, nontarget species response to preyand predator removal, changes in the habitat balancedue to species removal, and removal of habitat suchas sponges and live rock. Impacts occur throughoutthe Sanctuary, with seasonal peaks for the speciessought. Incremental effects are noticeable whereactivities overlap. Such impacts occur relative tospecies reduction and shift, and thus may change thebalance of the ecosystem.

Species Impacts . Most fishing activities that impactSanctuary habitats have a corresponding effect onspecies abundance.

Hook-and-Line/Traps/Nets. All fishing activitiesdirectly reduce the abundance of target speciesthroughout the Sanctuary. Hook-and-line fishing andtrapping have the greatest impact in coral andhardbottom areas. Lobster, crab, and fish traps havea direct Sanctuary-wide impact by reducing theabundance of target species. Although seasonalpeaks may occur, sustained netting, trapping, andhook-and-line fishing in combination with decliningwater quality have resulted in a continuous andcumulative decline in species abundance. Ghosttraps and fish traps capture indiscriminately andcause declines in species diversity in trapping areas.The indirect impacts of these fishing methods onspecies diversity are unknown. Netting impacts canbe high in all habitats, especially when abandonednets continue to fish. Bycatch mortality can indis-criminately decrease species abundance.

Spearfishing. Spearfishing occurs year round,primarily in coral and hardbottom areas. Finfishspearing can cause predator/prey relationships to beimbalanced.

Sponging. Sponge hooking is practiced year roundwith increasing frequency within the Sanctuary, andreduces target species abundance. The removal ofsponges from the hardbottom habitat alters speciesdiversity, as they often provide essential habitat forother invertebrates and fishes.

Tropical Collecting. A reduction in target speciesabundance occurs when juveniles and adults areremoved by tropical species collectors. Effects aregreatest in coral/hardbottom areas, and are cumula-tive due to continuous pressure.

Live Rock Collecting. Because live rock collectionmainly occurs in coral and hardbottom and rubbleareas, it has a direct impact on sessile organisms.There is an unknown, indirect effect on speciesabundance and diversity due to substrate and habitatremoval. All of these impacts are cumulative andcontinuous.

Artificial Reefs. Artificial reefs impact species byincreasing diversity and abundance at their location.Although such reefs are located throughout theSanctuary, they make up a very small percentage ofthe total area. Increases in species diversity andabundance as a result of artificial reefs placementhave not yet been quantified.

123


Aquaculture. When conducted in open water, aquac-ulture can reduce habitat and species abundanceand diversity. The stocking of target species in openwater (which does not currently occur in the Sanctu-ary, but has been proposed for the future) has notbeen demonstrated to increase their abundance.

Other Concerns. Moderate species impacts may alsooccur throughout the Sanctuary through the captureor injury of wildlife by abandoned or working fishinggear. Such occurrences are sporadic; however, theirimpacts can become cumulative over time. Birds canbecome entangled by fishing lines and hooks, andturtles and diving birds can become entangled innets. Commercial and recreational fishing can alsodisturb wildlife on islands.

Use and User Impacts. Conflicts between users arelargely the result of increased demands on themarine resources of the Sanctuary. Conflicts range inseverity from annoying to very serious, and some-times life-threatening, situations. They fall into threegeneral categories: 1) conflicts between commercialand recreational fishermen; 2) conflicts betweenrecreational fishermen; and 3) conflicts betweenfishermen and other users.

Conflicts between commercial and recreationalfishermen include commercial fishermen angeringrecreational anglers in the vicinity by using massivequantities of chum and potentially drawing fish fromone area to another. Conversely, recreationalfishermen sometimes move into commercialfishermen’s chum slicks, interrupting fishing activity.Recreational anglers may react negatively to thesight of a successful commercial fisherman catchinglarge numbers of fish, perhaps more than the recre-ational fisherman thinks the resource can sustain.More serious conflicts arise when high concentra-tions of lobster traps impede trolling grounds forsome recreational anglers. The largest single conflictfor commercial fishermen is molestation of lobstertraps, also called “trap robbing,” that some estimatecauses economic losses in the millions of dollarseach year. Trap robbing involves many categories ofusers and is a felony under State law. The mostfrequent complaint from both commercial andrecreational fishermen involves running over trapbuoys, and the entanglement and fishing gear lossthat results.

Conflicts between recreational fishermen usuallyinvolve encroaching on another fisherman’s chumslick, or some other invasion of a fisherman's per-ceived territory. In very unpopulated areas, and insome types of fisheries, these territories are quite

large. The concept of territory is important to under-standing recreational fishing, because many fisher-men venture out for relaxation and feel the need forsolitude. This feeling of “getting away” may also bedisrupted for other outdoor enthusiasts if an areabecomes a popular fishing spot.

The final category of conflict, between fishermen andother users of the Sanctuary, has the most seriousconsequences. Swimmers and divers are most likelyto have a conflict with fishermen. The aesthetic andhabitat impacts from lost gear, such as fishing lineand sinkers wrapped around coral and fish withhooks imbedded in their mouths, are part of theconcern. The potential for injury to divers and swim-mers from fishing gear is also a concern, althoughthese types of injuries are infrequent. Trolling close tothe reef for barracuda is the most dangerous conflict,as serious bodily injury or death to a swimmer ordiver may result. Problems also result when diversventure too far from their dive flags, or anglers comein too close to the reef. The potential exists for adiver to be hooked by a slowly trolled fishing lure orto be struck if the diver surfaces when a boat isoverhead.

These types of conflicts are familiar to those who usethe resource on a regular basis. The concern is thatas pressure increases on Sanctuary resources, thelack of a system to address such conflicts will resultin resource degradation and user dissatisfaction.

Water Quality Impacts. Since the prohibition onsoaking traps in motor oil, water quality has notemerged as a major consideration with regard toimpacts from fishing activities within the Sanctuary.Most of the water quality impacts caused by fishingactivities are related to vessel use, and are coveredunder the boating issue discussion. Aquaculture inSanctuary waters is a potential water quality concernbecause of the feeding and concentration of fish.

Issue Summary . Fishing has been, and continues tobe, a major economic and recreational activitythroughout the Keys. Various methods are used, andtheir impacts are a Sanctuary-wide issue. Because ofthe increasing number of participants, increasingquantities of resources removed, and increasingefficiency of fishing gear; the cumulative impacts andthe severity of the impacts of fishing activities onSanctuary resources have increased over the pastdecade. Sound strategies are needed to balanceboth commercial and recreational fishing activitieswith the preservation of the area’s natural resources,and to resolve conflicts between multiple-uses.

124


ties, visitors, areas affected etc., or those for whicheffects are unknown. Direct impacts are easilyobservable and often long-lasting, resulting from theactual use of the resources (e.g., divers standing oncoral). Indirect impacts reflect either the extensiveland-based infrastructure associated with supportingrecreation activities, or the lesser-known effects ofthese activities on the Keys' ecosystem (such asturbidity plumes that settle on corals and otherbottom habitats following the improper use of water-craft).

Habitat Impacts. Although some of the specificimpacts of recreation activities on habitats are notfully understood, some impacts are evident, and mostare related to boating activities.

Boating. Habitat impacts from boating activities havebeen discussed in detail within the Boating issuesection. Recreational boating is specifically respon-sible for seagrass damage through prop dredgingand scarring throughout the Keys. The constructionof public and private docks and marinas, rangingfrom single-boat ramps to large public recreationsites, also can negatively impact seagrass bedsthroughout the Sanctuary, even though these facili-ties are concentrated in specific areas, such as KeyLargo and Key West. The increased boating activityresulting from the expansion and construction of boatramps, docks, and marinas further impacts the healthand abundance of these beds. Impacts onseagrasses occur primarily in nearshore and shallow-water areas and access channels, especially nearcanals leading to subdivisions. In backcountry areas,where waters are calmer, personal watercraft cancause injury to seagrass beds. It has been estimatedthat over 2,020 ha of seagrass have already beenseverely impacted (Sargent, 1993), including shal-low-water habitats in the area’s national wildliferefuges.

Dock and marina construction can also changenatural sediment transport processes and exacerbateerosion. Boat wakes contribute to habitat decline innearshore waters, causing low-to-moderate impactsby increasing turbidity. Recreational boat groundingsand anchoring damage coral/hardbottom areas.Anchors can break or scar coral, resulting in thecorals being vulnerable to disease or decline.

Fishing. Overfishing by recreational users causesinstability in biological communities and results indeclines in target species abundance. Fishermenalso lose large amounts of gear on reefs. Reefcleanups collect up to 100 pounds of lost gear eachyear.

Recreation and Cultural/HistoricalResources

Over the past 20 years, the great diversity andabundance of outdoor recreation activities in theKeys have become a focal point of the local economyfor both visitors and residents. Most of the recre-ational activities in the region are “resource-based.”That is, they are related directly to the natural envi-ronment (water-based recreation) or to man-maderesources of cultural or historical significance (sight-seeing). Other “activity-based” leisure opportunitiesinclude the use of swimming pools, playgrounds,tennis courts, etc. Commercial as well as recreationaluses of submerged cultural resources are consideredhere.

The Keys' natural environment attracts increasingnumbers of visitors each year, and the nature andrange of recreation activities is a considerationthroughout the Sanctuary. Despite the lack of thewide beaches characteristic of the U.S. East Coast,beach activities account for almost half of the area’svisitor days (Kearney/Centaur, 1990). Many activitiesinvolve water and, therefore, occur throughout theSanctuary. Water-related recreational activities areamong the highest in multiple-use conflicts.

Recreation in the Keys includes activities rangingfrom sight-seeing, which may have little or no impacton 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 30percent of all boating-related activities (Kearney/Centaur, 1990). Persistent conflicts exist amongusers of personal watercraft, recreational fishingboats, and divers.

Recreation and cultural/historic resource impactsinvolve the area’s water-related activities, and otheractivities, such as camping, hiking, and sight-seeing,which includes nature observations (bird watching,Key deer watching, etc.) and visits to cultural/historicsites (historical houses, forts, lighthouses, Indianmounds, etc.). Many of the impacts associated withrecreation are discussed in the Boating or Fishingissue sections.

Major impacts to cultural/historic resources andrecreation occur over a large area, and require a longrecovery period. They result from a growing increasein the number of visitors to the Keys, the number ofvisitors involved in water-related recreation, and anincrease in treasure hunting operations. Minorimpacts are those involving small numbers of facili-

125


Diving and Snorkeling. There are many attractivedive sites in the Sanctuary, particularly within KeyLargo National Marine Sanctuary, Looe Key NationalMarine Sanctuary, and John Pennekamp Coral ReefState Park. The potential for major impacts accompa-nies the use of these areas for diving activities.Damage results from standing or walking on corals,overturning corals, or grabbing corals for locomotionwhile swimming. Such damage may take years torepair. Breaking corals for souvenirs and generalexcessive handling by divers can also impact thishabitat, as can the sediment clouds created whensnorkelers tread water. Overuse of certain dive areasis also significant, and too many divers at any onetime may tax the reef community. The most signifi-cant impacts caused by these activities have beenobserved along the reef tract. Additionally, live rockremoval by divers has Sanctuary-wide impacts, as itreduces the bottom habitat available for species.

Treasure Hunting Techniques. Some treasurehunting methods for artifact recovery create asignificant threat to natural resources in and around awreck site. Treasure hunters use chisels, hammers,crowbars, and propeller wash deflectors ("mail-boxes") to uncover artifacts. The indiscriminate useof mailboxes, in particular, to blow away sedimentcan adversely affect both the cultural/historical siteand the natural resources in and around the site, andcan result in a decrease in future education and/orscientific value. A single mailbox blow hole can befour meters wide and just as deep (Throckmorton,1990). Any other device capable of removing largeamounts of sediments or debris may have similareffects.

Other Habitat Impacts. Other recreation activities thatimpact habitats include illegal camping and plant andanimal collecting. Illegal camping occurs on offshoreislands that are part of national wildlife refuges;vegetation destruction is the most common impact inthese sensitive areas. Plant and animal collectingmay also reduce the population of slow-maturing,ornamental reef fish and invertebrates that graze onalgae and other sessile organisms. This may shift theecological balance of reef areas, either abruptly orgradually, to a community dominated by fast-growingalgae species. It may also lead to a reduction in thesurface area available for recruitment of larval coralsand other sessile organisms.

Species Impacts .

Overcollection. It is thought by many thatovercollection of both small and large ornamental fishand invertebrates for personal aquariums has a direct

impact on species abundance and diversity. Collec-tion occurs in all habitats where divers andsnorkelers are found. For some slow-growing species(e.g., starfish and conch), further study should beundertaken to determine the effect of species abun-dance on species diversity. The impact of this activityis even more significant when commercial collectorsgather the same species for sale to tourists or for theaquarium trade. Overcollection of species thatremove fish parasites also encourages an increase inparasitized fish on the reef. In general, these activi-ties reduce the aesthetic and economic value of thereef environment.

Other Concerns. Ignoring catch and size limits has adirect impact on target species abundance in popularfishing areas. In addition, the degradation of shallowwaters by recreational activities can damage thefeeding habitats of turtles, manatees, and dolphins.Collisions between recreational vessels and marinemammals and birds are significant as well, impactingfish and wildlife nurseries. Noise from boat andwatercraft motors can also have an indirect impact onspecies, including disturbances of bird nesting,roosting, and feeding areas. As noted earlier, illegalcamping on offshore islands often results in thedestruction of vegetation crucial to the life history ofspecies. Wildlife disturbances (particularly of birdpopulations) by hikers and campers are common.These disturbances impact feeding and nestinghabitats.

Use and User Impacts. Tourist activity near cultural/historical and archaeological sites within the Keys issignificant, with land-based sites less impacted thanmarine sites. Typical impacts include the removal ofartifacts from sunken vessels; the construction ofdocks and marinas that may destroy unreportedsites; and the use of mailboxes that can damage thesurrounding recreational areas and the artifactsthemselves. Search and recovery methods that donot record and preserve all artifacts and contextualinformation may result in irreparable destruction ofhistorical and cultural information. Conflicts alsooccur between users who want to protect all artifacts(especially shipwrecks) for education, research, andsport diving, and those involved in artifact recovery.

Water Quality Impacts . Recreational boatingactivities within the Sanctuary contribute to waterquality degradation through pollution from boatpaints, exhaust gasses, oil and human waste dis-charge, and improper trash disposal. Propellers alsostir up sediments that block sunlight, reduce photo-synthesis levels, and smother bottom-dwellingorganisms.

126


discharge or overland flow. Indirect impacts arethose having an effect on an alternate medium (e.g.,groundwater and the atmosphere) before impactingnearshore waters or marine resources.

Habitat Impacts . The following factors impacthabitats within the Sanctuary.

Population and Growth. The current resident popula-tion of the Keys (approximately 78,000) is expectedto increase to over 102,000 by the year 2010 (Mon-roe County Comptroller, 1993). Between 1990 and2010, the Keys' annual seasonal population also isexpected to increase by almost 20,000 from approxi-mately 56,000. The Keys' total functional population,including both tourists and residents, has the poten-tial to significantly impact the area's resources. As aresult, tourism has both direct and indirect impactson the Sanctuary. Direct impacts to resources resultfrom participation in water-related activities, andindirectly affect local resources by increasing thedemand for public services such as water, sewagedisposal, and sanitary landfills.

Residential and Commercial Development. Contin-ued residential development affects resources byincreasing upland and wetland clearing, whichpromotes increased stormwater runoff and airbornedust. Development is accompanied by an increase inthe demand for sewage treatment facilities, whoseeffluents affect ground and surface waters. Ashousing densities increase, sewage, stormwater,and airborne loadings also increase, causing evengreater impacts. Commercial development bringssimilar resource impacts in terms of stormwatermanagement and sewage treatment. Differencesbetween residential and commercial impacts includethe volume of runoff and pollutants it contains, aswell as the type of sewage treatment processesused.

Canalization. Canals in South Florida are significantcontributors to seagrass die-offs brought on bydrought conditions and low freshwater flow throughthe Everglades. The water diverted to these canalspreviously entered Florida Bay.

Wetlands Degradation. The destruction or filling ofwetlands causes increased stormwater runoff,increased turbidity at the land/water interface, and aloss of the aquatic values often associated withwetlands productivity. Mangrove removal causes adecrease in aquatic values as well.

Issue Summary . The Keys' economy is dependenton tourism and marine-related recreation. Accord-ingly, any measures that attempt to regulate eitherthe number of visitors or visitor use within the Sanc-tuary will have a profound impact on the localeconomy. In 1990, for example, half of the Keys'population held a job that directly or indirectly sup-ported outdoor recreation opportunities.

Overuse of popular areas, particularly the reef tract,is a primary concern. The increasing recreational useof these areas often leads to the depletion of thenatural resources that attract users. The cumulativeimpacts of these activities, and their severity, need tobe addressed to balance human uses and the qualityof the marine environment.

The Keys also offer a variety of significant culturaland historical resources, and many have beendesignated in the National Register of HistoricPlaces. Examples include the SAN JOSE shipwreck,Indian Key, Rock Mound Archaeological Site, theJohn Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, FortZachary Taylor, Sound Key Light House, and the DryTortugas National Park. Seven percent of all visitordays in the Keys are spent at archaeological orhistorical attractions, representing a significantvisitor-use issue that should be considered whenformulating strategies to manage marine-relatedresources.

Land Use

Land-use planning is either used to separate incom-patible uses from one another (e.g., residential usesfrom heavy industrial uses or airports), or to mitigatethe impacts of incompatible uses. Growth manage-ment ensures that public-sector capital improvementstrack the needs of developing areas. Increasingly,growth management has been used to curb develop-ment or alter its direction when it is perceived that theimpacts of growth will significantly effect acommunity's health, safety, or welfare. In recentyears, these terms have come to embody “quality oflife” and the importance of environmental as well asindividual health. Land-use planning and growthmanagement, therefore, are important issuesthroughout 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 arethose considered to have a primary effect onnearshore waters or marine resources as a result of

127


Stormwater Runoff. With the exception of the City ofKey West, stormwater is inadequately managedthroughout Monroe County. Stormwater impacts aresimilar to those of sewage effluent and nutrientloading. However, stormwater differs in salinity,degree of turbidity, and composition and/or propor-tion of the chemical and biological components.

Eutrophication. Canals near large numbers of septictanks, or receiving significant detrital loading, exhibithigh levels of nutrients, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, andlow dissolved oxygen levels, all of which contribute toeutrophication.

Algae. Algal “halos” may form around the mouths ofcanals as a result of epiphyte loading to adjacentseagrasses, or from the complete evolution ofadjacent communities to an algal community.

Solid Waste. Although landfills within Monroe Countyare not lined and do not limit groundwater contamina-tion, the impact of solid waste on Sanctuary re-sources remains unknown. The components oflandfill effluents are also unknown, but can beassumed to include nutrients, organics, syntheticorganics, and heavy metals. All four landfills inMonroe County are within 200 meters of tidal waters,and although leaching is possibly occurring, theimpact on habitats is unclear.

Mosquito Control. Mosquito spraying occurs on aseasonal basis, particularly during the rainy summerseason. The pesticides used generally have arelatively short half-life, but many still have someimpact due to aerial spraying or salt pond siteapplication.

Species Impacts . There is no direct evidence thatupland land-use patterns have significantly reducedspecies abundance or diversity. However, isolatedareas, particularly canals and other confined watershave been impacted. In these areas, certain types ofalgae can dominate, and during periods of extremesummer heat fish kills have occurred. Wildlife distur-bances, particularly of shore and wading birds, havealso occurred as a result of land-use activities,although most are related to recreational boating inbackcountry areas.

Most permitted dredge and fill activities in the regionoccur at or above the mean high-water level. Directimpacts are obvious, and include the destruction ofbenthic marine communities. Although the extent ofthe impacts from mosquito-control measures isunknown, seasonal pesticide application may affectthe health of larval fish and crustaceans.

Dredge and Fill Activities. Dredge and fill activitiesare currently limited in the Keys, and most permitteddredging is for the maintenance of existing andpreviously permitted projects. Previous dredgingactivities, that are no longer permitted, led to thecreation of significant canals and basins that havelittle flushing ability and have become sediment andnutrient sinks for debris, dead seagrass, and sewageeffluents.

Sewage Treatment. Sewage treatment techniques inthe Keys fall into three major categories: 1) central-ized treatment on both large and small scales;2) individual anaerobic treatment units that dischargeeither to boreholes or drain fields; and 3) septic tanksthat discharge directly to drain fields. There are alsoapproximately 5,000 cesspits in the Keys (EPA,1992). The Key West Sewage Treatment Plant,which serves approximately 12,000 residential andcommercial operators, discharges through onenearshore outfall. Between 25,000 and 30,000residential units throughout Monroe County areserved by septic tanks. Approximately 300 residentialand commercial facilities are served by small-scalecentralized treatment units, and another 300 areserved by individual aerobic units (EPA, 1992).

The impact of these treatment facilities varies bydischarge location. In addition, the impacts of effluentnutrient loading, either through groundwater or directdischarge to nearshore waters, are related to theextent that groundwaters interface with nearshorewaters, and the degree of flushing experienced bynearshore receiving waters. The result is a potentialshift in benthic species composition and the possibleeutrophication of receiving waters.

Nearshore waters are most significantly impacted inconfined areas. Canals and basins, which are deeperthan adjacent receiving waters and tend to faceprevailing winds, are of particular concern becausethey collect floating detritus or may be so circuitousthat adequate flushing cannot occur. Far-field im-pacts can also occur, but are often more subtle thannearshore impacts, and more difficult to observe anddefine.

In general, nutrients entering the Keys’ nearshorewaters from adjacent land areas can have an impactas they cycle through the ecosystem. Water tends tomove southward through the natural passes betweenthe islands, toward the reef tract in the Atlantic.Although nutrients often move from their source,there is currently no conclusive evidence that de-clines in coral cover on the reef tract are directlylinked to land use.

128


of factors, including the input of pollutants intoestuarine and marine environments, physical pro-cesses, and the alteration of historic drainagepatterns.

Pollutant inputs affecting water quality are the resultof land- and water-related human activity, as well asnatural processes. Pollution may originate within theSanctuary or may be transported from externalsources via regional ocean circulation or atmosphericdeposition. Within the Keys, pollutant inputs resultfrom both point and nonpoint sources. Point sourcesare defined as end-of-pipe sources that dischargedirectly to surface waters. Wastewater treatmentplants (WWTPs), industrial plants, water supplyplants, and power plants are examples of pointsources. In the Keys, there are currently 19 facilitiesactively discharging, 10 of which are WWTPs. Thelargest of these is the Key West sewage treatmentplant, which has a 10 million gallon per day capacity(EPA, 1992). Other sources discharging to Sanctuarywaters include the C-111 Canal and Model LandCanal which empty into Barnes and Card sounds,respectively. These canals are part of the SouthFlorida Water Management District’s control struc-tures, and are operated for water supply and flood-control purposes.

Nonpoint sources, including surface runoff andgroundwater inputs, can affect nutrient and otherconstituent concentrations within the water column,and are directly affected by land use, soil type, andrainfall. Groundwater quality within the Keys isaffected by the 670 injection wells and 30,000 septictanks and cesspits, whose relative proximity to thesurface can impact marine waters near the shoreline.Additionally, marinas, live-aboards, and boatscontribute to nonpoint pollution through maintenanceand refueling activities, and wastewater and bilgedischarges.

External pollution sources are defined as thoseoutside the immediate area which, via regional oceancirculation or atmospheric deposition, affect theSanctuary’s water quality. Examples include ex-changes with Florida and Biscayne bays, and, in abroader context, the marine waters of Florida'ssouthwest continental shelf, as potentially affected byhuman activities within the eastern portion of the Gulfof Mexico. Florida Bay has experienced recent andsignificant declines in seagrasses, an increase inproblematic algal conditions, and a general decline inwater quality. Although the impacts resulting fromhuman activities are unclear, indirect evidence

Use and User Impacts . Since Sanctuary userstypically participate in water-based activities, land-use activities have little or no impact on their ability toenjoy their pursuits. However, the issue of shoresidedevelopment has been raised by those concernedwith the aesthetics of the natural environment.

Water Quality Impacts. Although currents and waterflow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico to theAtlantic Ocean are understood, little is known aboutthe mass loadings of nutrients and other inputs fromthe upland areas of the Keys, the Everglades, orSouth Florida. This is true of both existing andhistoric inputs. However, reductions in historic waterflows in the Everglades, the addition of fertilizers andpesticides, 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 in-creased short-term turbidity, changes in current andwater-flow patterns, and turbidity increases in areasof minimal water movement.

Issue Summary. As development has occurred inthe Keys, and as growth management has been usedto direct it, significant land-use impacts have beenidentified. These include the destruction of uplandand wetland areas for the placement of infrastructureand associated development, and the direct impactsof inadequately controlled sewage and stormwaterrunoff that result from that growth.

All types of development can be assumed to haveboth direct and indirect impacts on the Sanctuary.Development has an impact on groundwaters, eitherthrough stormwater drainage or sewage effluents.Development can also have a direct influence ifstormwater facilities are not in place, or if an existingfacility reaches capacity and either fails or overflows.All of these potential impacts must be considered aspart of a land-use management plan for the Sanctu-ary.

Water Quality

Water quality is affected by both natural and man-made influences, and is traditionally described basedon compliance with existing standards. Such stan-dards typically address an environment’s biologicaloxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, dis-solved oxygen, fecal coliform, and chlorine residuallevels. In the context of resource protection, however,water quality requires the consideration of tempera-ture, salinity, light, nutrients, and toxics. In the Keys,these parameters are directly influenced by a variety

129


suggests that changes in the quantity, timing, andquality of freshwater delivered to Florida Bay haveprecipitated these declines (EPA, 1992).

Other pollutant sources within the Sanctuary includethe ocean dumping of glass, wood, paper products,and other hazardous materials by commercialshipping operations. A major oil or chemical spillcould cause catastrophic water quality problems.Although the Keys have never experienced a majorspill, small spills from refueling activities degradewater quality on a daily basis.

Major water quality impacts are defined as conditionshaving persistent and deleterious effects on marineresources (e.g., die-offs or declines, communityalterations, reductions in recruitment success), andexhibit observable, widespread trends. Minor impactsare those lacking persistence and/or occurring over avery limited area. Direct impacts involve cases wherethe pollutant source can be identified. Indirectimpacts occur when natural processes/factors alter orcombine with a pollutant source, altering thepollutant's effect(s) on a Sanctuary resource. Anexample of an indirect water quality impact would becirculation changes that concentrate, dilute, or flush apollutant input.

Habitat Impacts.

Loss of Seagrass. The seagrass beds of SouthFlorida, including those of Florida Bay and along thereef tract, cover an estimated 5,500 km2. In thesummer of 1987, a massive seagrass die-off oc-curred in Florida Bay, resulting in the loss of over4,000 ha (EPA, 1992). Information suggests that thedie-off occurred in response to a combination ofambient conditions that inhibited the sustainability ofthe seagrass community. The susceptibility toincreased organic loadings from domestic wastes inartificial waterways and dead-end canals within theKeys also resulted in seagrass losses.

Loss of Coral/Hardbottom. Both natural and human-induced factors have affected the Sanctuary's coraland hardbottom communities. Stresses include:disease; pollution; algal fouling and smothering;sedimentation; temperature extremes; salinityvariations; decreases in water clarity; and physicaldamage. Even minor changes in water temperature,nutrient levels, or salinity caused by the quality ofwaters surrounding the Sanctuary can impact coralrecruitment and development.

Mangrove Communities. Mangrove communities playa significant role in stabilizing the shoreline andpreventing erosion. Although little is known concern-ing recent mangrove die-offs, there appears to be arough spatial correlation with adjacent areas of highsalinity in Florida Bay. Pore water salinity concentra-tions of up to 150 ppt have been recorded in thehigher relief mangroves where the die-offs have beenconcentrated (EPA, 1992).

Species Impacts. Extremes in temperature, salinity,algal productivity and/or dissolved oxygen have beenassociated with periodic fish kills, coral bleaching,and seagrass and sponge die-offs. Seasonal ex-tremes can affect species tolerances at both ends ofthe survival range. For example, winter cold frontscan dramatically decrease water temperatures inFlorida Bay, and subsequently affect adjacent reefenvironments when wind-induced transport forceswaters through the major tidal passes of the MiddleKeys. In addition, summer temperatures and calmwinds have resulted in biologically stressed oxygenconditions, and have been associated with seagrassdie-offs and fish kills.

Use and User Impacts. The Keys' major industry istourism. The biggest attraction for these tourists isthe marine environment surrounding the Keys. Aswater quality declines, so does the ability of theregion to draw tourists. A drastic reduction innearshore water quality and the loss of the live coralreef could cause a decline in Monroe County's touristand real estate industries.

Issue Summary. Recent declines in coral recruit-ment, increases in the frequency of fish kills, andseagrass die-offs are the result of declines in Sanctu-ary water quality. Preserving and improving theregion's water quality is essential to maintaining therichness and diversity of its natural resource base.

Management Strategies

Management strategies are the foundation for the setof actions that will be implemented through theManagement Plan. They set out a conceptual coursefor dealing with management issues, and detail theconditions that must be fulfilled to successfullyaddress specific problems. A strategy must containcertain elements to be practical to management,including information on costs, schedules, respon-

130


sible institutions, prerequisites, financing, regulatoryrequirements, staffing and other resource require-ments, and the geographic extent of the action thatwill be implemented.

The process used to develop this Management Planhas been described as "back-to-front," in that somemanagement activities are proposed before theinformation needed to fully evaluate their impacts isavailable. The data collection and detailed analysisrequired prior to implementing these activities willoccur as part of the continuous management pro-cess. One of the keys to ensuring the success of thisprocess was the development of strategy descrip-tions that provided an "operational level" of detail.This detail provides planners with a realistic picture ofthe steps required to fully implement a strategy. Thedetailed descriptions of these strategies (includingtheir component activities) are the foundation of the"action plans" that have been developed as part ofthe Preferred Alternative.

The Strategy Development Process

The strategy development process was baseddirectly on the management issues identified. Thefirst work session focusing on strategy developmentwas held in February 1992 in Marathon, Florida. Thissession was designed to: 1) develop a list of strate-gies from which management alternatives could bedeveloped; 2) describe the strategies in enoughdetail to enable planners to judge their effectivenessand feasibility; and 3) characterize the potentialimpacts of a subset of the strategies (e.g., high-priority strategies) on users and the environment.

NOAA and its planning partners organized a four-daywork session and invited Federal, State, and localmanagers and scientists with expertise and/orexperience in the Keys. Agencies with Sanctuarymanagement interests added participants to the list,and the public was invited to attend in an observercapacity. Participants were asked to list, describe,and characterize management strategies or actionsthat could be used to meet the objectives of theFKNMSPA, the Act designating the Sanctuary. Astructured process was developed to obtain theinformation required to proceed in the managementplan development process. A detailed description ofthis work session is available in the technical docu-ment Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryManagement Plan: Management Strategy Identifica-tion and Description Workbook (May, 1992). Thefollowing is a summary of the session.

Prerequisite materials developed for the sessionincluded forms for recording information, packagesexplaining the process to be used, and backgroundmaterials to help stimulate the development ofmanagement strategies. The last item helped partici-pants focus more clearly on the management issuesand provided important information on Sanctuary-related problems identified at previous workshops.The issue-oriented approach was critical to obtainingthe best information from the participants. Additionalmaterials provided to each issue/strategy groupincluded summaries of the zoning, mooring buoy,education, and research workshops conducted byNOAA and others; draft text of the "Description of theAffected Environment" chapter of this Plan; and drafttext of the Phase 1, Water Quality Protection Pro-gram document produced for EPA and the State ofFlorida (EPA, 1992).

A "knowledge-engineering" approach was used togather information at the session. Knowledge-engineering is a technique that applies organizationand structure to the process of directing, acquiring,and encoding what is known about a subject orproblem. This approach made the maximum use ofthe existing knowledge and experience base toidentify, characterize, and assess the range ofmanagement strategies or actions that could be usedto address the issues identified at the scopingmeetings.

The session was composed of two separate parts.Part 1, "Strategy Identification and Description,"involved a set of issue-group sessions where partici-pants were asked to identify and describe possiblemanagement strategies. In Part 2, "Strategy Charac-terization," participants were asked to describe theimpacts the strategies might have if implemented.

Strategy Identification and Description . Partici-pants were first assigned to two of six issue groups.In Round 1, these groups completed the first fivesteps of the strategy identification and descriptionprocess (Figure 24). In Round 2, participants movedto their second issue group and completed steps sixthrough 11. Two rounds were conducted to ensurethat strategies were reviewed by more than onegroup and that a wide range of ideas was generated.A sample of a completed strategy description sheet isincluded in Appendix E in Volume III. Participants ineach issue group conducted a priority evaluation atthe end of the strategy identification and descriptionsession. Strategies were classified as either high,medium, or low priority. Approximately 150 strategieswere considered high priority by the participants.

131


Round 1Step 1 - List strategies. Participants in each of the six

issue groups were asked to list strategiesthat should be considered to address theirissue. Each group listed at least 30 strate-gies.

Step 2 - Assign strategies to individuals. Eachstrategy was assigned to an individual(usually the person who proposed it) todescribe.

Step 3 - Review example strategy description asgroup. The facilitator used an overheadtransparency to describe how to complete thestrategy description sheet.

Step 4 - Individuals describe/define strategies indetail. Participants completed descriptionsheets for their assigned strategies.

Step 5 - Revise strategy descriptions as group. Eachsheet was presented to the issue group onan overhead transparency. The sheets wererevised by the group.

Participants then moved to their secondary issuegroup and followed steps 6 through 11.

Round 2Step 6 - Review list of strategies from first group.

Participants were asked to examine the list ofpreviously developed strategies.

Step 7 - Identify new strategies. After reviewing thelist, participants suggested new strategies.

Step 8 - Assign new strategies to individuals. Eachnew strategy on the list was assigned to anindividual for description.

Step 9 - Individuals describe/define strategies indetail. Participants completed strategydescription sheets for their assigned strate-gies.

Step 10 -Revise all strategy descriptions as group.Each strategy description sheet was pre-sented to the group on an overhead transpar-ency. The sheets were revised by the group.

Step 11- Prioritize strategies. Strategies wereprioritized as high, medium, or low based onthe consensus of the group.

Figure 24. Part 1: Strategy Identification and Description

Strategy Characterization . For the characterizationsessions, participants were divided into groupsfocusing on the themes of habitats, species, use andusers, and water quality, and followed the stepsshown in Figure 25. Because of the large number ofstrategies developed at the session (almost 300),only the high-priority strategies were characterized.For each strategy, impacts were characterized bothspatially and temporally as either high, medium, orlow. The impact categories reviewed by each groupare shown in Table 17. Impacts were characterized intwo spatial categories: those occurring in a specificarea and those occurring Sanctuary wide. Strategiescould have either a positive or negative impact ineach of the categories. The potential impacts ofstrategies were also evaluated based on currenteffects (within the next two years) and future effects(more than two years after implementation). Astrategy could have no impact in some of thesecategories. The process was designed to ensure theconsistency of characterizations by having the samegroup of participants examine the same theme for allstrategies. The sheets used to record the characteris-tics also had room for notes and assumptions.Appendix F in Volume III contains a sample strategycharacterization sheet.

Participants. The session's participants wereselected from Federal, State, and local agencies withmanagement responsibilities in the Keys. They werechosen based on their knowledge of the local andregional issues related to the Sanctuary and theirexpertise regarding the establishment and mainte-nance of resource-management programs. A list ofthe participants and their organizational affiliationsappears in Appendix B in Volume III.

Products. The products generated during thesession were designed to provide Federal, State, andlocal planners with enough information to makereasonable decisions about the range of possiblemanagement strategies, the potential impacts ofthese strategies, and preliminary ideas regardinghow to package strategies into management alterna-tives.

The primary product developed was the set ofstrategy description sheets. These sheets were usedto record the initial thoughts of the participants on themost important temporal, spatial, and additionalattributes of each strategy. Not all of the descriptionsheets were completed at the same level of detail, assome strategies proved to be prerequisites for others.For example, a strategy to research the effects ofboating, diving, and other activities on Sanctuary

132


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 strategyestablishing carrying capacities is developed.

Another product resulting from the work session wasthe set of impact characterizations for all high-prioritystrategies. The symbols on these characterizationsheets were designed to emphasize desirable(positive) versus undesirable (negative) impacts.

Post-Work Session Activities. All strategies wereentered into a data base, and a list of strategiesorganized by issue and priority was produced. Inaddition, redundant strategies were combined intonew strategies and characterized; strategy descrip-tion sheets were edited for clarity; tables summariz-ing strategy characterizations were developed; andissue statements were revised and abbreviated.

The 273 original strategies were reviewed and, wheresignificantly similar, combined into new strategies.Redundancy was anticipated because of the overlapamong issues. Also, while participants were asked tofocus on the issue for their group, they were notprohibited from proposing strategies related to othergroups.

Twenty-eight new strategies were created by combin-ing 62 originally formulated at the work session.Based on the priority levels assigned to the originalstrategies, 26 of the new strategies were ranked ashigh priority and two as medium priority. If any of theoriginal strategies that were included in the newstrategy were classified as high priority, the newstrategy was also labeled as high priority.

Other Strategy Sources. The Sanctuary AdvisoryCouncil Strategy Work Session, held in June 1992 inKey Largo, provided another source of managementstrategies and revisions. At this session, the Councilreviewed the proposed strategies and commented onhow they could be improved. They also identifiedissues that had not been addressed in the existingstrategies. The session resulted in the adoption orrevision of 47 new management strategies.

Because the strategy development process wasiterative, strategies were continually revised andrefined as comments were received from the CoreGroup, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, NGOs, andthe public. This allowed NOAA to integrate the mostcurrent and wide-ranging ideas into the strategieswhile the Management Plan development processevolved. It also required NOAA to remain flexible tostrategy modification as new information becameavailable, and reinforced the fact that this flexibilitymust be part of the continuous management process,following the implementation of the ManagementPlan. A table tracking the development of strategiesappears in Appendix I in Volume III of the DEIS/MP.

Management Alternatives

This section describes the development of a series ofmanagement alternatives and the placement ofstrategies into these alternatives, each of which has adifferent thrust with respect to resource protectionand user impacts. The development and consider-ation of a series of management alternatives arerequired by the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) as part of the Sanctuary’s environmentalimpact assessment process. A preferred alternativeis selected from these alternatives for implementa-

Step 1 - Develop characterization criteria. Each groupwas asked to develop criteria that would beused to characterize the impacts eachstrategy might have on their theme (habitats,species, etc.). These criteria concerned whatimpacts would be considered negative andpositive and what degree of impact wouldlead to a high, medium, or low "priority rating."

Step 2 - Characterize all high-priority strategies. Eachgroup characterized the impacts of all of thehigh-priority strategies with regards to theirtheme. These characterizations includedboth spatial and temporal attributes, andbecame the raw material for the characteriza-tion matrices.

133


tion. In previous sanctuary planning processes,alternatives have been based on variations of thesanctuary boundary. However, a much more detailedand comprehensive approach was taken in develop-ing the management alternatives for the Florida KeysSanctuary.

Management Alternatives Development

Management alternatives were developed by theCore Group during several work sessions designedto define the most appropriate level and scope ofSanctuary management. Input was also receivedfrom of a number of public and private interestsincluding (but not limited to) departments and agen-cies within the Federal, State of Florida, and MonroeCounty governments; national, state, and localnongovernmental groups; industry and trade groups;the Sanctuary Advisory Council; and the citizens ofMonroe County.

The interagency Core Group first met to identify asuitable number of alternatives. They were dividedinto three groups and asked to develop four to eightdifferent alternatives, and describe their generalobjectives and thrusts. Standard terminology wasestablished by each group to describe managementalternatives consistently. Draft alternatives werereviewed in plenary, and similar alternatives werecombined. Initially, six alternatives were considered,ranging from "No Action" to the most restrictive ofuses of Sanctuary resources, including a "leastadministrative cost" alternative. Further discussionand refinements determined that the least administra-tive cost alternative should be eliminated, since itwas essentially the same as "No Action."

The five remaining alternatives represent differentlevels of regulatory control over Sanctuary resourcesand restriction of uses, with Alternative I the mostrestrictive and Alternative V (No Action) the leastrestrictive. Generally, strategies are not exclusive toany management alternative. That is, most of themanagement strategies in Alternative IV are also inAlternatives III and II, but are augmented withaccelerated implementation schedules, and/orinclude additional restrictions. The thrust and scopeof each alternative is described below.

Alternative IAlternative I represents the most resource conserva-tion at the expense of Sanctuary use and access. Itwould ensure ecosystem protection by prohibitingnearly all traditional uses (all consumptive uses) ofSanctuary resources, and by imposing strict water

quality standards. Only research activities would bepermitted in Sanctuary waters under this alternative.While Alternative I would meet the goals of theFKNMSPA regarding resource protection, it wouldnot adequately balance the high level of protectionwith the restrictions on current and future users. Forexample, a strategy included in this alternative mightban the harvest of all resources within the Sanctuary,significantly impacting users. Another strategy thatmight appear in this alternative would ban diving andsnorkeling activities on most reefs, if not throughoutthe Sanctuary. This action would also have anunreasonable impact on users and the economy ofthe Keys. Accordingly, Alternative I is neither apractical nor a desirable management alternative.

Alternative IIAlternative II represents a resource conservationapproach that facilitates access and use of theSanctuary. It would ensure a high degree of ecosys-tem protection through extensive regulations prohibit-ing or limiting many traditional resource uses withinthe Sanctuary, using zoning and other techniques,and by improving water quality. Alternative II meetsthe goals of the Act regarding resource protectionwithout imposing the significant impacts on currentand future users seen in Alternative I. That is, underAlternative II, most traditional uses of the Sanctuarycould continue, but in some cases there would bespatial and/or temporal modifications (i.e., areal andseasonal restrictions through zoning) regardingwhere these uses may occur. Land-use activitiesimpacting Sanctuary waters would be minimizedunder this alternative.

Alternative IIIAlternative III represents a more traditional approachto Sanctuary use and access than either AlternativesI or II. It would ensure a higher degree of ecosystemprotection than currently in place by prohibiting orlimiting some traditional uses through zoning andother techniques, and by improving water quality.Like Alternatives I and II, Alternative III meets thegoals of the Act regarding resource protection, butwould not have as significant an impact on currentand future users. This alternative maintains manytraditional Sanctuary uses, but some areal and/orseasonal modifications would be required.

Alternative IVAlternative IV represents the least restrictive of themid-range approaches to Sanctuary use and access.It is designed to ensure some degree of ecosystemprotection through zoning and other techniques, and

134


Management zones help protect areas from resource degrada-tion, can be used to separate incompatible uses, and facilitateresearch and education by establishing special locations forthese activities. Zoning was specifically identified in theFKNMSPA as a means of achieving environmental protection,and comments were received as early as the scoping meetingsregarding the benefits of zoning to protect the Sanctuary’sresources.

Because of its importance, zoning has received at least asmuch attention as any other component of the ManagementPlan. Its role in the success of the Sanctuary, and the publicinterest it has generated, prompted the Core Group to work withthe Sanctuary Advisory Council and its constituent groups in aclose and coordinated manner uncommon in sanctuary planningprocesses.

The process used to develop the zoning plan was similar to thatused for other action plans, up to the drafting of the strategydescriptions. The issue statements helped frame the problem. Aseries of five zoning workshops were held with different interestgroups to formulate a preliminary list of zone types. TheAdvisory Council further refined the zone types. The CoreGroup then developed strategy descriptions for each zone type.Once these descriptions were developed, a variety of issues stillhad to be considered, including how areas already beingmanaged would be zoned, and where the new zones would beplaced.

Based on further discussions, an Existing Management Areasstrategy was developed to recognize the areas already underspecial resource management regimes. It was also determinedthat Special-use Areas would be used to achieve particularmanagement objectives, including facilitating the recovery andrestoration of damaged Sanctuary resources, accommodatingactivities not normally permitted in the Sanctuary, providingresearch and education opportunities, and providing for specificaccess to resources in a manner that avoids user conflicts.

Originally, Wildlife Management Areas only included those siteslisted in the FWS Backcountry Plan for the Lower Keys.However, the Core Group added sites in the Middle and UpperKeys during their October 1992 meeting. At their December1992 meeting, the Advisory Council added more sites andpresented NOAA with recommendations on how these siteswould best fit into the three mid-range management alterna-tives.

First drafts of Sanctuary Preservation Areas and ReplenishmentReserves were mapped by the Sanctuary planning staff inMarathon. The Core Group then modified this material,establishing the starting point for a more deliberate set of worksessions with the Advisory Council.

The first of these sessions, held in December 1992, focused onthe general areas to be included in a recommendation from theCouncil. The public was encouraged to attend these sessions,and to provide comments on how they believed they would beaffected by the types of zones and proposed locations. This listof zone types and locations was based on all sites identified inAlternatives II, III, and IV. Because of the lack of detailed dataon the proposed sites, the Council formed a subcommittee toexamine these zones further, and asked NOAA to provide themwith a process and the information necessary to conduct a more

objective analysis of the zoning alternatives. This request led tothe next set of work sessions.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council’s subcommittee met with NOAAin February 1993 to: 1) develop criteria for selecting SanctuaryPreservation Areas (SPAs) and Replenishment Reserves; 2)apply the criteria to the areas proposed by the Core Group; and3) develop a subset of zones to be examined further. Thecriteria used to select areas for consideration as proposed SPAsincluded: protection of representative critical/rare habitats; thelong-term impacts on areas of critical economic value; waterquality; accessibility by user groups; areas where user conflictsare minimized; research potential; and geographic distribution inthe Sanctuary. The criteria used for Replenishment Reservesincluded consideration of level of habitat and species diversityrepresentative of the Keys' ecosystem; ownership of nearbywaterfront property; water quality; existing Sanctuary manage-ment areas; areas within the Sanctuary with proposed restric-tions; management of adjacent areas; socioeconomic impact ondisplaced user groups; environmental and socioeconomicimpacts on other areas from displacing existing users; sufficientsize to include a range of habitats; and the long-term impactsfrom establishing Replenishment Reserves in areas of criticaleconomic value.

Working in coordination with their constituents, the subcommit-tee reviewed benthic habitat maps, maps and information onactivities and use levels, and high-resolution aerial photographycovering the subset of proposed zones. This information wasused to draw preliminary boundaries on nautical charts and theaerial photographs. The subcommittee also visited severallocations in the Upper Keys to examine the amount of resourceprotection provided by the proposed zones, to evaluate the sizeof 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 bythe subcommittee and supplied descriptions of how each zonemet the criteria, maps of the proposed boundaries, and data onthe size of each area and the percentage of the Sanctuary thatwould be included. The subcommittee then reviewed thesematerials with their constituent groups.

The subcommittee met again in late February 1993 to make finaladjustments to zone boundaries and to present their proposal tothe public and the full Sanctuary Advisory Council. NOAAprovided aerial photography and nautical charts delineating thezones proposed by the subcommittee, as well as the zonesproposed by the Core Group for Alternatives IV and II, to helpthe Advisory Council in their deliberations. The Council voted onthe subcommittee’s proposal and recommended that 19 SPAs,four "research-only" SPAs, two Replenishment Reserves, andone "Special-use" Replenishment Reserve be included inAlternative III. NOAA and the Core Group reviewed theCouncil’s recommendation, and used their expertise to modifyand refine zoning proposals for Alternatives IV and II. NOAAlater reclassified the "research-only" SPAs as Special-useAreas. Finally, pursuant to Section 304 (a)(5) of the NMSA, theSouth Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councilswere consulted on these zoning alternatives

Figures 27-29 are maps of the proposed zones included in eachof the mid-range alternatives. Detailed maps of the proposedzones in the Preferred Alternative appear in the Zoning ActionPlan in Volume I.

Zoning: An Illustration of the Strategy and Management Alternatives Development Process

135


by improving water quality. Alternative IV meets thegoals of the Act regarding resource protection, butwould not have as significant a positive impact onhabitats, species, or water quality as either Alterna-tives II or III. It would not impact current or futureusers as significantly as Alternatives I through III.Almost all traditional Sanctuary uses would continue,but some areal and/or seasonal modifications wouldbe required.

Alternative VAlternative V represents no modification of currentSanctuary use and access policies. This is commonlyreferred to as the "no action" alternative. No addi-tional regulations, education, administrative actions,research, or economic incentives would be proposedto improve the condition of the Sanctuary or thequality of user experiences. The alternative would notensure an increase in ecosystem protection, andwould not restrict Sanctuary users from any tradi-tional activities. Alternative V does not meet the goalsof the Act regarding resource protection. It wouldhave no positive impacts on habitats, species, waterquality, or user conflicts. In addition, maintainingcurrent policies would pose significant long-termthreats to resources throughout the Sanctuary.

These alternatives contain the full set of proposedstrategies for Sanctuary management to ensure thatthe goals and intent of the FKNMSPA are met.Actions within these strategies cover activities onland and water and cross many governmentaljurisdictions. It is clear that no single agency (whetherFederal, State, or local) has the regulatory authorityor resources to implement all of these actions. Thespecific actions that make up alternatives are de-scribed in detail elsewhere in this document.

Placing Strategies into Alternatives

The first step in placing strategies into alternativeswas to identify and describe how each alternativemight address the issues and affect species, habi-tats, use/users, and water quality. A summary matrixwas developed for each alternative. Next, eachactivity/effect was assigned a proposed action fromthe list of strategies that would meet the objectives.Thus, the proposed strategies were assigned toalternatives. This also provided an opportunity toidentify actions for which no strategy had beendeveloped.

Base Strategies. The Core Group felt that a subsetof the proposed strategies was essential to theprotection of Sanctuary resources regardless ofwhich alternative, other than Alternative V, waschosen. These were termed "base" strategies. Oncethey were identified, the Core Group moved on tograding the remaining alternatives.

Grading Strategies across Alternatives. Gradingthe remaining strategies across alternatives wasnecessary to provide for a range of resource protec-tion and use restrictions, and to ensure comprehen-sive management through zoning where the zonescould be modified as necessary to appropriatelymanage resources and address user conflicts. Theiterative planning process resulted in a revised set ofalternatives (based on refinements in strategies). Thestrategies included in the three mid-range alterna-tives appear in Table 18. Appendix G in Volume IIIalso contains a complete list of the strategies in eachof the three mid-range alternatives. A description ofhow the alternatives were evaluated and compared inorder to select the Preferred Alternative appears laterin this volume.

136

Development of Management AlternativesF

igur

e 26

. Zon

ing

Sch

eme

for

Alte

rnat

ive

IV

25 K

ilom

eter

s81

°00'

83°0

0'82

°00'

25°0

0' N

1. S

awye

r Key

s2.

Eas

t Har

bor K

ey

3. L

ittle

Mul

let K

ey4.

Upp

er H

arbo

r Key

5. L

ittle

Cra

ne K

ey6.

Boc

a G

rand

e K

ey

7. W

oman

Key

8. H

orse

shoe

Key

9. C

ottre

ll K

ey10

. Mar

ques

as K

eys

11. S

nipe

Key

s12

. Mud

Key

s

13. B

ig M

ulle

t Key

14. T

idal

flat

sou

th o

f Mar

vin

Key

15. W

est C

onte

nt K

eys

16. E

ast C

onte

nt K

eys

17. B

ay K

eys

18. L

ower

Har

bor K

eys

19. C

ayo

Agu

a K

eys

Wild

life

Man

agem

ent A

reas

Rep

leni

shm

ent R

eser

ves

(a)

San

ctua

ry P

rese

rvat

ion

Are

as (b

)S

peci

al-u

se A

reas

(c)

Zone

Typ

e

Not

e: D

raft

Bou

ndar

ies—

desi

gnat

ed b

ound

arie

s w

ill re

quire

Key

La

rgo

(a)

Car

ysfo

rt/

Sou

th

Car

ysfo

rt (

b)

Dry

Roc

ks (

b)

Gre

cian

Roc

ks (

b)

Mol

asse

s R

eef

(b)

Con

ch R

eef

(c)

Con

ch R

eef

(b)

Hen

and

Chi

cken

s (b

)

Che

eca

Roc

ks (

b)

Allig

ator

Ree

f (b

)

Dry

Tor

tuga

s (a

)S

ombr

ero

Key

(b)

New

foun

d H

arbo

r (b

)

Looe

Key

(c)

Sam

bos

(a)

Pel

ican

Sho

al (

c)

Wes

tern

Sam

bo (

b)S

and

Key

(b)

Looe

Key

(b)

84

1615 5

1

1411

12

171918

2

39

13

67

101010

Ten

ness

ee R

eef

(c)

grou

ndtru

thin

g.

24°3

0'

25°0

0'

25°3

0'

137


Fig

ure

27. Z

onin

g S

chem

e fo

r A

ltern

ativ

e III

25 K

ilom

eter

s81

°00'

83°0

0'82

°00'

N

1. S

awye

r Key

s

2. E

ast H

arbo

r Key

3. L

ittle

Mul

let K

ey

4. U

pper

Har

bor K

ey5.

Litt

le C

rane

Key

6. B

oca

Gra

nde

Key

7. W

oman

Key

8. H

orse

shoe

Key

9. C

ottre

ll K

ey

10. M

arqu

esas

Key

s11

. Sni

pe K

eys

12. M

ud K

eys

13. B

ig M

ulle

t Key

20. P

elic

an S

hoal

21. C

roco

dile

Lak

e22

. Rod

rigue

z K

ey

23. T

aver

nier

Key

24. S

nake

Cre

ek

25. C

otto

n K

ey26

. Dov

e K

ey

Wild

life

Man

agem

ent A

reas

Rep

leni

shm

ent R

eser

ves

(a)

San

ctua

ry P

rese

rvat

ion

Are

as (b

)

Spe

cial

-use

Are

as (c

)

Zone

Typ

e

14. T

idal

flat

sou

th o

f Mar

vin

Key

15. W

est C

onte

nt K

eys

16. E

ast C

onte

nt K

eys

17. B

ay K

eys

18. L

ower

Har

bor K

eys

19. C

ayo

Agu

a K

eys

Not

e: D

raft

Bou

ndar

ies—

desi

gnat

ed b

ound

arie

s w

ill re

quire

Key

La

rgo

(a)

Car

ysfo

rt/

Sou

th

Car

ysfo

rt (

b)

The

Elb

ow (

b)

Dry

Roc

ks (

b)

Gre

cian

Roc

ks (

b)

Fre

nch

Ree

f (b

)

Mol

asse

s R

eef

(b)

Con

ch R

eef

(b)

Con

ch R

eef

(c)

Hen

and

Chi

cken

s (b

)D

avis

Ree

f (b

)

Che

eca

Roc

ks (

b)

Allig

ator

Ree

f (b

)

Ten

ness

ee R

eef

(c)

Dry

Tor

tuga

s (a

)

Cof

fins

Pat

ch (

b)

Som

brer

o K

ey (

b)

New

foun

d H

arbo

r (b

)

Looe

Key

(c)

Sam

bos

(a)

Pel

ican

Sho

al (

c)

Wes

tern

Sam

bo (

b)

Looe

Key

(b)

21

2226

23

24

25

8

20

416

15 51

1411

12

17

19

182

39

13

67

101010

grou

ndtru

thin

g.

Roc

k K

ey (

b)E

aste

rn D

ry R

ocks

(b)

San

d K

ey (

b)

24°3

0'

25°0

0'

25°3

0'

138

Development of Management AlternativesF

igur

e 28

. Zon

ing

Sch

eme

for

Alte

rnat

ive

II

25 K

ilom

eter

s81

°00'

83°0

0'82

°00'

N

1. S

awye

r Key

s2.

Eas

t Har

bor K

ey

3. L

ittle

Mul

let K

ey4.

Upp

er H

arbo

r Key

5. L

ittle

Cra

ne K

ey6.

Boc

a G

rand

e K

ey

7. W

oman

Key

8. H

orse

shoe

Key

9. C

ottre

ll K

ey10

. Mar

ques

as K

eys

11. S

nipe

Key

s12

. Mud

Key

s

13. B

ig M

ulle

t Key

20. P

elic

an S

hoal

21. C

roco

dile

Lak

e

22. R

odrig

uez

Key

23. T

aver

nier

Key

24. S

nake

Cre

ek25

. Cot

ton

Key

26. D

ove

Key

27. S

awye

r Key

Fla

ts S

outh

wes

t

28. H

orse

shoe

Key

/Man

grov

e K

ey29

. Mar

ques

as K

eys

30. S

outh

wes

t Mud

Key

s31

. Fla

ts w

est o

f Bay

Key

s

32. L

ittle

Spa

nish

Key

Man

grov

e

Wild

life

Man

agem

ent A

reas

Rep

leni

shm

ent R

eser

ves

(a)

San

ctua

ry P

rese

rvat

ion

Are

as (b

)S

peci

al-u

se A

reas

(c)

Zone

Typ

e

14. T

idal

flat

sou

th o

f Mar

vin

Key

15. W

est C

onte

nt K

eys

16. E

ast C

onte

nt K

eys

17. B

ay K

eys

18. L

ower

Har

bor K

eys

19. C

ayo

Agu

a K

eys

33. C

utoe

Key

34. N

orth

Pin

e C

hann

el F

lats

35. B

arra

cuda

Key

36. M

an K

ey37

. Eas

t Bah

ia H

onda

Key

Not

e: D

raft

Bou

ndar

ies—

desi

gnat

ed b

ound

arie

s w

ill re

quire

Key

La

rgo

(a)

Car

ysfo

rt/

Sou

th

Car

ysfo

rt (

b)

The

Elb

ow (

b)

Dry

Roc

ks (

b)

Gre

cian

Roc

ks (

b)

Fre

nch

Ree

f (b

)

Mol

asse

s R

eef

(b)

Con

ch R

eef

(c)

Con

ch R

eef

(b)

Hen

and

Chi

cken

s (b

)D

avis

Ree

f (b

)

Che

eca

Roc

ks (

b)

Allig

ator

Ree

f (b

)

Ten

ness

ee R

eef

(c)

Dry

Tor

tuga

s (a

)

Cof

fins

Pat

ch (

b)

Som

brer

o K

ey (

b)

New

foun

d H

arbo

r (b

)

Looe

Key

(c)

Sam

bos

(a)

Looe

Key

(a)

Pel

ican

Sho

al (

c)

Wes

tern

Sam

bo (

b)S

and

Key

/E

aste

rn D

ry R

ocks

/R

ock

Key

(b)

Mar

ques

as (

a)La

kes

(a)

Key

Wes

t (b

)

Looe

Key

(b)

Pig

eon

Key

(b)

Ten

ness

ee R

eef

(a)

Bar

nes

Sou

nd (

a)

21

2226

23

24

25

37

8

28

20

416

15 51

27

14

11

12

17 3119

182

3332 34

35

303

9

13

67

3610

101029

grou

ndtru

thin

g.

24°3

0'

25°0

0'

25°3

0'

139

Table 18. Mid-range Alternative Strategies (Continued)

IV III II


Boating

B.1.a. Boat AccessConduct a survey to assess public andprivate boat access throughout theSanctuary to develop a low-impact accessplan. Implement low-cost administrativechanges for public access (e.g., signage,timing restrictions, closures, etc.).

B.1.b. Boat AccessConduct a survey to assess public andprivate boat access throughout theSanctuary to develop a low-impact accessplan; direct new public access to low-impact areas; and modify as appropriateany access affecting sensitive areasthroughout the Sanctuary.

B.1.c. Boat AccessConduct a survey to assess public andprivate boat access throughout theSanctuary to develop a low-impact accessplan; implement restrictions on new publicaccess; and require modification of publicand private access to reduce impacts toresources and user conflicts throughout theSanctuary.

B.7.a. Pollution DischargesReduce pollution discharges (e.g., sanitarywastes, debris, and hydrocarbons) fromvessels by enforcing existing regulations,assessing the need for additional regula-tions, and implementing and enforcing newregulations (i.e., upcoming regulationrestricting discharge in State waters).Change the environmental crimes categoryassociated with discharges from felony tocivil offense, thereby removing the need toprove criminal intent.



B.6.a. Additional EnforcementAdd 10 sanctuary enforcement officers todeploy in high-use and sensitive areas.

B.6.b . Additional EnforcementAdd 30 sanctuary enforcement officers todeploy in high-use and sensitive areas.

B.6.c. Additional EnforcementAdd 50 sanctuary enforcement officers todeploy throughout the Sanctuary.

B.5.a. Boat GroundingsDevelop a response plan for boat ground-ings throughout the Sanctuary.



B.4.a. Channel MarkingEstablish a channel and “significantfeatures” marking system and associatedregulations regarding boat speeds andwakes to reduce natural resourcedamages, and implement in sensitive areas(corals, hardbottoms, some mangrovecreeks, submerged aquatic vegetation).

B.4.b. Channel MarkingEstablish a channel/waterway markingsystem throughout the Sanctuary.

B.4.b. Channel MarkingEstablish a channel/waterway markingsystem throughout the Sanctuary.

B.3.a. Derelict VesselsDevelop a removal and disposal plan forderelict and abandoned vessels throughoutthe Sanctuary and streamline the existingpermitting process for the removal ofderelict and abandoned vessels from high-use and sensitive areas.

B.3.b. Derelict VesselsDevelop and implement a removal anddisposal plan for derelict and abandonedvessels, streamline the permitting process,and require the removal of all derelict andabandoned vessels throughout theSanctuary.

B.3.b. Derelict VesselsDevelop and implement a removal anddisposal plan for derelict and abandonedvessels, streamline the permitting process,and require the removal of all derelict andabandoned vessels throughout theSanctuary.

B.2.a. Habitat RestorationContinue ongoing habitat restorationactivities and monitor recovery processes.

B.2.b. Habitat RestorationConduct a program of restoration researchat representative habitat sites within theSanctuary; develop a restoration plan andimplement restoration in severely impactedareas. Monitor recovery processes.

B.2.c. Habitat RestorationConduct a program of restoration researchat representative habitat sites within theSanctuary; develop a restoration plan andimplement restoration in all impactedareas. Monitor recovery processes.


IV III II

140


B.8.a. User FeesConduct a boating fee assessment study toevaluate and reallocate sanctuary-relatedfees.

B.8.b . User FeesConduct a boating fee assessment study toevaluate and reallocate sanctuary-relatedfees; implement appropriate impact fees.

B.8.b. User FeesConduct a boating fee assessment study toevaluate and reallocate sanctuary-relatedfees; implement appropriate impact fees.

B.16.a. Dock PermittingIdentify subdivisions and coastal areaswhere dock construction should beprohibited due to inadequate surroundingwater depths and the presence ofimportant marine resources. Coordinatethe Federal, State, and local permittingprocess for dock construction.



B.15.a. Mooring Buoy ImpactsConduct an assessment of current mooringbuoy technology to determine impacts toresources and to evaluate which are themost environmentally sound, cost-effective,and functional for use in sanctuary waters.Develop a comprehensive mooring buoyplan providing for the maintenance ofbuoys, the placement of buoys as needed,and the implementation of vessel size limitsat mooring buoys in sensitive areas.

B.15.b. Mooring Buoy ImpactsConduct an assessment of current mooringbuoy technology to determine impacts toresources and to evaluate which are themost environmentally sound, cost-effective,and functional for use in sanctuary waters.Develop a comprehensive mooring buoyplan providing for the maintenance ofbuoys, the placement of buoys as needed,and the implementation of vessel size limitsat mooring buoys throughout the Sanctu-ary.

B.15.b. Mooring Buoy ImpactsConduct an assessment of current mooringbuoy technology to determine impacts toresources and to evaluate which are themost environmentally sound, cost-effective,and functional for use in sanctuary waters.Develop a comprehensive mooring buoyplan providing for the maintenance ofbuoys, the placement of buoys as needed,and the implementation of vessel size limitsat mooring buoys throughout the Sanctu-ary.

B.13.a. Salvaging/TowingEstablish regulations and proceduralguidelines for commercial salvaging andtowing of vessels in need of assistance.

B.13.b. Salvaging/TowingEstablish regulations and proceduralguidelines for commercial salvaging andtowing of vessels in need of assistance.Implement permitting for salvaging andtowing throughout the Sanctuary andestablish an operator training program.

B.13.c. Salvaging/TowingEstablish regulations and proceduralguidelines for commercial salvaging andtowing of vessels in need of assistance.Implement permitting for salvaging andtowing throughout the Sanctuary andrequire operator training.

B.12.a. Cross DeputizationExpand Federal/State/local cooperative lawenforcement and cross-deputizationprograms and prioritize enforcement areas.



B.11.a. Special-use PermitsEstablish permits (e.g., for researchers,educators, emergency response personnel,salvors, salvage operators, animal rescueoperations) to conduct activities otherwiseprohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitatesimplified permitting.

B.11.a Special-use PermitsEstablish permits (e.g., for researchers,educators, emergency response personnel,salvors, salvage operators, animal rescueoperations) to conduct activities otherwiseprohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitatesimplified permitting.

B.11.a Special-use PermitsEstablish permits (e.g., for researchers,educators, emergency response personnel,salvors, salvage operators, animal rescueoperations) to conduct activities otherwiseprohibited within the Sanctuary; facilitatesimplified permitting.

B.10.a. Damage AssessmentEstablish damage assessment standardsfor vessel groundings in the Sanctuary.



B.9.a. Visitor RegistrationEstablish a voluntary visitor registrationprogram to assess user activity in theSanctuary.



141


IV III II


B.17.a. PWC ManagementDevelop and implement regulations for theoperation of PWC and other motorizedvessels within 100 yards of sensitive orcritical areas, other boats, and people inthe water. Develop and implementregulations and procedural guidelines forcommercial PWC rental operations.

B.17.b. PWC ManagementDevelop and implement regulations for theoperation of PWC and other motorizedvessels within 200 yards of sensitive orcritical areas, other boats, and people inthe water. Develop and implementregulations and procedural guidelines forcommercial PWC rental operations.

B.17.c. PWC ManagementDevelop and implement regulations for theoperation of PWC and other motorizedvessels within 300 yards of sensitive orcritical areas, other boats, and people inthe water. Develop and implementregulations and procedural guidelines forcommercial PWC rental operations.

F.6.a. Fisheries SamplingEnhance the resolution of existingcommercial and recreational fisheries-dependent sampling programs to providestatistics on catch and effort at thesanctuary level. Initiate a fisheries-independent sampling program to measuresanctuary-level prerecruitment of economi-cally important species. Conduct a fisheriesinventory of species, sizes, ages, harvest,by-catch, timing, distribution, users,socioeconomics, and gear.

F.6.b. Fisheries SamplingEnhance the resolution of existingcommercial and recreational fisheries-dependent and independent samplingprograms to provide statistics on catch andeffort. This will be accomplished byestablishing statistical areas based on"completeness criteria" including scientificneed. Initiate fisheries-independentsampling programs to measure theprerecruitment of economically importantspecies within the statistical areas.

F.6.b. Fisheries SamplingEnhance the resolution of existingcommercial and recreational fisheries-dependent and independent samplingprograms to provide statistics on catch andeffort. This will be accomplished byestablishing statistical areas based on"completeness criteria" including scientificneed. Initiate fisheries-independentsampling programs to measure theprerecruitment of economically importantspecies within the statistical areas.

F.5.a. Limited EntryAssess limited-entry fisheries options forspecific sanctuary fisheries. Developappropriate regulations that ensure thelong-term sustainability of sanctuaryfisheries.

F.5.b. Limited EntryAssess limited-entry fisheries options forspecific sanctuary fisheries. Developappropriate regulations that ensure thelong-term sustainability of sanctuaryfisheries. Implement appropriate regula-tions on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

F.5.c. Limited EntryAssess limited-entry fisheries options forspecific sanctuary fisheries. Developappropriate regulations that ensure thelong-term sustainability of sanctuaryfisheries. Implement regulations for allsanctuary fisheries.

F.4.b. Mariculture AlternativesAssess, develop, and promote mariculturealternatives for all commercially harvestedmarine species. Support efforts to eliminatethe harvest and landing of live rock.

F.4.c. Mariculture AlternativesDevelop and implement mariculturealternatives for all commercially harvestedmarine species. Support efforts to eliminatethe harvest and landing of live rock.

F.3.a. StockingDevelop and conduct a research programto assess the impacts of stocking programson the genetic integrity of native stockswithin the Sanctuary. The program willalso be used to develop and implementappropriate regulations on the stocking ofnative and non-native species to protectthe genetic integrity of native stocks.

F.3.b. StockingImplement a moratorium on stockingactivities. Assess existing research on theimpacts of stocking on the genetic integrityof native stocks. Conduct research onnatural stock recovery and its role inmaintaining genetic integrity. Conduct a re-evaluation of stocking options. The lengthof the moratorium will depend on the lengthand results of the assessment.

F.3.b. StockingImplement a moratorium on stockingactivities. Assess existing research on theimpacts of stocking on the genetic integrityof native stocks. Conduct research onnatural stock recovery and its role inmaintaining genetic integrity. Conduct a re-evaluation of stocking options. The lengthof the moratorium will depend on the lengthand results of the assessment.

Fishing

F.1.a. Consistent RegulationsEstablish a protocol for developing andrevising regulations and implement aconsistent set of fisheries regulationsthroughout the Sanctuary.




IV III II

142


F.7.a. Artificial ReefsConduct research on the impacts ofartificial reefs on fish and invertebratepopulations for long-term managementincluding location, size, materials, etc.Monitor and evaluate habitat modificationscaused by the installation of marinestructures. Assess and develop regulationsfor artificial reef construction and evaluatehabitat suitability for artificial reefs.

F.7.a. Artificial ReefsConduct research on the impacts ofartificial reefs on fish and invertebratepopulations for long-term managementincluding location, size, materials, etc.Monitor and evaluate habitat modificationscaused by the installation of marinestructures. Assess and develop regulationsfor artificial reef construction and evaluatehabitat suitability for artificial reefs.

F.7.c. Artificial ReefsImplement a three-year moratorium onartificial reef development. Conductresearch on the impacts of artificial reefson fish and invertebrate populations forlong-term management including locations,size, materials, etc. Monitor and evaluatehabitat modifications caused by theinstallation of marine structures. Assessand develop regulations for artificial reefconstruction and evaluate habitat suitabilityfor artificial reefs.

F.15.a. Sponge HarvestDevelop and conduct a research programto assess the impacts of current spongeharvest methods on the resource and thehabitats in which they occur. Develop andimplement regulations for high-priorityareas.

F.15.b. Sponge HarvestDevelop and conduct a research programto assess the impacts of current spongeharvest methods on the resource and thehabitats in which they occur. Develop andimplement regulations throughout theSanctuary.

F.15.c. Sponge HarvestEstablish a three-year moratorium on theharvest of sponges. Develop and conduct aresearch program to assess the impacts ofcurrent sponge harvest methods on theresource and the habitats in which theyoccur. Develop regulations for implementa-tion after the moratorium.

F.9.a. Gear RemovalDevelop a program for the removal of lostor out-of-season fishing gear, andimplement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.9.a Gear RemovalDevelop a program for the removal of lostor out-of-season fishing gear, andimplement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.9.a Gear RemovalDevelop a program for the removal of lostor out-of-season fishing gear, andimplement in all areas of the Sanctuary.

F.12.a. Finfish TrapsEliminate all finfish traps within theSanctuary, excluding those set for bait fish.



F.14.a. SpearfishingConduct an assessment of spearfishingpractices and impacts to develop andimplement regulations in high-priorityareas.

F.14.a. SpearfishingConduct an assessment of spearfishingpractices and impacts to develop andimplement regulations in high-priorityareas.

F.14.c. SpearfishingConduct an assessment of spearfishingpractices and impacts to develop andimplement regulations throughout theSanctuary.

F.11.b. Gear/Method ImpactsConduct research on alternative fishinggear and methods that minimize impactson habitat. Implement a voluntary programto encourage the use of low-impact gearand methods. Implement regulations torequire the use of low-impact gear andmethods in priority areas. Characterizeharvesting stresses affecting outer andinshore reefs and hardbottom ecosystems.

F.10.a. BycatchConduct an assessment of methods usedto harvest commercial and recreationalmarine species including corals, fish, andinvertebrates. Develop and implementregulations to reduce the effects of currentfishing practices on nontargeted species.



F.11.a. Gear/Method ImpactsConduct research on alternative fishinggear and methods that minimize impactson habitat. Implement a voluntary programto encourage the use of low-impact gearand methods. Characterize harvestingstresses affecting outer and inshore reefsand hardbottom ecosystems.

F.8.a. Exotic SpeciesImplement regulations to prevent therelease of exotic species into the Sanctu-ary.



F.11.c. Gear/Method ImpactsConduct research on alternative fishinggear and methods that minimize impactson habitat. Implement regulations torequire the use of low-impact gear andmethods sanctuary-wide. Characterizeharvesting stresses affecting outer andinshore reefs and hardbottom ecosystems.

143


IV III II


Land Use

L.1.a. Marina PumpoutRequire marinas that have pump-outrequirements to install pump-out facilities.



L.6.b. Mobil PumpoutEstablish a mobile pump-out servicethrough the local government or afranchise with a private contractor whichwould serve to pump-out live-aboardvessels moored outside of marina facilities.Encourage the use of existing, and theconstruction of additional, shore-sidefacilities such as dingy docks, parkingareas, showers, and laundries for use bylive-aboards.

L.6.b. Mobil PumpoutEstablish a mobile pump-out servicethrough the local government or afranchise with a private contractor whichwould serve to pump-out live-aboardvessels moored outside of marina facilities.Encourage the use of existing, and theconstruction of additional, shore-sidefacilities such as dingy docks, parkingareas, showers, and laundries for use bylive-aboards.

L.5.a. RV Waste ReductionExpand enforcement activities to reduceillegal waste disposal from RVs.



L.3.a. Fueling/MaintenanceEvaluate procedures to avoid or reducefuel spillage during refueling operations.Initiate remedial solutions to any problemsidentified.

L.3.b. Fueling/MaintenanceEvaluate procedures to avoid or reducefuel spillage during refueling operations.Initiate remedial solutions to any problemsidentified. Require the establishment ofpaved and curbed containment areas forboat maintenance activities such as hullscraping and repainting, mechanicalrepairs, and lubrication. Require thecreation of secondary containment,generally in the form of curbing or syntheticliners, for areas where significant quantitiesof hazardous or toxic materials are stored.

L.3.b. Fueling/MaintenanceEvaluate procedures to avoid or reducefuel spillage during refueling operations.Initiate remedial solutions to any problemsidentified. Require the establishment ofpaved and curbed containment areas forboat maintenance activities such as hullscraping and repainting, mechanicalrepairs, and lubrication. Require thecreation of secondary containment,generally in the form of curbing or syntheticliners, for areas where significant quantitiesof hazardous or toxic materials are stored.

L.4.a. RV PumpoutRevise regulations to require public andprivate RV parks to provide pump-outfacilities, and implement requirementswithin three years.



L.2.a. Marina OperationsConduct an assessment of marina (10 slipsor more) compliance with current regula-tions and standards, including OSHAstandards for marina operations. Evaluateinteragency cooperation in marina permitreview process and initiate action toeliminate conflicts in agency jurisdictions.Improve marina siting criteria to ensure thatonly appropriate deep water access will bepermitted and to provide for the properhandling of noxious materials.




IV III II

144


L.7.a. SWD Problem SitesConduct an assessment to identify solidwaste disposal sites that pose threats towater quality and/or sensitive areas, basedon the results of EPA's Water Quality Plan.Intensify existing monitoring programsaround landfills to ensure that no leachingis occurring into marine waters. Ifproblems are discovered, evaluate andimplement appropriate remedial actionssuch as boring or mining, upgradingclosure, collecting and treating leachate,constructing slurry walls, and excavatingand hauling landfill contents.



L.8.b. Containment OptionsInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof various solid waste containment/relocation options. Implement containment/relocation options where appropriate withinfive years.

L.8.b. Containment OptionsInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof various solid waste containment/relocation options. Implement containment/relocation options where appropriate withinfive years.

L.9.a. SWD Policy ComplianceComply with Monroe County policies onsolid waste disposal.



L.10.a. HAZMAT HandlingConduct an assessment and inventory ofhazardous materials handling and use inthe Florida Keys including facilities, typesand quantities of materials, and transport/movement. Add information to the FDEP/EPA/Monroe County GIS database.



L.11.a. HAZMAT LicenseEstablish licensing requirements forcommercial handlers of hazardousmaterials and biohazardous waste withinthree years to reduce mishandling andillegal disposal.



L.12.b. HAZMAT CollectionEstablish a program to increase theavailability of hazardous materialscollection and transfer stations fornonlicensed users (e.g., households, etc.)within three years.

L.12.b. HAZMAT CollectionEstablish a program to increase theavailability of hazardous materialscollection and transfer stations fornonlicensed users (e.g., households, etc.)within three years.

L.14.a. Dredging ProhibitionProhibit new dredge and fill permits unlesspublic interest is demonstrated.

L.14.b. Dredging ProhibitionProhibit new dredge and fill permits unlesspublic interest is demonstrated and therewill be little or no environmental degrada-tion.

L.14.c. Dredging ProhibitionProhibit new dredge and fill permits.

L.15.b. Dredging RegulationConduct an inventory and assessment ofmaintenance dredging activities throughoutthe Sanctuary. Implement low-impactdredging methods for all maintenancedredging. Avoid maintenance dredgingwhenever possible.

L.15.b. Dredging RegulationConduct an inventory and assessment ofmaintenance dredging activities throughoutthe Sanctuary. Implement low-impactdredging methods for all maintenancedredging. Avoid maintenance dredgingwhenever possible.

L.15.a. Dredging RegulationConduct an inventory and assessment ofcurrent or recent maintenance dredgingactivities throughout the Sanctuary.

L.8.a. Containment OptionsInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof various solid waste containment/relocation options.

145


IV III II


L.16.a. Water-use ReductionInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof water-use reduction and re-use optionsand thresholds.

L.16.b. Water-use ReductionInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof water-use reduction and re-use optionsand thresholds. Implement a plan forwater-use reduction and re-use for majorusers within five years.

L.16.c. Water-use ReductionInitiate a study to investigate the feasibilityof water-use reduction and re-use optionsand thresholds. Implement a plan forwater-use reduction and re-use for allusers within five years.

R.2.a. Recreation SurveyEstablish a routine survey of recreationalactivities and use levels within theSanctuary through a survey of charter andrecreational-for-hire vessels, interceptsurveys at access points and launch sites,and periodic field surveys.

R.2.a. Recreation SurveyEstablish a routine survey of recreationalactivities and use levels within theSanctuary through a survey of charter andrecreational-for-hire vessels, interceptsurveys at access points and launch sites,and periodic field surveys.

R.2.c. Recreation SurveyEstablish a routine survey of recreationalactivities and use levels within theSanctuary through a survey of charter andrecreational-for-hire vessels, interceptsurveys at access points and launch sites,and periodic field surveys. Establish apermitting and enforcement system toregulate use levels (e.g., number of boats,divers, etc.) for charter and recreational-for-hire vessels.

Recreation

R.1.a. SCR ManagementDevelop and implement a program tomanage submerged cultural resources(SCRs). Conduct an inventory of SCRs andassess survey and extraction techniqueswithin the Sanctuary. Require permittingthroughout the Sanctuary.

R.1.b. SCR ManagementDevelop and implement a program tomanage SCRs. Conduct an inventory ofSCRs and assess survey and extractiontechniques within the Sanctuary. Requirepermitting throughout the Sanctuary.

R.1.c. SCR ManagementDevelop and implement a program tomanage SCRs. Conduct an inventory ofSCRs and assess survey and extractiontechniques within the Sanctuary. Requirepermitting throughout the Sanctuary.

L.20.a. Public AccessConduct an assessment of existing publicaccess to shoreline areas. Developstandards and guidelines for improvementsto, and construction of, public accessareas.

L.20.b. Public AccessConduct an assessment of existing publicaccess to shoreline areas. Developstandards and guidelines for improvementsto, and construction of, public accessareas. Acquire shoreline areas fordeveloping and/or regulating public access.

L.20.b. Public AccessConduct an assessment of existing publicaccess to shoreline areas. Developstandards and guidelines for improvementsto, and construction of, public accessareas. Acquire shoreline areas fordeveloping and/or regulating public access.

L.19.a. Growth ImpactsConduct an evaluation of the MonroeCounty Growth Plan for ecological impactson the Sanctuary. Identify and recommendadditional options to minimize short- andlong-term impacts.



L.18.b. Wetland Dredge and FillRestrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.18.b. Wetland Dredge and FillRestrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.18.a. Wetland Dredge and FillRestrict wetland dredge and fill permitting.

L.17.a. Dredge and Fill AuthorityEstablish consistent interagency regulatoryauthority addressing all dredge and fillactivities.




IV III II

146


R.5.a. Carrying CapacityConduct a program to study and implementcarrying-capacity limits for recreationactivities by: 1) assessing the effects ofrecreation and boating activities onsanctuary resources; 2) establishingrecreational user carrying capacities thatminimize wildlife disturbances and otheradverse impacts on natural resources; and3) enforcing carrying-capacity limits inhighly sensitive areas.

R.5.b. Carrying CapacityConduct a program to study and implementcarrying-capacity limits for recreationactivities by: 1) assessing the effects ofrecreation and boating activities onsanctuary resources; 2) establishingrecreational user carrying capacities thatminimize wildlife disturbances and otheradverse impacts on natural resources; and3) enforcing carrying-capacity limits in high-use areas and for highly sensitive habitatsthroughout the Sanctuary.

R.5.c. Carrying CapacityConduct a program to study and implementcarrying-capacity limits for recreationactivities by: 1) assessing the effects ofrecreation and boating activities onsanctuary resources; 2) establishingrecreational user carrying capacities thatminimize wildlife disturbances and otheradverse impacts on natural resources; and3) enforcing carrying-capacity limitsthroughout the Sanctuary.

Water Quality

W.1.a. OSDS Demonstration ProjectConduct a demonstration project toevaluate alternate, nutrient-removingOSDSs.



R.7.a. Coral TouchingProhibit contact with corals in high-use,sensitive, and vulnerable areas.



W.3.a. Wastewater ManagementSystemsEstablish authority for and implementinspection/enforcement programs toeliminate all cesspits and enforce existingstandards for all OSDSs and packageplants.

W.3.b. Wastewater ManagementSystemsEstablish authority for and implementinspection/enforcement programs toeliminate all cesspits and enforce existingstandards for all OSDSs and packageplants. Develop targets for reductions inwastewater nutrient loadings necessary torestore and maintain water quality andsanctuary resources. Develop andimplement a Sanitary Wastewater MasterPlan that evaluates options for upgradingexisting systems beyond current standardsor constructing community sewagetreatment plants based on nutrientreduction targets, cost and cost effective-ness, reliability/compliance considerations,and environmental and socioeconomicimpacts.

W.3.b. Wastewater ManagementSystemsEstablish authority for and implementinspection/enforcement programs toeliminate all cesspits and enforce existingstandards for all OSDSs and packageplants. Develop targets for reductions inwastewater nutrient loadings necessary torestore and maintain water quality andsanctuary resources. Develop andimplement a Sanitary Wastewater MasterPlan that evaluates options for upgradingexisting systems beyond current standardsor constructing community sewagetreatment plants based on nutrientreduction targets, cost and cost effective-ness, reliability/compliance considerations,and environmental and socioeconomicimpacts.

W.2.a. AWT Demonstration ProjectConduct a demonstration project toevaluate the installation of a smallexpandable AWT plant to serve an area ofheavy OSDS use with associated waterquality problems.



147


IV III II


W.8.a. OSDS PermittingImprove interagency coordination forindustrial wastewater discharge permitting.Combine OSDS permitting responsibilitiesin one agency for commercial establish-ments, institutions, and multi-familyresidential establishments utilizing injectionwells.

W.5.a. Water Quality StandardsDevelop and implement water qualitystandards, including biocriteria, appropriateto sanctuary resources.



W.6.a. NPDES Prog. DelegationDelegate administration of the NPDESprogram for Florida Keys dischargers to theState of Florida.



W.7.b. Resource Monitoring ofSurface DischargeRequire all NPDES-permitted surfacedischargers to develop resource monitoringprograms.

W.7.b. Resource Monitoring ofSurface DischargeRequire all NPDES-permitted surfacedischargers to develop resource monitoringprograms.

W.9.a. Laboratory FacilitiesEstablish an interagency laboratorycapable of processing monitoring andcompliance samples.



W.10.a. Canal WQInventory and characterize dead-endcanals/basins and investigate alternativemanagement strategies to improve theirwater quality.

W.10.b. Canal WQInventory and characterize dead-endcanals/basins and investigate alternativemanagement strategies to improve theirwater quality. Implement improvements(consistent with the strategies developedfor wastewater and stormwater) in knownhot spots throughout the Sanctuary.

W.10.c. Canal WQInventory and characterize dead-endcanals/basins and investigate alternativemanagement strategies to improve theirwater quality. Implement improvements(consistent with the strategies developedfor wastewater and stormwater) throughoutthe Sanctuary.

W.11.c. Stormwater RetrofittingIdentify and retrofit stormwater hot spotsand degraded areas using Best Manage-ment Practices", such as grass parking,swales, pollution control structures, anddetention/retention facilities. Controlstormwater runoff in areas handling toxicand hazardous materials. Install swalesand detention facilities along numeroussections of US 1.

W.11.b. Stormwater RetrofittingIdentify and retrofit stormwater hot spotsusing "Best Management Practices", suchas grass parking, swales, pollution controlstructures, and detention/retentionfacilities. Control stormwater runoff inareas handling toxic and hazardousmaterials. Install swales and detentionfacilities along limited sections of US 1.

W.4.a. Wastewater Disposal, City ofKey WestUpgrade effluent disposal for the City ofKey West’s wastewater treatment plant.Evaluate deep-well injection, including thepossibility of effluent migration through theboulder zone into sanctuary waters.Evaluate options for the re-use of effluent,including irrigation and potable re-use.Discontinue use of ocean outfall andimplement deep-well injection, aquiferstorage, and/or re-use. Implement nutrientreduction technologies for effluent prior todisposal or re-use.






IV III II

148


W.18.a. Pesticide ResearchDevelop and implement an independentresearch program to assess and investi-gate the impacts of, and alternatives to,current pesticide practices. Modify theMosquito Control Program as necessary onthe basis of research findings.



W.12.a. Stormwater PermittingRequire that no development in the FloridaKeys be exempted from the stormwaterpermitting process.



W.13.a. Stormwater ManagementRequire local governments to enact andimplement stormwater managementordinances and comprehensive stormwatermanagement master plans. Petition theEPA to include the Florida Keys in thestormwater NPDES program if adequatestormwater management ordinances andadministrative capabilities to manage suchordinances are not in place by a certaindate.



W.19.a. FL Bay Freshwater FlowThe Steering Committee for the WaterQuality Protection Program shall take aleading role in restoring the historicalfreshwater flow to Florida Bay. In addition,sanctuary representatives should work withthe appropriate Federal, State, and localagencies to ensure that restoration plansand surface water management andimprovement plans for South Florida andthe Everglades are compatible with effortsto maintain water quality within theSanctuary.

W.14.a. Best Management PracticesInstitute a series of Best ManagementPractices and a public education programto prevent pollutants from enteringstormwater runoff.



W.15.a. HAZMAT ResponseImprove and expand oil and hazardousmaterials response programs throughoutthe Sanctuary.



W.16.a. Spill ReportingEstablish a reporting system to ensure thatall spills in and near the Sanctuary arereported to sanctuary managers andmanagers of impacted areas within theSanctuary. Establish a geo-referencedsanctuary spills database.

W.16.a Spill ReportingEstablish a reporting system to ensure thatall spills in and near the Sanctuary arereported to sanctuary managers andmanagers of impacted areas within theSanctuary. Establish a geo-referencedsanctuary spills database.

W.16.a Spill ReportingEstablish a reporting system to ensure thatall spills in and near the Sanctuary arereported to sanctuary managers andmanagers of impacted areas within theSanctuary. Establish a geo-referencedsanctuary spills database.

W.17.a Mosquito SprayingRefine the aerial spraying program tofurther reduce aerial spraying over marineareas.

W.17.a. Mosquito SprayingRefine the aerial spraying program tofurther reduce aerial spraying over marineareas.



W.17.c. Mosquito SprayingEliminate all aerial pesticide spraying withinfive years.

149


IV III II


W.20.a. WQ MonitoringConduct a long-term, comprehensive waterquality monitoring program as described inthe EPA Water Quality Protection Program.



W.26.a. IndicatorsDevelop diagnostic indicators of waterquality problems (e.g., tissue C:N:P ratios,alkaline phosphate activity, and shifts incommunity structure by habitat). Conductresearch to identify and evaluate indicators(biochemical and ecological measures toprovide early warning of widespreadecological problems) in each type ofecosystem.



W.25.a. WQ Impact ResearchConduct research to identify and documentcausal linkages between water quality(e.g., levels of pollutants, nutrients, salinity,temperature, etc.) and ecological problemsin each major ecosystem.



W.24.a. Florida Bay InfluenceConduct research to understand the effectof water transport from Florida Bay onwater quality and resources in theSanctuary.



W.23.a. Leachate TransportConduct a hydrologic/geologic assessmentof leachate transport (e.g., from injectionwells, land fills, storage tanks, etc.) intonearshore waters. Determine whether, andin what quantities, groundwater nutrientsare reaching sanctuary waters includingthe Florida Reef Tract.



W.22.a. Pollutant AssessmentDevelop a segmentation framework toidentify surface water areas sharingcommon hydrographic properties affectingwater quality. Determine the susceptibilityof each segment to pollutants based uponall loadings (i.e., land- and water-based)and segment specific hydrographicproperties affecting their retention.



W.21.a. Predictive ModelsDevelop phased hydrodynamic/waterquality models and coupled, landscape-level ecological models to predict andevaluate the outcome of in-place andproposed water quality managementstrategies.




IV III II

150


W.33.a. Ecological MonitoringDevelop and implement a sanctuary-wide,intensive ecosystem monitoring program.The objective of the program will be tomonitor the status of various biological andecological indicators of system compo-nents throughout the Sanctuary andadjacent areas in order to discern the localand system-wide effects of human andnatural disturbances and assess the overallhealth of the Sanctuary.



W.27.a. Other Monitoring ToolsConduct research to identify and evaluateinnovative monitoring tools and methodolo-gies to detect pollutants and identify cause/effect relationships involving water qualityand biological resources.



W.32.a. Advisory CommitteeEstablish a technical advisory committeefor coordinating and guiding research andmonitoring activities.



W.31.a. Global ChangeExamine the effects of global climatechange on the organisms and ecosystemsof the Keys.



W.28.a. Regional DatabaseEstablish a regional database and datamanagement system for recordingresearch results and biological, physical,and chemical parameters associated withsanctuary monitoring programs.



W.29.a. Diss. of Research FindingsDevelop a program to disseminatescientific research results including aninformation exchange network, confer-ences, and support for the publication ofresearch findings in peer-reviewedscientific journals.



Zoning

Z.1.a. Wildlife Management AreasEstablish wildlife management areas thatrestrict access to especially sensitivewildlife populations and habitats. Suchareas would include bird nesting, resting,or feeding areas and turtle nestingbeaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,modify the way areas are used oraccessed, and specify time periods whenuse is prohibited.

Z.1.b. Wildlife Management AreasEstablish wildlife management areas thatrestrict access to especially sensitivewildlife populations and habitats. Suchareas would include bird nesting, resting,or feeding areas and turtle nestingbeaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,modify the way areas are used oraccessed, and specify time periods whenuse is prohibited.

Z.1.c. Wildlife Management AreasEstablish wildlife management areas thatrestrict access to especially sensitivewildlife populations and habitats. Suchareas would include bird nesting, resting,or feeding areas and turtle nestingbeaches. Restrictions could prohibit use,modify the way areas are used oraccessed, and specify time periods whenuse is prohibited.

151


IV III II


Z.2.a. Replenishment ReservesReplenishment Reserves are designed toencompass large, contiguous diversehabitats. They are intended to providenatural spawning, nursery, and permanentresidence areas for the replenishment andgenetic protection of marine life and toprotect and preserve all habitats andspecies. These reserves are intended toprotect areas that represent the full rangeand diversity of resources and habitatsfound throughout the Sanctuary. Theintent is to meet these objectives byminimizing human influences within theseareas.

Z.2.b. Replenishment ReservesReplenishment Reserves are designed toencompass large, contiguous diversehabitats. They are intended to providenatural spawning, nursery, and permanentresidence areas for the replenishment andgenetic protection of marine life and toprotect and preserve all habitats andspecies. These reserves are intended toprotect areas that represent the full rangeof diversity of resources and habitats foundthroughout the Sanctuary. The intent is tomeet these objectives by minimizinghuman influences within these areas.

Z.2.c. Replenishment ReservesReplenishment Reserves are designed toencompass large, contiguous diversehabitats. They are intended to providenatural spawning, nursery, and permanentresidence areas for the replenishment andgenetic protection of marine life and toprotect and preserve all habitats andspecies. These reserves are intended toprotect areas that represent the full rangeof diversity of resources and habitats foundthroughout the Sanctuary. The intent is tomeet these objectives by minimizinghuman influences within these areas.

Z.5.a. Special-use AreaEstablish zones to address special-useactivities and concerns within the Sanctu-ary. These zones can be used to set asideareas for educational and scientificpurposes, restorative, monitoring, orresearch activities or to establish areas thatconfine or restrict activities such as powerboat racing and personal watercraft use inorder to minimize impacts on sensitivehabitats and to reduce user conflicts. Thiszone type will also establish live-aboardareas and mooring fields in areas whereadverse environmental impacts will beminimal.

Z.3.a. Sanctuary PreservationAreasEstablish nonconsumptive SanctuaryPreservation Areas in a select number ofareas that are experiencing a high degreeof conflict between consumptive andnonconsumptive uses and in discrete areasthat are currently experiencing significantpopulation or habitat declines. These areaswill provide for the protection and suste-nance of resources, particularly selectmarine species in high-use and biologicallyimportant areas.

Z.3.b Sanctuary Preservation AreasEstablish nonconsumptive SanctuaryPreservation Areas in a number of areasthat are experiencing a high degree ofconflict between consumptive andnonconsumptive uses, and in discreteareas that are currently experiencingsignificant population or habitat declines.These areas will provide for the protectionand sustenance of resources, particularlyselect marine species in high-use andbiologically important areas.

Z.3.c Sanctuary Preservation AreasEstablish nonconsumptive SanctuaryPreservation Areas in numerous areas thatare experiencing a high degree of conflictbetween consumptive and nonconsumptiveuses, and in discrete areas that arecurrently experiencing significant popula-tion or habitat declines. These areas willprovide for the protection and sustenanceof resources, particularly select marinespecies in high-use and biologicallyimportant areas.

Z.4.a. Existing Management AreasEstablish an Existing Management Areathat recognizes areas that are managed byother agencies where restrictions alreadyexist. Management of these areas withinthe Sanctuary may require additionalregulations or restrictions to adequatelyprotect resources. Any additionalmanagement measures will be developedand implemented in coordination with theagency having jurisdictional authority.



Z.5.a. Special-use AreaEstablish zones to address special-useactivities and concerns within the Sanctu-ary. These zones can be used to set asideareas for educational and scientificpurposes, restorative, monitoring, orresearch activities or to establish areas thatconfine or restrict activities such as powerboat racing and personal watercraft use inorder to minimize impacts on sensitivehabitats and to reduce user conflicts. Thiszone type will also establish live-aboardareas and mooring fields in areas whereadverse environmental impacts will beminimal.

Z.5.c. Special-use AreasEstablish zones to address special-useactivities and concerns within the Sanctu-ary. These zones can be used to set asideareas for educational and scientificpurposes, restorative, monitoring, orresearch activities or to establish areas -limited in size and number - that confine orrestrict activities, such as powerboat racingand personal watercraft use, in order tominimize impacts on sensitive habitats andto reduce user conflicts. This zone typewill also establish a limited number of live-aboard areas and mooring fields in areaswhere adverse environmental impacts willbe minimal.


IV III II

152


Education

E.1.a. Printed MaterialsDevelop printed materials to promotepublic awareness, specifically targetingboaters and divers/snorkelers, of theimpacts of their activities on theSanctuary's resources and environmentalquality. Promote the proper use ofequipment used for these activities in orderto minimize adverse impacts to naturalresources. Materials will include bro-chures, posters, newsletters and contribu-tions to periodicals. Distribute materials inbulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, etc.).

E.1.b. Printed MaterialsDevelop printed materials to promotepublic awareness of the impact of theiractivities, both land- and water-related, onthe Sanctuary's resources and environ-mental quality. Promote the proper use ofequipment used for these activities in orderto minimize adverse impacts to naturalresources. Materials will include bro-chures, posters, newsletters, contributionsto periodicals, environmental nauticalcharts, color environmental atlases, and acolor periodical. Distribute materials inbulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, otherbusinesses etc.) and include bulk mailingsas a means of distribution.

E.1.b. Printed MaterialsDevelop printed materials to promotepublic awareness of the impact of theiractivities, both land- and water-related, onthe Sanctuary's resources and environ-mental quality. Promote the proper use ofequipment used for these activities in orderto minimize adverse impacts to naturalresources. Materials will include bro-chures, posters, newsletters, contributionsto periodicals, environmental nauticalcharts, color environmental atlases, and acolor periodical. Distribute materials inbulk to high-interception locations (e.g.,marinas, boat ramps, dive shops, otherbusinesses etc.) and include bulk mailingsas a means of distribution.

E.3.a. Signs/Displays/ExhibitsDevelop signs/displays at high-use areasand public and private boat ramps to informparticipants in water-based activities ofregulations and environmentally soundpractices, provide navigation information,and promote awareness of sensitive areas.Produce portable displays with informationon sanctuary resources, regulations,environmental quality, etc. A limitednumber of signs will be multi-lingual.

E.3.b. Signs/Displays/ExhibitsDevelop signs/displays at high-use areas,all public and some private boat ramps,and some public beach access areas toinform participants in water-based activitiesof regulations and environmentally soundpractices, provide navigation information,and promote awareness of nearbysensitive areas. Portable displays will alsobe produced with information on sanctuaryresources, regulations, environmentalquality, etc. Most of the signs will be multi-lingual. Targeted multi-media displays willbe developed with information and impactson the Sanctuary relevant to the activitytargeted. A number of wayside exhibits willbe installed.

Develop a user-friendly computer systemcontaining information on regulations,access, recreational sites, environmentaletiquette, etc. for visitor use at selectedsites throughout the Sanctuary within fiveyears.

E.3.b. Signs/Displays/ExhibitsDevelop signs/displays at high-use areas,all public and some private boat ramps,and some public beach access areas toinform participants in water-based activitiesof regulations and environmentally soundpractices, provide navigation information,and promote awareness of nearbysensitive areas. Portable displays will alsobe produced with information on sanctuaryresources, regulations, environmentalquality, etc. Most of the signs will be multi-lingual. Targeted multi-media displays willbe developed with information and impactson the Sanctuary relevant to the activitytargeted. A number of wayside exhibits willbe installed.

Develop a user-friendly computer systemcontaining information on regulations,access, recreational sites, environmentaletiquette, etc. for visitor use at selectedsites throughout the Sanctuary within fiveyears.

E.2.b. Audio-Visual MediaInventory and use existing videos, films,and audio/visual environmental educationmaterials portraying activities in the FloridaKeys and their impacts on sanctuaryresources. Produce a limited number ofaudios/videos to address gaps in availablematerials and to address major activitiesincluding boating, fishing, diving, etc.Materials will be available at sanctuaryoffices and will be distributed to keylocations (dive shops, etc.) throughoutSouth Florida.

E.2.a. Audio-Visual MediaInventory and use existing videos, films,and audio materials portraying activities inthe Florida Keys and their impacts onsanctuary resources. Materials will beavailable from sanctuary offices.

E.2.b. Audio-Visual MediaInventory and use existing videos, films,and audio/visual environmental educationmaterials portraying activities in the FloridaKeys and their impacts on sanctuaryresources. Produce a limited number ofaudios/videos to address gaps in availablematerials and to address major activitiesincluding boating, fishing, diving, etc.Materials will be available at sanctuaryoffices and will be distributed to keylocations (dive shops, etc.) throughoutSouth Florida.

153


IV III II


E.9.c. Ecotourism PromoterEstablish an ecotourism coordinator/promoter position for the Sanctuary withinthree years.

E.5.b. PSAsEstablish a program to promote Sanctuarygoals and activities through public serviceannouncements (PSAs) in South Florida,with some national and international publicexposure, that presents an overview of theSanctuary, its resources and theirecological significance for routine distribu-tion to radio, cable television stations, andnewspapers. Develop editorial/contribu-tions for other printed media. Funds will bespent on routine media exposure. PSAswould focus on participants in water-relatedand other activities that affect the Sanctu-ary (boaters, divers, household etc.).These materials will also be organized intoa press packet.

E.5.a. PSAsEstablish a program to promote Sanctuarygoals and activities through public serviceannouncements (PSAs) in Monroe Countythat presents an overview of the Sanctuary,its resources, and their ecologicalsignificance for limited "no-cost" distributionto radio, cable television stations, andnewspapers. Develop limited editorial/contributions for other printed media.PSAs will focus on participants in water-related activities (boaters, divers, etc.).These materials will also be organized intoa press packet.

E.5.b. PSAsEstablish a program to promote Sanctuarygoals and activities through public serviceannouncements (PSAs) in South Florida,with some national and international publicexposure, that presents an overview of theSanctuary, its resources and theirecological significance for routine distribu-tion to radio, cable television stations, andnewspapers. Develop editorial/contribu-tions for other printed media. Funds will bespent on routine media exposure. PSAswould focus on participants in water-relatedand other activities that affect the Sanctu-ary (boaters, divers, household etc.).These materials will also be organized intoa press packet.

E.7.a. PromotionalPromote educational materials and otherinformation about the Sanctuary and itsresources at existing sanctuary offices.

E.7.b. PromotionalPromote educational materials, includingbilingual materials and other informationabout the Sanctuary and its resources, atexisting sanctuary offices and Chambers ofCommerce. Establish an interagencyvisitor center with the U.S. DOI and theFlorida DEP.

E.7.c. PromotionalPromote educational materials, includingbilingual materials and other informationabout the Sanctuary and its resources, in avisitor center established by and dedicatedsolely to the Sanctuary. Other smallercenters will be established at major resortlocations. Booths/displays will beestablished in remote locations.

E.6.b. Advisory CouncilEstablish an education advisory council toadvise educators on education goals,priorities and funding sources for theSanctuary. A full-time staff person will beprovided.

E.6.b. Advisory CouncilEstablish an education advisory council toadvise educators on education goals,priorities and funding sources for theSanctuary. A full-time staff person will beprovided.

E.4.a. Training/Workshops/SchoolProgramsDevelop oportunities for instruction andtraining. This will include programsconducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,and volunteers. Training programs (e.g.,Coral Reef Classroom, submerged culturalresources, etc.) will also be provided forteachers, environmental professionals,business owners and operators, and lawenforcement officials.

E.4.b. Training/Workshops/SchoolProgramsDevelop oportunities for instruction andtraining. This will include programs (bothon the primary and secondary level)conducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,and volunteers. Participation in existingenvironmental education programs wouldalso be established, and some programswould be expanded. Training programs(e.g., Coral Reef Classroom, submergedcultural resources, etc.) will also beprovided for teachers, environmentalprofessionals, business owners andoperators, and law enforcement officials.

E.4.b. Training/Workshops/SchoolProgramsDevelop oportunities for instruction andtraining. This will include programs (bothon the primary and secondary level)conducted by teachers, Sanctuary staff,and volunteers. Participation in existingenvironmental education programs wouldalso be established, and some programswould be expanded. Training programs(e.g., Coral Reef Classroom, submergedcultural resources, etc.) will also beprovided for teachers, environmentalprofessionals, business owners andoperators, and law enforcement officials.


IV III II

154


E.10.a. Public ForumEstablish a program to ensure publicinvolvement throughout South Florida inSanctuary activities by holding publicmeetings and promoting Sanctuaryawareness to extracurricular groups.

E.10.b. Public ForumEstablish a program to ensure publicinvolvement throughout South Florida inSanctuary activities by holding publicmeetings and promoting Sanctuaryawareness to extracurricular groups. ASanctuary "hot line" will be established forthe public to report information concerningthe Sanctuary. A program will also beestablished to provide Sanctuary sponsor-ship of contests/awards.

E.10.b. Public ForumEstablish a program to ensure publicinvolvement throughout South Florida inSanctuary activities by holding publicmeetings and promoting Sanctuaryawareness to extracurricular groups. ASanctuary "hot line" will be established forthe public to report information concerningthe Sanctuary. A program will also beestablished to provide Sanctuary sponsor-ship of contests/awards.

E.11.a. Special EventsOrganize, support, and/or participate inspecial events (e.g., trade shows,expositions, grand openings, etc.) thatallow for the exchange of Sanctuaryinformation. The Sanctuary will co-sponsora limited number of conferences andworkshops.

E.11.b. Special EventsOrganize, support, and/or participate inspecial events (e.g., trade shows,expositions, grand openings, etc.) thatallow for the exchange of Sanctuaryinformation.The Sanctuary will co-sponsora number of conferences and workshops,with selected sole sponsorship of someevents. This would include a "SanctuaryAwareness Week" and a "grand opening"to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Programwould co-sponsor other "awareness"events/weeks (e.g., National Fishing Week,etc.).

E.11.b. Special EventsOrganize, support, and/or participate inspecial events (e.g., trade shows,expositions, grand openings, etc.) thatallow for the exchange of Sanctuaryinformation.The Sanctuary will co-sponsora number of conferences and workshops,with selected sole sponsorship of someevents. This would include a "SanctuaryAwareness Week" and a "grand opening"to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Programwould co-sponsor other "awareness"events/weeks (e.g., National Fishing Week,etc.).

155

Environmental Consequences of Management Alternatives

This chapter compares the differences in environ-mental impacts among the management alternativesbeing considered for the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Management Plan, focusing primarily onthree mid-range alternatives that achieve the pur-poses of the FKNMSPA. Evaluating and comparingthe potential environmental impacts of each alterna-tive involve assessing the impacts to the naturalenvironment of implementing the proposed manage-ment strategies. This is an important step in theprocess of selecting a preferred managementalternative.

Review of Management Alternatives. The develop-ment and review of management alternatives arerequired by the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) as a part of the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) development process. A series ofalternatives with varied levels of resource protectionand use restrictions was generated from the strate-gies developed at the February 1992 Strategy WorkSession in Marathon, FL. Specific strategies were notproduced for Alternatives I (total restriction of uses,except for research) and V (status quo/no action),because these alternatives do not meet the require-ments of the FKNMSPA and NMSA to protectresources and facilitate multiple uses. Strategiesincluded in Alternative IV are generally included inAlternatives III and II; the latter contain increasedlevels of protection, additional regulations or man-agement actions, or require implementation over abroader area. Alternatives III and II also containstrategies not included in Alternative IV.

Environmental Impact Characterizations. Environ-mental impact characterizations were developed byFederal, State, local, and private resource managersand scientists, were refined by the Core Group, andfurther refined by NOAA as the strategy revisionprocess progressed. In describing the environmentalimpacts of each alternative, it was assumed that allstrategies would be implemented completely.

The process used to determine the environmentalimpacts of the management alternatives paralleledthe strategy development process. The environmen-tal impacts of 137 proposed "high-priority" strategieswere initially characterized during the February 1992

Strategy Work Session. Strategies were character-ized based on their potential impacts on specificattributes of three thematic categories: water quality,habitats, and species (Figure 30). The criteria used tocharacterize strategies included whether impactswere considered positive or negative, the degree ofimpact (high, medium, or low), and the spatial andtemporal attributes of the proposed managementactions.

NOAA and the Core Group revised the initial charac-terizations to reflect any changes in the level ofprotection offered by the strategies, as graded acrossthe three mid-range alternatives. Characterizationswere also updated to complement any additionalinformation included during the development of aparticular strategy. Strategies developed by theSanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), other nongovern-mental organizations, the public, and the EPA werecharacterized using the same criteria as thosedeveloped at the February 1992 Strategy WorkSession.

Development and Organization of Impacts Infor-mation. The revised strategy characterizations wereorganized in tables to compare the environmental

Environmental Consequences ofManagement 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


impacts of each alternative. The tables identified theattributes that were the focus of protection, and therelative impacts of individual strategies. The overallimpacts of each alternative were also summarizedand compared. The Core Group used these tables todevelop the draft text describing the environmentalimpacts of each alternative. NOAA edited andorganized this material and created summary tablescomparing strategy impacts across alternatives.These tables were then further reviewed and editedby the Core Group over several months.

The overall description of environmental impacts wasgiven to the SAC in June 1993 to help them recom-mend a preferred management alternative. Thedescriptions were also reviewed by NOAA's Sanctu-aries and Reserves Division and Office of GeneralCounsel, and were revised to focus only on thosestrategies that will either have a significant level ofaction during the first year after implementation of theManagement Plan, or will have a high degree ofpotential environmental impact (i.e., "key strategies").

Organization. This chapter contains an overalldescription of the environmental impacts of eachalternative, providing a detailed assessment ofpotential environmental impacts. It is organized bytheme, and includes a list of "key strategies" for eachtheme. Three summary tables, organized by alterna-tive and issue, compare potential impacts,environmental impacts, and significant managementactions across alternatives. The major differencesamong the environmental impacts of each alternativeare also included in a separate column, providing asimple means of comparing these impacts.

Constraints and Limitations. These characteriza-tions provide sufficient detail to objectively comparethe various environmental impacts of proposedactions for the three mid-range management alterna-tives. However, the Management Plan also proposesan ongoing management process that will implicitlyinvolve a continued assessment of environmentalimpacts as strategies are implemented over time.

Environmental Impacts: Water Quality

Pollution from both land-based and water-relatedactivities degrades water quality and habitats andcan harm the species dependent on them. Strategiesin the three mid-range alternatives address waterquality problems by focusing on reducing nutrients,toxicants, and other pollutants. The potential forreducing pollutant levels increases from AlternativeIV to II. Several strategies also provide for limitedimprovements in hydrographic properties such, assalinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Eachalternative addresses point and nonpoint pollutantsources, and concentrates on improving confinedand nearshore waters. Because of their increasinglyrestrictive measures, Alternatives III and II have agreater potential for providing long-term, Sanctuary-wide benefits (Table 19). The key strategies mostlikely to affect water quality are listed below.

Key Strategies Affecting Water Quality

L.19 Growth ManagementW.3 Wastewater Management SystemsW.19 Florida Bay Freshwater FlowW.24 Florida Bay InfluenceW.25 Water Quality ImpactsW.33 Ecological Monitoring

Key Issues

Growth Management. Coordinating with MonroeCounty on issues related to growth management(L.19) is more likely to lead to improvements in allwater quality parameters than any other strategy.This strategy will link the research activities andwater quality improvement goals of the SanctuaryManagement Plan and the EPA Water QualityProtection Plan with Monroe County's growth man-agement policies, potentially resulting in significantimprovements in confined and nearshore waters inthe short term, and offshore water quality improve-ments in the long term. This strategy offers the samelevel of protection across the three mid-range alter-natives, and provides a significant improvement inwater quality protection compared to the status quo(Alternative V) by ensuring that the Federal, State,and local governments work together to limit thenegative impacts of future growth.

Marinas/Boat Discharge. Recent evidence suggeststhat nutrients and toxicants related to marina opera-

ComparativeImpacts

Environm

ental Consequences of M

anagement A

lternatives

157

Alternative IVImpacts

Alternative IIIImpacts

Alternative IIImpacts

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 waterquality

• Emphasis on reducing toxicants

• Slight reduction in nutrients

• Focus on confined and nearshore waters

* Further actions:

- Hire 30 new enforcement officers



• Significant reduction in toxicants in sensitiveareas



* Further actions:- Hire 50 new enforcement officers

• Alternative III offers slightly greaterwater quality protection than AlternativeIV through increased enforcement

• Alternative II offers slightly greaterwater quality protection than AlternativeIII through increased enforcement

Boating





• Significant actions:- Hire 10 new enforcement officers- Prohibit discharges from vessels- Initiate cross-deputization

• Negligible improvement in existing water quality


• Recreation strategies in all Alternativesoffer negligible improvement in existingwater quality

Recreation


• Significant improvement in existing waterquality

• Emphasis on reductions in nutrients andtoxicants


• Some Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:

- Establish containment areas for boatmaintenance

- Initiate water-use reduction and re-use formajor users

Land Use

• Moderate improvement in existing waterquality




• Significant actions:- Coordinate growth management policies- Restrict wetland dredge and fill- Install pump-out facilities- Reduce fuel spillage during refueling



• Some improvement in hydrographicparameters



* Further actions:

- Initiate water-use reduction and re-use forall users

• Alternative III offers significantly morewater quality protection than AlternativeIV

- Toxicant levels will be significantlyreduced by containment areas

- Hydrographic parameters such assalinity, temperature, and dissolvedoxygen will be improved by water-usereduction and re-use for major users

• Alternative II offers slightly more waterquality protection than Alternative III

- Hydrographic parameters such assalinity, temperature, and dissolvedoxygen will be improved by water-usereduction and re-use for all users



• Fishing strategies in all Alternatives offernegligible improvements in existing waterquality

Fishing


ComparativeImpacts

Environm


anagement A

lternatives





158


• Slight reduction in nutrients and toxicants• Significant improvement in site-specificlocations

* Further actions:- Increase the number and size of research

and restoration zones- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and live-aboard areas



* Further actions:- Increase the number and size of research

and restoration zones- Reduce the number and size of zones

allowing high-impact activities and live-aboard areas

• The level of water quality protectionincreases from Alternative IV toAlternative II

- Increasing the size and number ofprotected areas and decreasing thesize and number of areas where high-impact activities can occur will increasethe potential for improvements in waterquality across Alternatives

Zoning



• Significant actions:- Establish zones for research and

restoration activities- Establish zones to restrict high-impact

activities- Establish live-aboard areas


• Reduction in nutrients and toxicants isgreater than Alternative IV


• Focus on confined and nearshore watersand Florida Bay

• Moderate Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:- Initiate techniques to improve water quality

in dead-end canals and basins in knownhot spots/critical areas

- Implement improvements to controlstormwater runoff in known problem areas

- Develop a Sanitary Wastewater MasterPlan


• Reduction in nutrients and toxicants sameas Alternative III


• Focus on confined and nearshore watersand Florida Bay

• Moderate Sanctuary-wide impacts

* Further actions:- Initiate techniques to improve water quality

in dead-end canals and basins throughoutthe Sanctuary

- Implement improvements to controlstormwater runoff in degraded areas andalong more sections of US 1

• Alternative III offers substantially morewater quality protection than AlternativeIV

- Using engineering techniques toimprove water quality in confinedwaters and to control runoff in site-specific areas will potentially improveall water quality parameters in manylocations

- Development of a Sanitary WastewaterMaster Plan addresses water qualityproblems in the long term

• Alternative II offers slightly more waterquality protection

- Using engineering techniques toimprove water quality in confinedwaters and to control runoff in moreareas has the potential to improve allwater quality parameters in many morelocations


Water Quality

• Significant improvement in existingwater quality

• Emphasis on reducing nutrients andtoxicants


• Focus on confined and nearshorewaters 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 freshwa-

ter flow to Florida Bay- Enforce existing standards for OSDS

and package plants- Eliminate all cesspits- Upgrade the Key West wastewater

treatment plant

ComparativeImpacts

Environm


anagement A

lternatives

159






• No direct improvements in water quality

• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations 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


• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations greater than Alternative III

* Further actions:- Establish a Sanctuary visitor center

Education


• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations

• Significant actions:- Develop/distribute print and audio-visual materials

- Conduct formal and informal training- Establish a volunteer support base- Develop public forums and specialevents

• The level of educational outreachincreases from Alternative IV toAlternative II

- Expanding training programs, promo-tional activities, and visitor contact willincrease the opportunities to educatepeople about water quality issues

160


(L.16.a, Alternative IV) would indirectly improveconditions in confined and nearshore waters. Thisplan also would help to reduce nutrient loadings to allSanctuary waters. The potential for improvementswill increase through the implementation of a water-use reduction and re-use plan for major users(L.16.b, Alternative III), and would increase evenmore significantly if all users are included (L.16.c,Alternative II).

Dredge and Fill. Wetlands act as a natural buffer byfiltering stormwater before it enters the marineenvironment. Dredge and fill activities increasestormwater runoff and the potential for nutrients,toxicants, turbidity, and reduced dissolved oxygenlevels to impact confined and nearshore waters. Toaddress these problems, the Sanctuary wouldsupport Monroe County's policies to eliminate dredgeand fill activities in undisturbed wetlands (L.18.a,Alternative IV), and mitigation banking will be consid-ered to replace impacted wetlands. Strategy L.18.b(Alternatives III and II) will provide increased wetlandprotection by requiring that all new dredge and fillprojects in functional disturbed wetlands pass apublic interest test.

Research and Monitoring. Each of the three mid-range alternatives addresses the lack of availabledata regarding water quality problems and impacts.They include base strategies to confront the prob-lems and influences of Florida Bay, initiate generalwater-quality research, and provide for the establish-ment of comprehensive monitoring programs. Theseactivities alone will provide a significant improvementin research and monitoring efforts compared to thestatus quo (Alternative V).

Florida Bay. Over the past century, the flow offreshwater reaching Florida Bay has been signifi-cantly reduced, affecting temperature, salinity, anddissolved oxygen levels (Richards, 1989; EPA,1992). The quality, quantity, timing, and distributionof freshwater flow have been linked to the vitality anddistribution of habitats supporting the Bay's faunaand flora (Lindall and Saloman, 1977; Schomer andDrew, 1982). A reduction in freshwater flow, coupledwith a lack of significant hurricanes impacting theBay, has also been associated with the currentseagrass die-off and resulting increase in nutrientlevels (Zieman, 1989). Strategy W.19 will pursueshort- and long-term solutions designed to improvethese flows. In addition, the water management plansfor Florida Bay and adjacent areas will be reviewedto ensure that water quality improvement goals arenot compromised.

tions are directly linked to degraded water quality inconfined and nearshore waters (Heatwole, 1987;Rios, 1990; Snedaker, 1990). Only eight marinas inthe Keys have sewage pump-out facilities, with two ofthese servicing private clubs (Antonini et al., 1990).As a result, many boats pump waste directly into thewater, increasing nutrient levels. Requiring theinstallation of pump-out facilities at marinas (L.1) willencourage boaters to properly dispose of their waste,leading to reduced nutrient and turbidity levels andincreases in dissolved oxygen levels. This strategyoffers the same level of protection across the threemid-range alternatives, and provides a significantimprovement compared to the status quo (AlternativeV).

Toxicant loads will also be slightly reduced byimplementing short-term remedial actions to reducefuel spillage (L.3.a, Alternative IV). However, thesepollutants would be significantly reduced by bothattempting to reduce fuel spillage and establishingcontainment areas for boat maintenance and repair(L.3.b, Alternatives III and II). Although existingmarina operation regulations, including OSHAstandards, indirectly address water quality problems,compliance has been inconsistent. Stricter enforce-ment of OSHA regulations (L.2) will lead to improvedwater quality in confined and nearshore areas.

Water quality studies have linked the discharge ofsewage from boats and live-aboard vessels todegradation in confined and nearshore waters(Heatwole, 1987; Rios, 1990). There are almost9,000 boat slips in the Keys (Kearney/Centaur,1990), approximately 16,000 pleasure boats regis-tered in Monroe County (Shermyen, 1991), and anestimated 1,400 live-aboard vessels in the Sanctu-ary. The environmental impact of discharges fromthese vessels, especially in concentrated areas suchas Boot Key Harbor, can be significant (FDER,1990). Strategy B.7 provides significant improve-ments in water quality compared to the status quo(Alternative V) by aggressively enforcing currentregulations, assessing the need for additional regula-tions, and supporting the upcoming regulationrestricting discharge in State waters. In addition,modifying the environmental crimes category associ-ated with illegal discharges by adding a civil offensecomponent will make it easier to enforce and discour-age illegal discharges.

Water Use and Re-use. Developing a plan toencourage improved wastewater treatment andincreased water re-use through new re-use options,thresholds, and water-use reduction incentives

161


Sanctuary (EPA, 1993). Implementing an aggressiveinspection/enforcement program (W.3.a, AlternativeIV) would improve water quality by eliminatingcesspits and requiring that all on-site disposalsystems and package plants operate according toestablished standards. Increased benefits areexpected if the inspection/enforcement program iscomplemented by the development and implementa-tion of a Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan thatrequires existing systems to be upgraded beyondcurrent standards (W.3.b, Alternatives III and II).Strategy W.4 addresses the problems associatedwith wastewater disposal in the City of Key West.Discontinuing the use of the ocean outfall, upgradingthe wastewater treatment plant, and evaluatingoptions for the re-use of properly treated effluent willsignificantly reduce the level of nutrients dischargedto Sanctuary waters (EPA, 1993).

Stormwater. Uncontrolled stormwater runoff canlead to water quality degradation through increasesin sediment, toxicant, and nutrient loading. Despitetheir vulnerability to the impacts of stormwater, theKeys have a limited number of stormwater manage-ment systems (EPA, 1993). Strategy W.11.b (Alter-native III) will identify and retrofit stormwater systemsin "hot spots"/critical areas throughout the Sanctuarythat exhibit obvious adverse impacts, and will requirethe installation of control systems in areas thathandle toxic and hazardous materials. Sediment,toxicant, and nutrient loads will be significantlyreduced in these areas. Strategy W.11.c (AlternativeII) requires the application of these same methods inmore areas throughout the Sanctuary. However, it isnot known whether this action would have a signifi-cantly greater positive impact on water quality thanconcentrating only on hot spots.

Canals. Canals and dead-end basins act as traps fornutrients, toxicants, sediments, and weeds, and areparticularly susceptible to pollutant impacts. This hasbeen indicated through low dissolved oxygen and pHlevels, and elevated biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) in several canals throughout the Keys. Lowdissolved oxygen levels are also found where thesecanals empty into nearshore waters (FDER, 1987).Conducting an inventory and assessment of canalsand developing solutions to improve their waterquality (W.10.a, Alternative IV) would provide theinformation needed to develop programs to limitpollution in these areas. Strategy W.10.b (AlternativeIII) will improve water quality more significantly byimplementing mitigation actions in canals and basinsidentified as hot spots throughout the Sanctuary.Strategy W.10.c (Alternative II) would lead to in-

Florida Bay's water quality problems may also impactthe Florida Reef Tract; studies have shown that tidalcurrents and storms can transport Bay waters to thereef, adversely affecting the ecosystem (Voss, 1988;Jaap, 1990; Szmant, 1991). Implementing strategyW.24 will continue this research and complementefforts to re-establish the Bay's environmentalquality.

General Research. Other research strategies ad-dress water quality conditions throughout the Sanctu-ary, and provide baseline information for makingmanagement decisions addressing water qualityvariability and its impact on resources. Researchefforts include: the development of predictive ecologi-cal models (W.21); the assessment of physicalprocesses and their interaction with pollutants(W.22); an examination of the impacts of groundwa-ter transport and leachate (W.23); the identification ofcausal linkages between poor water quality andecological problems (W.25); the development ofdiagnostic indicators of poor water quality (W.26);and the development of new tools and methods tohelp determine water quality impacts (W.27). Each ofthese strategies provides the same level of researchfor the three mid-range alternatives.

Monitoring. Two Sanctuary-wide comprehensivemonitoring programs are proposed in each of thethree mid-range alternatives. Strategy W.20 willimplement a long-term comprehensive water qualitymonitoring program to identify areas with poor waterquality, and to evaluate the effectiveness of manage-ment actions designed to improve water quality.Strategy W.33 will establish a Sanctuary-wideecosystem monitoring program that will: 1) provideresource managers with information on the status ofthe health of living resources and the ecosystem; 2)help to determine relationships between water qualityand the ecosystem as a basis for managementaction; and 3) evaluate the effectiveness of manage-ment actions such as zoning.

Domestic Wastewater. The proper treatment anddisposal of domestic wastewater are critical toreducing adverse water quality impacts. The use ofan estimated 30,000 septic systems and cesspits,coupled with soils and bedrock with high porosity andlow organic content, has resulted in substandardwastewater treatment and an increase in the poten-tial for nutrients and toxicants to degrade ground-and surfacewater in confined and nearshore areas(EPA, 1992). Evidence suggests that domesticwastewater is the main source of increased nutrientlevels in the confined and nearshore waters of the

162


creased improvements by requiring mitigation actionsin all canals and basins throughout the Sanctuary.

Zoning. Although zoning will have little direct impacton improved water quality, strategy Z.5.a (AlternativeIV) could be used to set aside areas for scientificresearch, monitoring, or restoration activities, or toconfine high-impact activities that have detrimentalimpacts on the Sanctuary's water quality. Theseareas may completely restrict any water-relatedactivities that may negatively impact water quality.Strategies Z.5.b (Alternative III) and Z.5.c (AlternativeII) add to the overall water quality improvementsprovided by these zones by increasing the number ofresearch, restoration, and monitoring areas, and byreducing the size and number of areas where high-impact activities will be allowed.

Environmental Impacts: Habitats

The habitats of the Keys are closely interrelated andare influenced by both natural stresses and human-generated pollution. Coral reefs and seagrasscommunities are vulnerable to weather and climatefluctuations, physical damage resulting from humanactivities, and water quality degradation. In addition,the Keys' once-extensive mangrove forests havedeclined, primarily due to residential and commercialdevelopment (Snedaker, 1990).

Strategies within the three mid-range alternativesaddress habitat-related issues by focusing on coral,seagrass, and mangrove communities, with a generalincrease in the level of restrictions from Alternative IVto Alternative II (Table 20). Because of the interrela-tionships among habitats, other habitats, such ashardbottom, algal communities, and sediments, willalso benefit from the actions in these alternatives.Each alternative addresses site-specific locations, aswell as specific habitats throughout the Sanctuary.Alternatives III and II, however, provide more habitatprotection over a broader area than Alternative IV.Alternative V, which represents the "no-action" statusquo, would not protect habitats from continueddegradation. Alternative I would provide maximumhabitat protection by placing severe restrictions onnumerous activities currently allowed in the Sanctu-ary. The key strategies most likely to affect Sanctuaryhabitats are listed below.

Key Strategies Affecting Habitats

B.6 Additional EnforcementB.12 Cross-deputizationL.19 Growth ManagementR.5 Carrying CapacityZ.1 Wildlife Management AreasZ.2 Replenishment ReservesZ.3 Sanctuary Preservation AreasZ.5 Special-use Areas

Key Issues

Growth Management. In 1990 the total residentpopulation of the Keys was over 78,000, an increaseof 15,000 people since 1980, and a 160 percentincrease since 1950. Development and other growth-related activities have severely impacted the area'salready limited terrestrial habitats (Kruer, 1992), andhave led to the decline of many confined andnearshore habitats (Voss, 1988; Jaap, 1990). Strat-

ComparativeImpacts

163

Environm


anagement A

lternatives

Table 20. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Habitats (continued)





• Emphasis on coral and seagrass protection

• Some protection for mangrove and hardbot-tom 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 hardbot-tom 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 moderateincreases in protection to coral, seagrass,mangrove and hardbottom habitats, andsediments compared to Alternative IV- Developing a habitat restoration program

significantly benefits critical habitats suchas coral and seagrass

- Exhibiting environmentally soundsalvaging and towing techniques will be aprerequisite for obtaining a permit

- Modifying existing access sites willimprove habitats in nearshore areas

- Marking channels in more locations willallow for additional habitat improvements

• Alternative II offers slightly greaterprotection to hardbottom, seagrass, andmangrove habitats compared to AlternativeIII- Habitat restoration will be significantly

expanded- Managing and restricting public access

will benefit sensitive sites, primarilyseagrass, mangrove, and othernearshore habitats

- Marking channels throughout theSanctuary will allow for additional habitatimprovements

Boating• Emphasis on coral and seagrassprotection

• Some protection for mangrove andhardbottom 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 seagrasshabitats

• Regulatory and spatial components of manystrategies increase compared to AlternativeIV

* 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, andseagrass habitats

• Regulatory and spatial components of manystrategies increase compared to AlternativeIII

* 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 moderateincreases in protection to coral, seagrass,& hardbottom habitats compared toAlternative 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 offishermen and fishing devices

• Alternative II provides slightly moreprotection to coral, seagrass, andhardbottom habitats than Alternative III

Fishing• Limited impact on habitat improvement

• Focus on coral, hardbottom, andseagrass habitats

• Significant actions:- Address fisheries-related habitat issues

through implementation of consistentregulations

- Prevent the release of exotic species inthe Sanctuary

- Increase the use of biodegradablefishing gear


Environm


anagement A

lternatives

ComparativeImpacts




164

• Moderate impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral, seagrass, and hardbottomhabitats

• Improvements primarily in site-specificlocations

* Further actions:- Enforce carrying capacities for highlysensitive habitats and in high-use areasthroughout the Sanctuary

• Significant impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral, seagrass, and hardbottomhabitats

• Improvements primarily in site-specificlocations throughout the Sanctuary

* Further actions:- Enforce carrying capacities for all habitatsthroughout the Sanctuary

• Alternative III offers slightly more habitatprotection than Alternative IV

- Instituting carrying capacities in site-specific areas will reduce direct andcumulative impacts of recreationalactivities

• Alternative II significantly increases thelevel of protection compared to AlternativeIII

- Instituting carrying capacities for allhabitats throughout the Sanctuary offersthe most habitat protection

Recreation

• Moderate impact on improving habitats

• Focus on coral and hardbottomhabitats

• Some improvements in seagrass areas


• Significant actions:- Identify and implement carrying

capacities in highly sensitive areas- Identify and inventory habitats found

in conjunction with submergedcultural resources (SCR)

- Restrict extraction techniques forSCR

• Minimal impact on improving habitats

• Focus on seagrass, algal, and mangrovehabitats

• Benefits to habitats in confined andnearshore areas greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:- Require containment areas at marinas totrap toxic and hazardous materials


• Focus on seagrass, algal, and mangrovehabitats

• Benefits to habitats in confined andnearshore areas same as Alternative III

* Further actions:- None

• Alternatives III and II offer the same levelof increased protection to habitats whencompared to Alternative IV

- Containment areas will reduce the risk ofpollutants harming habitats in confinedand nearshore areas

• Growth management would have thegreatest overall impact in each Alternative

Land Use


• Focus on seagrass, algal, andmangrove habitats

• Benefits most noticeable in confinedand nearshore areas

• Significant actions:- Reduce impacts of nutrient loading,

stormwater discharge, dredge and fill,and solid waste disposal throughgrowth management

- Install pump-out facilities- Implement OSHA marina regulations- Reduce fuel spillage from marina

operations


Fishing (cont.)- Requiring biodegradable fishing gear

throughout the Sanctuary and limitedentry to all fisheries will increase thebenefits to critical habitats

- Limited entry for all fisheries will helpreduce the total number of fishermen andfishing devices

Not Applicable Not Applicable• Significant actions (cont.) - Remove lost or out-of-season fishing gear

ComparativeImpacts

165

Environm


anagement A

lternatives






Water Quality

• Actions are specifically designed toimprove water quality

• Improvements in water quality couldsignificantly improve habitats





• Water Quality strategies in all Alterna-tives offer similar levels of habitatprotection

• High level of protection for all habitats

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuaryincrease compared to Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Increase the number and size of SanctuaryPreservation Areas and ReplenishmentReserves

- Reduce the number and size of zonesallowing high-impact activities and live-aboard areas

• The level of protection increases fromAlternative IV to Alternative II

- Increasing the size and number ofprotected areas and decreasing the sizeand number of areas where high-impactactivities can occur will increase thepotential for improvements to habitatsacross Alternatives


• Improvements throughout the Sanctuaryincrease compared to Alternative III

* Further actions:



Zoning


• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary

• Significant actions:

- Restrict access to representativehabitats; areas with high biologicaldiversity; and shallow, heavily usedreefs

- 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 regulationsgreater 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



• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of activities, and regulationsgreater 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 increasesfrom Alternative IV to Alternative II

- Expanding training programs, promo-tional activities, and visitor contact willincrease the opportunities to educateusers about habitat issues

Education



• Potential to educate users aboutissues, consequences of activities, andregulations


- Develop/distribute print and audio-visual materials

- Install informational signs/displays athigh-use areas

- Develop public forums and specialevents

166


egy L.19 addresses these problems by linking theresearch activities and habitat-improvement goals ofthe Sanctuary's Management Plan and the EPAWater Quality Protection Plan with Monroe County'sgrowth management policies. This will result insignificant improvements in the protection andenhancement of terrestrial habitats and marinehabitats in confined and nearshore areas. Importantcomponents of this strategy include: the establish-ment of a population "build-out" to reduce residentialimpacts on the surrounding environment; a programto direct new development to high-density, disturbedsubdivisions supported by centralized facilities; andthe development of an intergovernmental landacquisition program to preserve natural lands. Thisstrategy offers the same level of habitat protectionacross each of the three mid-range alternatives, andprovides significant environmental protection com-pared to the status quo (Alternative V), by ensuringthat Federal, State, and local government agencieswork together to limit the negative impacts of futuregrowth.

Zoning. The Keys contain habitats found nowhereelse in North America, which together form a diverse,interrelated ecosystem that has become increasinglyvulnerable to human disturbances. The growth of theresident population and increase in the level oftourism have added to the stress on the region'snatural resources, and led to numerous user con-flicts. Marine zoning is a new concept, but hasproved to be a valuable management tool for protect-ing habitats and addressing user conflicts in otherareas (Dugan and Davis, 1993; Bohnsack, pers.comm.). Four zoning strategies, each of whichprovides a high level of habitat protection, have beendeveloped for the three mid-range alternatives.

Wildlife Management Zones (Z.1) will limit access tosensitive habitats, especially in backcountry areas.Replenishment Reserves (Z.2) and SanctuaryPreservation Areas (Z.3) will provide significantprotection to representative habitats; areas thatsupport high levels of biological diversity; areasimportant for sustaining other natural resources;shallow, heavily used reefs; and areas experiencinga high degree of conflict between consumptive andnonconsumptive uses. Special-use Zones (Z.5) willprotect seagrass, mangrove communities, andsediments by confining activities known to haveadverse environmental impacts. Zoning will also beused to set aside areas requiring habitat restoration.The level of protection provided by each type of zoneincreases from Alternative IV to Alternative II throughthe designation of larger and more numerous areas.

Zones where restricted activities are allowed wouldbe smaller and less numerous as the level of protec-tion increases.

Carrying Capacity. Recreational and commercialactivities are important to the Keys' economy, andare 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 JohnPennekamp Coral Reef State Park, 339,000 visitedBahia Honda State Park, and 19,400 visited DryTortugas National Park (White, 1991). In addition,commercial fishing, combined with population growthand a growing demand for fisheries products, hasraised concerns about the increasing impacts ofcommercial activities on habitats (Bohnsack, 1991).

Evidence suggests that the direct and cumulativeimpact of the increasing number of people using thelimited and sensitive habitats of the Keys can lead todamage and degradation (Voss, 1988). The level ofuse that different habitats can tolerate, however, isnot well-understood. Strategy R.5.a (Alternative IV)would address this problem by establishing a pro-gram to identify the carrying-capacity levels ofdifferent habitats and areas. This would provide thebasis for managing carrying-capacity limits in areasdeemed highly sensitive to overuse. Strategy R.5.b(Alternative III) increases habitat protection bymanaging identified carrying-capacity limits in highlysensitive habitat areas and high-use areas through-out the Sanctuary. Strategy R.5.c (Alternative II)would provide even more protection by establishingand managing carrying-capacity limits for all habitatsthroughout the Sanctuary. The enforcement ofcarrying-capacity limits primarily benefits thosehabitats at greatest risk, such as corals. Carrying-capacity limits would not be necessary in the mostrestrictive alternative (Alternative I), because all high-impact activities would be prohibited in most, if notall, areas of the Sanctuary.

Restoration. Restoration projects in the Keys canenhance habitats after disruptive events. For ex-ample, in 1981 the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authorityauthorized a new pipeline, contingent on the restora-tion of the seagrass beds north of Key Largo thatwould be impacted by its construction. A survey ofthe impacted area showed a high level of regrowth10 months after the project was completed(Thorhaug, 1983). The continuation of ongoinghabitat restoration efforts is vital for the protectionand enhancement of the Sanctuary's resources.

167


Strategy B.2.a (Alternative IV) encourages continuedrestoration activities, and establishes a monitoringprogram for restoration sites. Strategy B.2.b (Alterna-tive III) increases the potential for more areas to berestored by developing and adopting a restorationplan for severely impacted areas. Strategy B.2.c(Alternative II) offers additional enhancement byimplementing the plan in all impacted areas through-out the Sanctuary. Strategies in all three alternativesfocus on those habitats considered at highest risk:coral, seagrasses, mangroves, and hardbottoms.

Vessel Groundings. Vessel groundings of evensmall boats can significantly damage corals,seagrasses, and other habitats. Damage occurs boththrough direct habitat destruction, and as a result offuel and cargo spills. As vessel traffic continues toincrease throughout the Keys, the need to establishimproved standards regarding damage assessmentprocedures, litigation practices, and response timesincreases as well. Strategy B.10 addresses this needby establishing a standard assessment methodologyfor vessel groundings. This strategy provides thesame level of restriction in each of the three mid-range management alternatives, and provides morehabitat protection than the status quo (Alternative V).

Grounding-related damages also can occur throughimproper towing and salvaging techniques. Establish-ing and encouraging environmentally sound methodsof towing and salvaging (B.13.a, Alternative IV) offersome habitat improvement compared to the statusquo (Alternative V). However, implementing towingand salvage standards through a permit system(B.13.b, Alternative III) will provide more significantimprovements. Requiring training for towing andsalvage operators (B.13.c, Alternative II) wouldprovide some additional improvements.

Access. Users traveling within the Sanctuary canimpact habitats at their point of entry (e.g., boatramps, marinas, etc.), along their travel route, and attheir final destination. Three strategies have beendesigned to address these impacts. First, an inven-tory of public and private boat ramps and use levelswill be conducted to provide information for restrictingthe development of new access points to locationswhere access has less impact on the environment,and for managing existing access locations (B.1.a,Alternative IV). Strategy B.1.b (Alternative III) ad-dresses existing problem areas by requiring thatmodifications be made to public ramps currentlyhaving an adverse impact on adjacent sensitiveareas. Strategy B.1.c (Alternative II) provides addi-tional protection by requiring modifications to both

public and private ramps, and implementing restric-tions on new public access areas.

Properly marked channels will reduce the short- andlong-term impacts of boat traffic on all shallow-waterhabitats. The channel marking scheme proposed inAlternative IV (B.4.a) focuses only on sensitive areas.Strategies B.4.b and B.4.c (Alternatives III and II) willimplement channel marking in high-use and sensitiveareas and throughout the Sanctuary, respectively,increasing the amount of habitat protected.

Mooring buoys have been used successfully at theKey Largo and Looe Key national marine sanctuariesand at other locations throughout the Keys to mini-mize the direct impacts of anchoring and the cumula-tive effects of overuse. Mooring buoys may result inhabitat damage in specific areas by attracting moreusers to them. However, when used, monitored andmanaged properly, mooring buoys have positivebenefits by minimizing anchor damage and control-ling resource use. Strategy B.15.a (Alternative IV)would protect habitats by establishing a comprehen-sive mooring buoy plan that includes site-selectioncriteria, a program to monitor use and impacts, andthe implementation of vessel size limits at buoys insensitive areas. Alternatives III and II offer morehabitat protection than Alternative IV by implementingvessel size limits in high-use and sensitive areas andthroughout the Sanctuary, respectively.

Marinas/Boat Discharge. The relatively high levelsof nutrients and toxicants found in waters nearmarina operations (Heatwole, 1987; Rios, 1990;Snedaker, 1990) can have a detrimental impact onadjacent nearshore habitats. Eutrophic conditions,resulting from increased nutrient inputs, can have aparticularly harmful impact on seagrasses in theseareas (Zieman, 1975b). Nutrient levels in site-specificlocations will be reduced by ensuring that all marinaswhich have pump-out requirements install pump-outfacilities (L.1). This will also enhance habitat healthby reducing turbidity and increasing dissolved oxygenlevels. Habitats will also benefit from short-termremedial actions designed to reduce toxicant loadsdue to fuel spillage during refueling operations (L.3.a,Alternative IV). Establishing containment areas forboat maintenance and repair activities (L.3.b, Alter-natives III and II), in conjunction with reducing fuelspillage, will provide additional habitat benefits. Also,stricter enforcement of OSHA regulations regardingmarina operations (L.2) would improve water qualityand enhance habitat growth.

168


Eutrophic and polluted conditions associated withsewage discharge from boats and live-aboardvessels in confined and nearshore waters can alsoadversely impact habitats (Heatwole, 1987; Rios,1990). Strategy B.7 will provide significant habitatimprovements compared to the status quo (Alterna-tive V) by aggressively enforcing current regulationsregarding pollution discharges from vessels, assess-ing the need for additional regulations, and support-ing the upcoming regulation restricting discharge inState waters. In addition, an effort to change theenvironmental crimes category associated with boatdischarges by adding a civil offense will make iteasier to obtain a conviction and discourage illegaldischarges.

Fishing. Commercial and recreational fishing activi-ties can have both direct and indirect adverseimpacts on habitats. Lost, abandoned, or improperlyused gear can destroy corals and seagrass, andoverstressing individual species may have detrimen-tal impacts on the habitats in which they are found.Several strategies within the mid-range alternativesaddress these problems.

Consistent Regulations. The implementation of aconsistent set of fisheries regulations throughout theSanctuary (F.1) will benefit almost all habitats bycomprehensively addressing many habitat-relatedfisheries issues. This strategy provides the samelevel of protection in each of the mid-range alterna-tives, and will significantly improve current fisheriesmanagement practices compared to the status quo(Alternative V). The strategy complements the workbeing done by the Florida Marine Fisheries Commis-sion and the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlanticfishery management councils.

Limited Entry. One of the objectives of limited entry isto reduce damage to the habitats on which speciesdepend for food and survival. This will result from areduction in the number of fishing devices affectingthese habitats. Limited-entry options will be assessedthrough Strategy F.5.a (Alternative IV). Strategy F.5.b(Alternative III) adds the operational detail necessaryto protect habitats by implementing limited-entryoptions for selected fisheries, including those associ-ated with habitats that are either damaged or insevere decline. Implementing limited-entry options forall Sanctuary fisheries (F.5.c, Alternative II) wouldresult in a slight increase in habitat protection throughfurther restrictions on the number of fishing devicesthat could harm habitats.

Gear/Methods. Seagrass, coral, and hardbottomhabitats are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of

fishing gear and methods (Bohnsack, 1993). Lobstertraps can damage corals or seagrasses on whichthey rest. Developing a program to remove gear thathas been lost, abandoned, or is being used out ofseason (F.9) will benefit the habitats currently beingimpacted. Volunteers are an important component ofthis strategy, and will be trained to remove gear withminimal damage to the environment. No comprehen-sive gear-removal program currently exists within theKeys (Alternative V, status quo).

Developing and promoting the use of gear andmethods 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 inpriority areas (F.11.b, Alternative III) or throughoutthe Sanctuary (F.11.c, Alternative II) will furtherincrease the level of habitat protection provided bythis strategy.

Exotic Species. The uncontrolled release of nonna-tive species can seriously impact Sanctuary habitats.For example, a newly introduced species may feedexclusively on a particular plant or animal, causingunforeseen changes in the native community, or itmay host a damaging disease or parasite(Courtenay, 1979). Implementing regulations toprevent the release of exotic species in the Sanctu-ary (F.8) will address this issue and provide signifi-cant protection to the Keys' ecosystem. There arecurrently few safeguards to prevent the introductionof exotic species into Sanctuary waters.

Submerged Cultural Resources. Habitat threatsfrom activities related to submerged cultural re-sources range from damage incurred by largenumbers of divers and snorkelers visiting a site, todisturbances caused by large-scale exploration andrecovery techniques (Clausen, 1990). The "mailbox"technique, using prop wash to uncover buriedtreasure, can be particularly destructive to the wreck/artifact, the wreck site, and the surrounding habitats(particularly coral and seagrasses) that may beimpacted by prop wash or buried by the displacedsediment (Hudson, pers. comm.). The developmentof a Submerged Cultural Resources ManagementPlan (R.1.a-c, Alternatives IV, III, and II) addressesthese concerns, and ensures that habitats andresources are not damaged by unsound explorationand recovery methods. This strategy will provide thesame level of habitat protection across each of thethree mid-range alternatives, offering significantimprovements in protection compared to the statusquo (Alternative V).

169


growth and development on species by preservingthe habitats on which they depend, and reducing thelevels of pollutants that threaten them. This strategyprovides the same level of protection in each of thethree mid-range alternatives, and offers significantlyincreased species protection compared to the statusquo (Alternative V) by ensuring that Federal, State,and local government agencies work together to limitthe negative impacts of future growth.

Zoning. Species depend on a variety of habitats forfood, shelter, and areas for reproduction during theirlife stages. Some are migratory and utilize numeroushabitats, while others are critically linked to onehabitat type. The degradation of a particular habitatcan, therefore, have a dramatic impact on the healthof the species that depend on it to survive. Overhar-vesting may also impact species, altering the struc-ture of year classes, and ultimately impacting com-munity composition (Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990;Bohnsack, 1990; Rowley, 1992).

Zoning is a method of protecting species populationsthat has had demonstrated success in wildlifemanagement and in other national marine sanctuar-ies, particularly by enhancing diversity, abundance,and distribution patterns. Wildlife Management Zones(Z.1) are designed to limit access to sensitive areasfor the benefit of marine and terrestrial species,including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.Replenishment Reserves (Z.2) are designed toenhance species biodiversity, serve as ecologicalmonitoring sites, and separate incompatible activities.They protect species by limiting consumptive activi-ties in selected contiguous habitat areas, and alsoprovide natural spawning, nursery, and permanentresidence areas for a variety of species. SanctuaryPreservation Areas (Z.3) are designed to protectspecies by limiting consumptive activities on andaround selected reefs and nearshore habitats. Theyprotect intensively used areas that are critical tosustaining and protecting certain marine species.Special-use Zones (Z.5) provide significant protectionto species by setting aside areas for research,restoration, and recovery efforts. The number and/orsize of Special-use Zones increases from AlternativeIV to II. Maintaining the status quo (Alternative V)would allow for the continued degradation of speciesand their habitats, and would increase the risk ofpopulation declines among certain species.

Carrying Capacity. The overuse of Sanctuaryresources causes habitat degradation that candisrupt the community structure of an area andseriously impact species. Easy access to recreational

Environmental Impacts: Species

The Keys' ecosystem supports a diverse assemblageof species, including those commercially andrecreationally important, unique to the area, orspatially limited due to habitat constraints. Stresseson species within the Sanctuary include the impactsof land-based activities, habitat declines, and recre-ational and commercial fishing (Alevizon andBannerot, 1990). The impacts of fishing are particu-larly significant because recreational fishing is thearea's primary tourist-related boating activity, andcommercial fishing is the fourth largest industry in theregion (White, 1991). The strategies in each of thethree mid-range management alternatives will protectspecies by focusing on economically important foodand ornamental species, keystone species, andwildlife. These alternatives will help enhance speciesdiversity, abundance, and distribution. Alternatives IIIand II will provide benefits to more species over alarger area of the Sanctuary than Alternative IV(Table 21) or the status quo (Alternative V). The keystrategies most likely to affect species are listedbelow.

Key Strategies Affecting Species

F.1 Consistent RegulationsF.5 Limited EntryF.8 Exotic SpeciesF.9 Gear RemovalL.19 Growth ManagementZ.1 Wildlife Management AreasZ.2 Replenishment ReservesZ.3 Sanctuary Preservation AreasZ.5 Special-use Areas

Key Issues

Growth Management. The land-based activities of agrowing coastal population pose serious threats tomany species within the Sanctuary, including fishes,invertebrates, and wildlife (Antonius, 1982; Deisler,1982; FWS, 1992). Habitat destruction resulting fromcoastal development, water quality degradation, andoverharvesting can also lead to species declines.The criteria for developing the Monroe CountyComprehensive Plan include the preservation ofmarine resource areas, terrestrial wildlife resourceareas, and habitat-related resource areas such aswetlands (Roberts and Todd, 1991). Federal andState agency coordination with Monroe County todevelop a plan that meets these criteria (L.19) willreduce the direct and indirect impacts of population

ComparativeImpacts

Environm


anagement A

lternatives

Table 21. Overall Environmental Impacts by Alternative: Species (continued)




170


• Moderate overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife, importantfood and ornamental species, and keystonespecies

• Slight increase in species diversity anddistribution

* Further actions:

- Hire 30 new enforcement officers- Initiate habitat restoration in severelyimpacted areas

• Significant overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife, importantfood and ornamental species, and keystonespecies

• Moderate increase in species diversity anddistribution

* Further actions:

- Hire 50 new enforcement officers- Initiate habitat restoration for all impactedareas throughout the Sanctuary

- Establish channel marking throughout theSanctuary

• Alternative III provides moderateincreases in species protectioncompared to Alternative IV

- Restoring damaged habitats will benefitspecies dependent on them for survival

- Additional enforcement will protectspecies

• Alternative II offers slightly greaterspecies protection compared toAlternative III

- Increasing restoration efforts willincrease the benefits to species

- Marking channels throughout theSanctuary will significantly benefitwildlife and other species

- Additional enforcement will protectspecies

Fishing• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important foodand ornamental species and keystonespecies

• Significant actions:- Implement consistent fisheriesregulations

- Prevent the release of exotic species- Eliminate finfish traps- Develop a removal plan for lost andout-of-season fishing gear

- Promote low-impact fishing gear andmethods

• Alternative III offers moderately greaterspecies protection than Alternative IV

- Limited entry for specific fisheries willbenefit species by matching thenumber of fishermen and fishingdevices with species productivity andcarrying capacity

- Requiring low-impact fishing gear inpriority areas will increase speciesprotection by protecting their habitats

• Alternative II offers significantly greaterspecies protection than Alternative III

- Limited entry for all fisheries willincrease species protection

- Requiring low-impact fishing gearthroughout the Sanctuary will protectmore habitats and therefore morespecies

• Significant benefit to species

• High level of protection for all species

• Regulatory and spatial components of manystrategies increase compared to AlternativeIII

* Further actions:

- Implement regulations to establish limitedentry for all fisheries

- Require low-impact biodegradable fishinggear throughout the Sanctuary

• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food andornamental species and keystone species

• Significant benefits to wildlife and speciesdiversity and distribution

• Regulatory and spatial components of manystrategies increase compared to AlternativeIV

* Further actions:

- Implement regulations to establish limitedentry for specific fisheries

- Require low-impact fishing gear in priorityareas

Boating• Moderate overall benefit to species

• Emphasis on protecting wildlife,important food and ornamental species,and keystone species

• Slight increase in species diversity anddistribution


- Hire 10 new enforcement officers- Increase enforcement of fishery laws- Confine boat traffic to properly markedchannels

- Use mooring buoys to confine boatingimpacts to manageable areas

- Support existing restoration activities

ComparativeImpacts

171

Environm


anagement A

lternatives






• Benefit to species same as Alternative III

• Focus on keystone species, wildlife, andspecies diversity and distribution

• Nutrient and toxicant reductions in confinedand nearshore areas will benefit species inthose areas

* Further actions:

- None

• Benefits to species increase slightlycompared to Alternative IV


• Nutrient and toxicant reductions in confinedand nearshore areas will benefit species inthose areas

* Further actions:

- Require containment areas at marinas totrap toxic and hazardous materials

Land Use

• Minimal benefit to species


• Nutrient and toxicant reductions inconfined and nearshore areas wouldbenefit species


- Reduce impacts of nutrient loading,stormwater discharge, dredge and fill,and solid waste disposal through growthmanagement

- Install pump-out facilities- Implement OSHA marina regulations- Reduce fuel spillage from marina

operations

• Alternatives III and II offer a similar levelof species protection

- Reducing the amount of pollutantsentering confined and nearshore waterswill directly benefit the species in thoseareas

• Growth management would have thegreatest overall impact in each Alterna-tive

• Moderate benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food andornamental species, keystone species, andwildlife

• Improvements in species diversity anddistribution


* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for highlysensitive habitats and in high-use areasthroughout the Sanctuary

• Significant benefit to species

• Focus on economically important food andornamental species, keystone species, andwildlife

• Improvements in species diversity anddistribution


* Further actions:

- Enforce carrying capacities for all habitatsthroughout the Sanctuary

• Alternative III offers slightly morespecies protection than Alternative IV

- Instituting carrying capacities in morelocations will reduce direct andcumulative impacts of recreationalactivities

• Alternative II significantly increases thelevel of species protection overAlternative III

- Instituting carrying capacities for allhabitats throughout the Sanctuaryoffers the most species protection

Recreation

• Minimal benefit to species

• Focus on economically important foodand ornamental species, keystonespecies, and wildlife



- Identify and implement carryingcapacities in highly sensitive areas

Water Quality• Actions are specifically designed toimprove water quality

• Improvements to water quality couldbenefit species

• Actions are specifically designed to improvewater quality

• Improvements to water quality could benefitspecies

• Actions are specifically designed to improvewater quality

• Improvements to water quality could benefitspecies

• All Alternatives offer the same level ofspecies protection

ComparativeImpacts

Environm


anagement A

lternatives





172

• High level of species protection

• Improvements throughout the Sanctuaryincrease compared to Alternative IV

* Further actions:




• Improvements throughout the Sanctuaryincrease compared to Alternative III

* Further actions:



• The level of protection increases fromAlternative IV to Alternative II

- Increasing the size and number ofprotected areas and decreasing the sizeand number of areas where high-impactactivities can occur will increase thepotential for protecting species acrossAlternatives

• No direct benefits to species

• Initial focus on species at greatest risk

• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations greater than Alternative IV

* Further actions:

- Conduct field trips and on-site training- Coordinate with existing environmentaleducation programs

- Establish interagency visitor centers withFederal and State agencies



• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations greater than Alternative III

* Further actions:

- Establish a Sanctuary visitor center- Train volunteers for specific species-relatedtasks

• The level of educational outreachincreases from Alternative IV toAlternative II

- Expanding training programs, promo-tional activities, and contact with visitorswill increase the opportunities to educateusers about species issues

Education



• Potential to educate users about issues,consequences of their activities, andregulations


- Develop/distribute print and audio-visual materials focusing on criticalspecies

- Install informational signs/displays athigh-use areas

- Establish training and volunteerprograms related to species problems

- Develop public service announcements(PSA) targeted at Sanctuary rules andregulations governing species

- Develop public forums and specialevents

Zoning


• Improvements throughout the Sanctuary


- Limit consumptive activities withinselected contiguous areas

- Limit consumptive activities withinSanctuary Preservation Areas

- Establish Wildlife Management Areas


173


sites in the Keys has increased the burden onnumerous habitats and the species with which theyare associated. In addition, commercial and recre-ational fishing activities have increased, raisingconcerns about the direct and cumulative impacts ofharvesting methods and overfishing on speciespopulations (Bohnsack, 1990,1991). The impacts ofthese activities and others, such as boating, scubadiving, and snorkeling, must be studied further toestablish viable carrying-capacity levels. Once suchinformation is collected, it could be used to developadditional management actions aimed at reducingthe impacts resulting from overuse. After activitylevels are identified, carrying capacities will beimplemented in highly sensitive areas (R.5.a, Alterna-tive IV), helping to reduce wildlife disturbances;enhance species diversity, abundance, and distribu-tion; and protect species from the direct impacts ofoveruse. Strategy R.5.b (Alternative III) increases thelevel of species protection by enforcing identifiedcarrying-capacity limits in highly sensitive habitatsand high-use areas throughout the Sanctuary.Strategy R.5.c (Alternative II) would increase speciesprotection and enhancement even more significantlythrough the enforcement of carrying-capacity limits inall habitats throughout the Sanctuary.

Consistent Regulations. Implementing consistentfisheries regulations throughout the Sanctuary (F.1)will significantly benefit species. Reducing theadministrative complexity and duplication of regula-tions will expedite enforcement, increase publicawareness, and promote compliance with fisheriesregulations. The strategy will ensure that the goals oflong-term ecosystem maintenance and optimumsustainable yields are addressed. It provides thesame level of protection across each of the threemid-range alternatives, and comprehensively ad-dresses the impacts of current regulations, as well asthe need for new regulations. This strategy providesa significant improvement in species protectioncompared to the status quo (Alternative V), andcomplements the work of the Florida Marine Fisher-ies Commission and the Gulf of Mexico and SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Councils.

Limited Entry. The limited spatial distribution ofmany species in the Keys, combined with an increas-ing demand for fisheries products, has alreadyadversely impacted the distribution and abundance ofcertain species (Bohnsack, 1991). For example,evidence suggests that fishing pressure has been afactor 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-entryprograms to determine their applicability in theSanctuary. Alternative III (F.5.b) will implementlimited-entry options for fisheries in need of protec-tion or with low stock abundance. Implementinglimited-entry options for all fisheries (F.5.c, Alterna-tive II) would further increase species protection.

Gear/Methods. The use of improper fishing gear andmethods can have a negative impact on both tar-geted and nontargeted species. It is well documentedthat lost, abandoned, and improperly designed gearhas historically impacted many species, includingamphibians, reptiles (specifically turtles), birds, fish,and mammals (Lund, 1978c-e; Odell, 1990). Estab-lishing a gear-removal program (F.9) will help preventspecies from being killed in traps or other gear thathas been lost, abandoned, or used out of season.The strategy provides increased species protectioncompared to the status quo (Alternative V), becauseno comprehensive gear-removal program currentlyexists within the Sanctuary.

Finfish traps can kill numerous nontargeted speciesas well. Strategy F.12 complements existing Statelaws and the South Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil regulations that make the use of such trapsillegal. Increased enforcement and the eventualelimination of these traps will benefit species abun-dance, diversity, and community composition, andreduce pressures on vulnerable species such asgrouper. Strategy F.11.a (Alternative IV) addressesthe issue of damage to the habitats upon whichspecies depend by requiring research on low-impactfishing gear and methods and promoting their use.Requiring the use of low-impact gear and methods inpriority areas (F.11.b, Alternative III) or throughoutthe Sanctuary (F.11.c, Alternative II) will increase thelevel of habitat protection and benefit species. InAlternative I, the most restrictive alternative, thesestrategies are unnecessary, as all high-impactactivities would be prohibited in most, if not all, of theSanctuary.

Exotic Species. Releasing nonnative species into anenvironment can disrupt the ecology of that area. Forexample, exotic species can out-compete nativespecies for food, shelter, and spawning areas;introduce devastating diseases or parasites; or alterthe host community, causing other species to declineor become extinct (Courtenay, 1979; Courtenay andRobins, 1989). Regulations prohibiting the release ofnonindigenous species (F.8) will be implemented toprotect native species and the habitats they utilize.

174


The level of species protection this strategy providesis the same for each of the three mid-range alterna-tives, and will be a significant improvement over thestatus quo (Alternative V), because few safeguardscurrently exist to prevent the introduction ofnonindigenous species.

Marina Operations. Declining water quality and theresulting habitat degradation affect species abun-dance, diversity, distribution, and health. Increasedconcentrations of nutrients and toxicants can lead tothese conditions, and have been found in confinedand nearshore waters associated with marinaoperations in the Sanctuary (Heatwole, 1987; Rios,1990; Snedaker, 1990). Benthic organisms areparticularly vulnerable to toxicants that becometrapped in sediments. Therefore, species will benefitfrom short-term remedial actions to reduce fuelspillage (L.3.a, Alternative IV). In addition, theinstallation of containment areas for boat mainte-nance and repair operations (L.3.b, Alternatives IIIand II), combined with reductions in fuel spillage, willsignificantly reduce the amount of toxic materialsentering the water column. Species will also benefitfrom reduced nutrient levels resulting from theinstallation of pump-out facilities at marinas (L.1), andwater quality improvements resulting from stricterenforcement of OSHA regulations regarding marinaoperations (L.2).

Access. With approximately 125 boat ramps and 165marinas having direct access to Sanctuary waters,access to habitats and species is relatively easy. Theheavy use of these access points impacts wildlife andmarine species that utilize nearshore areas. StrategyB.1.a (Alternative IV) addresses species-relatedproblems by using the data from an inventory ofaccess points and use levels to manage existingsites, and to restrict the development of new accesspoints to areas where access will have less of aneffect on the environment. This strategy will protectspecies in heavily used nearshore areas and help toprotect the habitats on which they depend. StrategyB.1.b (Alternative III) will further protect species byrequiring modifications to existing public ramps thatcurrently have an adverse impact on adjacentsensitive areas. Modifying both public and privateramps and implementing restrictions on new publicaccess areas (B.1.c, Alternative II) would provideadditional protection to the habitats on which speciesdepend.

To complement the carrying-capacity strategy (R.5),Alternative IV protects species at heavily used sitesby establishing a comprehensive mooring buoy planthat includes site-selection criteria, a program to

monitor use and impacts, and vessel size limits atbuoys installed in sensitive locations. Species willbenefit from reduced use levels in these areas.Alternatives III and II offer an increased level ofspecies protection by requiring vessel size limits inhigh-use and sensitive areas and throughout theSanctuary, respectively.

Restoration. Species abundance, diversity, anddistribution are intricately related to the habitats onwhich they depend for their survival. As habitatsdecline, the indigenous species with which they areassociated must find new areas to utilize and/oradapt to changing conditions. Many species in theKeys are vulnerable to changing habitat conditions,and their populations decline with the loss of habitat(Alevizon and Bannerot, 1990; Florida Natural AreasInventory, 1990). Restoration activities and restora-tion site monitoring (B.2.a, Alternative IV) will help toreduce the decline of vulnerable habitats and theirassociated species. Strategies B.2.b (Alternative III)and B.2.c (Alternative II) will increase the number ofrestoration activities, providing additional benefits tospecies through improved habitats or habitat gains.

Additional Activities Affecting All Themes

Enforcement. Increasing the number of enforcementofficers (B.6) and establishing cross-deputization(B.12) will lead to more consistent enforcement ofregulations related to improving water quality andprotecting habitats and species. Implementing cross-deputization and improving coordination among theagencies responsible for enforcement are included ineach of the three mid-range alternatives, and providesignificantly improved resource protection comparedto the status quo (Alternative V). In addition, increas-ing the number of enforcement officers from Alterna-tive IV to Alternative II will directly improve the abilityto enforce regulations over a wider area of theSanctuary. Specific enforcement activities in eachmid-range alternative focus on protecting high-riskhabitats such as corals, seagrasses, and mangroves;protecting threatened or endangered species, orthose exhibiting low stock abundance; and improvingthe Sanctuary's water quality.

Education. Education, interpretation, and thepromotion of public awareness of the Sanctuary'snatural resources, and the impacts to these re-sources, are important goals of the National MarineSanctuary Program. Although difficult to quantify, thebenefits of a sound education program include theestablishment of a knowledgeable volunteer base;

175


the development of programs to provide Sanctuary-related information to the public; and the encourage-ment of community cooperation, participation, andpride in the Sanctuary. The education strategies inthe three mid-range alternatives provide an increas-ing level of educational activities designed to informusers about the Sanctuary's resources, and theenvironmental consequences of their actions. Thestrategies build on and expand existing educationalprograms, such as those currently in place at the KeyLargo and Looe Key National Marine Sanctuaries.The benefits of the education strategies are similarfor water quality, habitats, and species, and repre-sent a significant improvement over the status quo(Alternative V).

Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternatives

177

D

Socioeconomic Impacts of Management Alternativeseconomy. The types of impacts are discussed inqualitative terms. The extent of economic impacts(e.g., sales, employment, income, etc.) and economicvalues (i.e., net values above costs to produce agood or service) associated with various uses arequantified where practicable. In some cases, specificscenarios are used to illustrate the possible magni-tude of impacts. However, only general assessmentsof the magnitude of potential impacts are possible.

Focus of Assessment. Of the 98 proposed manage-ment strategies, the Core Group and NOAA selected24 that are expected to have the largest impacts interms of either benefits or costs, or that differedsignificantly across alternatives. These 24 strategiesbecame the focus of a socioeconomic assessmentconducted by Bell and Sorensen (1993) to comple-ment this management plan. In addition, strategiesthat are regulatory in nature, or that will be imple-mented in the short term, are also included in thissocioeconomic impacts discussion. Collectively,these are called "key strategies."

Additional Sources of Information. To supplementthe work of Bell and Sorensen on treasure hunting,NOAA researched additional information sources,including Florida State files, Admiralty Court files, andperiodicals (Varmer et al., 1993) to provide a morecomplete picture of this issue.

Information on the effects of proposed actions onhuman activities was also derived as part of theprocess to develop a Sanctuary zoning scheme. Thecriteria developed for, and used by, the SanctuaryAdvisory Council and the constituent groups theyrepresent in identifying potential Sanctuary Preserva-tion Areas and Replenishment Reserves included aconsideration of the economic impacts of establishingthese areas. The criteria for establishing SanctuaryPreservation Areas (SPAs) included identifying andevaluating an area's economic value, user accessibil-ity, and user conflicts. Specific information wasgathered on the types of activities/users, relativelevel of use, relative value of the area, current userconflicts and levels of conflict, and the activitiesoccurring adjacent to the site that could be impacted.In addition, field observations at seven SPAs in theUpper Keys provided information on the number andtype of boats present, and uses of these areas at onepoint in time. This information included input fromlocal fishermen and dive operators who accompaniedAdvisory Council members to the proposed sites.

Please note: This section has been supplementedby the assessment of cost and benefits conductedpursuant to E.O. 12866 and attached in Appendix Mof Volume III.

Introduction

This chapter compares the differences in socioeco-nomic impacts among the management alternativesbeing considered for the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Management Plan, focusing primarily onthree mid-range alternatives that achieve the pur-poses of the FKNMSPA. Evaluating and comparingthe potential socioeconomic impacts of each alterna-tive involve assessing how implementing the pro-posed management strategies will directly andindirectly affect user groups and/or industries, as wellas the local economy. In conjunction with evaluatingand comparing impacts on the natural environment,this socioeconomic assessment is an important stepin the process of selecting a preferred managementalternative.

Review of Management Alternatives. The develop-ment and review of management alternatives arerequired by the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) as a part of the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) development process. This DEISevaluates the potential positive and negative environ-mental and socioeconomic impacts of proposedmanagement actions and their significance, given thegoals and purposes of the NMSA and FKNMSPA.

As noted in the previous chapter describing impactsto the natural environment, specific strategies werenot produced for either Alternative I (total restrictionof uses, except for research) or V (status quo/noaction), because these alternatives do not meet therequirements of the NMSA and FKNMSPA to protectresources and facilitate multiple uses. Strategies inAlternative IV are generally included in Alternatives IIIand II, with the latter containing increased restric-tions, additional regulations or management actions,or requiring implementation over a broader area.Alternatives III and II also contain strategies notincluded in Alternative IV.

Intent of the Assessment

This socioeconomic impact assessment summarizesthe potential impacts of proposed managementstrategies on various user groups and the local


178

The criteria for establishing Replenishment Reservesincluded describing long-term economic value andidentifying economic effects on displaced usergroups; impacts on other areas and users caused byrestrictions or displacement to other areas; and theownership of adjacent property. Specific informationprovided to support the establishment of eachproposed area included the types of activities andusers 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, wasused to refine the zones and minimize negativeimpacts on users. It provides reliable data on therelative effects of strategy implementation on humanactivities, and is included in the issue discussionsthat follow.

Costs. The cost information provided refers tonegative impacts such as expected losses in uservalues, income, or employment. Management costestimates developed at the November 1992 Institu-tional Arrangements and Approximate Costs WorkSession, a meeting of Federal, State and localofficials with responsibilities in the Keys, werereviewed and included in this assessment. Thesecost estimates represent the participants' educatedestimates, based on their experience. Low- and high-range estimates were given for both capital andannual operating costs, and costs for each proposedmanagement strategy across the mid-range alterna-tives. Another source of cost information is the EPA-funded study (EPA, 1993) completed as part of thedevelopment of the Water Quality Protection Pro-gram. This study provided cost estimates for themajor water quality strategies, based on engineeringstudies.

Organization. Summaries of the socioeconomicimpacts are organized by issue. For each issue, keystrategies are identified. The impacted user groupsand expected socioeconomic costs and benefits aredescribed for each key strategy, noting any long-termversus short-term socioeconomic impacts. A discus-sion of impacts on the businesses and institutionsdependent on affected user groups for sales, employ-ment income, and tax revenues are included wherepracticable. The remaining strategies are thensummarized, and are followed by a comparison ofthe expected impacts and benefits for each of themid-range alternatives. A tabular summary of impactsis also provided for each issue.

The interrelated nature of the issues around whichthis DEIS/Management Plan is organized results indiscussions of the socioeconomic impacts of imple-menting management actions on various topics ofsignificant concern in several places. Table 22indicates the issues in which discussions of zoning,submerged cultural resources, and fishing are found.

Constraints. Although little information is available forsome strategies, value and economic impact informa-tion is provided where data are available. For waterquality, education, and zoning strategies, manage-ment costs and cost-effectiveness were the onlyquantitative measures included. In addition, anassessment of the economic efficiency and economicimpact measures was added for water quality strate-gies. Despite the lack of comprehensive and consis-tent data, the relative nature of this assessmentprovides sufficient information on the positive andnegative impacts and benefits to evaluate andcompare proposed alternatives, and select a pre-ferred alternative.

Interpretation of Assessments

Short-term and long-term impacts on society and thelocal economy are two key aspects of this assess-ment. The magnitude of an activity, its economicvalue, and the degree of the local community'seconomic dependence on the activity are detailed.

Some strategies may have short-term negativeimpacts on certain segments of the local economy.For example, some water quality strategies requirecapital investment, and may result in indirect costs.Short-term negative impacts are derived by assumingall other factors remain constant. However, if nowater quality management actions are taken, waterquality will continue to degrade. Continued degrada-

Primary Concerns

Issues

Zoning

Boa

ting

Fis

hing

Rec

reat

ion

Zon

ing

Land

Use

Edu

catio

n

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Submerged Cultural Resources

Fishing

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Table 22. Tracking of Primary Concerns


179

D

tion threatens tourism and recreation activities, suchas scuba diving, snorkeling, and fishing, which havehigh economic values, and account for a high per-centage of the local employment and income.Without proper management, the local economycould experience large losses in economic values,employment, and income. On the other hand, pro-posed management actions to protect or improvewater quality will have significant long-term benefits.

Increases in the quantity or quality of the Sanctuary'snatural and historic resources, increases in localincomes, and declines in water quality in other areasmay all increase demand for Sanctuary resourcesand offset the effects of cost increases. Thus, costincreases for certain users may not result in de-creased demand. Demand may increase less than itwould have without the cost increases. Demand mayeven increase over time, despite certain cost in-creases, because of conservation of the Sanctuaryand its resources. Long-term potential impacts arediscussed to the extent to which an activity is at riskby factors affecting the quantity and quality of naturaland historic resources.

Overview of the Local Economy

The economy of Monroe County and the FloridaKeys is driven by recreation and tourism, commercialfishing activities, and retirement communities. Thesethree “industries” account for over 80 percent of thelocal economy (Bell, 1991). In addition, the U.S.military and State government also contribute signifi-cantly to the local economic base. The remainder ofthe local economy largely supports these basicindustries.

In 1990 about two million tourists visited the Keys,totalling about 13 million days, with a direct spendingimpact of almost $800 million. With total gross salesamounting to approximately $1.6 billion, touristvisitors account directly for about half of all grosssales in the region. In addition, Keys' residentsparticipated in about 17 million days of recreationactivities, with a total expenditure impact of about$16 million in 1990. Recreation and tourism activities(and their associated support structures) account forabout 51 percent of employment and 58 percent ofincome by place of work (Kearney/Centaur, 1990).By 1992 the tourist population was estimated torange between 3.6 million and 4.1 million persons(MacMinn, pers. comm.). The spending impactassociated with this larger tourist population will havealso increased significantly.

Water-related activities account for about 61 percentof all recreation and tourism. The nonmarket uservalue of such activities to both residents and touristsis estimated at approximately $660 million per year.Using extremely conservative assumptions (i.e., nogrowth in total recreation activity and constant valueper activity day) and a real rate of interest of threepercent (i.e., interest net of inflation), the asset valueof the Keys for water-related recreation is approxi-mately $22 billion (1990 dollars) (Leeworthy, 1991).

Commercial fishing in the Sanctuary had an ex-vessel value of about $46 million in 1990. Theeconomic impact of commercial fishing in the Keyswas estimated by Rockland (1988). In 1986, the ex-vessel value of all Monroe County seafood landingswas approximately $27.4 million. The value at theharvesting, wholesale, retail, and restaurant levelswas estimated to be about $41 million, $14.8 millionof which was income supporting almost 1,200 jobs.

Another significant aspect of the local economy is themagnitude of its "retirement community." Florida is apopular area for retirees because of the climate, lowtaxes, low cost of living, and variety of naturalresources that support leisure activities. Accordingly,major sources of income in Monroe County includesocial security, pensions and return from investmentsoutside the county.

Overview of Common Themes

The $1.6 billion economy of the Keys is dependenton the maintenance of a high-quality marine environ-ment. Over the last decade, that environment hasbeen increasingly degraded. The provisions andregulations of the management plan address themajor issues in order to protect the quality of theresources. Consequently, there are some commonthemes from natural resource and environmentaleconomics that are relevant to assessing manage-ment strategies. All proposed strategies impact someaspect of Sanctuary resources, either directly orindirectly. Sanctuary resources (both natural andhistoric) can be considered assets that produce aflow of goods and services with both market andnonmarket values to users and nonusers.

Nonmarket Value. The concept of nonmarket valueis relevant to the Keys. The area's natural resourcesare considered public resources, not commonproperty or privately owned. Total market valuecannot be determined for some natural resources,known as "nonmarket goods and services." Forexample, coral reefs have both a market and


180

nonmarket value. While a market value for theamount of live rock collected and other uses of coralcan be determined, there are intrinsic benefits/valuesto the public that cannot be readily defined in mon-etary terms, such as the role of coral in providinghabitat for tropical fish, or the aesthetic appeal thatattracts many divers and snorkelers to the Keys. Inaddition, coral reefs are also valued by those whoappreciate their existence, although they may not usethe resource. Nonmarket value is important toacknowledge because when these common, publicresources are damaged or lost, their value oftencannot be readily quantified for damage assessmentand/or restoration purposes. Accordingly, nonmarketgoods and services are an integral part of the Keys'economy.

Trade-offs. There may be cases where trade-offsoccur between the effects of strategy implementationon economic values and economic impact. Restric-tions may increase the costs of consumptive use.However, protecting a resource may not only in-crease its quality and value, but have a long-termeconomic benefit to both consumptive andnonconsumptive users. This possibility of trade-offsexists for all user groups. For example, some of theproposed SPAs will displace current commercial andrecreational fishermen, as well as tropical fishcollectors, to nonzoned areas. This may result inincreased costs to fishermen and consumers fromdisplacement, as well as decreased sales, employ-ment, income, and tax revenues for the localeconomy dependent on this activity. The protectionprovided by these zoned areas may have economicvalue to nonconsumptive users. In addition, theremay be long-term benefits for consumptive users ifresource degradation can be stopped or reversed.The assessments attempt to indicate if such a trade-off might be expected.

Interrelationships of Strategies . The interrelation-ships among strategies that impact user groups andthe local economy cannot be overlooked. For ex-ample, both the marina pump-out and mobile pump-out strategies attempt to limit vessel pollution.Implementation of just one of these strategies wouldprovide only limited benefits. Both strategies aredesigned to improve water quality conditions, andproduce benefits that will affect the many water-related activities on which the local economy de-pends.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Boating

The user groups most likely to be impacted by theproposed boating strategies are those participating inwater-related recreation/tourism activities, commer-cial fishing, marina use, and commercial shipping.

Key Boating Strategies

The boating strategies are expected to providepositive socioeconomic benefits (Table 23). Thestrategies that will have the most significant socio-economic effect on user groups are: Channel Mark-ing (B.4), Pollution Discharges (B.7), Special-usePermits (B.11), Salvaging/Towing (B.13), and PWCManagement (B.17). Since recreational boatingdemand is relatively price-inelastic, it will continue tobe strong regardless of cost increases. Only smallnegative impacts on the local tourist trade would beexpected. These impacts may not be actual declinesfrom current use and associated income levels, but aslower expansion of future demand than would haveoccurred otherwise.

Key Boating Strategies

B.4: Channel MarkingB.7: Pollution DischargesB.11: Special-use PermitsB.13: Salvaging/TowingB.17: PWC Management

B.4: Channel Marking. This strategy will likely havean overall positive impact on boaters, as a result ofdecreased degradation of seagrass meadows. Whilethe use of regulatory markers instructing boaters totravel in marked channels may result in increasedfuel costs for those currently boating in seagrassmeadows, this cost will be offset by increased accessto previously inaccessible areas. This strategy wouldbe implemented throughout the Sanctuary in Alterna-tives II and III, and only in sensitive areas in Alterna-tive IV. Consequently, Alternatives II and III willprovide the greatest benefit. If no action is taken, aswould be mandated in Alternative V, resourcedegradation will continue.

B.7: Pollution Discharges. This strategy addressesthreats of pollution from the disposal of waste and theexploration for, and development of, hydrocarbons.The FKNMSPA prohibits the exploration and devel-opment of minerals throughout the Sanctuary. All ofthe strategies address the threat of pollution, the


181

D

Alternative II Impacts

Table 23. Boating Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

enforcement of existing laws, the application ofsupplemental Sanctuary regulations to improve theenforcement of existing laws, and the provision ofadditional protection from pollution. The difference inthe strategies is best evaluated by comparing thevariations in zoning strategy alternatives. As thedemand for recreation is price-inelastic, it will notdecrease substantially in the face of rising costs. Thenegative impacts on boating costs should be minimal,and would be offset by an increase in value andenjoyment.

There should be no additional adverse economicimpact if existing restrictions on minerals and wastesare incorporated into Sanctuary regulations. Theremay be some economic impacts from supplementalSanctuary regulations by precluding the discharge ofwastes or other pollution threats throughout theSanctuary. There may also be additional economicimpacts on boaters due to the restriction on anydischarges from vessels in zoned areas. However,the water quality improvement that will result shouldincrease the value of the Sanctuary to recreationalusers and the tourist industry. In addition, since thedemand for recreation is price-inelastic, it should notdecrease the demand even if prices rise. The eco-nomic impact on boaters is expected to be minimal.However, even if costs are greater than expected,they may be offset by the economic benefits associ-ated with resource conservation.

Positive economic impacts would occur, assumingimprovements in water quality and other naturalresources 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


Vessel operation

• Costs: increased

User Groups



• Costs: negative impacts from slower

expansion in tourism

Commercial fishing


Vessel operation


Strategies

Increased restriction

• B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6, B.8, B.13,

and B.15

User Groups



• Costs: negative impacts from slower

expansion in tourism

Commercial fishing


Vessel operation


Strategies


• B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.6, B.13, and

B.15

pollution discharges throughout the Sanctuary. Theserestrictions would not include wastes from traditionalfishing operations and vessel discharges allowed byCoast Guard regulations. Additional positive eco-nomic impacts are expected in connection with therestrictions on any vessel discharge in zoned areas,with the only exceptions being engine exhaust andcooling water. The resulting improvements in waterquality and other natural resources will economicallybenefit recreational uses of the Sanctuary, as well asresearch, education, and other Sanctuary activities.Scuba diving, snorkeling, glass-bottom boat rides,and recreational and commercial fishing woulddirectly benefit from a reduction in pollution. Theimproved water quality may improve the value ofSanctuary resources to users, in turn resulting inincreased charges to users from operators andtourist-related industries. However, this cost to directusers would have a related benefit to the localeconomy.

Overall, operators may experience minimal economicimpacts, but those costs would likely be passed on tothe consumers, who are generally willing to pay forimprovements in water quality and other naturalresources. The additional restrictions on pollution willnot only improve the physical and natural environ-ment, but also the socioeconomic conditions oftourism industries related to the Sanctuary's recre-ational use. Pollution prevention may also benefitfishing activities, if there is a corresponding increasein the size and quality of fish stocks.


182

personnel available who are trained in first aid andCPR. These requirements are not currently part ofState or Federal law. Consequently, PWC rentaloperations would incur additional costs that wouldlikely be passed on to renters. However, the benefitsgained from imposing these restrictions (e.g., in-creased operator safety) could exceed the costs ofimplementing the strategy. No specific regulations forPWC operations are proposed at this time, but suchregulations will be considered as part of the ongoingmanagement process.

The only component of this strategy proposed forimmediate implementation would require that anymotorized vessel (including PWC) operate at idlespeed within 200 yards of sensitive areas, includingresidential shorelines, edges of flats, and locationsused by wading or nesting birds. These requirementswould benefit Sanctuary users by reducing adverseimpacts on natural resources and wildlife. However,they would impose additional restrictions on boatersand PWC operators.

Other Boating Strategies

Each of the remaining boating strategies would eitherprotect or restore resources damaged by boatingactivities. Snorkeling, scuba diving, and recreationaland commercial fisheries activities would benefitmost significantly from the implementation of thesestrategies. Recent damage assessment casesregarding boat groundings in the Key Largo NationalMarine Sanctuary have shown that even extremelysmall amounts of habitat destruction (relative toSanctuary-wide resources) can have significantnegative impacts on economic user values. Thus, allboating strategies are expected to have relativelyhigh socioeconomic benefits.

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV . The low level of restriction providedby this alternative would cause low short-term coststo boaters. However, serious socioeconomic impactsare associated with the inevitable decline in resourcequality allowed by this alternative. This less-restric-tive alternative would, in the long term, result indecreased user value and net income, as well asdecreased employment, if water quality declinessignificantly.

Alternative III . This alternative offers moderateincreases in resource protection compared to Alter-native IV. Increased restrictions would occur in theBoat Access (B.1), Habitat Restoration (B.2), Derelict

B.11: Special-use Permits. The Special-use Permitsstrategy should not have an adverse economicimpact on most users. Within the Sanctuary, it willestablish a permitting scheme for concession-type orcommercial activities that would otherwise be prohib-ited. It may increase costs for those permitteescurrently operating commercial or concession-typeactivities in the Sanctuary, by potentially placingconditions on their activities or imposing a permituser fee.

B.13: Salvaging/Towing. The Salvaging/Towingstrategy is expected to have minimal socioeconomicimpacts. The primary user groups that would beaffected by this strategy are commercial salvage andtowing businesses. There are no standards orrequirements proposed specifically for salvaging/towing at this time. However, this activity is subject tofuture regulation. To the extent that any salvaging/towing involves activities prohibited by the regula-tions, or otherwise injures Sanctuary resources, suchas coral reefs or seagrass meadows, a permit wouldbe required. Through permits or subsequent regula-tions, salvaging/towing operations may be required tomeet specific requirements (e.g., notification ofauthorities, authorized site observer, use of trainedoperators, use of environmentally sound techniques).While such requirements may involve some increasein cost of salvaging/towing operations, these require-ments should benefit user groups involved in water-related activities by decreasing the potential fordamage to Sanctuary resources.

This strategy would include more direct and immedi-ate costs to salvaging/towing operations underAlternative II, because a permit and training programwould be required before any salvaging/towing isconducted in the Sanctuary. No additional costswould be involved under Alternative IV, since nosalvaging/towing permits or training would be re-quired. There will be some incremental costs underAlternative III, as permits would be required on acase-by-case basis, depending on whether thesalvaging/towing involves an activity that wouldotherwise be prohibited. Training for salvaging/towingwill not be required under Alternative III.

B.17: PWC Management. The user group that wouldbe most affected by this strategy is PWC rentaloperators, who would be required to train theiremployees in safe and environmentally soundmethods of PWC use. These operations would alsobe required to have emergency communicationcapabilities, have rescue and chase vessels avail-able, mark their rental operation areas, and have


183

D


Vessels (B.3), Channel Marking (B.4), AdditionalEnforcement (B.6), User Fees (B.8), Salvage/Towing(B.13), and Mooring Buoy Impacts (B.15) strategies.Minimal increases in potential long-term socioeco-nomic benefits are directly linked to this increasedresource protection. The costs associated withimplementing this alternative would be between thoseof 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 provideincreased protection compared to Alternative III. Thismore-restrictive alternative would result in long-termincreases in user value, but possibly a small declinein income and employment. A much smaller decline islikely over the long term than would occur withoutprotection. Insufficient information is available to drawconclusions about the relative socioeconomic benefitsof increased levels of protection. This alternativewould be the most expensive to implement.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Fishing

The Sanctuary is among the nation’s most popularrecreational fishing destinations. Rockland (1988)estimated that in 1986 the Keys' recreational fisheriesgenerated $63.6 million in local output, $21.3 millionin local income, and approximately 1,800 local jobs.The Keys also support an important commercialfishing industry. For example, in 1986 commercialfisheries in the area generated about $14.8 million inlocal income and about 1,200 jobs (Rockland, 1988).Recreational fisheries currently account for about five

percent of all local income, and commercial fisheriesmake up an additional three percent. Eight percentof all local income, therefore, is dependent on theSanctuary's fishery resources.

The cumulative impacts of all fishing strategies areexpected to be positive, with relatively low impactson any particular user group. There may, however,be small negative impacts on the commercial shrimpfishery and commercial sponge harvesters due toregulatory requirements that affect gear and meth-ods of harvest.

Key Fishing Strategies

Eight of the 13 fishing strategies are assessed in thissection. 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 socioeconomicimpact on user groups. The remaining strategies,Artificial Reefs (F.7), Finfish Traps (F.12), andSpearfishing (F.14), will also impact Sanctuaryusers, but will be addressed in proposed NOAAregulations. Table 24 provides a summary compari-son across Alternatives II, III, and IV.

F.4: Aquaculture Alternatives. Aquaculture alter-natives will be permitted in the Sanctuary to mini-mize or offset the negative impacts to tropical fishcollectors and live rock harvesters whose activitiesare being prohibited. This strategy would result inadditional costs from consultation with the SanctuaryProgram.

Alternative III ImpactsAlternative IV Impacts

User Groups

Commercial fishing


Recreational fishing



• Benefits: small increases, personal

income increases

User Groups

Commercial fishing



• Benefits, increased incomes


• Benefits: moderate increases,

personal income increases

Strategies


• F.3, F.5, F.6, F.11, and F.15

Additional

• F.4

User Groups

Commercial fishing





• Benefits: moderate increases,

personal income increases

Strategies


• F.4, F.5, F.6, F.7, F.11, F.14, and

F.15

Table 24. Fishing Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives


184

NMFS OF-6, 1985) establishes Federal guidance forthe design, construction, and location of artificialreefs permitted under section 10 of the Rivers andHarbors Act, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, andsection 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.The State of Florida has its own comprehensiveartificial reef management plan, which embraces theNational Plan and allows for individual county orregional plans (Florida Artificial Reef DevelopmentPlan, 1992).

Artificial reefs are generally designed to enhancerecreational and commercial fishing opportunities,and fishermen are the primary users. However, otherusers could include glass-bottom boat charters andrecreational divers. As a result of these activities, theconstruction of artificial reefs may contribute posi-tively to South Florida’s economy.

Within Alternative II, which would not allow theconstruction and placement of any new artificial reefsin the Sanctuary, fishermen and other users may beimpacted by this strategy. Within Alternative IV,artificial reefs would be allowed throughout theSanctuary, so user impacts would be minimal. WithinAlternative III, the construction of new artificial reefswould not be permitted in zoned areas or in thevicinity of natural reefs, but would be permitted inother areas of the Sanctuary. In both Alternatives IIIand IV, those constructing and placing artificial reefsmay incur additional costs due to additional require-ments above and beyond the existing artificial reefplans for protecting and managing Sanctuary re-sources and uses.

F.10: Bycatch. Bycatch is the catch of nontargetedor undersized targeted species by commercial fishingoperations. Although no bycatch regulations areproposed currently, this activity may be regulatedunder the Magnuson Act, State law, and/or theNMSA. Any such fishing regulation would only beproposed in coordination with NMFS, the FisheryManagement Councils and the State as part of thecontinuing management process. The issue ofbycatch compounds the problem of overfishing in theSanctuary. Finfish stocks have been reduced dra-matically by shrimp fishery bycatch. The implementa-tion of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), as pro-posed in this strategy, would decrease the conflictsbetween these fisheries and improve finfish stocks.However, as bycatch is reduced, the shrimp catchmay decrease, causing operating costs to increase,and pricing some shrimpers out of business. Eco-nomic impacts on the finfish industry may be minimalor negative due to assimilation of capital and laborfrom the shrimp industry. In addition, if overfishing in

Key Fishing Strategies

F.4: Aquaculture AlternativesF.5: Limited EntryF.7: Artificial ReefsF.10: BycatchF.11: Gear/Method ImpactsF.12: Finfish TrapsF.14: SpearfishingF.15: Sponge Harvest

However, there would be additional costs for aquac-ulture operations due to limitations or conditionsplaced on where and how the aquaculture operationsmay be conducted. In addition, this activity mayrequire a special-use permit. Within Alternative IV,aquaculture may be conducted throughout theSanctuary. Within Alternative II, aquaculture is notpermitted in the Sanctuary. Within Alternative III,aquaculture may be permitted in areas of the Sanctu-ary that lack significant natural resource habitats,such as corals and seagrass meadows.

F.5: Limited Entry. Open access commercialfisheries have faced exploitation, overcapitalizationand stock depletion. Both the State of Florida andNMFS have initiated limited entry, in the form of atrap-reduction program for spiny lobster, to addressthese problems. However, limited-entry schemes thatfocused on effort were not successful in achievingmanagement objectives (i.e., either improving totalcatch or increasing the total catch value) (Bell andSorensen, 1993). The use of individual transferablequotas (ITQs), however, has been successful. Suchquotas allocate shares of the total allowable catch.Fish can then be harvested by the most efficientmethods, at whatever time maximizes return. Undera limited-entry scheme using ITQs, fisheries couldrealize significant socioeconomic benefits. Thisstrategy would be implemented by the State and theGulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Manage-ment Councils.

This strategy would vary from an assessment oflimited-entry options (Alternative IV) to the protectionof all fisheries (Alternative II). In Alternative III, itwould impose regulations on a fishery-specific basis.Limiting the scope of applications to selected fisher-ies would result in negative impacts on other fisheriesthat are already overfished or fully exploited.

F.7: Artificial Reefs. Artificial reefs are currentlysubject to State and Federal regulation. The NationalArtificial Reef Plan (NOAA Technical Memorandum


185

D

restrictions as Alternative III, but the zoned areaswould be smaller, and there would be less impact onspearfishermen. However, the impacts onspearfishermen should be minimal, since the activitywould still be allowed in most of the Sanctuary. Inaddition, the zoned areas prohibiting such fishing arenot those currently preferred by spearfishermen.There may be some benefits to habitat, speciescomposition, and abundance as a result of theserestrictions. If so, there would be a correspondingeconomic benefit for nonconsumptive users. Re-search on the impacts of spearfishing will be con-ducted as part of the continuous managementprocess.

F.15: Sponge Harvest. Within Alternative II, a three-year moratorium on sponge harvesting would beimplemented. Regulations would be developed forsponge harvesting after the moratorium. This wouldhave a significant effect on sponge harvesters, whorely primarily on sponges in the Sanctuary for theirlivelihood. These harvesters would incur costs due torelocating operations to areas outside the Sanctuary.Under Alternative III, regulations would be developedthat govern the harvest of sponges throughout theSanctuary. These regulations may include bag limits,an increase in minimum size, and/or the designationof areas closed to harvesting. This would adverselyimpact sponge harvesters, but the overall costswould be less than Alternative II. Under AlternativeIV, sponge harvesting would be prohibited in high-priority areas. Only sponge harvesters operating inareas to be closed would be impacted.

Other Fishing Strategies

The Consistent Regulations strategy (F.1) is ex-pected to have significant socioeconomic benefits.Inconsistent regulations currently make enforcementdifficult and promote a lack of compliance. The twolevels of protection (Alternative IV and Alternatives II/III) offered by the Stocking strategy (F.3) would rangefrom a research program to assess the impacts ofstocking programs, to the implementation of anindefinite moratorium on stocking activities. TheFisheries Sampling strategy (F.6) would improve thestatistical data on commercial and recreationalfisheries stocks. The information developed would beuseful in the protection and proper management ofeconomically important species. The Exotic Speciesstrategy (F.8) would prevent the release of suchspecies into the Sanctuary, thereby protecting thenative species and benefiting user groups thatdepend on them. The Gear Removal strategy (F.9)would involve voluntary compliance, and would have

common areas is not addressed, this strategy mayresult in decreased yields in recreational and com-mercial finfisheries.

F.11: Gear/Method Impacts. Restrictions on fishinggear and methods designed to minimize impacts oncoral, hardbottom areas, seagrass meadows andother significant habitat will have socioeconomicbenefits for recreation users. Some commercialfishermen may encounter additional costs from suchrestrictions. However, this may be offset by fisheriesimprovements due to the prevention of further habitatdegradation. Modifying the type of gear used bycommercial fishermen will reduce overfishing,bycatch, and ghost fishing. Modifying fishing gear willalso alleviate negative impacts on coral reefs,hardbottom, and seagrasses, preserving the recre-ational value to divers. A decrease in habitat destruc-tion will benefit fishermen by enhancing stocks offinfish.

Alternative II would apply gear/method restrictionsthroughout the Sanctuary, and would thus havepositive socioeconomic impacts on recreationalusers, and possibly commercial fishermen, if stocksor fishery quality improve along with the habitat.Alternative III would only restrict use in certain areas,minimizing various costs for some commercialfishermen, but having relatively fewer benefits forrecreational users and other fishermen. Alternative IVwould only utilize voluntary compliance with regula-tions. The draft regulations would prohibit the use ofexplosives, poisons, electrical charges, bleach, andoil as fishing methods. There are also proposedprohibitions against bottom trawls, dredges, fishsleds, and similar gear. The cost of switching to low-impact gear and methods is outweighed by thesocioeconomic benefits to other recreational andcommercial users.

F.12: Finfish Traps. This strategy, which wouldrequire the removal of finfish traps except those setfor bait fish, would adversely impact commercialfishermen operating in a small portion of the Sanctu-ary within the Gulf of Mexico. However, because itwill eliminate ghost traps and the catch ofnontargeted species, the strategy will benefit fisherystocks, and ultimately commercial fishermen.

F.14: Spearfishing. This strategy includes restric-tions on the type of gear, bag limits, and closure ofareas to spearfishing. Within Alternative II, restrictingthe activity throughout the Sanctuary would impactspearfishermen. Within Alternative III, spear-fishermen who primarily use zoned areas would incurrelocation costs. Alternative IV would have the same


186


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


Commercial fishing


Strategies


• L.14 and L.16

User Group

Boaters


Marinas



boaters





of future marinas

Other water-related recreation


Commercial fishing


Strategies


• 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


Marinas



boaters





of future marinas

Other water-related recreation users


Commercial fishing


Alternative III Impacts

little or no socioeconomic impact on fishermen. Itmay, however, have positive impacts on boaters andscuba divers.

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV. While this alternative would have thelowest short-term costs and lowest level of restrictionacross the mid-range alternatives, the long-termimplication is resource depletion with correspondingnegative socioeconomic impacts.

Alternative III . This alternative would offer moderateincreases in resource protection compared to Alter-native IV, with minimal increases in potential long-term socioeconomic benefits.

Alternative II. This alternative would be the mostcostly to implement, and the level of protectionoffered 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 theSanctuary's environmental health. Although theSanctuary does not include land above the meanhigh-tide mark, land-use activities that are likely todestroy, cause the loss of, or injure any Sanctuaryresource are subject to the National Marine Sanctu-ary Act consultation process. The relationshipbetween land use and water quality is critical, be-cause a significant portion of the Keys' economy isdependent on income from water-related activitiessuch as diving, boating, wildlife observation, andfishing. As water quality and the quantity and qualityof the related habitat declines, the demand for theseactivities decreases as participants seek substitutesites. In some cases, making land-use decisions infavor of conservation may cause short-term losses inincome; however, the long-term sustainability of ahealthy economy and the value of the manynonmarket goods and services are dependent ongood environmental quality (Table 25).


187

D

improved. All user groups associated with marinasand water-related activities would benefit fromreduced pollutant loading.

L.3: Fueling/Maintenance. Within Alternatives II andIII, this strategy would require the establishment ofpaved and curbed containment areas for boatmaintenance activities such as hull scraping andrepainting, mechanical repairs, fueling, and lubrica-tion. These options would be quite expensive, and itis unclear whether the socioeconomic benefits wouldequal or exceed the costs of implementation. WithinAlternative IV, this strategy would require an evalua-tion of procedures and remedial solutions, withminimal socioeconomic benefits.

L.6: Mobile Pump-out. This strategy is included inAlternatives II and III, but not in Alternative IV. Mobilepump-out provisions will help mitigate the impacts ofboating activities and marina operations within theSanctuary. Although this strategy would result insmall positive socioeconomic benefits through adecrease in pollution from live-aboards, the impacton live-aboards is unknown, as the strategy does notspecify what facilities would be supplied, or how theywould be paid for.

L.7: SWD Problem Sites and L.9: SWD PolicyCompliance. High levels of demand for develop-ment, and a limited amount of usable land, makesolid waste disposal a significant problem in theKeys. Solid waste is currently transported to a landfillin Pompano Beach at a cost of $75/ton. This landfillhas a remaining life of 46 years. Strategy L.7 wouldprovide for the evaluation and implementation ofappropriate remedial actions at problem sites.Strategy L.9 would require compliance with MonroeCounty policies on solid waste disposal. Participantsin water-related recreation and commercial fishermenwould be positively impacted if a viable option for thecontainment and/or relocation of solid waste isimplemented.

L.8: Containment Options. The provisions of thisstrategy would require both a study of variouscontainment/relocation options and the implementa-tion of appropriate options within five years. WithinAlternative IV, the strategy would only require afeasibility study of options, with no commitment toimplementation. The implementation of containment/relocation options would increase the cost of wastedisposal, while protecting water quality. These costswould be incurred by residents and businesses. Asgood water quality is vital to the Keys' economy, thelong-term benefits of this strategy would exceed thecosts.

Key Land-use Strategies

Eleven of the 19 land-use strategies are discussed inthis section. The cumulative socioeconomic benefitfrom all land-use strategies would be significant.Protective measures would restrict supply relative todemand, potentially resulting in increases in eco-nomic rents (returns above normal profits) for existingestablishments. Property values would rise as landuse and other supply restrictions are put into effect.In a study of environmental regulations and land-userestriction, Beaton (1991) found that property valuesincreased after regulations and restrictions wereimposed. The cumulative impact of the land-usestrategies within the three mid-range alternativeswould likely have the same type of impact on incomeand property values in the Keys.

Key Land-use Strategies

L.1: Marina Pump-outL.2: Marina OperationsL.3: Fueling/MaintenanceL.6: Mobile Pump-outL.7: SWD Problem SitesL.8: Containment OptionsL.9: SWD Policy ComplianceL.14: Dredging ProhibitionL.15: Dredging RegulationsL.18: Wetland Dredge and FillL.20: Public Access

L.1: Marina Pump-out. The provisions of thisstrategy are consistent across the three mid-rangealternatives. The secondary containment optionsincluded in this strategy (e.g., additional paving andcurbing) would be very costly, especially consideringthe uncertainty of the socioeconomic benefits. Forexample, a $19,000 pump-out facility was recentlyinstalled at John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park,but it would have cost over $1 million if a packageplant had not been in place to accept the wasteproduced. Still, studies have shown that the cost ofpump-out facilities could be passed on to vesselowners, as the demand for marina services isrelatively inelastic (Bell and Leeworthy, 1984).

L.2: Marina Operations. The provisions of thisstrategy are consistent across the mid-range alterna-tives. The strategy would require a comprehensiveassessment of marina compliance with currentregulations. Marina siting criteria would also be


188

because saved wetlands provide runoff buffers andhabitats for threatened and endangered species.

L.20: Public Access. There is increasing concernthat access to public resources is being restricted byincreased privatization of the coastline. Floridaaddresses this concern through a program thatleases submerged lands to marinas at a 30 percentdiscount if they open the marina on a first-come, first-serve basis. However, the costs of increased publicaccess, both in economic terms and in damage toresources, must be considered. Resource damageincludes anchor damage, groundings, impactscaused by scuba divers on the reef, and impacts offishing and spearfishing on target species. Also withincreased public access, the marginal socioeconomicbenefit received is expected to decrease as conges-tion produces diminishing returns. In this case,crowding is considered a negative externality.

Public access must be addressed in conjunction withthe carrying-capacity of the resource, both in physicaland economic dimensions. Restricting public accesswould, in the long term, have significant socioeco-nomic benefits. However, trade-offs will occurbetween the total amount of use and its total value.Maximizing the economic value of the resource mayconflict with maximizing sales, employment, andincome impacts in the short term.

This strategy would provide greater protection inAlternatives III and II (compared to Alternative IV)through the acquisition of shoreline areas to improvepublic access while protecting habitat. Floridacurrently has three programs to acquire land: Con-servation and Recreational Lands (CARL); Save OurCoasts (SOC); and the Land Acquisition Trust Fund(LATF). Alternative III has the potential to providesignificant benefits if the provision of public access isconsistent with the resource's carrying-capacity.Within Alternative IV, no actions would be taken toimprove public access.

Comparative Impacts

The majority of the land-use strategies offer twolevels of protection (Alternative IV and Alternatives II/III). Only the Dredging Prohibition strategy (L.14)offers three different levels of protection. The differ-ences in costs and benefits among these three levelsconstitute the bulk of the differences among the mid-range alternatives.

Alternative IV. This alternative proposes no furtheraction in a number of the strategies, and thereforeprovides no socioeconomic benefits.

L.14: Dredging Prohibition. Alternative II wouldprohibit new dredge and fill permits; Alternative IIIwould allow permits if public interest is demonstrated,and little or no environmental degradation is likely,and Alternative IV would allow permits if publicinterest is demonstrated. The socioeconomic benefitsof restricting all new permits would be significant, butthe cost burden placed on new development wouldbe significant as well. Conversely, Alternative IVwould allow costly degradation of area wetlands,benefiting development interests at the expense oflong-term public needs.

L.15: Dredging Regulations. In the mid-rangealternatives, this strategy would provide for aninventory and assessment of current and recentmaintenance dredging activities throughout theSanctuary. Only Alternatives II and III, however,would require low-impact dredging methods for allmaintenance dredging. While low-impact dredgingmay increase the operational costs of maintenance,the reduced impacts to sensitive Sanctuary habitats(e.g., corals, seagrasses, and mangroves) wouldbenefit all user groups.

L.18: Wetland Dredge and Fill . Wetlands representa market failure, because owners are unable tocharge for the economic services these areasprovide. Unless prevented, wetland owners willconvert such land to uses that may be suboptimalfrom an economic standpoint. There are many variedsocioeconomic benefits derived from wetlands. Theyprovide habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife; actas a pollution filter; remove sediment; and provideflood control, groundwater recharge, and recreationalopportunities. Saltwater or marine wetlands arelinked to nearly 92 percent of the value of Florida’scommercial fish harvest. Bell (1989) estimated therecreational fishery value per wetland acre to be$7,082 and $923 on the east and west coast ofFlorida, respectively (1984 dollars). Using the saltwa-ter marsh acre value of approximately $1,450 (1992retail) for commercial fisheries, and approximately$5,500 (1992 dollars) for recreational fisheries, theestimated value that saltwater marsh contributes tofisheries surrounding Monroe County (using the 645km2 reported by NOAA in 1986) is $246 million forcommercial fisheries, and $877 million for recre-ational fisheries.

Within both Alternatives II and III, this strategy wouldreduce the degree of wetland destruction currentlyoccurring. The cost of residential and businessdevelopment would increase as the supply of suitableland becomes limited. However, while this strategywould increase costs, Sanctuary users would benefit


189

D


Table 26. Recreation Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives

User Groups

SCR divers


Treasure hunters

• Costs: potential lost incomes



Strategies


• R.2 and R.5 (Benefits unclear due to

possible negative externalities)

User Groups

SCR divers


Treasure hunters

• Costs: potential lost incomes



Strategies


• R.5 (Responsible for an increase in

benefits and cost)

Alternative III Impacts Alternative II Impacts

User Groups

SCR divers


Treasure hunters

• Costs: Potential lost incomes



Alternative III. This alternative effectively limits costswhile maximizing socioeconomic benefits.

Alternative II. This alternative contains many of thesame provisions as Alternative III. The difference inestimated costs and benefits between the alterna-tives is undetermined, however, and the completeprohibition of dredging activities proposed in strategyL.14 would raise the cost of this alternative.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Recreation

The Keys are a major tourist destination. In 19901.86 million out-of-state tourists visited MonroeCounty, totalling 12.87 million tourist-days. Althoughestimating the number of instate tourists is moredifficult, the uniqueness of the Keys' climate and thereef system also make it a major tourist destinationfor Florida residents. Given the area's high level ofuse, proper management is crucial to maintaining itsrecreational value.

People who visit the Keys participate in a widevariety of activities that affect the Sanctuary (e.g.,boating, fishing, diving, etc.). The overuse or misuseof Sanctuary resources will lead to a lessening ofboth 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 thepotential for causing the greatest socioeconomicimpact. The Coral Touching (R.7) strategy will benefit

Sanctuary resources, but restrictions will make diveoperations more difficult. The impacts of the Recre-ation Survey (R.2) strategy are negligible, exceptwithin Alternative II, where charter boat operators willbe affected. Table 26 provides a summary compari-son across Alternatives II, III, and IV.

Key Recreation Strategies

R.1: SCR ManagementR.2: Recreation SurveyR.5: Carrying CapacityR.7: Coral Touching

R.1: SCR Management. Because of the Keys'importance as a major trade route, as well as itsnatural reef structure, a significant number of ship-wrecks have occurred in the waters in and aroundthe Sanctuary. Four-hundred-and-fifty submergedcultural resources (SCRs) have been logged withinthe Keys, and an estimated 900 sites may be locatedin the area. Many direct and indirect socioeconomicbenefits are derived from these SCRs. They attractscuba divers, snorkelers, souvenir collectors, histori-ans, and marine archaeologists. Kearney/Centaur(1990), for example, estimated that over 846,000scuba divers and snorkelers visit the Keys annually,with a large portion participating in SCR diving.Leeworthy (1991) estimated that each diver in theKeys has a daily recreational user value of $319.36,for a total user value of $197.6 million annually. Thewrecks also provide a unique habitat for tropical andsport fish, contributing to the area's recreationalfishing value, and provide educational opportunities


190

for historians. The minimum total regional impactattributed to SCR visitors in 1990 was $163.5 million(Bell and Sorensen, 1993).

Most shipwrecks in the Keys have already beensalvaged. New technological developments havehelped locate wrecks in deeper waters, but becausemost of the waters surrounding the Keys are rela-tively shallow, this technology is not likely to lead to asignificant number of new wreck discoveries. Thishypothesis is supported by files of the State and theAdmiralty Court. There are currently no significantsalvage contracts in the State-managed portion ofthe Sanctuary and, except for the ATOCHA and theMARGUERITA, there have been no significanttreasure finds in the Sanctuary's Federal portion,either. Accordingly, there has been a shift in treasurehunting to the Caribbean and other areas of theworld. Also, recent changes in various laws haveoccurred, making it less likely that the treasurehunters will gain title to future finds.

Based on these laws, and the unlikelihood of newsignificant finds in the Keys, the regulation andmanagement of SCRs within the Sanctuary is notexpected to have a significant socioeconomic impact.While the likelihood of another significant treasurefind is speculative, private recovery will still bepossible, and the negative economic impacts ontreasure hunters from the proposed SCR manage-ment strategies should be minimal (Varmer et al.,1993). Such impacts could result from prohibitions onrecovery operations in protected zones and areascontaining coral and/or seagrass meadows. Thecosts involved with managing SCRs include estab-lishing a staff, organizing the SCR survey, andcontinuing the supervision of the sites.

R.2: Recreation Survey. Information from therecreation survey established by this strategy willenable management decisions to be made on costs(associated with permits, regulations, and otherrequirements) that may be imposed on users.Alternatives III and IV should not impact any usergroups. However, within Alternative II, survey infor-mation would be used to establish a permitting andenforcement system to regulate use levels (e.g.,number of boats, divers, etc.), and the strategy wouldhave a negative impact on charter and rental boatoperations.

R.5: Carrying Capacity. High levels of recreationaluse have major physical and biological impacts onSanctuary resources. The effects of this use mayreduce the value of the recreational experience in theKeys. This strategy would establish recreational

carrying capacities to minimize wildlife disturbancesand other adverse effects. It would be enforced onlyin highly sensitive areas in Alternative IV, in high-useand highly sensitive habitats in Alternative III, andthroughout the Sanctuary in Alternative II. If special-use permits are implemented, additional user feecosts would be incurred.

Because the regional economy is dominated byrecreation, any limitation on carrying capacities thatreduces the level of recreational activity would have anegative socioeconomic effect. For example, Bell andSorenson (1993) estimated that a five percentreduction in visitation would result in the loss ofapproximately $23 million in regional incomes, andover 1,000 jobs. However, because the annual uservalue of recreation (estimated at $653 million)exceeds the annual value of income generated bythe regional economy (estimated at $463 million), thebenefits of a carrying-capacity management policyhave the potential to exceed the losses incurred bythe local economy, assuming user values rise as aresult of the imposed limits. Implementing carrying-capacity limits would also involve increased costs.However, the benefits gained from such limits maybalance or exceed the costs incurred.

R.7: Coral Touching. This strategy should have apositive impact on most user groups (e.g., divers,snorkelers, and charter operators) because it will limitthe potential damage to corals, protecting thisprimary resource attraction. However, there areconcerns that the restrictions could negatively impactthe dive charter industry, by making it potentiallyliable for damages caused by divers and chartervessels anchoring near corals. Within Alternative II,coral touching would be prohibited throughout theSanctuary, resulting in potentially significant impactson the dive/charter industry. In addition, somerevenues may be lost if divers choose not to dive toavoid accidentally touching coral. There may also beadditional costs for gear or other buoyancy-controlmethods designed to help divers avoid coral touch-ing. Within Alternative III, coral touching is onlyprohibited in protected zones, but the removal orinjury of coral is prohibited throughout the Sanctuary.Accordingly, there would be some of the same costsand impacts as in Alternative II, but they should besignificantly less severe. In addition, there may besome shifting of dive/charter sites that would involvesome additional costs that could be passed on to theusers. The impacts of Alternative IV would be similarto Alternative III, but because the protected zonesare smaller, they would not be as significant.


191

D

to users, these higher costs may result in a lowernumber of visitors participating in water-relatedactivities. High-cost improvements may also result insite substitution in the short term, until costs level off.However, over the long term, water quality wouldimprove, and the costs of implementing protectivestrategies would also decrease over time. Increasesin income and water quality would, in the long term,increase demand and, therefore, the value of water-related activities, offsetting any short-term losses.

Unless the Keys' wastewater treatment problem isproperly addressed with a balanced plan, irreversibleenvironmental damage may result. The costs ofimplementing protective strategies may be insignifi-cant compared to the consequences of taking noaction. The negative long-term economic impactsfrom lost revenues could threaten the livelihood ofcounty residents. Conversely, negative impacts mayalso be compounded by expensive and relativelyineffective strategies, with low cost/benefit ratios. Analternative must be selected that maximizes bothenvironmental and economic benefits.

Key Water Quality Strategies

Most user groups, especially water-related recreationusers and commercial fishermen, will benefit from thewater quality strategies in the mid-range alternatives.All benefits are assumed, and are considered long-term potential benefits (Table 27). The key assump-tion is that if water quality strategies are not imple-mented (Alternative V), the goods and services uponwhich these user groups depend will degrade andmay eventually be eliminated. Of the 32 water qualitystrategies, seven, OSDS Demonstration Project(W.1); AWT Demonstration Project (W.2); Wastewa-ter Management Systems (W.3); Wastewater Dis-posal, City of Key West (W.4), Canal Water Quality

Key Water Quality Strategies

W.1: OSDS Demonstration ProjectW.2: AWT Demonstration ProjectW.3: Wastewater Management SystemsW.4: Wastewater Disposal, City of Key WestW.6: NPDES Program DelegationW.10: Canal Water QualityW.11: Stormwater RetrofittingW.12: Stormwater PermittingW.15: HAZMAT ResponseW.32: Advisory Committee

Comparative Impacts

Alternative IV . This alternative would offer the leastrestriction, and the least positive socioeconomicimpact.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide morerestrictions than Alternative IV, or the same restric-tions over a larger area. Carrying-capacity limitswould be enforced in highly sensitive and high-useareas, and the recreational users of these areaswould be impacted.

Alternative II. This alternative would be the mostrestrictive, as it requires a permitting and enforce-ment system to regulate use levels (e.g., number ofboats, divers, etc.) for charter and recreational-for-hire vessels. It would also establish carrying-capacitylimits for recreational activities throughout the Sanc-tuary, displacing some users. This alternative wouldhave the greatest socioeconomic impact on bothcommercial and recreational users.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Water Quality

Monroe County's economic base is heavily depen-dent on tourism and water-related activities. Theseactivities, in turn, depend on waters of consistentlyhigh quality. However, pollutant discharges in theSanctuary, most of which can be attributed to waste-water treatment methods in Monroe County, havedegraded the area's water quality.

Because water-related activities such as snorkelingand scuba diving depend on clean, clear water tomaintain high user values, the tourist industry wouldsuffer the greatest losses if the county's wastewaterdisposal problems are ignored. Other water-relatedactivities/user groups that rely on good water qualityinclude beach users, boaters, PWC users, glass-bottom boat operators, and visitors observing wildlife.

In addition, the continuing and improved health ofcommercial and recreational fisheries depends onmaintaining a satisfactory level of surface andgroundwater quality. These resources are currentlyoverfished, and may disappear if the habitats used bytarget species (e.g., seagrasses, coral, and spongebeds) are reduced by diminishing water quality.

If wastewater management strategies are imple-mented, the county's economy would encountershort-term losses due to higher costs, with noimmediate improvement in water quality. Passed on


192


nomic benefit of lowering overall costs of wastewatertreatment for residents and business establishments.

W.3: Wastewater Management Systems. Undereach of the mid-range alternatives, this strategywould require inspection/enforcement programs forOSDS and package plants, and the elimination ofcesspits. Alternatives II and III also include targets forwastewater nutrient loadings, and the developmentand implementation of a Stormwater Master Plan.Although no single water quality strategy is expectedto have a significant socioeconomic impact on anyuser group, this strategy may have larger socioeco-nomic benefits on those activities dependent onwater clarity, such as scuba diving and snorkeling.Although glass-bottom boat operations also dependon low turbidity, positive impacts would be minimal,due to the small number of user days associated withthis activity. The commercial fishing industry wouldreceive only small positive impacts, assuming theissue of common property is properly addressed (seefishing issue discussion). Commercial fisheries relyon a combination of strategies designed for stockenhancement and improved management. Recre-ational fisheries have greater economic value thancommercial fisheries, and historically, managementefforts to control catch have been more successfulwhen targeting recreational users.

W.4: Wastewater Disposal, City of Key West . Thisstrategy would require that the effluent disposal at

Table 27. Water Quality Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives


User Groups


industry


Commercial fishing


Residents and business owners

• Costs: increase, but many incomes

depend on industries tied to water

quality

User Groups


industry


Commercial fishing



• Benefits: possible advanced

wastewater treatment cost

decrease

Strategies


• W.3 and W.10

Additional

• W.7 and W.11

User Groups


industry


Commercial fishing



• Benefits: possible advanced

wastewater treatment cost

decreases

Strategies


• W.10, W.11, and W.17

(W.10); Stormwater Retrofitting (W.11); and HAZMATResponse (W.15), are expected to have the greatestsocioeconomic impact on users. Three other strate-gies are addressed in this section because theirimplementation is expected before or within the firstyear following the adoption of the Management Plan.Qualitative discussions of impacts on user groups areprovided for all strategies except W.15, whichincludes quantitative estimates as well.

W.1: OSDS Demonstration Project and W.2: AWTDemonstration Project. In general, little is knownabout the impacts of long-term on-site disposalsystem (OSDS) use, illegal cesspit use, or theeffectiveness of advanced wastewater treatmentplants (AWTs) in Monroe County. Forty-four percentof all wastewater flow is currently treated by OSDSs(24,000) and cesspits (5,000), 16 percent is treatedby package plants (200), and 40 percent is treated bywastewater treatment plants in Key West (Sorensen,1993). Cesspits have a much greater negativeenvironmental impact than OSDSs. The implementa-tion of the AWT Demonstration Project strategy (W.2)would address this uncertainty through a demonstra-tion and monitoring project. If the results revealeconomic and environmental benefits, coupled withdecreased operational costs over the long run, usersmay convert to cleaner AWT plants. In addition,AWTs may be the most cost-efficient method ofreducing nutrient loads, if economies of scale existfor AWTs. This would entail the added socioeco-


193

D

Key West's wastewater treatment plant be upgradedthrough the implementation of nutrient reductiontechnologies, deep-well injection aquifer storage and/or re-use, and discontinuing the use of ocean outfall.This strategy would reduce direct nutrient loadings tosurface waters, providing equal benefits and requir-ing equal costs, regardless of the alternative chosen.

W.6: NPDES Program Delegation. Within each ofthe mid-range alternatives, this strategy woulddelegate administration of the NPDES program forFlorida Keys' dischargers to the State of Florida. Theprogram would benefit permittees and the State ofFlorida by streamlining the current process. No costsare expected.

W.10: Canal Water Quality. The provisions of thisstrategy are progressively more restrictive fromAlternative IV to Alternative II. For example, althoughall of the alternatives would require an inventory ofdead-end canals and basins, only Alternative II wouldrequire that improvements be implemented through-out the Sanctuary. Alternative III would only requireimprovements in known hot spots. The impacts ofthis strategy regarding the connection between canalwater quality, overall Sanctuary water quality, andwater-based activities are unknown. Due to uncer-tainties about the impacts of nutrient loadings indead-end canals on Sanctuary nearshore waters,only small positive benefits can be predicted whereimprovements are implemented.

W.11: Stormwater Retrofitting. This strategy wouldnot be implemented under Alternative IV, and wouldbe more restrictive within Alternative II than Alterna-tive III. Within all alternatives, loadings of sediment,toxics, and nutrients to Sanctuary waters would bereduced through engineering methods. Due touncertainties about the impacts of nutrient loadings indead-end canals on Sanctuary nearshore waters,only small positive benefits can be predicted whereimprovements are implemented.

W.12: Stormwater Permitting. This strategy wouldrequire that no development in the Keys be ex-empted from the stormwater permitting process. Thisaction would benefit all user groups by potentiallydecreasing the negative impact that stormwater hason Sanctuary waters. However, due to uncertaintiesabout the impacts of nutrient loadings in dead-endcanals on Sanctuary nearshore waters, only smallpositive benefits can be predicted.

W.15: HAZMAT Response. In assessing thisstrategy, a survey addressing tourist response to a

simulated oil spill was used to estimate economicimpacts on the county. The hypothetical studyshowed that in 1987, 55.2 percent of all touristswould leave the Keys if an oil spill occurred, resultingin an estimated loss of between $22 million and $55million in personal income. Annual user value losseswere estimated at between $60 million and $160million, as a result of a similar hypothetical spill in1990 (Bell, 1993). The provisions of this strategy areconsistent across the mid-range alternatives.

W. 32: Advisory Committee. This strategy wouldrequire the establishment of a technical advisorycommittee to coordinate and guide research andmonitoring activities. The undetermined costs andbenefits of this strategy would be the same acrossthe mid-range alternatives.

Other Water Quality Strategies

Other strategies that are expected to have socioeco-nomic impacts include Mosquito Spraying (W.17) andPesticide Research (W.18), both of which wouldreduce pesticide use in the Sanctuary. In general, theindividual positive impacts of implementing waterquality strategies would be minimal, compared to thestrategies in combination. Across all strategies thereis a potential for large socioeconomic benefits, bothin terms of economic value, and sales and employ-ment in the local economy.

Comparative Impacts

Wastewater Management Systems (W.3), Canal WQ(W.10), Stormwater Retrofitting (W.11), and MosquitoSpraying (W.17) are the only water quality strategiesthat differ by level of protection across alternatives.These strategies have therefore become the basis fordetermining the comparative impacts of the mid-range alternatives.

Alternative IV. Alternative IV would provide fewmeasures designed to limit water quality degradation;therefore, few socioeconomic benefits would occur.While short-term costs would be low, the long-termcosts of continued water quality degradation wouldbe high, and would affect all user groups.

Alternative III. Alternative III would provide signifi-cant increases in water quality, regarding bothnutrient and toxic inputs. It would, therefore, havesignificant long-term potential benefits for waterquality-dependent activities.


194


Table 28. Zoning Strategy Socioeconomic Impacts Across Alternatives


User Groups

Commercial fishermen

• Costs: short-term loss of fishing

area


increase in stock abundance


• Benefits: increased income

User Groups


• Costs: short-term loss of fishing

area





Strategies


• Z.1, Z.2, and Z.3 (Responsible for

an increase in benefits. Costs are

unknown)

User Groups


• Costs: short-term loss of fishing area

• Benefits: potential long-term




Strategies


• 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 AreasZ.2: Replenishment ReservesZ.3 Sanctuary Preservation AreasZ.4: Existing Management AreasZ.5 Special-use Areas

Table 28 provides a summary comparison acrossAlternatives II, III, and IV.

Z.1: Wildlife Management Zones. This strategywould affect user groups participating in wildlifeobservation, or seeking access to these areas. Usersparticipating in wildlife observation would see a smallsocioeconomic benefit, due to greater assurances ofcontinued wildlife and habitat protection. However,most of these zones are already within three nationalwildlife refuges and are under restrictions establishedby the FWS. As a result, the strategy is likely to haveminimal socioeconomic impacts on Sanctuary users.

Z.2: Replenishment Reserves . These zones willlimit consumptive activities, while allowing recre-ational activities that are compatible with resourceprotection. The proposed Key Largo ReplenishmentReserve may displace some users, such as commer-cial lobster fishermen. Lobster fishermen, tropicalspecies collectors, and recreational and commercialfishermen may also be displaced by the SambosReserve. Although these zones would prohibitcommercial and recreational fishing, they are ex-pected to have an overall benefit by protecting

Alternative II. Alternative II would involve only smalladditional Sanctuary-wide reductions in both nutri-ents and toxics compared to Alternative III, andwould therefore result in few additional socioeco-nomic benefits. The costs associated with implement-ing strategies W.3 and W.11 make implementing thisalternative impractical.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Zoning

As mandated by FKNMSPA, zoning has beenproposed to ensure the protection of Sanctuaryresources. Each of the five proposed zone types isdesigned to reduce damage to resources and threatsto environmental quality, while allowing uses that arecompatible with resource protection. The zones willprotect habitats and species by limiting consumptiveand/or conflicting user activities, allowing resourcesto evolve in a natural state, with minimal humaninfluence. The protection of these resources is alsovital to the local economy, which is dependent on thepreservation of the Keys' unique natural resources.

Key Zoning Strategies

Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) and Replen-ishment Reserves are expected to have the greatestsocioeconomic impact on user groups, while WildlifeManagement Zones and Special-use Zones areexpected to have a negligible socioeconomic impactdue to their size and location. Existing ManagementAreas are expected to have no additional socioeco-nomic impact, since these areas are already in place.


195

D

spawning and recruitment stocks from overfishing,promoting genetic diversity within the fishery, produc-ing “spill-over” benefits to other nonprotected areasthrough the migration of individuals across bound-aries, and providing important baseline data for usein managing fisheries in other areas. The zonesbecome slightly larger and/or more numerous movingfrom Alternative IV to Alternative II.

Z.3: Sanctuary Preservation Areas. These zoneswill focus on the protection of shallow, heavily usedreefs where user conflicts occur, and where concen-trated visitor activity leads to resource degradation.As with Replenishment Reserves, the groups that willbenefit are those that value an abundance anddiversity of marine wildlife, including commercial andrecreational fishermen and participants in water-related recreation activities. However, tropical fishcollectors, lobster fishermen, recreational fishermen,and spearfishermen displaced from these areas, willbe negatively impacted. The zones become slightlylarger and/or more numerous moving from Alterna-tive IV to Alternative II.

Z.4: Existing Management Areas. Because theseareas are already established by Federal, State, orlocal authorities with competent jurisdiction in theSanctuary, this strategy will have minimal socioeco-nomic impact.

Z.5: Special-use Zones. This strategy will havenegligible socioeconomic impacts on users becauseonly a small number of areas will be established.Academic and scientific communities will be theprimary beneficiaries of this zone type. The areasproposed under Alternative III should have minimalimpact on primary user groups, since one zone (LooeKey) is already protected, and two of the remainingzones are low-use areas. This strategy is the samefor Alternatives IV and III. Alternative II would limit thenumber of zones that may be established for high-impact activities.

Comparative Impacts

The primary zoning differences between alternativesare the size and number of the SPAs and Replenish-ment Reserves that would be established. Movingfrom Alternative IV to Alternative II, the benefits touser groups from enhanced fish stocks would in-crease. However, increasing the number of thesezones would displace more users, such as recre-ational fishermen. Overall, the benefits of thesezones are expected to outweigh the costs to dis-placed user groups.

Key Education Strategies

E.1: Printed MaterialsE.3: Signs/Displays/ExhibitsE.4: Training/Workshops/School ProgramsE.5: Public Service Announcements

Alternative IV. This alternative would provide theleast protection and socioeconomic benefits. TheSPAs and Replenishment Reserves would notprovide the level of protection and resulting long-termbenefits offered by the other alternatives.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide slightlylarger and more numerous SPAs and ReplenishmentReserves than Alternative IV. The increased numberand size of these zone types would provide a moder-ate increase in benefits to user groups.

Alternative II. This alternative would provide thegreatest level of Sanctuary protection through theuse of SPAs, Replenishment Reserves, and Special-use Zones. It would, therefore, provide the greatestsocioeconomic benefits associated with resourceprotection, such as long-term stock abundance.

Socioeconomic Impacts: Education

The education strategies within the three mid-rangealternatives are expected to have significant positivesocioeconomic impacts (Table 29). Educating thepublic through workshops and school programs,special events (e.g., poster contests and a “Kids'Week”), brochures and newsletters, signs anddisplays, and public service announcements, forexample, would increase public awareness about theSanctuary. This heightened awareness would result,both directly and indirectly, in improved environmen-tal conditions and equal socioeconomic benefits to alluser groups.

Key Education Strategies

Of the 10 education strategies, the Printed Materialsstrategy (E.1) is expected to have the greatestsocioeconomic impact on user groups. In addition,the Signs/Displays/Exhibits (E.3) and Public ServiceAnnouncements (E.5) strategies are expected toresult in significant positive socioeconomic impacts,as they will affect all users. Positive impacts would


196


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


• 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


• 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 SchoolPrograms (E.4) strategy's provisions to increase theknowledge and appreciation of Sanctuary resources,promote and support environmental education inMonroe County and State schools, provide environ-mental education workshops for educators, andsupport adult environmental education.

E.1: Printed Materials, E.3 Signs/Displays/Exhib-its and E.5 Public Service Announcements.Encouraging voluntary compliance with Sanctuaryregulations through education may prove an invalu-able alternative to using enforcement personnel.Through the Education Program, identical goals ofSanctuary resource preservation may be achievedwith lower operational costs. The distribution ofprinted materials (E.1) is expected to have thegreatest positive impact on user groups. Otherstrategies, such as Signs/Displays/Exhibits (E.3) andPublic Service Announcements (E.5), would alsoprove economically beneficial through renewedpublic awareness and respect for the Sanctuary andits habitats. In Alternative IV, Signs/Displays/Exhibitswould establish an information program usingportable informative displays, some of which wouldbe multilingual. In addition, Alternatives IV and IIwould require the development of a user-friendlycomputer system with information on regulations,access, recreational opportunities, etc.

E.4 Training/Workshops/School Programs.Although the benefits for specific user groups fromSanctuary education and training programs aredifficult to predict, their overall success has beenillustrated at sanctuaries where similar programshave been adopted. Strategy E.4 would increase theknowledge and appreciation of Sanctuary resourcesthrough classes, workshops, and in-school presenta-tions. Alternatives II and III have similar provisions for

more sophisticated technical training, while therequirements for Alternative IV would provide onlysome basic training. All user groups would benefitequally from increased environmental awareness,and a clearer understanding of Sanctuary goals andobjectives. The benefits of this strategy would begreatest in Alternatives II and III.

Other Education Strategies

All of the remaining education strategies would havepositive socioeconomic impacts. These strategieswould establish audio-visual materials (E.2), aninteragency visitor center (E.7), an education advi-sory council (E.6), and a forum for special events(E.11). The cumulative effects of these strategieswould 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), PublicForum (E.10), and Special Events (E.11) strategiesvary in their level of protection across alternatives. Ineach strategy, the scope of services and the targetedaudience would increase from Alternative IV toAlternative II, with greater expected benefits occur-ring in the more protective alternatives.

Alternative IV. This alternative would provide alimited level of educational services. While low inoperating costs, it would produce far fewer benefitsthan either Alternative II or Alternative III.

Alternative III. This alternative would provide moder-ate increases in educational services compared toAlternative IV, with moderate increases in potentiallong-term socioeconomic benefits as a result.


197

D

Alternative II. This alternative would be the mostambitious and the most costly to implement. Benefitsunder this alternative would be minimal compared tothose expected within Alternative III. Costs, however,would increase significantly because of the expenseof programs that are unique to this alternative,particularly the development a new visitor center.

Implementation Costs

The total annual operations and maintenance costsfor implementing each mid-range managementalternative range from approximately $4 million, for aminimal amount of resource protection, to $12million, for significantly more resource protection(Table 30). These estimates are based on implemen-tation cost ranges generated by resource managersand experts at a workshop held in Marathon, FL onOctober 21-22, 1992, and are approximations only.These costs will be borne by the Federal, State, andcounty governments and NGO partners who have astake in the long-term health of the Sanctuary. Adiscussion of possible funding sources is found inthe Preferred Alternative/Management Plan chapterin Volume I.

These estimates do not include major capital im-provements. The Water Quality Protection Programdeveloped by EPA and the State of Florida identifiedseveral strategies that require costly capital improve-ments. For example, Strategy W.3 calls for a rangeof activities, such as upgrading septic systems at acost of over $42 million, to constructing communitysewage plants at a cost of over $200 million. Strat-egy W.11 calls for stormwater retrofitting alongsections of US 1; this strategy will cost up to $200million, depending on the size and number of sitesretrofitted. These costs are contained in the Phase IIreport of the Water Quality Protection Program (EPA,1993).

Future Considerations

In the future, it may be appropriate to conduct a moredetailed socioeconomic impact analysis of selectedstrategies, using traditional methods such as cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. Sucha determination would be based on the nature of theproblem, as well as the limitations on available dataand resources. Cost-benefit analyses examine thesocioeconomic implications of proposed actions bycomparing economic impacts with values. Theyprovide decisionmakers with more comprehensiveinformation about the overall result of a given projector policy change than the rather limited pictureconveyed by economic impact analyses.

Table 30. Estimated Annual Operations and Mainte- nance Costs for Implementing Mid-range Management Alternatives

Cost (millions of dollars)

Issue Alte

rnat

ive

IVAl

tern

ativ

e II

IAl

tern

ativ

e 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

4.12Total

Water Quality Improvements. The total annualoperations and maintenance costs for improvingwater quality in each mid-range alternative vary fromover $4 million for Alternative IV, $9.3 million forAlternative III, and $12 million for Alternative II.

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

199


representing the Advisory Council’s consensus ofopinion, and individual concerns regarding theenvironmental and socioeconomic impacts of thealternatives.

The Council found Alternative III to be the mostreasonable for managing the Sanctuary, but sug-gested changes to some strategies to provide thelevel of resource protection required to fulfill theintent of the statutes. Consequently, the Councilrecommended Alternative III with modifications toselected strategies. The Council passed this recom-mendation by a vote of 17 to 0, with one abstention.

Core Group Recommendation

The Core Group met in Silver Spring, Maryland onAugust 4-6, 1993 to review the Advisory Council’srecommendation, and agreed with the Council’sPreferred Alternative and most of their suggestedmodifications. After carefully reviewing the Council’srecommendation and examining all available informa-tion on environmental and socioeconomic impacts,the Core Group unanimously selected Alternative IIIas the Preferred Alternative.

General Rationale

Alternatives I and V were eliminated from consider-ation early in the evaluation process because theywould not adequately achieve the environmental andeconomic requirements of the NEPA, NMSA,FKNMSPA, and other applicable Federal, State, andlocal laws. Alternative I focuses solely on resourceprotection, and would not allow for compatible usesof the Sanctuary. While it would have positiveenvironmental impacts, this alternative would havesignificant negative socioeconomic impacts, such asvirtually closing down commercial and recreationalfishing and prohibiting many other recreational uses.Alternative I would not satisfy the FKNMSPA goal notto restrict activities that do not adversely affectSanctuary resources.

Alternative V (no action) would have negative envi-ronmental and socioeconomic impacts over the longterm, and would not accomplish the resource protec-tion goals of the NMSA and FKNMSPA. Without theimplementation of a management plan, continuedenvironmental degradation will occur. This environ-

Introduction

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) andthe Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary andProtection Act of 1990 (FKNMSPA) mandate thedevelopment of a management plan that protectsSanctuary resources, facilitates Sanctuary use, andis compatible with the primary objective of resourceprotection. These requirements relate directly to theenvironmental and socioeconomic concerns of theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addi-tion, the FKNMSPA requires NOAA to incorporatethe Water Quality Protection Program regulationsdeveloped by the U.S. EPA and Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection in the Sanctuary'sComprehensive Management Plan, where consistentwith the goals of the Sanctuary.

After considering the five proposed managementalternatives and conducting an extensive analysis ofAlternatives II-IV, NOAA has selected Alternative IIIas the Preferred Management Alternative. Theprocess used to select the Preferred Alternativeincluded considering recommendations of both theSanctuary Advisory Council and the Core Group. Italso required carefully examining the impacts of eachalternative on the region's natural resources andhuman activities. This chapter outlines the processused to select Alternative III as the Preferred Alterna-tive. It describes the Federal, State, and local ben-efits of this alternative, and describes how AlternativeIII compares with the other alternatives on keystrategies by issue.

Advisory Council Recommendation

The FKNMS Advisory Council was established toprovide a forum for public input into the managementplanning process. The Council has met regularlysince it was formed in early 1992 to provide NOAAwith commentary and guidance on all aspects ofmanagement plan development, and to receive inputfrom their constituencies. On July 29-30, 1993, theAdvisory Council met in Marathon, Florida to:1) receive public comment on the five proposedalternatives submitted for their review; 2) considerthe merits of each alternative; and 3) provide NOAAwith a recommendation for a preferred alternative.The Council did not find Alternative I and V to bereasonable, and, therefore, focused on AlternativesII, III, and IV. It provided NOAA with comments


200

mental degradation is inconsistent with theFKNMSPA mandate, and ultimately will lead tosignificant losses of revenue, jobs, and investmentsin the marine-based tourism, recreation, and com-mercial fishing industries. These impacts are notconsistent with the FKNMSPA goal of facilitatingmultiple Sanctuary uses.

The following section describes how Alternative III isconsistent with the goals and policies of overlappingjurisdictions and concerns of Federal, State, andlocal governments.

Federal Concerns

Alternative III provides the level of comprehensiveSanctuary management that assures adherence tothe policy and purpose of the Sanctuary’s designa-tion (Sec. 3 [a] and [b]) as stated in the FKNMSPA.The impacts of activities adversely affecting Sanctu-ary resources, as defined in section 302(8) of theNational Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972 (16USC, 1431 et seq. as amended), are mitigated withthe greatest level of environmental protection, whileproducing the least adverse socioeconomic impacton affected user groups.

Alternative III complies with the mandates for thedevelopment of a comprehensive management planfor the FKNMS, and promotes all public and privateSanctuary uses consistent with resource protection. Itincludes a zoning scheme that minimizes negativesocioeconomic impacts on Sanctuary users, whileproviding positive environmental and socioeconomicconsequences commensurate with the Sanctuary’spurpose. Zoning proposals included in Alternative IIIwill provide resource protection for heavily usedportions of the Sanctuary that are economicallyimportant to many commercial activities (such as diveoperations, which represent a large user group),while not overly restricting other commercial andrecreational interests in the Sanctuary.

In addition, NOAA has involved Federal, State, andlocal agencies; resource managers; scientists; acitizens’ Sanctuary Advisory Council; and usergroups in compiling the management strategiescontained in all alternatives. These groups were alsoinstrumental in helping NOAA select Alternative III asthe Preferred Alternative.

Alternative III incorporates elements of the WaterQuality Protection Program developed by the EPAand FDEP. Strategies addressing water quality wereselected because of their anticipated effectiveness in

resolving water quality issues with the most beneficialenvironmental consequences, and the least negativesocioeconomic impacts.

In contrast, in the short term, Alternative IV wouldhave fewer negative socioeconomic impacts onSanctuary users, but would not adequately addressthe long-term environmental impacts that currentlyare degrading Sanctuary resources. Alternative IIwould provide greater environmental protection thanAlternatives IV and III, but would place a greatereconomic burden on some of the Sanctuary's com-mercial and recreational users.

State Concerns

Alternative III provides the best option to accomplishthe Sanctuary’s intended goals to protect the re-sources of the Florida Keys, educate the public aboutthe marine environment, and manage human uses ina manner that will not restrict activities that do nothave an adverse effect on Sanctuary resources.

The management strategies in Alternative III willprovide a balanced set of actions for managingmarine resources throughout the entire Sanctuary,and will help protect the invaluable natural resourcesupon which the local economy depends. This com-prehensive set of strategies addresses all resourcemanagement issues related to recreation, boating,fishing, land use, environmental education, waterquality, and zoning. These strategies provide thepolicy basis for the new regulations required toeffectively manage marine resources and avoidconflicts among user groups. They are designed tosustain resources, while allowing users who dependon them for their livelihood to continue their activitiesin a fair and reasonable manner that will not causedegradation.

The principles of marine ecosystem managementincorporated into Alternative III will provide benefits tothe State of Florida that will be realized througheffective marine resource protection, positive socio-economic impacts, and increased administrativeefficiency. The State’s focus on ecosystem manage-ment will also be enhanced by the Federal legislationand the resulting management strategies of thisalternative.

Geographically, the Sanctuary covers an area largeenough to allow for effective ecosystem manage-ment. Since the Sanctuary incorporates virtually allFlorida Keys' State waters, effective coordinatedmanagement of the Sanctuary ecosystem must be


201

compatible with Florida's management goals. Alter-native III provides that compatibility, as well as theenhanced opportunity for Florida to accomplish thesegoals under the authority of NMSA and FKNMSPA.

Alternative III’s holistic ecosystem managementapproach will enable effective, cooperative resourcemanagement among all involved Federal, State, andlocal agencies. It will allow the management goals ofall agencies with sites within or near the Sanctuary’sboundaries to be accomplished more easily andsuccessfully, and will allow each of the existingmanagement programs and the Sanctuary to comple-ment each other and support resource protectionthroughout the ecosystem. Through cross-deputization, the State can substantially increase theability of officers to regulate the destruction of vitalmarine resources in State waters under the authorityof the civil enforcement provisions of the NMSA. Themanagement capability provided in Alternative III isalso consistent with State protected areas, includingaquatic preserves; State parks and recreation areas;outstanding Florida waters; the Area of Critical StateConcern designation. It is also consistent with State-Federal management agreements, such as coopera-tive efforts designed to manage the federally desig-nated national wildlife refuges that overlap with Statesovereign submerged lands, and regulations of theFlorida Marine Fisheries Commission.

Local Concerns

Many of the strategies in Alternative III support thecurrent regulations or planned goals, objectives, andpolicies set forth in the Monroe County Comprehen-sive Management Plan. In the long run, the FKNMSmanagement effort can help the County in its ownplanning efforts. Significant public dollars will berequired to accomplish either set of planning goals.Many of these are common to both managementefforts, and can be developed cooperatively, and withjoint resources. For example, Alternative III incorpo-rates elements of the Water Quality ProtectionProgram developed by the EPA and FDEP. This planhas contributed significantly to the County’s growthmanagement plan, saving considerable time andeffort that would have been spent to develop similarinformation.

Monroe County also has an opportunity to coordinatethe implementation of its land use and water qualitystrategies with those of the Sanctuary. The manage-ment capability provided in Alternative III is alsoconsistent with local resource protection efforts, such

as the Boating Impacts Management Plan and theGrowth Management Plan developed for MonroeCounty.

Public involvement has been substantial during theManagement Plan development phase. NOAA’sforesight in involving government agencies at alllevels, resource managers and scientists, a citizens’Sanctuary Advisory Council, and user groups indeveloping management strategies and alternativesis commendable. These groups were instrumental inproviding NOAA with their recommendation for thePreferred Alternative. Early participation and theadvocacy of the Sanctuary Advisory Council haveprovided opportunities for public participationthroughout the planning process.

Alternative III’s management approach will alloweffective, cooperative management among allgovernment agencies both within or adjacent toSanctuary boundaries. It will allow the existingmanagement programs and Sanctuary to comple-ment each other and support resource protection.This integrated, coordinated approach to manage-ment will reduce the redundancy of overlappingagency authorities and fill in gaps. In addition, theresource protection it provides will benefit many usergroups. Few users will be negatively impacted byrestrictions on their activities, as such restrictions aresite-specific and not Sanctuary-wide, to fulfill theSanctuary goals. The presence of the Sanctuary isalso expected to increase property values because ofimproved environmental conditions.

Basis for Selection

This section describes why Alternative III has beenselected over Alternatives II and IV. The discussion isorganized by issue, and focuses on those strategieswhose impacts vary across alternatives, or those withthe greatest environmental and socioeconomicimpacts.

Boating Strategies

Alternative III offers the greatest environmentalprotection with the least negative socioeconomicimpacts of the three mid-range alternatives. AlthoughAlternative II generally would provide greater environ-mental protection than Alternatives III and IV, thecost of implementation and the burden on Sanctuaryusers render this alternative impractical. AlternativeIV would have a lower negative economic impact and


202

be less of a burden on users, but would not providethe environmental protection specified as mostdesirable by the NMSA and FKNMSPA.

Strategy B.1 (Boat Access). This strategy willreduce resource impacts from boating activitiesthroughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative III will provide environmentalprotection by initiating a boating access planthat: 1) directs new public access to low-impactareas (i.e., marinas and mooring areas); and

2) requires the modification of access rampsdirectly affecting sensitive areas (e.g.,seagrasses, mangroves, and hardbottoms)throughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative IV would not offer the geographiccoverage necessary for this strategy to beeffective, nor does it represent a comprehen-sive solution regarding access concerns insensitive areas.

• Alternative II would provide broader geographiccoverage and, therefore, would be moreeffective; however, strategy implementationthroughout the Sanctuary would be very costly.

Strategy B.2. (Habitat Restoration). This strategywill promote research and development of newtechnologies to restore and enhance coral, seagrass,and mangrove habitats in the Sanctuary.

• Alternative III would allow for the developmentand implementation of a restoration plan forseverely impacted areas.

• Alternative IV would only allow for the continu-ation of ongoing restoration activities, andwould not adequately address other impactedareas.

• Alternative II would provide greater environ-mental protection than Alternatives III and IV;however, implementation at all impacted areaswithin the Sanctuary would be cost-prohibitive.

Strategy B.3 (Derelict Vessels). This strategy willreduce direct and indirect impacts to natural re-sources from derelict and abandoned vessels.

• Alternatives III and II would provide the great-est environmental protection by providing aplan for removing derelict vessels throughoutthe Sanctuary, based on the prioritization of

problem areas and the consideration of fundingconstraints. Accordingly, high-use and sensi-tive areas will receive the greatest focus.

• Alternative IV would not provide adequateresource protection, as it would not require theremoval of derelict vessels, even from high-useand sensitive areas.

Strategy B.4 (Channel Marking). This strategy willreduce damage to natural resources caused byboating activities.

• Alternatives III and II will reduce the damage tonatural resources by implementing a detailedand comprehensive plan for high-use andsensitive areas within the Sanctuary. This willinclude setting priorities and identifying prob-lem areas to be addressed first. Environmentalbenefits will result from: 1) marking frequentlyused channels, shallow-water reefs, shoals,and other significant features; and 2) reducingerosion from various causes.

• Alternative IV would not effectively protectSanctuary resources, due to the limited spatialextent of strategy implementation (i.e., sensi-tive areas only).

Strategy B.6 (Additional Enforcement). Thisstrategy will increase the presence of law enforce-ment officers (LEOs) on the water to protect Sanctu-ary resources and reduce user conflicts.

• Alternative III will increase resource protectionby adding 30 LEOs to patrol Sanctuary waters.

• Alternative IV would add only 10 LEOs, whichwould not ensure an adequate level of re-source protection.

• Alternative II would add 50 LEOs, which will bevery costly to fund without impacting users.

Strategy B.8 (User Fees). This strategy examinesmechanisms for generating funds for Sanctuarymanagement and related research.

• Alternatives III and II will provide sound re-source protection and management by apply-ing mechanisms, including user fees, forgenerating funds for use in Sanctuary manage-ment. A fair and equitable method of determin-ing impact fees that will not cause undueburdens on user groups will be provided.


203

• The 100-yard buffer proposed in Alternative IVwould not provide adequate resource protec-tion from improper PWC/motorized vesseloperations.

• The 300-yard buffer zone proposed in Alterna-tive II would create an undue burden on users,particularly on PWC operators, because such awide separation prevents reasonable use andaccess from shore.

Fishing Strategies

As the Preferred Alternative, Alternative III willprovide beneficial environmental impacts through anincreased protection of natural resources. It offersgreater protection than Alternative IV, but lessprotection than Alternative II, which would providemore natural resource protection at a significantlyhigher economic and social cost to users.

Strategy F.3 (Stocking). This strategy will build onstock research conducted elsewhere to determine theeffect of fish stocking on the genetic integrity of nativespecies in the Sanctuary.

• Alternatives III and II will protect species andhabitats by implementing a moratorium onstocking activities until adequate research isconducted to prevent damaging impactsresulting from such activities. Through appro-priate research, these alternatives will prevent:1) the spread of diseases from hatcheries towild populations; 2) the genetic alteration ofwild stocks from hatchery selection; and 3)economic waste by ensuring the survival ofreleased species. This strategy should have nodetrimental economic impacts because wildstocking is not currently practiced in theSanctuary.

• Alternative IV would not provide for a morato-rium on stocking programs while potentialproblems are being adequately researched.This would increase the chances for environ-mental damage from ill-advised stockingactivities.

Strategy F.4 (Aquaculture Alternatives). Thisstrategy will reduce fishing pressures on commer-cially harvested marine species, and help to satisfythe commercial demand for these species.

• Alternative IV would provide less potentialfunding for future Sanctuary management bynot committing to an impact fee plan.

Strategy B.13 (Salvaging/Towing). This strategywill reduce damage to natural resources resultingfrom improper vessel salvage procedures.

• Alternative III will provide an appropriate levelof Sanctuary resource protection by: 1) estab-lishing regulations and procedural guidelinesfor commercial salvaging and vessel towingoperations; 2) requiring permits for commercialsalvaging and towing operations; and

3) establishing a salvage operator trainingprogram that will reduce the impacts of inexpe-rienced salvage operators.

• Alternative IV would not provide adequateresource protection, as this strategy would notbe implemented throughout the Sanctuary.

• Alternative II would require training for allcommercial salvaging and towing operationsas part of the permit process, a program thatwould be too costly to implement.

Strategy B.15 (Mooring Buoys). This strategy willdecrease user conflicts, prolong mooring buoy life,and reduce the risk of vessel groundings.

• Alternatives III and II will provide adequateresource protection through the developmentand implementation of a comprehensivemooring buoy plan throughout the Sanctuary.Areas of immediate concern will be prioritized,with problem areas given principle consider-ation.

• Under Alternative IV, the mooring buoy planwould be implemented in sensitive areas only,providing limited resource protection.

Strategy B.17 (Personal Watercraft Management).This strategy will reduce damage to natural re-sources in the Sanctuary due to the improper opera-tion of motorized boats and personal watercraft(PWC), and will address user conflicts.

• Alternative III will reduce conflicts betweenSanctuary visitors and PWC users. It providesadequate resource protection by offering themost enforceable options regarding the dis-tance PWCs and other motorized vessels mustmaintain from other Sanctuary users, edges offlats, and other sensitive areas.


204

• Alternative III will provide moderate protectionfor harvested species by reducing the fishingpressure on wild populations. Research andpromotion of appropriate aquaculture opera-tions help to satisfy public demand. Thisalternative will mostly benefit species withparticularly high economic value, such as thosein the ornamental aquaria trade and expensivefood species. Research and regulations willprotect the environment by ensuring thataquaculture operations are environmentallycompatible.

• Alternative IV would not provide any strategyfor aquaculture, thus allowing continued andpossibly increasing pressure on wild stocks.

• Alternative II would increase environmentalprotection by developing regulations to reduceor eliminate the harvest of wild stocks, onceeffective aquaculture techniques are developedfor particular species. However, this alternativecould cause economic hardship among thosefishery participants who cannot make thetransition to aquaculture operations. Theincreased environmental protection provideddoes not justify the additional costs.

Strategy F.5 (Limited Entry). This strategy willaccess existing fishery regulatory programs that limitthe number of persons, vessels, or fishing gear unitsusing specific Sanctuary fisheries.

• Alternative III would require the implementationof appropriate limited-entry mechanisms forselected fisheries in the Sanctuary. By adjust-ing fishing efforts and harvests to support suchactivities, specific habitats will be better pro-tected and certain species will be protectedfrom overexploitation. This alternative willprovide economic benefits to the fishingindustry by reducing the chances of fisherycollapse and overexploitation. Also, economicrevenue to fishermen would be higher andmore stable, and overcapitalization of thefishery is less likely to occur.

• Alternative IV does not require the imple-mentation of regulations to ensure the long-term sustainability of Sanctuary resources,thus increasing the chances of economicdisruption from overfishing and overcapitaliza-tion. Fishing interests in applicable fisheriesare, therefore, likely to generate less incomethan in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would require the implementationof regulations limiting entry to all Sanctuaryfisheries. The cost of implementing this alterna-tive could be considerable, due to data needsand administrative requirements. Also, thisalternative would not provide significanteconomic benefits to many currently overfishedfisheries.

Strategy F.6 (Fisheries Sampling). This strategywill evaluate and modify existing commercial landingand recreational creel census programs, whichprovide statistically based management data forregulating take.

• Alternatives III and II will improve fisheriessampling, effort levels, and catch, therebyproviding more precise and accurate data onresource status and use. This data can beused by managers to protect the resource andthe economic viability of fisheries by allowingmore response from appropriate fisherymanagement agencies. Fishery problems aremore likely to be anticipated or detected duringearly development stages, before they becomeacute and cause detrimental environmentaland economic consequences. Fishery man-agement agencies will then be able to betterrespond to local conditions and individualfisheries. Fishermen will benefit economically,because recruitment monitoring will providebetter anticipation of future stock conditionsand allow them to act accordingly. Also, theeffects of environmental changes caused byhuman and natural events will have a greaterchance of being recognized and associatedwith specific causal mechanisms. Distinctstatistical areas will be established underAlternatives III and II.

• Alternative IV would provide significantly lessresolution in fishery sampling, allowing foroverexploitation and environmental damage tostocks from fishery operations. Poorer sam-pling will also increase the chances of eco-nomic disruption.

Strategy F.11 (Gear/Method Impacts). This strategywill reduce impacts to corals, hardbottoms,seagrasses, and other habitats through the develop-ment of alternative gear designs and types.

• Alternative III will increase habitat protectionthrough regulations requiring low-impact gearand methods in priority areas. It will provide the


205

This would create a hardship on fisheries withquestionable benefits, because no scientificbasis exists for adopting such a moratorium.

Recreation Strategies

The recreation strategies in each of the mid-rangealternatives provide increased resource protection insite-specific areas through carrying-capacity limitsand submerged cultural resource management. Theirimplementation will have positive impacts on habitatsand species compared to the status quo. However,they will have little direct impact on water quality. Aprohibition on the unauthorized removal of historicresources throughout the Sanctuary appears in eachof the mid-range alternatives. A permit may beavailable if proper research and recovery is docu-mented in the permit application, and minimaladverse impact to Sanctuary resources is expected.

Alternative III will provide immediate increasedprotection to coral reefs and other natural resourcesby prohibiting commercial salvage in areas wheresuch resources may be harmed, and by prohibitingcoral touching in certain areas. Protecting the integ-rity of natural resources will, in the long term, providebenefits to recreational divers, charter boat opera-tors, boaters, and other users involved in tourism,whose activities require good water quality, a diverseand healthy ecosystem, and the protection of Sanctu-ary resources of historical significance.

Strategy R.1 (Submerged Cultural ResourceManagement). This strategy protects submergedcultural resources (SCR) from disturbances throughan SCR Management Plan/Program and maintainsthese resources for research, education, science,and recreational activities. Habitat protection in-creases from Alternative IV to II.

• Alternative III provides immediate protection tosubmerged cultural resources and naturalresources. Objectives are not duplicated byrequiring permits for charter/rental vessels andcarrying capacities. This alternative is primarilybased on the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA)guidelines, NOAA policy statements, NOAApermit decisions, and various meetings anddiscussions between representatives of NOAAand the State of Florida. Alternative III isneeded because the current State regulationon SCRs does not adequately protect naturalresources. Alternative III is also based oncooperation with the State on interim permits

best balance between environmental protectionand implementation costs.

• Alternative IV would rely on voluntary programsto reduce habitat damage caused by destruc-tive fishing methods, and would be significantlyless effective than Alternative III.

• Alternative II would mandate the use of low-impact gear throughout the Sanctuary. In non-sensitive habitats, this alternative wouldprovide only minor environmental benefits, butat much greater overall costs to the fishery.

Strategy F.14 (Spearfishing). This strategy willdetermine the impacts of spearfishing on speciescomposition and abundance, reduce incidentalhabitat damage, and reduce user conflicts.

• Alternatives III and IV will develop and imposespearfishing regulations in high-priority areas(i.e., areas exhibiting a low stock abundance,and areas vulnerable to resource depletion dueto high use or extreme user conflicts).

• Alternative II would develop and implementregulations throughout the Sanctuary, but atconsiderable administrative, enforcement, andsocial costs, that are unnecessary innonsensitive habitats or locations. The addi-tional environmental benefits are not likely tobe justified by the increased costs and hard-ships imposed on users.

Strategy F.15 (Sponge Harvest). This strategy will:1) determine harvesting methods with low adverseimpacts on both species and habitats throughresearch and assessment activities; and 2) identifyareas exhibiting low abundance, low recovery rates,and habitat damage.

• Alternative III will increase the protection ofhabitat and certain sponge species fromoverharvesting throughout the Sanctuary byimplementing appropriate research-basedregulations.

• Alternative IV would provide less protectionthan Alternative III by requiring the develop-ment and implementation of appropriateregulations for sponge harvesting only in highpriority areas.

• Alternative II would impose a three-yearmoratorium on sponge harvesting to allow forthe development of appropriate regulations.


206

granted to: 1) the Scott/SMRI for the NORTH-ERN LIGHT; 2) Dr. Molinari; 3) Chapman/Fisher for the ATOCHA and theMARGUERITA; 4) Duncan Mathewson; and5) Don Washington. This alternative does notpermit commercial salvage in certain areas(e.g., protected areas, coral/seagrass areas, orareas with significant natural/historical re-sources) that potentially would be harmed byexcavation, but permits private recovery inrelatively barren areas where natural resourceswill not be adversely harmed. Restorationconditions will be considered case-by-case,where possible, and privately financed. Recov-ery will be conducted in an environmentallyand archaeologically sound manner using theASA guidelines and the Federal ArchaeologicalProgram for land sites in the marine environ-ment.

Alternative III also requires individuals inter-ested in treasure hunting to obtain a permit forconducting their activities. The purpose of thepermit is to protect natural resources that willgenerate long-term benefits to resource users.Permits require a professional archaeologist tosupervise research and recovery efforts, andcontain an agreement for the division ofrecovered items. The artifacts will be dividedequally between discoverer/recoverer and thegovernment, with possible case-specificexceptions.

Alternative III is preferred and consistent with azoned management approach. It promotes thespirit of compromise by utilizing different partsof the ASA guidelines prohibiting treasurehunting in zoned areas and near coral andseagrass beds, while allowing private recoveryin other areas when conducted in an environ-mentally and archaeologically sound manner.

• Alternative IV would allow treasure huntingthroughout the Sanctuary, and extend the 80/20 split between discoverer/recoverer and thegovernment in current Florida agreements toFederal submerged lands and waters. Thequalifications and methodology requirementsare also more lax under Alternative IV thanunder Alternatives II and III. Thus, AlternativeIV would have negative environmental andsocioeconomic impacts on tourism over thelong term. The State also reports that historicalresource protection under the current system isof concern, due to the lack of compliance with

archaeological guidelines. This alternativewould not have a negative impact on thetreasure hunting industry. However, AlternativeIII will provide greater control mechanisms toensure that an environmentally andarchaeologically sound recovery is conducted.

• Alternative II would be based primarily onexisting regulations and policies applied inother national marine sanctuaries, including theMONITOR and Monterey Bay. Current policy/guidelines/regulations in other national marinesanctuaries would be strictly applied through-out the FKNMS. The ASA guidelines reflect acompromise among preservationists, recre-ational users, and treasure hunters. While strictadherence to the ASA guidelines prohibitingtreasure hunting and souvenir collection insanctuaries and reserves would justify thisalternative, it would eliminate the treasurehunting industry throughout the Sanctuary.While Alternative II would provide increasedresource protection, it would have a negativesocioeconomic effect on many users. Bycomparison, Alternative III allows commercialtreasure hunting activities to the extent com-patible with resource protection.

Strategy R.2 (Recreation Survey). This strategy willprovide data on the types, levels, users, and loca-tions of recreational activities within the Sanctuary toenable better planning for management concerns(e.g., access to sensitive or heavily used areas, userconflicts, and adverse impacts to resources).

• The plan for routine surveys of recreational usein Alternatives III and IV will assist in identifyingspecific access and carrying-capacity problemsand issues, as well as high-use areas whereuser conflicts occur.

• In addition to the surveys, Alternative II wouldrequire a permitting system to regulate use forcharter and rental vessels. This is very restric-tive, and may place an economic burden oncharter and rental facilities, which make up asignificant sector of the local economy.

Strategy R.5 (Carrying Capacity). This strategy willprovide information used to reduce impacts toSanctuary resources from recreational activities, bydetermining the carrying capacities of differenthabitats.


207

protect Sanctuary resources, such as habitats andspecies, by limiting consumptive activities whilecontinuing to allow recreational activities compatiblewith resource protection. These reserves will:1) protect the habitat and food supply of commer-cially important fish; 2) protect many fisheries fromcollapse; 3) provide critically needed, long-termcontrol areas in currently exploited areas wherescientific research can be conducted without directhuman disturbance; and 4) improve resource moni-toring to distinguish between changes caused byhuman and natural events.

• The size and distribution of the ReplenishmentReserves proposed in Alternative III will notcause undue hardship on any single usergroup in the Sanctuary, but will result insignificant areas being protected from harvest-ing activities. The short-term economic bur-dens on a limited number of fishermen (whowill be displaced to other areas of the Sanctu-ary) will be compensated for over the long termby an improvement in the Sanctuary’s environ-ment and resources. Specifically, the Replen-ishment Reserves proposed in Alternative IIIwill be the most effective tool used by Sanctu-ary managers to protect the biodiversity ofSanctuary resources as described in Section7(a)(2) of the FKNMSPA.

• The Reserves that would be established inAlternative IV would be smaller and fewer innumber than those in Alternative III, thusproviding inadequate protection of diversehabitats.

• In Alternative II, the number and size ofreserves would increase, but the increasedprotection would be very costly in terms ofmanagement, enforcement, and user impacts.For this reason, Alternative II is not financiallypractical.

Strategy Z.3 (Sanctuary Preservation Areas). Thisstrategy will establish nonconsumptive SanctuaryPreservation Areas to enhance the reproductivecapabilities of renewable resources, protect areascritical for sustaining and protecting important marinespecies, and reduce conflicts in high-use areas.

• Alternative III will provide economic benefits byproviding an enhanced habitat and greaterresource protection, while allowing traditionalactivities to continue in areas surrounding thezones.

• Alternative III offers more protection than wouldAlternative IV by increasing the geographiccoverage to both high-use and highly sensitiveareas throughout the Sanctuary.

• In Alternative IV, carrying-capacity limits wouldbe enforced only in highly sensitive areas.

• Alternative II would have a significant socio-economic impact on all users through theenforcement of carrying-capacity limits, and theregulation of charter and rental vesselsthroughout the Sanctuary. Alternative II wouldalso detract from the ability to focus on areasneeding protection. In contrast, Alternative IIIlimits will be enforced only in select areas, andwill not regulate charter and rental vessel use.

Zoning Strategies

Alternative III will adequately protect diverse habitats.Alternative II would provide more protection ofhabitats than Alternatives III and IV, but at a signifi-cantly higher economic and social cost to users thanAlternative III. Alternative IV would provide increasedresource protection over the status quo, but far lessprotection than Alternative III.

Strategy Z.1 (Wildlife Management Areas). Thisstrategy will reduce the disturbance to wildlife popula-tions and their habitats.

• Alternative III complements the managementefforts of the FWS. The Wildlife ManagementAreas contained in this alternative include allthe areas proposed by the FWS in theirBackcountry Management Plan, as well asother areas. Providing a regulatory frameworkunder the cooperative enforcement agreementmakes it possible to apply Sanctuary enforce-ment within the boundaries of wildlife refugesand other existing management areas.

• Alternative IV would protect fewer areas thanAlternative III, and thus, would inadequatelyprotect diverse habitats.

• Alternative II would protect more areas thanAlternatives III and IV. However, managementof these areas would be very difficult andcostly.

Strategy Z.2 (Replenishment Reserves). Thisstrategy will establish Replenishment Reserves to


208

• Alternative IV would provide minimal protectionof diverse habitats. The proposed SanctuaryPreservation Areas would be smaller and fewerthan those in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would provide larger and morenumerous Sanctuary Preservation Areas thaneither Alternatives III or IV. Managing theseareas would be more difficult and costly, andmany users would be impacted, as sites wherecommercial and recreational activities currentlyoccur are designated for protection.

Strategy Z.5 (Special-use Areas). This strategy willbe used to set aside areas for specific uses to reduceuser conflicts and adverse environmental effects fromhigh impact activities.

• Alternative III will provide numerous areas forresearch and other special uses. The numberand size of these areas will not cause unduehardship on any user group.

• Alternative IV would contain more of theseareas, and the areas may be larger in size.This alternative would not provide the level ofresource protection found in Alternative III.

• Alternative II would allow for fewer and smallerareas, and the types and levels of activitiespermitted in these areas would be morerestricted than in Alternative III. The increasedresource protection provided by this alternativewould be minimal, while the management costsand negative socioeconomic impacts would bemuch higher than in Alternative III.

Land Use Strategies

The strategies in Alternative IV will result in directpositive environmental impacts such as water qualityimprovement, particularly near improved marinefacilities, docks, marinas, and other shoresidefacilities. Alternatives II and III, however, will providemore water quality improvements in the long term byreducing the level of heavy metals and other toxi-cants entering Sanctuary waters from boat mainte-nance operations. Alternative III is preferred whenenvironmental impacts are evaluated against costs,because several strategies in Alternative II would befar more costly to implement, and would provide nosignificant improvement in environmental conditions.

Strategy L.3 (Boat Maintenance). This strategyrequires an evaluation of refueling operations througha detailed inventory of fueling facilities and anassessment of typical fuel-handling techniques. Littleeffort is now directed at containing and collectingwastes associated with boat maintenance activities(e.g., bottom scraping and mechanical repairs) withinthe Sanctuary.

• Alternatives III and II contain the same pro-posed actions, and will provide water qualityimprovements by reducing pollution. Contain-ment areas will be established to prevent paintchips, paint dust, and other toxicants fromentering surface waters. Also, the establish-ment of secondary containment for hazardousor toxic material storage areas will reduce thechance of these substances entering theground or surface waters.

• Alternative IV would provide fewer waterquality improvements in containment areasthan Alternatives II and III, and would notadequately meet Sanctuary goals.

Strategy L.8 (Containment Options). This strategyinvolves researching methods of solid waste disposal(other than landfill creation) to determine whatregulations are necessary to meet State recyclinggoals, implement retail packaging standards, andrequire source separation.

• Alternatives III and II require the study ofcontainment and relocation options for solidwaste facilities within the Sanctuary, and theimplementation of appropriate recommenda-tions within five years. Leachate from solidwaste facilities within the Keys includes nutri-ents, heavy metals, and other toxicants. Theenvironmental impacts of implementing thesealternatives are low and site-specific, but willinclude water quality, species, and habitatimprovements. Small negative socioeconomicimpacts will result for various users. All land-owners within the Sanctuary will be impactedby additional solid waste fees; however, thisnegative impact could be mitigated by Federaland State grants/assistance in implementingthe improvements, thus reducing any economicburden. These alternatives also provide amechanism for implementing the recommenda-tions of containment and relocation studies thatwill improve nearshore water quality and thecharacter of associated biota at a limited directcost to the public. The overall socioeconomicimpact to the Sanctuary will be positive.


209

existing public access areas, including habitatdamage and user conflicts.

• Alternatives III and II will require an assess-ment of existing public access to shorelineareas and the Sanctuary. In addition, they willprovide for the development of standards forimproving and constructing public accessareas, and emphasize the acquisition of someaccess areas through existing acquisitionprograms. These alternatives will provideprimarily for the improvement of shallow-waterhabitats within the Sanctuary by controllingaccess to damage-prone areas. Some nega-tive socioeconomic impacts will result from thepotential reduction of easily developed siteswith marine access, or through the acquisitionof some of these sites. This strategy would limitfuture development on some properties withmarine access. However, most user groups,including commercial fishermen, fishing guides,and dive operators, will not be negativelyimpacted.

• Alternative IV would not involve the acquisitionof marine access points. Socioeconomicbenefits would be high, as the developmentpotential for properties with marine accesswould remain higher than that of propertyacquired to control public access. Damage tosensitive shallow-water habitats would con-tinue, due to uncontrolled access. AlternativeIV would not provide for resource protection asadequately as Alternatives III and II.

Water Quality Strategies

These strategies will focus on reducing the amount ofnutrients and toxicants entering Sanctuary waters. Acombination of engineering, management, andinstitutional options will address known problems. Inaddition, a research and monitoring program willallow for the effectiveness of pollution control strate-gies to be measured, and the relationships betweenwater quality and living resources to be examined.Alternative III contains all of the strategies in theWater Quality Protection Program developed by theEPA and FDEP. It is a comprehensive list thataddresses all water quality problems, including far-field influences. Accordingly, it meets the resourceprotection purposes for which the Sanctuary wasdesignated. These strategies will have positivesocioeconomic impacts on users who are dependenton water-related activities requiring good water

• Alternative IV would not require the implemen-tation of any recommendations made in thecontainment and relocation studies. Accord-ingly, there would be no environmental orsocioeconomic impacts. Monroe County hasalready assessed containment options, but theoptions for solid waste facility relocation andalternative disposal technologies have notbeen examined in detail.

Strategies L.14 (Dredging Prohibitions), L.15(Dredging Regulations), and L.18 (WetlandDredge and Fill). Positive environmental impacts willresult from the implementation of these strategies.However, some negative socioeconomic impactsmay result from development restrictions on wet-lands, which may decrease the property values ofundeveloped lands. Developed residential andcommercial properties should increase in value,which may offset ad valorem deficits due to restrictiveguidelines. In contrast, the positive environmentalimpacts of these strategies are significant, and willresult from the reduction and/or elimination of re-source destruction. As wetland resource degradationwill be halted, Sanctuary users may continue to usethe resources at current levels.

• Alternative III will: 1) reduce and/or eliminatethe destruction of wetland and submergedresources; 2) improve water quality in areasthat might have otherwise been dredged; 3)eliminate the suspension of sediments andassociated toxicants; and 4) maintain speciesand habitat character. This alternative willprohibit new dredging permits unless they arein the public interest, or if no environmentaldegradation will occur.

• Alternative IV would provide fewer restrictionson dredge and fill activities, and no newrestrictions on maintenance dredge and filloperations would be considered. The positiveenvironmental impacts that result from Alterna-tive IV would be significantly less than forAlternatives II and III.

• Alternative II would prohibit new dredgingaltogether, even where no environmentaldegradation would occur and the public wouldbenefit from these activities. The economicburden associated with implementing thisalternative would be significant.

Strategy L.20 (Public Access). This strategy willprovide information on problems associated with


210

quality. Scuba diving, snorkeling, and commercialand recreational fishing may be directly affected bychanges in water quality conditions.

Strategy W.3 (Wastewater Management Systems).This strategy will reduce the amount of pollutantsentering the groundwater by enforcing existingstandards.

• Alternatives III and II will involve research toestimate the level of wastewater nutrientloading reduction needed to restore/maintainwater quality and Sanctuary resources. Theywill have positive environmental impacts bysignificantly improving existing water qualityconditions within the Sanctuary. These alterna-tives are comprehensive, and address allknown water quality problems, including far-field influences. They also recognize thatlimited information is available in certain areas,and recommend an extensive research andmonitoring program. Implementing engineer-ing, management, and institutional optionsaddressing known problem areas within theSanctuary will reduce the amount of nutrientsand toxicants entering Sanctuary waters.Additionally, exhibits will be used to educatelocal residents and visitors about Sanctuaryregulations and the South Florida ecosystem.The education program implemented by thisstrategy will facilitate compatible uses, andreduce user conflicts by educating the publicabout environmental sensitivity and the specificneeds of various users. Public awareness andappreciation of Sanctuary resources willincrease significantly, and behavior that resultsin the degradation of Sanctuary resources willdecrease.

• Although it would be the least costly to imple-ment, Alternative IV would rely on the enforce-ment of, and compliance with, existing regula-tions and technologies to address water qualityproblems, while focusing primarily on researchand monitoring and assessment activities. Theimplementation of specific actions to addressknown problem areas, such as dead-endcanals and basins, is minimal in this alterna-tive, and would result in further water qualitydegradation. Alternative III, however, ad-dresses all known problem areas and calls forthe application of improved technologies wherefeasible.

Strategy W.7 (Surface Discharges) . This strategyrequires all NPDES-permitted surface discharges todevelop resource monitoring programs.

• Alternatives III and II will provide additionalpositive benefits by establishing a mechanismto evaluate the environmental impacts of pointsource discharges.

• Alternative IV does not contain this strategy,and therefore is less desirable in terms ofresource protection.

Strategy W.10 (Canal Water Quality). This strategyexamines water quality in nearshore confined areas,with an emphasis on dead-end canals and basinswhere reduced circulation increases the risk of:1) dissolved oxygen reduction; 2) dissolved andparticulate pollutant retention; and 3) benthic/pelagicenvironment impacts. Water quality in dead-endcanals influences real estate values. Property oncanals with good water quality is more marketable,and subsequently has a higher value, than similarproperty on canals with poor water quality. Imple-menting improvements in dead-end canals will be alearning process, as managers use monitoring toassess which improvements significantly impactwater quality, and what improvements have thehighest cost/benefit ratios.

• Alternative III will provide a logical approach toimplementing improvements in critical areasand dead-end canals that are recognized ashot spots. It meets the purpose for which theSanctuary was designated and it complies withthe requirements of Section 8 of theFKNMSPA. As required by the Act, this alter-native recommends priority corrective actionsand compliance schedules that address pointand nonpoint sources of pollution to restoreand maintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Sanctuary.

• Alternative IV would focus only on the inven-tory and assessment of dead-end canals andbasins. No improvements are planned forimplementation. This would be the least costlyalternative in the short term, but would allowcurrent resource degradation to continue andpossibly increase. Alternative IV would notprovide improvements in current or futurewater quality.

• Alternative II would implement improvements indead-end canals and basins throughout the


211

Sanctuary. Without knowing how effectivecertain improvements will be, implementing aSanctuary-wide improvement program couldresult in great expense with minimal improve-ments to water quality, as emphasis is notfocused on critical areas.

Strategy W.11 (Stormwater Retrofitting) Thisstrategy will reduce sediments, toxicant, and nutrientloadings using various engineering methods.

• In Alternative III, the geographic coverage willinclude hot spots and limited sections of US 1.

• Alternative IV does not contain this strategy,and therefore, is less desirable in terms ofresource protection.

• In Alternative II, stormwater retrofitting wouldbe extended to degraded areas and numeroussections of US 1. The additional financialburden of extending this strategy would becost-prohibitive and not realistically achievablethrough traditional funding mechanisms.

Education Strategies

The NMSA and the FKNMSPA recognize that publiceducation regarding the Sanctuary and its resourcesis essential to effective resource protection andmanagement. Although the impact of educationalstrategies is hard to gauge, awareness is clearly akey to environmental stewardship.

Strategies E.1 (Printed Materials), E.2 (Audiovi-sual Media), E.3 (Signs/Displays/Exhibits), E.4(Training/Workshops/School Programs), E.5(Public Service Announcements), E.7 (Promo-tional Materials), E.9 (Ecotourism Promoter), E.10(Public Forum), and E.11 (Special Events). Thesestrategies provide for the development of printedmaterials; audiovisual materials; a library for privateand public use; displays and signs; training pro-grams; public service announcements; an educationadvisory council; visitor booths; periodic publicmeetings; and presentations to promote Sanctuaryawareness, resources, and environmental quality.

• Alternative III will provide an education pro-gram that fulfills the purposes of the Acts.Programs established through this alternativewill include such public outreach endeavors assupport of local school systems throughteacher training and field trips; environmental

education of law enforcement officers; educa-tional opportunities for adults; regular publicmeetings on Sanctuary issues; special eventssuch as “Kids' Week,” “Sanctuary AwarenessWeek,” and festivals; lecture series; inter-agency visitor centers; and a “hotline” to assistin enforcement. The education program willfacilitate compatible uses and reduce userconflicts by educating the public about environ-mental sensitivity and the specific needs ofvarious users. Alternative III will significantlyincrease the public’s awareness of the impor-tance of Sanctuary resources and will helpdecrease behavior that results in resourcedegradation. Outside of areas where there istargeted, direct regulation, the educationprograms in Alternative III will provide the bestmeans to change user behavior that adverselyaffects Sanctuary resources. While educationcannot totally replace enforcement, a well-designed program is necessary to effectivelyenforce all Sanctuary regulations. Therefore,without an effective education program, themandate of resource protection as instructed inthe MPRSA and the FKNMSPA will not be met.The increased awareness brought about by theeducational program in Alternative III will, in thelong term, generate positive environmentalimpacts for all users once resource protectionincreases.

• Alternative IV would not provide as many broadeducational opportunities as Alternatives II andIII. It would provide for the development of alimited number and type of printed materials toeducate residents and visitors about theimpacts of their land-based activities onSanctuary resources. The lower profile andsmaller audience addressed by actions in thisalternative would not provide an adequate levelof public awareness, resulting in a continueddecline in environmental quality. In addition,Alternative IV would not provide for the devel-opment of additional audio-visual products orthe translation of educational materials intoother languages. Failure to provide theseadditional translated materials and educationalproducts would result in the inability to relatemessages to many in the South Florida popula-tion and international audiences. This alterna-tive would not establish an education advisorycouncil, an expanded volunteer program, orvisitor centers that would make the Sanctuaryprogram more efficient.


212

• Alternative II is very similar to Alternative III.The main differences are the creation of anecotourism promoter position, and the estab-lishment of a visitor center dedicated solely tothe FKNMS. The Sanctuary Advisory Councilrecommends, and NOAA concurs, thatecotourism promotion is a commercial en-deavor better left to private enterprise. Ashared facility would provide interagencycooperation and collaboration more efficientlythan a visitor center dedicated solely to theSanctuary. However, building and operatingsuch a facility would be fiscally prohibitive.

Recognizing that unlimited funding for Sanctuaryprograms does not exist, Sanctuary managers mustfind new and innovative ways to accomplish resourceprotection. Cooperative agreements with nongovern-mental organizations and other Federal, State, andlocal agencies are a very effective way to stretchfinancial resources while providing for increasedinteragency communication. Using volunteers toassist staff in implementing strategies will also stretchfinancial resources, while providing an opportunity forparticipants to develop a sense of trusteeship ofSanctuary resources. Redundancy must be avoided.An education advisory council would guard againstduplication and help to identify cooperative opportuni-ties. Alternative III provides the best mechanisms tomeet these needs.

Conclusions

Under NEPA, the management alternatives wereassessed with respect to their environmental andsocioeconomic impacts. The positive environmentalimpacts and associated beneficial economic impactsto the tourist industry outweigh any potential negativeimpacts.

Alternative III was selected as the Preferred Alterna-tive because it most closely meets the resourceprotection goals of the NMSA and the FKNMSPA,while facilitating current Sanctuary uses and useractivities. It focuses on the resource problemsidentified through the planning process, and providesflexibility in addressing issues as they are raised aspart of a dynamic and continuous managementprocess. In addition, this alternative recognizes therole of Federal, State, and local management inmeeting Sanctuary objectives, and seeks to integratethem for maximum effectiveness.

Table 31 contains a list of the strategies in thePreferred Alternative, organized by issue. Completedescriptions of these strategies are found in Appen-dix H in Volume III.


213

Table 31. Management Strategies Organized by Issue

E.3 Signs/Displays/Exhibits

E.4 Training/Workshops/School ProgramsE.5 PSAsE.6 Advisory Council

E.7 PromotionalE.10 Public ForumE.11 Special Events

Recreation

R.1 SCR ManagementR.2 Recreation Survey

R.5 Carrying Capacity R.7 Coral Touching

L.7

Boating

B.1 Boat AccessB.2 Habitat RestorationB.3 Derelict VesselsB.4 Channel MarkingB.5 Boat Groundings

Water Quality

Zoning

Z.1 Wildlife Management AreasZ.2 Replenishment Reserves

Z.3 Sanctuary Preservation AreasZ.4 Existing Management Areas

Z.5 Special-use Areas

B.6 Additional Enforcement

B.7 Pollution DischargesB.8 User FeesB.9 Visitor RegistrationB.10 Damage Assessment

B.11 Special-use Permits

Education

E.1 Printed MaterialsE.2 Audio-Visual Media

B.12 Cross DeputizationB.13 Salvaging/TowingB.15 Mooring Buoy ImpactsB.16 Dock PermittingB.17 PWC Management

Fishing

F.1 Consistent RegulationsF.3 StockingF.4 Aquaculture AlternativesF.5 Limited EntryF.6 Fisheries Sampling

F.7 Artificial Reef F.8 Exotic SpeciesF.9 Gear RemovalF.10 Bycatch

F.11 Gear/Method ImpactsF.12 Finfish TrapsF.14 SpearfishingF.15 Sponge Harvest

Land Use

L.1 Marina PumpoutL.2 Marina OperationsL.3 Fueling/MaintenanceL.4 RV PumpoutL.5 RV Waste ReductionL.6 Mobile Pumpout

W.1 OSDS Demonstration ProjectW.2 AWT Demonstration ProjectW.3 Wastewater Management SystemsW.4 Wastewater Disposal, City of Key WestW.5 Water Quality StandardsW.6 NPDES Program DelegationW.7 Resource Monitoring of Surface DischargeW.8 OSDS PermittingW.9 Laboratory FacilitiesW.10 Canal WQW.11 Stormwater Retrofitting

W.12 Stormwater PermittingW.13 Stormwater ManagementW.14 Best Management PracticesW.15 HAZMAT ResponseW.16 Spill ReportingW.17 Mosquito SprayingW.18 Pesticide ResearchW.19 Florida Bay Freshwater FlowW.20 WQ MonitoringW.21 Predictive ModelsW.22 Pollutant Assessment

W.23 Leachate TransportW.24 Florida Bay InfluenceW.25 WQ Impact ResearchW.26 IndicatorsW.27 Other Monitoring ToolsW.28 Regional DatabaseW.29 Dissemination of Research Findings W.31 Global ChangeW.32 Advisory CommitteeW.33 Ecological Monitoring

SWD Problem Sites

L.8 Containment OptionsL.9 SWD Policy ComplianceL.10 HAZMAT HandlingL.11 HAZMAT LicenseL.12 HAZMAT CollectionL.14 Dredging Prohibition

L.15 Dredging RegulationL.16 Water-use ReductionL.17 Dredge and Fill AuthorityL.18 Wetland Dredge and FillL.19 Growth ImpactsL.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: Anew factor in waterfront development. Report no.98. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Carto-graphic Research Laboratory in Applied Geogra-phy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990.Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve managementplan. Division of State Lands, Bureau of Sub-merged Lands and Preserves, Marathon, FL. 156pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991a.Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve managementplan. Division of State Lands, Bureau of Sub-merged Lands and Preserves, Marathon, FL. 198pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991b.Biscayne Bay/Carol Sound Aquatic Preservemanagement 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 ofRecreation and Parks, Office of Communications.47 pp.

Minerals Management Service. 1990. Synthesis ofavailable biological, geological, chemical, socio-economic, and cultural resource information forthe South Florida area. N. Phillips and K. Larson,eds. OCS Study MMS 90-0019. Prepared byContinental Shelf Associates, Inc. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 657 pp. +appendices.

Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.1986. Florida Keys comprehensive plan: VolumeI. Background data element. Approved by theDepartment of Community Affairs and theAdministration Commission of the State ofFlorida. Key West, FL. 583 pp.

Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for theMonroe County Board of County Commissionersby Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-AschmanAssociates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar andRay, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and the GrowthManagement Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810pp.

National Audubon Society. 1990. Audubon sanctuarydirectory. Sanctuary Department, Sharon, CT. 61pp.

National Park Service. 1989. The national parks:Index, 1989. Office of Public Affairs and theDivision of Publications, National Park Service,U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.112 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Key LargoNational Marine Sanctuary management plan.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Sanctuary Programs Division. 89 pp.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984. Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary management plan.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Sanctuary Programs Division. 58 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Annual report oflands under control of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService as of September 30, 1990. Compiled bythe Division of Realty, Washington, DC. 39pp.White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statisticalabstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.295 pp.

Personal Communications

Ferris, S., Monroe County Building and PlanningDepartment, Marathon, FL.

Olson, C., Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust, Mara-thon, 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 Currentat Key West:, Summer 1972. J. Mar. Res.33(1):83-92.

Cooper, R.M. and J. Roy. 1991. An atlas of surfacewater management basins in the Everglades:The water conservation areas and EvergladesNational Park. South Florida Water ManagementDistrict technical memorandum. West PalmBeach, FL.

Cross, J.A. 1980. Residents’ concerns about hurri-cane hazard within the Lower Florida Keys.National Conference on Hurricanes and CoastalStorms Proceedings. pp. 156-161.

Duever, M.J. et al. 1985. The Big Cypress NationalPreserve. National Audubon Society researchreport no. 8. 444 pp.

Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in SouthFlorida. In: P. Enos, and R.D. Perkins, eds.Holocene sediment accumulations of the SouthFlorida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem.147:1-130.

Everling, A. 1987. Waterspouts. WTHWA. 40:208.

Gardner, T., ed. 1991. Draft management plan forBiscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, Card Sound.Florida Department of Natural Resources,Division of State Lands, Bureau of SubmergedLands and Preserves. 174 pp.

Ginsburg, R.N., and E.A. Shinn. 1964. Distribution ofthe reef-building community in Florida and theBahamas (abstract). Bull. Mar. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. 48:527.

Golden, J.H. 1971. Waterspouts and tornadoes overSouth Florida. Monthly Weather Rev. 99:146-153.

Herbert, P.J. and J.G. Taylor. 1975. Hurricane experi-ence levels of coastal populations - Texas toMaine. U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NWS.53 pp.

Hoffmeister, J.E. 1974. Land from the sea: Thegeologic 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 fossilreef types of South Florida. Miami, FL: MiamiGeological Society. 28 pp.

Hoffmeister, J.E. and H.G. Multer. 1968. Geology andorigin of the Florida Keys. G. Soc. Am. B.79:1487-1502.

Holmes, C.W. 1981a. Late neogene and quaternarygeology of the southwestern Florida shelf andslope. U.S. Department of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey. 25 pp.

Holmes, C.W. 1981b. Late tertiary-quaternarygeology of the southwestern Florida shelf andslope. Supplement to Transactions, Gulf CoastAssociation of Geologic Societies. 1:460.

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1990. Coastal andnearshore communities: Coral reefs. In: N.Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of avail-able biological, geological, chemical, socioeco-nomic, and cultural resource information for theSouth Florida area. Continental Shelf Associates,Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Johnston, R.H. and P.W. Bush. 1988. Summary ofhydrology of the Floridan aquifer system inFlorida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina,and Alabama. United States Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 1403-A. 24 pp.

Jordan, B. 1991. Weather and climate. In: J. Gato,ed. The Monroe County environmental story. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Lapointe, B.E. 1991. Hydrology. In: J. Gato, ed. TheMonroe County environmental story. Big PineKey, FL: Monroe County Environmental Educa-tion 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 currentand spin-off eddies on the shelf off southeastFlorida. J. Mar. Res. 35:193-220.

Lee, T.N., C. Rooth, and E. Williams. 1992. Influenceof Florida Current, gyres, and wind-drivencirculation on larvae transport and recruitment inthe Florida Keys coral reefs. Submitted toContinental Shelf Research.

217

References

Merriam, D.F. 1989. Overview of the geology ofFlorida Bay, review of recent developments. Bull.Mar. Sci. 44: 519.

Meyer, F.W. 1989. Hydrogeology, groundwatermovement, and subsurface storage in theFloridan aquifer system in southern Florida.USGS Professional Paper 1403-G. 59 pp.



Monroe County. 1991. Monroe County working paper#3. Monroe County, FL.

Mueller, E., and G.O. Winston. 1991. Geologichistory of the Florida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. TheMonroe County environmental story. Big PineKey, FL: Monroe County Environmental Educa-tion Task Force. 370 pp.

Multer, H.G. 1977. Field guide to some carbonaterock environments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/HuntPublishing Co. 415 pp.

Nalivkin, D.V. 1969. Hurricanes, storms, and torna-does. Leningrad, USSR: Navka Publishers. 597pp.

Nuemann, C.J., et al. 1990. Tropical cyclones of thenorth Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1986. Asheville, NC:U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, NationalWeather Service, NCDC. 186 pp.

Richards, W.J., ed. 1989. Bulletin of marine science.Rosentiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience. University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Schmidt, T.W. and G.E. Davis. 1978. A summary ofestuarine and marine water quality informationcollected in Everglades National Park, BiscayneNational Monument, and adjacent estuaries from1879 to 1977. South Florida Research Centerreport T-519. 59 pp.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecologicalcharacterization of the Lower Everglades, FloridaBay, and the Florida Keys. Washington, DC: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of BiologicalServices. 246 pp.

Shinn, E.A. 1963. Spur-and-groove formation on theFlorida Reef Tract. Journal of SedimentaryPetrology. 33:291-303.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, J.H. Hudson, J.L. Kindinger,and R.B. Halley. 1989. Reefs of Florida and theDry Tortugas: IGC field trip guide T176. Washing-ton, DC: American Geophysical Union. 53 pp.

Simpson, R.H. and M.B. Lawrence. 1971. Atlantichurricane frequencies along the U.S. Coastline.Fort Worth, TX: National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration technical memorandumNWS-SR-58. 14 pp.

South Florida Water Management District. 1990.Monitoring and operating plan for C-111 interimconstruction project (permit 131654749): Finaldraft, revision 3 (May 16, 1990). West PalmBeach, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational 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. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary Program: Phase IIreport. Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences.Duxbury, MA. 460 pp.

Valleau, D.N. 1977. Nature and distribution of near-surface suspended particulate matter contribut-ing to the turbidity stress-field through a coralreef tract of the Florida Keys. University ofFlorida. 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 elongatedcold perturbations off the Dry Tortugas. Am.Meteorological J. 18:1051-1059.

White, B., ed. 1991. Monroe County statisticalabstract, 1991. Key West, FL: NCS Corporation.295 pp.

Winsberg, M.D. 1990. Florida weather. Orlando, FL:University of Central Florida Press. 171 pp.


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. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Antonius, A. 1974. Final report of the coral reef groupof the Florida Keys project for the project year1973. Harbor Branch Foundation, Fort Pierce,FL. 201 pp.

Antonius A. 1982. Health problems of the Floridacoral reefs. Fla. Sci. 38(1):21.

Antonius, A., A.H. Weiner, J.C. Halas, and E.Davidson. 1978. Looe Key reef resource inven-tory. Report to the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, U.S. Department ofCommerce. 51 pp.

Bancroft, G.T., R. Bowman, R.J. Sawicki, and A.M.Strong. 1991. Relationship between the repro-ductive ecology of the white-crowned pigeon andthe fruiting phenology of hardwood hammocktrees. Florida Game and Fresh Water FishCommission, Nongame Wildlife Program techni-cal report. Tallahassee, FL.

Bert, T.M., R.E. Warner, and L.D. Kessler. 1978. Thebiology and Florida fishery of the stone crab,Menippe mercenaria, with emphasis on south-west Florida. Florida Sea Grant technical paperno. 9. 82 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper, D.B. McClellan, D.L.Sutherland, and M.W. White. 1987. Resourcesurvey of fishes within Looe Key National MarineSanctuary. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration technical memorandum, NationalOcean Service memorandum no. 5. 108 pp.

Booker, J. 1991. Nearshore communities. In: J. Gato,ed. The Monroe County environmental story. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Briggs, J.C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. McGraw-Hill. 475 pp.

Browder, J., C. Littlejohn, and D. Young. 1973. SouthFlorida: Seeking a balance of man and nature.University of Florida, Center for Wetlands,Gainesville, FL.

Brown, L.N. 1978. Key Largo wood rat (Neotomafloridana smallii). In: J.N. Layne, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.pp. 11-12. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 52 pp.

Burgess, G.H., 1980. Snook (Centropomusundecimalis). In: D.S. Lee, ed. Atlas of NorthAmerican freshwater fishes. North Carolina StateMuseum of Natural History. 867 pp.

Carr, N.G. and B.A. Whitton, eds. 1973. The biologyof blue-green algae. In: Botanical Monographs,vol. 9. Los Angeles, CA: University of CaliforniaPress. 676 pp.

Clark, S.H. 1971. Factors affecting the distribution offishes in Whitewater Bay, Everglades NationalPark, Florida. University of Miami. Florida SeaGrant Tech. Bull. 8. 100 pp.

Collard, S. and C. D’Asaro. 1973. Benthic inverte-brates of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J. Jones, R.Ring, M. Rinkel, and R. Smith, eds. St. Peters-burg, 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 resourcemanagement map: Coral distribution. FortJefferson National Monument, the Dry Tortugas.New Orleans OCS Office, Bureau of LandManagement.

219

References

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Depart-ment of Natural Resources. 1990. Guide to thenatural communities of Florida. Florida Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Office of Land UsePlanning and Biological Services, Tallahassee,FL.

Fogarty, M.J. 1978. American alligator (Alligatormississippiensis). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rareand endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphib-ians 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 resourceavailability and resource competition in structur-ing seagrass communities of Florida Bay. Gradu-ate dissertation, Department of EnvironmentalSciences, University of Virginia, Chartottesville,VA.

Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman, and G.V.N. Powell.1992. Phosphorus limitation of primary produc-tion in Florida Bay: Evidence from C:N:P ratios ofdominant seagrass Thalassia testudinum.Limnol. Oceanogr. 37(1):162-171.

Gilbert, C. 1972. Characteristics of the westernAtlantic reef fish fauna. Quart. Journ. Fla. Acad.Sci. 35:130-144.

Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Key silverside (Menidaconchorum ). In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 4, fishes. pp. 1-2. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 58pp.

Gilbert, C.R. 1992. Key silverside (Menidaconchorum). In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, fishes. pp.213-217. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 247 pp.

Ginsburg, R.N. 1956. Environmental relationships ofgrain size and constituent particles in someSouth Florida carbonate sediments. Bull. Am.Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 40(10):2384-2427.

Ginsburg, R.N., and E.A. Shinn. 1964. Distribution ofthe reef-building community in Florida and theBahamas (abstract). Bull. Mar. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. 48:527.

Davis, G.E. 1982. A century of natural change incoral distribution at the Dry Tortugas: A compari-son of reef maps from 1881 and 1976. Bull. Mar.Sci. 32:608-623.

Davis, J.H. 1943. The natural features of southernFlorida, especially the vegetation and the Ever-glades. Fla. Geol. Surv. Bull. 25:311.

Dawes, C.J., S.A. Earle, and F.C. Croley. 1967. Theoffshore benthic flora of the southwest coast ofFlorida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17(1):211-230.

Deisler, J.E. 1982. Stock Island tree snail (Oralicusreses reses). In: R. Franz, ed. Rare and endan-gered 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 alimiting factor in the distribution of reptiles inFlorida Bay: A theory for the estuarine origin ofmarine snakes and turtles. Bull. Mar. Sci.44(1):229-244.

Dustan, P. 1985. Community structure of reef-building corals in the Florida Keys: CarysfortReef, 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 Sanctuarydeep water resource survey. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration technical reportCZ/SP-1. Washington, DC.

Enos, P. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in SouthFlorida. In: P. Enos, and R.D. Perkins, eds.Holocene sediment accumulations of the SouthFlorida shelf margin. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem.147:1-130.

Enos, P. 1989. Islands in the bay: A key habitat ofFlorida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):365-386.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., LGLEcological Research Associates, Inc., andContinental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. South-west Florida shelf ecosystems study. Datasynthesis report. Submitted to the MineralsManagement 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: Univer-sity Press of Florida. 392 pp.

Humphrey, S.R. 1992b. Lower Keys population ofrice rat (Oryzomys argentatus). In: S.R.Humphrey, ed. Rare and endangered biota ofFlorida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 300-309.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392pp.

Hunt, J.H., T.R. Matthews, R.D. Bertelsen, B.S.Hedin, and D. Forcucci. 1991. Managementimplications of trends in abundance and popula-tion dynamics of the Caribbean spiny lobster,Panulirus argus, at the Looe Key National MarineSanctuary. Report submitted to National Oceanicand 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 shrimpsampling data, 1957-1958. Florida Board ofMarine Conservation. Mar. lab. tech. ser. no. 32.

Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the South Floridacoral reefs: A community profile. U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and Minerals Management ServicePublication 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.


Jameson, S.C., ed. 1981. Biological zonation. In: KeyLargo Coral Reef National Marine Sanctuarydeep water resource survey. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration technical reportCZ/SP-1. Washington, DC.

Glazer, R.A. and C.J. Berg, Jr. 1993. Queen conchresearch in Florida: An overview. In: R.S.Appeldoorn and B. Rodriquez, eds. Queen conchbiology, fisheries, and mariculture. FundacionesScientifica, Los Roques, Caracas, Venezuela.

Gleason, P.J., ed. 1974. Environments of SouthFlorida, present and past. Memoir 2 of the MiamiGeological Society.

Hardin, D.E. 1991. Pinelands. In: J. Gato, ed. TheMonroe County environmental story. Big PineKey, FL: Monroe County Environmental Educa-tion Task Force. 370 pp.

Herrnkind W.F. and M.J. Butler IV. 1986. Factorsregulating postlarval settlement and juvenilemicrohabitat use by spiny lobsters Panulirusargus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 34:23-30.

Hilsenbeck, C.E., R.H. Hofstetter, and T.R.Alexander. 1979. Preliminary synopsis of majorplant communities in the east Everglades area:Vegetation map supplement. Unpublished.Department of Biology, University of Miami, CoralGables, FL.

Hoffmeister, J.E. and H.G. Multer. 1968. Geology andorigin 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 tempera-ture characteristics of Florida Bay’s grass-covered mud banks. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):348-364.

Hovis, J.A. and M.S. Robson. 1989. Breeding statusand distribution of the least tern in the FloridaKeys. Fla. Field Nat. 17(3):61-66.

Hudson, J.H. 1985. Growth rate and carbonateproduction in Halimeda opuntia, MarquesasKeys, Florida. In: D.F. Toomey and M.H. Nitecki,eds. Paleoalgology: Contemporary research andapplications. Berlin. pp. 257-263.

Hudson, J.H., D.M. Allen, and T.J. Costello. 1970.The flora and fauna of a basin in central FloridaBay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specialscientific report. Fish. 604:1-14.

221

References

Kale, H.W., ed. 1978. Rare and endangered biota ofFlorida. Vol. 2, birds. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida.

Klimstra, W.D. 1992. Key deer (Odocioleusvirginianus clavium). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rareand endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mam-mals. pp. 201-215. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 392 pp.

Kraus, S.D. 1985. A review of the status of rightwhales in the western North Atlantic with asummary of research and management needs.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC.MMC-84/08.

Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes ofmortality in North Atlantic right whales(Eubalaena glacialis) Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6(4):278-291.

Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida’s remain-ing coastal upland natural communities: FloridaKeys. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahas-see, FL. 244 pp.

Kruer, C.R. and L.G. Causey. 1992. The use of largeartificial reefs to enhance fish populations atdifferent depths in the Florida Keys (draft).NMFS/SERO, St. Petersburg, FL, MARFIN#NA89AA-H-MF179. 160 pp.

Kushlan, J.A. 1979. Feeding ecology and preyselection in the white ibis. Condor. 81:376-389.

Kushlan, J.A. 1980. The status of crocodilians inSouth Florida. IUCN Crocodile Specialists Group.Unpublished.

Lapointe, B.E., N.P. Smith, P.A. Pitts, and M.W. Clark.1992. Baseline characterization of chemical andhydrographic processes in the water column ofLooe Key NMS. Final report to U.S. Departmentof Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management.

Layne, J.N., ed. 1977. Rare and endangered biota ofFlorida: 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 environmentalstory. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environ-mental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Lidz, B.H., D.M. Robbin, and E.A. Shinn. 1985.Holocene carbonate sedimentary petrology andfacies accumulation, Looe Key National MarineSanctuary, 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 SouthFlorida bank margin: Outlier reefs, a new wind-ward-margin model. Geol. 19:115-118.

Lindall, W.N., Jr. and C.H. Saloman. 1977. Alterationand destruction of estuaries affecting fisheryresources of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev.1262:1-7.

Little, E.J. and G.R. Milano. 1980. Techniques tomonitor recruitment of postlarval spiny lobsters,Panulirus argus, to the Florida Keys. FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Fla. Mar. Res.Pub. 37.

Littler, M.M., D.S. Littler, and B.E. Lapointe. 1986.Baseline studies of herbivory and eutrophicationon dominant reef communities of Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary. Washington, DC:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion technical memorandum no. 1.

Lugo, A.E. and S.C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology ofmangroves. 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 mydasmydas). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 23-24. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978c. Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelysimbricta imbricata). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rareand endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphib-ians and reptiles. pp. 24-25 Gainesville, FL:University Press of Florida.

222

References

Lund, F. 1978d. Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelyskempii). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 25-26. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978e. Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta carettacaretta). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 35-36. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

Lyons, W.G. 1980. Possible sources of Florida'sspiny lobster population. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish.Inst. 33: 253-266.

Lyons, W.G and D. Camp. 1982. Zones of faunalsimilarity within the Hourglass study area.Proceedings of the Third Annual Gulf of MexicoInformation Transfer Meeting. U.S. Departmentof 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 ReefSymposium. Miami, FL. Vol. 2. pp. 223-230.

Marszalek, D. 1981. Florida Reef Tract marinehabitat and ecosystems (map series). Publishedin cooperation with the Florida Department ofNatural Resources, U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management, and theUniversity of Miami, Miami, FL.

Marx J.M. and W.F. Herrnkind. 1985a. Factorsregulating microhabitat use by young juvenilespiny lobsters, Panulirus argus: Food andshelter. J. Crust. Biol. 5(4): 650-657.

Marx J.M., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1985b. Macroalgae(Rhodophyta: Laurencia spp.) as habitat foryoung 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 inventoryand study, Florida: Phase I, area description.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion technical report NMFS CIRC368. 126 pp.

McPherson, B.F. 1971. Hydrobiological characteris-tics of Shark River estuary, Everglades NationalPark, Florida. USGS Open-file report 71002.

Miller, J. 1987. The echinoderms of the Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary. Report submitted tothe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration: Cooperative agreement no. NA84AA-H-CZ017. Harbor Branch Foundation.

Minerals Management Service. 1987. SouthwestFlorida shelf regional biological communitiessurvey: Year 3 final report. OCS Study MMS 86-0109. U.S. Department of the Interior. Preparedby Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., NewOrleans, LA.

Minerals Management Service. 1989. SouthwestFlorida nearshore benthic habitat study, narrativereport. OCS Study MMS 89-0080. U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior. Prepared by ContinentalShelf Associates, Inc., New Orleans, LA. 55 pp.


Moler, P.E. 1991. American crocodile populationdynamics. Florida’s endangered wildlife/reptileand amphibian research: American crocodilerecovery plan implementation. Study no. 7532.Federal no. E-1 II-C-3.


Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for theMonroe County Board of County Commissionersby Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-AschmanAssociates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar andRay, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and Growth Man-agement Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810 pp.

Mueller, E. and G.O. Winston. 1991. Geologic historyof the Florida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. The MonroeCounty environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL:Monroe County Environmental Education TaskForce. 370 pp.

223

References

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S.population of Atlantic green turtle. NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 52pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S.population of loggerhead turtle. National MarineFisheries Service, Washington, DC. 64 pp.

Nielsen, A.F. 1991. Tropical hardwood hammocks. In:J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmentalstory. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe County Environ-mental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1990. Marine mammals and turtles. In: N.Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of avail-able biological, geological, chemical, socioeco-nomic, and cultural resource information for theSouth Florida area. pp. 267-302. ContinentalShelf 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 endangeredbiota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 140-147.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 392pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992b. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borea-lis). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and endan-gered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals. pp. 148-153. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992c. Fin whale (Balaenopteraphysalus). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.pp. 154-159. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992d. Humpback whale (Megapteranovaeangliae). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.pp. 160-167. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 392 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1992e. Sperm whale (Physeter macro-cephalus). In: S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 1, mammals.pp. 168-175. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 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 WildlifeService, Office of Biological Services. Washing-ton, DC. FWS/OBS 81/24. 144 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978a. Wood stork (Mycteriaamericana). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 3-4. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978b. Louisiana heron (Egretta tri-color). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangeredbiota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 77-78.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978c Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja).In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endangered biotaof 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 ofFlorida: 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 ofFlorida: Vol. 2, birds. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 121 pp.

Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent woodstork population trends in the United States.Wilson Bull. 91:512-523.

Olmstead, I.C., L.L. Loope, and R.E. Rintz. 1980. Asurvey and baseline analysis of aspects of thevegetation of Taylor Slough, Everglades NationalPark. South Florida Research Center report T-586.

Orr. 1991. Sea turtles. In: J. Gato, ed. The MonroeCounty environmental story. Big Pine Key, FL:Monroe County Environmental Education TaskForce. 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: Univer-sity Press of Florida. 392 pp.

224

References

Robertson, W. and K. Kushlan. 1974. The SouthFlorida avifauna. In: P.J. Gleason, ed. Environ-ments of South Florida: Present and past. MiamiGeol. Soc. Mem. 2. pp. 414-452.

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. 1978. Species of special concern.Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea). In: H.W. KaleII, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol.2, birds. pp 72-73. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 121 pp.

Ross, M.S., J.J. O’Brien, and L.J. Flynn. In press.Ecological site classification of Florida Keysterrestrial habitats. Ecosystems Studies Depart-ment of Scientific Policy and Research, NationalAudubon Society. Tavernier, FL. 38 pp.

Sadove, S.S. and S.J. Morreale. 1989. Marinemammal and sea turtle encounters with marinedebris in the New York Bight and the northeastAtlantic. Paper presented at the Second Interna-tional Conference on Marine Debris, April 1989.

Saloman, C.H., D.M. Allen, and T.J. Costello. 1968.Distribution of three species of shrimp (genusPenaeus) in waters contiguous to southernFlorida. Bill. Mar. Sci. 18(2): 343-350.

Schmidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the south-eastern United States coast and the Gulf ofMexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office ofBiological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS81/41. 165 pp.

Schmidt, T.W. 1991. Scientific studies in the coastaland estuarine areas of the Everglades NationalPark: An annotated bibliography. National ParkService. Research/Resource annual report.Series 91/02.

Scholl, D.W. 1966. Florida Bay: A modern site oflimestone formation. In: R.W. Fairbridge, ed. Theencyclopedia of oceanography. New York, NY:Reinhold. pp. 282-288.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecologicalcharacterization of the lower Everglades, FloridaBay, and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Office of Biological Services, Washing-ton, 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 Pressof Florida. 121 pp.

Owre, O.T. 1990. Coastal and marine birds. In: N.Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of avail-able biological, geological, chemical, socioeco-nomic, and cultural resource information for theSouth Florida area. pp. 303-366. ContinentalShelf 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 southeasternFlorida. 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 offishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexicoestuaries, volume II: Life history summaries.ELMR rept. no. 11. National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration/National Ocean Service,Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,Silver Spring, MD.

Phillips, N.W. and M.J. Thompson. 1990. Offshorebenthic communities. In: N. Phillips and K.Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,geological, chemical, socioeconomic, andcultural resource information for the SouthFlorida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Pomponi, S.A. and K. Rützler. 1984. An illustratedfield guide to the sponges of Looe Key and KeyLargo national marine sanctuaries. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration techni-cal report OCRM/SPD. Contract no. NA-83-AAA-03072.

Powell, G.V.N., J.W. Fourqurean, W.J. Kenworthy,and J.C. Zieman. 1991. Bird colonies causeseagrass 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 thegeology of Florida and guidebook to the classicexposures. Fla. Geol. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5,revised.

Robertson, W.B. Jr. 1978. Reddish egret. (Egrettarufescens). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endan-gered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds. pp. 51-52.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121pp.

225

References

Seaman, W. Jr. and M. Collins. 1983. Speciesprofiles: Life histories and environmental require-ments of coastal fishes and invertebrates (SouthFlorida)-Snook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.FWS/OBS 82/11.16. U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, TR EL-82-4. 16 pp.

Shinn, E.A. 1963. Spur and groove formation on theFlorida reef tract. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol-ogy. 33:291-303.

Shinn, E.A. 1975. Coral reef recovery in Florida andin the Persian Gulf. Shell Oil EnvironmentalConservation Department. Geol. 1:241-254.

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, R.B. Halley, and B.H. Lidz.1977. Topographic control and accumulation rateof some Holocene coral reefs, South Florida andDry Tortugas. In: Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Coral Reef Symposium. Miami, FL:University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marineand Atmospheric Science. Vol. 2. pp. 1-7.

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and B.HLidz. 1981. Spurs and grooves revisited - Con-struction versus erosion, Looe Key reef, Florida.In: Proceedings of the Fourth International CoralReef Symposium. Manila: Quezon City, Univer-sity 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-energycarbonate 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 theDry Tortugas: IGC field trip guide T176. Washing-ton, DC: American Geophysical Union. 53 pp.

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, C.W. Holmes. 1990. High-energy carbonate-sand accumulation, theQuicksands, southwest Florida Keys. J. Sedi-ment Petrol. 60 (6):952-967.

Simberloff, D.S. 1976. Experimental zoogeography ofislands: 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 easternGulf of Mexico reef fishes. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ.19:1-78.

Smith, G.M., ed. 1951. Manual of phycology: Anintroduction of the algae and their biology. NewYork, NY: The Ronald Press Co. 373 pp.

Smith, N.P. and P. Pitts. 1993. An annotated compila-tion of current, temperature, salinity, and water-level data from the Florida Keys. Unpublisheddata.

Smithsonian Institution. Unpublished data. Dr. JamesMean, curator of marine mammals.

Snedaker, S.C. 1989. Overview of ecology of man-groves 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 ofFlorida: Vol. 4, fishes. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 58 pp.

Snyder, J.K., A. Herndon, and W.B. Robertson, Jr.1990. South Florida rockland. In: R.L. Meyersand 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 abun-dance of fishes residing in seagrass meadows onFlorida Bay mudflats. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):179-199.

South Florida Research Center. 1980. Wildlife surveyand freshwater fish study. Final report to EastEverglades Resource Planning Project. 95 pp.

Spendelow, J.A. and S.R. Patton. 1988. Nationalatlas of coastal waterbird colonies in the contigu-ous United States: 1976-82. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Biol. Rep. 88(5). 326 pp.

Stein, J.R., ed. 1973. Handbook of phycologicalmethods: Culture methods and growth measure-ments. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress. 448 pp.

Stephenson, T.A. and A. Stephenson. 1950. Lifebetween the tide marks in North America. I.Florida Keys. J. Ecol. 38(2):354-402.

226

References

Stevenson, 1978. Bachman’s warbler (Vermivorabachmani). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rare and endan-gered 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 inSouth Florida. J. of Sed. Petrology. 37:633-648.

Tabb, D.C. and R.B. Manning. 1961. A checklist ofthe flora and fauna of northern Florida Bay andadjacent brackish waters of the Florida mainlandcollected through the period July 1957 throughSeptember 1960. Bull. Mar. Sci. 11(4):552-649.

Tabb, D.C. and R.B. Manning. 1962. Aspects of thebiology of northern Florida Bay and adjacentestuaries. 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 adja-cent estuaries. Florida Board of Conservation.Tech. ser. no. 39.

Taylor, D.S. 1992. Mangrove rivulus (Rivulusmarmoratus) In: C.R. Gilbert, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, fishes. pp.200-207. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 247 pp.

Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby, and W.F. Hettler, Jr. 1987.Utilization of the red mangrove prop root habitatby fishes in South Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.35:25-38.

Thayer, G.W. and A.J. Chester. 1989. Distributionand abundance of fishes among basin andchannel habitats in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci.44(1):200-219.

Thomas, J.D. 1984. An illustrated guidebook to thecommon amphipods of the Florida Reef Tract.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion 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 EvergladesNational Park, Florida. South Florida ResearchCenter 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. RosenstielSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Science,University of Miami, Miami, FL.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1990. Environmentalassessment of underwater explosion testing nearKey West, Florida, and Amendment 1, short-termlimited testing at test areas D and H. Preparedfor the Department of Navy, Southern DivisionNaval Facilities Engineering Command. Contractno. N62467-88-D-0628.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Schaus’sswallowtail butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. Stock Islandtree snail recovery plan. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Atlanta, GA. 15 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984a. Americancrocodile recovery plan. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984b. Marine turtlerecovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Atlanta, GA. 366 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Florida key deerrecovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Atlanta, GA. 46 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Florida mana-tee recovery plan. Prepared by the FloridaManatee Recovery Team for the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 98 pp.

VanMeter, V.B. 1987. Florida’s alligators and croco-diles. Florida Power and Light Company. 41 pp.

Vaughan, T.W. 1914a. Building of the Marquesas andTortugas atolls and a sketch of the geologichistory of the Florida reef tract. Carnegie Insti-tute, Washington, DC: Papers of the Departmentof Marine Biology. Publication 182. Vol. 5, pp. 55-67.

Vaughan, T.W. 1914b. The reef corals of southernFlorida. Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC: YearBook 12:181-183.

Vaughan, T.W. 1918. The temperature of the Floridacoral reef tract. Washington, DC: Publication 213.pp. 321-339.

227

References

Voss, G.L. and N.A. Voss. 1955. An ecological surveyof Soldier Key, Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar.Sci. Gulf. Carib. 5(3):203-229.

Weaver, W.G. 1978. Florida brown snake (Storeriadekayi victa). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 44-45. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

Weiner, A. 1979. The hardwood hammocks of theFlorida Keys: An ecological study. NationalAudubon Society and the Florida Keys LandTrust.

Werner, H.W. 1978. Cape Sable seaside sparrow(Ammodramus maritimus miabilis). In: H.W. KaleIII, ed. Rare and endangered biota in Florida: Vol.2, birds. pp. 19-20. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 121 pp.

Wheaton, J.L. and W.C. Jaap. 1988. Corals andother prominent benthic cnidaria of Looe KeyNational Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Fla. Mar.Res. publ. no. 43. 25 pp.

Williams, 1978. Florida sandhill crane (Gruscanadensis pratensis). In: H.W. Kale II, ed. Rareand endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2, birds.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 121pp.

Williams, L.C. 1991. Southern Florida vessel trafficstudy. TMA Corporation, Inc., Riverdale, MD.U.S. Coast Guard. Contract no. DTCG23-90-C-HNN128-2.

Wilmers, T. 1991. Bald eagles (Haliaeetusleucocephalus). In: J. Gato, ed. The MonroeCounty environmental story. pp. 257-259. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Wilmers, T. 1991. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus). In: J.Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmentalstory. pp. 260-261. Big Pine Key, FL: MonroeCounty 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: UniversityPress of Florida. 392 pp.

Woolfenden, 1978. Snowy plover (Charadriusalexandrinus tenuirostris). In: H.W. Kale II, ed.Rare and endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 2,birds. pp. 8-10. Gainesville, FL: University Pressof Florida. 121 pp.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1983. Rare, threatened, andendangered vertebrates of southwest Florida andpotential OCS activity impacts. U.S. Fish andWildlife 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 andR. 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 ofSouth Florida: A community profile. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,Washington, DC. FWS/OBS 82/25. 158 pp.

Zieman, J.C. 1990. Coastal and nearshore communi-ties: Seagrass beds. In: N. Phillips and K.Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,geological, chemical, socioeconomic, andcultural resource information for the SouthFlorida 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 productivityof seagrasses and macroalgae in Florida Bay.Bull. Mar. Sci. 44 1:292-311.


Felder, D., Southwest Louisiana State University,Lafayette, LA.

Hoffman, W., National Audubon Society, PlantationKey, 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, NationalKey Deer Refuge, Big Pine Key, FL.

228

References

Gato, J., ed. 1991. The Monroe County environmen-tal story. Big Pine Key, FL: Monroe CountyEnvironmental Education Task Force. 370 pp.

Gray, H.H. 1984. Archaeology sedimentology ofoverbank silt deposits on the floodplain of theOhio River near Louisville, Kentucky. Journal ofArchaeological Science. 11:421-432.

Grayson, D.K. 1984. Archaeological associations withextinct Pleistocene mammals in North America.Journal of Archaeological Science. 11:213-221.

Halas, J. 1988. An inventory of shipwrecks, ground-ings, and cultural marine resources within theKey Largo National Marine Sanctuary region.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion technical memorandum/National OceanService memorandum no. NA87AA-H-CZ007.Unpublished data.

Hoffecker, J.F. 1988. Applied geomorphology andarchaeological survey strategy for sites ofPleistocene age: An example from centralAlaska. Journal of Archaeological Science. 15:683-713.

Lane, E. 1986. Karst in Florida. State of FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, FloridaGeological 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 ofCoastal Research. 7:203-229.

Marx, R. 1971 (rev. 1987). Shipwrecks of the westernhemisphere, 1492-1825. New York: DoverPublications, 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 comprehen-sive land use plan. Monroe County PlanningCommission. Monroe County, FL.

National Park Service, 1979. National Register ofHistoric Places: Nomination form. U.S. Depart-ment 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 andquaternary history of the continental shelf of theGulf coast of the United States. Bull. Mar. Sci.20: 546-559.

Bedarnik, R.G. 1989. On the Pleistocene settlementof 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 earlyman site and Warm Mineral Springs, Florida.Journal of Field Archaeology. 2:192-213.

Clausen, C., et al. 1979. Little Salt Spring, Florida: Aunique underwater site. Science. 203:609-614.

Cockrell, W.A. and L. Murphy. 1978. Pleistocene manin Florida. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica. 6:1-13.

Dean, L. 1982. Reef lights: Sea-swept lighthouses ofthe Florida Keys. Historic Key West PreservationBoard. Tampa, FL: Joe Klay and Sons.

Delgado, J.P. 1988. Underwater archaeology pro-ceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeol-ogy Conference. Reno, NV.

Dunbar, J., et al. 1989. Archaeological sites in thedrowned tertiary karst region of the eastern Gulfof Mexico. Florida Anthropologist. 41:177-181.

Faught, M. 1988. Preliminary report of excavations atthe Econfina channel site. University of Arizona,unpublished manuscript on files at the Depart-ment of Anthropology.

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp,and G.A. Wolff. 1989. Historic shipwrecks andmagnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf ofMexico: Reevaluation of archaeological resourcemanagement zone 1. Volume 2: Technicalnarrative. OCS Study /MMS 89-0023. U.S.Department of the Interior, Minerals ManagementService, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office,New Orleans, LA. 242 pp.

229

References

National Park Service, 1990. National Register ofHistoric Places: Registration form. U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, National Park Service.

Winsberg, M.D. 1988. Florida’s history through itsplaces: Properties in the National Register ofHistoric Places. Department of Geography,Florida State University. Prepared by the Instituteof Science and Public Affairs with the cooperationof the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division ofHistorical Resources, Florida Department ofState. 93 pp.


Miller, J., Bureau of Archeological Research, Divisionof 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 com-munities and fisheries biology. In: N. Phillips andK. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,geological, chemical, socioeconomic, andcultural resource information for the SouthFlorida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Arnold, D. 1991. Treasure hunting becoming agrowth 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 onreef fishing. In: D.Y. Aska, ed. Artificial reefs inFlorida. Florida Sea Grant College Program. 69pp.

Blout, S. 1981. Why sportdivers like artificial reefs. In:D.Y. Aska, ed. Artificial reefs: Conference pro-ceedings. Florida Sea Grant College Program.229 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes atartificial reefs the result of habitat limitation orbehavioral preference? Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):631-645.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1991. Fishing trends. In: J. Gato, ed.The Monroe County environmental story. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificialreef research: A review with recommendationsfor future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37: 11-39.

Clark, R.R. 1990. The carbonate beaches of Florida:An inventory of Monroe County beaches. FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources. Beaches andshores technical and design memorandum 90-1.63 pp.

Comp G.S. and W. Seaman. 1988. Estuarine habitatand fishery resources of Florida. pp. 337-436 In:W. Seaman, ed. Florida aquatic habitat andfishery resources. Florida Chapter of the Ameri-can Fisheries Society. Eustis, FL.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., LGLEcological Research Associates, Inc. and Conti-nental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. SouthwestFlorida shelf ecosystems study. Data synthesisreport. Submitted to the Minerals ManagementService, New Orleans, LA.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990.Printout of public and private recreation data.Tallahassee, FL: Department of Natural Re-sources. Recreation and Parks managementinformation system. Florida Recreation andParks Facility Inventory.Florida Department ofNatural Resources. 1991. Unpublished data.

Gerard, S. 1992. Caribbean treasure hunt. SeaFrontiers. pp. 49-62.

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Manage-ment Councils. 1982. Fishery management planand environmental impact statement. Regulatoryreview for spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico andSouth Atlantic. National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice. St. Petersburg, FL.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1978.Final impact statement and fishery managementplan for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf ofMexico. National Marine Fisheries Service. St.Petersburg, FL.

230

References

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981.Fishery management plan for the shrimp fisheryof the Gulf of Mexico: United States waters. Gulfof 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 develop-ment on the recreation and tourism off theFlorida Straits.

Kruer, C.R. 1991. Preserving marine life with artificialreefs. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe Countyenvironmental story. Big Pine Key, FL: MonroeCounty Environmental Education Task Force.370 pp.

Kruer, C.R. and L.G. Causey. 1992. The use of largeartificial reefs to enhance fish populations atdifferent 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 theFlorida Keys. In: J. Gato, ed. The Monroe Countyenvironmental story. Big Pine Key, FL: MonroeCounty Environmental Education Task Force.370 pp.

Milon, J.W. 1989a. Economic evaluation of artificialhabitat for fisheries: Progress and challenges.Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):831-843.

Milon, J.W. 1989b. Artificial marine habitat character-istics and participation behavior by sport anglersand divers. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):853-862.

Monroe County. 1990. The Monroe County compre-hensive plan: 1990-2010. Technical document.Key West, FL: Monroe County.

Monroe County. 1992. Monroe County year 2010comprehensive plan, 1992. Prepared for theMonroe County Board of County Commissionersby Wallace, Roberts, and Todd; Barton-AschmanAssociates, Inc.; Keith and Schnars, P.A.; Haben,Culpepper, Dunbar, and French; Henigar andRay, Inc.; Price Waterhouse; and Growth Man-agement Staff of Monroe County. 3 vols. 810 pp.


National Geographic Society. 1986. Atocha: Quest fortreasure. National Geographic Video Series.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Fisheries ofthe United States, 1990: Current fisheriesstatistics. No. 9000, Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Phillips, N.E. 1990. Offshore oil and gas operations inSouth Florida: History, status, and potentialenvironmental effects. In: N. Phillips and K.Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,geological, chemical, socioeconomic, andcultural resource information for the SouthFlorida area. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp. +appendices.

Powers, J.E. and D.L. Sutherland. 1989. Spinylobster assessment, CPUE, size, frequency, yieldper recruit and escape gap analyses. NationalMarine Fisheries Service. Coastal ResourcesDivision. No. CRD-88/89-24.

Pybas, D.W. 1992. Atlas of artificial reefs in Florida.Florida Sea Grant College Program, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL. 40 pp.

Rockland, 1988. The economic impact of sport andcommercial fisheries of the Florida Keys. SportFishing Institute. Prepared for the MonroeCounty Industrial Development Authority.

Rockland, D.B. 1990. The economic value of thesport fisheries of the Florida Keys. Washington,DC: Sportfishing Institute. Prepared for theNational Marine Fisheries Service, NationalOceanic 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 forresearch, technology, and management relatedto artificial aquatic habitats. Bull. Mar. Sci.44(2):527-532.

231

References

Shermyen, A.H., ed. 1991. Florida statistical ab-stract. Bureau of Economic and BusinessResearch, College of Business Administration,University of Florida. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida. 736 pp.

Smith, R.C., J.J. Miller, S.M. Kelley, and L.G. Harbin.In press. An atlas of maritime Florida. FloridaDepartment 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, geologi-cal, chemical, socioeconomic, and culturalresource 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 invest-ment: The economics of treasure hunting, withreal life comparisons. In: T. Carrell, ed. Under-water Archaeology: Proceedings of the Societyfor Historical Archaeology's Conference.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Statistical abstractof the United States, 1991. U.S. Bureau of theCensus, U.S. Department of Commerce. Wash-ington, DC. 986 pp.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1990. Environmentalassessment of underwater explosion testingnear Key West, Florida, and Amendment 1,short-term limited testing at test areas D and H.Prepared for the Department of Navy, SouthernDivision Naval Facilities Engineering Command.Contract no. N62467-88-D-0628. 212 pp +appendices.

Viehl, J. 1991. Sponging. In: J. Gato, ed. TheMonroe County environmental story. Big PineKey, FL: Monroe County Environmental Educa-tion Task Force. 370 pp.


Whitney, D. 1991. Impact of sportfishing on theFlorida Keys economy. In: J. Gato, ed. TheMonroe County environmental story. Big PineKey, FL: Monroe County Environmental Educa-tion Task Force. 370 pp.

Williams, L.C. 1991. Southern Florida vessel trafficstudy. TMA Corporation, Inc. Riverdale, MD. U.S.Coast Guard. Contract no. DTCG23-90-C-HMN128-2.


Beaver, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Bert, T., Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, St. Peters-burg, FL.

Bertlesen, R., Florida Marine Research Institute,Florida Department of Natural Resources,Marathon, FL.

Bohnsack, J., Southeast Fisheries Center, NationalMarine 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 MarineResources, Marathon, FL.

Glazer, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Gregory, D., Florida Sea Grant College Program, KeyWest, FL.

Hamlin, C., Key West Port and Transit Authority, KeyWest, FL.

Helbling, R.J., Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation, Marathon, FL.

Hunt, J., Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Marathon, FL.

Kruer, C.R., private consultant, Summerland Key, FL.

Little, E.J., U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Key West, FL.

Mathewson, D., National Center for ShipwreckResearch, Ltd. Islamorada, FL.

Miller, J., Bureau of Archaeological Research, FloridaDepartment of State, Tallahassee, FL.

232

References

Muller, R., Florida Marine Research Institute, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, St. Peters-burg, 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, KeyLargo, FL.

Varmer, O., National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Silver Spring, MD.


Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes atartificial reefs the result of habitat limitation orbehavioral preference? Bull Mar. Sci. 44:631-645.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificialreef research: A review with recommendationsfor future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37:11-39.

Causey, B. 1993. Physical impacts to coral reefs inthe Florida Keys resulting from small boat andship groundings - The scope of the problem.Abstract and presentation before the SecondAnnual Coral Reef Coalition Conference. May13-15, 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 NationalMarine Sanctuary, 1982-1992. 3 pp.

Kearney/Centaur. 1990. Impacts of oil and gasdevelopment on the recreation and tourism offthe Florida Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior. p. 115.

Kruer, C.R. 1993. Mapping assessment of vesseldamage to shallow seagrasses in the FloridaKeys: A report to the Florida Department ofNatural Resources and the University of SouthFlorida/Florida Institute of Oceanography. 17 pp.+ maps.

Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary. 1983-1993.Daily visitor-use surveillance reports compiled bySanctuary staff (unpublished database). Big PineKey, FL.

Miller, J. ed. 1988. Results of a workshop on coralreef research and management in the FloridaKeys: A blueprint for action. National UnderseaResearch Program research report 88-5.Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration. 49 pp.

Polovina, J.J. 1991. Fisheries applications andbiological impacts of artificial habitats, Chapter 5.Pages 154-176 in Seaman, W., Jr. and L.M.Sprague, eds. Artificial habitats for marine andfreshwater fisheries, Academic Press, Inc., 285pp.

Sargent, F. 1993. Statewide assessment of propellerdamage to seagrass. Florida CZM report 331-93.Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Peters-burg, FL.

Tagliareni, M. 1993. Internal report: Vessel ground-ings in the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary,1980-1992. 24 pp.

Throckmorton, P. 1990. The world's worst invest-ment: The economics of treasure hunting withreal life comparisons. In: T. Carrell, ed. Underwa-ter Archaeology Proceedings of the Society forHistorical Archaeology Conference. Tuscon, AZ.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1992. Vessel traffic study. U.S.Coast Guard database.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational 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. ManagementAgreement for Submerged Lands within theBoundary of Key West and Great White HeronNational Wildlife Refuge. Atlanta, GA USDOI/FWS. 80 pp.


233

References

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and C.R. Robbins. 1989. Fishintroductions: Good management, mismanage-ment, or no management?

Deisler, J.E. 1982. Stock Island tree snail (Oralicusreses reses). In: R. Franz, ed. Rare and endan-gered 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 fisheriesrefugia to coastal fishery management. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.50:2029-2042.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.1987. Florida Keys monitoring study: Waterquality assessment of five selected pollutantsources in Marathon, Florida Keys. FloridaDepartment of Environmental Regulation. 196pp.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.1990. Boot Key harbor study: Preliminary draftmanuscript. Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation. Marathon, FL.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Depart-ment of Natural Resources. 1990. Guide to thenatural communities of Florida. Florida Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Office of Land UsePlanning and Biological Services. Tallahassee,FL. 111 pp.

Heatwole, D.W. 1987. Water quality assessment offive selected pollutant sources in Marathon,Florida Keys. Florida Keys Monitoring Study:1984-85. Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation, South Florida District, MarathonBranch Office. Marathon, FL. 195 pp.


Kearny/Cenatur. 1990. Impact of oil and gas develop-ment on the recreation and tourism off theFlorida Straits.


Crusoe, E., Key West, FL.

Environmental Consequences

Alevizon, W.S. and Bannerot, S.P. 1990. Fish com-munities and fisheries biology. In: N. Phillips andK. Larson, eds. Synthesis of available biological,geological, chemical, socioeconomic, andcultural resource information for the SouthFlorida 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: Anew factor in waterfront development. Report no.98. Florida Sea Grant College Program, Carto-graphic Research Laboratory in Applied Geogra-phy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 192pp.

Antonius. 1982. Health problems of the Florida coralreefs. Fla. Sci. 38(1):21.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1990. The potential of marine fisheryreserves for reef fish management in the U.S.southern Atlantic. Snapper-Grouper Plan Devel-opment Team report for the South AtlanticFishery Management Council. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration technical memo-randum NMFS-SEFC-261. 45 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1991. Fishing trends. In: J. Gato, ed.The Monroe County environmental story. BigPine Key, FL: Monroe County EnvironmentalEducation Task Force. 370 pp.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1993. The impacts of fishing on coralreefs. 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 ofavailable biological, geological, chemical, socio-economic, and cultural resource information forthe South Florida area. Continental Shelf Associ-ates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657pp.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1979. Exotic species in maricul-ture. R. Mann, ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA;London, England. pp. 237-257.

234

References

Kruer, C.R. 1992. An assessment of Florida’s remain-ing coastal upland natural communities: FloridaKeys. Prepared for the Florida Natural AreasInventory. Tallahassee, FL. 33 pp.

Lindall, W.N., Jr., and C.H. Saloman 1977. Alterationand destruction of estuaries affecting fisheryresources of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Fish. Rev.1262:1-7.

Lund, F. 1978c. Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelysimbricta imbricata). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rareand endangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphib-ians and reptiles. pp. 23-24. Gainesville, FL:University Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978d. Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelyskempii). In: R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 25-26. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

Lund, F. 1978e. Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta carettacaretta). In: R.E. McDiarmid, ed. Rare andendangered biota of Florida: Vol. 3, amphibiansand reptiles. pp. 35-36. Gainesville, FL: Univer-sity Press of Florida.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S.population of Atlantic green turtle. NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 52pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for U.S.population of loggerhead turtle. National MarineFisheries Service, Washington, DC. 64 pp.

Odell, D.K. 1990. Marine mammals and turtles. In: N.Phillips and K. Larson, eds. Synthesis of avail-able biological, geological, chemical, socioeco-nomic, and cultural resource information for theSouth Florida area. pp. 267-302. ContinentalShelf Associates, Inc. Contract no. 14-12-0001-30417. 657 pp.

Richards, W.J., ed. 1989. Bulletin of marine science.Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience. University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Rios, G. 1990. Boot Key harbor study. FloridaDepartment of Environmental Regulation,Marathon Office, Marathon, FL.

Roberd and Todd, et al. 1991. Monroe County year2010 comprehensive plan: Working paper 2:Inventory and analysis, proposed levels ofservice, measures of carrying capacity. Preparedfor Monroe County Board of County Commis-sioners.

Rowley, R.J. 1992. Impacts of marine reserves onfisheries: A report and review of the literature.Head Office, Department of Conservation,Wellington, New Zealand. Science and researchseries no. 51. 50 pp.

Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecologicalcharacterization of the Lower Everglades, FloridaBay, and the Florida Keys. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Officeof Biological Services. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/58.1 246 pp.

Seaman, W., Jr. and M. Collins. 1983. Speciesprofiles: Life histories and environmental require-ments of coastal fishes and invertebrates (SouthFlorida) - snook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.FWS/OBS-82/11.16. U.S. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. 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 ofFlorida. Gainesville, FL: University Press ofFlorida. 736 pp.

Snedaker, S.C. 1990. Water quality problems andissues in the Florida Keys. A report for TheNature Conservancy. 37 pp.

Szmant, A.M. 1991. Inshore-offshore patterns ofnutrient and chlorophyll concentration along theFlorida Reef Tract. Seakeys phase I: Sustainedecological research related to the managementof the Florida Keys seascape. pp. 42-62.

Thorhaug, A. 1970. Habitat restoration after pipelineconstruction in tropical estuary seagrasses.Marine Pollution Bulletin. 14 (11): 422-425.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil survey ofMonroe County, FL. Unpublished report. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 37 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational 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. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary Program: Phase IIreport. Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences.Duxbury, MA. 460 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Schaus’ swal-lowtail butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Marine turtlerecovery 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.


Zieman, J.C. 1975. Tropical seagrass ecosystemsand pollution. In: E.J.F. Woods and R.E.Johannes, eds. Tropical marine pollution. Ocean-ography Section 12. Elsevise Press, New York,New York and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp.63-74.

Zieman, J.C. et al. 1989. The Florida Bay seagrassdie off: Process changes, potential causes, and aconceptual model. Tenth International EstuarineResearch Conference, October 8-12, 1989.Baltimore, MD. Abstract. p. 92.

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Beaton, P.W. 1991. The impact of regional land-usecontrols on property values: The case of the NewJersey pinelands. Land Economics 67(2):172-94.

Bell, F.W. 1989. Application of wetland valuationtheory of Florida fisheries. Tallahassee, FL:Florida State University. 188 pp.

Bell, F.W. 1991. An analysis of the economic base ofMonroe County, Florida with implications for oiland gas exploration. Tallahassee, FL: FloridaState University.

Bell, F.W. and V.R. Leeworthy. 1984. Estimation ofthe demand and supply of marina services in thestate of Florida, 1969-1988. Tallahassee, FL:Florida Department of Natural Resources. 136pp.

Bell, F.W. and P.E. Sorensen. 1993. A socioeconomicimpact assessment of selected managementstrategies. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Univer-sity. 359 pp.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons.Science 162: 1243-1248.

Kearney/Centaur. 1990. Impacts of oil and gasdevelopment on the recreation and tourism offthe Florida Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior. p. 115.

Leeworthy, V.R. 1991. Recreational use value forJohn Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and KeyLargo National Marine Sanctuary. Rockville, MD:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion. 14 pp.

Monroe County, 1993. Monroe County year 2010comprehensive plan, policy document. Marathon,FL. 359 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.1986. An inventory of coastal wetlands of theUSA. Washington, DC. 25 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.1992. Summary of institutional arrangements andapproximate costs work session. Washington,DC: Office of Ocean and Coastal ResourceManagement, Sanctuaries and Reserves Divi-sion and Office of Resources Conservation andAssessment, Strategic Environmental Assess-ments Division. 7 pp.

Rockland, D.B. 1988. The economic impact of thesport and commercial fisheries of the FloridaKeys. 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. Water-quality protection program for the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary Program. Preparedby Battelle Ocean Sciences. Duxbury, MA.

236

References

Varmer, O., M. Weiss, and P.C. Wiley. 1993. FloridaKeys National Marine Sanctuary managementplan. Strategy R.1.a.: Submerged culturalresources (SCRs) management. Washington,DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration.

Waters, J.R. 1991. Restricted-access vs. open-access methods of management: Toward moreeffective regulation of fishing effort. MarineFisheries Review. 53(3):1-10.



MacMinn, L., Tourist Development Council, City ofKey West, FL.

311

Acronyms

AcronymsAcronym Meaning

ACSC Areas of Critical State ConcernAICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use ZonesAPPS Act to Prevent Pollution from ShipsARPA Archaeological Resources Protection ActASA Abandoned Shipwreck ActATBAs Areas to be AvoidedATCA Atlantic Tuna Convention ActAWT Advanced Wastewater TreatmentBMES Bureau of Marketing and Extension ServicesBMRRD Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and DevelopmentBP Before PresentBRD Bycatch Reduction DevicesLP Bureau of Submerged Lands and PreservesBSRR Bureau of Sanctuaries and Research ReservesCAA Clean Air ActCARL Conservation and Recreation LandsCBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1972CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources SystemCCC Coastal Coordinating Council (Florida)CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability ActCDP Census Designated PlaceCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCMWG Channel Marking Working GroupCSA Continental Shelf AssociatesCWA Clean Water ActCZM Coastal Zone ManagementCZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972DARRF Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving FundDBS Division of Beaches and ShoresDCA Department of Community AffairsDEIS/MP Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management PlanDEMA Dive Equipment Manufacturers AssociationDMR Department of Marine Resources (Monroe County)DO Dissolved OxygenDRI Development of Regional ImpactEIS Environmental Impact StatementEMAP Environment Monitoring and Assessment ProgramENP Everglades National ParkEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species ActF.S. Florida StatutesFAA Federal Aviation Act of 1958FAC Florida Administrative CodeFAP Federal Archaeological ProgramFCD Flood Control DistrictFCMP Florida Coastal Management ProgramFCREPA Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and AnimalsFCRES Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered SpeciesFDA Florida Department of AgricultureFDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

312

Acronyms

FDBS Florida Division of Beaches and ShoresFDCA Florida Department of Community AffairsFDEP Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionFDHR Florida Division of Historical ResourcesFDHRS Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative ServicesFDMR Florida Division of Marine ResourcesFDEP Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionFDER Florida Department of Environmental RegulationFDNR Florida Department of Natural ResourcesFDOC Florida Department of CommerceFDOI Florida Department of the InteriorFDOS Florida Department of StateFDOT Florida Department of TransportationFDRP Florida Division of Recreation and ParksFDSL Florida Division of State LandsFEIS Final Environmental Impact StatementFGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish CommissionFDHRS Florida Department of Health and Rehabilatative ServicesFDMR Florida Division of Marine ResourcesFIO Florida Institute of OceanographyFIRE Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate TradesFKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct AuthorityFKARA Florida Keys Artificial Reef AssociationFKNMS Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryFKNMSPA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection ActFMFC Florida Marine Fisheries CommissionFMP Florida Marine PatrolFMP Fishery Management PlanFMRI Florida Marine Research InstituteFNAI Florida Natural Areas InventoryFPS Florida Park ServiceFWIA Fish and Wildlife Improvement ActFWS Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Dept. of Interior)GDM General Design MemorandumGIS Geographic Information SystemGPS Global Positioning SystemHAPC Habitat Area of Particular ConcernHAZMAT Hazardous MaterialsIMC Interagency Management CommitteeITQ Individual Transferrable QuotaJPCRSP John Pennekamp Coral Reef State ParkLA Lacey ActLATF Land Acquisition Trust FundLEO Law Enforcement OfficerLKNMS Looe Key National Marine SanctuaryMBTA Migratory Bird Treaty ActMCMCD Monroe County Mosquito Control DistrictMFCMA Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management ActMMPA Marine Mammal Protection ActMMS Minerals Management ServiceMOA Memoranda of AgreementMOU Memoranda of UnderstandingMPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

Acronym Meaning

313

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

NCP National Contingency PlanNDP Natural Disaster PlanningNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNERR National Estuarine Research ReserveNFWF National Fish and Wildlife FoundationNGOs Nongovernmental OrganizationsNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNMS National Marine SanctuaryNMSA National Marine Sanctuaries ActNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOS National Ocean Service (NOAA)NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNPS National Park ServiceNPS Nonpoint SourceNURC National Underwater Research CenterOCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementOCS Outer Continental ShelfOCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands ActODA Ocean Dumping Act of 1972OFMAS Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance ServicesOFW Outstanding Florida WaterONRW Outstanding Natural Resource WatersOPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990OPS Office of Protected SpeciesORCA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and

Assessment (NOAA)OSDS On-site Disposal SystemOSP Optimum Sustainable PopulationPADI Professional Association of Dive InstructorsPAED Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration DistrictPL Public LawPRP Potentially Responsible PartiesPSA Public Service AnnouncementPSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration ProvisionsPWSA Port and Waterways Safety ActRHA Rivers and Harbors ActSAV Submerged Aquatic VegetationSCR Submerged Cultural ResourcesSEA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division

(ORCA, NOAA)SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science CenterSFRC South Florida Research CenterSFWMD South Florida Water Management DistrictSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSLA Submerged Land Act of 1953SOC Save Our CoastsSOR Save Our RiversSPAs Sanctuary Preservation AreasSPF Standard Project FloodSPL Saltwater Products LicenseSRD Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (OCRM, NOAA)SRS Shark River SloughSWD Solid Waste Disposal

314

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management ActSWM Stormwater ManagementTDC Tourism Development CouncilTNC The Nature ConservancyTSRP Taylor Slough Rainfall PlanUIC Underground Injection ControlULV Ultra Low VolumeUNCW University of North Carolina, WilmingtonUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUSCG United States Coast GuardUSDOC United States Department of CommerceUSDOI United States Department of the InteriorUSDOS United States Department of StateUSDOT United States Department of TransportationUSGS United States Geological SurveyVTSS Vessel Traffic Separation SchemesWCAs Water Conservation AreasWQBELs Water Quality Based Effluent LimitationsWWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Glossary of Technical Terms

315


accretion- growth or increase in size by gradualexternal addition

ad valorem- according to value; imposed at a ratepercent of the value as stated in an invoice

ahermatypic - non reef-building corals

anaerobic - capable of living or growing in an envi-ronment lacking free oxygen

annelids - any of various worms with cylindricalsegmented bodies

aquaculture - the cultivation of marine life for harvestand utilization by humans

arboreal - relating to, or like, a tree; in referring tospecies, those that inhabit or frequent trees

ascidians - “sack-like” tunicates; animals in which thelarval stage resembles a tadpole but the adult issedentary and sack-like (e.g. sea squirts)

backcountry - primarily referring to the Florida Bayarea of the Keys' islands and waterways

bathymetry - water depth measurement informationused to produce depth-contoured charts

benthic communities - bottom-dwelling flora andfauna

Bermuda/Azores high - the subtropical anticyclonepositioned over the southern Atlantic Ocean in theNorthern Hemisphere; it is most pronounced in springand summer

bioherm - a mound, dome, or reef-like structure builtup by, and composed almost exclusively of, theremains of sedentary organisms, such as corals,algae, or molluscs

biota - animal or plant life of a region considered as atotal ecological entity

block-faulted - a type of normal faulting in which theEarth's crust is divided into structural or fault blocksof different elevations and orientations

calcareous - containing characteristics of calciumcarbonate, calcium, or limestone

capital facilities - those buildings and structuresrequired for the provision of public services

Carolinian - refers to organisms and physical charac-teristics of the southeastern U.S. coastline

Census Designated Place - closely settled commu-nities without corporate limits or status

common property resources- resources that arenot exclusively controlled by a single agent or source.Access to such resources is not restricted, andtherefore the resources can be exploited on a first-come, first-served basis

convective storm - storm characterized by verticallyrising air

corallimorphs - false corals

coralline - any animal related to or resembling corals

crenulated (corals) - corals having tiny notches orscallops

crinoids - “sea lilies”; echinoderms that are suspen-sion feeders with jointed arms and appendages thatgive a feathery appearance resembling a plant

cyclonic storms/systems - a windstorm with aviolent whirling movement; a system of rotating windsover a vast area, spinning inward to a low pressurecenter (counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere)generally causing stormy weather

defaunated - indigenous animals are removed from aparticular area

desiccation - removal of moisture; drying out

detrital - the accumulation of disintegrated material

diurnal - pertaining to or occurring in a day or eachday; daily

downzoning - the practice of rezoning a parcel orparcels in a “lower” or more restrictive zoning cat-egory (e.g., a rezoning from multifamily residential tosingle-family residential) is considered downzoning;downzonings are often part of a growth managementprogram employed when communities find that theyhave overzoned for the population growth which isdesired


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 areexclusively marine and possess a spiny skin and asystem of water filled canals that aids in feeding andlocomotion. (e.g., sea urchins, sand dollars, and seacucumbers)

endangered species - a species in danger of becom-ing extinct that is protected by the EndangeredSpecies Act

endemic - restricted to or native to a particular areaor region

epibenthic - organisms that live on the surface of asubstrate, including motile organisms such asgastropods, 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 ofseagrasses, including algae, diatoms, and otherencrusting organisms

eutrophication - the process by which nutrient-richwaters bring about a high level of biological produc-tivity that may ultimately lead to reduced dissolvedoxygen levels

fauna - animal life of a particular region

flora - plant life of a particular region

Florida Current- the segment of current between theGulf of Mexico Loop Current and the Gulf Streamfrom the Dry Tortugas to the Southeastern tip ofFlorida, and confined by the 250-meter and 500-meter isobaths

Florida reef tract - the third largest barrier reef in theworld, running from the Miami area southwest to theDry Tortugas

Floridan Aquifer - the rock mass of South Floridathat contains groundwater

foraminifera - an order of planktonic and benthicprotozoans having a calcareous shell; perforationsthrough which numerous pseudopodia protrude

gastropods - “Stomach footed" class of molluscs thathave only one shell and usually move about on amuscular “foot” (e.g., snail, slug, cowry, limpet)

gorgonian - a type of octocoral (soft coral) commonlyfound in southeast Florida reefs at depths less than30 meters; they include sea fans, sea plumes, seawhips, and sea rods

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current - major surface currentin the Gulf of Mexico; enters through Yucatan Straits,flows clockwise into the east central portion of theGulf, and exits through the Straits of Florida becom-ing the Florida current and eventually the GulfStream

gyre- circular spiral form; used mainly in reference tothe circular motion of water in major ocean basinscentered in the subtropic high-pressure regions

halophytic - type of plant that can survive in saltwaterenvironments

Holocene Era - designating the present epoch ofgeologic time

hookah - an underwater breathing apparatus thatsupplies air to one or more divers through hosesattached to a compressor located on the surface

hot spot - an area of actual or potential trouble

hydrography - the study, description, and mapping ofoceans, lakes, and rivers with an emphasis onnavigation

hydrology - the science dealing with the nature,distribution, and movement of water on and belowthe Earth's surface

hydroperiod - hydrologic conditions that contribute toseasonally elevated surficial and groundwater flowconditions

incorporated lands - land areas under the jurisdic-tion of a municipal government; in Monroe Countythere are three incorporated areas: the cities of KeyWest, Layton, and Key Colony Beach; all other areasin the Keys fall under Monroe County’s jurisdiction

infaunal - organisms that live buried in sediments,including a variety of polychaetes, burrowing crusta-ceans, and molluscs


317

infrastructure - basic installations and facilities, suchas roads, power plants, transportation, and communi-cation systems

iron-pile lighthouse - a lighthouse built on ironpilings that are threaded like a screw; the piling legsare screwed into the surface; this design allows waterto pass through during storms

isobath - line connecting points of equal depth

keystone species - a single species whose activitiesdetermine community structure; a species whosepresence is critical to that community

lithology - the scientific study of rocks usually withthe unaided eye or little magnification

live rock - rock to which living marine organisms areattached

Lower Keys - that part of incorporated MonroeCounty south and/or west of the Seven Mile Bridge(i.e., Little Duck, Missouri and Ohio Keys, BahiaHonda, West Summerland/Spanish Harbor, andsouth to Stock Island)

mailboxes - propeller-wash device treasure huntersuse to blow sediment away from wrecks buriedbeneath the seabed

management alternative- a bundle of managementstrategies that, when employed together, representthe means for achieving a desired level of protectionwithin the Sanctuary

management strategy - an action or physical mea-sure taken to address a specific issue; a manage-ment strategy is combined with an implementationincentive or mechanism to induce behavior; aninstitutional arrangement with authority to act; and afinancing scheme to support the costs of implementa-tion

Middle Keys - that part of unincorporated segment ofMonroe County between Seven Mile Bridge andWhale Harbor Bridge (i.e., Islamorada, Upper andLower Matecumbe, Fiesta Key, Long Key, ConchKey, Walkers Island, Duck Key, Fat Deer Key,Marathon, and Pigeon Key)

military exclusion area - a region or tract reservedfor military uses, where unauthorized persons maynot enter

National Register of Historic Places - a congres-sionally authorized register of historically significantplaces, and or objects that receive protection fromalteration or demolition under law; alterations aresubject to Historic Preservation Council approval andmust not significantly change the character orassociations of the place or object in question

nektonic - highly motile organisms, such as fishesand squids that live in, or above, the seagrasscanopy

nonpoint source pollutant discharges - thosepollutant discharges not associated with a specificlocation (e.g., urban and agricultural pesticide runoff)

nutrients - any number of organic or inorganiccompounds used by plants in primary production(typically nitrogen and phosphorous)

octocorals - coral type that includes sea plumes, seawhips, gorgonians, and soft corals

oolitic - made of a limestone composition consistingof many small grains of carbonate of lime cementedtogether

patch reef - small circular or irregular reefs that arisefrom the floor of lagoons, behind barrier reefs, orwithin an atoll

pathogens - any agent, most commonly a microor-ganism, capable of causing disease

personal watercraft - a shallow-draft, jet drivewatercraft on which the operator sits, kneels, orstands; excludes those vehicles piloted from insidethe craft

planktonic - organisms dependent on water move-ment and currents as their means of transportation,including phytoplankton, zooplankton, andichthyoplankton

Planning Analysis Area/Enumeration District -aggregated subcounty areas used as a framework forcompiling and analyzing census data; aggregatedinto three areas: Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys

Pleistocene epoch - the first epoch of the Quater-nary Period of the Cenozoic Era, beginning approxi-mately 10,000 years ago; characterized by majorworldwide climatic fluctuations, the spreading andrecession of continental ice sheets with concomitantrise and fall of sea levels, and the appearance ofmodern humans


318

point source pollutant discharges - the dischargeof pollutants from a distinct and identifiable source,such as a sewer or industrial outfall pipe

polychaeta - class of annelid worms that includesbristle and feather duster worms

potable water - water that is safe to drink

puerulus - the transitional swimming stage of thespiny lobster

seasonal population - any group of organisms of thesame species that occupy a given space at a particu-lar time of year (defined as winter, spring, summer,fall, wet, or dry)

sessile- immobile organisms that are permanentlyfixed to the substrate

sheet flow - surface water runoff

slough - swamp bog or marsh; especially one that ispart of an inlet or backwater

solution holes- depression in the Earth’s surfacecaused by dissolving of substrate composed primarilyof calcium carbonate

southwest continental shelf - the submerged shelfof land that slopes gradually from the exposed edgeof the continent for a variable distance to the pointwhere the steep descent to the ocean floor begins

spur and groove - coral formation endemic tofringing or bank reefs; spurs are usually composed ofa framework or Acropora palmata that form rampartsprotruding at right angles to the axis of the reef andprojecting into the prevailing wind pattern; the spacesbetween the spurs are sand channels referred to asgrooves

storm surge - water elevation change due especiallyto tropical or extratropical storms

threatened species- plant or animal species be-lieved likely to move into the endangered category inthe near future if causal factors at work continue topersist

tourism units - hotel/motel rooms, sites for campingand recreational vehicles, and vacation rentals

toxicant - a poisonous or toxic substance

turbid - the state of being clouded, opaqued, orobscured by suspended sediment

unincorporated lands - lands not under the jurisdic-tion of (and not receiving services from) a town or city

Upper Keys - that part of unincorporated portion ofMonroe County north of Whale Harbor Bridge;geologically, the segment of the Keys comprised ofexposed Miami Limestone substrate; includes thearea from Marathon to Soldier Key

vascular - typically describes tubular structuresinvolved in fluid transport

viviparous - bearing or bringing forth live young, aswith most mammals

zoanthids - generally small anemone; may becolonial or solitary, and both symbiotic and free-living;the most common on the Florida reef tract isPalythoa caribbea, referred to as “golden sea mat”

zone - an area or region considered as separate anddistinct from others because of its designated use,plant or animal life, etc.

zoning - the act of partitioning areas of land or waterinto sections dedicated to specific purposes andactivities

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)

Documents

Strategy for Stewardship Florida Keys National Marine ...€¦ · Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Congress, recognizing the degradation of this unique ecosystem due to direct