Linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.008Get rights and content

Abstract

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is a large, multiple-use marine protected area, including a network of fully protected marine zones, which was designated in 1990 to protect the coral reef ecosystem surrounding the Florida Keys. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) Initiative was formed in 1993 to restore more natural flows to the ecosystem, restore and enhance the natural system, and transform the built environment. These two large-scale efforts at ecosystem-based management are tightly linked, albeit asymmetrically because of the importance of restored flows of pure fresh water across the Everglades and into the coastal ecosystem. The growing population of South Florida, combined with increasing development, agriculture, and other human activities, imperils the entire South Florida ecosystem, from the headwaters of Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Reef Tract. This paper presents the evolution and characteristics of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the SFER Initiative, which have both been tasked with addressing complex issues regarding ecosystem-based management. Key linkages between these programs involve connectivity, both physical and human, through circulation patterns and exchange processes in South Florida coastal waters and through the complex bureaucracy that has grown to manage human uses of natural resources.

Section snippets

Introduction: the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative

Two major issues in South Florida concern its growing population and its sensitive, unique ecosystems. South Florida's population is projected to nearly double by 2050, with all the pressures on natural resources, both coastal and terrestrial, that inevitably accompany increasing human demands. Supplies of fresh water play a central role, both for human development and the function of wetland and coastal ecosystems. Two highly significant ecosystems have been, and will continue to be,

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative objectives

The Sanctuary Advisory Council developed the following goal: “To preserve and protect the physical and biological components of the South Florida estuarine and marine ecosystem to ensure its viability for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” A number of objectives were included in the FKNMS Act and developed by the Council to achieve this goal (Table 1). The SFER Task Force was chartered in 1997 following passage of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) (//www.sfrestore.org/tf/tfcharter.PDF

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Today, the FKNMS is a 9844-km2 (2870 nm2) multiple-use marine protected area (Fig. 1); an additional 96 nm2 were added to the Sanctuary in 2001 with implementation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve [21]. Two levels of prohibited activities regulate human uses and activities: Sanctuary-wide (Table 5) and additional regulations for particular Sanctuary marine zones [13].

Regulations for particular Sanctuary marine zones apply to five categories of areas: Existing Management Areas, Wildlife

Governance of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

The foundation of governance of the Sanctuary is the Co-Trustees Agreement for Cooperative Management between the State of Florida and NOAA (the Co-Trustees). Key provisions are that: (1) NOAA and the State Trustees agree that the FKNMS management plan applies throughout the Sanctuary, in both Federal and State lands and waters, and (2) NOAA and the State will cooperatively manage the Sanctuary and Sanctuary resources consistent with the management plan and underlying agreements and protocols.

Problems and obstacles faced

Many of the challenges to effectively managing the FKNMS derive from its large area (nearly 10,000 km2) and the length of the arc of keys (170 km from Key Largo to Key West) (Fig. 1). For example, there are 257 public and private recreational sites and 163 public and private marinas (http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/oms/omsflorida/omsfloridavisit.html), including 11 public boat ramps (http://www.florida-keys.fl.us/boatramp.htm) for access to Sanctuary waters. These multiple entry points add to

Monitoring, assessment, and adjustment

To monitor changes occurring in the marine environment of the Florida Keys, the Sanctuary has implemented a comprehensive monitoring program. The objectives of the monitoring program are to establish a reference condition for biological communities and water quality conditions within the Sanctuary. A research program directed at ascertaining cause-and-effect linkages complements monitoring. In this way, research and monitoring ensure the effective implementation and evaluation of management

Linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative

We will discuss two fundamentally different forms of linkages between the FKNMS and SFER Initiative: physical and human. Circulation patterns and exchange processes of South Florida coastal waters create strong physical linkages between the FKNMS and SFER Initiative. South Florida coastal waters consist of relatively distinct subregions defined by physical characteristics and flows [29]. The subregions include a Keys coastal zone (with four localities), Florida Bay, and the Southwest Florida

Improving linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative

We wish to focus on three aspects of improving linkages between the FKNMS and SFER Initiative: full-system modeling, promoting national and international action, and promoting local action. Predicting changes to coastal marine and estuarine ecosystems resulting from SFER and carrying out adaptive, ecosystem-based management require models. There are important gaps in modeling tools for SFER [34], and three efforts are currently underway. First, staff of the US Geological Survey (USGS) are

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of this paper were presented by Brian Keller at the Coastal Zone 03 World Parks Congress international preparatory workshop on “Integrating Marine Protected Area Management with Coastal and Ocean Governance: Principles and Practices,” Baltimore, MD, and by Margo Jackson (NMSP) at the Vth World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa. We thank Bud Ehler, Director, International Programs Office, National Ocean Service, NOAA and Vice-Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected

References (34)

  • L. Albury

    The overseas railroad

  • W.L. Kruczynski et al.

    Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: sources, effects, and solutions

  • B.D. Causey

    The role of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative

  • J.J. Leichter et al.

    Episodic nutrient transport to Florida coral reefs

    Limnology and Oceanography

    (2003)
  • P.W. Glynn

    Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives

    Coral Reefs

    (1993)
  • H.A. Lessios

    Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the Caribbean: what have we learned?

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

    (1988)
  • P. Dustan et al.

    Changes in the reef-coral community of Carysfort Reef, Key Largo, Florida: 1974–1982

    Coral Reefs

    (1987)
  • J.W. Porter et al.

    Quantification of loss and change in Floridian reef coral populations

    American Zoologist

    (1992)
  • M.B. Robblee et al.

    Mass mortality of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay (USA)

    Marine Ecology Progress Series

    (1991)
  • J.S. Ault et al.

    A retrospective (1979–1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys

    Fishery Bulletin

    (1998)
  • J.W. Porter et al.

    Patterns of spread of coral disease in the Florida Keys

    Hydrobiologia

    (2001)
  • Final environmental impact statement/final management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

    (1996)
  • S.S. Light et al.

    Water control in the Everglades: a historical perspective

  • C.S. Holling et al.

    The structure and dynamics of the Everglades system: guidelines for ecosystem restoration

  • L.H. Gunderson

    Vegetation of the Everglades: determinants of community composition

  • W.B. Robertson et al.

    The faunal chapters: contexts, synthesis, and departures

  • Cited by (26)

    • Evaluating the economic damage of climate change on global coral reefs

      2015, Global Environmental Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      The estimation will be carried out over coral coverage data spanning 1–15 m depth in five geographic regions: the Greater Caribbean, Florida Keys, Coral Triangle, Indian Ocean, and Great Barrier Reef with the time period based on years from 1985 to 2006. The data are drawn from numerous sources (including Causey et al., 2002; Gardner et al., 2003; Jaap et al., 2003; Keller and Causey, 2005; Bruno and Selig, 2007; Bruno et al., 2007; Jaap et al., 2008; Somerfield et al., 2008; Bruno et al., 2009; Schutte et al., 2010; Selig and Bruno, 2010; Wagner et al., 2010; Osborne et al., 2011; Soto et al., 2011; Sweatman et al., 2011; Selig et al., 2012) plus several monitoring programs (e.g., Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment Program; Australian Institute of Marine Science's Long Term Monitoring Program; Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project; Hawaii Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; ReefBase; and Reef Check). In addition, data on SST, CO2, and sea level in these five geographic regions are assembled from the following sources

    • Coordination between Monroe County and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)

      2009, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Table 1 describes the federal, state, and local agencies included in the management of the Florida Keys water quality as well as each agency's respective authorities' jurisdiction and geographic areas. Throughout the 1980s the marine habitats in the Florida Keys faced a myriad of threats including vessel groundings, seagrass die-offs, loss of coral cover, poor water quality, and decreased fish populations [1,4]. Mounting threats provoked Congress to enact the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMS) in 1990, thereby establishing the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

    • Connectivity between island Marine Protected Areas and the mainland

      2008, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      These three processes should be considered important evaluation criteria in the designation and function of MPAs because they influence an MPA’s short- and long-term success and sustainability. Furthermore, connectivity is vital in the design of MPA networks (Cowen et al., 2000; Keller and Causey, 2005; Cowen et al., 2006) because, by definition, populations/species protected by such networks should be connected through larval, juvenile or adult movement and connectivity describes these population linkages. Spillover has been considered an important aspect of MPA ecology in the past, used to describe the movement of adults or juveniles from protected areas to non-protected ones (due to density-dependent effects), while the term larval export has been used to describe the movement of larvae from MPAs as a result of increased biomass/size of individuals in the MPA.

    • Place-based ocean management: Emerging U.S. law and practice

      2008, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      There appears to be no legislative history explaining this particular amendment, but one commentator [189] has stated that it was endorsed by recreational fishing groups opposed to marine reserves in connection with their state-level campaigns for the enactment of state “right-to-fish” laws [190–194]. With respect to the MSA closed-area amendment's two requirements, at this time the ocean science for identifying the potential resource benefits of areas closed to fishing seems more mature than the social science for evaluating the socio-economic impacts, positive and negative, on user groups, commercial, recreational, and non-consumptive [195–203,63]. With regard to the economics of MPA enforcement, a recent National Research Council report concluded that the enforcement of marine reserves is “relatively efficient” versus other fisheries management techniques once fishermen become familiar with the reserve's boundaries [4].

    • ISO 14001: Towards international quality environmental management standards for marine protected areas

      2008, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, some MPAs are designed as marine reserves solely to protect some commercially important species and to manage these reserves through a species-based focus with the ultimate goal of enhancing fish stocks [17,18]. Other MPAs are developed and managed through an ecosystem-based approach to preserve important habitats and ecosystems, while integrating other human uses such as tourism, recreation, shipping, and fisheries [19,20]. Mechanisms such as co-management, community-based management, traditional management, or combinations thereof are also employed to plan and administer MPAs through collaborations and/or empowerment of local stakeholders [21–24].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text