PAPER Integrating Science into the Design of the Tortugas ...cahn/tortuga.pdfMETHODS FOR INTEGRATING...

68 • MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 1

Marine Sanctuary, a multiple-use MPA that usesmarine zoning to protect resources while allow-ing compatible activities. The design and imple-mentation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve(the reserve) is considered to be a successfulexample of collaborative decision-making(NRC, 2000). The community-based planningprocess for the reserve acknowledged theimportant contributions of the area’s users, andin that respect represented a significant depar-ture from government-driven, top-down marineconservation initiatives that are often the normin developed countries. The inclusion of citizenrepresentatives with an equal voice in the deci-sion-making process was significant. The publicinvolvement aspects of the Tortugas EcologicalReserve process, though critical to its ultimatesuccess, will not be discussed in this paper (seeDelaney, 2003).

In addition to unprecedented commu-nity involvement, socio-political and economicfactors weighed heavily in the outcome of thereserve process, as they do in all resource allo-cation decisions. Science played a crucial role inbalancing short-term economic concerns withpotential long-term economic and ecologicalbenefits. Though the integration of scientificdata in marine resource planning is not a novelconcept (Salm and Clark, 1984, Kenchingtonand Hudson, 1988, Gubbay, 1995, Mascia, 2001),in the case of the Tortugas Ecological Reservescience significantly influenced the design ofthe reserve. This paper focuses on the methodsused to integrate science into the designprocess and discusses how various types of dataplayed a critical role in shaping public policy.

BACKGROUND

The Florida Keys form a 356-km island chainlocated at the southern tip of Florida, in

the southeastern United States. The marineenvironment of the Florida Keys includes man-groves, seagrasses, hardbottom communities,patch reefs, and the third largest bank-barriercoral reef system in the world (Hoffmeister,1974). Significant degradation of the Keys’marine environment is the result, in part, ofdramatic population growth throughout southFlorida (USDOC, 1996). Improperly handledwastewater and stormwater contribute to thedegradation of nearshore water quality(Kruczynski, 1999), seagrasses and corals aredestroyed by boat groundings (Causey et al.,2000), and overfishing of dozens of key species

ABSTRACTThe Tortugas Ecological Reserve, the largest

fully protected marine reserve in the U.S.A.,

was implemented in July 2001 after a suc-

cessful, three-year collaborative effort. A key

facet of this process was the direct involve-

ment of scientists and the acceptance of their

information by the various stakeholders col-

laborating on the reserve’s design. This paper

describes how scientific information was ulti-

mately influential in the siting and sizing of

the reserve. Case studies such as this may

benefit those attempting to use science to

inform decisions in marine protected area

planning.

INTRODUCTION

Marine reserves (called ecological reservesin this paper) are well-defined areas of

the ocean fully protected from human distur-bance (primarily fishing) for the purpose of bio-diversity protection, fisheries enhancement, orprotection of some unique feature or artifact(NRC, 2000). They may be independent units ora subset of a larger marine protected area(MPA), an area of the ocean reserved by law orother means to protect part or all of the naturaland cultural resources therein (PresidentialExecutive Order 13158). Marine reserves areincreasingly being used around the world as aconservation tool (Gubbay, 1995). However,less than one percent of the world’s oceans areprotected by marine reserves (Palumbi, 2003).Implementation of marine reserves in theUnited States has become one of the most con-tentious environmental issues of the daybecause of the deeply rooted tradition of treat-ing the oceans as a commons to be exploitedwith impunity. As an ocean conservation ethicslowly takes hold in the United States and asnatural resources become more scarce, accept-ance of marine reserves as a legitimateapproach to conservation is increasing.However, there are currently few fully protect-ed marine reserves in the U.S.A. that can beused as examples of success, either becausethey have not been implemented long enoughto show positive benefits or they are poorlydesigned and managed (Jameson et al., 2002).

The Tortugas Ecological Reserve, afully protected marine reserve that is currentlythe largest such area in the United States, wasrecently implemented. The Tortugas EcologicalReserve is part of the Florida Keys National

Benjamin D. Cowie-Haskell Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary,Scituate, Massachusetts

Joanne M. DelaneyFlorida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary,Marathon, Florida

Integrating Science into the Design of the Tortugas

Ecological Reserve

PAPER

MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 1 • 69

(Sanctuary Preservation Areas, Research OnlyAreas, Ecological Reserves, WildlifeManagement Areas, and Existing ManagementAreas) were established and implemented in1997 (Figure 1). During the draft managementplan process (1995) an ecological reserve, onetype of fully protected zone, was proposed forthe remote Tortugas region of the Sanctuarybut was not adopted because of insufficientnatural and socioeconomic data and a resultinglack of community acceptance for the proposal.Instead, NOAA committed in the final manage-ment plan for the Sanctuary to implement anecological reserve in the Tortugas region after athorough review and analysis of the area(USDOC, 1996). To ensure that the unique habi-tats of the Tortugas were fully protected and toaddress the myriad of threats in the area, theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary initiat-ed the design of the Tortugas EcologicalReserve in 1998. The reserve process wasdubbed “Tortugas 2000,” and was designed toapply lessons learned and overcome the chal-lenges encountered during the development ofthe original marine zoning plan for theSanctuary.

The Design Process

Tortugas 2000 occurred in three phas-es, beginning in April 1998 and ending inNovember 2000. Phase I addressed the designof the ecological reserve and culminated inJune 1999 with the citizens’ Sanctuary AdvisoryCouncil (SAC) recommending a preferredboundary for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve

has depleted reef fish biomass and spawningpotential (PDT, 1990, Ault et al., 1998).Intensive non-consumptive activities, such assnorkeling and SCUBA diving, also place signif-icant pressures on coral reef resources that areexacerbated by the over three million visitorsto the region annually (Leeworthy and Vanasse,1999).

In an effort to address these manycomplex threats, to provide comprehensiveprotection to the region, and to ensure multiple,compatible use of resources, Congress createdthe Florida Key National Marine Sanctuary(FKNMS or Sanctuary) in 1990 (Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act,Pub. L. 101-605). The National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), under theU.S. Department of Commerce, administers thisand other National Marine Sanctuaries. TheSanctuary encompasses over 9800 square kilo-meters (km2) of coastal and oceanic waters andsubmerged lands (USDOC, 2000), and is man-aged under cooperative agreement between theState of Florida and NOAA.

NOAA implemented a comprehensivemanagement plan for the Sanctuary in 1997 thatoutlined specific marine resource conservationstrategies. One of these strategies, marine zon-ing, is used in the Sanctuary to protect diversehabitats important for maintaining naturalresources and ecosystem functions, whileallowing compatible activities to continue.

The zoning network established by theSanctuary was the first of its kind in the U.S.A.(Murray et al., 1999). Five types of zones

Figure 1. The marine zoning plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ecological Reserves, SanctuaryPreservation Areas, and Research Only Areas, labeled below, are fully protected zones (graphic courtesy of KevinKirsch/FKNMS).


At the core of Tortugas 2000 was a 25-member working group that included SanctuaryAdvisory Council members, stakeholders, andgovernment agency representatives (Table 1).The Working Group ensured that all con-stituents and agencies with an interest in orconcern over activities in the Tortugas werepresent during the design phase. A key agencypartner was the National Park Service due totheir trusteeship of the Dry Tortugas NationalPark, a 259-km2 park that is surrounded by, butjurisdictionally separate from, the Sanctuary.The Park Service’s involvement in the design ofthe reserve was critical because of the impor-tant shallow water coral reef resources foundwithin the park and the connectivity of thoseresources with surrounding Sanctuary waters(Figure 1).

The Tortugas 2000 Working Group wascharged with reviewing available scientific andsocioeconomic information and making a rec-ommendation to NOAA on the size, shape, andplacement of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.A professional facilitator guided the WorkingGroup, which over the course of 13 months metfive times to define operating goals, agree toground rules, develop and weight criteria forthe reserve, evaluate draft boundaries, and rec-ommend a preferred boundary (Table 2).

METHODS FOR INTEGRATINGSCIENCE INTO THE DESIGNPROCESS

The design of the Tortugas EcologicalReserve was an iterative, dynamic process

in which the Working Group began with a foun-dation of knowledge on the Tortugas region andthen learned as a group about various attributesof the region as information became available.

Because of its remoteness, there wasnot a great deal of widely shared knowledgeabout the Tortugas among the Florida Keyscommunity when the Working Group first con-vened in April 1998. Two types of informationavailable to the Working Group and public atthat time were traditional knowledge from fish-ermen and scientific knowledge from the fewresearchers who had worked in the area. Bothtypes of information were valued equally in thedesign process and were purposefully incorpo-rated into it.

Working Group

The most critical method by which sci-ence was integrated into reserve design wasthrough the inclusion of scientists on theWorking Group who were both knowledgeableabout the Tortugas region and about marinereserves. Two types of scientists were repre-sented on the Working Group: research scien-

to NOAA. Phase II (completed by May 2000)incorporated that design into a DraftSupplemental Environmental ImpactStatement/Supplemental Management Plan andsolicited public comments on the proposal, ful-filling National Environmental Policy Actrequirements. During Phase III, NOAA respond-ed to public comments and released a FinalSupplemental Environmental ImpactStatement/Final Supplemental ManagementPlan in November 2000. Federal and state rulesto implement the reserve were also developed.

Name Affiliation

Dr. James Bohnsack* NOAA Fisheries

Dr. Robert Brock** National Park Service

Mr. John Brownlee Saltwater Sportsman magazine–recreational fishing

Maj. Bruce Buckson Florida Marine Patrol

Mr. Billy Causey Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Dr. Felicia Coleman* Florida State University and Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council

Mr. Ed Conklin Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

Mr. Ben Cowie-Haskell Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Ms. Fran Decker Citizen

Mr. Don DeMaria Commercial spearfishermen

Mr. Richard Diaz Commercial lobster trapper

Dr. Nicholas Funicelli** U.S. Geological Survey

Mr. Peter Gladding Commercial handliner

Mr. Andy Griffiths Commercial charter fishing

Ms. Deborah Harrison World Wildlife Fund

Mr. David Holtz The Ocean Conservancy

Mr. Anthony Iarocci Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc.

Dr. Joseph Kimmel** NOAA Fisheries

Mr. Don Kincaid Citizen- recreational diving

Mr. Peter Moffitt South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Dr. Erich Mueller* Mote Marine Laboratory

Dr. Russell Nelson** Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Mr. Gene Proulx NOAA Office of Law Enforcement

Mr. Alex Stone ReefKeeper International- recreational diving

BMC Bob Thomas U.S. Coast Guard

Table 1. The Tortugas 2000 Working Group. Research scientists are denoted by a singleasterisk and research administrators are denoted with a double asterisk.


Working Group then used the information indeveloping design criteria.

Additional information

Sanctuary staff also provided eachWorking Group member with information rele-vant to reserve design throughout the process.This included peer-reviewed science papers,definition and regulations for an ecologicalreserve from the FKNMS management plan(USDOC, 1996), color GIS maps, design criteria,newspaper articles on the Tortugas process,and meeting summaries.

Geographic Information Systems

During the design process severaltypes of spatial data from the region were beingcompiled simultaneously by different investiga-tors. For example, while biologists were col-lecting fish distribution and benthic habitatdata the economists were collecting data onhuman uses. Geographic Information Systems(GIS) data served a critical role by integratingthese datasets into maps of the same scale(Franklin et al., 2001). A uniform frameworkwas established using a spatial grid of approxi-mately one square nautical mile (1 degree lati-tude by 1 degree longitude). This cell size waschosen because it adequately captured thescale of human activity and ecological phenom-ena (Figure 2). Digital versions of NOAA nauti-cal charts were used as base layers in GISmaps, displaying the relevant data in a familiarcontext for fishermen and other Tortugas users.

This framework proved very useful fora number of reasons. First and most important-ly, manipulating grid cells or raster data in GISfor drafting boundary scenarios was easy andstraightforward as compared to manipulationsof polygons or vector data. Secondly, becausethe grid cell framework was aligned with merid-ians, the reserve alternatives were also, result-ing in straight-edged boundaries that wouldfacilitate compliance with and enforcement ofthe reserve. Lastly, the one square nautical milegrid cell was a common mapping unit that mostWorking Group members were familiar with,

tists who worked in the Tortugas and agencyscientists who represented their organization’smanagement authority in the region.

The Working Group was structuredsuch that all members, including scientists, hadan equal voice in the decision-making process.The Working Group was the sole deliberativebody dedicated to designing the reserve andmaking a recommendation to the SAC; no otheradvisory bodies made recommendations on anyaspect of the reserve. Integrating scientific andtraditional knowledge at the Working Grouptable encouraged accountability of members tothe group and to their constituents.

Information provided to the Working

Group

White papers

Three white papers were commis-sioned by NOAA and the National Park Serviceat the beginning of the reserve process to pro-vide the Working Group (and, through theTortugas 2000 website, any other interested par-ties) with a site characterization for the region,including papers on oceanography (Lee et al.,1999), fish and fisheries (Schmidt et al., 1999),and benthic habitats (Jaap et al., 1998). The sitecharacterization synthesized the best availableinformation on the topic and, in the case of thefisheries section, served as a catalyst for devel-oping a unified spatial information systemincorporating several disparate datasets. Thesepapers were invaluable in integrating scienceinto reserve design by definitively clarifyingquestions from the Working Group and public,making facts and imagery about the regionwidely accessible, and laying the foundation foran Environmental Impact Statement for thereserve.

Informational forums

The Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary convened two informational forums,the goals of which were to: (1) present toWorking Group members and other attendeesthe best available scientific information on theecological and socioeconomic aspects of thearea, (2) provide an outlet for community mem-bers to share their traditional knowledge andexperience in the region, and (3) inform theWorking Group about the area’s uses. Forexample, the forums highlighted for theWorking Group the importance of the Tortugasas a spawning area for several fish and inverte-brate species, the exponential increase infecundity with growth in fish (PDT, 1990), theimportance of the Dry Tortugas as a nesting sitefor pelagic seabirds, the value of the area toshrimpers and dive charter operators, and theexcellent water quality of the region as com-pared to the rest of the Florida Keys. The

Table 2. Summary of the Working Group meetings to design the reserve (USDOC, 2000).

Date Purpose

April 1998 (2 days) Ecological forum and setting ground rules for groupprocess

June 1998 (1 day) Socioeconomic forum

February 1999 (2 days) Criteria development

April 1999 (2 days) Boundary alternative development

May 1999 (1 day) Selection of preferred alternative


nus of the Florida Keys archipelago and abut-ting the Dry Tortugas National Park (Figure 1).The reserve is comprised of two sections:Tortugas North at 312 km2, and Tortugas Southat 206 km2, with a total area of 518 km2.Tortugas North protects a deepwater (30–50m)coral bank called Tortugas Bank, a portion ofwhich was dubbed Sherwood Forest because ofthe abundant mushroom-shaped coral headsfound there (Figure 4). Tortugas South protectsRiley’s Hump, a low relief coral bank thatserves as a spawning aggregation site for sever-al fish species and some deepwater habitat (50–600m) important to a variety of ecologicallyand commercially important fishes and inverte-brates.

All of the available scientific informa-tion on the Tortugas was given to the WorkingGroup and made publicly available through themethods described above. An interesting resultof widely sharing scientific data and informa-tion among the Working Group members andpublic was that some of the scientific informa-tion proved to be more influential in the reserve

providing a comfortable frame of reference forquickly judging distances or the spatial extentof a proposal.

An example of the utility of GIS in thisprocess was the mapping of fish spawningsites. The Tortugas region, particularly Riley’sHump, has long been known to fishermen as asite of several fish spawning aggregations.Some of these sites were disclosed toresearchers and subsequently mapped for thefirst time for use in the Tortugas 2000 process(Figure 3). These sites are further described inthe results section of this paper.

RESULTS OF THE SCIENCE-DRIVEN RESERVE DESIGNPROCESS

The final outcome of the Tortugas 2000process was the implementation of the

Tortugas Ecological Reserve in July 2001. TheTortugas Ecological Reserve is located 225 kmwest of Key West, Florida, at the western termi-

Figure 2. Example of a user map showing the location of recreational fishing effort in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve studyarea . Also depicted is the one-degree latitude by one-degree longitude grid cell framework used as a tool in the design ofthe reserve (USDOC, 2000).


ment of a battery-powered drifter from one ofseveral locations along the Southwest Floridacoast. Current-driven movements of eachdrifter are tracked by satellite for severalmonths, providing a time-series plot of regionalcirculation patterns. The drifter track data pro-vided a powerful visual aid for demonstratingthe oceanographic connectivity of the Tortugasregion with not only the Florida Keys, but alsowith the southwest coast of Florida and thesoutheast coast of the U.S.A. (Figure 5).

The implication of this connectivitywas the potential for advective transport of fishand invertebrate larvae to vast areas down-stream and upstream of the Tortugas. It wasespecially important to demonstrate toTortugas fishermen the potential for larvaltransport, as they were faced with the possibili-ty of giving up productive fishing groundsthrough the creation of the reserve.

Drifter vials

Also reinforcing the Tortugas’ poten-tial as a source area for fish larvae was a driftbottle study by Domeier and colleagues, where1000 small glass vials were released on Riley’sHump during a full moon in May 1999 to coin-cide with mutton snapper spawning (Domeier,1999). The vials were weighted slightly to floatjust below the surface, acting as crude proxiesfor snapper larvae, and contained instructions

design process than other information. In thiscontext we will use the term cornerstone sci-ence to refer to scientific information that ispersuasive and therefore readily influencespublic policy. In developing criteria and objec-tives for the reserve, the steps of which aredescribed later in this section, Working Groupmembers reiterated what science was mostimportant to their decision-making. The authorsadditionally received feedback from theWorking Group when the information was pre-sented.

Cornerstone science resulting fromthe reserve process fell into several broad cate-gories, each with varying influence on the ulti-mate design of the area protected. Followingare specific descriptions of cornerstone scienceused throughout the design process, with anexplanation of why each was particularly per-suasive in the public debate over creating thereserve.

Oceanographic Information

Satellite-tracked drifters

Dr. Tom Lee of the University ofMiami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine andAtmospheric Sciences has been studying theFlorida Current and related gyres for decades(Lee et al., 1994). One of his primary techniquesfor doing this is through the monthly deploy-

Figure 3. Location of several fish spawning sites in the Tortugas region (denoted by dark gray circles). A NOAA nauticalchart forms the base layer for the map, hence the extraneous data depicted (data courtesy of K. Lindeman).


Fish Spawning Aggregations

Several species of commercially andrecreationally important reef fish aggregate tospawn at specific times of the year in the FloridaKeys and Tortugas, particularly snappers andgroupers (Lindeman et al., 2000). The locationsand timing of these events are well known bysome fishermen, who often target the aggrega-tions in order to increase their catch (Lindemanet al., 2000). In some cases, aggregations havebeen decimated for so long they no longer exist(P. Gladding, pers. comm.). The snapper andgrouper spawning aggregations that still occur inthe Tortugas are likely due to the area’s remote-ness and possibly the seasonal fishing restric-tions that have existed at Riley’s Hump for sever-al species since the mid-1990s. Historically, fish-ermen have been reluctant to reveal the locationand timing of these events. However, after seeingaggregations diminish despite fishing restrictionsin the area, several leading fishermen revealedthe existence of known sites to scientists in aneffort to help protect them (Figure 3). Thesedata reinforced drifter track data, providing auseful image of the reserve’s potential to serveas a source of larvae to surrounding regions.These data also revealed that seasonal protec-tion of Riley’s Hump was not enough, and thatcontinuous protection with a reserve was need-ed as several spawning aggregations were stillbeing heavily fished.

Fish Distribution and Abundance

Science showing the consequences ofoverfishing also influenced public opinion inthe reserve design process. Dr. James Bohnsack(NOAA Fisheries), a member of the WorkingGroup, and Dr. Jerry Ault (University of Miami)shared their research on the status of the snap-per-grouper complex (73 species managed bythe South Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil) in the Florida Keys. The data showedthat the majority of the snapper/grouper com-plex (13 of 16 grouper species, 7 of 12 snapperspecies, and 2 of 5 grunt species) were belowthe 30 percent spawning potential ratio federalstandard - a sign of serial overfishing (Ault etal., 1998). During the formulation of thereserve, Ault and Bohnsack conducted fishery-independent diver surveys in the Tortugas toascertain the status of fish stocks specific tothat region. Their results confirmed for theWorking Group that stocks were healthier inthe Tortugas than in the remaining FloridaKeys, but were still in an overfished state(Schmidt et al., 1999).

Benthic Habitat Maps and Photographs

Photographs of benthic habitats, par-ticularly coral banks, were perhaps the mostvisually influential data presented to the

for the finder on how to report vial recovery. Atotal of 114 returns enabled the scientists tomap the terminal location of the vials, provid-ing a rough picture of larval dispersal potential(Figure 6). The majority of the recoveries werefrom the middle Florida Keys, 390 km east ofthe Tortugas, and some recoveries were report-ed from as far away as 1500 km. The durationof time between deployment and recoveryroughly approximated the planktonic larvalduration of mutton snapper (~30 days)(Lindeman et al., 2000). This simple study fur-ther bolstered evidence that the Tortugas mayserve as a source of fish larvae.

Figure 4. Underwater photograph showing the unique plate-like and mushroom-like coralmorphology of Tortugas Bank (USDOC, 2000).

Figure 5. Track showing path of drifter #23113 that was launched in October 1998 along thesouthwest coast of Florida by the University of Miami. The drifter was entrained by theTortugas gyre and the coastal countercurrent for three full cycles before running out of bat-tery power in January 1999 (image courtesy of T. Lee/Univ. of Miami).


shows the resulting three criteria profiles withtheir assigned weighting. Of interest is that allof the criteria profiles included ecologicalobjectives in their top four criteria, despitebeing developed by different interests seated atthe Working Group table.

Working Group. These photographs document-ed very high coral cover (>30 percent), excel-lent water clarity (>100’), rare corals(Antipathes spp.), and unique coral morpholo-gies (Figure 4). The actual extent of this richhabitat was unknown during the WorkingGroup’s deliberations. Subsequently, using ben-thic habitat data from a variety of sourcesincluding side scan sonar and diver surveys(Franklin et al., in press), it became clear thatthe extent of this deep coral bank habitat wasmuch larger than the one square nautical mileportrayed in early planning maps. These datafurthered knowledge that the reserve studyarea contained fragile coral habitats unique tothe Florida Keys.

Socioeconomics

Dr. Vernon Leeworthy, chief economistfor the National Marine Sanctuary Program,and his colleagues designed and implemented asocioeconomic survey of all users of theTortugas study area. Through fishing licensedatabases they identified a population of 110commercial fishermen who used the Tortugasregion as their primary fishing grounds.Leeworthy then contracted two experts alreadyknown to the fishermen to conduct the surveys.They were able to obtain confidential data fromapproximately 95 of the 110 fishermen on thelocation and quantity of catch by species, fish-ing costs, and their socioeconomic profile(Leeworthy and Wiley, 2000). Using these data,detailed maps were produced in GIS thatshowed the location of various uses and thelevel of use in terms of pounds of catch or per-son-days of time (as possible maximum valuesfor each cell versus absolute values) (Figure 2).

The data and user maps were accept-ed by the Working Group and fishermen to beaccurate reflections of their activities for thegiven year. These data and maps were extreme-ly important in the reserve design processbecause they quantified the potential impact ofany given proposal on each user group.

THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE ONRESERVE DESIGN CRITERIA ANDBOUNDARY SELECTION

Based on the scientific information availableto them, the Working Group developed a

set of criteria for defining the objectives of thereserve and to aid in the selection of reserveboundaries. Table 3 lists the final criteria withtheir objectives. Four of the six criteria hadecological objectives that clearly reflected thecornerstone science made available to theWorking Group.

The Working Group then weighted thecriteria through a consensus exercise. Table 4

Figure 6. Recovery locations of vials released on Riley’s Hump in May 1999. These vialsserved as proxies for mutton snapper larvae (image courtesy of M. Domeier/Pfleger Instituteof Environmental Research).

Criterion Objective

Biodiversity and habitat Try to choose an area that would contain thegreatest level of biological diversity and widerrange of contiguous habitats.

Fisheries sustainability Try to choose an area that would provide thegreatest benefit in protecting and enhancingimportant fish species, especially those that are rare, threatened, or depleted.

- spawning sites Try to choose an area that would include signifi-cant fish spawning aggregation sites.

- full life cycles Try to choose an area that would encompass allthe habitats required to support the full life cycleof commercially and recreationally important fish.

Sufficient size Try to choose a boundary that would encompassan area that is large enough to meet the criterialisted above and to achieve the potential benefitsand goals of an ecological reserve.

Socioeconomic impacts Try to choose an area and craft recommendationsthat would serve to minimize adverse socio-eco-nomic impacts on established users of resourcesin the area.

Reference area/monitoring Try to choose an area that would serve as a refer-ence or control area to facilitate the monitoring ofanthropogenic impacts and to evaluate the conse-quences of establishing the ecological reserve.

Enforcement/compliance Try to choose a boundary and craft regulationsthat would facilitate enforcement and encouragecompliance.

Table 3. Final design criteria developed by the Working Group (USDOC, 2000).

selection of a compromise alternative that suffi-ciently addressed all of the criteria andaddressed the needs of both the extractive andnon-extractive users on the Working Group.The Working Group adopted the compromisealternative by consensus as the recommendedpreferred alternative for the TortugasEcological Reserve, and forwarded this recom-mendation to the FKNMS for consideration.

Clearly, the criteria the Working Groupmembers chose to design the reserve and, moreimportantly, the weighting they assigned tothose criteria, reflected the quality of scientificand traditional information made available to

The three criteria profiles were usedto develop a set of boundary alternatives forthe reserve. In this step of the design process,Working Group members again revisited thescientific information and traditional knowl-edge available to them. The Working Grouprelied heavily on the GIS-based map products,described previously in this paper, to visualizeborders and estimate to what extent each alter-native met the reserve criteria. Initially twelveboundary alternatives were crafted by theWorking Group, with two alternatives thenselected as a point of departure for further dis-cussions. These discussions led to the final


Table 4. Three criteria weighting profiles developed by the Working Group (USDOC, 2000).

Criteria Weighting Profile “A” Criteria Weighting Profile “B” Criteria Weighting Profile “C”

Mid-range Consensus Less Protective More Protective

Biodiversity and Habitat 27% Fisheries Sustainability 25% Sufficient Size 50%

Fisheries Sustainability 26% Socioeconomic Impacts 25% Fisheries Sustainability 20%

Enforcement & Compliance 17% Enforcement & Compliance 20% Biodiversity and Habitat 15%

Sufficient Size 16% Biodiversity and Habitat 15% Reference Area and Monitoring 5%

Socioeconomic Impacts 9% Reference Area and Monitoring 10% Enforcement & Compliance 5%

Reference Area and Monitoring 5% Sufficient Size 5% Socioeconomic Impacts 5%

Total 100% Total 100% Total 100%

Table 5. The relative importance of science to various aspects of the reserve design.

Cornerstone science Importance for design Importance in influencing public opinion

(• specific study)

Benthic habitats Location of coral banks Beauty and fragility of coral

• GIS maps of habitat Presence of rareextent corals and other invertebrates

• underwaterphotographs of coralhabitat

Fish Location of spawning Absence of large fishaggregations

• fish larvae dispersal Potential for future benefits from spillover and larval dispersal

• fish spawning aggregations

• fish distribution

Oceanography Area of greatest advective Connectivity between regions indicating potential potential for future benefits from spillover and larval

• satellite tracked drifters dispersal

• satellite imagery

Socio-economics Where uses occur Potential impacts

them during the process. These criteria led tothe selection of a final boundary for the reservethat was rooted in the best available data onthe Tortugas region, thereby maximizing thepotential for successful implementation of thereserve. The Working Group’s consensus agree-ment on a recommended preferred alternativeset the stage for the many approvals requiredfrom the seven state and federal agencies thatwould oversee the implementation of differingjurisdictional components of the reserve. Fullimplementation of the reserve occurred on July 1, 2001.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As the architect of the Tortugas 2000process, it was the Sanctuary’s goal to thor-

oughly integrate science into reserve design toensure that the various decisions made byWorking Group members were based on accu-rate knowledge. Cornerstone science played twokey roles in the reserve process: (1) it influencedwhere lines were drawn on maps, and (2) itinfluenced the opinion of the broader public notdirectly involved in the Working Group delibera-tions (Table 5). Oceanographic information wasextremely beneficial in demonstrating the con-nectivity between regions and the potential foraccrual of downstream benefits in terms ofincreased fish catches and improved speciesdiversity; however, because of its dynamicnature, it was not particularly helpful in the pre-cise siting of the reserve. Benthic habitat mapswere critical for ensuring that draft boundariescaptured the extent of the most sensitive coralhabitat. Underwater photographs of coralcolonies were highly influential in that theydemonstrated the beauty, fragility, and unique-ness of the deepwater corals of the region. Dataon fish distribution was helpful on a broad scalein identifying the relative importance of theTortugas region to the entire Florida Keys archi-pelago. Maps of spawning aggregations werecritical to the fishing representatives on theWorking Group, as they wanted to ensure thatthese sites were protected. This data, in conjunc-tion with the map of drifter vial recoveries, alsoinfluenced public opinion by demonstrating thepotential for dispersal of fish larvae to surround-ing fishing grounds. Socioeconomic informationproved vital at several levels. First, it debunkedrumors about excessive economic costs of theproposed reserve and put those costs in perspec-tive relative to the value of other economic sec-tors and fisheries. Secondly, the high-resolutiondata showed exactly where uses were occurring,allowing Working Group members to avoidheavy-use areas when drafting boundaries.

Several valuable lessons were learnedas a result of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve


process about the importance of integrating sci-ence into management decisions. First andforemost, it was essential to begin the designprocess with a common foundation of knowl-edge among all decision-makers. Secondly,making the same knowledge available to thelocal community and the general publicenhanced interest in and support for the even-tual decisions made about the reserve. Internetposting of technical papers, maps, and othervisual data was particularly useful in thisregard; however, the more significant vehicle bywhich the Sanctuary shared scientific and tradi-tional knowledge was through the information-al forums that were held at the beginning of thedesign phase. Given the broad dissemination ofscientific information related to reserve designit was important for the data to be easily inter-preted and understood by a variety of audi-ences. GIS maps based on familiar units andscales were extremely helpful for visualizingreserve boundaries and determining how alter-natives would meet specific criteria and affectcertain users. Lastly, it was important that sci-ence experts were seated at the table withother relevant stakeholders from project incep-tion. Scientific data and research results areimportant to a reserve design process, butshould be considered alongside traditionalknowledge provided by users of the area. Also,when scientific experts participate directly inthe process they are able to answer questionsand advise on technical matters as needed. Thisdirect exchange of information serves to buildtrust and engenders a sense of accountabilityamong the Working Group members and thepublic.

In the contentious debate over marinereserves, policymakers will increasinglydemand that decisions be based on the bestavailable science. The success of the TortugasEcological Reserve process demonstrates thatscience can play a pivotal role in the design of amarine reserve by a multi-stakeholder group.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank Billy Causey,

Superintendent of the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary, for the opportunity to craftand guide the Tortugas 2000 project. We arealso grateful to the reviewers of this manuscriptfor their helpful comments. This is StellwagenBank National Marine Sanctuary contributionnumber 03-03.

REFERENCESAult, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, and G.A. Meester. 1998. A

retrospective (1979-1996) multi-species assess-ment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys.Fish. Bull. 96: 395–414.

Keys/Key West: Updates for Years 1996–97 and1997–98. Linking the Economy and Environmentof Florida Keys/Florida Bay Report. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SilverSpring, MD, USA. 20 pp.

Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. 2000. ProposedTortugas 2000 Ecological Reserve: FinalSocioeconomic Impact Analysis of Alternatives.National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration/National Ocean Service, SilverSpring, MD, USA. 157 pp.

Lindeman, K.C., R. Pugliese, G.T. Waugh, and J.S.Ault. 2000. Developmental patterns within a multi-species reef fishery: management applications foressential fish habitats and protected areas. Bull.

Mar. Sci. 66: 929–957.Mascia, M.B. 2001. Designing Effective Coral Reef

Marine Protected Areas: A Synthesis Report Basedon Presentations at the 9th International CoralReef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, October, 2000.Report to the IUCN- World Protected Areas-Marine, Gland, Switzerland.

Murray, S.N., R.F. Ambrose, J.A. Bohnsack, L.W.Botsford, M.H. Carr, G.E. Davis, P.K. Dayton, D.Gotshall, D.R. Gunderson, M.A. Hixon, J.Lubchenco, M. Mangel, A. MacCall, D.A. McArdle,J.C. Ogden, J. Roughgarden, R.M. Starr, M.J. Tegner,and M.M. Yoklavich. 1999. No-take reserve net-works: Sustaining fishery populations and marineecosystems. Fisheries November 1999: 11–24.

National Research Council. 2000. Marine ProtectedAreas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 272 pp.

Plan Development Team (PDT). 1990. The Potentialof Marine Fishery Reserves for Reef FishManagement in the U.S. Southern Atlantic (J. A.Bohnsack, Subcommittee Chair). NOAA TechnicalMemorandum NMFS-SEFC-261. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration/National MarineFisheries Service/Southeast Fisheries Center,Miami, FL, USA. 45 pp.

Palumbi, S. 2003. Marine reserves: A tool for ecosys-tem management and conservation. Report to thePew Oceans Commission, Washington, D.C. 45 pp.http://www.pewoceans.org/oceanfacts/2003/01/13/fact_31395.asp

Potthoff, T. and W. J. Richards. 1970. Juvenile bluefintuna, Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus), and otherscombrids taken by terns in the Dry Tortugas,Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 20: 389–413.

Roberts, C. 1997. Connectivity and management ofCaribbean coral reefs. Science 278: 1454–1457.

Salm, R.V. and J.R. Clark. 1984. Marine and Coastal

Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and

Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Schmidt, T. W., J.S. Ault, J.A. Bohnsack, J. Luo, S.G.

Smith, D.E. Harper. 1999. Site characterization forthe Dry Tortugas region: Fisheries and essentialhabitats. Final report to the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary and National Park Service. 113 pp. http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/tortugas/studyarea/ault.html

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1996.Strategy for Stewardship: Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I–II.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/Sanctuaries and ReservesDivision, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 319 pp.http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/fmp1.pdfhttp://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/fmp2.pdf

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack, S.L. Miller, S.G. Smith, J. Luo,and G.A. Meester. 2001. Baseline multispecies coralreef fish stock assessment for the Dry Tortugas.Final report to the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary and National Park Service. 118 pp.

Causey, B.D., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J.R.Garcia, J. Higgins, W. Jaap, C.A. Matos, G.P.Schmahl, C. Rogers, M.W. Miller, and D.D.Turgeon. 2000. Status of Coral Reefs in the U.S.Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas,Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Navassa. In:C. Wilkinson, ed. Status of Coral Reefs of the

World: 2000. Australian Institute of MarineScience, Queensland, Australia, p. 239–259.

Delaney, J. 2003. Community Capacity Building in theDesignation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.Gulf and Caribbean Research 14(2):163–169.

Domeier, M. 1999. Small reef in Dry Tortugas may besource of snapper for much of Florida.http://www.pier.org/rs_mutton-1.html.

Franklin, E. C. 2001. The role of GIS in planning amarine ecological reserve in the Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary, USA. Proceedings ofthe 2nd Biennial Coastal Geotools Conference,Charleston, SC, January 8–11, 2001.NOAA/CSC/20114-CD-ROM. NOAA CoastalServices Center, Charleston, SC.

Franklin, E. C., J.S. Ault, S.G. Smith, J. Luo, G.A.Meester, G.A. Diaz, M. Chiappone, D.W. Swanson,S. L. Miller, J. A. Bohnsack. In press. Benthic habi-tat mapping in the Tortugas Region, Florida.Marine Geodesy 26: 1–2.

Gubbay, S. 1995. Marine Protected Areas Principles

and Techniques for Management. Chapman andHall, London, UK.

Hoffmeister, J.E. 1974. Land from the sea: The geolo-

gic story of South Florida. The University ofMiami Press, Coral Gables, FL.

Jaap, W.C., J. Wheaton, J. Fourqurean. 1998. DryTortugas Benthic Community Characterization.Final report to the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary, Marathon, FL. http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/tortugas/studyarea/jaap.html

Jameson, S., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley. 2002. Thethree screen doors: Can marine “protected” areasbe effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:1177–1183.

Kenchington, R.A. and B.E.T. Hudson. 1988. Coral

Reef Management Handbook 2nd ed. UNESCO,Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water Quality Concerns in theFlorida Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions. EPA904-R-99-005. Water Quality ProtectionProgram/Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryReport. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Marathon, FL, USA. 90 pp.

Lee, T.N., M.E. Clarke, E. Williams, A.F. Szmant, andT. Berger. 1994. Evolution of the Tortugas gyre andits influence on recruitment in the Florida Keys.Bull. Mar. Sci. 54: 621–646.

Lee, T.N., E. Johns, D. Wilson, and E. Williams. 1999.Site characterization for the Tortugas Region:Physical oceanography and recruitment. Finalreport to the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary, Marathon, FL.http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/tortugas/stud-yarea/lee.html

Leeworthy, V.R. and P. Vanasse. 1999. EconomicContribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida


U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). 2000.Strategy for Stewardship: Tortugas EcologicalReserve Final Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement/Final SupplementalManagement Plan. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration/National OceanService/Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,Silver Spring, MD, USA. 310 pp.http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/FinalFSEIS.pdf


PAPER Integrating Science into the Design of the Tortugas ...cahn/tortuga.pdfMETHODS FOR INTEGRATING...

Documents

Transcript of PAPER Integrating Science into the Design of the Tortugas ...cahn/tortuga.pdfMETHODS FOR INTEGRATING...