|
The focus of the Working Group meeting held in Key West on February 4-5, 1999 was to draft criteria to be used to evaluate proposed boundary alternatives which will be discussed at the Working Group meeting scheduled for April. The following is a DRAFT synopsis of the criteria developed at this meeting.
If you are a Tortugas 2000 Working Group Member, click over to the Working Group Server to comment on these criteria. (Link is under construction as of 2/17/99)
Proposed Draft Criteria for Evaluating Various Options for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve
(The bold statements which follow are a DRAFT attempt to integrate the essence of the bullets listed beneath them. Small breakout groups developed these items at the February Working Group meeting. These statements can be a starting point for consideration and further discussion at the next set of meetings before initiating the task of developing various preliminary boundary options.)
BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT: Try to choose an area that would contain the greatest level of biological diversity and that would encompass a wide range of different contiguous habitats.
- Areas of maximum biological diversity and contiguous habitat (approximate ranking = 1st)
- Diverse Area: Choose an area that encompasses a wide variety of essential habitats. Should include Sherwood Forest. (approximate ranking = 1st)
- Site should contain full range of habitat types (including rare types) contained within study area: maximize connectivity among habitat types, maximize included biodiversity, and take into account physical oceanography. (approximate ranking = 1st)
- Consider requesting inclusion of areas adjacent to FKNMS (approximate ranking = 4th)
FISHERIES SUSTAINABILITY: Try to choose an area that would provide the greatest benefit in protecting and enhancing commercially and recreationally important fish species, especially those that are rare, threatened, or depleted.
- Protect and enhance commercial fish and recreationally important species with emphasis on rare, threatened and depleted marine species (approximate ranking = 2nd)
- SPAWNING AREAS: Try to choose an area that would include significant fish spawning aggregation sites.
- Spawning Areas: Must include spawning areas to protect spawning aggregations of fish. Known spawning areas include Riley's Hump. (approximate ranking = 3rd)
- Ecological Reserve should include known fish spawning aggregation areas. (no ranking)
- FULL LIFE CYCLES: Try to choose an area that would encompass all the habitats required to support the full lifecycle of commercially and recreationally important fish.
- Identify and include specific areas (habitats) important to life cycle completion, particularly areas of spawning aggregations. (approximate ranking = 4th)
- Implement areas with physical oceanographic characteristics that will enhance their role in broadcasting spawned marine life. (approximate ranking = 6th)
SUFFICIENT SIZE: Try to choose boundaries that would encompass an area that is large enough to meet the criteria listed above and to achieve the potential benefits and goals of an ecological reserve.
- Size: Sufficient size to encompass diverse area and protect a significant amount of habitat and fauna. (approximate ranking = 2nd)
- Size Counts: Include ecosystem components necessary to ensure internal structural integrity and functional stability, in as much as possible. (approximate ranking = 3rd)
- Size and design should produce fisheries benefits both inside and outside the ER. (approximate ranking = 5th)
- Size must be consistent with the definition of ecological reserve. Important features must be buffered. (no ranking)
ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES: Try to allow only those activities in the Ecological Reserve that would be compatible with achieving its goals.
- No direct, intentional extraction of resident resources: even allowed uses should be controlled by limiting number of visitors (i.e. carrying capacity). (approximate ranking = 1st)
- Regulations: must be consistent with reaching reserve goals. (approximate ranking = 6th)
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS: Try to choose an area and craft recommendations that would serve to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts on established users of resources in the area.
- Consider socioeconomic impacts on users from displacement (approximate ranking = 3rd)
- Leave areas open to allow access to fishing opportunities protected from all prevailing wind conditions (approximate ranking = 6th)
MONITORING: Try to choose an area that would facilitate the monitoring and evaluation of the consequences of establishing the Ecological Reserve.
- Measurement: Establish reliable and ongoing method of gauging success of reserve's goals. Must take into account areas within and outside of reserve. (approximate ranking = 5th)
ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE: Try to choose boundaries and craft regulations that would facilitate enforcement and encourage compliance.
- Enforceability: Square or rectangular zone with straight lines based on latitude and longitude. (approximate ranking = 4th)
- Enforcement must be practical to accomplish: easily defined (linear) boundaries and penalties should be substantial. (approximate ranking = 5th)
- Size and design should ease enforcement and encourage compliance. (approximate ranking = 7th)
- Remote monitoring should be used to simplify and improve data collection, monitoring, management and enforcement. (no ranking)
- Boundaries should be straight lines (along latitudinal and longitudinal lines), and permanent in order to simplify monitoring and enforcement. (no ranking)
- Intent of regulations in reserve must be clear, and regulatory language should be written by professionals to eliminate ambiguity. (no ranking)
|
