Immersion Learning - The State of the Sanctuary

The State of the Sanctuary

Introduction

Manta rays. Shipwrecks. Coral reefs. Underwater archaeological sites. All of these can be found within the waters of the U.S. national marine sanctuary system. Each of the system's 14 marine protected areas is an underwater national park that protects a unique combination of living things and cultural resources. One of these marine protected areas is the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS).

Stetson Bank, West Flower Garden Bank, and East Flower Garden Bank are the three salt domes that make up the FGBNMS. Credit: Todd Viola

The FGBNMS protects three underwater salt domes in the Gulf of Mexico. These domes support a huge variety of living creatures, which in turn attract many people to the site. Fishermen are lured by the snapper and grouper around the banks. Scuba divers come to get an up-close look at the colorful corals, sponges, and hundreds of other animal and plant species that call the sanctuary home. And scientists come to conduct research and learn more about the sanctuary's amazing community of life.

Sanctuary staff members work on land and under water to protect the life in the sanctuary. And although protecting this life is their first priority, they also try to meet the needs of the many groups who use the sanctuary. Every so often, the staff conducts a review of the sanctuary's management plan. Reviewing the plan helps staff members find out how well they are managing the sanctuary and how they can improve. As part of the review process, staff members gather comments from key stakeholder communities as well as the general public. These comments play an important role as the management plan is updated and finalized.

This is where you come in. In late 2006, the FGBNMS staff began the management plan review process. The work will continue throughout 2007 and might last another year or more. The public - and that includes you! - can give input to the sanctuary staff during the entire review period.

In this WebQuest, you'll learn about the incredible resources of the FGBNMS. Then you'll come up with ideas for how to best protect those resources. You'll wrap things up by submitting the best ideas directly to the FGBNMS staff. By the time you complete the WebQuest, you will have made an important contribution to the management plan review process.

Go on to the Task section to find out how to get started!

Task

On February 1, 2007, the FGBNMS Advisory Council set up several working groups. Each working group addresses one of the priority issues facing the sanctuary. In this WebQuest, you will be a part of one of the following official working groups:

In reality, each working group includes members from one or more of the key stakeholder communities involved with the sanctuary. In this WebQuest, each person in your working group will represent a different stakeholder community.

In order to give good feedback to the FGBNMS staff members on your group's priority issue, you will first learn as much as you can about the issue. Then you will take a closer look at the issue from the perspective of your stakeholder community. Your goal is to help your working group develop three recommendations that will help the sanctuary better manage your group's priority issue. Your group will present the recommendations to the other working groups. Then, as a large group, you will select the best recommendation from each working group. You will submit these final recommendations directly to the FGBNMS.

FGBNMS Research Coordinator Emma Hickerson swims beneath a manta ray. Credit: Kaile Tsapis

Process

Explore the Management Plan Resources to learn about the FGBNMS and the management plan review process at the sanctuary.
Investigate the priority issue of your working group. Find out as much as you can about how the FGBNMS currently manages the issue. Use the Working Group Questions and Resources to help guide your research.
Each person in your working group should represent a different stakeholder community. Choose from the list below:
- Oil and Gas Industry
- Fishing (Commercial and Recreational)
- Diving (Operators and Divers)
- Research
- Conservation
Research how your chosen stakeholder community is involved with the Gulf of Mexico region and the FGBNMS. Use the Stakeholder Resources to help guide your research.
Think about your working group's priority issue from the perspective of your chosen stakeholder community. Develop three to five recommendations that you think would improve how the FGBNMS manages your group's priority issue. Each recommendation should be from the perspective of your stakeholder community.
Choose your top three recommendations. Write a three-word description, a one-sentence description, and a one-paragraph description for each recommendation. Also create an illustration and put together a bibliography of the sources that you used to research each recommendation. Use a copy of the Recommendation Form to organize each of your recommendations, and follow the Individual Recommendations Rubric to make sure that each form is clear and complete.
After each person in your working group has completed step 6, meet as a group to discuss all of the recommendations. As a working group, select the top three recommendations that you think would improve how the FGBNMS manages your group's priority issue. Your group will present these three recommendations to the rest of the working groups.
Plan a 5-10 minute group presentation that introduces your group's priority issue and summarizes the three recommendations that you have chosen to present. Each group member should plan to give part of the presentation. Include at least one visual aid to support your presentation. Follow the Group Presentation Rubric to make sure that your group's presentation is as successful as possible.
Give your presentation and pay close attention to the presentations of the other working groups.
Ask questions of the other working groups to learn more about their recommendations. Then use the Ballot Form to vote for the strongest recommendation from each working group. Use the "Explanation" line to explain the reasoning behind each of your votes.
Include the top-vote-getting recommendation from each working group in a final report, and submit the report to the FGBNMS (see Conclusion for the sanctuary's contact information).
Thank you for participating in the FGBNMS management plan review process!

Resources

Management Plan Resources

Credit: FGBNMS

Working Group Questions and Resources

Impacts from Visitor Use

Questions

Should the public be allowed to visit the FGBNMS or other marine protected areas? Why or why not?

What groups of people currently visit the FGBNMS?

What are some of the positive impacts of having visitors at the sanctuary? How could these positive impacts be increased?

What are some of the negative impacts of having visitors at the sanctuary? How could these negative impacts be decreased?

Resources

General

NOAA's Solutions to Specific Coral Reef Threats Web page

NOAA's National Coral Reef Action Strategy: Coral Reefs-Threatened Ecosystems PDF

FGBNMS

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary's Visiting Your Sanctuary Web page

NOAA's The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and Other Banks in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico PDF

Some visitors to the FGBNMS take beautiful underwater photos that they share with the sanctuary staff and the public. This photo of a spotted scorpionfish was taken by two regular visitors to the sanctuary. Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Protection of Additional Habitat in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico

Questions

How are national marine sanctuaries protected in ways that other regions of the ocean are not?
How have the boundaries of the FGBNMS changed over time?
What are the current boundaries of the FGBNMS? Should these boundaries be expanded to include additional nearby regions in the Gulf? Why or why not?
If new regions should be added, which regions should they be? Explain.

Resources

General

FGBNMS

Each red dot marks the location of a salt dome structure in or around the FGBNMS. Credit: Kathleen Cantner

Impacts from Fishing

Questions

What are some of the general impacts of fishing on coral reef ecosystems?

What kinds of fishing are allowed within the waters of the FGBNMS? What kinds of fishing are not allowed?

How do current fishing practices at the FGBNMS affect the balance of life in the sanctuary?

Are additional fishing regulations needed at the FGBNMS and/or in surrounding areas? Why or why not?

Resources

General

FGBNMS

Sometimes fishing rigs get caught on the reefs at the FGBNMS. Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Enforcement of Regulations

Questions

What are some of the challenges of solving crimes that take place far from shore and/or underwater?

What kinds of regulations are in place to protect the life at the FGBNMS?

How are the current regulations enforced?

Are the current regulations and enforcement methods enough to keep negative impacts to a minimum? How do you know? If current regulations and enforcement methods are not good enough, what changes are needed?

Resources

General

NOAA Fisheries' Office for Law Enforcement Web site
NOAA's National Coral Reef Action Strategy: Coral Reefs-Threatened Ecosystems PDF
The International Coral Reef Action Network's Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs PDF (see Preface-p. vi-for breakdown of threats and impacts to reefs)
The International Coral Reef Action Network's Effective Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) PDF

FGBNMS

The Coast Guard Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas, has worked with FGBNMS staff members to conduct flyovers of the sanctuary. Credit: FGBNMS

Education and Outreach

Questions

Why is education and outreach an important issue for marine protected areas?

What kinds of educational resources and outreach programs are currently offered by the FGBNMS?

Are there any important messages about the sanctuary that are not getting communicated by the current educational offerings? If so, what are they?

How could the sanctuary improve its educational resources and outreach programs?

Resources

General

FGBNMS

NOAA Ocean Explorer's Gulf of Mexico: Connecting the Dots Web page

Jean-Michel Cousteau Ocean Adventures' Guide to America's National Marine Sanctuaries: Flower Garden Banks Web site

Sanctuary staff members use a coral reef model to teach kids about marine ecosystems. Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Stakeholder Resources

Oli and Gas Industry

General

FGBNMS

This petroleum production platform is located within the boundaries of the FGBNMS. Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Fishing

General

FGBNMS

Two yellow-mouth groupers swim above brain coral and below a school of fish at the FGBNMS. Credit: FGBNMS/Schmahl

Diving

General

FGBNMS

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary's Visiting Your Sanctuary Web page

Texas GEMS' Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Web page

A diver swims above the reef at Stetson Bank. Credit: FGBNMS/Schmahl

Research

General

National Marine Sanctuaries' Research Web page
NOAA's National Coral Reef Action Strategy: Goal 3: Conduct Strategic Research PDF
The International Coral Reef Action Network's Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs PDF (see Preface-p. vi-for breakdown of threats and impacts to reefs)

FGBNMS

A diver takes a photograph at one of the repetitive photography stations at Stetson Bank.Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Conservation

General

FGBNMS

The coral in this photograph was damaged by an unknown source. Credit: Joyce and Frank Burek

Evaluation

Refer to the following rubrics as you complete your Recommendation Forms and plan your group presentation. Stay within the guidelines of "Excellent" to earn the maximum number of points!

Individual Recommendations Rubric
	5 = Poor	10 = Good	15 = Great	20 = Excellent
Required Elements	Most sections of the Recommendation Forms are incomplete for two or more of the recommendations.	Most sections of the Recommendation Forms are incomplete for one of the recommendations.	Most sections of the Recommendation Forms are complete for all three recommendations.	All sections of the Recommendation Forms are complete for all three recommendations.
Content, Part 1	Only one recommendation relates to the priority issue of the assigned FGBNMS working group or only one is from the perspective of the chosen stakeholder community.	At least two recommendations relate to the priority issue of the assigned FGBNMS working group and at least two are from the perspective of the chosen stakeholder community.	All recommendations relate to the priority issue of the assigned FGBNMS working group and at least two are from the perspective of the chosen stakeholder community.	All recommendations relate to the priority issue of the assigned FGBNMS working group and all are from the perspective of the chosen stakeholder community.
Content, Part 2	All of the recommendations are similar and at least one is not described clearly.	Two of the recommendations are similar and at least one is not described clearly.	Each of the three recommendations is unique and at least two are described clearly and in detail.	Each of the three recommendations is unique and all are described clearly and in detail.
Illustration	The illustration does not clearly support the written text for any of the recommendations.	The illustration clearly supports the written text for at least one of the recommendations.	The illustration clearly supports the written text for at least two of the recommendations.	The illustration clearly supports the written text for each recommendation.
Sources	Only one source is cited or no sources are cited for one or more recommendations. There might be some problems with proper bibliography format	Only one source is cited for one or more recommendations. There might be some problems with proper bibliography format.	At least two sources are cited for each recommendation. There are some problems with bibliography format.	At least two sources are cited in proper bibliography format for each recommendation.
Neatness	Most sections of the Recommendation Forms are messy and difficult to read.	Several sections of the Recommendation Forms are neat and easy to read.	Most sections of the Recommendation Forms are neat and easy to read.	All sections of the Recommendation Forms are neat and easy to read.
Group Participation	Individual had substantial trouble sharing ideas and listening to ideas of fellow working group members. Individual disrespected one or more group members.	Individual had substantial trouble sharing ideas and listening to ideas of fellow working group members. Individual showed respect for others at all times.	Individual had some trouble sharing ideas or listening to ideas of fellow working group members. Individual showed respect for others at all times.	Individual shared ideas and listened to ideas of fellow working group members. Individual showed respect for others at all times.

Group Presentation Rubric
	5 = Poor	10 = Good	15 = Great	20 = Excellent
Content, Part 1	No attempt to explain working group's priority issue.	Unclear explanation of working group's priority issue.	Somewhat detailed explanation of working group's priority issue.	Clear and detailed explanation of working group's priority issue.
Content, Part 2	Did not give a three-word description for the first recommendation, did not describe it in detail, and did not explain why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the first recommendation and did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the first recommendation or did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Gave a three-word description for the first recommendation and described it in detail. Persuasively explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue
Content, Part 3	Did not give a three-word description for the second recommendation, did not describe it in detail, and did not explain why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the second recommendation and did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the second recommendation or did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Gave a three-word description for the second recommendation and described it in detail. Persuasively explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.
Content, Part 4	Did not give a three-word description for the third recommendation, did not describe it in detail, and did not explain why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the third recommendation and did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Did not give a three-word description for the third recommendation or did not describe it in detail. Explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.	Gave a three-word description for the third recommendation and described it in detail. Persuasively explained why it would help the FGBNMS better manage the working group's priority issue.
Presentation Skills	Some group members mumbled or used inappropriate volume and some group members had a slouching posture or made infrequent eye contact.	Most group members used a clear voice and appropriate volume throughout. Some group members had a slouching posture or made infrequent eye contact.	Most group members used a clear voice, appropriate volume, upright posture, and frequent eye contact throughout.	All group members used a clear voice, appropriate volume, upright posture, and frequent eye contact throughout.
Visual Aid	Visual aid was messy or difficult to read. It did not include original text or drawings and it did not make part of the presentation clearer.	Visual aid was messy or difficult to read. It did not include original text or drawings or it did not make part of the presentation clearer.	Visual aid was neat and easy to read, but it did not include any original text or drawings. It did make part of the presentation clearer.	Visual aid was neat and easy to read. It included some original text or drawings. It also made part of the presentation clearer.
Participation	One or more group members did not participate at all in the presentation.	Two or more group members did not participate very much in the presentation.	One group member did not participate very much in the presentation.	All group members participated equally the in presentation.
Time	Presentation was less than 3 minutes.	Presentation was between 3 and 4 minutes.	Presentation was between 4 and 5 minutes or was not over within 10 minutes.	Presentation was between 5 and 10 minutes.

Conclusion

Congratulations on selecting a set of final recommendations to submit to the FGBNMS. Please send your final report to:

Attn: Management Plan Review
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
4700 Avenue U, Building 216
Galveston, TX 77551
fax: 409-621-1316
email: fgbmanagementplan@noaa.gov

Continue to check back at the FGBNMS Web site for updates on the management plan review process. And know that you have made a difference with your work!

Credit: FGBNMS/Hickerson