Amendment No. 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic

AMENDMENT 2 to The Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic including Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 881 Tampa, Florida 33609-2486 (813) 228-2815 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Southpark Building, Suite 306 I Southpark Circle Charleston, South C a r o l i ~ 29407-4699 (803) 571-4366 July, 1989 I. Introduction The d ~ i a c t e d fishery for spiny lobstersil occurs entirely within or off the waters of the Sta te of Florida (partially in the EEZ) with the principal harvest area being the Florida Keys reef tract . Consequently, the great preponderance of landings have occurred in Monroe County, Florida (96 percent in 198.4). East coast landings have occurred primarily in Dade County (Miami area), Florida (Table I). Landings of smaller amounts and/or of a sporadic nature have occurred in other eas t and wes t coast counties. Historically, Florida fishermen harvested lobster f rom the Bahamian reef t rac ts and landed them in Florida. The Bahamian government prohibited this harvest in the 1976-77 season and actively enforced the prohibition in more recen t years. Occasional landings (possibly of sublegal size lobsters) have occurred in o ther Gulf and East Coast s t a tes (FMP - Exhibit 8-51, Over 90 percent of spiny lobster consumed in the U.S. a r e imported. Almost all of the research and da ta collection (other than for commercial s ta t is t ics before 1984) on the fishery has been carried out by the agencies and institutions of t h e Sta te of Florida (State). Likewise, management of t h e W e r y has been a lmos t --- - =A P= entirely based on rules developed by the S t a t e from these data. The FMP and subsequent amendments have largely extended current S t a t e rules into the EEZ. The FMP was developed primarily to address concerns of the S ta te which, in pa r t , resulted from implementation of the Magnuson Act. A principal concern was the landing or potential for landing illegal sized lobsters in o ther states. Prior t o the Magnuson Act, the S t a t e could regulate activity in the EEZ by vessels registered in other s t a tes if they had Florida citizens on board (Skioriotes vs. Florida). A f t e r passage of the Magnuson Act, the S t a t e could not regulate the activity in the EEZ of any vessel not registered in Florida. There was no way t o prevent harvest from the EEZ by these vessels during the closed spawning season o r t o regulate use of g e a r in t h e EEZ tha t was prohibited in the fishery without a FMP. Also recognized in developing the FMP was tha t the majority of c a t c h was taken from the 3 to 200 mi le zone (Fisheries of t h e United Sta tes - 1976 through 1987), but not necessarily predominately from the EEZ (since S ta te jurisdiction extends nine nautical miles in t h e Gulf). Since the implementation of the FMP, the principal emphasis related t o management and resulting in amendments or proposed amendments has been in a t tempt ing t o keep EEZ rules current with those of t h e State. This has been difficult t o accomplish since the implementation periods required under State and federal law differ, with the federal system requiring a longer period, This has resulted, in some instances, in the Councils proceeding with a management measure in a FMP amendment that w a s a l tered or not implemented by the Sta te during the amendment process, o r conversely, an inordinate delay in implementing compatible federal rules. T h e proposed action of this amendment is to provide a regulatory amendment procedure under which rules promulgated by the State would be implemented by the Regional Director, NMFS, under oversight by t h e Councils, provided t h a t they w e r e consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, the national standards, the Magnuson Act , and other applicable laws. The FMP, a s amended, also regulates slipper lobster (Scyllarides II. Description of the Fishery and Utilization Pat terns The fishery and its biological, economic, and social characterist ics a r e adequately described in the FMP and Amendment I . Because the fishery, as described in these documents, is overcapitalized and has too many units of gear and participants (especially part-time fishermen) the Councils, Sta te and industry have been developing a limited access (entry) system for the commercial fishery. As p a r t of development of this system, the Councils published a notice of a control d a t e (January 15, 1986) fo r entry into the fishery (51 FR 571 3). The notice announced tha t anyone entering the commercial fishery af ter that date may not be assured of fu tu re access if a system that limits participants is implemented. During 1988, the Florida legislature passed an a c t (HI3 1201, amending 370.14 F.S.) tha t provided for a moratorium on issuance of new trap permits f rom July 1, 1988 through July 1, 1991, while the S t a t e and industry evaluate t h e structure of a limited access system. The a c t limits permit numbers t o those held in the 1987188 season; however, t h e permits a r e transferable and permits not renewed e a c h year may be reissued by the State. During the three-year period, t h e Sta te and industry will submit a bill t o the legislature for a limited access sys tem,and t h e Councils wilt --- develop an amendment t o implement a system in the EEZ. In. Statement of the Problem The Sta te has managed the spiny lobster fishery inside and outside i t s terri torial waters from 1919 (FMP, Prochaska and Baarda 1975) until the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) in 1976. The State was authorized under the Magnuson Act t o continue regulation of fishing c r a f t registered in the S t a t e until federal regulations inconsistent with those of t h e State were implemented by the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Thus t h e Magnuson Act left that segment of t h e fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unregulated from the perspective of foreign fishing and fishermen registered in o t h e r states. Federal management was considered necessary t o establish a comprehensive and unified management regime throughout S ta te waters and EEZ, and to faci l i ta te compliance and enforcement of regulations (see FMP's EIS), After passage of t h e Magnuson Act, the harvest of undersize lobsters and out-of-season harvest in the EEZ became an increasingly severe problem. Since the same stock of lobster ranged throughout both s t a t e and federal waters in the southeastern U.S., federal management was needed and was supported by both the S t a t e and fishing industry. The Spiny Lobster FMP, implemented in July, 1982, largely complemented the Sta te ' s management regime and provided protection for the fishery throughout its range. The FMP provided management authority only for that pa r t of the fishery operating in the EEZ; the fishery within s t a t e waters remained under State authority. T o achieve i ts conservation and management objectives and t o effectively coordinate management with the State, the FMP adopted many of t h e management measures employed by the State. However, certain of the State lobster regulations were n o t initially adopted by the Councils with the consequence t h a t some management measures implemented in federal waters were different from those of t h e State ( s e e Amendment 1 for a discussion of these d~fferences). In 1984, the Councils l n i t ~ a t e d Amendment I to the FMP in an a t tempt t o resolve t h e remaining s ta te l federa l management incompatibilities and generally to improve management of the resource. In 1986, t h e Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) obtained authority over the spiny lobster fishery from t h e S ta te legislature and initiated a review of the fishery and its management. Although the Sta te , through its FMFC representative on t h e two Councils, had extensive input during t h e three-year development process of Amendment I , the resulting s t a t e and federal regulations implemented in 1987 st i l l contained significant incompatibilities with regard t o bag and size limits, permits, and use of undersize lobsters as a t t r ac tan t s due to changes by the S t a t e during t h e Secretarial review period of Amendment I . These incompatibilities occurred primarily due to differences in t h e relative responsiveness of the federal and s t a t e management systems. Concern over the current difficulties experienced in implementing compatible regulations prompted t h e Councils t o pursue alternative s ta te l federal management structures that would optimize the use of limited s t a t e and federal resources, prevent duplication of effort , and make maximum use of t h e existing S ta te regime. These effor ts culminated in a joint meeting of t h e Councils and the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission in January, 1988, to discuss al ternative management s t ructures --- " ."= presented by the NMFS Regional Director (RD). The NMFS developed a prototype plan amendment that would allow either the Councils or Commission t o propose EEZ regulations for implementation through the RD by t h e regulatory amendment process. This prototype was based on the premise t h a t more t imely regulatory mechanisms than plan amendments a r e needed at the federal level and that a more formal mechanism is needed for state and federal coordination. Clearly, a proposed regulation under the amendment must be consistent with the Magnuson A c t , objectives of the FMP and other applicable federal law. As a consequence of t h e January meeting, t h e FMFC requested t h e Councils t o develop a plan amendment to address modifications by regulatory amendment t o 1) t h e opening and closing da tes of the fishing season, 2) minimum size, 3) bag limits, 4) escape gap requirements, 5) numerical trap limits, 6) possession of undersize lobsters, and 7) t rap construction requirements. Management topics in the FMP tha t were not addressed in the FMFC le t ter a re fishing permits, Spanish lobster, protection of egg bearing lobsters, non-trap gear use, vessel and gear identification, pre- and post season soak periods, fishing another persons trap, and the daylight fishing restriction. The FMFC also expressed their preference tha t the Council remain responsible for document preparation of federally required supporting material. The following issues were presented for the Councils' review a t a subsequent meeting as the foundation for development of Amendment 2 of the Spiny Lobster FMP: I . The intent of federal management is t o complement s t a t e management and extend management coverage of the U.S. spiny lobster f ishery resource throughout i t s range. 2. The spiny lobster fishery resource in t h e EEZ is t h e property of the United Sta tes and should b e managed for the benefit of everyone in the U.S. in accordance with t h e provisions of the Magnuson Act. 4 3. The common property na ture of fishery resources t ends to c a u s e overcapital izat ion in the industry, increases the chances of resource deplet ion, and decreases the incentive for conservation of the resource by t h e users. 4. There is a need t o provide a flexible coordinated federa l and s t a t e management system tha t minimizes regulatory delay while retaining Council and public input into management decisions and that c a n rapidly a d a p t to changes in resource abundance, new scient if ic information, and changes in fishing pa t te rns . 5 . The Councils need t o address two basic issues in developing the amendment . First , t h e Councils should de termine the level of Council involvement in the regulatory amendment process. And, second, the Councils should de t e rmine which management measures a r e t o be changed by regulatory amendmen t o r notice ac t ion mechanisms. Under t h e procedure proposed by t h e RD changes in the regulations c a n be proposed t o t h e RD by ei ther t h e FMFC direct ly o r by the Councils upon request by the FMFC. As outlined in t h e RD's memorandum, proposals emanat ing f rom the FMFC mus t have comple ted t h e final public hearing s t a g e and which the F M F C has voted t o pu t before t h e Governor and cabinet . Additionally, p r o p o s a b o b e en te r t amed by- =- ="- W-G t h e RD should be s t ruc tured t o t a k e e f f ec t in S t a t e waters a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t of t h e fishing season in which the paral lel federal regulations would b e expected to be implemented. FMFC proposals and supporting analyses would be reviewed for f ede ra l consistency by t h e R D prior t o t h e R D obtaining the concurrence of both Councils. . T h e concurrence of t h e Councils would formally au thor ize the R D to begin t h e regulatory amendment process. Proposals and analyses t h a t a r e de termined to be inconsistent would b e re turned t o t h e FMFC, accompanied by a l e t t e r of explanat ion f rom t h e RD, for further development. T h e intercouncil c o m m i t t e e reviewed t h e issues and made a single recommendat ion , as a motion, which was approved by t h e Councils: T h e Councils should develop a framework plan amendment t o provide for f u t u r e regulatory changes in t he EEZ t h a t will give the Regional Director authori ty, a t t h e reques t of the S t a t e of Florida, t o make appropriate regulatory changes t o maintain compatibi l i ty of management measures in both s t a t e and f e d e r a l waters. NOTE: Implementat ion of this motion does not mean t h e Councils will relinquish their au thor i ty over t h e fishery because t h e framework amendment developed by t h e Councils will establ ish bounds on the r a n g e of management a c t i o n s avai lable t o the Regional Direc tor for framework management measures. Also son le a spec t s of t he fishery, such as implementat ion of l imi ted entry a n d changes t o OYIMSY will s t i l l requi re a plan amendment." T h e regulatory amendment concept allows timely continuing adjus tment of management regulations if processed by NOAA review personnel wi th in the t i m e period specified in federa l guidelines. Ease of continuing management ad jus tment under a regulatory amendment process depends on t h e foresight exercised in developing t h e amendment , and on identification of continuing r e sea rch and d a t a needs t o monitor t h e changing conditions in t h e fishery. The procedure provides instruct ions t o the R D as t o how specified management measures will be de termined or changed, with or without the assistance of the Council, as t h e amendment is implemented and mainta~ned. Provided t h e amendment contains adequate instructions, the R D is clearly implementing the amendment under the procedure rather than amending the FMP. Annual changes should be able to be made in t h r e e t o five months, from the t ime that the needed change is identified by t h e Council or RD t o implementation. The Councils feel tha t utilizing a regulatory amendment procedure approach for implementation by the R D of certain types of rules adopted by t h e State under oversight by the Councils has the following advantages: o provides a more flexible and timely system that should result in compatible rules between s t a t e and federal jurisdictions; o provides ample and fair opportunity for public input into the rulemaking process through S ta te hearings and workshops (see Appendix A), Council oversight, and to NMFS during the public comment period on the proposed rule; o is more cost-effective: 1) allowing the Councils and R D to-utilize public hearing =- =% information gathered by the S t a t e and utilize s o c i o e c o n ~ c analyses prepared P= by the State, 2) reduces enforcement cost and increases effectiveness through compatible rules, and 3) through agreed upon protocol, shifts t h e d a t a gathering and management interpretation costs and enforcement costs to t h e State; o provides t h e Councils with opportunity to review each rule for consistency wi th the FMP objectives and the Magnuson Act and t o cease the implementation process until issues over consistency have been resolved; \ o in no way prohibits the Councils from exercising thei r amendment or public hearing authority for changes t o the FMP; o provides the Sta te with a more responsive management system f o r a fishery t h a t s largely a S ta te fishery (99.3 percent of permit holders in 1986 were S t a t e .siden ts), whereas previously by virtue of t h e localized geographical scope of ... e fishery the Councils placed higher priorities on amending FMPs with regional application, thereby delaying implementation of compatible rules and impacting e f fec t ive management of the fishery; and o assures t h a t t h e management objectives of the Council and FMFC are mos t ef fect ively carried out in a manner that benefits the resource and user groups and within standards of the Magnuson Act and standards of the FMFC. IV. Proposed Action The actions proposed in this amendment to the FMP include: o revision of several issues (problems) in t h e fishery expressed in A FMP including cit ing in summary form the Sta tement of t h e Problem o s ta tement of a new objective for the FMP providing for m o r e . i r c t i v e cooperative state and federal management of the fishery o restatement of Optimum Yield (OY) fo r the fishery o s ta tement of protocols and a regulatory amendment procedure for more e f f e c t i v e cooperative management agreed upon by the Councils and State o consideration of a measure to reduce mortality of undersize lobster by prohibiting [heir use as bait o inclusion of a FMP section on Vessel Safety Considerations o revision of the FMP section on Habitat of the Stocks ACTION I: ISSUES IN FISHERY Problems and Issues in the Fishery Issues currently identified in the FMP, as amended, a re as follows: ;--- =- . 1. The number of undersize lobsters taken and sold illegally continues t o be significant. Enforcement of s ize limit regulations will b e a major consideration when developing procedures for implementing management measures. 2. Whereas the present practices involving the use of undersize lobsters a s a t t r ac tan t s is causing significant mortality t o undersize lobsters and subsequent loss in yield to the fishery, the re is controversy over the methods t o reduce the mortality of undersize lobsters used as a t t ractants in traps. 3. There is a n increasing number of traps in the fishery. 4. Incompatible federal and S ta te regulations hinder e f fec t ive enforcement of the minimum size limit and the prohibition against spearing lobsters. 5. The abandonment of traps during the closed season has created a significant "ghost fishing" mortality that represents a loss in yield t o the fishery. 6. The major user groups of the resource a r e not adequately defined t o insure fa i r and equitable treatment. The existing Florida permit system is not sufficient in identifying. major user groups resulting in an inability t o properly assess the impacts of al ternative management measures on t h e users of t h e resource. In addition, da ta on recreational harvest is nonexistent, Existing d a t a sources will need t o be supplemented, especially as future allocations of t h e resource a r e considered. (g: By current S t a t e rule, commercial fishermen must have both permit and products license.) Proposed Alternative: Revise Issues 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and by adding a new issue (7) t o read a s follows: "I. The number of undersize lobster taken or sold illegally continues to be a problem." "3. There is an excessive number of traps in the fishery." "4 . Incompatible federal and S ta te regulations hinder effective management and enforcement and delay in implementing federal rules compatible with those o f the S t a t e exacerbates this problem." "5. Abandonment of traps c rea tes some ghost fishing mortality tha t represents loss in yield to the fishery." The third sentence of 6 (above) is modified to read as follows: "While tagging studies indicate tha t recreational harvest is likely t o b e about t e n percent of the commercial harvest, additional data on the recreational harvest is needed." "7. The increasing recreational harvest, especially in the special season, m a y be impacting the resource and needs to be evaluated a s t o amount of harvest and impacts on handling and short mortality." Rejected Alternative: Status quo - retain issues unchanged. Discussion (Issues 1 and 3): The Counc~ls ' Advisory Panels reviewed a l l t h e - - "* .,= issues in the fishery and recommended language modification for e a c h issue. The Councils concurred with their suggested revisions of Issues 1, 3 and 7 (new). The A P s indicated t h a t better enforcement h+d resulted in a g rea t decline in t h e number of illegally harvested undersize lobster, and i t was not a "significant" problem now but was still a problem (Issuel). They also pointed out that d a t a in Table 1 indicate t h a t t r a p numbers a r e not "increasing" but agreed the re is st i l l an excessive number of t raps in the fishery, i.e., more than is needed t o harvest t h e resource (Issue 3). Economic and Social Impacts: None a re associated with these revisions of t h e issues. Discussion (Issue 4): The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) and the Councils a t their joint meeting in January, 1988 have concluded t h a t the cur ren t system of periodic amendments of the FMP by the Councils t o make federal ru les compatible with those of the Sta te is too inflexible and inordinately delays effect ive management of the fishery., due t o the rules being unen.forceable until cornpatibility is achieved. Since participants in the fishery a r e almost entirely citizens of t h e S t a t e and since the S t a t e primarily collects and analyzes t h e management information and provides the enforcement of t h e rules, t h e FMFC has, therefore, normally provided the lead in establishing management measures for the fishery. T h e Councils have largely been in a reactive posture of revising federal rules t o be compatible with those of the State. Delays by t h e Councils d u e to the m o r e prolonged federal implementation system and due to higher priorities for FMP a n d amendment development have caused a problem in maintaining effect ive management. Economic and Social Impacts: There are no direct economic or .social impacts related to the proposed or rejected alternatives. The proposed a l ternat ive is a summary of t h e s ta tement of the problem for this amendment and is therefore indirectly related t o the impacts s t a ted for Action 4. Discussion (Issue 5): The APs and subsequently the Councils concluded while ghost fishing by lost or abandoned traps continues t o cause mortality tha t such mortali ty probably is no longer significant. A cooperative program of the S t a t e and industry resulted in removal of more than 10,000 such traps during 1988. Economic and Social Impacts: None are associated with revision of t h e wording of this issue. Discussion (Issue 6): The proposed alternative simply modifies an incorrect s ta tement in Issue 6 of the FMP while continuing to identify the need for b e t t e r recreational ca tch data. Although a stat ist ical survey of the recreational harvest from the fishery has not been conducted, the re have been studies completed which have estimated recreational harvest. Tag returns in t h e Upper Keys suggested recreational harvest was 9 percent of commercial harvest (Davis and Dodrill, 1980). Examining this study and other unpublished studies by FDNR, Lyons and Kenney (1981) concluded recreational harvest from t h e fishery t o be about 10 percent of commercial harvest. The magnitude of this est imate appears to be supported by other studies (Austin et al, 1980) (Zuboy, 1980). --- %& ,"3. Economic and Social Impacts: There a re not impacts a s s o c i a z d with correction of this error. The modified statement is based on the best available information. Discussion (Issue 7): The APs suggested this new issue to focus a t tent ion on the need for research and data gathering information on not only recreational harvest levels but also impacts of recreational fishery on handling and short mortality which they perceived t o be a major problem. Economic and Social Impacts: None a r e associated with including t h e issue. I f t h e studies a r e done, they will have an economic cost. ACTION 2: MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Management Objectives Management objectives currently identified in t h e FMP, as amended, a r e a s follows: 1. Protect long-run yields and prevent depletion of lobster stocks. 2. Increase yield by weight from t h e fishery. 3. Reduce user group and gear conflicts in the fishery. 4. Acquire the necessary information to manage the fishery. 5. Promote efficiency in the fishery. Proposed Alternative: Include new objective as follows: 6. Provide for a more flexible management system that minimizes regulatory delay t o assure more effective, cooperative S t a t e and federal management of t h e fishery. Rejected Alternative: Sta tus quo - d o not include objective 6 . Discussion: The intent of this amendment is t o provide for a system t h a t achieves t h e proposed objective. Selection of the rejected alternative would mean that t h e amendment should not go forward and that a l l future changes in the FMP w ~ l l b e by FMP amendment. Economic and Social Impacts: Adding the objective has no impact. These alternatives a r e indirectly related t o those under Action 4 where impacts of that action a r e discussed. ACTION 3: STATEMENT OF OPTIMUM YIELD (OY) The current s ta tement of OY in the FMP, that applies to spiny lobster is as follows: "OY is specified t o be all spiny lobster p)ore than 3.0 inches ca rapace length or not less than 5.5 inches tai l length- that can be legally harvested by commercial and recreational fishermen given existing technology and prevailing economic conditions. OY is est imated a t 9.5 million pounds". Proposed Alternative: The first sentence of t h e s ta tement of OY is amended t o read as follows f o r spiny lobster (OY f o r slipper lobster is unchanged): < =- -% w= "OY is al l spiny lobster with carapace or tail lengths equal to o r larger than the m i n i y r m legal lengths that a r e harvested legally under the provisions of the FMP- . Rejected Alternative: Do not modify the s ta tement of OY. Discussion: The proposed procedure under Action 4 would allow t h e minimum legal t s ize to be increased when information demonstrates t h a t increased yield c a n be ! gained f rom the fishery through such action. As indicated in t h e discussion of biological impacts under Action 5 t h e mortality rates of sublegal lobster must f i r s t b e reduced before yield per recruit can be increased by increasing t h e size limit. Retaining the current OY sta tement (rejected alternative) would require the FMP be amended when such a n increase in legal size is proposed under the procedure. The proposed alternative does not a l t e r the s t a tus quo at th is time but would allow greater increases in yield from the resources at such t i m e as the s i ze is changed under the regulatory amendment procedure, an action which would result in ha rves t levels more nearly approaching t h e numerical expression of OY, i.e., 9.5 million pounds (See Table 1 and Action 5 discussion). Economic and Social Impacts: No impacts occur as a result of adoption of the proposed alternative a t this time. At such t i m e as an increase in s i ze is proposed through t h e regulatory amendment procedure of Action 4 a n Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) will discuss the economic and social impacts which a r e associated with tha t action. 2 ' ~ a i l length measure applies only if legally separated f rom the body. ?'current legal size specified in t h e regulations is 3.0 inches. ACTION 4: PROTOCOL A N D PROCEDURE FOR A N ENHANCED COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Introduction: Under Action 4 which address the Statement of the Problem the Councils a r e proposing a more flexible, timely and cost-effective system of implementing rules by regulatory amendment. Included under the action a re ( I ) a protocol agreed to by all parties which describes t h e respective roles of s t a t e and federal governments, ( 2 ) a regulatory amendment procedure specifying the actions taken by each party in implementing the rules (Paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Procedure) and (3) appropriate rules or regulatory changes that may be implemented under the procedure (Paragraph 6 , Par t s A and B of the Procedure). Under this regulatory amendment procedure each proposed rule or set of rules mus t be adopted by t h e Sta te through their hearing process and be submitted t o NMFS and the Councils along with socioeconomic analyses, hearing summaries, and o ther supporting information. The Councils and NMFS must concur that the proppsed rule is consistent , :L with t h e FMP objectives and other federal law. NMFS, the CouTic"ilsl s t a f f s and FMFC staff will prepare the regulatory amendment and supporting documentation. This documentation will include an EA and RIR which examine in detail t h e environmental, social and economic impacts of each proposed rule and the al ternatives t o t h e rule. The rules implemented will be subject t o approval by NMFS af te r review of public comment submitted directly to NMFS during the comment period on the regulatory amendment. PROTOCOL: The Councils, FMFC and NMFS hereby adopt t h e following protocol which describes the roles of the federal and Sta te governments: I. The Councils and NMFS acknowledge that t h e fishery is a S ta te fishery (which extends into the EEZ) in terms of current participants in the di rected fishery, major nursery, fishing, and landing areas, historical regulation of t h e fishery a n d is a fishery requiring cooperative statelfederal efforts fo r e f fec t ive management through a FMP. 2. The Councils and NMFS acknowledge t h a t the S t a t e is managing and will continue t o manage t h e resource to protect and increase the long-term yields and prevent depletion of the lobster stocks and that t h e State Administrative Procedure Act and rule implementation procedures, including final approval of the rules by Governor and Cabinet provide ample and fair opportunity for a l l persons to participate in the rulemaking procedure (see Appendix A). 3. FMFC acknowledges that rules proposed for implementation under th is amendment must b e consistent with the management objectives of t h e FMP, t h e national standards, t h e Magnuson Act and other applicable federal law. Federal rules will be implemented in accordance with regulatory amendment procedures. 4. The Councils and NMFS agree that for any of the rules defined within th i s amendment that the S t a t e may propose the rule directly t o NMFS, concurrently informing the Councils of the nature of the rule and t h a t NMFS will implement the rule wlthin the EEZ provided it is consistent under the protocol number 3. I f e ~ t h e r of the Councils informs NMFS of their concern over t h e rule's lnconslstency with protocol number 3, NMFS will not implement the ru1g)lntll t h e Councils, FMFC, and NMFS or their representatives meet and resolve - the issue. 5. The S ta te will have the responsibility for collecting and developing the information upon which to base the fishing rules, with assistance, a s needed, by NMFS and cooperatively share the responsibility for enforcement with federal agencies. 6 . FMFC will provide t o NMFS, and to the Councils written explanations of i t s decisions related t o each of t h e rules (including a s ta tement of t h e problem that the rulemaking addresses, how the rule will solve the problem, and how interested parties were involved in t h e rulemaking), summaries of public comments, biological, economic and social analyses of the impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives, and such other information that is relevant. 7. The rules will apply t o the EEZ for the management a r e a {N.C. t o Texas) unless . > =% the Regional Director, NMFS, determines they may adve&ly impact other s t a t e - ,W and federal fisheries. In tha t event, the RD may limit the application of the rule, as necessary, t o address t h e problem. 8. The NMFS agrees tha t i t s staff will prepare the proposed federal rule. The Councils agree t h a t their s t a f f s with assistance by t h e staffs of FMFC and NMFS will prepare the EAIRIR and other documents required in support of the rule. PROCEDURE: Proposed Alternative: Adopt the procedure as follows: I. This procedure will function under and be governed by t h e protocols for cooperative management agreed upon by t h e FMFC, t h e Councils, and NMFS. Based on the best available scientific information, t h e Sta te of Florida's Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) will develop alternative proposed rules and socioeconomic analyses on the effects of these alternatives, hold public hearings (as required by Florida's Administrative Procedure Act), and at a final hearing select each preferred alternative rule for recommendation t o the Florida Governor and Cabinet for implementation (see Appendix A). A f t e r approval of t h e rule or rules by the Governor and Cabinet, t h e FMFC will advise the Councils and Regional Director (RD), NMFS of t h e recommended rule(s) and proposed implementation da te and will provide to the RD and to t h e Councils the analyses of the e f f e c t s and impacts of the recommended and alternative rules I The issue will not be resolved until the Councils have withdrawn thier objections. and summaries o f public comment. For rules t o be implemented by the s t a r t of the fishing season (currently August 11, FMFC must complete these actions on or before February I . The Councils will submit the rule and supporting analyses to the SSCs who will advise the RD, through the Councils, of t h e scientific validity o f the analyses. The Councils will also submit t h e rule and supporting analyses to the advisory panels for comment. 3. The RD will review the recommended rule, analyses, and public record, and if he preliminarily determines t h a t the rule is consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the National Standards, and other applicable law, h e will notify the Councils and FMFC of his intent to implement t h e rule in the EEZ. I f in the judgment of t h e RD, the rule or its supporting record are not consistent with these statutory cri teria or the FMP objectives, he will immediately notify the Councils and the FMFC of t h e deficiencies in the rule or supporting record. The FMFC may submit additional information or analyses t o correct t h e deficiencies in the record. 4. When in the judgment of ei ther of the Councils t h e r u l d not consistent with the Magnuson Act or the objectives of the FMP, they will inform the R D and FMFC. In this case the RD wil,l/not proceed with implementation of the ru le until this issue has been resolved - . 5 When the RD has preliminarily concluded the rule is acceptable, he will d r a f t and publish the proposed rule for implementation by regulatory amendment. Based on S ta te analyses of impacts, the Councils' s t a f f s with assistance f r o m FMFC will prepare t h e supporting documentation [EA/RIR, etc.] t h a t accompany the proposed rule. The effective date of rules promulgated under th is procedure will be the starting da te of t h e next fishing season following approval of t h e regulatory amendment unless otherwise agreed upon by FMFC, t h e Councils, a n d the RD. A reasonable period for public comment on t h e proposed rule shall be provided. After .reviewing public comment if the R D has concluded t h e rule is n o t consistent with t h e FMP objectives, the National Standards, o ther applicable law, or t h e provisions of this procedure, h e will notify t h e Councils and FMFC of that fact and/or t h e need for proceeding with implementation by FMP amendment. I f the supporting record is st i l l deficient, he will delay taking action until the record has been supplemented by FMFC andlor Councils' s taf fs . I f t he RD has concluded the rule i s consistent, h e will publish the final rule. 6 . PART A (GEAR RESTRICTIONS) Appropriate rules or regulatory changes that c a n be implemented under this pa r t include: a. Limiting the number of traps tha t may be fished by e a c h vessel. b. Describing the construction characterist ics of traps, including requiring escape gaps. 2' The issue will not be resolved until the Councils have withdrawn their objections. c. Specification of gear and vessel identification requirements. d. Specification of gear that may be utilized or prohibited in directed fishery and specification of bycatch levels that may be taken as incidental c a t c h in non-directed fisheries. e . Changes t o soak or removal periods and requirements for traps. 6. PART 6 (HARVEST RESTRICTIONS) Appropriate rules o r regulatory changes tha t can be implemented under this pa r t include: a. Recreational bag and possession limits. b. Changes in fishing seasons. c. Limitations on use, possession, and handling of undersized lobsters. d. Changes in minimum legal size. Rejected Alternative: Do not adopt the procedure (i.e., all changes by plan amendment) andlor dele te one or more of t h e gear or harvest restrictions ( P a r t s A and B of Paragraph 6) as inappropriate for change by t h e regu la to ry amendment . L% procedure. ,.= Discussion: The Councils, NMFS, and FMFC during 1987-1988 reviewed the problems associated with and t h e inflexibility of the current ru le implementation system, al ternative systems, and types of rules tha t should b e included in a regulatory amendment procedure system. The Councils rationale supporting the proposed alternative over the rejected alternative a r e listed in the Sta tement of the Problem (Page 6). \\ i Biological Impacts: This action, in itself, has no impact but merely provides a procedure for implementing future regulatory changes. Actions that rnay be implemented under the procedure will have biological impacts which will be described in the regulatory amendment for that action. Economic Impacts: The principal economic impacts related t o the proposed alternative a r e to defer some of t h e federal costs to t h e State. These include much of the da ta collection, research and stock assessment costs of NMFS and the plan amendment development and public hearing cos t s of t h e Councils as well as s o m e o f t h e costs associated with reviews by t h e Council's Scientific and Statist ical Commit tees (SSC) and Advisory Panels (AP). The costs incurred by t h e Culf Council as lead for development of the FMP through FY 1981 were $237,998 including meeting costs of $41,185. The South At lant ic Council probably incurred similar meeting costs, but not the level of the staff and contractual cost of Culf Council. Amendment 1 required approximately three years for development and implementations and staff and meeting c o s t s to t h e Culf Council were on the order of $100,000. These types of cos t s would be significantly reduced by the proposed alternative, with the principal Council c o s t being staff support in drafting each EA and RIR from d a t a submitted by the State. The rejected alternative would require a FMP amendment for each rule or s e t o f rules proposed by t h e S ta te which in addition to staff and Council meeting c o s t s similar t o that for Amendment 1 would require public hearing, SSC and AP c o s t fo r each amendment on t h e order of $24,600. Since each rule or set of rules proposed by the S ta te under t h e procedure will require a thorough economic analysis in the accompanying RIR, no discussion of the impacts or potential impacts o f the restrictions under Parts A and B a r e provided. However, a general discussion of the Council's rationale for including each type of restriction in the procedure follows. Social Inlpacts: These impacts should remain the same under either alternative. Rationale for Including Restrictions: P a r t A (Gear Restrictions) a. Limiting number of traps The fishery has an excessive number of traps well beyond the number needed t o harvest t h e resource (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Landings have been essentially stable since the early 1970's when approximately 200,000 traps were fished on the West Coast (Figure 1). Traps have increased both as a result of increased =- . -2 number of fishermen and increased number of traps p e r m h e r m a n . The S t a t e ,r~r and industry a r e developing a limited access program t o limit and eventually reduce participants. The number of t raps should b e reduced t o decrease the adverse biological and economic impacts and t o improve the efficiency of t h e industry. The excess number of traps in the fishery is directly related t o t h e mortali ty associated with use of undersize lobsters as bait (Action 5). As t h e number of -X traps increases, the associated mortality increases. Reducing t h e number of traps by 50 percent without altering baiting practices would increase yield per recruit by 5 t o 25 percent (Amendment I - 6.3.1.6). In open access fisheries, units of gear always tend to increase t o an overcapitalized level, because each participant feels he must increase to remain competi t ive with other participants who a r e both increasing in number and who a r e increasing their gear. The end result is a loss of industry efficiency. b. Describing construction characteristics of traps, including a requirement for escape gaps Currently most gear used in the fishery a r e wood t raps constructed of t r ea ted laths. Some plastic traps with degradable surfaces a r e also utilized. The current rules specifying construction characterist ics may need t o b e changed t o reduce mortality from ghost traps (by requiring degradable panels t h a t deteriorate more rapidly than the wooden traps) o r t o prevent environmental degradation (e.g., from materials utilized to t reat wood laths). Escape gaps in t raps a re required in most of the world's managed lobster fisheries t o allow undersize lobsters t o escape assuring continued biological stability of the stocks and improvements in yield from t h e resource ( see discussion of baiting mortality under Action 5). Escape gaps a r e an inexpensive method (cost approximately $0.60 per trap) of assuring high survival of undersize lobsters. They can also serve a dual purpose of degradable panel f o r traps t h a t may be lost, as they do in the American lobster fishery of some states, by using degradable fasteners. Compliance is more easily monitored than is a prohibition on possession of undersized lobsters since traps can be pulled and examined for gaps or obstruction of the gap a t any t ime and cases made for non-compliance, whereas, the prohibition on possession requires monitoring each trap haul. Escape gaps may even facil i tate natural baiting of traps by juveniles that e n t e r the t r a p via the gap (during daylight hours) and reduce the adverse impact of mortality associated with current confinement practices, i.e., they can leave t o feed a t night. Because of the low unit cost , escape gaps can be changed in size, a s minimum harvestable size is respecif ied, without major cos t to individual fishermen (see Table I) (also see discussion under Par t B 6.d.). c. Specification of gear and vessel identification The current system of vessel identification for the lobster fishery d ~ f f e r s f rom that utilized for vessels operating under o ther FMPs (i.e., a standardized federal system). Many lobster fishermen also participate in other fisheries, and i t may be desirable t o modify the current lobster system, which would likely require changes for gear identification also. 4 =- % -k 80% d. Prohibited gear and incidental ca tch limits The current directed commercial fishery for lobster has too many participants and too many units of gear to operate efficiently and without some adverse impact on the stocks. The S t a t e and industry a r e a t tempt ing t o reverse th is trend. The Sta te has prohibited utilization of cer ta in types of gear in t h e directed fishery and provided incidental c a t c h limits for non-directed fisheries. Because of the inventive nature in fisheries development and in order to be fa i r t o the full-time participants in the directed fishery whose numbers they a r e trying to reduce, cer ta in additional or new gear will likely have to b e prohibited in ei ther commercial or recreational fisheries. Similarly, incidental bycatch limits may need t o b e revised. e. Changes in soak t imes or removal times for traps Current rules provide for a five-day soak t ime for placing and baiting traps a t t h e beginning of t h e season and a five-day removal period a t t h e end, with an additional ten days in cases of documented hardship (vessel breakdown, etc.). The preseason soak t ime is somewhat related to use of treated wood traps. I f the number of traps per vessel is significantly reduced o r plastic t raps become the preferred gear, i t may be useful to change this period. Large numbers (thousands) of traps a r e lost o r abandoned at the end of each season, and it may be useful t o amend the rules t o allow any person t o re t r ieve these traps for his own use a f t e r a cer ta in da te or to allow a n extension for organizations t o retr ieve t h e traps. P a r t B (Harvest Restrictions) a. Recreational bag and possession limits The amount of landings of spiny lobster by recreational fishermen is not known. When studies a r e completed documenting the landings, i t may b e beneficial t o alter the bag limit. It may be useful t o also specify a n on-shore possession 1 imi t " to prevent persons from circumventing the bag limit. Such overall possession l in l~ t s might also be used t o describe incidental bycatch limits for other non- . directed fisheries. Changes in Fishing Seasons The current season has been compressed t o about f ive months (Table 2) of t h e eight-month legal season. I t may be useful from a biological or industry standpoint to modify the season. If the minimum size is increased, it would be necessary t o modify the start ing date of t h e season t o allow t ime for additional growth. A change in start ing date could be used as a proxy for increased minimum size, e.g., delaying until 50 percent (or some other percentage) of population has carapace length of 3-118 inches, retaining legal length of th ree inches, etc. I t may be useful or necessary t o change the special recreational season if the size limit is changed. c. Limitations on Use, Possession and Handling of Undersize Lobsters See Action 5 for discussion of rule changes r e l a t e e k t 0 prohibitions and - . " ."a limitations on possession. Conversely, a f t e r participation levels and trap levels a r e reduced and stabilized in t h e fishery, data may indicate a n allowance of undersized lobsters for baiting purposes which allows increased harves t efficiency without significant adverse impact t o stocks through mortality, i.e., a permissible level of mortality. d. Changes in Minimum Legal s ize and Sta tement of OY As pointed out in discussions of mortality of undersize lobster ( see Action 5), additional gains in yield per recruit could b e achieved by increasing the minimum size if tha t mortality was eliminated r reduced. This may become a very important economic consideration t o th- -dustry, particularly if operating under a limited access system. ACTION 5: POSSESSION O F UNDERSIZE LOB2 ,(i Proposed Alternative. Take no action - allow t h e action t o be taken under t h e regulatory amendment procedure. Rejected Alternative 1. Prohibit harvest and possession aboard a vessel of more than 50 undersize lobster or one per trap on board, whichever, is greate,r, until April 1, 1990. On August 1, 1990 possession of undersize lobster is prohibited (lobster must b e held in live wells a s provided for in the FMP). Rejected Alternative 2. S ta tus quo - allow up t o 100 undersize lobster t o b e possessed aboard a vessel in the EEZ provided the vessel has a live well. Discussion: The S ta te has implemented rejected Alternative I as rule. The Councils rejected that al ternative because of discussions between representatives of t h e industry and S t a t e that suggested some modification of t h a t Sta te rule may occur before t h e effect ive da te of the rule in 1990. Therefore, i t appeared more consistent with the t r u s t of this Amendment (for flexibility in rule changes) t o defer ac t ion and allow the S ta te t o submit i ts final rule under t h e procedure of Action 4. Biological Impacts: The stock assessment section (5.4.1) of Amendment 1 concluded that: "the loss of undersize lobster due to baiting mortality not only affects potential yield, but reduces the reproductive potential of the population. Thus, the future stability of the resource is jeopardized by the current magnitude of undersize lobster mortality". Undersize lobster fishing mortality consists of two conlponents, illegal harvest and mortality associated with their use a s bait (exposure, handling in jury and confinement). Together, these sources of mortality result in loss of potential yield from t h e fishery of 63 t o 83 percent (FMFC, 1987). They also prevent additional gains in yield per recruit that could be obtained from increasing the minimum size. Mortality associated with baiting practices was judged as having the most negative impact on yield per recruit (Amendment I 5.4.1). That mortality was estimated a s 26 percent per month (FMFC, 1987). The use of live wells provided for in Rejected Alternative 2 should have eliminated o r significantly reduced that portion of t h e baiting mortality related to exposure (i.e., 25.3 percent Amendment I - 5.4.2). However, overall baiting mortality was est imated a t 47 percent of animals used (6.3.1) indicating a t least half the mortality would continue to occur. Rejected Alternative 1 would further reduce this mortality, but not el iminate i t (i.e., it =-., . is unlikely tha t al l undersize lobster would be removed from traps%rvested), Complete prohibitions on possession Rejected Alternative 2 would also probably significantly reduce mortality associated with illegal harvest of undersized lobster. Economic Impacts: FMFC (1987a), a f t e r adjusting the reduction in baiting mortality fo r a complete prohibition on possession t o 60.6 percent t o account for lack o f compliance, unintentional handling mortality, etc., calculated increases in yield rangin from 363,600 t o 2.1 million pounds and $0.9 to $5.5 million exvessel o r $0.4 to ! 2.5 million in fishermen net income. The past expenditures for live wells would be lost under Rejected Alternative I . This loss would be about $200 for each fishermen discounted over two to three years for each of the 1,820 commercial fishermen (FMFC, 1987a). Under Rejected Alternative 2, this loss would not occur. The principal potential impact on the industry from a prohibition on use of undersize lobsters for bait would be a loss of efficiency per trap (for some fishermen a t least). Traps baited with one or two short lobsters resulted in catches 1.9 times more than those with no lobsters (FMFC, 1987a). Those baited with three lobsters resulted in c a t c h e s th ree times greater than with no bait (Heatwolfe, et al, 1987). If the shor ts were n o t caught later a s legals, $0.12 t o $1.23 million in revenue could be lost. However, t h a t loss is very improbable considering the number of traps and t h e fact tha t to ta l landings have been stable since 1969 as the number of traps increased (Figure I). As a function of increased number of traps and possibly increased efficiency by using shorts as bait , the season has been compressed, with 90 percent of harvest occurring within the f i r s t five months (Table 2). From a commercial industry standpoint, total c a t c h and thus annual ca tch per t rap would increase from the rohibition which may a lso result in a redistribution of t h e catch in t ime (longer season ! and space (more legals may be caught by persons fishing in the lower Keys). Similarly, recreational participants would benefit from increased numbers of legal size lobsters that would provide increased abundance levels over a longer period. , , Table 2. Cumulative Pefcent of A m u l Landings Spiny Lobster Harvested by Month Social Impacts: Judging from past testimony on this issue, there is significant opposition t o reducing or eliminating use of shorts as bait, even though increased industry yields would result. Therefore, i t is doubtful that with the prohibition that t h e practice will be discontinued. More likely, a t minimum, shorts harvested in a trap will be returned t o the water in t ha t trap. ACTION 6: VESSEL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Section 8.0 o f the FMP is modified by adding a new subsection 8.5 Vessel Safety Considerations t o read a s follows: 8.5 Vessel Safety Considerations No management measures included in the FMP, a s amended, o r proposed in this Amendment adversely impact vessel safety that would result from weather or unsafe ocean conditions through constraints placed on access to the fishery. The legal season for harvest is eight months in duration, but t h e effective (or 73% productive) season has been compressed t o five m o n t h d T a b l e 2); therefore; = ,--+ participants can adjust their vessel activities for weather and ocean conditions without e f f e c t on their harvesting opportunities. The FMP provides for a special recreational two-day season prior to the regular season. Weather and sea conditions could preclude safe vessel operation during this period. However, these persons can also fish a t any time during the eight-month season. Further, since this fishery largely occurs in t h e Florida Keys unless the weather is extremely severe, vessels can operate safely on the leeward side of these Keys. The FMP provides for a five-day soak period for placement of t r a p s before the season. However, if weather conditions prohibit vessel operations in some a r e a s during this period, t h e traps may be set at any t ime during the season, The FMP also provides for a five-day retrieval period for removing traps a t t h e end of t h e season. The FMP also provides for a 10-day extension t o the re t r ieval period, upon request, for "hardship", including bad weather. Also due to the compression of the productive season t o five months, most traps a r e removed before the e n d of the season. The FMP, as amended, requires use of a live-well on board vessels utilizing sublegal lobsters a s bait. The U.S. Coast Guard reviewed this issue and concluded such use was not a threat t o vessel safety. I f Action 5 of th is Amendment is implemented, the requirement for live-wells would termlnate o n April 1 , 1990. ACTION 7: DESCRIPTION OF THE HABITAT O F THE STOCKS Section 6.0 of the FMP is updated and editorially revised to provide habi ta t descriptions and analyses required by amendment of the Magnuson Act. The revised t ex t is appended t o this document as Appendix 0. V. Environmental Consequences The actions proposed in this Amendment have no adverse impact on t h e physical environment. The e f f e c t of these actions is t o amend the FMP t o include a regulatory amendment procedure whereby future actions in terms of proposed rule changes regulating the fishery may be implemented under the protocol and conditions of that procedure rather than amending the FMP for each rule change. The procedure requires that for each proposed future action an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) be prepared setting for th t h e environmental, economic and social impact of t h a t proposed action and the al ternatives to that action. Therefore the actions proposed in this Amendment have no environmental consequences. Its only e f fec t will be to shift a g r e a t portion of the federal management costs for the fishery t o the S t a t e of Florida (see Action 4). The proposed actions of the Amendment have no anticipated impact on threatened or endangered species or marine mammals. A Section (7) Consultation was held for the Amendment with a "no jeopardy opinionn being rendered. The Amendment does not a l ter any of the rules of the FMP. At such t i m e as rules a r e proposed under the Amendment's procedure the impact of each rule will be reexamined. VI. Conclusions o Mitigating Measures Related t o the Proposed Action None o Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None o Relationship Between Local, Short-term Use of the Resource and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity No impacts on short-term use a r e anticipated. Long-term productivity should be enhanced by implementation of a more flexible .-qd cost effect ive system t h a t will inlprove cooperative statelfederal managerr r of t h e resource, el iminate inconsistencies between s ta te and federal rules imgroving enforcement efficiency and eventually result in substantial increases in productivity from t h e resource. o Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The federal management commitment will be significantly reduced. Findings of No Significant Environmental Impact Having reviewed the environmental assessment and available information related t o the proposed actions, I have determined that the re will be no significant environmental impact resulting from the proposed actions. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Date RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Lincoln Center, Suite 88 1 5401 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 (8 13) 228-28 1 5 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council South Park Bldg., Suite 306 I South Park Circle Charleston, South Carolina 29407-4694 (803) 57 1-4366 Florida Marine Fisheries Commission 2450 Executive Center Circle West Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 487-0554 National Marine Fisheries Service Duval Building, 9450 Koger Blvd. St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (8 13) 893-3 14 1 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Spiny Lobster Advisory Panel Scientific and Statistical C o m ~ i t t e e South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Spiny Lobster Advisory Panel Scientific and Statistical Committee National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) General Counsels O f f ice (SER) National Marine Fisheries Service (SER) Division of Fisheries Management Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC) Florida Marine Research Institute LIST O F PREPARERS Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Wayne Swingle, Biologist, Drafter (Editorial Assistance from Personnel of Agencies Consulted) LOCATION AND DATES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings were held from 7:00 p.m. to 10:OO p.m. on the following dates: January 1 1, 1989 Key West, Florida The Commissioners Meeting Room 310 Flemming St. Key West, Florida 33040 January 12, 1989 Marathon, Florida Marathon High School Cafeter ia 350 Sombrero Beach Road Marathon, Florida 33050 LITERATURE CITED Austin, C., G. Waugh and S. Chan. 1980. Estimation of unrecorded spiny lobster, Panularius argus, c a t c h from recorded landings. Final Rpt. Ford Foundation Prog. in Policy Analysis for S t a t e Environ. Mgmt. Univ. Miami. 133 p. Davis G. and J. Dodrill. 1980. Marine parks a n d sanctuaries for spiny lobster f ishery management. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish Inst. 32: 194-207. Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC). 1987. Spiny Lobster Management: Final Policy Options. Memo. File Rpt. (February, 1987): 14 p. . 1987a. Economic Impact Sta tement fo r Adoption of Proposed Rule Chapter 46-24, FAC Lobster. Memo. File Rpt. (April, 1987): 12 p. Heatwolfe, D., J. Hunt and F. Kennedy. 1987. Catch efficiencies of live lobster decoys and other a t t r ac tan t s in the Florida spiny lobster fishery. Florida Dept. Nat. Resource. Bur. Mar. Research. Florida Mar. Research Publ. 44:l-16. Lyons, W. and F. Kennedy. 1981. Effects of harvest techniques on sublegal spiny lobsters and on subsequent fishery yield. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 33:290-299, Zuboy, 3. 1980. The Delphi Technique: a potential methodology for evaluating recreational fisheries. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC 19: 1-25. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Rulemaking A c t i v i t i e s of t h e F lor ida Marine ~ i s h e r i e s Commission by Charles .L. S h e l f e r Genera 1 Counse 1 Pursuant to Chapter 2 8 6 , F lo r ida S t a t u t e s , the Flor ida Marine F i s h e r i e s Commission may only t a k e o f f i c i a l ac t ion i n d u l y not iced, publ ic meetings. The Commission meets 25-30 days o u t o f each yea r , and makes a concer ted e f f o r t t o r o t a t e i t s m e e t i n q p e r i o d i c a l l y to a l l t h e regions of t h e s t a t e . Commission cons idera t ion o f a f i s h e r i e s problem usua l ly begins i n informat ional workshops a t which the p u b l i c is encouraged t o a t t e n d and d i r e c t l y address t h e board. There may be s e v e r a l of t h e s e workshops on a s i n g l e spec i e s p r io r to any po l icy d e c i s i o n s being made, e i t h e r a s a segment o f the --- . -%. n""* Commission's r e g u l a r meeting o r a s a special?workshop he ld in the l o c a l i t i e s being a f f ec t ed . A f t e r t h e workshops a r e completed, HFC staff develops policy op t ions t h a t a r e considered a t a fu l ly -no t iced p u b l i c meeting. Again, t h e p u b l i c is i n v i t e d t o address t h e Commission on t h e opt ions . Such meetings may l a s t s e v e r a l hours and the MFC may Listen t o ar many a s 50 speakers. Af te r publ ic testimony, op t ions a r e chosen by v o t e s of t h e Commission. Occasional ly , more than one such op t ions s e s s ion is needed t o a l l ow t h e Commission t o a r r i v e a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y set of op t ions . Each such se s s ion provides an oppor tun i ty f o r pub l i c comment. Once po l i cy op t ions a r e chosen, MFC l e g a l s t a f f d r a f t s ru les t o implement t h e dec i s ions . On most c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s sues , t h e MFC w i l l meet aga in t o cons ider t h e language of t h e d r a f t ru l e s . Again, p u b l i c tes t imony is taken, bu t is allowed on ly for the purpose of sugges t ing changes t o t h e d r a f t . The Commission, a t t h e conclusion of t h e meeting, w i 11 amend t h e language and approve t h e r u l o f o r formal rulemaking proceedings. Fozmal rulemaking begins wi th a n o t i c e of proposed rulemaking publ ished i n t h e F lo r ida Adminis t ra t ive Weekly. The d a t e of p u b l i c a t i o n se rves t o begin a 21-day period during which w r i t t e n comment is s o l i c i t e d . Such w r i t t e n comments a r e required by law t o be included i n the record of t h e proceeding. A f t e r the 21-day per iod , t h e Commission then holds a no t iced f o n a l rulemaking hear ing. Anyone wishing t o add res s t h e Commission on the proposed r u l e is allowed t o do so, though each such witness i s sworn. A t t h e conc lus ion of p u b l i c testimony, t h e MFC makes whatever changes t o t h e r u l e s it deems approp r i a t e and approves t h e r u l e s f o r submission t o t h e Governor and Cabinet. The MFC is only allowed t o make such changes t o proposed r u l e s a s a re supported by the record o f t he proceeding. A t a l l -Commission meet ings up t o t h i s p o i n t . p u b l r c ccmer and t e s t imony may b e l i m i t e d , depending on the number o f perso wishing t o speak on a n i s s u e . A speaker may b e l i m i t e d t o a specific number of minu tes k g . 3 minu tes o r 5 minutes) w r t h r n which t o make his p o i n t . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of s t a t e w i d e o r q a n i z a t i o n s may be g i v e n a d d i t i o n a l t i m e and speakers a re encouraged t o a v o i d d u p l i c a t i v e comments or d e f e r t o organization r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . The Governor and Cabinet of t h e State of Florida is empowered t o approve o r d i s a p p r o v e a proposed r u l e of the MFC, but it has no power t o amend. . MFC rules a r e cons ide red a t r e g u l a r meet ings o f t h e Governor and Cabinet a t wh ich any i n t e r e s t e d party may speak. At each s t a g e of MFC c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f f i s h e r i e s issues. p u b l i c comment i s welcomed. Exper ience h a s shown that the same pe rsons a p p e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e MFC on an i s s u e w i l l return time and a g a i n and g i v e t h e same conunents, as t h e issue evolves toward an approved r u l e . The Commission s t r i v e s t o encourage pub l i c input , d e s p i t e t h e r e p e t i t i o n and o f t e n t e d i o u s n a t u r e of t h e process,. =% L r-= REVISED HABITAT SECTION SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN HABITAT SECTION FOR THE SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN 6.2 Description of habitat of t h e stocks comprising the maragement unit The U.S. spiny lobster fishery is confined t o south Florida; primarily Monroe County (Figure 6-1). The principal habitat used is offshore cora l reefs and seagrasses. In south Florida the Mesozonic and Cenozoic s t ra ta of the Florida Platform dominate. The Florida Platform is fronted by shelf-edge reef complexes of the Cretaceous Era. I t is characterized by three regional structures but only the Southwest Florida Reef Tract is of prime importance to spiny lobster. T h e bottom is composed of sand and shell inshore and coral-sponge far ther offshore. Salinity and temperature are high throughout most of t h e year and a r e generally higher than in the a r e a north of Tampa. Bottom topographies on t h e continental shelf have high relief; i.e., coral reefs, artificial reefs, rocky hard-bottom substrates, ledges and caves, sloping soft-bottom areas, and limestone outcroppings. More detail on these habitat types is found in the fishery management plan (FMP) for Coral and Coral Reefs (CMFMC and SAFMC, 1982). - The spiny lobster spawns in offshore waters along the deepeFreef fringes (Lyons et al. 1981). Although adult males and females sometimes inhabit bays, lagoons, estuaries, and shallow banks, none a r e known t o spawn the re (Marx and Herrnkind 1986). Requirements of offshore spawning habitat a r e high shel ter quality, suitable water conditions (stable temperature and salinity, low surge a n d turbidity), and adequate larval transport by oceanic currents (Kanciruk a n d Herrnkind 1976 in Marx and Herrnkind 1986). The following excerpt from Marx and Herrnkind (1986) deta i l habitat requirements for the various spiny lobster life stages: "Phyllosoma larvae inhabit the epipelagic zones of the open ocean, which a r e characterized by relatively constant temperature and salinity, low levels of suspended sediments, and few pollutants. Relatively stable, natural conditions a re apparently required for optimum survival. Ingle and Whitham (1968) noted that 'spiny lobster larvae a r e extremely delicate, physically, and inordinately fastidious, physiologically.' Larvae a r e particularly sensitive to silt particles, which can, in ex t reme instances, lodge on their setae, weigh them down, and cause d e a t h (Crawford and De Smidt 1922). Because nutritional requirements change throughout t h e life of t h e larvae (Provenzano 1968; Phillips and Sastry 1980), enhanced growth and survival require a diverse, productive oceanic plankton community. Positive correlations between plankton biomass and density of late-stage phyllosomes were reported by R i t z (1972). Although pueruli set t le on isolated oceanic banks where t h e minimum depth exceeds 10 rn (Munro 1974), productive fisheries apparently require well-vegetated shallow habitat for juvenile development. Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay are cri t ical nurseries f o r Florida lobsters (Davis and Dodrill 1980). These bays a re characterized by extensive meadows of benthic vegetation, primarily turt legrass (Thalassia testudinum), shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), and various a lgae (Tabbs et al. 1962; Hudson e t al. 1970; Eldred et al. 1972). Macroalgal communities interspersed among these area apparently a r e important for the earliest benthic stages. Red algae, Laurencia spp., a r e abundant in waters supporting concentrations of young juveniles (Eldred e t al. 1972; Andree 198 1; Marx 1983). Intricate algal branching provides young lobsters with cryptic shelter and supports a diverse assemblage of smal l gastropods, crustaceans, and other prey. Juveniles larger than 20 mm CL take refuge in both biotic (sponges, small coral heads, s e a urchins) and abiotic (ledges, solution holes) structures. The importance o f shelter availability on population distribution is magnified because, unlike clawed lobster, spiny lobsters c a n modify but not construct dens (Kanciruk 1980). Substantial addition of artificial shelters in Biscayne Bay caused population redistribution but did not increase the numbers of lobsters in t h e a rea (Davis 1979). The south Florida juvenile lobster population may b e limited by recruitment, emigration, food, and perhaps other factors (Davis 1979). Adu! inhabit coral reef crevices or overhangs, rocky outcroppings, ledge and other discontirulties in hard substrate. Residential pat terns of hii, .ation a r e apparen* i large, permanent dwellings near 2xtensive feeding grounds (Herrnkir,; e t al. 1975). Soft-s*trate shelters, l ike- =- . :& grass-bed ledges, a r e occupied primarily during nomadic movements. Muddy, turbidity-prone substrates are usually avoided (Herrnkind et a l . 1975; Kanciruk 1980). Throughout benthic life spiny lobsters use other habitats besides those providing shelter. Lobsters concentrated during t h e day in localized dens disperse a t night t o forage over adjacent grass beds, sand flats, and a lga l plains (Herrnkind et al. 1975). Interactions between population density of spiny lobster and food availability have not been studied in south Florida. Extreme variation in growth rates, both among individuals a n d by habitat, suggests tha t food abundance is a cri t ical factor, as demonstrated in spiny lobster species elsewhere (Chittleborough 1976).Iv 6.2.1 Habitat condition. ,a southeast Florida, lobsters a r e distributed in accord with the habi ta ts serving each life stage. Reproductively act ive adults a r e mainly found along t h e oceanic (eastward) and gulfward (west) reef and hard substrate fringes of t h e Keys a n d Florida Bay. However, some of these individuals transit back and f o r t h t o the bay during non-reproductive periods. Juveniles above 20 mm CL a r e abundant b u t scattered throughout middle and lower Florida Bay wherever benthic conditions provide refugia. The larger juveniles wander over all intervening habitats a n d feed extensively in vegetated substrates; they make up the bulk of animals captured in traps within the bay. The distribution and abundance of young juveniles between sett lement and 20 mm CL are y e t t o be quanti tat ively estimated. Based on recent ecological studies (Marx and Herrnkind, 1985, Herrnkind and Butler, 1986, Herrnkind, e t al., 1988), i t is likely t h a t se t t l ement x c u r s wherever swimming postlarvae a re brought into c o n t a c t with inshore s t ands of benthic a lgae and o ther fouling assemblages. Slightly older individuals can be reliably found in mixed substrates within and adjacent to such areas. Upon outgrowing the algal habitat, the young juveniles take on an increasingly nomadic lifestyle a s they gain locomotory proficiency. M a ~ n t a l n ~ n g healthy sett lement and early juvenile habitat is crucial both because it is essential for regional lobster recrui tn~ent and because it is so vulnerable t o hurrlan and natural impacts. Nearshore and shallow water vegetated habitats a r e especially subject t o degradation by pollution, physical disturbance (e.g., prop damage, dredging, burial), turbidity, etc., (see below), a s well as nafural cold chill, vegetation die-off and salinity flux. Each hectare (10,000 m ) of red a lgal meadow is calculated to nurture 1,000 juvenile lobsters annual a s new se t t l e r s continually recruit monthly, then grow and emigrate t o other habitats a f t e r several months (Marx, 1 986). Offshore a reas used by adults appear to be the least af fected by nearshore habi ta t al terations and water quality degradation. Since most of the catch comes f rom offshore, there is an unknown e f f e c t of pesticides, herbicides, and other harmful wastes which have been considered as deleterious t o many inshore fisheries. Nearshore reefs and seagrasses have been adversely affected to various degrees by man (see later discussion), but overall are in good condition. Some coral reef a n d seagrass t r ac t s a re protected a s marine and estuarine sanctu-aries. These include =- L~ Dry Tortugas (Ft. Jefferson National Monument), E v e r g m e s National Park, ,= Biscayne National Park and other important a reas listed under Section 6.2.1 .l. The coastal areas used by spiny lobsters a r e stressed by alterations of t h e environment coupled with local changes in environmental parameters such as temperature and salinity. Natural and man-induced changes have a l tered freshwater inflow and removed much habitat. Natural wetland losses result f r o m forces such a s erosion, sea level rises, subsidence, and accretion. The major man induced activities tha t have impacted environmental gradients in t h e estuarine and nearshore zone are: construction and maintenance of navigation channels; discharges from wastewater plants and industries; dredge and fill for land use development; agricultural runoff; ditching, draining, or impounding wetlands; oil spills; therma 1 discharges; mining, particularly for phosphate, and petroleum; entrainment and impingement from electric power plants; dams; mar inas; alteration of freshwater inflows to estuaries; saltwater intrusion; non-point-source discharges of contaminants; t h e setting of traps on reefs; ghost fishing by lost or abandoned traps; and t h e use of oil in treating traps. All of south Florida's coastal a reas have been impacted t o some degree by one o r more of t h e above activities. The bays and estuaries a lso have been the most impacted by water quality degradation. Numerous pollution-related reports and publications exist, but there still is no complete list of chemical contaminants, their e f f e c t s , or concentrations. A comprehensive inventory t o assess how seriously the coastal areas are polluted also is needed. Florida's spiny lobsters spend a substantial part of the adult period offshore and carry out reproduction in waters stabilized by oceanic conditions. Such habitat is subject to human impact, although less so than nearshore areas. There, the apparent obligatory relationship between young juveniles and shallow bay a lgal habitats makes essential the identification, management and protection of such areas fo r this species. The degree t o which variable estuarine conditions impact lobster recruitment (e.g., in upper Florida Bay) also should be assessed as such habitat is necessary for recruiting other economically important species including shrimp, red drum and snook. 6.2.1.1 - Habitats of particular concern (HPC) are those which play an essential role in t h e life cycle o f the species. Specific areas have been identified in t h e Gulf of Mexico in t h e Coral and Coral Reefs FMP (GMFMC and SAFMC, 1982). These include the Biscayne National Park, Biscayne Bay Lobster Sanctuary, t h e Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary, t h e John Pennekamq Coral Reef S t a t e ? . =* ;-Ts Park, and the Dry Tortugas (Figure 6-2). Since these ree f s a 7 0 provide excellent spiny lobster habitat, they a r e again identified here as HPCs. 6.2.1.2 - Spiny lobster postlarvae may avoid settling in heavily s i l ted stands of benthic a lgae (Herrnkind, et al., 1988). Based on this and the above discussion (6.2.11, i t is likely tha t the vegetated habitat in a reas of high postlarval \s set t lement and early juvenile development will be identified as HPC a s information permits. 6.2.1.3 - W e a r e unaware of any current habitat condition that a f fec t s the abil i ty to ha rves tand market spiny lobster resources. However, low levels of DDT, PCB, endrin, and dieldrin organochlorines have been found in other offshore species such as red and black grouper, gag, and red snapper. If t h e residue levels of organochlorines or o ther pesticides in spiny lobsters ever become dangerous to humans it is likely t h a t the marketability of spiny lobster could be adversely affected. 6.2.2 Habitat threats. Currently, t h e primary threat t o nearshore habitat c o m e s f rom oi l and gas development and production, offshore dumping, dredging and dredged material disposal, and the discharge of contaminants by river systems which empty in to south Florida nearshore waters. The destruction of suitable benthic algal s tands and seagrass beds, as well a s reefs (natural and man-made) o r other types of ha rd bottom areas also may prove deleterious t o this fishery a s the species requires these habitats. Natural impacts on reef habitat may a r i se from s e v e r e weather conditions such as hurricanes and excessive freshwater discharge resulting f r o m heavy rain. Human impacts on reef habitat result f rom activit ies such as pollution, dredging and treasure salvage, boat anchor damage, fishing and diving related perturbations, and petroleum hydrocarbons ( J a a p 1984). Ocean dumping and nutrient overenrichment also may cause local problems. Nearshore reefs, especially off Florida, may be impacted by coastal pollution such as sewage and non-point-source discharges, urban runoff, herbicides, and pesticides (Jaap 1984). Residues of the organochlorine gesticides DDT, PCB, dieldrin, and endrin have been found in gag, red grouper, black grouper, and red snapper (Stout 1980). Heavy nietal accumulations in sediment and reef biota near population centers have been noted (Manker 1975). Disposal of wastes has c r e a t e d local problems. J a a p (1984) reports of batteries and refuse disposed of on the reef flat a t Carysfort Lighthouse in Florida. Dredging and salvaging near or on reefs is potentially t h e most damaging physical human activity. Dredge gear impacts reefs by dislodging cora l s and o t h e r organisms and by creating lesions or scars that lead t o infection or mortality. Sedimentation from dredging may seriously damage reefs. Dredged sediments may be anaerobic and bind up available oxygen thereby stressing corals and o t h e r sessile ree f organisms. I f the organisms cannot purge t h e sediments deposited on them, they generally a r e killed. Silt generated by dredging may remain in t h e a rea for long periods and continue to impact reefs when suspended during storms.- =. * Spiny lobster larvae a r e especially sensitive t o mortality from sedimentation. Reef habitat also may be removed by dredging for borrow materials and disposal on beaches and by dredging and filling associated with navigation channel construction and maintenance. Anchor damage is a significant threat t o reefs, especially those composed of corals. Anchors, ground tackle, lines, and chains can break hard and soft corals, scar reefs, and open lesions which can become infected. Heavy use of.reef a r e a s by boaters can compound the problem. Although anchoring by oil and gas lease operators is prohibited on most of the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico, anchoring for other purposes is not restricted. Fishing gear such as bottom trawls, bot tom longlines, and traps also may damage reefs. Effects would be similar to anchor damage. - Hook-and-line fishing and related losses of line, leaders, hooks, a n d sinkers also may damage corals. Disposal of garbage by boats has been identified as a problem a t Pulaski Shoal near Dry Tortugas (Jaap 1984). Recreational spearfishing, especially with explosive power heads, has damaged corals and may become more of a problem in areas of heavy diver concentration. Divers of t e n overturn corals and cause other damage. Specimen collecting a l s o may result in localized reef damage, especially when chemical collecting agen t s a r e improperly used. 6.2.3 Habitat information needs. The following research needs relat ive to spiny lobster habitat a re provided so t h a t s t a te , federal, and private research efforts can focus on those a reas that would allow the GMFMC and SAFMC t o develop measures t o be t t e r manage spiny lobster and their habitats: I . Identification of optimum habitat and environmental conditions for a l l life stages, especially the crucial sett lement and early juvenile s tages about which l i t t le is presently known; 2. The quantitative relationships between recruitment and production a n d their relationship to habitat; 3. Effects of water quality degradation on production; 4 . identification of areas of particular concern; 5 . Determination of habitat conditions that limit production; 6 . Methods for restoring habitat and/or improving existing environmental conditions tha; adversely affect production and; 7. Determinatic.. ;f the i x v a l origin of spiny lobster. 6.2.4 Habi ta t conservation programs. S t a t e and federal agencies and laws and policies that a f f e c t spiny lobster habi ta t a r e found in Section 7.0 of the FMP for Coral and Coral Reefs and the FMP f o r Spiny Lobster (GMFMC dc SAFMC 1982). Also s e e Figure 6-3. Specific in\ .; ,cement by other s t a t e and federal agencies a r e noted as follows. However, s r 7 - nvolvement is limited mainly t o Florida where the resource i s centered. Stare of Florida Department of Natural Resources ( D N R L I s responsible f o r - management o f all marine fishery resources in s t a t e waters. DNR has policing powers through the Florida Marine Patrol t o enforce s t a t e and some federa l statutes. In the area of specific regulations for reef management, t h e depar tment enforces s t a tu te 370.1 10 (prohibition of harvest, damage, or sale of f i r e coral, sea fans, and the t rue stony corals), 370.1 14 (protection of all corals in John Pennekamp Coral Reef Sta te Park), 370.08 (management of fish collecting chemicals), and 370.15 (fishery gear regulation). The Division of Recreation a n d Parks manages and operates s t a t e parks and federal marine sanctuaries through agreements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Division of Marine Research conducts scientific research t o support management in the a r e a of coral reef ecology and fisheries. S ta te of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). Within s t a t e waters DER has management powers over environmental change caused by human activity. All major engineering projects must be reviewed prior t o permitting. Both environmental monitoring and research a r e conducted. In t h e area of permitting, DER reviews permits for any human activity that a f fec t s the marine environment. Coastal dredging is managed through 370.03 and marine pollution under s t a t u t e 370.09. S t a t e of Florida Department of Administration (DOA). Under special powers t h e DOA can enac t "State Area of Critical Concern" and decree special regulations for indefinite periods if growth or other activit ies overload the capaci ty of local government t o adequately manage the resources. S t a t e of Florida Department of S t a t e (DOS). DOS manages salvage of historical ar t i fac ts in s t a t e waters. In t h e Keys a rea this includes numerous vessels sunk offshore. The activity is managed through the licensing of salvagers a n d monitoring of operations. Florida Aquatic Preserve System. By special legislative action, the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975 (Florida Statutes, Sections 258.35-258.44) was created to establish a direct means of permanently preserving submerged, s tate owned lands. The Act defined an aquatic preserve as a '%iologically, aesthetically or scientifically ,.. exceptional area of submerged lands and its associated waters set aside for maintaining the area essentially in its natural or existing condition (Florida Statutes, Section 258.37-258.38). The aquatic preserves created under this Act include only lands and water bottoms owned by the state (Florida Statutes, Section 253.03) and other lands or water bottoms that another government agency might authorize for preservation. No privately owned lands or water bottoms are included in the Act unless by special agreement with the private owner. Other specific exclusions from the aquatic preserves are areas altered by channel maintenance, by other public works projects and, lastly, lands lost by art if iciall y induced erosion. The original Florida Aquatic Preserves Act of 1975 outlined boundaries for 31 Preserves. Although most of these are in inshore waters, such a s rivers and estuaries, ocean areas also may be included. At least three preserves in the Florida Keys probably include coral habitats - the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve 2% adjacent to and south of Big Pine Key, Florida; Lignumvitae-lky Aquatic Preserve- - * ,% to the south of Key Largo, Florida; and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Florida State Park System. The relevance of the State Park System to spiny lobster habitat is due principally to the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park on and off Key Largo, Florida. This outstanding park adjacent to Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary contains significant coral reef habitats. $he J o y Pennekamp State Park was established in 1959 and includes over 125 km (36 nm ) of state waters. State Laws, Regulations,.and Policies Under Florida's coral law, it is unlawful for any person to take, otherwise destroy, sell, or attempt t o sell the following: 1) any sea fan of the species Gor onia flabellurn, or the species Gor onia ventalina; 2) any hard or stony coral -7- s c 1 e r . m - o r 3) any f ire -7 coral M-. Possession of any fresh. uncleaned. or uncured soecimen of these s ~ e c i e s without a certified invoice of importation from a foreign kountry or proof t i a t the specimen was taken before July 1, 1976, is also illegal. Sea fans or stony corals may be taken for scientific or educational purposes only by permit from the Department of Natural Resources [Fla. Stat. (370.114)]. The Florida Marine Patrol must be informed of the time, place, method, quantity, and species to be collected. Dead corals and coral rubble (i.e., coral rock) may be collected without a permit. It is unlawful to take dead or live coral from, or possess it within, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park [Fla. Stat. (370.114)l. By a joint management agreement between the State of Florida and the NOAA, s tate park rangers and Coast Guard personnel patrol (Cooperative Agreement No. 04-6-158-441 16 between Florida DNR and U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, and 15 C.F.R. 929) both the State Park and the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary (KLCRMS). Indirect authorities with relevance to corals include fishery gear regulations [Fla. Stat. (370.15)], a permit system for the use of chemicals to collect marine specimens [Fla. Stat. (370.08)] ocean water contamination regulations [Fla. Stat. (370.09)], and dredge and fill regulations [Fla. Stat. (370.03)l. S ta te habitat programs include Aquatic Preserves [Fla. Stat . (258.35)], Areas of Critical S t a t e Concern [Fla. Stat. (380.05)], Environmentally Endangered Lands [Fla. Stat. (259)] , and S ta te Parks. Section 7 of Article I1 of the Florida Constitution provides t h a t it shall b e t h e policy of the S ta te t o conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty. The Florida code (Ch. 17-4.28 and 4.29) regulates dredge and fill activities, (Ch. 7-4.02) protects submerged lands, (Ch. 17-3, Fla. Admin. Code) provides water quality standards and (Ch. 161 F.S.) protects beaches and shorelines. In addition, the Randall Act (Ch. 253 F.S.) prevents t h e sale of s t a t e owned lands, except a f t e r conservation considerations a r e met. This Act stopped the sale of state-owned submerged lands. By definition, submerged lands in Florida a r e those lands covered by the categories of wa te r listed in Section 17 4.28(2), Fla. Admin. Code, and havin plant dominance as therein listed. Some of the dominant plants a r e mangroves 7 black, red, and white), a s well a s the major marine grasses (halodule, manatee, and tur t le grass). Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program has been approved by the federal government. Included in the program are all t h e codified statutes and rules of t h e DNR and the DER tha t pertain t o the marine environment. 2 - -- - . =% r.ru Federal Programs Office of Coastal Zone Management, Marine Sanctuaries Program (MSP), NOAA. Specifically, this program manages and funds the marine sanctuaries program (MSP). On-site management and enforcement a re generally delegated t o t h e s t a tes through special agreements. Funding for research and management is arranged through grants. , In terms of complementing the protection of coral habi ta t from a site-specific perspective, this is one of the most important federal programs. This program was authorized under Title 111 of t h e Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972. Its purpose is t o preserve or restore t h e conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values o f localized a rea It... a s far seaward as the outer edge of t h e continental shelf, ... (and in) o the r coastal waters whether the tide ebbs and flows ..." (MPRSA, Section 302a). In e f fec t , the MSP is a coasta l water counterpart t o the more familiar national park, forest , wildlife refuge, a n d wilderness systems. Site management and administrative responsibility for a sanctuary may either b e retained by OCZM or delegated with necessary funding support to o t h e r appropriate management units. The NSP is particularly interested in protecting outstanding coral reef areas. O n e of the six existing sanctuaries - the KLCRNMS off Key Largo, Florida, 2 comple e n t s s t a te e f fo r t s a t John Pennekamp S ta te Park by protecting a 343 km 9 ( 1 00 nm ) section of t h e upper Florida reef tract . A management plan for the Key Largo sanctuary has been designed t o provide the protection necessary and insure long-term viability of t h e ecosystem. The management plan also addresses public education, environmental and regulatory enforcement monitoring, and regulatory enforcement needs at t h e site. Enforcement is conducted cooperatively by t h e DNR (Marine Patrol and Park Rangers) and the U.S. Coast Guard. 2 The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary covers a 5 nm coral r e e f area located 6.7 nm eas t of Big Pine Key, Florida. It was designated in January 1981 to nlainrain, protect, and enhance the quality of the natural, biological, aesthetic and cultural resources of the Looe K e y system, to promote and st imulate marine research effor ts directed toward improved management decision making and identification and analysis of marine ecological interrelationships, and to enhance public awareness of the functioning of the Looe Key coral reef system. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The enactment of the Magnuson Act provides f o r exclusive management of fisheries seaward of s t a te jurisdiction. This includes both specific fishery stocks and habitat. The process fo r developing FMPs is highly complex. I t includes plan development by various procedures through fisheries management councils. NMFS implements approved plans. T h e Coast Guard, NMFS, and s ta tes enforce FMPs. FMPs for coral and coral reefs , reef fish, grouper and snapper, and spiny lobster are in force. NMFS has implemented rules for Council FMPs that directly or indirectly p ro tec t the habitat of spiny lobster. Rules for the Coral FMP (50 CFR P a r t 638) prohibit harvest and possession of coral except by scientific permit and establish HAPCs A where cer ta in fishing gear is prohibited. Rules for the Ree-ish FMP (50 CFR , Part 641) establish a stressed a r e a (encompassing most natural reef areas in t h e Gulf) where certain gear is proh~bited (i.e., roller trawls, power heads, f ish traps). Rules for t h e Shrimp FMP (50 CFR Part 658) establish t h e Tortugas Sanctuary tha t encompasses all t h e Florida Reef Tract and most of Florida Bay within which trawling is prohibited. Rules for the Stone Crab FMP (50 CFR P a r t 654) establish a "line of separationw seaward of the Tortugas Sanctuary within which trawling is prohibited from January I t o May 20. National Park Service (NPS). National parks and monuments a r e under t h e jurisdiction of NPS. Management, enforcement, and research are accomplished in house. The system of national parks and monuments operated by t h e NPS, in t h e broadest terms, preserve for all t imes scenic beauty, wilderness, na t ive wildlife, indigenous plant life and areas of scientific significance and antiquity (16 U.S.C. (I)). Although the NPS includes several marine areas, their distinctly land-based orientation makes them somewhat less likely t o include new marine a reas within their system. Nevertheless, a reas operated by the NPS within the present study a rea include and manage significant coral resources - the Everglades National Park, the Biscayne National Park north of Key Largo, Florida, and the F o r t Jefferson National Monument in t h e Dry Tortugas, Florida. Both the s ta tement for management for the Jefferson National Monument and t h e general management plan for Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park, include as major management objectives the protection of natural resources (including corals) within their boundaries. A t the Fort Jefferson Monument, a l l areas within the Monument's administrative boundaries (with the exception of Garden Key), a r e classified a s an outstanding natural a r e a under t h e NPS's land classification system. Prohibited activities include commercial fishing and t h e taking of lobsters, while allowed uses include sport fishing and nonconsumptive recreational activities. M~nerals Management Service (MMS). This agency has jurisdiction over mineral and petroleum resources on the continental shelf. The MMS along with the U.S. Geological Survey is charged with administering mineral exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), pursuant to the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA), a s amended in 1978 [43 U.S.C. (1331 e t seq.)]. The MMS serves a s the administrative agency for leasing submerged federal lands. Of particular interest is MMS' the ability t o withdraw t racts f rom proposed OCS mineral lease sales for lack of information, aesthetic, environmental, geologic, or other reasons. The presence of coral reefs, hard bottoms, or o ther marine a r e a s containing significant resources could be reasons for withdrawing t racts . Further, the OCSLA [43 U.S.C. (1341)J also provides for permanent disposition f r o m leasing; Key Largo Coral Reef was provided such protect ion ' by President Eisenhower, through Proclan~at ion No. 3339 (55 CFR 2552) which established t h e KLCRMS. During 1988, the Governor of the Sta te of Florida requested that OCS drilling no t be allowed south of 26 N. latitude to assure protection of coral reef habitats. The Oil Pollution Convention (T.I.A.S. 4900,6109) and t h e Oil Pollution Act [33 U.S.C. (1 00 1-1 016)J also prohibit oil discharges within 50 nm hf shore by U.S. a n d - =- - -1% foreign vessels. Fish and Wildlife Service (FW S). FW S assists with environmental impact review, develops biological resource evaluations, and administers the endangered species program with the NMFS. Three National Wildlife Refuges a r e located in t h e Florida Keys which undoubtedly contain coral habitats: The National Key D e e r Refuge, The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, and t h e Key West National Wildlife Refuge. These areas, however, rely on the c o r a l permitting authority of the S ta te of Florida t o protect t h e corals. Geological Survey (USGS). In the coral reef a reas USCS has conducted considerable reef research and assisted or cooperated with other institutions a n d agencies t o facil i tate logistics and support of coral reef research. T h e USGS a l s o is charged with supervising mineral development operations on the OCS, Further, t h e USGS must ensure oil company compliance with regulations and l ease stipulations once a lease is sold. This represents a key management authority f o r ensuring protection of coral communities. Although these authorit ies a r e n o t comprehensive, they a r e significant because of the widespread in teres t in cur ren t OCS oil and gas development and i t s potential impacts on corals. Coast Guard. The 1978 Waterways Safety Act charges the CC with marine environmental protection. The CG is the general enforcement agency fo r a l l marine activity in the federal zone. Among the dut ies are enforcement of sanctuary and fishery management regulations, managing vessel salvage, a n d coordinating oil spill cleanup operations a t sea. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The COE contracts and regulates coas ta l engineering projects, particularly harbor and channel dredging and beach renourishment projects. The COE also reviews and is t h e permitting agency f o r coastal development projects, art if icial reefs, and offshore structures. Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA). This agency h a s a general responsibility for controlling air and water pollution. Disposal of hazardous w a s t e s and poin t source discharge permit t ing a r e EPA functions. Ce r t a in mineral and petroleum exploration and production ac t iv i t ies also a r e managed by EPA. Environmental research germane t o was te disposal and pollution also a r e funded. E P A regula tes chemical discharges into Gulf of Mexico and south At l an t i c waters , under t h e National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys tem (NPDES) program of the C l e a n Water Act for chemicals used or produced in the Gulf and south Atlant ic a r e a (i.e., drilling muds, produced wa te r or biocides) and then released, o r under t h e Ocean Dumping Regulations of t h e MPRSA if t h e chemica ls a re t ransported i n t o the Gulf and south At lant ic a r ea for the purpose of dumping. Federal environmental agencies such a s the NMFS, FWS, and the EPA also ana lyze projects proposing inshore and offshore a l te ra t ions for potential impacts o n resources under their purview. Recommendations resul t ing from these analyses a r e provided t o t h e permit t ing agencies ( t h e COE for physical a l te ra t ions in inshore wa te r s and te r r i tor ia l sea, t h e MMS for physical a l te ra t ions in the OCS or the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and EPA f o r chemica l alterations). Even though t h e COE issues permi ts for oil and gas s t ruc tu re s in t h e EEZ, t h e y only consider navigation and national defense impacts, t hus leaving t h e rest t o t h e - . ,% Depar tment o f Interior (DOI), in a nationwide general permit.- ,.= 6.2.5 H a b i t a t recommendations. The spiny lobster fishery cont r ibutes t o t he food supply, economy, and health o f t h e nation, and provides recreat ional and commercia l fishing opportunities. T h e fishery is dependent upon the survival of spiny lobster resources, which can only b e assured by the wise management of a l l aspec ts of t h e habitat , Increased productivity of spiny lobster s tocks may not be possible wi thout h a b i t a t main tenance and regulatory restrictions. Recognizing t h a t a l l spec ies a r e dependent on the quant i ty and qua l i t y of t h e i r essential habitats , i t i s t h e policy of the GMFMC and SAFMC t o p r o t e c t , restore, and improve habitats upon which commercial and recrea t ional mar ine f isheries depend, t o increase the i r ex tent and t o improve their productive c a p a c i t y for t h e benefi t of present and fu tu re generations. This policy shal l be supported by t h r e e object ives which a r e to: 1. Maintain t h e cur rent quanti ty and productive capaci ty of hab i t a t s supporting impor tant commercia l and recrea t ional fisheries, including the i r food base (This object ive may be accomplished through t h e recommendation of no n e t loss and minimization of envi ronmenta l degradation of existing habitat); 2. Res to re and rehabi l i ta te t h e productive capaci ty of habi ta t s which have a l ready been degraded; and 3. C r e a t e and develop productive habi ta t s where increased fishery productivity will benefit society. To achieve these goals t he CMFMC and SAFMC have fo rmed Habi ta t C o m m i t t e e s and Advisory Panels for the Gulf and south At lant ic s t a t e s . The purpose of t h e Commi t t ees is t o bring t o the Councilst a t t en t ion ac t iv i t ies that m a y a f f e c t t h e habitat o f t h e f isheries under the i r management. The Councils pursuant t o t h e Magnuson Act , will use their au thor i t ies t o support s t a t e and f e d e r a l environmental agencies in their habitat conservat ion e f fo r t s a n d will d i rec t ly engage the regulatory agencies on significant ac t ions tha t m a y a f f e c t spiny lobster habitat . The goal is t o insure tha t spiny lobster habi ta t losses a r e k e p t t o t h e minimum and t h a t e f fo r t s for appropriate mitigation s t r a t eg ie s a n d applicable research a r e supported. Literature Cited Andree, S.W. 1981. Locomotory activity patterns and food i t ems of benthic postlarval spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus. M.S. Thesis. Florida S t a t e liniversity, Tallahassee. Chittleborough, R.G. 1976. Growth of juvenile Panulirus Iongipes cygnus George on coastal reefs c o m ~ a r e d with those reared under ootimal environmental 1 conditions. Aust. 3. hiar. Freshwater Res. 27:279-295. Crawford, D.R., and W.J.J. De Smidt. 1922. The spiny lobster, Panulirus ar us o f southern Florida: its natural history and utilization. Bull. Bur. Fii&:S.) 38:281-310. Davis, G.E. 1979. Management recommendations for juvenile spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus, in Biscayne National Monument, Florida. U.S. Dep. Inter. So. Fla. Res. Rep. M-530. 32 pp. Davis, C.E. and J.W., Dodrill. 1980. Marine parks and sanctuaries f o r spiny lobster fishery management. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish Inst. 32:194-207. - --- . 2% c I<"* Eldred, B., C.R. Futch, and R.M. Ingle. 1972. Studies of juvenile spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus, in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Spec. Sci. Rep. 35. 15 pp. Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 1982. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact s ta tement for coral and c o r a l reefs. Tampa, Fla. and Charleston, SC. pages var. Herrnkind, W.F., and M.J. Butler, IV. 1986. Factors regulating postlarval sett lement and juvenile microhabitat use by spiny lobsters Panulirus argus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 34:23-30. Herrnkind, W.F., 1. Vanderwalker, and 1. Barr. 1975. Population dynamics, ecology, and behavior of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands: habitation and pattern of movements. Results of the Tekt i te Program, Vol. 2. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Ang. Cty. Sci. Bull. 20:31-45. Herrnkind, W.F., M.J. Butler and R.A. Tankersley. 1988. The effects of siltation on recruitment of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Fish. Bull. 86(2):331-338. Hudson, J.H., D.M. Allen, and T.J. Costello. 1970. The flora and fauna o f a basin in centra l Florida Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 604. 14 pp. Ingle, R.M., and R. Witham. 1968. Biological considerations in spiny lobster culture. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 21:158-162 Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the South Florida coral reefs: a community profile. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWSIOBS-82/08. 138 p. Kanciruk, P. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Palinuridae (spiny lobsters). Pages 59-92 in J.S. Cobb and 6. F. Phillips, eds. The biology and management of lobsters, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York Kanciruk, P., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1976. Autumnal reproduction of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, at Bimini, Bahamas. Bull. Mar. Sci. 26:4 17-432. Lyons, W.G., D.G. Barber, S.M. Foster, F.S. Kennedy, Jr. and G.R. Milano. 198 1. The spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in the middle and upper Florida Keys: population structure, seasonal dynamics, and reproduction. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 38. 38 pp. Manker, J.P. 1975. Distribution and concentration of mercury, lead, cobalt, zinc, and chromium in suspended particles and bottom sediments - Upper Florida Keys, Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay. Ph.D. Thesis. Rice University, Houston, Tx. 114 p. Marx, J.M. 1986. Recruitment and sett lement of spiny lobster pueruli in south Florida. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:2221-2227, --- . =x Marx, J.M. 1983. Macroalgal communities as habitat f o r 7 i r l y benthic spiny -a lobsters, Panulirus argus. M.S. Thesis. Florida S ta te University, Tallahassee. Marx, J.M. and W.F. Herrnkind. 1985. Macroalgae (Rhodophyta: ~ a u r e n c i a ' spp.) as a habitat for young juvenile spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus. Bull. Mar. Sci. 36:423-431. Marx, J.M., and W.F. Herrnkind. 1986. Species profiles: life histories a n d environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. Biol. Rep. 82(11.61). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL 82-4. 21 pp. Munro, J.L. 1974. The biology, ecology, exploitation, and management of Caribbean reef fishes. Sci. Rep. ODAIUWI Fish. Ecol. Res. Proj., 1969 1973. P a r t 6. The biology, ecology, and bionornics of Caribbean reef fishes: 6. Crustaceans (spiny lobsters and crabs). Univ. W. Indies 2001. Dep. Res. Rep. No. 3. Kingston, Jamaica. 57 pp. Phillips, B.F., and A.M. Sastry. 1980. Larval ecology. Pages 11-48 & J.S. Cobb a n d B.F. Phillips, eds. The biology and management of lobsters, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York. Provenzano, A.J. 1968. Recent experiments on laboratory rearing of tropical lobster larvae. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 21:152-157. Ritz. D.A. 1972. Factors affectine the distribution of rock lobster larvae ' (Panulirus longipes cygnus), w z h reference to variability of plankton-net catches. Mar. Biol. 13:309-317. Stout, V.F. 1980. Organochlorine residues in fishes from the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 78( 1):5 1-58. Tabb, D.C., D.L. Dubrow, and R.B. Manning. 1962. The ecology of northern Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries. Fla. Sta te Board Conserv. Tech. Ser. 1 No. 39. 81 pp. I 0 1 -0 ?@a#@ llmlt@ w 0 @f hl#h ean.enwam 8.. t Figure 6-1. Distribution of t h e spiny lobster on t h e south F o r d coas:.