dSS. -?Y'
/_?7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
^"G*
\
%
PROPOSED
LOOE KEY
NATIONAL MARIN
SANCTUARY
April 1980
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED ON THE
PROPOSED LOOE KEY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
April 1980
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://www.archive.org/details/draftenvironmeOOnati
DESIGNATION : Draft Environmental Impact Statement
TITLE : Proposed Looe Key Marine Sanctuary
ABSTRACT : The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
proposes the designation of the waters at Looe Key, a sub-
merged section of the Florida Reef Tract, located 12.4 km
(6.7 nautical miles) southwest of Big Pine Key in the Florida
Keys, as a marine sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary consists
of 5 square nautical miles of high sea waters under Federal
jurisdiction.
The designation of a marine sanctuary would establish a
program of comprehensive management, including research,
assessment, monitoring, public education, long-term
planning, coordination and regulation for this section
of the Florida reef tract. The preferred alternative
provides sanctuary management goals and objectives which
will serve as a framework around which sanctuary activities
will be structured.
LEAD AGENCY
CONTACT:
Specific regulations are proposed which would apply only
within the sanctuary boundaries. The proposed regulations
allow the following activies only under NOAA permit for
scientific and educational purposes: possession and col-
lecting of coral and disturbance of historical and cultural
resources. The proposal prohibits: spearfishing and
possession of spearfishing gear; the use of lobster traps
within a core area on the Fore Reef; use of wire fish
traps; anchoring on coral; the discharge of substances
except non-polluted cooling waters from vessels, fish or
fish parts and chumming materials and discharges from
marine sanitation devices. In addition, the proposed
regulations allow marine specimen collecting with a NOAA
permit but prohibit the use of chemicals.
Alternatives to the proposed action include the no action
or status quo alternative, modification of the sanctuary
boundaries, and more and less stringent regulations.
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Dr. Nancy Foster, Deputy Director
Sanctuary Programs Office
OCZM
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
(202) 634-4236
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
CHAPTER ONE: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
CHAPTER TWO: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
I. Introduction
II. Preferred Alternative
III. Analysis of Alternatives
IV. No Action Alternative: Rely On The Legal Status Quo
V. Activities in the Designation Document For Which
Regulations Are Not Currently Being Proposed
VI. Regulatory Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study
CHAPTER THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
I. Marine Environment
II. Socio-Economic Setting
III. Historic and Cultural Resources
IV. Legal Status Quo
CHAPTER FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
I. Introduction
II. Boundary Alternatives
III. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Regulations
Coral Collecting
Wire Trap Fishing
Lobster Trapping
Marine Specimen Collecting
Spearfishing
Historic and Cultural Resources
Discharges
Anchoring
LIST OF PREPARERS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
DRAFT DESIGNATION DOCUMENT AND DRAFT REGULATIONS
SITE ANALYSIS RESEARCH METHODS
LOOE KEY ONSITE SURVEY
FLORIDA STATE LAWS AND EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL
MARINE PRESERVES, PARKS AND SANCTUARIES
1
19
21
21
21
33
39
41
42
45
45
59
66
70
85
85
86
91
91
93
98
102
105
108
110
111
117
119
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: CORAL COLLECTING/ WIRE FISH TRAPPING ANALYSES 34
TABLE 2: TROPICAL SPECIMEN COLLECTING/ SPEARFISHING ANALYSES 35
TABLE 3: LOBSTER TRAPPING ANALYSIS 36
TABLE 4: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES/ DISCHARGING ANALYSES 37
TABLE 5: ANCHORING ANALYSIS 38
TABLE 6: SUMMARY INCOME AND BUSINESS VOLUME 65
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS
TO PROTECT LOOE KEY 71
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF LOOE KEY 2
FIGURE 2: LOOE KEY BIOLOGICAL ZONES 8
FIGURE 3: BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES 23
FIGURE 4: LOOE KEY BIOLOGICAL ZONES 50
FIGURE 5: LOOE KEY HAPC 77
FIGURE 6: BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES 87
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1431-1434) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, after consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies, and the affected State, and Presidential
approval, to designate ocean areas having distinctive conservation,
recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values as marine sanctuaries. In
1977, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
Department of Commerce sent out a nationwide letter asking for recommendations
of sites appropriate for consideration as marine sanctuaries.
The response to this request included a recommendation by the Florida Keys
Citizens Coalition (an association of approximately 21 public interest groups)
for the designation of Looe Key as a marine sanctuary "to establish a
recreational and aesthetic area managed to protect the coral and coral
reef ecosystem" (Nomination letter of November 23, 1977). In January
1978, NOAA held a public workshop on the proposal at Big Pine Key. The
Florida Audubon Society; Big Pine Key Citizens Association; the Isaak
Walton League, Florida Chapter; the Florida Keys Citizens' Coalition;
and the Upper Keys Citizens' Association testified on behalf of the
proposal. The Newfound Harbor Marine Institute spoke in support of a
core area where only non-consumptive uses would be permitted.
On the other hand, the Lower Keys Chapter of the Organized Fishermen of
Florida testified that its members were opposed to any regulation of fishing
which might reduce their income. Local residents in the nearby Keys expressed
concern that the sanctuary would only attract more tourists to the area which,
in turn, would further deplete and damage renewable resources.
The majority of those testifying spoke of the importance of the reef,
although there was disagreement as to the best way of protecting its unique
and significant value for future generations. Most emphasized that effective
coral protection depended upon the on site presence of enforcement personnel.
Following the workshop, the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional
Fishery Management Councils requested that NOAA delay further steps until
the Councils' coral reef study was completed. NOAA agreed to the delay.
Upon later recommendations of the Councils, NOAA resumed the evaluation
of Looe Key as a Marine Sanctuary candidate. To determine the desirability
and feasibility of proceeding with the designation, NOAA began preparation
of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on October 1, 1979.
In October 1979, NOAA printed a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement in the Federal Register and held a scoping meeting
on the proposal. NOAA has gathered and analyzed information and consulted
with other Federal agencies, State agencies, the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC)
and South Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils (SAFMC), and local
interest groups.
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF LOOE KEY
KEY LARGO CORAL
REEF MARINE
SANCTUARY
S
Sand Key
Key West
LOOE KEY
NOAA has analyzed alternatives to this proposal, including that of
taking no action, all of which are discussed in Chapter Four (Environmental
Consequences). NOAA will accept comments on this DEIS, hold public
hearings, and respond to all comments received in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS). After a review of comments and final consultation
with Federal agencies, if a decision is made to proceed with the designation,
NOAA must seek Presidential approval of the proposed Marine Sanctuary
designation.
A draft Designation Document and a set of draft proposed regulations
appear in Appendix A. These documents describe the preferred alternative
and will be published as a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register
concurrently with the distribution of this DEIS. Following publication,
of this DEIS comments will be accepted for sixty (60) days, after which,
if a sanctuary is to be designated, final proposed regulations will be
published in the Federal Register to become final after designation. An
FEIS will be issued and will include these final proposed regulations.
II. NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM (NMSP) PURPOSES
The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) focuses on comprehensive
management of marine ecosystems for the long-term protection of natural
resources and the enjoyment and benefit of society.
The following program purposes present a framework for the national
sanctuary system:
° To provide long-term protection to special marine areas with unique
conservation, recreational, ecological or aesthetic values;
To provide a focus for comprehensive management of these areas;
° To enhance public awareness of special marine areas and emphasize
wise use of these natural resources;
To encourage research and exchange of information about marine
ecosystems.
III. PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE L00E KEY MARINE SANCTUARY
The Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), which is responsible
for the marine sanctuary program within NOAA, proposes the designation
of Looe Key as a marine sanctuary. The area consists of five square nautical
miles of high sea waters under Federal jurisdiction at Looe Key, a submerged
section of the Florida Reef Tract, located 6.7 nautical miles (12.4 km)
southwest of Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys at latitude 24°, 33'
north and longitude 81°, 24' west (see Figure 1).
The Looe Key area represents one of the few remaining living sections
of the Florida Reef tract which includes:
° Portions of Patch Reefs, a Reef Flat, Fore Reef, Deep Reef and Deep
Ridge in a small manageable unit which allows for a focus on public
education and research aimed at a better understanding of reef dynamics;
° Shallow water reef areas close to shore and ideal for recreational uses
by both amateur and experienced individuals.
The five sq nmi boundary alternative will provide a reasonable slice of
the reef tract which will permit management to achieve the proposed sanctuary
objectives as described below. For this reason it was selected as the
preferred boundary. If charting of the proposed boundary demonstrates that
a smaller area will include adequate portions of the five zones to satisfy
program objectives, the area proposed for designation will be reduced.
Proposed Management
The management of Looe Key as a marine sanctuary will focus on the
attainment of several goals and objectives (Chapter II Preferred Alternative):
Goal 1: To maintain, protect and enhance the quality of the natural,
biological, aesthetic and cultural resources of Looe Key reef system.
Objectives:
° Promulgate protective regulations;
Provide a framework for on site management;
Provide for adequate enforcement;
° Utilize research data to assess management needs and priorities,
modify regulations and to determine management strategies.
Goal 2: To promote and stimulate marine research efforts directed
toward identification and analysis of marine ecological interralationships.
Objectives:
° Encourage and cooperate with interested parties in research
and study of reef interrelationships;
° To establish competitive funding mechanisms encouraging a wide
range of scientific expertise to focus attention on reef dynamics;
° Establish a clearing house for dissemination and exchange of
sanctuary research data.
Goal 3: To enhance public awareness of the functioning of the Looe Key
coral reef system.
Objectives:
° Provide a means for education and information exchange;
° Develop educational programs that will increase awareness
and appreciation of Looe Key through a public information
effort (including slides, brochures, lectures, etc.);
° Establish a sanctuary information center;
° Develop interpretative services.
If a sanctuary is established, NOAA will emphasize the national importance
of the sanctuary's resources. NOAA will establish a Sanctuary Information Center to
promote the public's awareness of the sanctuary. Sanctuary management may also
improve access to research information. Researchers will be encouraged to notify
the Sanctuary Information Center of intended activities and to file reports and
results with the Information Center. Finally, both resource quality and the
effects of human activities in the sanctuary will be monitored. These results
will aid in future management decisions.
Enforcement and surveillance will be an integral part of the management
and protection of the Looe Key Sanctuary. NOAA is exploring various means
of providing enforcement and surveillance. The National Marine Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Coast Guar^l, the National Park Service, and the Florida
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have experience in operations. NOAA
will explore the possibility of cooperative management with each of these
agencies. The participation of other agencies in cooperative management
will, of course, be subject to continuing discussions and will be affected
by the precise scope and content of the final regulations, as well as by
other demands and priorities facing NOAA and the other agencies involved.
Proposed Designation
The Designation Document (Designation) serves as a constitution for the
sanctuary (the draft Designation for the proposed Looe Key Marine Sanctuary
is presented in Appendix A). It establishes the boundary and purpose of the
sanctuary, identifies the types of activities that may be subject to regulation,
and specifies the extent to which other regulatory programs will continue to be
effective within the sanctuary. Its content can be altered only after repeating
the entire designation process and securing Presidential approval.
The draft Designation proposes that the following activities be
subject to necessary and reasonable regulation:
° anchoring
° coral collecting
wire trap fishing
° lobster trapping
° tropical specimen collecting
° spearfishing
° bottom trawling and specimen-dredging
° discharging or depositing any substance
° tampering with, removing, or otherwise damaging cultural or
historic resources
° dredging or alteration of or construction on the seabed.
Hook and line fishing, net fishing and activities such as snorkling
and SCUBA diving will not be subject to regulation under the current
Designation.
Proposed Regulations
The proposed restrictions on activities are set forth in the draft
regulations (Appendix A). At the present time NOAA is not proposing to
regulate alteration of or construction on the seabed or bottom trawling
and specimen-dredging. However by listing this activity in the Designa-
tion, restrictions could be proposed in the future should conditions
warrant it. NOAA may legally promulgate regulations only in relation to
the specific activities listed in the Designation, but the Designation
itself does not constitute regulations or impose restrictions. Specific
regulations must be proposed, subjected to public review and comment and
promulgated if NOAA wishes to control any aspect of the activities listed
in the Designation.
Specific regulations summarized here and presented in detail in Chapter
2, are proposed for the protection of the natural resources and the
safety of the various user groups as part of NOAA's preferred alternative.
To the extent possible, the sanctuary managers will coordinate with
existing authorities in both the administration and enforcement of the
regulations. These regulations will apply only within the sanctuary
boundaries. The full text of the proposed regulations as they appear
in the Federal Register is presented in Appendix A.
The proposed regulations would impose the following controls:
(1) Prohibit the collecting of coral except by permit for
research and educational purposes;
(2) Allow by permit the collecting of tropical marine specimens.
Prohibit the use of chemicals for collecting;
(3) Prohibit spearfishing;
(4) Prohibit wire fish traps;
(5) Allow lobster trapping within the sanctuary except on the
Fore Reef (consisting of a trapezoid within Loran C points
1, 2, 3 and 4 consistent with the Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC) designated by the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils);
(6) Prohibit anchoring on coral and require anchoring on
sand flats;
(7) Prohibit tampering with, damaging or removal of historical and
cultural resources except by permit for research and
educational purposes; and
(8) Prohibit all discharges except vessel cooling waters,
fish parts, chumming materials and effluents from marine
sanitation devices.
IV. RESOURCE SUMMARY
Details of the following summary are presented in the text of this EIS
(see Chapter Three).
A coral reef ecosystem probably supports a larger number of species than
any other. This high degree of productivity can be attributed to the unique
biology of the corals themselves. Coral species play a critical role in the
structure, ecology and nutrient cycling of the reef system (Goreau et aj_, 1979).
All major taxa of coral reef-dwelling organisms are represented at
Looe Key. A report, based on a resource inventory conducted by Antonious et al ,
in 1978, indicates the existence of several hundred species of marine organisms,
co-existing in the intricate functional web of the reef ecosystem. High
ecological diversity on Looe Key reef manifests itself in the existence of
distinct natural communities or associations within the reef ecosystem.
It is apparent that exchanges of energy occur between the various associations,
and between the reef biota proper and the adjacent seagrass beds. Large
numbers of demersal and pelagic fishes and large invertebrates, such as
the spiny lobster, move freely throughout the entire ecosystem.
The inventory divides the Looe Key Reef area t from an ecological /topo-
graphical point of view, into five zones: (1) a Patch Reef area between
Hawk Channel and the Looe Key reef flat, (2) the Reef Flat, triangular in
shape, with the Looe Key marker in the southeast corner, (3) the Fore Reef,
facing Florida Straits to the south, consisting of a spur and groove system,
(4) a Deep Reef area with a drop-off, southwest of the Fore Reef and (5) a Deep
Ridge, separated from the Deep Reef by an estimated 1 km of sand bottom
(Figure 2). The proposed sanctuary boundary was selected to insure inclusion
of portions of all five zones.
Patch Reef
A flat and relatively shallow area of about 8 m in depth stretches
from Hawk Channel south to the Looe Key Reef Flat. The area is dominated
by a mixed association of seagrasses, such as turtle grass and manatee
grass, and green algae and octocorals.
Continued survival of the seagrass beds is critical for maintenance of the
habitat utilized by numerous fishes and the spiny lobster. Utilization of the
patch reefs for shelter from predators allows both juveniles and adults to exploit
an enormous and nearby source of energy, the biomass of seagrass association.
Much of this energy, in the form of finfish and shellfish biomass, is harvested
by both the commercial and sport fishing industry of the Florida Keys.
Due north of the Looe Key Reef Flat are numerous patch reefs scattered
throughout the seagrass community. Most of these reefs have little profile
and generally project up less than 2 m from the shallow bottom.
Among the faunal components in all the Patch Reefs, octocorals are
by far the most dominant. They not only grow densely enough to give certain
Patch Reefs the appearance of a heavily vegetated landscape, but also attain
unusual sizes. Octocoral species diversity is greater in the Patch Reef than
on the more spectacular Fore Reef. Among giant sea feathers and sea whips,
the largest specimens are close to 2 m in height.
Reef Flat
The Looe Key Reef Flat is roughly the shape of an isosceles triangle,
its base facing south towards the Straits of Florida and the apex pointing
landward to the north. On this landward side there is a ^ery gradual
transition from the seagrass coral association of the Patch Reef area into the
Reef Flat, marked mainly by the beginning of extensive sand flats and an
elevation of the bottom to about 2 m in depth. The Reef Flat terminates in
a sharply defined rock and rubble zone immediately behind the uppermost rim
of the Fore Reef. The water depth in this area is no greater than about
0.5 m. The Reef Flat does not show any profile other than the elevation
of seagrass ridges approximately 0.5 m above the sand bottom. The bottom
consists primarily of calcareous sand, rubble, coarse sediments and extensive
seagrass beds, a mixture of turtle grass, manatee grass and algae.
9
The rock and rubble grass beds of the Reef Flat provide excellent
habitat for small invertebrates. Abundant populations of other organisms,
such as brittle stars, small crustaceans, small gastropod, pelecypod
mollusks, and echinoderms abound in this area. The Reef Flat together
with the Patch Reef serve as nursery areas for juvenile fish and the seagrass
beds of both zones are feeding grounds for deep-water fish migrating to
these areas at night.
Fore Reef
The Fore Reef zone of Looe Key is a well -developed and especially
spectacular formation. This zone is the principle diving attraction for
both local residents and tourists. Its main portion is a high profile
spur and groove system, bordering the Reef Flat in \/ery shallow water and
sloping down to a sand bottom in 9-11 m of depth with some of the spurs
showing a profile of up to 7 m high, caused mainly by the vigorous con-
struction activity of "mountainous" star coral ( Monastrea annularis ).
Massive growths of fire coral ( Millepora complanata ) are mainly found in
the shallowest part of the spurs, with substantial concentrations of elkhorn
coral immediately seaward of the fire coral complex. Almost all of the
species of fish encountered in the reef system can be found here, with the
exception of some species which prefer deeper water and can only be observed
beyond a depth of 10 m. The whole system, from easternmost to westernmost
spur, is about 1500 m long and, at the main center portion, about 350 m
wide.
Deep Reef
At the seaward edge of the spur and groove system a sandflat begins
in about 9-11 m depth, ^/ery gradually sloping down. In front of the eastern
half of the Fore Reef, this sandflat is uninterrupted.
At the western half, it is intersected by a deeper reef, which begins
here as a finger-like extension of scattered coral outcrops just beyond the
terminus of the spur and groove system. From here, a reef flat of 10-12 m
depth stretches several hundred meters to the west without showing much
profile, representing a comparatively shallow subzone of the Deep Reef.
Sponges are fairly common and grow to larger sizes in the Deep Reef
than in the Patch Reefs. Octocorals are dominant, but stony corals are more
numerous than in the Patch Reefs. Towards the south, the Deep Reef
gradually changes into a slope of increasing steepness with considerable
profile caused by surged channels.
10
While species composition of stony corals in the deeper part of this
zone remains about the same, the number and size of individual colonies
increases, making them the dominant component here. Also with increasing
depth, change in the octocoral fauna takes place. Among Pseudopterogorgia
species, P. binnata far outnumbers all others, and two deepwater species
occur only here: the rare monofilament El li sell a barbadensis , and the
abundant fan-shaped Iciligorgia schrammi .
Although species composition resembles that of shallower parts of the
reef, a number of scleractinians (hard or stony corals) with branching and
flower-like growth forms occur on the Deep Reef, which are either not
present or very rare in more accessible areas of Looe Key. Species of the
general Madracis and Oculina grow in clusters of small finger-like branches
while colonies of Mussa angulos and Eusmilia fastigiata resemble bouquets of
densely packed flowers. Disc-like growth forms of striking shape are found
among many species of Agariciidae and Mussidae, which only at this depth
occur in appreciable numbers.
Deep Ridge
This Deep Ridge runs parallel to the margin of the continental shelf
in about 45m depth. It shows very little profile and is only a few
meters wide, but, nevertheless, is an outcrop of living coral reef. The
reef is formed mainly by plate-like colonies of Montastrea cavernosa
and several species of Agaricidae. Also present are deep water octocoral s,
such as Iciligorgia schrammi and El li sell a barbadensis , with the latter
much more abundant here than on the Deep Reef.
VI. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Designation of the proposed sanctuary will have long term positive impacts
with regard to natural resources protection, public education, and enhancement
of knowledge regarding coral reef dynamics.
Sanctuary designation will provide long-term protection for a representative
section of the Florida reef tract from Patch Reefs out to the Deep Ridge. Com-
prehensive management of this area will include emphasis on increasing the level
of public awareness of resource values and of the potential for harm through a
public education program and research on reef biology and system interactions.
Management of a section of the reef tract will allow for appropriate distribution
of visitor uses and consequent control of certain harmful effects.
Minimal economic impacts will result from proposed restrictions within the
preferred boundary alternative (See Chapter Four Environmental Consequences.).
Boundary
The preferred alternative for the boundary (5 sq nmi ) will protect
the entire Fore Reef and Reef Flat and portions of the adjacent Patch Reef, Deep
Reef, and Deep Ridge. A sanctuary of this size will result in the protection
and management of a system, rather than simply individual components. It will
11
help insure accomplishment of all sanctuary goals (See p. 4) °y encompassing a
"slice of the ecological pie", affording opportunity for focus on education
and research. The preferred alternative emphasizes the maintenance of the
biological interrelationship of the reef system components in order to
maximize public benefits and minimize resource threats. The 5 sq nmi
sanctuary will also allow for adequate enforcement of sanctuary regulations.
° Anchoring
The proposed regulation would allow anchoring only in the sand channels
between the spur system of the Fore Reef, and seaward of the Fore Reef on the
sand bottom. This would allow SCUBA divers and snorkelers to dive safely near
their boats and would not inconvenience hook and line fishermen. The regulation
will help protect the Fore Reef coral assemblages from snagging, breaking and other
anchor damage. An educational program to advise users on anchoring procedures
and frequent site inspections will be utilized in order to ensure the success of
this regulation. A mooring buoy design and feasibility study will be initiated
upon designation and if such a system seems desirable this proposed regulation
would be modified at the time buoys are installed.
Coral Collecting (dead and living)
The proposed regulation would prohibit the collection or possession of
all corals, dead or alive within the proposed sanctuary (except as permitted
for research and education purposes). The regulation will protect the coral
assemblages from stress and physical damage. This will maintain the reef
habitat for fish and preserve aesthetic qualities.
° Wire Fish Traps
The proposed regulation would prohibit the use of wire fish traps within
the entire preferred sanctuary boundary. This regulation would effectively
prevent both physical and ecological damage to the coral from wire fish traps.
The recreational and aesthetic values of the sanctuary will be maintained and
and enhanced. The regulation would not prohibit the setting of traps beyond
the sanctuary boundaries. The regulation will however adversly impact
those fishermen who presently employ wire fish traps within the 5 sq m
area and they will be forced to move elsewhere to trap.
° Lobster Trapping
The banning of lobster traps from the Fore Reef will prevent the
physical damage that frequently occurs when lobster traps contact the
coral due to improper placement or storm surge. However, because the
prohibition is limited to a small geographic area, the regulation will
result in minimal, if any, economic loss to the fishing community.
This proposed regulation corresponds to a special management measure for
Looe Key under consideration in the draft Coral and Coral Reef Resources
Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
12
° Tropical Marine Specimen Collecting
Limited permitting of tropical marine specimen collecting will prevent
economic impact on this user group. Collectors will be inconvenienced,
but other suitable collection spots exist within the Lower Keys if users
wish to avoid the permitting procedure.
° Spearfishing
The proposed regulation would prohibit spearfishing within the entire
preferred sanctuary boundary. One of the primary benefits of the prohibition
will be the reduction in human injury potential to young and novice snorklers
and SCUBA divers. It could also result in benefiting the ecological system
by preventing the continued disturbance and removal of territorial reef preda-
tors such as grouper; eliminating physical damage to coral from inexperienced
spearf ishmen, and reducing the inadvertent kill of non-edible tropical
reef fish species.
° Discharges
The prohibition of discharges will help insure a high degree of water
quality by preventing discharge or deposit of most material within the
sanctuary. The regulations will enhance the area's aesthetic features by
lessening levels of waste discharged and litter thrown overboard. The
regulation allows the discharge of chumming materials and fish parts, cooling
waters and effluents from marine sanitation devices. The regulation will
not impact fishing activities. The economic impact on sanctuary users is
minimal, although they will be required to retain their trash for proper
disposal elsewhere.
° Historical or cultural resources
Tampering with, removing or damaging historical or cultural resources
is prohibited. The regulation will protect the HMS Looe from possible
tampering or removal.
VI. SUMMARY OF THE STATUS QUO OR NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Concerns
According to the original Looe Key recommendation, the "exploitation of
the resources of the entire reef complex (at Looe Key) is increasing at an
alarming rate" (Florida Keys Citizens' Coalition). The close proximity to
land of most of the Florida Reef Tract, including Looe Key Reef, makes
13
these areas accessible to large numbers of people who are able to drive or
fly to the Keys. The Overseas Highway and its 44 bridges link the Keys
to the mainland, and jet air service connects Key West and Marathon to all
major American urban areas.
Public charter boat operators, dive boats, recreational divers and
fishermen, a major non-profit organization (the Newfound Harbor Marine
Institute) and established commercial fishermen utilize the reef throughout
the year.
Monroe County statistics indicate that the Keys are expanding rapidly
in both permanent resident and tourist populations. In the area nearest
Looe Key, from Seven Mile Bridge up to and including half of Ramrod Key,
the population is expected to grow from 1,833 in 1974 to 5,845 in 1998
(See Black, Crow & Eidsness, pp 3-4). Tourism is increasing. In 1979
the number of visitors to Bahia Honda State Park, in the vicinity of
Looe Key, rose from 293,256 to 351,700.
Observations from the Looe Key Resource Inventory (Florida Reef
Foundation, 1978) and interviews with frequent visitors to Looe Key
indicate that souvenir coral collecting is an ongoing practice today,
and as such constitutes a serious strain on the reef's coral resources.
The lack of certain species in accessible reef areas of suitable habitat
provide circumstantial evidence of the removal of the more attractive
growth forms.
Anchoring by hook and line fishermen, commercial and amateur tropical specimen
collectors, recreational fishermen, and divers can also cumulatively damage reef
structure. Physical damage to coral species from commercial fishing can occur when
wire fish traps and lobster traps are dropped on coral, dragged across the bottom
during retrieval or tossed about during rough weather. Vessel anchoring over the
reef while setting wire fish traps can additionally damage coral.
There is widespread evidence of anchor damage to stony corals and octocorals
within the area of the proposed sanctuary. Broken pieces of elkhorn and staghorn
coral are easily visible in the Fore Reef and Reef Flat zones where the water is
shallow and the more spectacular coral is found. Entire octocorals can be observed
lying on the bottom, obviously ripped from their substrate. Much of this damage was
still fresh during recent observations (1976 and 1979). Some of this type of
the damage may be related to wave damage or other natural factors, and the extent to
which it is anchor related is unknown. Numerous observations have been
made of boat anchors lying in living corals and of anchor chains and ropes
chafing corals.
The use of wire fish traps is a highly contoversial issue. The traps are
extremely efficient gear. Fishing near the coral reefs with these traps
can cause adverse ecological impacts. Unregulated use of wire fish traps
can reduce species diversity and can impair recreational value.
14
Both amateur and limited commercial tropical fish and invertebrate collecting
occur throughout the Looe Key area. Tropical specimen collectors take a large
variety of fish, but concentrate primarily on a small number of the more popular
species. The most commonly collected fishes, according to a recent study, are
angelfishes, damselfishes, and butterflyfishes. Individually, the most sought
after fishes are the queen angel fish, rock beauty and neon goby. Neon gobies,
small wrasses and crustaceans are known to set up and participate in cleaning
stations for finfish. This mutualistic interaction has an overall beneficial
effect on the ecological balance of the reef. Removal of these species in
large numbers can adversely affect the reef system.
According to recent studies, spearfishing activities at Looe Key have
contributed to the decreasing populations of large reef predators, which has
likely resulted in correspondingly high sea urchin densities. Biologists report
that grazing pressures from urchins have partially caused a scarcity of
the green algae, Halimeda , resulting in the absence of large schools of
herbivorous blue tangs and surgeonfish and unusually high densities of the
f al se coral , Ricordea .
Dredging, dredged material dispoasl and ocean out falls do not
appear to pose a realistic threat to the area at this time. However,
due to the increasing number of visitors disposal and discharge of
certain other substances such as trash and litter is a source of concern.
Current disposal and discharge activities are generally incidental to recrea-
tion and research; i.e., disposal of fish parts from cleaning and dressing fish
caught at in the area, release of marine- type chumming or bait materials, dis-
charge of effluents from marine sanitation devices, discharges of cooling waters
from normal vessel engine operations and disposal of trash and litter from plea-
sure and research watercraft and transient vessels.
Finally, there is currently no protection for potentially important
archaeological resources found in the area, including the shipwreck HMS Looe .
° Statutory Authorities
Looe Key is located on the continental shelf seaward of the territorial
sea and State jurisdiction. A variety of Federal statutes and regulations
apply to activities in the area. Those that apply to activities posing
significant threats are analyzed in Chapter Three, The Legal Status Quo.
The mandates of existing authorities are often too broad to focus adequately
on small discrete areas requiring special management measures. Jurisdictions
include, in some cases, all waters or seabed out to 200 nautical miles off
the entire United States coastline. In other cases, mandates are often too
narrow to provide holistic attention; statutes directed at a particular
resource may neglect or exclude components of the entire ecosystem. Finally,
decentralized management of multiple-use areas can result in policy conflicts,
15
and does not lend itself to integrated management including education, re-
search, recreation and information exchange.
Regulation of coral collecting, tropical specimen collecting, spear-
fishing and anchoring activities does not presently exist. Fishery Management
Plans (FMP) are in preparation for some, but not all species of interest.
The GMFMC and the SAFMC are jointly preparing a draft Coral and Coral Reef
Resources FMP as the initial step in the management of all coral species
under the jurisdiction of these two Councils. The current plan proposes
to approve for harvest limited quantities of certain soft coral species,
and to prohibit taking of hard corals except under permit for scientific
and educational purposes.
The draft FMP further proposes to designate Looe Key as a 1 nautical
mile square Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) with special manage-
ment measures for additional protection of the Fore Reef area (see Legal
Status Quo).
In addition to the Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP, the GMFMC is
preparing FMPs for Spiny Lobster and Reef Fish (snapper/grouper) which
may place restrictions on fishing for these species. There are no FMPs
under preparation for other reef resources such as tropical fish and in-
vertebrates other than coral. None of these FMPs are likely to be imple-
mented until 1981. The final scope and content of all FMPs is uncertain at
this time because they are in draft form and subject to change.
VII. ACTIVITIES LISTED IN THE DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR WHICH REGULATIONS
ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED
° Alteration or construction of the seabed.
Bottom trawling and specimen-dredging.
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) exercises authority over construction
and the dumping of dredged materials but not the actual dredging. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has jurisdiction over dredging activities
related to mineral leasing such as sand and gravel mining. However, no other
existing Federal regulatory authority has jurisdiction over other activities
that might alter the seabed such as dredging. Exploratory trawling for reef
fish on live bottoms in the South Atlantic has proven economically and
technically feasible. It is possible that some time in the future modified
gear such as roller trawls would be contemplated for use in areas such as
Looe Key.
While adverse impacts of both of the above activities are well doc-
umented, NOAA has no evidence to indicate that they pose realistic threats
to the resources at this time. For this reason NOAA is not promulgating
regulations but is listing these activities in the Designation Document,
and may issue regulations at a future date if the need arises.
16
VIII. MARINE SANCTUARY PERMITS
Marine sanctuary permits, issued by NOAA, will be required for an
activity which would otherwise violate the regulations. The permit
procedure is specified in the regulations (Appendix A).
IX. CERTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITS
The regulations propose to certify in advance any permit, license,
or other authorization issued pursuant to any other authority within the
sanctuary as long as the activity does not violate marine sanctuary
regulations. This notice of validity avoids duplicating permit delays and
costs where there is no violation.
17
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
The Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has identified the Looe Key Reef
as a special marine area with important conservation, recreational,
ecological and aesthetic resources, threatened by existing and potential
human use and deserving of marine sanctuary designation. The purposes
or goals of this proposed Looe Key Marine Sanctuary are as follows (for
a more detailed discussion see Chapter II).
° To maintain, protect and enhance the quality of the natural
biological, aesthetic and cultural resources of the Looe Key
Reef system;
° To promote research and study of sanctuary resources;
To enhance public awareness of the functioning of the Looe
Key coral reef system and to provide a means for education
and information exchange.
The Looe Key area offers a unique opportunity to focus management
attention on a living cross section of the Florida Reef tract. Looe Key
management will concentrate on encouraging coral reef research within the
sanctuary, insuring a coordinated approach to data exchange and availabil-
ity, and developing effective public education programs, and long-term plans
for the preservation of the resources. Each of these programs will contri-
bute to increased knowledge and understanding necessary to ensure wise
use of our marine ecosystems.
The accessibility of Looe Key to commercial, recreational and educa-
tional users, its high productivity, and superior scenic beauty have
led to frequent and increasing use of the area t with resulting physical
and ecological damage to the reef system. Monroe County socio-economic
studies indicate that both permanent and tourists populations, in the
area nearest Looe Key, are increasing; corresponding increases in the
use of Looe Key has potential for long-term adverse environmental
consequences. Sanctuary designation will provide the long term integrated
management necessary to protect and use wisely these resources.
As a part of the proposed management system certain additional
regulations appear necessary. Most significantly, in a recent legal
opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, ruled that the Bureau
of Land Management's jurisdiction to regulate the taking of coral and
other activities damaging to coral reefs is restricted to offshore
activities associated with mineral exploration and development by lessees
and their agents, leaving coral reefs such a Looe Key unprotected from
damage due to coral collecting, improper anchoring, and certain potentially
harmful fishing techniques.
It
OCZM therefore proposed to designate Looe Key as a National Marine
Sanctuary under Title II of the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972. Such an action will allow for long term protection of a
valuable section of the Florida reef tract and comprehensive management
which will include both research and educational components. (See
Chapter Four Environmental Consequences.)
20
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
NOAA proposes to designate Looe Key as a marine sanctuary to protect
and enhance the natural features of the reefal system and to promote scientific
understanding, public appreciation and wise use of the resources. Various
management, boundary and regulatory alternatives have been considered in
the evaluation of the proposed action.
This section presents a brief analysis of all reasonable alternatives,
including a no action alternative (status quo), the preferred alternative
and a brief discussion of the physical, biological, ecological and socio-
economic impacts resulting from the proposed action. A detailed impact
analysis is presented in Chapter Four, Environmental Consequences.
II. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
A. Goals and Objectives
To determine the preferred alternative boundary and regulations that
adequately address the issues and problems of Looe Key, a set of management
goals and objectives have been developed and out of this management framework
appropriate controls will be determined. The goals and objectives are as
follows:
Goal I: To maintain, protect and enhance the quality of the
natural, biological, aesthetic and cultural resources
of the Looe Key system
Objectives:
Promulgate protective regulations to provide a frame-
work for onsite management
° Provide for adequate enforcement
° Utilize data to modify regulations and to determine
management strategies; assess management needs and
priorities
Goal 2: To promote and stimulate marine research efforts directed
toward identification and analysis of marine ecological
interrel ationships.
Objectives
Encourage and cooperate with interested parties in
research and study of reef interrelationships
Establish comipetitive fundings mechanisms
encouraging a wide range of scientific expertise
to focus attention on reef dynamics.
21
° Establish a clearing house for dissemination and
exchange of sanctuary research data.
Goal 3: To enhance public awareness of the functioning of the
Looe Key coral reef system.
Objectives: ° To provide a means for education and information exchange.
° Develop educational programs that will increase
awareness and appreciation of Looe Key through a
public information effort (including slides,
brochures, lectures, etc.)
Establish a sanctuary information center.
° Develop interpretive services.
B. Management Plan
In order to provide an efficient system for the management of the proposed
Looe Key sanctuary, the following basic strategies are proposed. The management
priorities will offer a foundation for enforcing and administering the proposed
sanctuary and will provide data for determining management policies and
decisions.
Onsite Manger
A State - Federal cooperative enforcement system is planned utilizing
an onsite manager, who will be charged among other things with the responsi-
bility of enforcement and surveillance activities within the proposed
sanctuary. The onsite manager will be responsible for administering the
sanctuary and providing reports to include (but not limited to) the
following items:
environmental analysis studies;
° visitor use and visitor use capacity studies, user-related
impacts, and such other information as necessary;
enforcement analysis, including a summary of activities,
notices of violations, case dispositions, including statistical
information on number of visitors, points of entry and areas
and types of use, and conclusions and recommendations, including
ways to improve management.
The plan would provide for a visitor information station to distribute
information on regulations within the sanctuary and other public
information concerning activities and research in the sanctuary.
22
NEWFOUND HARBOR KEYS
/
c
r^
^^ — \8
)
HAWK CHANNEL
c
BOUNDARY OPTIONS
t
b.
2
3
TL
1.0 Sq. Miles
4.9 Sq. Miles
10.5 Sq. Miles
STRAITS OF FLORIDA
__.— 300
FIGURE 3
BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES
A
N
MAGNETIC
23
Anchoring Study
To explore methods of lessening the effects of improper anchoring, NOAA
will undertake a study to determine the feasibility and design of a mooring
buoy system for Looe Key or a suitable alternative. Proper anchoring
information will be disseminated to users.
Public Education and Information
The "living laboratory" aspects of Looe Key can be fully utilized to
provide learning opportunities for the public to view the interrelationship
between man and the environment, and the implications of marine management.
This educational aspect will be developed through field activities, media
materials, lectures and brochures. A sanctuary user's guide will better
enable the public and educators to understand and safely utilize the resources.
Research
In an effort to provide scientific data upon which future change can
be evaluated and management decisions based, NOAA will give priority to
completing a biological inventory, reef health assessment, and water
quality assessment. The diversity of habitat types, uses and biota offers
great possibilities for a wide range of research and NOAA will encourage
other research efforts as well.
Cultural Resources
The proposed sanctuary has a diversity of cultural resources (such as
the HMS Looe ). To understand more fully their history and to provide a
mechanism that will ensure their survival, NOAA will competitively fund
work that will entail survey, inventory and assessment of submerged cultural
resources. Attention will be given to the interrelationship between cultral
resources and biological processes.
C. Preferred Boundary Alternative
Three boundary alternatives were considered for the proposed marine
sanctuary (see Figure 3, Boundary Alternatives).
1. Alternative 1 - an area 1 nautical mile square containing only
the Fore Reef and Reef Flat;
2. Alternative 2 - an area consisting of 5 square nautical
miles containing the Fore Reef, Reef flat and portions of the
Patch Reef, Deep Reef, and Deep Ridge.
3. Alternative 3 - an area consisting of 10 square nautical
miles including the resources contained within the 5 sq nmi
alternative plus more extensive portions of the Patch Reef
area.
The 5 square nautical mile boundary alternative was chosen as the
preferred alternative (See Chapter Four - Environmental Consequences for
a detailed analysis of the various alternatives, including the preferred).
24
The 5 sq nmi alternative encompasses all five ecological zones
found at Looe Key: Patch Reef; Reef Flat; Fore Reef; Deep Reef and Deep
Ridge. It also covers an extension of the Fore Reef to the east
discovered only recently as part of the survey work for this EIS.
The Patch Reef zone is a relatively shallow flat bottom area,
covered with extensive turtle grass and manatee grass. Interspersed
among the seagrass beds are numerous patch reefs with very little profile.
The patch reefs within this zone are usually dominated by densely growing,
large octocorals. The species diversity of octocorals on the Patch Reef
is greater than that of the Fore Reef and certain octocorals exist only
on the Patch Reef. The scattered stony corals reach only moderate size,
but nevertheless give the patch reefs enough structure to provide shelter
for fishes and invertebrates. In addition, the naturally rare pillar
coral ( Dendrogyra cylindrus ) is more likely to be found in the Patch
Reef area than at the Fore Reef.
The significance of the Patch Reef zone as a shelter for a variety
of finfish and shellfish has been pointed out in a number of publications
(e_.£. Zieman & Roblee, 1979). Without the protection of the interspersed
patch reefs these animals would be unable to use the surrounding seagrass
beds as feeding grounds. This zone, together with the even shallower
Reef Flat, are Looe Key's nursery for juvenile fish. In addition, the
extensive seagrass beds of both zones constitute the feeding ground for
many deep-water fishes migrating to these areas at night.
The Fore Reef provides the deep sheltered channels for these migrations
from the Deep Reef to the shallow reef zones, while the much wider channels
on either side of the Fore Reef provide access for pelagic species.
The Deep Reef today still harbors territorial fishes such as groupers
which, given protection and time, may repopulate the apparently over-
fished Fore Reef zone. This could also be the case for conspicuously
missing corals which might, in time, repopulate the Fore Reef from the
stock that live on the Deep Reef. Other fish found on the Fore Reef
but occurring in greater abundance on the Deep Reef are butterfly fishes,
hamlets, blue chromis and Creole wrasses. Fish found only on the Deep
Reef by the Looe Key Resource Inventory are purple reef fish, sunshine
fish, spotfin, hogfish and scamp (Antonius, et a! ).
The main part of the Deep Reef exhibits a coral community of inter-
mediate to deepwater species, with some coral species growing abundantly
here that no longer occur on the Fore Reef. The Deep Reef, on the seaward
side, is a slope of increasing steepness, ending in a small dropoff to
about 25 to 35m depth.
Since the five-square nautical mile alternative contains portions of
the Deep Ridge as well as the main four reef zones of Looe Key, it forms
a representative "slice of the ecological pie" through the reef tract in
25
this area. This is one of the basic reasons for its selection as the preferred
boundary. The 5 square nautical mile boundary alternative would create a
sanctuary containing representative components of each reef zone and would
establish a sanctuary that protects a representative reef tract system
rather than one component. This approach is consistent with the goals
and objectives for establishing a sanctuary at Looe Key.
A sanctuary with this boundary would include all of the reefal
zones and be "systematic" in scope providing for the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity of the entire Looe Key ecological
unit. This boundary alternative would provide a geographic basis for
achieving the sanctuary goals, discussed under Goals and Objectives.
D. Preferred Regulatory Alternatives
1. Coral Collecting
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating coral collecting:
1. Unregulated collecting (status quo);
2. Prohibiting collection or possession of all coral, dead or
alive, except by permit for scientific and educational
purposes; and
3. Prohibiting the collection or possession of all coral
dead or alive within the sanctuary.
NOAA has chosen alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Prohibit the collection or possession of all coral, dead or alive
within the sanctuary except by permit for scientific/educational
purposes .
This alternative would protect present and future coral resources
while permitting coral specimen collecting for educational and scientific
purposes under permit from NOAA. Since the current level of commercial
coral collecting is insignificant in the proposal area, the economic
impact of this alternative will be negligible. The proposed restriction
is more stringent than that being considered in the Coral and Coral Reef
Resources Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in that the latter permits limited
harvest of soft coral outside the 1 nmi sq Habitat Area of Particular
concern (HAPC) at Looe Key. OCZM will work closely with the Fishery
Management Councils to insure as nearly as possible compatible non-duplica-
tive permitting procedures.
26
A regulation similar to the preferred alternative is presently in
force in John Pennekamp State Park and in the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary.
As discussed in Chapter Three, the inclusion of a provision for prohibition
of possession of coral, dead or alive, within the proposed boundaries
has resulted in fewer enforcement difficulties within these two protected
areas. On the other hand Florida State Law, applicable in the territorial
sea, does not prohibit possession of cleaned or cured sea fans, hard and
soft corals and fire coral and enforcement difficulty has arisen because
these organisms can be quickly killed and bleached on board ship before
enforcement agents can board for inspection (Tingley, personal communication,
1979).
2. Wire Trap Fishing
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating wire trap
fishing within the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted use of wire traps (status quo);
2. prohibiting wire fish traps on the Fore Reef and Reef Flat
areas of the sanctuary and allowing wire fish traps else-
where; and
3. prohibiting wire fish traps.
NOAA has chosen alternative 3 as the preferred alternative.
Prohibit wire fish traps in the 5 square nautical mile sanctuary
This alternative would prevent both physical and ecological damage
from traps to the coral formations and resident fish species. Fishermen,
although prohibited from laying traps within the 5 square nautical mile
area, could continue to utilize the area seaward of the reef beyond
approximately 140 ft and those areas adjacent Looe Key, along the outer
reef tract. This proposed regulation is slightly more restrictive than that
presently under consideration in the draft Reef Fish FMP. This FMP includes a
proposed prohibition out to the 100 ft contour in "stressed" areas such as
this portion of the Florida reef tract and the sanctuary prohibition
would extend to the proposed boundary at approximately the 140 ft contour.
3. Lobster Trapping
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating lobster
trapping within the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted trapping for spiny lobster;
2. prohibiting trapping on the Fore Reef only; and
3. prohibiting lobster trapping.
27
NOAA has chosen alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Prohibit lobster trapping on Fore Reef
This option would prohibit the setting of traps on the Fore Reef
consistent with the HAPC special management measure currently proposed
by the South Atlantic and Gulf Fishery Management Council (see Chapter
Three). No lobster trapping would be allowed within the core trapezoid
area (Loran C Readings points 1, 2, 3, and 4 see map Chapter Three).
Lobster trapping would be allowed within the sanctuary on the Reef Flat,
Patch Reefs, the Deep Reef and Deep Ridge.
This preferred alternative would protect the most spectacular coral
assemblages from lobster trap damage and contribute to protection of sping
lobster as a major predator in the reef system. Restricting this part of the
reef system from further human activity would protect a significant habitat
for sping lobster in the area which will, in the long term, benefit the
fisheries interest.
It appears that a prohibition against lobster trapping on the Fore
Reef might help protect the renewable lobster resources at Looe Key for
the time being. Completion of the spiny lobster FMP will also contribute
to sustaining a viable lobster fishing industry over the long term, but
degree of protection cannot be determined at this time.
An estimated 232,000 lbs. of spiny lobster were caught in the five
square nautical mile area in 1978. Personal communication with local
residents and fishermen revealed that, most of this catch was taken from
outside the Fore Reef and Reef Flat zones. According to interviews
with local people, lobster boats avoid shallow coral reef areas, preferring
sites with greater maneuverability and open sandy areas on which to
place traps. This alternative would minimize the economic losses to the
commercial lobster fishermen and regional businesses in the area by
permitting fishing to continue in the major portion of the reef area. It
would afford site specific protection now to the Fore Reef which will
be enhanced by the FMP Spiny Lobster Plan when it is final.
NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) will continue to work
cooperatively under their Memorandum of Understanding in their efforts to
protect and enhance the Looe Key coral reef habitat and the spiny lobster
fishery. Continued monitoring of the area by the NMFS and the GMFMC would
aid in maintaining the stock of a valuable renewable resource, both in the
restricted area and in the area adjacent to the sanctuary.
28
4. Tropical Marine Specimen Collecting
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating tropical specimen
collecting within the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted collecting (status quo);
2. restricting tropical specimen collecting to collectors with
permits and prohibiting the use of chemicals; and
3. prohibiting tropical specimen collecting except by permit for
scientific and educational purposes.
NOAA has chosen alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Restrict tropical specimen collecting to collectors with permits and
to non-chemical techniques.
Restricting tropical specimen collecting to those individuals with
permits will limit marine specimen collecting within the sanctuary to
only those persons demonstrating a knowledge of tropical marine species
and the most accepted and non-damaging techniques for harvesting tropical
fishes and invertebrates. Requiring permits should not impose a significant
burden on those businesses now in the area, nor would it necessarily
preclude others from becoming collectors. However, should the prohibition
on specimen collecting within the 1 sq nmi HAPC proposed by the FMC be
approved, NOAA would adopt and enforce the stricter regulations.
Prohibiting the use of chemicals will limit collecting activities
to the more experienced collector. Since the long term effects of the
commonly used quinaldine are not well documented this restriction will
eliminate the potential for harm.
5. Spearfishing
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating spearfishing
within the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted spearfishing (status quo);
2. restricting spearfishing to devices such as pole spears and Hawaiian
slings; and
3. prohibiting spearfishing and possession of spearfishing equipment.
NOAA has chosen alternative 3 as the preferred alternative.
29
Prohibit spear fishing and possession of spearfishing equipment
A primary basis for this alternative is the safety factor. The most
significant consequence of this preferred alternative is elimination of the
human injury potential to snorkelers and SCUBA divers. Prohibition of
spearfishing and the possession of spearfishing equipment within sanctuary
boundaries is necessary to provide a safe area for the thousands of
recreational ists, including novice swimmers and divers, who come to enjoy the
aesthetic and recreational benefits of this unique marine habitat.
This alternative will contribute to an increase snapper and grouper
populations for hook and line fishermen and for the observation and enjoyment
of non-consumptive users. It will not discriminate against novice spearfishermen
and will conform with the regulation at the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary
which prohibits the use of spear guns, slings, harpoons or other kinds
of weapons potentially harmful to human safety, fish and wildlife, and
the reef structure.
It would remove the threat of human injury and the inadvertent killing
of non-edible tropical reef fish species found within the sanctuary, protect
the coral from physical damage from divers in pursuit of fish and perhaps
in time lead to fish becoming less wary. All of the above would help
insure high quality recreational experiences by divers, snorklers and fishermen.
This will cause some revenue loss to dive and charter boat companies
who are hired to take spearfishermen to Looe Key. It is difficult to estimate
this loss. However, a portion of their revenue also comes from hook
and line recreational fishermen and snorkel ers/SCUBA divers who only wish
to view the underwater coral formations.
This alternative will impact local residents who spearfish within the
5 mile area for edible fish but they will still be able to use surrounding
areas.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating the taking or
disturbance of cultural and historic resources within the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted tampering with, damage to, or removal of cultural and
historic resources (status quo);
2. prohibiting tampering with, damage to, or removal, except with a NOAA
permit for educational and research purposes; and
3. prohibiting tampering with damage to or removal.
NOAA has chosen alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
30
Prohibit tampering with, damage to and removal of historic and cultural
resources from the sanctuary except for educational and research
purposes with a permit .
This alternative would protect the submerged historical and cultural
resources of the sanctuary.
Shipwrecks of interest in and adjacent to the area, particularly
the HMS Looe , could be explored and artifacts could be recovered under
a NOAA permit. The permit would be based on the educational and research
value of the proposed actions. This alternative, however, would not
completely preclude reef damage and other disruptions to the marine resources
from salvage and recovery operations.
The marine sanctuary program is the only vehicle for designation and
preservation of such resources. Under a recent court decision, the
Antiquities Act, which provides that the Department of the Interior may
designate and protect certain historically important, sites does not
authorize such action in relation to antiquities located on the OCS. In
addition, neither the Abandoned Property Act nor the National Historic
Preservation Act offer protection for valuable marine artifacts. The
marine sanctuary program is the only vehicle for designation and preservation
of such resources.
7. Discharges
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulation of discharges
within the proposed sanctuary:
1. relying on existing Federal regulation (status quo):
2. prohibiting all discharges; and
3. prohibiting the discharge of substances except non-polluted cooling
waters from vessels, fish or parts and chumming material, and
discharges from marine sanitation devices.
NOAA has chosen alternative 3 as the preferred alternative.
Prohibit the discharge of substances except non-polluted cooling
waters from vessels, fish or parts and chumming materials and
discharges from marine sanitation devices (MSP) .
This alternative would prohibit littering and discharge of solid waste
from vessels. It would prohibit the discharge of raw, untreated sewage
into the sanctuary. The large number of people using Looe Key has led
to a high incidence of litter and trash being discharged overboard. The
proposed, regulation prohibiting discharging and littering will maintain
the areas overall recreational and aesthetic appeal. It would prevent
floating or submerged waste debris such as plastic and metal objects.
31
The Coast Guard regulations prohibit the discharge of untreated
wastes within the territorial sea for public health reasons - the presence
of swimmers and relatively shallow water. Because Looe Key is heavily
used for water contact activities such as swimming and diving and portions
have relatively shallow water depths, NOAA has proposed this regulation for
the sanctuary.
Impacts of the regulation will be minor. Sanctuary users will have
to retain trash for disposal at proper facilities. Vessel operators will
have to utilize their MSD or holding tanks and will be unable to empty
the latter. Fishermen will be allowed to discharge fish or parts
and use chumming materials. By not restricting the discharge of non-
polluted cooling waters, this alternative will allow the use of motorized
vessels.
8. Anchoring
The following alternatives were analyzed for regulating anchoring within
the proposed sanctuary:
1. unrestricted anchoring (status quo);
2. prohibiting anchoring on the Fore Reef and designating specific
anchoring zones;
3. instituting a mooring buoy system; and
4. requiring the use of sand anchors.
NOAA has chosen alternative 2 as the preferred alternative
Allow anchoring only in the sand channels between the spur system
of the Fore Reef or in the designated anchoring zones of the Reef Flat
or seaward of the Fore Reef in the sand bottom areas. Initiate research
on the use of a mooring system on the Fore Reef .
As the popularity of Looe Key and its accessibility become more
widely known, anchor damage can be expected to occur more frequently.
Indiscriminate anchoring with its potential for damage in a coral reef area
is incompatible with the purposes for which this sanctuary is proposed.
Anchor abrasion of corals is common in the Fore Reef zone of Looe
Key, where anchor chains and lines from the smaller draft boats anchored
in the sand bottom chafe the adjacent corals. Raising anchors snagged
on the coral spurs also has resulted in significant damage. This zone
is very popular with the divers because of the spectacular nature of the
coral formations and size and diversity of reef fish populations. In order
to gain access to this area, most boats either anchor directly in this zone,
which is no deeper than nine meters, or in the Reef Flat nearest the Fore reef.
32
This alternative would permit SCUBA divers and snorkel ers to dive
safely close by their boats providing they anchor on the sandy sea floor.
It would also permit commercial and recreational fishermen to fish the
Fore Reef provided other regulations of the sanctuary permit them to do
so. If adequately enforced, it will protect the Fore Reef coral assemblages
from snagging, breaking and other anchor damage. However, enforcement of
this regulation will entail frequent site inspections and the development
of an educational program to advise users on anchoring procedures.
III. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The regulatory alternatives were developed in relationship to the
location and size of the boundary alternatives and the environmental, social
and economic consequences of such regulations. However, the detailed
analyses of the environmental consequences of these boundary and regulatory
alternatives is found in Chapter 4. Because of the complexity arising from
varying proposed regulations within different boundaries, much of the discussion
in this Chapter (2) is presented in tabular form. This method of presenting
the information should facilitate the readers understanding. The various
proposed boundary and regulatory alternatives are summarized in Tables
1-5 - The Alternative Matrices.
Tables 1 through 5 compare the various regulatory alternatives
summarizing the impacts of each alternative on the marine resources, and
on the human users of Looe Key. Three regulatory alternatives are presented
for the control of each of the human activity categories at Looe Key.
The regulations representing the status quo or no action are identified
by the initials s.q.
In most cases, the proposed regulations apply to all three boundary
alternatives. If the regulation only applies to some but not all three
boundary alternatives, then the appropriate boundary alternative is
identified at the top of the matrix. "Restricted" regulations indicate
a partial but not complete prohibition of the activity (i.e., banning in
the one mile but not the 5 mile area) or, in the case of anchoring and
spearfishing, different ways of approaching regulation of the activity.
The preferred alternative for the regulation of each human activity,
outlined at the top of each matrix, is the result of weighing the
environmental, social and economic benefits and costs, of each proposal
as evaluated in each matrix with an X. "Protection" in the context of
the matrices means ecological as well as physical protection. For example,
by controlling the removal of living coral, the regulation benefits or
partially protects the tropical fish and invertebrates belonging to the
same ecological system. By prohibiting the use of wire fish traps in
boundary alternatives 1 and 2, the regulation would partially protect
tropical specimens. In some cases the regulation neither adversely nor
positively impacts a marine resource and is therefore rated "Not
Applicable."
33
TABLE 1
ACTIVITY: Coral Collecting
Preferred Alternative: prohibit
the collection of coral, dead or alive within
the sanctuary, except by permit for
scientific/educational purposes
ACTIVITY: wire Fish Trapping
Preferred alternative: Prohibit
wire fish trapping in the 5 square,
nautical mile santuary
Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-
ted
Prohib-
ited
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-
ted
Prohib-
ited
Coral Reef
s.q.
X
Coral Reef
Significant Damage
S.q.
#1, not
#2,3
#1,2
Significant Damage
not 3
Mod. Damage
X
Mod. Damage
X
Y
Low/No Damage
x
Low/No Damage
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Tropical Specimens
Tropical Specimens
(Fish, Invertebrates)
Fully Protected
(Fish, Invertebrates)
Fully Protected
Partially Protected
x
y
Partially Protected
X
X
Unprotected
X
Unprotected
y
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Fully Protected
Fully Protected
Partially Protected
X
y
Partially Protected
X
X
Unprotected
x
Unprotected
x
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
SOCIOLOGICAL:
SOCIOLOGICAL:
Controversy
High
Controversy
High
Moderate
Moderate
X
X
Low
X
X
y
Low
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
ECONOMIC:
ECONOMIC:
Revenue Loss
High
Reve'nue Loss
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
X
X
y
Low
x . .
y
y
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
34
TABLE 2
ACTIVITY: Tropical Specimen
Collecting
Preferred Alternative: Restrict
tropical specimen collecting to
collectors with permits and to
non- chemical techniques
ACTIVITY: Spearfishing
Preferred alternative: Prohibit
spearfishing and possession of
spearfishing equipment
1 Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives Environmental Factors
Regulat
ory Alternatives
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-
ted
Prohib-
ited
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-I
ted
Prohib-
ited
Coral Reef
s.q.
Partial
Permit-
ing
#1,2
not 3
Coral Reef
Significant Damage
s.q.
Partial
limits
Significant Damage
Mod. Damage
X , .
Mod. Damage
X
X
Low/No Damage
X
X
Low/No Damage
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Tropical Specimens
y
Tropical Specimens
(Fish, invertebrates)
Fully Protected
(Fish, Invertebrates)
Fully Protected
X
Partialjy Protected
X
Partially Protected
X
Unprotected
X
Unprotected
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Fully Protected
Fully Protected
x
Partially Protected
X
x
Partially Protected
X
Unprotected
X
Unprotected
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
SOCIOLOGICAL:
X
SOCIOLOGICAL:
Controversy
High
Controversy
High
Moderate
v
Moderate
X
y
Low
„.Y,
Low
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
ECONOMIC:
ECONOMIC:
Revenue Loss
High
Revenue Loss
High
Moderate
x
Moderate
Low
X
v
Low
X
v
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
35
TABLE3
ACTIVITY: Lobster Trapping
Preferred Alternative: Prohibit
lobster trapping on the Fore Reef
(Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-
ted
Prohib-
ited
Coral Reef
S.q.
#1, not,
#2,3
#1, 2,
not #3
Significant Damage
Mod. Damage
X
X
Low/No Damage
X
Not Applicable
Tropical Specimens
(Fish, Invertebrates)
Fully Protected
Partially Protected
Unprotected
Not Applicable
X
x
x
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Fully Protected
Partially Protected
X
X
Unprotected
X
Not Applicable
SOCIOLOGICAL:
X
Controversy
High
Moderate
X
Low
, x
Not Applicable
ECONOMIC:
Revenue Loss
High
Moderate
v
Low
x.
*
Not Applicable
36
TABLE 4
ACTIVITY: Historic and Cultural Resources
Preferred Alternative: Prohibit tempering
with damage to, or removal, except with a
NQAA permit for educational and research
purposes
ACTIVITY: Discharging
Preferred alternative: Prohibit the
discharge of substances except non-polluted
cooling waters from vessels, fish or parts
and chumming materials and discharges
from marine sanitation devives
Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives Environmental Factors
Regulatory Alternatives
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-
ulated
Restric-
ted
Prohib-[
ited
MARINE RESOURCES
Unreg-I
ulated
Restric-I
ted
Prohib-
ited
Coral Reef
X
Coral Reef
Significant Damage
Significant Damage
Mod. Damage
X
Mod. Damage
X
Low/No Damage
X
Low/No Damage
X
X
Not Applicable
Not Apj)li cable
Tropical Specimens
X
Tropical Specimens
(Fish, invertebrates)
Fully Protected
(Fish, Invertebrates)
Fully Protected
x
Partially Protected
X
Partially Protected
X
Unprotected
X
Unprotected
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Lobster/Fish Popul.
X
Lobster/Fish Popul.
Fully Protected
Fully Protected
Partially Protected
X
Partially Protected
x
Unprotected
X
Unprotected
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
SOCIOLOGICAL:
SOCIOLOGICAL:
Controversy
High
Controversy
High
Moderate
Moderate
V
v
Low
X
X
X
Low
X
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
ECONOMIC:
X
X
ECONOMIC:
Revenue Loss
High
Revenue Loss
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
X
Low
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
X
X
X
37
TABLE 5
ACTIVITY: Anchoring
Preferred Alternative: Allow anchoring only in sand channels or
designated zones of the Reef Flat or seaward of the Fore Reef in
the sand bottom arears f initiate research on the use of a mooring
system on the Fore Reef.
Ejwi ronmental Factors
1 Unreg-| Prohibi-I Mooring 1 Require sand 1
IMARINE RESOURCES I ulatedl tion on | System j anchors
I Coral Reef 1 s.q. IFore Reef 1
1 |& desig- 1 1
1 Inate I
1 i I areas in 1 1 I
1 I |#1 & 2 | I
1 Significant Damage x I I
IMod. Damage 1 1
I Low/No Damage x x x 1
INot Applicable 1
I Tropical Specimens 1 II I
|(Fish, Invertebrates) 1 1 1
1 Fully Protected II II I
I Parti ally Protected x x x I
I Unprotected x 1
INot Applicable 1
1 Lobster/Fish Popul. 1 1 1 1 1
1 Fully Protected 1
1 Parti ally Protected x x x 1
1 Unprotected 1 x 1
INot Applicable 1
I SOCIOLOGICAL: III
(Controversy 1 1 1 II 1
1 High x I x |
1 Moderate 1 I x 1 I
(Low x I
INot Applicable III 1
1 ECONOMIC: I 1 I
1 Revenue Loss 1 1 1 1 1
IHigh 1 1 1 1 1
IModerate x x x 1
ILow x 1
INot Applicable 1
III 1
38
IV. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: RELY ON THE LEGAL STATUS QUO
Looe Key is located on the high seas adjacent to the United
States and therefore is subject only to Federal jurisdiction. There
are many Federal laws, regulations, policies and procedures which govern
activities on the high seas including the proposed sanctuary area.
A reader is referred to Chapter Three, Section V, The legal Status Quo
for a detailed discussion of existing statutes and affected agencies
as well as current enforcement procedures, cooperative arrangements and
any specific permitting, surveillance or monitoring activities provided
by the statutes and applicable to activities in the Looe Key area.
An alternative to the proposed action is the "no action
alternative" (status quo), meaning that Looe Key would not be designated
as a marine sanctuary. Under this alternative, the existing statutes as
described in the Legal Status Quo would continue to control activities
and protect the environment in and around the Looe Key. No special
management programs of research or education would be instituted.
The marine sanctuaries program has identified Looe Key as a
special marine area, a complex, yet fragile ecosystem containing
distinctively valuable natural resources where cumulative human uses pose
identifiable or foreseeable threats to the long-term preservation of the
reefal ecosystem. There is no regulatory framework to provide comprehensive
ecosystem protection and management, to promote scientific research, and
to enhance public appreciation of the multiple-use reefal system, now
or in the future. Most existing statutes - including the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act - are
directed either at the accomplishment of a single purpose or the regulation
of a certain activity, such as the extraction of oil and gas resources,
the preservation of water quality, and the protection and conservation
of endangered species.
The marine sanctuaries program complements other Federal and State
marine resource protection efforts by providing opportunities for coordinated
regulations, for shared enforcement responsibilities and for jointly
funded and managed research and educational activities through a multi-
faceted approach rather than through a single specific regulatory mandate.
Marine sanctuaries legislation is not redundant with that provided for
by other Federal statutes; it provides for the gaps existing in the
coverage provided by existing programs. Specifically, there are no
current regulations to control activities which singularly or in
combination may place stress on Looe Key including anchoring, wire trap
fishing, spearfishing, marine specimen collecting, and damage to or removal
of historical and cultural resources.
39
The Regional Fishery Management Councils, under authority of the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, propose and implement
necessary regulations for the management of selected commercial and
recreational fisheries which are in need of management pursuant to Fishery
Management Plans (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(GMFMC) is currently considering the FMP's which may become applicable
to certain resources at Looe Key in the future.
These FMPs will provide for some protection of the selected
fishery resources but will not likely focus on the site specific compre-
hensive ecosystem management possible through the marine sanctuaries
program. FMPs do not necessarily provide protection to elements of the
ecosystem which are not exploitable fishery resources, nor can the FMPs
in all cases address the entire range of threats to which an ecoystem
such as Looe Key may be subject (The reader is directed to Chapter
Three, The Legal Status Quo, for a detailed summary of the applicable
FMPs; i.e., the Draft FMP for Spiny Lobster and Coral and Coral Reef
Resources proposed jointly by the GMFMC and SAFMC; and Draft FMP for
Reef fish proposed by the GMFMC). Furthermore, none of the plans are
final, projected time schedules are uncertain and it is unlikely that
they would be approved until at least early 1981. NOAA has undertaken
extensive consultation with the GMFMC and the SAFMC according to Memoranda
of Understanding to assure that all issues are brought to the surface
and considered throughout the proposed marine sanctuary designation
process.
Regulation to prevent pollution of marine systems from shipboard
wastes other than sewage and oil wastes does not presently exist. Federal
regulation of sewage wastes from marine sanitation devices, effective
January 30, 1980, (the Clean Water Act, as described in the Legal Status
Quo) does not extend beyond territorial waters.
Knowledge on the ecological nature and role of reefal ecosystems
is limited. Under the existing status quo, there is no programmatic
mechanism to promote and coordinate research in the Looe Key area or to
disseminate information to the user public. The marine sanctuaries
program encourages scientific research and assessment of specfic areas
to assure not only long-term protection, but also maximum safe use and
enjoyment of the resources.
In conclusion, available information indicates that perpetuation of
the status quo will not adequately protect the resources of Looe Key
from present or future impacts on the physical, biological, and ecological
environment nor enhance scientific, educational, recreational and aesthetic
values of the ecosystem. The marine sanctuary program proposes to provide
a comprehensive mechanism through long-term management to protect the
ecosystem and to respond in a timely fashion to marine conservation
issues and to the interests of affected user groups as those issues
arise.
40
V. ACTIVITIES IN THE DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR WHICH REGULATIONS
ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED
° Alteration or construction of the seabed
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) exercises authority over construc-
tion and the dumping of dredged materials but not the actual dredging. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has jurisdiction over dredging activities
related to mineral leasing such as sand and gravel mining. However, no other
existing Federal regulatory authority has jurisdiction over other activities
that might alter the seabed such as dredging. While dredging or alteration
of the seabed could lead to damage and destruction of the coral reefs and
other habitat within the sanctuary, the likelihood of such activities does not
pose a realistic threat to the resources at this time. For this reason NOAA
is not promulgating regulations, but listing alteration of the seabed as an
activity in the Designation Document, and may issue regulations at a future
date if the need arises.
Bottom trawling and specimen dredging
Exploratory trawling for reef fish at live bottoms in the South
Atlantic (e.g. off the Carol inas) has proven economically and technically
feasible, and it is possible that certain types of commercial bottom
trawling may be contemplated off Florida, in areas such as Looe Key, in
the future. Gear modifications include rollers, runners or skids which
elevate trawls and sleds above the irregular ocean bottom. Even when
elevated above the surface, however various parts of the gear (e.g.,
rollers, runners, skids, bottom guard-chains, nets and specimen bags)
still come into contact with the bottom and benthic organisms.
Various impacts on the environment are associated with bottom-
trawling and specimen dredging. These include suspension of sediments
dislodging and breaking coral and generally degrading the physical
benthic environment.
As with alteration or construction on the seabed, the likeli-
hood of bottom trawling and specimen collecting does not pose a
realistic threat at this time. Accordingly, NOAA is not promulgating
regulations, but listing the activity in the Designation and may
issue regulations at a future date if the need arises.
41
VI. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
A. Regulations for Snorkel ing and SCUBA Diving
Snorkel ing and SCUBA diving for the purposes of observation, under-
water photography, nature study, non-collecting scientific research and
educational training were not judged to have the potential for causing
significant damage to the reef. Therefore, alternative regulations for
these activities were reviewed but not proposed.
B. Regulations for Commercial Fishing Beyond the 5 Square Nautical
Mile Boundary Alternative but Inside the 10 Square Nautical Mile
Boundary Alternative
Although the northern portion of this area contains extensions of the
patch reefs found in the 5 square nautical mile boundary, the southern
portions do not contain any reef comparable to the center portion of the
5 square nautical mile proposed sanctuary. There is also low probability
that the deepest parts of this area include coral communities similar to
the Deep Reef within the 5 mile area. It therefore seemed unnecessary to
include this area in the proposed sanctuary since the five ecological zones
were included in the smaller boundary alternative.
In addition, the Looe Key Onsite Survey indicates that local fishermen
depend on the 5 square nautical mile sanctuary proposal area for approximately
one-third of their catch and the area beyond the 5 square nautical mile
boundary for approximately two-thirds of their catch. Regulating commercial
fishing within a 10 square nautical mile area would thus cause considerable
economic hardship on local long-term commercial fishermen.
It was therefore determined that the environmental benefits of regulating
commercial fishermen to protect the natural resources in this area were not
substantial enough to propose regulations.
C. Regulations for Net and Hook and Line Fishing
Only 12% of the fishermen use nets to catch fish at Looe Key. Netting
does not require anchoring and cannot be used too close to the coral reefs.
For these reasons alternative regulations for netting were not considered.
Commercial hook and line fishing for yellowtail snapper, mangrove,
mutton snapper, grouper, mackerel, some dolphin, pompano and lane snapper
occurs primarily along the outer reef track between and including American
Shoal and Big Pine Shoal with approximately 24.9 percent of the total catch
(671,880 lbs.) coming from the Boundary Alternative #2 area. (Onsite Survey)
Ecological damage from hook and line fishing does not seem to be a major
issue.
42
Hook and line fishing requires anchoring and sometimes fishing at
night when it can be difficult to set anchors away from coral. However,
it appears from personal interviews with fishermen that most boats avoid
the Fore Reef to prevent hull damage and regulations for anchoring will
apply equally to the hook and line fishermen.
43
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
I. MARINE ENVIRONMENT
A. LOCATION
Looe Key Reef is a submerged section of the Florida Reef Tract
located 12.4km (6.7 nmi ) southwest of Big Pine Key in the lower Florida
Keys at latitude 24°, 33' north and longitude 81°, 24' west. It is
bounded on the south by the Straits of Florida and on the north by Hawk
Channel . (See Figure 1 )
The Florida Reef Tract extends from the Miami area southwesterly,
paralleling the Florida Keys and terminating in the Dry Tortugas. The
most seaward portion, or Outer Reef Tract, lies to the east and south of
"the emergent Keys at a distance of from 4. 8 to 11. 3 km (2. 6 to 6.1 nmi).
Beyond the outer reef, the bottom slopes gradually for a few miles and
then drops sharply to about 900 meters in the trough of Florida Straits.
Although the reef tract extends for a linear distance of approximately
370 km (200 nmi), it is actually composed of a chain of individual living
reefs separated from each other by considerable areas which do not contain
living coral formations. According to Marszalek, et al (1977), approximately
96 km of outer bank reefs occur between Fowey Rocks Lighthouse near Miami
and the Marquesas Keys west of Key West, a distance of 270 km. The
existence of these living reefs in this latitude is, to a great extent,
a result of the proximity of the Florida Current, which carries warm,
clear water of normal salinity northward along the seaward edge of the
outer reef.
The most extensive living reef areas occur in the northern
portion of the tract, while in the southern sector, well developed
reefs are generally smaller and are separated from each other by greater
distances than those of the northern tract. Between the outer reef and
the emergent Florida Keys, there exists a broad, shallow platform with
an average water depth less than ten meters. This area is known as
Hawk Channel and contains more than 6,000 patch reefs (Marzalek et al ,1977).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
Coral reefs occur in clear, tropical waters, and tolerate only
minor fluctuations of physical and chemical oceanographic parameters.
Kissling (1975) has measured some of these parameters over a four year
period for the Looe Key Reef area.
Maximum and minimum amplitudes for the mixed, semidiurnal tides
are 80 cm and 20 cm, respectively. Dissolved oxygen content of surface
water varies from 5.2 to 8.4 milligrams per liter, changing with the houi
of day and season. Salinity is relatively uniform at 36 to 38 parts per
and pH values vary from 8.1 to 8.5, all of which is well within the
optimal range for coral reef development.
mi 1 1 e ,
The area undergoes an annual
45
wet-dry hydrological cycle, with rainfall highest during the summer and
fall, and a relatively dry season extending from about December through
April. The air temperatures and prevailing wind directions which accompany
these weather conditions exert some influence on the reef ecology.
In summer, as is usual in tropical marine environments, and with
winds mostly from the southeast, air temperatures may climb to 35°C.
Surface water temperatures on the outer reefs then measure usually 30
to 31 °C, which is close to optimal for reef-corals (Vaughan and Wells,
1943). In the winter months, winds prevail from the east, northeast,
and north, and frost may reach the southern tip of continental Florida,
resulting in an air temperature in the Keys only slightly above freezing.
These extremes are caused by cold fronts with strong northerly winds.
Due to the east-west orientation of the Reef Tract and open passages
in the lower Keys, wind-driven winter currents may carry large masses
of cold Florida Bay water to the outer reefs and result in lower water
temperature there to less than 20°C. This phenomenon may also be aided
by movements of the Loop Current (Marszalek, 1977). Ginsburg and Shinn
(1964) observed that reefs occur mainly opposite land where they are
less exposed to Florida Bay water. For this reason, reefs are least
developed in the widely spaced middle Keys, and the largest reefs are
found in the upper Keys, where they are protected from cold Bay water by
land-barriers, by their north-south orientation, and close proximity of
the Gulf Stream. Measurements of minimum water temperatures made by
Vaughan (1918) over a period of 20 years, were 15.6°C. at Fowey Rocks,
18.2°C at Carysfort Reef, and 17.9°C off Key West.
The seasonal drop in water temperature is the most severe natural
factor controlling coral reef development in Florida. While few species of
hermatypic corals endure colder water, most species die at about
16°C (Mayor, 1916), while exposure to about 18°C will block their growth
(Mayor, 1914). Although the situation may be different in certain Indo-
Pacific reefs (Glynn, 1977), fluctuating water temperatures that remain
below 24°C seem to inhibit prominent coral reef development in the
Caribbean Sea (Antonius, 1972). Dr. Antonius has measured growth-rates
of several species of corals in Florida (also: Shinn, 1966) and other
areas of the Caribbean Sea (Antonius, Personal Communications). Consis-
tently, coral growth-rates in Florida were found to be only about half
or less the values found in central Caribbean reefs. For example, an
easily measured growth-rate is that of the staghorn coral, Acropora
cervicornis . It is about 10 cm per year in the Florida Reef Tract, but
in excess of 20 cm in reefs of the Virgin Islands as well as the Barrier
Reef of Belize, Central America.
It appears, therefore, that Florida's coral reefs, including Looe
Key, generally grow only about half as fast as central Caribbean reefs, and
any damage done to the coral framework can take twice as long to heal or regrow.
46
C. GEOLOGY
The bedrock of the Florida Keys is of a dual origin. The Keys
from Big Pine Key through Key Largo, are underlain by Key Largo Limestone, an
elevated coral reef of Pleistocene age. According to Hofmeister and Multer
(1964), the Key Largo Limestone underlies Miami Beach to the north, comes
to the surface at Soldier Key and is submerged beneath the Miami Oolite from
Big Pine Key through Key West. The latter formation is an oolitic limestone
composed of many small spherites of calcium carbonate. The oolite covers
all of the Lower Keys and is thinnest over their southern borders, increasing
in thickness to the north (Hofmeister, 1974).
The general consensus regarding the origin of the Florida Keys
suggests that about 95,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period
(Sangamon), the coral reefs which make up the Key Largo Limestone were
a line of patch reefs in the back reef area of a broad reef platform
similar to the Florida Reef Tract of today. Hofmeister and Multer (1968)
hypothesize that marine and subaerial erosion following the withdrawal
of the sea during the Wisconsin glacial period, possibly accompanied by
a structural downward tilting or faulting of the area, or both, resulted
in the lowering of the platform to a depth of about 23 meters at its
seaward edge and progressively less further inland. With the return of
the sea, new reef growth began on the eroded platform and continued to
the present.
D. FLOPIDA REEF TRACT DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
As reported by Marszalek, et al (1977):
"The outer bank reefs are typically elongate features
of variable vertical relief which occur at the
shallow shelf edge between the 5 meter and 10 meter
depth contours. Their long axes form a discontinuous
line of reefs oriented parallel to the shelf edge.
The northernmost reefs trend N/S and the reefs near
Key West E/W reflecting the change in orientation of
the arcuate shelf edge. Approximately 56 km of
linear bank reefs are located north of Tavernier
Creek (at the south end of Key Largo Key), 17 km
of reefs in the middle Keys and 23 km in the lower
Keys (west of Big Pine Key). A spur and groove system
is developed on the seaward face of most of the
bank reefs, with the spurs and grooves oriented
generally perpendicular to the shelf edge and to
the oncoming waves of the Florida Current. Spurs
and grooves are best developed on outer bank reefs
of the upper Keys and lower Keys; the spur and groove
pattern on reefs in the middle Keys is generally less
developed and exhibits a more random orientation."
47
Although the outer reefs are highly variable in their degree of
development, several distinctive features are held in common by reefs
well advanced in the successional sequence leading to the mature, climax
serai stage. These characteristics include:
° the presence of the elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata )
at shallow depths. According to Shinn (1963) , the
spur and groove formations result from in situ growth
of elkhorn colonies. A significant proportion of
these formations is composed of encrusted rubble
and skeletal material, derived from this species,
which has been incorporated into the spur and
groove system;
° a vertical coral zonation characterized in the deeper
zones of the reef by large, massive heads of brain
( Diploria spp .) and star corals ( Montastrea spp .) and,
in the shallow, more turbulent areas, branching
colonies of Acropora (A. palmata and A^. cervicornis ),
several types of fire coral, ( MTllepora spp .) and
extensive colonies of the colonial zoanthids
Palythoa and Zoanthus ;
a benthic macrobiota consisting of large populations
of the sea urchin ( Diadema ant ill arum , numerous species
of cryptic ophiuroids (brittle stars), a diverse
group of octocorals (sea fans and sea whips) and
sponges and the calcareous green alga Halimeda
opuntia ;
a highly diverse finfish fauna. Stark (1967)
reported a total of 517 fish species from Alligator
Reef, of which 389 are coral reef forms. Many of
these fish populations are characteristic of
particular zones or specific habitats on the
reef while others have been found to be nonselective.
There is an apparent dependency relationship between
the abundant and diverse fish populations of the
Florida Reef Tract and the variety of available
habitat in the area, not the least of which is
the highly productive seagrass community in Hawk
Channel.
Much of the reef's structure is derived from the mechanical and
biogenic breakdown of calcareous material. Kissling's analysis (1975)
of reef sediments indicate that coral rubble in cobble and boulder
sizes represents the vast bulk of reef sediment. Fine sediments result
from further breakdown of the coarse material and from contributions
by foraminifera, echinoderms, molluscs and calcareous algae.
48
E. LOOE KEY REEF AREA
Looe Key Reef has recently been described in the Looe Key
Reef Resource Inventory prepared by the Florida Reef Foundation and
conducted by Antonius in 1978. (See Appendix B, Site Analysis
Research Methods.) According to a draft fishery management plan for
coral and coral reef resources prepared for the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (1979), Looe Key Reef: ". . . is
better known scientifically than most others in South Florida" because
of the resource inventory.
The inventory divides the Looe Key Reef area, from an ecological/
topographical point of view into five zones: (See Figure 4)
A Patch Reef area between Hawk Channel and the Looe Key
Reef Flat;
The Reef Flat, triangular in shape, with the Looe Key
marker in the southeast corner;
The Fore Reef, facing Florida Straits to the south
consisting on a spur and groove system;
A Deep Reef area with a drop-off, southwest of
the Fore Reef;
A Deep Ridge, separated from the Deep Reef by
an estimated 1 km of sand bottom;
The proposed Looe Key marine sanctuary area encompasses all five zones.
All major taxa of reef -dwelling organisms are represented on
Looe Key. Inventory data indicate the existence of several hundred
species of marine organisms, joined together in the intricate functional
web of the reef ecosystem. Ecological diversity on Looe Key reef manifests
itself in the existence of distinct natural communities or associations
within the reef ecosystem. It is apparent that exchanges of energy and
information occur between the various associations, and between the reef
biota proper and the adjacent seagrass beds. Both demersal and pelagic
fishes move freely throughout the entire ecosystem, and large invertebrates,
such as the spiny lobster, are known to travel considerable distances.
•
1. Dominant Species of the Looe Key Area
a. Patch Reef
A flat and relatively shallow area of about 8 m in depth stretches
from Hawk Channel south to the Looe Key Reef Flat. The area is dominated
by a mixed association of marine spermatophytes and green algae. The
seagrasses include: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) and manatee
* See Appendix B for complete list,
49
PATCH REEF ZONE
REEF FLAT ZONE
FORE REEF ZONE
^)C DEEP REEF ZONE
grass ( Syringoduim filiforme ). The algae, which represent a much smaller
biomass than that of the grasses, consist primarily of species of the
genera Halimeda , Udotea , and Penicillus .
Due north of the Looe Key Reef Flat are numerous Patch Reefs scattered
throughout the seagrass community. Most of these reefs have little
profile and generally project up less than 2 m from the shallow bottom.
The algal flora is quite sparse on the Patch Reefs themselves.
The coralline red algae Goniolithon sp . and Amphiroa rigida are most
abundant.* Scattered clumps of the attached brown alga ( Sargassum polyceratium ),
the red alga ( Laurencia intricata ), and the green alga ( Bryopsis pennataT "
were observed. This scarcity of algae is a result of grazing pressure
by herbivorous fish and invertebrates.
Among the faunal components in all Patch Reefs, octocorals are by far
dominant. They not only grow dense enough to give certain Patch Reefs the
appearance of the heavily vegetated landscape, but also attain unusual sizes.
Among giant sea feathers and sea whips, the largest specimens, close to 2 m in
height, are mainly Plexaurella nutans and Pseudoplexaura flagellosa .
Compared with prominent main reef structures, the abundance of stony corals
is quite low, while sponges are comparatively well represented. Both stony
corals and sponges grow here to small or medium size and comprise about an
equal share of the Patch Reefs' biomass. The most important species of stony
corals in this zone are the hydrocoral (firecoral)( Millepora complanata ), the
scleractinians ( Col pophyl 1 i a natans ) , ( Diploria labyrintniformis ), ( D. "strigosa ),
( D. clivosa ), ( Siderastrea siderea ), and especially the staghorn coral ( Acropora
cervicornis ) that occurs here with greater frequency than in any other part of the
Looe Key Reef. Elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata ) is not found in the Patch
Reef association. The pillar coral ( Dendrogyra cylindrus ), is found on
several patch reefs. Four colonies of this rare species were located on
one patch. One colony was especially impressive with six large pillars
rising 1 m from the base, along with several smaller spires adjacent to it.
Frequently observed inhabitants of the patch reefs include: the anemones
( Bartholomea annulata ), ( Condylactis gigantea ), and the mat-forming zoanthids
( Palythoa mammillosa ) and ( Zoanthus sociatus ); serpulid and sabellid worms,
a variety of small crustaceans, especially the arrow crab ( Stenorhynchus
seticornis) . In the sandy and grassy areas adjacent to the Patch Reefs, the
echinoids Plagiobrissus grandis , Clypeaster rosaceus , and Diadema antillarum
are common. The latter are most abundant at the interface between the reef and
the surrounding halo. Summarizing all these data, the sand-sea-grass-reef
community of the Patch Reef zone appears to be a lagoon-type reef environment,
sheltered from violent wave action by the Looe Key Reef Flat, but subject to a
considerable sediment load suspended in the water column during rough weather.
Numerous consumers utilize patch reefs as habitat and feed directly on
seagrasses, their epiphytes and associated macro-algae (Ogden and Zieman, 1977),
*See Appendix B for complete list.
51
According to these authors:
"Carnivorous fishes (e.g. grunts, Pomadasyidae) resting on
coral reefs by day and feeding on seagrass invertebrates by
night are largely responsible for the enhanced fish biomass
characteristic of coral reefs near seagrass beds. The proximity
of seagrass beds to coral reefs provides food for fishes and
invertebrates feeding within the beds, shelter for juveniles,
and organic material exported to reefs. The primary limit to
further exploitation is lack of shelter within the beds."
Thus the patch reef community represents a distinct natural system
whose biota is adapted to the environmental conditions of the back reef
zone. Continued survival of this system is critical for maintenance of
the habitat utilized by numerous fishes and the spiny lobster. Utilization
of the patch reefs for shelter from predators allows both juveniles and
adults to exploit an enormous and nearby source of energy, the biomass
of the seagrass association. Much of this energy, in the form of finfish
and shellfish biomass is harvested by both the commercial and sport
fishing industry of the Florida Keys.
b. Reef Flat
The Looe Key Reef Flat is roughly in the shape of an isosceles triangle, its
base facing south towards the Straits of Florida and the apex pointing land-
ward to the north. On this landward side there is a wery gradual transition
from the seagrass association of the Patch Reef area into the Reef Flat, marked
mainly by the beginning of extensive sand flats and an elevation of the bottom
to about 2 m in depth. From here toward the south, the Reef Flat becomes gradually
shallower with the main part of the area showing a depth of approximately 1.5m.
The Reef Flat terminates in a sharply defined rock and rubble zone immediately
behind the uppermost rim of the Fore Reef. The water depth in this area is no
greater that about 0.5 m. The Reef Flat does not show any profile other than
the elevation of seagrass ridges approximately 0. 5 m above the sand bottom. The
benthos consists primarily of calcareous sand, rubble, coarse sediment and
extensive seagrass beds. The latter are vegetated by pure stands of turtle grass,
or a mixture of turtle grass, manatee grass, and algae. In some areas without
seagrass, the bottom community consists of algae and invertebrates.
The algae, in most area of the Reef Flat, include: species of the genera
Halimeda , Udotea , Penicillus , Caulerpa , Rhipocephalus , Cladophoropsis ,
Dasycladus vermicularis , and several other chlorophycean algae, as well
as representatives of the red algal genera Laurencia , Goniolithon ,
Spyridia , and Chondria. Older blades of turtle grass are almost
invariably covered with the red algal epiphyte Melobesia membranacea ,
and much of the manatee grass was observed to be densely covered with an
epiphytic species of Ceramium . Brown algae are represented by species
of the genus Dictyota , as well as Padina sanctae-crucis , and Stypopodium zonale .
In the rock and rubble sector of the Reef Flat behind the Fore Reef the
algal community consists of those species requiring a hard substrate.
These include: Goniolithon spp . , Lithothamnium incertum , large clumps of
Halimeda opuntia , Dictyotota spp . , Stypopodium zonale .
Compared to the seagrass and algal cover, the sessile benthic
fauna of the Reef Flat has only minor significance. Occurrence of sponges
52
is negligible and the number of stony corals very limited. Specimens
are usually small, encrusting, and rather scattered, with the species
Porites astreoides , Diploria clivosa , Millepora squarrosa , M. complanata ,
and Siderastrea siderea , most noticeable! A number of medium-sized
coral colonies, mainly of the species Montastrea annularis , Siderastrea siderea ,
Acropora palmata , and Diploria clivosa , can be found within about a 100 m
distance from the seaward terminus of the Reef Flat. Within this belt,
several patches, almost a zone, of octocorals occur. Most noticeable is
Pterogorgia citrina , the smallest of all Looe Key octocoral species (about
15 cm in height), which grows only on the Reef Flat but is the most abundant
species here. The sea fan, Gorgonia ventalina , is a close second, while sea
whips are represented by several species of the genera Eunicea and Plexaura
and sea feathers by two species of Pseudopterogorgia. Although the
number of octocoral species, as well as their size, remains rather small,
they nevertheless represent the only benthic faunal component of some
significance on the Reef Flat.
Within and adjacent to the seagrass beds of the Reef Flat, the most
commonly observed invertebrates include: the queen conch ( Strombus gigas );
the pen shell ( Atrina rigida ); the holothurians ( Holothuria floridana and
Actinopygia agassizii ); and the reef squid ( Sepioteuthis sepiodea ).
The rock and rubble areas of the Reef Flat provide an excellent habitat
for small invertebrates. Numerous serpulid and sabellid worms protrude from
the surfaces of the eroded rocks, whereas terebellids are commonly found
beneath them. Abundant populations of other cryptic organisms, such
as brittle stars and small crustaceans abound in this area. Among crabs,
the majids ( Mithras spp. and Stenorhynchus seticornis ), the grapsid
( Percnon gibbesi ), the xanthids ( Leptodi"u7 floridanus and Glyptoxanthus
erosus ), and the portunid ( Portunus spinimanus ) were~most frequently
observed. Small gastropod and pelecypod molluscs are to be found in
this area in considerable abundance. Echinoderms are prolific, especially
ophiuroids. A large population of Diadema antillarum reside in this
area. Other echinoids and holothurians were observed but are not common.
c Fore Reef
The Fore Reef zone of Looe Key is a well developed and especially
spectacular formation. Its main portion is a high profile spur and groove
system, bordering the Reef Flat in wery shallow water and sloping down
to a sand bottom in 9-11 m of depth. The whole system, from easternmost
to westernmost spur, is about 1500 m long and, at the main center portion,
about 350 m wide. There are two associations, or subzones, that comprise
the Fore Reef complex.
The shallowest part of the spurs, just below the surface at low
tide, could be called the "reef crest". However, at Looe Key it is so narrow
a zone (less than 20 m) that it is treated here simply as the leeward end
of the spur and groove system. The benthic community of this subzone
consists of a massive growth of firecorals, mainly Millepora complanata , but
53
lacks the elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata ) component which is usually
characteristic of reef crests. Moreover, this shallow Millepora zone
does not form a proper barrier but is transected by many valleys. Several
of these are extensions of the seaward grooves, others are transverse
channels, running perpendicular to the grooves, thus breaking up the Millepora
zone into huge, block-like segments. Sections of the walls and bottoms
of these channels are lined with the urchin Diadema ant ill arum .
Seaward, some portions of the Millepora zone drop abruptly to
the rubble-filled ends of the grooves. The sections in between gradually
develop into spurs, the tops of which are not deeper than about 2 m, for
the first 20 to 30 m seaward. These platform-like "backs" of the leeward spurs,
and their almost vertical walls, are two distinctly different biotopes.
On top, large areas are covered by soft mats of colonial zoanthids Palythoa
mammillosa and Zoanthus pulchellus . Millepora complanata is the dominant
stony coral here although single colonies or clusters of elkhorn coral,
( Acorpora palmata ), are irregularly interspersed. The only substantial
concentration of Acropora palmata is immediately seaward of the Millepora
complex, exactly where one would expect the highest part of the
reef crest to be developed. Close inspection of the reef's framework, on the
spur's vertical walls, indicates that the main construction element of the
spurs has apparently been Acropora palmata , which today does not seem to
be that dominant. Discussions of origin and zonation of spur and groove
systems are given by Shinn (1963), and Geister (1977).
Following the spurs seaward, in depth increasing from 3 to 8 m,
(= depth of spur's top), one finds a zone which may well be the most
important, certainly the most spectacular part of the Looe Key reef.
Some of the spurs show a profile here of up to 7 m high, caused mainly
by the vigorous construction activity of the "mountainous" star coral
( Montastrea annularis ). This species builds buttresses of 2 to 3 m in
diameter and 4 to 5 m from bottom to top: the vertical walls of these
form most of the spurs' steep sides. On top of the spurs, ( Montastrea
annualaris ) is still represented in boulders of 1.5 to 2 m in diameter,
accompanied by similar sized specimens which are primarily brain corals
such as Diploria strigosa and Colpophyllia natans . Due to the massive
nature of the reef-builders in this subzone, there are few
holes in the reef framework, consequently allowing little insight
into the history of construction.
The last segment of the spurs is a rather flat extension of the proceeding
high profile. The spurs' elevation over the sand bottom here is not more
than about 1 m, formed mainly by Montastrea cavernosa , which occurs in
cone-shaped colonies 30-40 cm in height. Similarly sized specimens of
Siderastrea siderea , Montastrea annularis , Colpophyllia natans ,
Diploria strigosa , D. labyrinthiformis , and Meandr na meandrites
also occur here, but are much less frequent.
Among other invertebrates, bivalve molluscs are relatively common
in recesses on the surfaces of the spurs, but are almost invariably
encrusted and \tery difficult to distinguish from the background.
54
Gastropods are ubiquitously distributed in this zone. Brittle stars
are both numerous and diverse in the Fore Reef; they appear most abundant
in recesses and grooves of the stony corals as well as under and behind
rubble. They become quite obvious at night when they expose their arms
to feed. At least one species, on Looe Key is bioluminescent and displays
pulsating light patterns when disturbed.
The dominant vegetation on the Fore Reef are encrusting species
of red algae of the genera Goniolithon , Lithothamnium , and Peyssonellia .
Widely scattered small clumps of Halimeda opuntia f. minor . Bryopsis
pennata , and Dictyota spp . occur on the tops and sides of the spurs.
The distinct paucity of the algal flora found here is probably a reflection
of grazing pressure from organisms such as sea urchins.
The Fore Reef zone has by far the greatest numbers of fish. Almost
all of the species encountered in the reef system can be found here, with
the exception of some deeper water species only observed beyond a depth
of 10 m. Two of the most abundant species, found in the Fore Reef zone,
are tomate grunts, ( Haemulon aurolineatum ), and yellowtail snappers,
( Ocyrus chrysurus ). Absent or rare~\y seen, according to the Inventory,
(Antonius et al 1978) were grey or mangrove snapper, ( Lutjanus griseus) ,
and larger serranids, such as black, red and nassau groupers. Black
grouper and mangrove snapper, where seen, were usually on the western
end of the reef and moving away, out of the range of visibility.
d. Deep Reef
At the seaward edge of the spur and groove system a sandflat
begins in about 9-11 m depth, wery gradually sloping down with a slight
incline. In front of the eastern half of the Fore Reef this sandflat
is uninterrupted. At the western half it is intersected by a deep
reef, which begins here as a finger-like extension of scattered coral
outcrops just beyond the terminus of the spur and groove system.
From here a reef flat of 10-12 m depth stretches several hundred meters
to the west without showing much profile, representing a comparatively
shallow subzone of the Deep Reef.
Towards the south, the Deep Reef gradually changes into a second
subzone. Here, the reef flat curves into a slope of increasing steepness
with a considerable profile caused by surge channels. In the deepest
portion of this subzone, the slope forms a small but true drop-off which
ends on a sandflat in about 30 to 35 m depths. In this deepest sector
of the Deep Reef, the sediments are quite fine and silt-like and are
easily raised up from the bottom.
The shallower, plateau-like part of the Deep Reef is somewhat
similar to the previously described Patch Reefs. Octocorals are dominant
here, with a very similar species composition to that of the Patch Reefs,
but they do not outnumber stony corals here as much as they do in the
Patch Reefs. The most frequently encountered octocoral on this part of
the Deep Reef is the plexaurid Muriceopsis petila . Sponges are fairly
common and grow to larger sizes than in the Patch Reefs. Stony corals
do not exceed medium sizes and are scattered in distribution.
55
Although species composition resemhlp* that „<■ ,u n
the reef, a number of scleract nianT^th t tha }. of shallower parts of
forms occur on the Deep feeTwhich aP T Mth-* n t" 9 fl «*«-»ke grovrth
in more accessible areas of Looe Kev w "°^ ?u eSent or ver * ra ^
and Oculina grow in clusters of smaTl' f?E!f 1e f.? f l he genera Mad ™is
of MSslTlngilosa and Eusmilia fast! VoillXl^ branches wnile co1o "^s
pac ked flowers. D isk- I ikTqrowth tn^f "/ e t Sem , b e bouc l uet s of densely
amongst many species of Agarici Sae and Muss d'a^Vf * are found
numbers at this depth only. Mussidae, wh 1C h occur in appreciable
While species composition of stonv coral* in th n a
zone remains about the same, the number L , J,l I* deeper parts of this
increases, making them the dominant r^Lf VI* 0f lndlv1 <}*»**) "" "*-
community on the Deep Reef consists „ Wa * ° bse ™ed. The plant
which become less frequent r ' y ?f encrusting red algae,
subzone, an association of green alaae ran £*?' J" the shal l™er
the coarse bottom sediments they nclurf! r f° Und ' main1y atta ched to
Penicillus s p n. . Halimeda 1ncra«»JS n Ca "lerpa spp. , Ddotea spp. .
Mn pocepha1us H V n^T^^nJ^gf^l- Dasycladus yermiculafTsTW^
Halimeda ojuntf i^Jingr, afweH «'S aS Val0nla . ""fW..
occur frequently on hard substrates b ™""^Tgi TTcty5tTdTa 1 ot.nma
Resourcf In f v en\ d ory nl fAn^nt D e e t P a? ee i f 9 ^rwer P CCOrd1 1 n9 t0 the L °° e ^ "^
sunshine fish, ( Chromis insolat„< V potrin hoofish rRn^ 1 ^' ^hromis scotti l.
and scam P' Hy ct eroper ca nh Pn; , v \~ n t „°" " h h ° gf 1 * h ' ( planus pulchel W T
bf more abu ndant oS the Cp R^ f 'ere b ter?lvfi^ the / ore ***>
blue chromis, and Creole wrasse. but terflyf 1S hes, hamlets, groupers,
On the seaward edqe of the r nra i „„„« ,.. ,,
sanctuary boundaries extends blu Water ,-„!!? rtlally W \ thin the P ro P°^
extremely clear transparent water duff n TVT^L chara «eri Z ed by
area is the home of many coJSrelillv anS .° f P^oP^lcton. This
Along the Florida coast! h°™ pop" Itions of tT tl0 5-V y V3lUable ftshes '
partially supported by the product f h eSe /' sbes are at leas t
beds. Along the reef trart thTi y °f the reefs and inshore grass
on bottom fishes and an'ma s Shich'T ? "^ <°P er -°«an) fishes feed
and detritus. This short fLrf.hi, tUrn * have fed on ben thic plants
supported by the extrem y 'higVp ^oduc'tiwtv nT^ " T m ' VOres to b *
environments. Commercially !,![?! f y of the reef and inshore
but observed with™ the ProDosld Mtt, P f ^k m °t Uy found in b ^ " a ter
grouper, hammerhead shark MnamarkfrM^ boundari ' es «« amberjack,
Others which depend par ial y o'n habitat' ffh" 1 ^" 13 ^ 6 '' 61 - and cer ° mack ^el.
include dolphin, ballyhoo, pompano the Pr0p0Sed boundar y
56
e. Deep Ridge
During the summer of 1973, an attempt was made to explore the
deep parts of several reefs in the Florida Reef Tract with the "Johnson-
Sea-Li nk" research submersible. At Looe Key, as well as at other reefs,
a deep ridge was discovered, separated from the end of the Deep Reef
by an estimated distance of at least 1 km of sand bottom (Antonius, 1974).
This Deep Ridge runs parallel to the margin of the continental shelf.
It shows \/ery little profile and is only a few meters wide, but is,
nevertheless, an outcrop of living coral reef. It lies in about 45 m depth
and is formed mainly by plate-like colonies of Montastrea cavernosa and several
species of Agariciidae, which show considerable sedimentation damage. Also
present are deep water octocorals, such as Iciligorgia schrammi and
Ellisella barbadensis , with the latter much more abundant here than on
the Deep Reef.
One major significance of this deep ridge formation may lie in its
potential for elucidating the geological past of the area. Its biological
importance to the total Looe Key reef ecosystem has not been evaluated.
2. Trophic Relationships
Primary production generated by seagrasses and macro-algae on Looe Key
occurs mainly in two zones: the Patch Reefs and the Reef Flat. Many of
the herbivorous fish populations, as well as numerous invertebrates rely
on these seagrass beds both as their primary source of food and for protection.
The ecological significance of the interrelationships between patch reefs
and seagrass associations has been well documented (e.g., Ogden & Zieman, 1977).
Numerous consumers utilize patch reefs as habitat, but feed directly
on seagrasses and their epiphytes, as well as on associated macro-algae. Thus,
the Patch Reef ecosystem provides the two most important requirements
for the mobile, herbivorous reef fauna: shelter from predators and an
unlimited supply of food. The high productivity of areas like this is
harvested in the Florida Keys in the form of finfish, lobster, and other
shellfish by both the commercial and sport fishing industry.
With regard to feeding relationships, the importance of the coral
reef areas proper, (i.e., the reefs in the Patch Reef, the Fore Reef,
and the Deep Reef zones), lies mainly in their production of plankton,
and, to an unknown extent, excretion of non-living organic material, i.e,
mucous.
Transport of planktonic larvae, eggs, spores, and other reproductive
entities between the various zones and subzones is probably considerable.
Dissolved organics, exocrines and a wide array of other metabolic excretions,
originating in any of these natural communities, are distributed throughout
the reef by tide and wind-driven currents. In situ primary production
fixes a certain percentage of the energy requirement of the reef ecosystem.
However, imports of energy from adjacent seagrass beds and phytoplankton
populations are probably of great importance to the reef's consumers.
57
Also, an unknown, but undoubtedly significant, contribution of dissolved
organic material and particulate detritus is carried to the reef from
mangrove wetlands by outgoing tides. The tremendous superiority of
coral reefs over other ecoystems in terms of productivity has been
documented by Odum (1971).
There is no doubt that all four reef zones (and possibly, also the
Deep Ridge), identified in this study, are tied together by trophic
relationships, just as the total coral reef ecosystem is tied in with the
surrounding ocean. The coral reef - open ocean relationship, is illustrated
by the frequent visits to the reef by large schools of jacks, mackerel and
other pelagic fishes. These fishes use the reef not only as a feeding
ground, but also participate in, and benefit from, the cleaning-mutalistic
symbiotic relationship with reef-dwelling finfish and invertebrates (i.e.,
"cleaning stations").
3. Endangered Species
Although the Looe Key area is suitable habitat for three marine
turtles protected under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, no sightings,
to date, have been verified. Pillar coral ( Dendrogyra cylindrus ) found
in the patch reefs north of the main section of Looe Key was nominated
but did not qualify as a Federally Endangered Species.
58
II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING
A. SOCIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The proximity of most of the Florida Reef Tract, including
Looe Key Reef, to the Florida Keys in Monroe County makes these reefs
accessible to the large numbers of people who are able to drive or fly
to the archipelago. The Overseas Highway and its 44 bridges link the
Keys to the mainland, and jet air service connects Key West and Marathon to
all major American urban areas.
At the present time, 37 of the existing 44 bridges are being
replaced, a major, new fresh water aqueduct from the south Florida mainland
to the Keys is under construction, and extensive additions to the electrical
transmission and generation systems for the area are under way. Monroe
County statistics indicate that the Keys are expanding rapidly in both
permanent, resident population and tourist populations.
The unincorporated Monroe County population (outside Key West,
Key Colony Beach and Layton) increased by roughly 30 percent, or from
22,803 to 28,435, between 1970 and 1978 (Monroe County Statistics, a.A-2).
In the same period, tourism more than doubled, from 460,800 county tourists
to 948,500 (Monroe County Statistics, p.E-1). Not only is tourism in
Monroe County increasing absolutely but the county is increasing its share of
Florida tourists, up in this period from 2.0 to 3.0 percent.
The increase in population is expected to continue. From a
1978 county population of 54,793, the permanent resident population is
expected to reach 55,600 to 56,400 by 1980, 56,700 to 58,400 by 1985,
and between 60,900 to 66,300 by 1990, (Monroe County Statistics, p.A-6).
This last figure implies that in the next decade Monroe County is expected
to grow by 10 to 20 percent.
In the area nearest Looe Key, from Seven Mile Bridge up to and
including half of Ramrod Key, the population is expected to grow from
1,833 in 1974 to 5,845 in 1998 (Black, Crow & Eidsness, P.3-4. ).
Tourism is increasing. Bahia Honda State Park, in the vicinity of the
proposed sanctuary, reported a 20 percent increase in visitors during
Fiscal Year (FY) 1978-1979. The number of visitors rose from 293,256
in 1978 to 351,700 in 1979. (Bahia Honda Tabulation of Daily Visitors,
FY 1978-1979.)
The impending construction of the new water aqueduct is predicted
to increase population of the Florida Keys (Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc.,
1976). Construction in the Lower Keys hit an all time high in 1978,
as permits for 208 residential units were issued by the county (Monroe
County Statistics, p.B-5). The construction industry has clearly recovered
from the recession in 1975 and is building as rapidly as before. Overall,
the unincorporated Keys saw the housing stock increase by 59 percent
in the 1970-1977 period (Monroe County Statistics, p.B-3. ). With the new
aqueduct, this number should increase.
59
As the number of persons in the Lower Keys increases, it is
likely that the amount of human activity at Looe Key will increase. In
addition, with the increasing popularity of SCUBA diving and snorkel ing,
it can be assumed that the number of persons diving at Looe Key will
increase.
B. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The economic base of Monroe County has four main elements:
(1) tourism (2) commercial and sport fishing, (3) retirement and second
home communities, and (4) Federal government operations (military).
The remaining segments of the economy center around wholesale and retail
trade, services, light industry, trades and government.
Of the nearly 19,500 persons (1976) in the civilian labor force,
approximately 40% were employed by businesses servicing the over 1
million tourists a year that visit the Florida Keys. The majority of
this income is seasonal with peak periods from December to May (Monroe
County Statistics, 1979).
Looe Key is widely used by commercial fishermen, public charter
boat operators, dive boats, recreational divers and fishermen, and educa-
tional enterprises in the lower Florida Keys.
Recreational skin diving has become a significant commercial
industry in the Keys in recent years. According to the Skin Diver Magazine ,
1979 Reader Survey, 38.8% of skin divers ( snorkel ers and SCUBA divers)
traveled to other States to dive. Of that 38.8%, 35.6% travelled
to the Florida Keys in Monroe County. The median amount per diver spent
in 12 months on diving trips, according to the survey, was $442.00;
the average $718.00. Although expenditures of this nature, Ue. ,
travel, equipment purchases, are not entirely spent in the Monroe County
region, some, at least, of the income from these trips is realized by
the local economy.
In the last fifteen years, pleasure boat registration almost
quadrupled to 8,121 boats in Monroe County. Commercial boat registration
rose by a third in the same fifteen years to 2,749 boats. If these
trends continue, future human use of the area and all the Keys is much
more likely to have a recreational orientation than a commercial one
(Mathis et al , p. 7, 1979).
The commercial fishing industry is an important source of income
and employment. In 1976, Monroe County ranked first in fish and shell-
fish landings in Florida with fish catch valued at $23,605,000. Of that
amount, $19,965,000 came from shellfish and $3,640,000 from fish. Over
18%, or about 28 million pounds, of the commercial fish landings in
60
Florida in 1978 were brought into County docks. The 1978 value of
Monroe County landings was about $38 million, or nearly 42% of the total
value for commercial fish in Florida (Monroe County Statistics, 1979).
The continuously increasing population of retirees is not a
major influence on the area's economy because most live on fixed incomes
(Monroe County Statistics 1979, p.F-1). However, they, and the growing
number of second home owners, are the primary stimulus for the relatively
small construction industry in the Keys.
The largest single and least seasonal element of the Monroe
County economy is the military. In 1976, the Naval Air Station provided
34% of all employment and 24% of all personal income in Key West, which
amounted to almost $49 million.
C. LOOE KEY ONSITE SURVEY
The contribution of Looe Key to the economy of Monroe County
can only be approximated. All income and catch information from commercial
fishermen and income from commercial recreational businesses of Looe Key
is only available at the County or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
level. To obtain a more accurate socioeconomic picture of the Looe
Key area, NOAA undertook, through a consultant (SGW), a time limited Looe
Key OnSite Survey of human activities and the estimated economic benefits
to the Looe Key area from these activities. The information from the
survey presented below is a part of the economic affected environment
and was used in analyses to determine the preferred alternative.
Like the major portion of the Keys, the economy of the area near
Looe Key is heavily dependent on fishing and tourism. The OnSite Survey
concluded that commercial fishermen with home ports adjacent to Looe
Key derive about 28% of their annual catch from the 5 sq nmi area surrounding
the main Looe Key reef.
1. Commercial Fishing
Using average 1978, Monroe County dockside prices computed by
the National Marine Fisheries Service, the OnSite Survey results reported
that the 1978 catch within the 5 sq. nmi area at Looe Key was worth approximately
$755,690 or $7,556.90 per boat/per year. The average annual income per
boat for the overall Looe Key area could thus be expected to be $27,000
in 1978 (see Appendix C, Table 1,2). Comparing this figure based on actual
information from the survey questionnaries with the reported average 1976
income per boat in Monroe County of $24,872 (Mathis et al 1979, Table 4),
the Looe Key Onsite Survey reported income/per boat was higher. The average
survey reported income for commercial fishermen from the Looe Key area
was also higher than the estimated income reported by the Lower Keys
Chapter of Organized Fishermen of Florida (OFF) at the public meetings
in Big Pine Key, Florida. OFF testified, in January 1978, that the yearly
catch value from the Looe Key area in 1978 ranged between $300,000 and
$500,000. Survey information, as mentioned above, reported $755,690 for
just the 5 sq nm area or approximately $255,000 more than OFF's higher
estimate.
61
The differences between published data on fish catch value for Monre
County, the OFF testimony and the Survey data may result from (1) having
overestimated the actual fishing population at Looe Key, or (2) by inflated
catch value estimates on Survey questionnaires. The Survey results, however,
are well within the range of probability and appropriate for general
economic analysis. Of the estimated $755,690 earned in the 5 sq nmi area
or Boundary Alternative #2, 61.7 percent came from lobster trapping, 14.5
percent from wire fish trapping, 17.7 percent from hook and line, 5.6
percent from netting and 5 percent from trapping Stone Crab.
To account for income generated by commercial fishing businesses in the
Looe Key area other than the direct income earned by the fishermen, a regional
multiplier was used. Using the economic value of commercial fishing in
Boundary Alternative #2 ($755,690) and the appropriate regional multiplier
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis USDC, 1977, the economic effect on the lower
Key economy of the fishing effort was reported to be $1,446,390 in 1978.
2. Commercial Recreational and Educational Businesses
Looe Key Coral Reef has come to be recognized as one of the more
popular snorkeling and diving sites in the Florida Keys. Businesses have
sprung up to serve the divers and others wishing to take advantage of
the high recreational potential of the area.
Revenue from charter dive boat trips appears to be the major income
producing activity outside of commercial fishing directly utilizing Looe
Key reef. Other income producing businesses, such as marinas and fishing
lodges, rent boats and equipment.
The Newfound Harbor Marine Institute on Big Pine Key, a non-profit
organization offering one of the most comprehensive marine educational
opportunities in the Florida Keys, focuses upon the nearby Looe Key coral
reef and other coral assemblages in the general vicinity for year round
teaching. Seacamp, a part of the Institute, offers a variety of educational
programs to students in the 4th grade through graduate school. Between
5,000 and 6,000 persons participated in the 3 to 30-day programs in 1978.
The OnSite Survey estimated revenue from dive boat trips to be between
$150,000 and $250,000 in 1978. This represents income from an estimated
7500 divers who visit the area annually according to the Survey.
Divers charter boats, stay in hotels, motels and fishing lodges,
visit restaurants, frequent marinas and purchase air and diving equipment.
These economic multiplier effects were taken into account by using a regional
service sector multiplier. The multiplier selected for these commercial
dive boats was 3,203 (BEA 1977, p. 44). Thus, the total economic value
of commercial recreational businesses was estimated to be between $480,450
and $800,750. Almost all of this income was derived from the 5 sq nmi
Boundary Alternative #2 since the most utilized coral areas were found within
the 5 sq nmi boundary.
62
No attempt was made to estimate the economic value of Seacamp and the
activities of the Newfound Harbor Marine Institute although its apparently
significant economic value was considered in the development of regulations
for the sanctuary.
3. Tropical Specimen Industry
A preliminary unpublished draft study of the "Aquarium Reef Fish
Industry of Monroe County, Florida" based on 1976 and earlier data (Hess/
Stevely) was prepared for the Marine Resource Inventory Monroe County,
Marine Advisory Program of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, and
submitted in 1979. This appears to be the best available information on
the Florida Keys tropical specimen industry to date although admittedly
it is not a definitive study.
Both the following economic discussion and the Environmental Consequences
Chapter 4 analysis of proposed tropical specimen collecting regulations are based
largely on this draft study and personal interviews with tropical specimen
collectors at Looe Key and in the Florida Keys as part of the On Site Survey.
Areas of heavy boating traffic and dense coral relief of the
reef structure, such as the Looe Key Fore Reef area are not generally
considered suitable as collecting areas for tropical fish and invertebrates
(Causey, personal communication, 1979). Boats carrying tourists and
local residents can easily foul and disconnect lines leading to submerged
collectors and their equipment. Dense coral structures offer multiple
hiding places for desirable tropical fish species.
The OnSite Survey revealed that some collecting occurred
in the Looe Key area. There are six full-time and two part-time collectors
in the general area. Their annual income varies considerably, depending
on their expertise, the amount and type of work they perform and changeable
environmental conditions. Full time tropical specimen collectors fall
into two categories. Those who sell to wholesalers located along the
Keys or large wholesale outlets in Miami and those who not only collect
specimens but package and ship the organisms directly to customers. The
latter group's income falls within the higher estimated range of income
for collectors (Causey, personal communication, 1979).
Income estimates based on best available but yery preliminary informa-
tion sets the overall value of tropical fish and invertebrate collecting
in the vicinity of Looe Key at between $105,000 and $175,000. Collecting
activities inside the 5 sq nmi boundary, according to the OnSite Survey
appears to amount to less than 25% of the total collecting. There is
some reported activity among the rocky ledges of the Patch Reef zone,
but minimal commercial activity in the Fore Reef and Reef Flat zones.
Occasional amateur collecting, however, has been observed throughout
the five mile area.
63
Thus the estimated range of income generated within the 5 sq nmi
proposed sanctuary area is between $25,000 and $43,000. The regional
multiplier would increase these amounts to between $80,045 and $137,729.
4. Private Recreational Users
Commercial recreational questionnaires from the OnSite Survey estimated
that the average number of daily private boat visits to the proposed Looe Key
5 sq nmi sanctuary ranged between a low of 11 and a high of 23 in 1978.
If these estimates are correct, then -- assuming 300 days of clear weather --
there were somewhere between 3,564 and 7,008 private boat visits to
the reef last year. According to the On Site Survey, 2,346 to 4,672 of
these boats carried an estimated 9,694 to 19,061 divers to Looe Key reef.
By attributing an economic value to these commercial, non-quantifiable
activities (see Appendix C), it was possible to estimate the value of these
private non-commercial activities at Looe Key. Using the combined commercial
costs of snorkel ing, and SCUBA diving, the economic value of the 9,694
to 19,061 private divers in Boundary Option No. 2 was estimated to be
between $137,364 and $240,094 in 1978. Using the appropriate regional
multiplier, the value of private recreational diving activity to the
region was set between $439,976 and $769,021 for the region.
Recreational fishing and sightseeing was valued to be between
$27,520 and $93,440. The multiplier effect of this activity would raise
the total value of this activity to the region to between $152,200 and
$299,288.
5. Summary: The income from commercial and recreational activities
is about $1,278,000 per year, which, in turn provides about $3,205,000
in business for the area economy.
The economic impacts of human activity in the Looe Key area were
considered in the drafting of regulatory alternatives. The approximate
income and business volume in dollars is summarized in the following
table:
64
TABLE 6
SUMMARY APPROXIMATE INCOME AND BUSINESS VOLUME
1978 Income (Catch Value) 1978 Local
Activity 5 nm Area Economy Value
Fishing
Commercial $ 755,690 $ 1,446,390 J_/
Tropical Fish 43,000 (max) 137,729 2/ (max)
Income (gross)
Tourism
Dive charter boats 250,000 (max) 800,750 2/ (max)
Sport fishing, diving,
snorkel ing (imputed
value) 240,094 (max) 769,021 2/ (max)
]_/ Economic Multiplier 1.914 (BEA 1977 p. 44).
2/ Economic Multiplier 3.203 (BEA 1977 p. 44).
65
Value $ 1,288,784 $ 3,153,890
III. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES IN AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED AREA
A. A World War II wreck rumored to be a small U.S. Navy utility vessel
is located 150 m north of the current marker post. Visible wreckage
includes 6 rectangular steel tanks, much corroded, partially buried in the
sand, and partially overgrown with small corals and sponges. Assorted
beams, fittings and piping are scattered about the area.
B. About 1 km north of the current marker lie the remains of an un-
identified wreck, discovered in the 1 960 's by local salvager, Captain Art
Hartmann, who believed it to be the wreckage of the Snow which was in
company with the H.M.S. Looe when they both went up on the reef in 1744.
The keel and ribs are occasionally visible in the sifting sand at a depth
of about 4 m. The British Admiralty records concerning the loss of the
H.M.S. Looe state that the Snow was behind the Looe when she went up on
the north side of the Reef Flat; it does not appear possible that the re-
mains of the Snow are those discovered by Captain Hartmann.
C. An anchor which could very well be from the Snow has been sighted
embedded in a ridge of coral in the mid-section of the Fore Reef spur
and groove system.
D. In the shallow basins of the rubble sub-zone between the Reef Flat
and Fore Reef, there are several scattered piles of the ballast stones
commonly used in the 19th century ships. These occur in identifiable
concentration at the southeastern end of the Reef Flat.
E. The wreckage of the H.M.S. Looe lies to the southwest of the
current marker post in 4. 5 to 9 m of water, within the proposed boundaries
of the sanctuary. Some 14 cast iron ballast blocks, which are tri-
angular in cross section, stair-step sided, and characteristic of British
men-of-war of that period, lie only partially buried in the sand. These
blocks, along with other scattered remnants of the ship's structure, are
heavily coral encrusted and not apparent to the untrained eye. When
Edward Davidson, a local dive boat captain, examined this wreck site in
the company of a State of Florida underwater archaeologist in the summer
of 1977, "hand-fanning" revealed fragments of flint, pieces of the origi-
nal oak timbers, and corroded iron fastenings in the vicinity of
the ballast blocks under only 18 inches of sand. Mendel L. Peterson,
curator of naval history for the Smithsonian, and Edward Link
(Harbor Branch Foundation) visited, salvaged and identified items from
the wreck site in 1950-1951. A variety of recovered ballast blocks,
cannons, shots, fasteners, pottery, bottles, and coins were shipped to
the Smithsonian Institution.
Investigations by Peterson (1955) into letter correspondence,
British Admiralty records, court martial proceedings, etc., reveal the
following facts about this ship and her fate. The H.M.S. Looe was a
44 gun British frigate, armed with batteries of 6 and 12 pounders, launched
««
in 1706 with a complement of 190 men. She saw varied service as a hospital
and convoy ship in mid-career, before being refitted to her original warship
conf iguartion and posted to the American Colonies under the command of
Captain Utting. She was headquartered at Port Royal in South Carolina
and assigned to cruise the Florida Straits in winter.
The Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior
is preparing a Submerged Cultural Resource Plan to identify shipwreck
sites between Key West and Cape Hatteras out to 200 miles. Additional
information on shipwrecks in the Looe Key area will become available
as these surveys are completed.
IV. STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS IN ADJACENT AND
NEARBY AREAS
Although the proposed sanctuary lies solely within Federal juris-
diction it is adjacent to State waters. There are numerous protected areas
adjacent or in relatively close proximity to the proposed boundary.
Federal and State management measures for similar resources must be
taken into account when planning for sanctuary resource protection
and use. Knowledge of related programs will help insure that proposed
sanctuary regulations are not duplicative and that they are reasonable,
necessary, and complement existing protective measures and that sanctuary
education and research objectives take advantage of and enhance other
research and education efforts.
Individual regulations of existing Florida Keys Federal and State
marine parks and the marine sanctuary at Key Largo reflect the concern
for the adverse impacts of commercial and recreational marine activities
in the Florida Keys area on the marine system.
Florida State laws protect certain marine species in territorial waters.
Most of these same species are also found in waters surrounding Looe Key.
Therefore these laws and protective measures are of interest in the considera-
tion of marine sanctuary designation. In some instances, such as the Biscayne
National Monument, some State marine regulations have been adopted as Federal
regulations. Details are found in Appendix D.
The John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo Coral Reef
Marine Sanctuary, located in the upper keys, are actually two preserves,
consisting of an area extending out three miles from shore administered
by the State of Florida (Department of Natural Resources, (DNR), Division of
Recreation and Parks) and a federally operated sanctuary beginning at
the edge of State jurisdiction and extending seaward 5 miles, administered
by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) The Florida DNR, Division
of Recreation and Parks serves as on site manager for the Key Largo Sanctuary.
67
State law makes it illegal to possess certain species of "fresh,
uncleaned, or uncured sea fan, hard or soft coral or fire coral." The law
is considered difficult to enforce because the corals can be quickly killed
and bleached on a boat, before a patrolman can inspect the boat (Captain
Tingley, Florida Marine Patrol, 1979). The fine of $35.65, set at the
present time by a Circuit Court Judge in the Florida Keys, for a misdemeanor
of the second degree (prescribed in the statute) is also considered by
most as little deterrent to the taking of coral from State waters. The
regulation for the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, on the other hand,
which states, "It is unlawful to take coral from, or possess it", appears to
be the most effective for enforcement.
Spearfishing is prohibited within the boundaries of John Pennekamp
Coral Reef State Park, and the salt waters in Monroe County from the Dade/
Monroe County line to and including Long Key. The DNR also has the power to
establish restricted areas when safety hazards exist or when needs are deter-
mined by biological findings.
The National Park Service at the Everglades National Park, located at
the tip of the South Florida Peninsula, has initiated proposed regulations which
include restriction of recreational shellfishing and the elimination of commercial
fishing within the waters of the Park by December 13, 1985. These proposed
restrictions are highly controversial locally.
Biscayne National Monument in the northernmost Florida Key is primarily
an underwater park although it was designated by Congress, with rules slightly
different from a National Park Service park. To establish Biscayne
National Monument, the State of Florida and the Federal government agreed
that fishing could continue, in accordance with State laws, unless it
was determined to be detrimental to the purposes for which the "monument"
was established. If so determined, it would be further regulated following
consultation with the State.
Commercial fishing and lobster-trapping are legal, as is sports
fishing, both by hook-and-line and by spear. Conch and lobster may also
be taken by divers, provided they are caught by hand or by hand-held
net when in season and provided legal limits are not exceeded. Tropical
fish collection is not legal. No fish traps are permitted.
The Park management is also currently experimenting with the use
of mooring buoys which mark an area for visitors and offer them an
opportunity to tie up to a buoy rather than anchoring in an area which
might damage the coral reef. The location of the moorings and educational
material about certain unique reefs are discussed in a booklet prepared
and distributed by the Biscayne Monument staff.
The National Park Service at Fort Jefferson National Monument, Dry
Tortugas, off Key West, Florida, has prohibited the taking or disturbing of
any species of coral, shells, shellfish, sponges, sea anemones or other
forms of marine life, with the exception of the recreational catch of spiny
lobster ( Panulirus argus ) and conch ( Strombus gigas ) which is limited to 2/person/
The use or possession of spears or gigs is prohibited at all times.
68
With regard to enforcement of these other protected areas varying
arrangements exist. Through a joint management agreement with the State
of Florida, NOAA and the USCG, the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary
and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park are patrolled cooperatively by
State Park Rangers, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Coral or other materials
or organisms mentioned above collected outside of John Pennekamp Coral
Reef State Park and Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary cannot be
transported into these areas without danger of the possessor being fined.
This is also true of Biscayne National Monument. Persons found to be
in violation of NOAA regulations are notified at the scene with the
issuance of a Coast Guard Report of Boarding (CG Form 4100). Evidence
is seized by USCG personnel and appropriate statements taken.
The effectiveness of enforcement arrangements at the Key Largo Coral
Reef Marine Sanctuary is of particular interest to the Looe Key proposal.
Although the Key Largo area is larger and immediately adjacent to an
established State Marine Park, its ecological system and the human impacts
occurring daily in the sanctuary are very similar to those at Looe Key.
Bahia Honda State Park is in the vicinity of the proposed Looe Key
Sanctuary and managed by the Florida State DNR, Division of Recreation
and Parks, and located on Bahia Honda Key. The Bahia Honda State Park
personnel emphasize the protection of State resources by interpretation
of the law to those who use the park rather than by enforcement. The
park employs 17 staff and 14 rangers, most without law enforcement
authority whose responsibilities include search and rescue operations
in State waters.
The National Key Deer Refuge, Key West National Wildlife Refuge,
and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge are administered from
the National Key Deer Refuge Headquarters by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, located on Big Pine Key, in the vicinity of the Looe Key area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has no jurisdiction in the
State waters surrounding the refuges but must maintain boats in order
to inspect and manage 90% of their lands. The FWS owns and maintains
three boats; a 24' x9' workboat, a 26' aqua sport and a shallow water
craft (17'). All resources, both personnel and budget, are fully
committed to the purposes of the refuge and conversations with the
refuge manager indicate that they would not be able to be actively
involved in sanctuary management or enforcement.
69
IV. LEGAL STATUS QUO
A. Summary and Analysis
Looe Key is located on the Continental Shelf seaward of the
territorial sea and State jurisdiction. A variety of Federal Statutes
and regulations apply to activities taking place in the area. Those
that apply to activities posing significant threats to the resources at
Looe Key identified in the Affected Environment Section are discussed in
the present section. Each is examined in terms of its present effectiveness
and potential capability in controlling impacts on these resources. In
addition, the enforcement responsibility and capabilities of the relevant
Federal agencies are examined including their permitting, surveillance and
monitoring procedures and the enforcement arrangements among them and with
State agencies (see Table 7).
Regulations for the most direct threats to the coral reefs,
collecting and anchoring, do not presently exist. Until recently such
activities were regulated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) but a recent decision of the
Fifth Circuit held these regulations invalid except in connection with
BLM's OCS leasing activities. In addition, currently there is no regulation
of the collecting of tropical fish or invertebrates, and little regulation
of commercial fishing.
As described in this section, the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery
Management Council (GMFMC) and the South Atlantic Regional Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) are in the process of jointly preparing
a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Coral and Coral Reef Resources in
the area that includes Looe Key. Also the GMFMC is preparing two FMP's
covering several important commercial species, a Spiny Lobster plan and
a Reef Fish plan (primarily for snapper/groupers). It is anticipated
that the Coral and Spiny Lobster plans will be completed by early 1981 and
the Reef Fish plan late 1980.
As drafted, the Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP will protect all
coral within a 1 nmi square HAPC (encompassing the Looe Key Fore Reef),
against such direct threats as harvesting and anchoring and it would
prohibit spearfishing in this area. The HAPC (Habitat area of particular
concern) has special proposed management measures to protect the resources.
Beyond the HAPC, the FMP proposes to prohibit the harvest of hard coral
except under permit for scientific and educational purposes. A limited
harvest of soft coral will be permitted. The Spiny Lobster and Reef
Fish plans would impose quite severe limitations on the fishing for
these species as detailed below. In fact, the current draft FMP for
Reef Fish, considers Looe Key Reef as part of a "stressed area" along
with the entire Florida reef tract, due to its accessibility to commercial
and recreational fishermen. Specifically, the Draft FMP reflects the
GFMC's conclusion that snapper/grouper resources are, or may be, presently
overfished, according to the Gulf Council, unless regulation and management
occur. Special management measures will be proposed for the "stressed area".
70
CO
Sfi
U
6
CO
s:
(0 8
*
s u
(Xl I I I I I I I I I
u o$
-r-t
U
1
i-4
<0
<
M
8
G ■«
«3
u
P
•H
^
s
f
— 18
HAWK CHANNEL
c
*p
/
— /
— 30
\S
LOOE KEY. ( Looe Key not to scale) ^
BOUNDARY OPTIONS
| |^\j 1.0 Sq. Miles
2 \[J\ 4 - 9 S< 1- M,,es
3 I 10.5 Sq. Miles
STRAITS OF FLORIDA
.—- ^300 —
FIGURE 6
BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES
k
N
MA6NETIC
87
It contains shallow, as well as intermediate, water-depth coral communities
but with the obvious lack of a number of species one might expect to occur
here. While the shallow "reef-crest-part" of the Fore Reef shows extensive
Mi 1 1 epora-Zoanthara fields, the deeper "reef-fingerpart" is a system of
alternating sand valleys and several meter-high coral ridges of massive
coral growth forms and is populated by the greatest numbers and species
diversity of fish in the five zones.
The Reef Flat borders the Fore Reef to the north, a sand-seagrass
area about one quarter of a square kilometer in size and an average of
1.5m deep. It is also an important area offering a large recreational area
of sandy reef top, for inexperienced swimmers or families with children.
Although the Reef Flat provides little cover and has the lowest species
diversity of all the zones, it is an important feeding area for fish of the
Fore Reef zone, an integral part of the Looe Key Coral Reef system and
yery important to a segment of the recreational population.
The channels between the fingers of coral on the Fore Reef are
very important to fish migrations from one zone to the other (Zieman &
Roblee 1979), and provide essential access to the reef for pelagic species,
such as mackerel. Although parts of the deeper sandy channels would be
covered by the one-square nautical mile alternative, the more distant
parts of the channels would not be protected at all to the east and west
of the Fore Reef and Reef Flat. In addition, in this option the Patch
Reefs, Deep Reef, and Deep Reef Ridge would remain virtually unprotected.
Enforcement by the Coast Guard of 1 nmi sq area would be unlikely
as the area is considered too small for accurate boundary detection by
the size boat that would be used (Russell, Coast Guard personal communication,
1979). Citing of violators in this alternative could also be difficult.
Due to its limited boundaries, violators would have sufficient time to
escape as law enforcement officers approached the sanctuary. Similarly
it would be easy for SCUBA divers to cross the boundaries under water,
carry out prohibited activities and return to their boats undetected.
In addition to the above there is a question of the wisdom of
protecting part but not all of a unit or ecological system such as Looe
Key. User activities beyond the one nautical mile square alternative,
uncontrolled by the sanctuary manager, could undermine the careful management
within the sanctuary. Finally, though the physical aspects of the spur
and groove system could possibly be protected with this boundary that is
only one of the sanctuary program objectives.
B. Boundary Alternative #2 - Preferred Alternative
This alternative covers a 5 sq nmi (17 sq km) area, the coordinates of
which are:
a. 24°, 34' North b. 24°, 34.2' N
81°, 25.9' West 81°, 23.3' W
d. 24°, 31.6' N c. 24°, 32.3' N
81°, 25.9' W 81°, 23.3' W
m
The 5 sq nmi alternative encompasses all five ecological zones: Patch
Reef; Reef Flat; Fore Reef; Deep Reef and Deep Ridge. It also covers an
extension of the Fore Reef to the east discovered only recently as part
of the survey work for this EIS.
The Patch Reef zone is a relatively shallow flat bottom area, covered
with extensive turtle grass and manatee grass. Interspersed among the
seagrass beds are numerous patch reefs with very little profile. The
Patch Reefs within this zone are usually dominated by densely growing,
large octocorals. The species diversity of octocorals on the Patch Reef
is greater than that of the Fore Reef and certain octocorals exist only
on the Patch Reef. The scattered stony corals reach only moderate size,
but nevertheless give the Patch Reefs enough structure to provide shelter
for fishes and invertebrates. In addition, the naturally rare pillar
coral ( Dendrogyra cylindrus ) is more likely to be found in the Patch Reef
area than at the Fore Reef.
The significance of the Patch Reef zone as a shelter for a variety
of finfish and shellfish has been pointed out in a number of publica-
tions (e_.£. Zieman & Roblee, 1979). Without the protection of the
interspersed Patch Reefs these animals would be unable to use the
surrounding seagrass beds as feeding grounds. This zone, together with
the even shallower Reef Flat, are Looe Key's nursery for juvenile fishes.
In addition, the extensive seagrass beds of both zones constitute the feeding
ground for many deep-water fishes migrating to these areas at night.
The Fore Reef provides the deep sheltered channels for these migrations
from the Deep Reef to the shallow reef zones, while the much wider channels
on either side of the Fore Reef provide access for pelagic species.
The Deep Reef today still harbors territorial fishes such as groupers which,
given protection and time, may repopulate the apparently over-fished Fore Reef
zone. This could also be the case for conspicuously missing corals which
might, in time, repopulate the Fore Reef from the stock that live on the Deep Reef.
Other fish although found on the Fore Reef that appear more abundant on the Deep
Reef are butterfly fishes, hamlets, blue chromis and Creole wrasses. Fish
found only on the Deep Reef by the Looe Key Resource Inventory are purple
reef fish, sunshine fish, spotfin, hogfish and scamp (Antonius, et al).
The main part of the Deep Reef exhibits a coral community of intermediate
to deepwater species, with some coral species growing abundantly here that
no longer occur on the Fore Reef. The Deep Reef, on the seaward side, is
a slope of increasing steepness, ending in a small dropoff to about 25 to
35m depth. Numerous surge channels with a profile of up to 1.5m provide
habitat for territorial reef animals such as grouper and lobster.
Since the five-square nautical mile alternative contains portions of
the Deep Ridge as well as the main four reef zones of Looe Key, it forms
a representative "slice of the ecological pie" through the reef tract in
this area.
The 5 square nautical mile boundary alternative would create a
sanctuary containing representative components of each reef zone and establish a
sanctuary that protects a representative reef tract system rather than one component.
This approach is consistent with the goals and objectives for establishing a
sanctuary at Looe Key.
A sanctuary with this boundary would include all of the reefal zones
and be "systematic" in scope providing for the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity of an entire ecological unit. This boundary alternative
would provide a geographic basis for achieving the sanctuary goals:
° To maintain, protect and enhance the quality of the natural, biological,
aesthetic and cultural resources of Looe Key Reef system;
° To promote and stimulate marine research efforts directed towards
identification and analysis of marine ecological interrelationships.
° To enhance public awareness of the functions of the Looe Key coral
reef system.
C. Boundary Alternative #3 (10 sq nmi 34 sq km)
This alternative includes an area of 10 sq nmi (34 sq km) the coordinates
of which are:
a. 24°, 33.3' N b. 24°, 34.3' N c. 24°, 34.2' N
81°, 27.5' N 81°, 25.4' W 81°, 23.3' W
d. 24°, 34.7' N e. 24°, 31.3' N f. 24°, 32.5' N
81°, 21.3' W 81°, 27.5' W 81°, 21.3' W
This area contains the entire 5 sq nmi boundary alternative as well as
considerable portions of territory to the east and west (Fig. 5). The northern part
of these additional areas can generally be regarded as extensions of the Patch Reef
Zone, a morphological feature that can be found along the entire chain of the Florida
Keys in shallow water and at a certain distance offshore. The southern part of these
additional areas, however, does not contain any significant reef. Instead it
contains a slope that consists mainly of sand bottom. Whether the deepest parts
include any type of coral community, such as the Deep Reef, is not known at present,
but the probability seems low.
Enlarging the sanctuary area to 10 square nautical miles could increase
the chances of enhancing the Looe Key Coral Reef system. With the exception of
the very specialized deepwater fauna, most species would have a much larger
base of recruitment in the 10 square nautical mile boundary alternative. However,
this additional area does not contain the same highly developed coral system found
99
in Boundary Alternative #2. The 10 sq nmi boundary alternative would
probably not require a significant increase in law enforcement activity over
the 5 sq nmi boundary alternative since the same number of personnel
could patrol both sized areas and could increase the effectiveness of
enforcement by making it more difficult for violators to escape undetected
before being caught.
The 0ns ite Survey of Looe Key indicates that local fishermen depend
on the 5 square nautical mile sanctuary proposal area for approximately
one-third of their catch and the area beyond the 5 square nautical mile
boundary for approximately two-thirds of their catch. Therefore posing
restrictions on commercial fishing within a 10 sq nmi area would likely
cause considerable economic hardship on local long-term commercial fishermen
and yet not provide that great an increase in the degree of protection of
the reef systems.
III. Environmental Consequences of Proposed Regulatory Alternatives
A. Alternatives Concerning Coral Collecting.
1 . Status Quo: Unregulated taking of coral under all boundary
alternatives.
The taking of coral in Looe Key is presently unregulated.
State regulations do not apply in waters beyond the territorial sea.
BLM/Interior regulations previously controlling the harvesting of corals
are no longer enforceable in the Looe Key Reef area (see above). The
FMP for Coral and Coral Reef Resources is still in the draft stage and
the environmental impact statement has not yet been completed. The final
plan will not likely be implemented before January, 1981 (GMFMC).
Direct observations (Davidson, 1979) indicate that souvenir
coral collecting is an ongoing practice today, and probably the most
serious drain of the reef's coral resources. The absence of certain species
in areas of the reef that provide accessible, suitable habitat provides
circumstantial evidence of the harvesting of these attractive growth
forms. There is a strong probability that small finger-like growth
forms, such as Madracis , Porites and Oculina species and especially the
beautiful flower coral Eusmilia fastigiata, which occur on the Deep
Reef but not on the more accessible Fore Reef, have been exterminated on
the Fore Reef by collectors. A larger type of flower coral, Mussa angulosa ,
is also abundant on the Deep Reef, but rather rare on the Fore Reef. It
does occur somewhat more frequently in the Patch Reef zone, probably
reflecting a difference in visitor-related collecting pressure. One
naturally rare species, the pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus , has almost
been exterminated by collectors in the entire Florida reef tract, including
Looe Key. Without regulatory protection of existing coral assemblages,
remaining populations of these scarce corals in the more accessible
areas of the reef could be eliminated. Collecting pressures could then
shift to other, less desirable species and to those populations which
persist on the Deep Reef and less frequented Patch Reefs.
A significant degree of commercial collecting does not occur here any
longer (Causey, personal communication, 1979). The long term consequences
91
of depletion and removal of entire species populations has been insufficiently
studied, but is considered by most scientists to be detrimental to the reef
ecosystem. The current draft of the FMP for Coral and Coral Reef Resources
proposes to approve for harvest by permit limited quantities of certain
soft coral species and to issue coral collecting permits for hard and
soft coral for scientific and educational purposes. It proposes to prohibit
all taking of corals within the suggested 1 sq nmi Habitat Area of Particular
Concern.
The perpetuation of the status quo would allow all coral collecting
to continue unless and until the FMP is approved and implemented this. Could
result in adverse ecological consequences to the reef system and to
those valuable commercial and recreational species depending on it for
habitat.
2. Prohibit the collection or possession of all coral, dead or alive
within the sanctuary under all boundary alternatives but permit the
collection of coral for scientific and educational purposes
This alternative would protect present and future coral resources while
permitting coral specimen collecting for educational and scientific purposes
under permit from NOAA. Since the current level of commercial coral
collecting is insignificant in the proposal area the economic impact of
this alternative will be negligible. The proposed restriction is more
stringent than that being considered in the Coral FMP in that the latter
permits limited harvest of soft coral outside the 1 nmi sq HAPC.
NOAA personnel would be needed to review the permits required
by this alternative thereby increasing the staff workload and detracting
from other duties. This alternative would also increase the responsibilities
of enforcement personnel.
A regulation similar to this proposed for the sanctuary is presently
in force in John Pennekamp State Park and in the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary.
As discussed in Chapter Three, the inclusion of a provision prohibiting
possession of coral, dead or alive, within the proposed boundaries has
resulted in few enforcement difficulties within these two protected
areas. On the other hand, Florida State law, applicable in the territorial
sea, does not prohibit possession of cleaned or cured specimens of sea
fans, hard and soft corals or fire coral and enforcement difficulty has
arisen because these organisms can be quickly killed and bleached on
board ship before enforcement agents can board for inspection (Tingley,
personal communication, 1979).
Protecting the Looe Key coral reef system by prohibiting the taking
of coral except for scientific and educational purposes will:
° maintain the natural habitat for reef organisms utilized
both commercially and recreational ly;
ma
intain the coral as an important producer of sand, a
92
renewable resource which comes from dead coral;
° maintain the high primary productivity which produces
oxygen for the support of organisms living in the vicinity;
° maintain these reefs as gene pools for future colonization
of adjacent coral areas;
° preserve a reef, which, if seriously degraded, might not
recover since today's environmental conditions may be
different from those existing at its inception;
° provide the structural foundations for future coral growth;
° pose limited enforcement difficulties;
° maintain the reef habitat thereby maximizing associated
recreational benefits such as quality of diving, and fishing.
Since insignificant commercial collecting occurs within the
boundaries of the sanctuary proposal, this regulation will not have
an economic impact. OCZM will work closely with the Fishery Management
Councils to insure as nearly as possible compatible non-dupl icative
permitting procedures. If Looe Key becomes a sanctuary and if NOAA
consultation with the Council takes all its concerns into account the
sanctuary permit could be the only one required.
3. Prohibit the collection or possession within the Sanctuary of
all coral, dead or alive, under all boundary alternatives.
This alternative would fully protect the coral reef system at Looe Key
from coral collecting and would not place an additional administrative burden
on the Sanctuary Programs Office (SPO) staff. However, one of the proposed
sanctuary objectives is to promote research and study of the natural
resources of Looe Key and a prohibition of this type might discourage
valuable studies requiring the taking or study in the field of small
numbers of specimens.
Preferred Alternative : Prohibit the collection or possession of all
coral, dead or alive, within the designated sanctuary except for scientific
and educational purposes under permit from NOAA.
B. Alternatives Concerning Commercial Fishing
Environmental consequences of wire trapping, lobster trapping, net
and hook and line fishing were analyzed to determine whether or not proposed
restrictions were warranted. Available data do not support controls on net
and hook and line fishing at this time (see Chapter 2, VI). The following
specific alternatives were considered for wire trap usage and lobster
trapping.
93
1. Regulatory Alternatives for Wire Trap Fishing
a. Status quo: Unrestricted use of wire traps within all
boundary alternatives .
At present, no regulations govern the use of wire fish traps
in this area. However, as one of several management measures proposed
in the draft FMP for Reef Fish, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (GMFMC) is considering banning wire fish traps from stressed
areas consist of some nearshore and other designated waters under the
GMFMC jurisdiction subjected to the greatest fishing pressures. Some of
the areas are stressed because of accessibility (draft Reef Fish FMP).
Looe Key itself falls within a stressed area from the Dade/Monroe County
line south and westward to north of Rebecca Shoal at 82°35' out to the
100 ft. contour (see Chapter 3 for details of the plan) although the
proposed sanctuary extends to approximately the 140 ft. contour.
The use of wire traps in commercial fishing is relatively new.
According to the Florida Sea Grant, their general acceptance in the Florida
Keys started in 1976-77. The traps are constructed of vinyl -covered welded
wire mesh, usually with openings of 1"X2" or larger and typically have overall
dimensions of 3'X6'X3' (draft Reef Fish FMP). Traps are typically set at
depths of less than 30 to 150 feet (9.14m - 45.75m). The normal fishing depth
is between five and 45 mi (Sylvester and Dammann, 1972; Monro, 1974) in
the shallow reef areas of Florida.
While the typical fish trap has a base area of 18 square feet,
the Marine Wilderness Society in Florida has reported that wire traps can cover
from 25 square feet to as much as 40 square feet of bottom area. Fish traps
commercially available in the south Florida area can be purchased with as much
as 120 cubic feet in volume. The draft Reef Fish FMP proposes to restrict all
fish traps fished within the FCZ to 54 cubic feet or less in volume.
Physical damage to coral species has occurred when these
traps have been dropped on corals, dragged across the bottom during retrieval
and tossed about during rough weather (personal communication, Davidson, 1979).
In the Florida Keys, the typical commercial fisherman sets 20-100
traps at any one time. They are placed by dropping them over the side, where
they come to rest on the sea bottom. The traps are baited to attract snapper,
grouper, and yellowtail. A line connecting the trap to a distinctive marker
buoy that floats on the surface allows their recovery. The traps are pulled
up, emptied and reset, every few days.
94
Recently wire trap fishing has become a highly controversial and
emotional issue. Unfortunately wery little documented evidence exists regarding
actual or potential environmental, sociological and economic impacts of trap
usage. Often cited disadvantages include:
(1) financial success depends entirely upon unstable market
demand, supply and price;
(2) high level of trap efficiency can interfere with the catch
per unit effort of recreational and commercial hook and line fishing;
(3) intense trapping efforts in isolated reef areas may radically
change fish species composition and abundance;
(4) trap dimensions (mesh size, entrance funnel size, orientation
and location, and trap volume) are not always species specific and are selective
for a wide variety of reef fish, including juveniles, trash or forage species and
non-food tropicals (the draft Reef Fish FMP, however states that "....evidence
suggests that traps are generally selective and can be set so they are highly
selective).
(5) corals and coral reef resources can be physically damaged
when traps are dragged across the reef surface during retrieval or when
displaced by waves and currents;
(6) traps are easily lost due to theft, bad weather and vessel
passage severing buoy lines; these traps, popularly known as "ghost" or
"drowned" traps, continue fishing indefinitely unless retrieved by divers
or destroyed by corrosion or large predators;
(7) unnecessary trap-related mortalities occur from cannibalism
or starvation inside fished and "ghost" traps and from embolisms caused
by rapid ascent from depths during trap retrieval;
(8) traps containing large numbers of stressed fish or in the
case of "ghost" traps, mutilated fish or skeletal remains, are unsightly
and detract from a SCUBA diver's aesthetic experience.
Specific observations on the use of traps in tropical areas
outside Florida include the following:
"If the use of fish traps becomes a significant fishing
method for harvesting reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico, there
is a possibility of seriously overfishing the stocks of reef
fish, particularly in the nearshore waters unless effort by
95
other gear is reduced" (Draft Reef Fish FMP); "In Jamaica, where
the intensity of fishing on the nearshore reefs appears to
be higher than any other island in the Caribbean, the abundance
of fishes on the reefs is remarkably low. We are working on
the hypothesis that the low density of fishes is a direct
consequence of exploitation with small mesh traps" (Munro,
Reeson & Graut, 1971).
By contrast, often cited advantages of wire trap use include
observations that they:
(1) are inexpensive, easy to build and repair, and require
little maintenance;
(2) require a minimum of effort once set, allowing fishermen
to pursue other interests;
(3) can be used in areas where irregular bottom relief
precludes the use of trawls or nets;
(4) are successful for fish not easily taken by other methods; and
(5) are an important and efficient research and resource
assessment tool.
National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that in 1978 in Monroe
County 8,000 traps maximum were used by fishermen. They estimated that
300 to 350 vessels were involved (draft Reef Fish FMP).
Wire fish traps are currently used in the Looe Key area. Data
obtained during the onsite Survey revealed that in 1978 nearly 35% of
commercial fish landings in the 5 square nautical mile area were from wire
traps (See Appendix C, Table 3). Conclusive data on the number of fishermen
in the area that use traps and the extent of the increasing use of traps
are not available.
In summary the continued use of wire fish traps within the sanctuary
could, according to studies and observations in other areas, seriously deplete
reef fish stocks through overfishing and incidental bycatch, thereby reducing
species richness and fish populations in the Looe Key coral reef ecological
system (Stevenson, 1977; Thompson and Munro, 1974). Furthermore, according
to the GMFMC, snapper/grouper resources are or maybe presently overfished
unless regulation and management occur for these already stressed reef fish
stocks (draft Reef Fish FMP). Unregulated use of wire fish traps within the
sanctuary could impair recreational value, depriving visitors of the opportunity
to enjoy an area of great species diversity. Underwater visitor sightings of
wire traps on the sea floor containing large amounts of fish will also detract
96
from the natural aesthetics of a sanctuary and may discourage visitor use.
It will be several months before the Reef Fish FMP becomes final and changes
in proposed management measures may occur as a result of public review. Close
coordination will continue throughout the process between the GMFMC and OCZM.
b. Prohibit wire fish traps on the Fore Reef and Reef Flat (Boundary
Alternative #1) but allow them in the Patch Reef, Deep Reef and Deep Ridge
zones alternatives outside 1 sq nmi (Boundary Alternatives #2 & 3)
This alternative would protect the Fore Reef spur and groove system
from physical damage from traps and would maintain the Reef Flat as a suitable
recreational area for snorkelers and inexperienced divers.
It would enhance the superior recreational value of the 1 square
nautical mile boundary alternative by eliminating wire fish traps from the
ocean floor. However, ecological damage to the reef system from overfishing
and incidental bycatch of non-commercial species would not be prevented.
Due to the constant movement, back and forth, of fish between the Deep Reef
and Ridge through Fore Reef channels to the Patch Reefs to feed, a 1 square
nautical mile ban of wire traps in the Fore Reef and Reef Flat would not
effectively protect fish populations at Looe Key from depletion.
Similarly this alternative would not protect against damage
from traps and anchoring to Deep Reef and Deep Ridge living coral assemblages
which consist of a rich variety of stony coral, octocoral , sponges and
types of coral no longer found on the Fore Reef.
Although the location of wire fish traps varies and largely depends
on where the fish are running, local residents interviewed during the onsite
survey stated that most trapping occurs seaward of the Fore Reef and
outside of the 1 square nautical mile alternative. Fishermen avoid the
spur and groove system of the Fore Reef and the shallowness of the Reef
Flat to avoid hull damage. Therefore, this alternative is not likely to
have a substantial adverse economic effect on Looe Key wire trap fishermen.
c. Prohibit wire fish traps with in the 5 square nautical mile sanctuary
(Boundary Alternative #2 and #3)
This alternative would prevent both physical and ecological damage
from traps to the coral formations and resident fish species. Fishermen,
although prohibited from laying traps within the 5 square nautical mile
area, could continue to utilize the area seaward of the reef beyond
approximately 140 ft and those areas beside Looe Key, along the outer
reef tract. This proposed regulation is slightly more restrictive than
that presently under consideration in the Draft Reef Fish FMP which
includes a proposed prohibition out to the 100 ft contour in "stressed"
areas such as this portion of the Florida reef tract; the sanctuary
prohibition would extend to the proposed boundary at approximately the
140 ft contour.
97
The sanctuary prohibition would probably not substantially
affect the catch of mackerel normally found in the "blue water" environment
seaward of the reef. How much this restriction could reduce the catch
of yellowtail, mangrove and mutton snapper, and grouper by Looe Key
fishermen cannot be forecast. On the other hand, it can be stated that
they would be denied the value of the catch currently taken from this
area which amounts to about $109,000 or $109.00 per boat per year.
(Appendix C, Table 2) The Looe Key Onsite Survey indicated there were
other zones where wire fish traps are used by Looe Key fishermen. It is
not definite that the loss of fishing grounds in the five square nautical
mile alternative could not eventually be either partially or completely
offset by setting more traps in adjacent areas or moving to other localities
to fish. However, learning new areas takes time and there would be at
least a temporary reduction in fish catch and an accompanying economic
loss while fishermen located and became familiar with new fishing grounds.
Use of wire fish traps is prohibited within the Key Largo Marine
Sanctuary because they indiscriminately catch and kill large numbers of
tropical fish species (personal communication Gillen, 1979). Reducing the
population of tropical fish by the use of wire traps can diminish the
aesthetic appeal of this unique marine habitat and disturb its delicate
ecological balance, creating unnecessary additional stress to this fragile
ecosystem (Stevenson, 1978).
Most visitors to the marine sanctuary depend on boundary marker buoys
and other landmarks to determine their position within the sanctuary. They do
not visually carry sophisticated depth sounding equipment aboard their small
pleasure boats and would have difficulty tracking several differing boundary
restrictions. Therefore, for regulations to be realistic and understandable
to the general public, they must be consistent throughout the sanctuary area
and unchanging with respect to depth. Therefore, this alternative would extend
the prohibition on wire trap use throughout the proposal area to the 140 ft
depth and thus beyond the 100 ft depth proposed in the Reef Fish Plan.
Preferred Alternative : Prohibit wire fish traps in the 5 square
nautical mile sanctuary (Boundary Option #2).
As discussed above this regulation would effectively prevent
both physical and ecological damage to the coral and fish species at
Looe Key from wire fish traps and would not interfere with the setting
of traps seaward of the reef beyond 140 ft (the seaward boundary of
the sanctuary) and adjacent to the proposed sanctuary. It would deny fishing
boats the value of the catch from that area and now estimated at $109,000
or $109.00 per boat per year.
2. Regulatory Alternatives Affecting Lobster Trapping.
a. Status quo: Unrestricted fishing for spiny lobster within
all boundary alternatives.
The survey of fishing activity in Looe Key disclosed that
approximately 58,000 lbs. of lobster were caught in the Looe Key 5 square
nautical mile sanctuary boundary alternative by 25 fishermen in 1978.
98
(See Appendix C, Table 4.) The catch was primarily in areas other than
the Fore Reef.
Lobster traps are generally set along the Florida reef tract,
according to the season. In early fall, at the beginning of the State
allowable harvest season, pots are numerous in the patch reef areas close
to shore. According to local fishermen, lobsters begin migrating in
October and November to cooler, deeper water. Pots are then placed in
and seaward of the reef tract.
At the present time, there are no promulgated regulations to
control the impacts of trapping spiny lobster in Federal waters. The
GMFMC has a Spiny Lobster Plan under consideration because the fishery,
both commercially and recreational ly, is particularly active in Florida.
The plan includes proposed management measures restricting, among other
things, size, season and gear. Proposed restrictions are almost identical
to State regulations (for details see Chapter 3). In addition the
joint SAFMC and GMFMC Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP now in preparation
proposes to prohibit potting within the core trapezoidal area of the
HAPC (see Chapter III).
There is considerable disagreement among biologists, commercial
fishermen and conservationists as to the behavior of the spiny lobster.
National Park Service (NPS) scientists (managers of nearly 100,000 acres
of coral reef adult lobster habitat) have found that (1) adult lobsters at
Ft. Jefferson National Monument are primarily resident species (lobsters tagged
and released did not move outside a 10 km area at Dry Tortugas in 104
weeks); (2) one single 8 months open season for recreational lobster fishing
can deplete a large resident population of juvenile and adult lobster by up
to 50%, even with an enforced harvest limit of 2 lobsters per person per
day; (3) 1 year of complete prohibition of both recreational & commercial
fishing can restore an area to approximately 78% of its pre-harvest
level and increase the lair occupancy rate to 71% after 16 months of
post harvest protection; and (4) there are inherent conflicts between
fishery interests of promoting harvests and NPS management objectives
that emphasize preservation of species diversity.
Marine biologist Gary Davis at Ft. Jefferson points out in "Fishery
Harvest in an Underwater Park":
"Community structure, and therefore species richness, is
determined by species interactions as well as environmental
conditions and will reflect alterations in the abundance of
individual species, particularly abundant high-level predators.
P. argus is such a predator. The pre-harvest, natural standing
crop of P. argus was conservatively estimated from visual sightings
at 58.3 kg per hectare of diurnal lobster habitat at Dry Tortugas.
Mark and recapture efforts indicated that this figure may represent
only 30 to 40 percent of the actual biomass in the massive coral
reef complexes where there were numerous hidden caves and narrow
crevasses in which lobsters were probably undetected during diver
99
surveys. The total standing crop of coral reef carnivores at
Eniwetok was estimated at 470 kg per hectare, and total reef
fish standing crop from the Caribbean range from 273 to 1,590
kg per hectare. From this it can be seen that spiny lobsters
are abundant and may represent over 10 percent of the predator
biomass even in an extremely complex and diverse coral reef
ecosystem. Furthermore, P. argus is a secondary predator,
preferring other carnivores as food. Removal of a significant
proportion of the spiny lobsters from a reef system could be
expected to cause a shift toward simplicity, with a reduction
in species richness."
Continued unrestricted lobster fishing in the Looe Key Sanctuary boundary
areas could possibly deplete the resident population to a level that could
disrupt the reef ecosystem by reducing the numbers of those important
predators.
In addition to the significant changes in the lobster population
which could eventually occur within the Looe Key system, lobster traps
themselves, weighing about 80 pounds can physically damage coral. Careful
setting and retrieving of pots in sandy bottom channels can prevent most
damage; however, wave action from storms can drag pots into and over
coral causing damage beyond the control of fishermen. Unrestricted
lobster fishing will enable spiny lobster fishermen to continue to take
a significant portion of their landings from the Looe Key area. The
value of the 1978 catch was about $466,320 or about 62% of the total
revenue from commercial fishing (see Table 6). Regulations under the
Spiny Lobster and joint Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMPs will not
likely be in place for at least 6 to 8 months and as plans are currently
only proposed the ultimate level of protection is unpredictable.
2. Prohibit lobster fishing on Fore Reef only under all boundary
alternatives.
This option would prohibit the setting of traps in the Fore Reef
consistent with the HAPC plan currently proposed by the South Atlantic and
Gulf Fishery Management Councils (see Chapter Three). No lobster trapping
would be allowed within the core trapezoid area (Loran C Readings points
1, 2, 3, and 4, Appendix A). Lobster trapping would be allowed on the
Reef Flat, Patch Reefs, the Deep Reef and Deep Ridge.
Restricting trapping in this part of the reef system would protect
a significant habitat for spiny lobster in the area and would in the long
term, contribute to the fisheries interest. It will also protect the
most important coral formations on the Fore Reef from trap damage.
Studies on lobster populations in the Dry Tortugas, however, have
shown seasonal relocations between adjacent reef and grass flat areas
and that individual lobsters return to the same general area each year.
As a result, individuals of the Looe Key resident population may be trapped
as they move between the Fore Reef, Reef Flat and the grass flats of
the Patch Reefs to feed. Studies in Ft. Jefferson National Monument
100
have also demonstrated that in late summer and early fall an equal number
of males/females concentrated in large lairs in the shallow patch reefs.
If this is true of Looe Key, then large numbers of the Looe Key population
could be taken at the start of the fishing season in the Patch Reef
area, which lies outside the regulated area in Boundary Alternative #1.
Finally, studies indicate that in late November and early December,
as water temperatures cool, lobsters disperse to smaller scattered
lairs on the deeper reefs at depths 12-30 m.
It appears that a prohibition against lobster trapping on the Fore
Reef might help protect the renewable lobster resources at Looe Key for the
time being. Completion of the spiny lobster FMP will also contribute to
sustaining the lobster fishing industry over the long-term but the degree
of protection cannot be determined at this time.
An estimated 232,000 lbs. of spiny lobster were caught in
Boundary Option #2 in 1978. Personal communication with local residents
and fishermen revealed that most of this catch was taken from outside
the Fore Reef and Reef Flat zones. According to interviews with local
people, lobster boats avoid shallow coral reef areas, preferring sites
with greater maneuverability and more open sandy areas on which to place
traps. This alternative would protect the Fore Reef from physical damage
but result in minimal economic loss to the lobster fishermen.
3. Prohibit lobster fishing within the 5 sq nmi (Boundary
Alternative #2, and #3)7
This alternative would prohibit lobster fishing within the 5 sq nmi
alternative but would permit trapping outside the five sq nm but within
the 10 square nautical mile sanctuary proposal. This alternative would
maintain a healthy, substantial spiny lobster population in the Looe Key
area. Protecting the reef would enhance the spiny lobster fishery in
the region as increased numbers of juveniles would migrate from the reef
and be caught outside the boundaries. Coral damage from pots and incidental
bycatch of tropical fish would also be significantly eliminated within
the entire Looe Key system.
Banning traps from this five square mile area would be hardest
on the fishermen in fall and early winter when they mainly depend on
lobster fishing for revenue. The annual revenue from this area of Looe
Key (Boundary Alternative #2) is estimated at $466,320, as recorded in
Appendix C Table 2. This represents about 62 percent of all landings
within Boundary Alternative #2.
Because of its convenient location and generally productive
yield the denial of lobster fishing within Boundary Alternative #2 would
impose a significant economic hardship on fishermen and local businessmen
who support or rely on the industry.
101
Preferred Alternative: Prohibit lobster trapping on the Fore Reef Only
This preferred alternative would protect the most spectacular coral
assemblages from lobster trap damage and contribute to species richness
by partially protecting the spiny lobster as a major predator in the
reef system. Further, it would minimize the economic losses to the
commercial lobster fishermen and regional businesses in the area by
permitting fishing to continue in the major portion of the reef area.
It would afford site specific protection now to the fore reef which will
be enhanced by the Spiny Lobster FMP when it becomes final.
NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and the
appropriate Fishery Management Councils will continue to work cooperatively
under their Memorandum of Understanding in their efforts to protect and
enhance the Looe Key coral reef habitat and the spiny lobster fishery.
Continued monitoring of the area, by the NMFS and the GMFMC would aid in
maintaining the stock of a valuable renewable resource, both in the
restricted area and in the area adjacent to the sanctuary.
3. Regulatory Alternatives Affecting Tropical Marine Specimen Collecting.
a. Status quo: Unrestricted commercial and amateur tropical marine
specimen collecting within all boundary alternatives .
The GMFMC has announced its intention to prepare a Tropical
Fish Profile at a future date. The SAFMC and GMFMC are proposing to
prohibit tropical specimen collecting within the 1 nautical mile square
HAPC. At the present time, however, no current or other proposed Federal
regulations limit tropical fish and invertebrate collection. The extent
to which such activity can be controlled through HAPC regulations in the
Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP has not been determined judicially or
administratively. Current indications are that the Councils' definition
of Coral Reef Resources does not include invertebrates or reef fish but
rather the dead reef structure only. Furthermore, the final outcome of
the Coral FMP is unpredictable until it has gone through the public
review process.
Both commercial and amateur tropical fish and invertebrate
collecting occurs throughout the Looe Key area. Tropical fish collectors
in general take a large variety of fish but concentrate primarily on a
small number of the popular species. Collectors harvest mostly juvenile
fish from shallow depths. Collected invertebrates include brightly colored
and otherwise aesthetically appealing molluscs, small crustaceans, including
several shrimp which participate in the "cleaning symbiosis" relationship,
and a wide variety of other species for the home aquarist, biological
specimen industry, curio trade and municipal aquaria.
The most commonly collected families of fishes (Hess and Stevely,
1979) are angelfishes and butterflyfishes, damsel fishes, cardinal fishes,
jawfishes, drums and croakers, blennies, wrasses and gobies. Neon gobies,
small shrimp, juvenile bluebeard wrasses, french angelfish, and porkfish
102
are particularly known to set up and participate in cleaning stations
for finfish which then have an overall beneficial effect on the ecological
balance of the reef. Removal of these species in large numbers could
adversely affect the reef system. -
Most collectors work from small outboard motor boats. Collectors
use small hand nets while diving underwater ( snorkel ing, SCUBA). Some
collectors also use a mild anesthetic, qui nal dine, to slow temporarily
the fishes while collecting. A few collectors who do not approve the
use of chemicals, use only skill to chase fishes into nets.
Qui nal dine is a derivative of coal tar used in the manufacture
of dyes and explosives and was never intended as a fish collecting
anesthetic. Quinaldine is only slightly soluble in water and must be
diluted before use. Diluting agents include ethyl alcohol and seawater,
with acetone added by some collectors to draw the fish from protective
cover. Studies, however, have indicated that acetone can be harmful
to gill membranes and liver. Quinaldine is absorbed primarily through
the gills and concentrates initially in the brain (Brandenburger Brown
et al , 1972). Recovery usually occurs rapidly once the fish is removed
from the drugged water (1-10 minutes).
Concern for possible adverse effects of the widespread use of
quinaldine on the marine environment has led to its regulation by the
Florida DNR (since 1973) and a few preliminary studies on its open water
use. Jaap and Wheaton of FDNR stated in 1975 that "quinaldine treatment
induced no long term damage to octocorals (soft corals) and only slight
damage to two scleractinian specimens". The effects of quinaldine on
larval fishes and invertebrates are still unknown. There are obvious
advantages to the use of quinaldine in difficult terrain and deep water
collecting but "collecting with drugs is also very efficient and
contributes to the decline of marine tropicals on the reefs" (Moe, 1958).
Collecting with drugs may also lower the quality/health of fish sold
by collectors (personal communication, Bigford, 1980).
Bleaches, used also for collecting in the past are now prohibited
in Florida waters. Although regulating the use of quinaldine should restrict
its use to experienced collectors, some unskilled part time collectors
use quinaldine improperly thereby resulting in unnecessary mortality to
fishes and other marine organisms.
Although most of the marine specimens sold in today's U.S. aquarium
industry come from the marine environment, tropical fish are successfully
raised in captivity and sold commercially as well (Moe, 1980). Raising
fish in aquaria for commercial sale although not now economically
competitive with harvesting in the natural environment could eventually
be a viable alternative to tropical fish collecting at Looe Key.
103
Unregulated tropical specimen collecting in the marine sanctuary
would allow unlimited collecting of Looe Key reef species by commercial
and amateur collectors as long as there is a market and fish and invertebrates
to harvest. It appears that there is and continues to be considerable
growth of the market for marine aquarium hobby products in recent years
(Hess and Stevely, 1978). The economic take per year in Boundary Alternative
#2 is estimated at $25,000 to $43,000 or $80,075 to $137,725 using regional
multipliers. While this return is probably not great for any one collector,
it does contribute limited economic benefit to the region. It is likely,
however, that the harvest could be taken from adjacent area with an
equivalent minimal socio-economic impact.
b. Restrict tropical specimen collecting to collectors with NOAA
permits within all boundary alternatives and to non-chemical techniques.
Restricting tropical specimen collecting to those individuals
with permits will limit marine specimen collecting within the sanctuary
to only those persons demonstrating a knowledge of tropical marine species
and the most accepted and non-damaging techniques for harvesting tropical
fishes and invertebrates. Requiring permits should not impose a significant
burden on those businesses now in the area, nor would it necessarily
preclude others from becoming collectors.
The taking of important ecological species such as the neon goby
and the depletion of naturally rare species so desirable to a marine
sanctuary would continue although permitting the activity would allow
monitoring of activity levels and control whenever necessary. It would
also add administrative and enforcement requirements.
Prohibiting the use of chemicals will limit collecting activities
to the more experienced collector. Since the long term effects of the
commonly used quinaldine are not well documented this restriction will
eliminate the potential for harm.
c. Prohibit tropical specimen collecting within all boundary
alternatives except for scientific and educational purposes with NOAA permits .
This alternative would protect and enhance the tropical fish
population at Looe Key, prevent the depletion of ecologically important
species, add to the aesthetics of the sanctuary, and maintain and enhance
the long term productivity of the Looe Key coral reef for future generations.
The Key Largo Marine Sanctuary and the Biscayne National Monument do prohibit
such taking thereby providing a precedent for such action.
It appears that there are many suitable areas for tropical specimen
collectors to catch tropical fish and invertebrates in Florida; including
shallow inshore areas, inshore coral heads, mid-channel reefs (in the
middle of Hawk's Channel), and the entire outer reef. This alternative
would cause limited economic loss to present commercial collectors.
The total economic loss of revenue per year as estimated in the
socio-economic analysis for Boundary Alternative #2, would be $25,000 to
$43,000 or $80,075 to $137,729 using regional multipliers. At least
some of this loss could be made up by collecting elsewhere.
104
Preferred Alternative: Restrict tropical specimen collecting to collectors
with NOAA permits within all boundary alternatives and to non-chemical tecFniques .
Requiring permits for tropical specimen collecting will afford the
on site manager of the sanctuary an opportunity to restrict entry to those
persons experienced in collection and to monitor take and species levels.
However, should the prohibitions proposed by the FMCs on specimen collecting be
approved, NOAA would adopt and enforce the stricter regulations.
4. Regulatory Alternatives for Spearfishing
a. Status quo: Unregulated spearfishing under all boundary options .
Commercial spearfishing is no longer feasible because of diminished
populations of large specimens, according to the Looe Key Resource Inventory
(1973). Individual spearfishing has continued by sport fishermen and local
residents who prefer this method of catching edible fish. However, there are
no public statistics on the number of spearfishermen at Looe Key.
A study of recreational boating in Dade County (Austin et al , 1977)
estimated that approximately 58.8 percent of the spearfishermen used rubber-
powered trigger-activitated guns, 16.5% used Hawaiian slings and 24.7% used both.
Most spearfishing occurred in the summer when water temperature was most favorable
and competed with line fishing at the reefs. Competition with line fishermen
mainly occurred for grouper, since few line fishermen sought hogfish. Where there
were equal numbers of spear and line fishermen, the total catch by spearfishermen
exceeded that of line fishermen.
Previous research on spearfishing activities at Looe Key and
other marine areas has provided information useful in evaluating the impacts
of spearfishing and the environmental consequences of regulation in the
Looe Key area. A comparative study of Key Largo and Looe Key by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources has identified some environmental
consequences of intense spearfishing.
"Looe Key appears to be most impacted by pressure from consumptive
uses. Spearfishing has obviously altered the abundance of large
reef predators (i.e. grouper, snappers, and barracuda). Spearfishing
is probably also indirectly responsible for many of the other differences
noted on the reef. The removal of reef predators is probably partly
responsible for the high sea urchin density. The urchins are rather
efficient herbivores, feeding primarily on seagrasses and algae.
The scarcity of the calcareous green algae Halimeda could be related
to urchin grazing pressure. Likewise, the apparent absence of large
schools of herbivorous blue tangs and surgeonfish could be correlated
with high urchin density and the scarcity of Halimeda , a common
food source. High urchin density could also be responsible for
the unusually high density of the false coral Ricordea . The false
coral, as an encrusting or solitary benthic animal, needs bare substrate
as a base for attachment. Heavy urchin grazing pressure could feasibly
provide the needed bare substrate." (O'Kane 1979)
105
The Looe Key Resource Inventory (1978) states that"... the practice of
spearfishing, even when not many fish are taken, creates wariness in the hunted
species and effectively causes them to move out of the area". This wariness
decreases the quality of the dive experience. The authors contrast the current
situation at Looe Key Reef, where large groupers are quite rare and exhibit
wariness of divers, to that in the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary, where these fish
are relatively abundant and can be approached closely.
Unregulated spearfishing within the sanctuary boundaries could
encourage ecological change as the removal and frightening away of territorial
reef predators such as grouper continued unabated. Human injury from spear-
fishing in a confined recreational area such as the proposed Looe Key
sanctuary could also increase. The proposed Looe Key sanctuary has a
great deal of shallow water making it an ideal place for novice swimmers
and snorklers as well as children. Therefore the potential for accidents
is perhaps higher than it might be in deeper water areas not as easily
accessible. Pursuit of fish by the less experienced spearfishermen could
result in physical damage to coral. Inadvertent kill of non-edible reef
fish would continue. Tourists and local residents could continue to use
Looe Key Reef for sport fishing and to catch edible fish.
In summary, controversy and issues arising from spearfishing in reef
areas relates to a number of sociological and environmental implications,
including charges that spearfishing: (1) creates a potential for human
injury; (2) competes with more traditional rod and reel or handline
fishing; (3) removes large mature fish and reduces breeding stock and
recruitment potential; (4) reduces predator stocks (snappers, groupers
and barracuda) and alters predator - prey relations; (5) physically or
ecologically damages coral, other sessile benthos and incidental tropicals
on account of inexperienced divers; and (6) creates a fear or avoidance
response in fish.
There are no existing controls and the final scope of the Coral
and Coral Reef Resources FMP special management measures are unpredictable.
The plan has not been through the EIS public review process and will not
likely be implemented until January 1981. The Plan proposes to prohibit
spearfishing within the core trapezoid of the 1 nmi sq HAPC.
b. Restrict spearfishing within the sanctuary to pole spears and
Hawaiian slings under all boundary alternatives .
Restricting spearfishing to certain weapons would tend to restrict
this type of fishing to the more experienced divers and snorkel ers and
eliminate the use of rubber- powered arbaletes, pneumatic and spring-loaded
guns and other types of weapons often used by novice divers.
In addition, it would tend to reduce both the physical damage
to the reefs caused by inexperienced spearfishermen and the chances of
human injury. This would probably have minimal economic impact on dive
and charter boat captains since only an estimated 15 percent of the Looe
Key divers now spearfish (personal communication, Davidson, 1979).
106
This alternative would not eliminate the wariness and removal
of certain species from the reef, nor would it prevent experienced spear-
fishermen from contributing to the reduction of stocks of important
commercial fish species and key ecological species on the reef system.
This option would be difficult to enforce.
c. Prohibit spearfishing and possession of spearfishing equipment
within the 5 sq nmi (Boundary Alternative #2 and #3).
A primary basis for this alternative is the safety factor.
Prohibition of spearfishing and the possession of spearfishing equipment
within sanctuary boundaries is necessary to provide a safe area for the
thousands of recreationl ists, including swimmers and divers, who enjoy
the aesthetic and recreational benefits of this unique marine habitat.
A limited amount of predation (including spearfishing) within an
ecosystem is natural to evolution. However, uncontrolled concentrated
spearfishing activity in a restricted area stresses the coral reef ecosystem
by removing an unnatural amount of sexually mature, large predator and
commercially important species. Because limited spearfishing is impractical
to regulate and difficult to enforce, all spearfishing must be prohibited.
Other spearfishing related impacts on the coral reef ecosystem often
include the inadvertent killing of non-edible tropical species for recreational
purposes and spear- inflicted coral damage resulting in wounds open to infectious
disease.
Problems other than that of safety could possibly be reduced by
limiting spearfishing through complicated permit conditions and intensive
enforcement efforts. The time, effort and money required to accomplish
this make it impractical and a total prohibition is the more feasible
approach.
This alternative would leave the snapper/grouper population
available for hook and line fishermen, promote the return of large grouper
and other predators to the reef. It would remove the threat of human
injury and the inadvertent killing of non-edible tropical reef fish
species found within the sanctuary, protect the coral from physical
damage from divers in pursuit of fish and perhaps, in time, lead to fish
becoming less wary. All of the above would help ensure high quality
recreational experiences by divers, snorklers and fishermen.
Local residents and tourists will no longer have the opportunity
to spearfish at Looe Key. Dive boats and charters would lose some
revenue, although the percentage of divers interested in spearfishing
is declining (personal communication, Davidson, 1979).
107
Preferred Alternative: Prohibit spearfishing within the 5 sq nmi (Boundary
Alternative #2 and #37"
One of the most significant consequences of this preferred
alternative is the elimination of the human injury potential to snorkelers
and SCUBA divers. It will also reduce disturbance and removal of territorial
reef predators such as grouper and the inadvertent kill of non-edible
tropical reef fish species found within the sanctuary.
This alternative could increase the availability of snapper and
grouper populations for hook and line fishermen and the presence of
large grouper for the pleasure and enjoyment of non-consumptive users.
It will not discriminate against novice spearf ishermen and will conform
with the more enforceable regulation at the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary which
prohibits the use of spear guns, slings, harpoons or other kinds of weapons
potentially harmful to human safety, fish and wildlife, and the reef structure.
Adoption of this approach will cause some revenue loss to dive
and charter boat companies who are hired to take spearf ishermen to Looe
Key. It is difficult to estimate this loss. However, a portion of their
revenue also comes from hook and line recreational fishermen and snorkelers
and SCUBA divers who only -wish to view the underwater coral formations.
This alternative will affect local residents who spearf ish within the
5 sq nmi area for edible fish, however, they will still be able to use
surrounding areas.
5. Alternatives Regulating tampering with, Damage to and Removal of
Submerged Historical and Cultural Resources within the Sanctuary.
a. Status quo: Unrestricted activities regarding submerged
historical and cultural resources in all boundary alternatives .
The Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior is preparing a Submerged Cultural Resource Plan to identify
shipwreck sites between Key West and Cape Hatteras out to 200 miles. A
Looe KeyAmerican Shoals survey is being conducted by the Newfound Harbor
Marine Institute. However, there are no Federal laws at the present
time regulating salvage and recovery operations in the high seas. The
status quo would allow the continued unregulated investigation and removal
of submerged artifacts and could also lead to the tampering and removal
of important historical and cultural resources within the sanctuary and
damage to those coral communities which have attached themselves to the
submerged artifacts.
Under a recent court decision, the Antiquities Act which
provides that the Department of the Interior may designate and protect
certain historically important sites does not authorize such action in
relation to antiquities located on the OCS. In addition, neither the
103
Abandoned Property Act nor the National Historic Preservation Act offer
protection for valuable marine artifacts. The marine sanctuary program
is the only vehicle for designation and preservation of such resources.
b. Prohibit tampering with, damage to and removal of historical
and cultural resources in all boundary alternatives except with a NOAA
permit for scientific and educational purposes.
This alternative would prohibit tampering with, damage to and
removal of historical and cultural resources and would reduce reef damage
from such activities.
Shipwrecks of interest in and adjacent to the area could be
explored and artifacts recovered under a NOAA permit which would be
based on the educational and research value of the proposed actions. This
alternative, however, would not completely preclude reef damage and other
disruptions to the marine resources from salvage and recovery operations.
c. Prohibit tampering with, damage to and removal of historical and
cultural resources within 5 sq nmi (Boundary Alternatives #2 and #3).
This regulation would protect the HMS Looe and other submerged
shipwrecks of cultural and historical significance from tampering and
removal. It would completely protect coral reef assemblages from further
damage from such operations.
It appears that there is little salvage and or other disturbing
activity in the area at the present time. Therefore this regulation
would not impact ongoing salvage and recovery operations, but it would
prevent possible research and educational benefits.
Preferred alternative: Prohibit tampering with, damage to and removal of
historical and cultural resources within 5 sq nmi Boundary alternatives #1
and #2 except with a permit from NOAA .
This regulation would protect the submerged historical and cultural
resources of the sanctuary from removal, allow continued exploration and
investigations and minimize damage to coral reef communities. NOAA could
cooperate and assist the Bureau of Land Management in the preparation
of the Submerged Cultural Resource Plan which includes the Looe Key Reef
area. Historical resources could also eventually be placed on the National
Register of the National Historic Preservation Act once the nomination
has been made and the resource selected.
109
6. Alternatives for Regulating Discharges
a. Status quo : Rely on existing authorities to control discharges
in all boundary alternatives.
Federal regulation of sewage wastes from marine sanitation
devices, effective January 31, 1980, does not extend beyond territorial
(State) waters. The disposal of dredge materials spoils and toxic and
hazardous substances are regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Title II, Ocean Dumping of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries
Act; EPA has the authority to develop criteria for dredge disposal and
the disposal of toxic and hazardous materials and for the selection of
dump sites for dredge disposal in ocean waters. Therefore, vessels are
allowed to discharge trash, litter, solid wastes, and sewage.
This alternative would not prevent the discharge from vessels
of trash, litter, solid waste, or untreated sewage directly into the proposed
sanctuary. The status quo would rely on the authority of the CWA, Title II
and corresponding regulations.
b. Prohibit the discharge of all substances in all boundary
alternatives.
This regulation would prohibit any discharge within the sanc-
tuary. Discharge of litter, trash, solid waste and sewage from vessels
would be prohibited. A prohibition on the discharging of vessel cooling
waters would prevent motorized vessels from entering the sanctuary.
Prohibiting the discharge of fish parts and chumming materials would
inconvenience fishermen and curtail otherwise allowed fishing activities.
c Prohibit the discharge of substances except non-polluted cooling
waters from vessels, fish or parts, chumming materials and discharges from
from marine sanitation devices (MSP) within 5 sq nmi (Boundary alternatfves
#2 and #3)."
This alternative would prohibit littering and discharge of solid
waste from vessels. It would prohibit the discharge of raw, untreated sewage
into the sanctuary. However, it would allow fishermen to discharge fish or
parts and use chumming materials. By not restricting the discharge of
non-polluted cooling waters, this alternative would allow the use of
motorized vessels.
Preferred alternative: Prohibit the discharge of substances except
non-polluted cooling waters from vessels, fish or parts and chumming
materials and discharges from marine sanitation devices within 5 sq nmi
(Boundary altenatives #2 and #3).~
no
The large number of people using Looe Key has lead to a
high incidence of litter and trash being discharged overboard. The
proposed regulation prohibiting discharging and littering will help maintain
the area's overall recreational and aesthetic appeal. It would prevent
floating or submerged waste debris such as plastic and metal objects.
The proposed regulation would prevent the discharge of
untreated sewage from vessels allowing discharges from a MSD only. This
regulation is consistent with current Coast Guard regulation. The
Coast Guard regulations prohibit the discharge of untreated wastes within
the territorial sea for public health reasons - the presence of swimmers
and relatively shallow water. Because the site of the proposed sanctuary
is heavily used for water contact activities such as swimming and diving
and portions have relatively shallow water depths, only the discharge
from MSDs is allowed.
Impacts of the regulation will be minor. Sanctuary users
will have to retain trash for disposal at proper facilities. Vessel
operators will have to utilize their MSD or holding tanks and will be
unable to empty the latter.
7. Alternatives Regulating Anchoring
a. Status Quo: Unrestricted anchoring within the three boundary
options.
At the present time, there are no Federal laws regulating the
location or type of anchoring in the Looe Key area.
Branching coral growth forms such as elkhorn ( Acropora palmata ) and
staghorn ( Acropora cervicornis ) in the Fore Reef system are especially
susceptible to anchor damage. Fortunately, however, these species appear
to have the greatest potential for regeneration. Recovery of other damaged
coral, however, is slow since, as discussed in Chapter Three, growth rates
of coral in the Florida Reef Tract are about one-half that of the Central
Caribbean. The draft Coral and Coral Reef Resources FMP (CNA 1979) states,
within this context, that: coral growth rates are so slow in most species
that recovery rates after harvest, human impact or natural stress
are far slower than observed in most resources". Moreover, as has been
pointed out by Antonius (1975 and 1977), even slight mechanical injury
to large stony corals can initiate a series of events manifesting in
widespread pathology or even death of an entire colony.
Evidence of anchor damage to stony corals and octocorals is widespread
within surveyed areas of the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Broken pieces
of elkhorn and staghorn coral are easily visible in the Fore Reef and Reef
Flat zones where the water is shallow and the more spectacular coral is
found. Entire octocorals can be observed lying on the bottom, obviously
ill
ripped from their substrate. Much of this damage was fresh during
observations in 1976 and 1977 and its occurrence and distribution is
likely a result of a combination of anchor damage, wave damage and other
natural factors. Numerous observations have been made of boat anchors
lying in living coral and of anchor ropes and chains chafing corals.
Comparable information on conditions in the Deep Ridge and Deep Reef
zones is not available because the depth of water makes these areas
less accessible. However, it can be reasonably assumed that the coral
and benthic organisms have suffered some damage from boats anchoring
in deeper water.
Recreational and commercial boat anchoring damage observed at the
Looe Key coral reef has been found in other reefs. Methods of anchoring
in reef areas are discussed in the Draft Coral and Coral Reef Resources
FMP. This report cites a number of specific anchoring problems which can
cause damage to corals; anchor fluke span, length of chain relative to
water depth, and anchor placement. Damage to the benthos and living
coral in the Flower Garden and 28 Fathom Banks has resulted from
improper anchoring practices. Sand anchors, properly located in the
rubble and sand grooves between the coral spurs, or in deeper sandy
bottom seaward of the major coral formations, create the least
disturbance.
The Draft Coral or Coral Reef Resources FMP further states: "... that
the amount of damage is proportional to the level of use in an area, the
method of anchoring, the size of the anchor used, and the composition of
the biotic community." The draft FMP goes on to cite accounts from
several areas which emphasize the relationship of user levels to anchor
damage. It would be reasonable to assume, for the Looe Key Reef, that,
in the absence of anchoring regulations, this same relationship would
hold. The number of boats presently anchoring in this small area is
already quite high and the stress is apparent. Anchor impacts on the
Looe Key Fore Reef coral community are projected to become more widespread
in the absence of regulation.
Unregulated anchoring would give unlimited choice of anchor sites to
recreational and commercial boats. Visitors could dive close by their
boats. Physical damage to coral would continue unabated.
b. Prohibit anchoring on the Fore Reef and designate specific
anchoring zones in Boundary Alternative #2 and #3
Anchor abrasion of corals is common in the Fore Reef zone of
Looe Key. It is here that anchor chains and lines, primarily from the
smaller draft boats anchored in the sand bottom between the coral spurs,
chafe the adjacent corals. Raising anchors snagged on the coral spurs
also has resulted in significant damage. This zone is very popular
112
with the divers because of the spectacular nature of the coral formations
and the size and diversity of reef fish populations. In order to gain
access to this area, most boats anchor directly in this zone, which is
no deeper than nine meters or in the Reef Flat nearest the Fore Reef.
By designating adjacent anchor areas, anchor damage to the Fore Reef can
be substantially reduced.
The Reef Flat offers suitable protection from high waves because of its
location behind the reef crest. The bottom consists primarily of sand,
coral fragments, seagrass, macro-algae and occasional colonies of living
coral. As a result, this area can withstand much greater anchoring
pressure than the Fore Reef Zone with its well developed coral structure.
Because of the substrate and protected location of the Reef Flat, small
sand anchors, e.g. Danforth, are capable of holding all but the largest
boats with a shallow enough draft to enter this zone. Divers and
snorkel ers entering the water can swim through this shallow (less than
two meters) area and pass through one of the surge channels of the
reef crest and dive on the Fore Reef. Only in rough weather is passage
through the reef crest somewhat hazardous.
The area seaward of the Fore Reef is less protected but convenient to
the Fore Reef and would also be suitable as a designated anchoring area.
With adequate enforcement and management at the sanctuary site, boats
can be directed to sandy areas, suitable for anchoring adjacent to coral
formations.
In addition these areas would have to be well marked, large enough
to accommodate a reasonable number of boats, and be located close enough
to favorite diving and snorkel ing areas to offer novice divers safe
access. Care would have to be taken that this arrangement does not
irreversibly damage corals in the anchoring zones by concentrating activity.
This alternative would also virtually eliminate both recreational and
commercial fishing in the Fore Reef.
c. Placement of a mooring buoy system or systems in strategic areas of
the Fore Reef zone in all boundary options.
This would enable divers, particularly SCUBA divers, with heavy
equipment, to dive safely near their boats and it would provide safe
access to the Fore Reef for novice divers. Biscayne National Monument
has an optional mooring buoy system which not only guides visitors to
certain coral reef areas but offers them the opportunity to tie up to
a buoy to prevent anchor damage.
A mooring system would have to be stable enough to secure large
dive and charter boats in moderately rough seas and designed in a manner
to prevent collisions between the moored vessels. This would result in
destruction of portions of the sea floor but could reduce anchor damage
113
substantially to the reef. Observations in Biscayne Monument have
noted some concentrated damage to adjacent coral areas, as in the
case of designated anchoring zones.
If the marine sanctuary is not adequately patrolled, this type of
regulation could cause conflicts among users. Although not prohibitively
expensive, mooring systems are costly and their purchase and installation
would have to be budgeted by Sanctuary management. The relatively small
Fore Reef area may not be large enough to place enough buoys to accommodate
the number of potential boats and buoy placement itself could be damaging
to the coral .
Periodic relocation of the anchoring zone of buoys to allow
impacted areas to recover could also be used to minimize the concentration
of damage in localized areas. This approach however has not been successful
at the Buck Island National Monument in the Virgin Islands. Park Service
officials indicate that rotating buoy location is not viable there. Coral
growth is too slow to make reasonable rotating times feasible and coral growth
in the Caribbean is two times as rapid as in Florida waters.
d. Require use of sand-anchors under all options.
Grapple hooks and other non-sand-bearing anchors are particularly
damaging to coral. Prohibition of grapple-type anchors is a consideration
because of the damage from such anchors used by divers in the Looe Key
area. A change to sand anchor would encourage anchoring in sand areas
only but would not solve all anchor associated problems. There is also
some doubt if this is a workable regulation due to the type of enforcement
it would require.
Preferred Alternative: Allow anchoring only in the sand channels
between the spur system of the Fore Reef or in the designated anchoring
zones of the Reef Flat or seaward of the Fore Reef in the sand bottom
areas in all boundary alternatives. Initiate research on the use of a
mooring system on the Fore Reef .
As the popularity of Looe Key and its accessibility become more widely
known, anchor damage can be expected to occur more frequently. Indiscri-
minate anchoring with its potential for damage in a coral reef sanctuary,
is incompatible with the purposes for which these areas are considered for
designation.
This alternative would permit SCUBA divers and snorkelers to dive safely
close by their boats providing they anchor on the sandy sea floor. It
would also permit commercial and recreational fishermen to fish the Fore
Reef provided other regulations of the sanctuary permit them to do so.
If adequately enforced, it will protect the Fore Reef coral assemblages
114
from snagging, breaking and other anchor damage. However, enforcement
of this regulation will entail frequent site inspections and the
development of an educational program to advise users on anchoring
procedures.
Research and assessment of the feasibility and possible design of or
approriate mooring system for Looe Key will provide a basis for management
decisions which will better insure maximum opportunities for both public
use and resources protection.
115
LIST OF PREPARERS
Many persons participated in the preparation of this document. A major
portion of the environmental analysis was performed under contract by
Sager Gardiner Wilcox, 6723 Whittier Ave., McLean, Va. 22101.
Sager O Gardiner Wilcox
Evelyn S. Wilcox
William P. Gardiner
Dr. Martha Sager
Dr. Arnfried Antonius
Dr. Arthur Weiner
Richard N. Sharood
James A. Cato
Phillip Webre
Project Manager
Environmental Specialist
Ecologist
Marine Biologist
Marine Biologist
Attorney
Fisheries Economist
Economist
Office of Coastal Zone Management
JoAnn Chandler
Dr. Nancy Foster
Edward Lindelof
Annie Hillary
John Milholland
Director
Deputy Director
Gulf and Caribbean Project
Officer
Program Analyst
Attorney
117
General
Armitt, Al . 1979. Personal communication.
Austin, C. Bruce, Robert Brugger, J. Conner Davis and Linda Seifert.
March 1977. Recreational Boating in Dade County 1975-1976.
Prepared for Sea Grant.
Ballard, W. R. 1979. Personal communication.
Brown, Col., Assistant Chief, Florida Marine Patrol, Tallahassee. 1979.
Personal communication.
Carr, Chuck 1979. Florida Audobon Society.
Causey, Bill, Feb. 1, 1980. Personal communication.
Davis, Gary E. 1977. Effects of recreational harvest on a spiny lobster,
Panulirus argus population. Bulletin of Marine Science,
Vol. 27 No. 2.
Davis Gary E. 1976. National Park Service Spiny Lobstery Fishery Research
in Florida. Key West, Florida.
Davis, Gary E. 1977. Anchor Damage to a Coral Reef on the Coast of
Florida.
Dennis, Cdr. Sam. 1979. Personal communication. Commander Group Key
West, Key West, Florida.
Feddern, Henry, February 8, 1980. Personal communication.
Florida Administrative Code. 1979. Rules 17-3, 17-4 and 17-6.
Florida Conservation Foundation. 1978. ENFO Newsletter.
Florida Sea Grant College. 1978. Environmental Impact Statement and
Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico.
119
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1979. Coastal Management
Issue Scoping Paper.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1978. Florida Coastal
Management Program Appendix. Prepared for the 1978 Florida
Legislature.
Florida Department of Natural Resources Coastal Coordinating Council. 1974.
Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study.
Florida Reef Foundation. 1978. Looe Key Reef Resource Inventory.
Looe Key Reef. January 17, 1978. Public meeting concerning the proposed
designation of the Looe Key Reef as a National Marine Sanctuary.
Big Pine Key, Florida.
Memorandum from Terry Leitzell, Director of National Marine Fisheries
Services to Marine Wilderness Society. Sept. 20, 1979.
Request to have Pillar Coral listed as an Endangered Species.
Memorandum of Understanding, Gulf Fishery Management Council and Office of
Coastal Zone Management. May 24, 1979.
Moe, Martin, February 8, 1980. Personal Communication.
Monroe County Planning Department. 1978. Monroe County Coastal Zone
Protection and Conservation Element.
Murray, Thomas. 1979. Personal Communication.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 19 . Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan.
Prepared for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. St.
Petersburg, Florida.
National Park Service. 1979. A Review of Fishery Management Options and
Proposed Rules for Everglades National Park.
O'Kane, Lt. Kevin. 1979. Comparison between Looe Key Reef and Coral Reef
State Park and Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary.
John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. 1979. Marine Sanctuary Management
Workshop.
120
Russell, Lt. Cdr. Dave. 1979. Personal communications. Assistant Chief,
Intelligence and Law Enforcement Branch, 7th Coast Guard District,
Miami, Florida.
Samsome, Gerry. 1979. Personal communication.
Shinn, Eugene A. 1979. Collecting Biologic and Geologic Specimens in
South Florida. Atlantic Reef Committee. Information Circular.
Stone, Alexander. 1979. Letter to Sanctuary Programs Office re wire mesh
fish traps. President, Marine Wilderness Society.
Thomas, Richard. 1979. Personal communication.
Tingley, Ralph. 1979. Personal communication. Chief, Florida Marine Patrol,
Florida Keys.
University of Florida Center for Governmental Responsibility, Holland Law
Center. 1976. Prepared for Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Resource Management, Bureau of
Coastal Zone Planning.
121
Scientific Literature
Antonius, A. 1972. Occurrence and distribution of stony corals
(Anthozoa and Hydrozoa) in the vicinity of Santa Marta,
Colombia. Mitt. Inst. Colombo-Aleman Invest. Cient.,
6: 89-103.
Antonius, A. 1974. Final report of the coral reef group of the
Florida Keys project for the project year 1973. Harbor
Branch Found., Fort Pierce, Florida. 201 pp.
Antonius, A. and G. Griffin. 1974. Turbidity and coral reef health
in waters of Pennekamp Park, upper Florida Keys.
Florida Scientist, 37: 15.
Antonius, A. 1975. Health problems of the Florida coral reefs.
Florida Scientists, 38: 21.
Antonius, A. 1977. Coral mortality in reefs: a problem for science
and management. Proc. Third Internat. Coral Reef Symp.,
Univ. Miami, 2: 618-623.
Bayer, F.M. 1961. The shallow-water Octocorallia of the West
Indian region. Marti nus Nijoff, The Hague, Netherlands,
101 fig., 28 pi., 373 pp.
Bohlke, J.E. and C.C.G. Chaplin. 1970. Fishes of the Bahamas and
adjacent tropical waters. Livingston Publishing Comp.,
Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. 36 pi., xxiii + 771 pp.
Chaplin, C.C.G. 1972. Fishwatchers guide to West Atlantic coral
reefs. Livingston Publishing Com pi , Wynnewood, Pennsylvania
23 pi., 64 pp.
Cottam, G. and J. T. Curtis. 1956. The use of distance measure in
phytosociological sampling. Ecology, 37: 451-460.
deLaubenfels, M.W. 1953. A guide to the sponges of Eastern North
America. Publ. Mar. Lab. Univ. Miami, Univ. Miami Press.
32 pp.
Florida Coastal Coordinating Council. 1974. Florida Keys Coastal
Zone Management Study. Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Division of State Planning. 1974. Final report and recom-
mendations for the proposed Florida Keys area of critical
State concern. Florida Bureau of Land and Water Management,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Geister, J. 1977. The influence of wave exposure on the ecological
zonation of Caribbean coral reefs. Proc. Third Internat.
Coral Reef Symp., Univ. Miami, 1: 23-29.
122
Ginsburg, R. N. and E. A. Shinn. 1964, Distribution of the reef-
building community in Florida and the Bahamas. Bull, Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 66: 310-318.
Glynn, P.W. 1977. Coral growth in upwelling and non-upwelling
areas off the Pacific coast of Panama. Journ. of Marine
Research, 35: 567-585.
Goodson, G. 1976. Fishes of the Atlantic coast. Marquest Color-
guide Books, Pal os Verdes Estates, California, y + 203 pp.
Goreau, T.F. 1959. The coral reefs of Jamaca: I. Species
composition and zonation. Ecology, 40: 67-90.
Goreau, T. F. and J. W. Wells. 1967. The shallow water Scleractinia
of Jamaica: revised list of species and their vertical
distribution range. Bull. Mar. Sci., 17: 442-453.
Greenberg, I. 1977. Guide to corals and fishes of Florida, the
Bahamas, and the Caribbean. Seahawk Press, Miami,
Florida. 64 pp.
Hoffmeister, J. E. 1974. Land from the Sea. Univ. Miami Press,
Coral Gables, Florida. 143 pp.
Hoffmeister, J. E., J. I. Jones, D. R. Moore, and H. G. Multer. 1964.
Living and fossil reef types of southern Florida. Geol.
Soc. Am. Conv., Nov. 1964. 2 pi., 28 pp.
Hoffmeister, J. E. and H. G. Multer. 1968. Geology and origin of the
Florida Keys. Geol. Soc. America Bull., 79: 845-852.
Jones, J. A. 1977. Morphology and development of Southern Florida
partch reefs. Proc. Third Internat. Coral Reef Symp. ,
Univ. Miami, 2: 231-235.
Kaufmann, L. 1977. The three spot damsel fish: effects on benthic
biota of Caribbean coral reefs. Proc. Third Internat. Coral
Reef Symp., Univ. Miami, 1: 559-564.
Kissling, D. L. 1975. Coral reefs in the lower Florida Keys: a
preliminary report. In: Carbonate Rock Environments, ed.
H. G. Multer, Farleigh Dickinson Univ., Madison New
Jersy. pp. 102 E-K.
Longley, W. H. and S. F. Hildebrand. 1941. Systematic catalogye of
the fishes of Tortugas, Florida. Pap. Tort. Lab., Carnegie
Inst. Wash., 34, 34 pi., 331 pp.
Loya, Y. 1972. Community structure and species diversity of
hermatypic coral at Eilat, Red Sea. Mar. Biol., 13: 100-12
Loya, Y. and L. B. Slobodkin. 1971. The coral reef of Eilat (Gulf of
Eilat, Red Sea)., Symp* &*1 . Soc. Lond., 28: 117-139.
123
Macintyre, G. 1.1 and 0. H. Pi 1 key. 1969. Tropical coral reefs:
tolerance of low temperatures on the North Carolina
continental shelf. Science, 166" 374-375.
Marszalek, D.S., G. Babashoff, M.R. Noel, and D.R. Worley. 1977.
Reef distribution in South Florida. Proc. Third. Internat.
Coral Reef Symp., Univ. Miami, 2: 223-229.
Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. 1971. Personal
income and earnings in the Miami metropolitan area. A
general analysis. Res. Div. Met. Dade Cty. Planning
Dept., Miami, Florida.
Mayor, A. G. 1914. The effects of temperature upon tropical marine
animals. Publ. Carnegie Inst. Wash., 183: 1-24.
Mayor, A. G. 1916. The lower temperatures at which reef-corals loose
their ability to capture food. Carnegie Inst. Wash.,
Year-Book, 14, 212.
National Park Service. 1977. Draft master plan. Draft environmental
statement. U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Ogden, J. C. and J. C. Zieman. 1977. Ecological aspects of coral
reef - seagrass beds contacts in the Caribbean. Proc. Third
Internat. Coral Reef Symp., Univ. Miami, 1: 377-382.
Peterson M. L. 1955. The last cruise of the H.M. S. Looe
Smithsonian Misc. Coll., 131 (2), 74 pp.
Pielou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of species diversity in different
types of biological collections. J. Theor. Biol., 13: 145-163
Porter, J. W. 1972. Ecology and species diversity of coral reefs on
opposite sides of the Isthmus of Panama. Bull, Biol. Soc.
Wash., 2: 89-116.
Randall, J. E. 1968. Caribbean reef fishes. T. F.H. Publications,.
Hong Kong. 324 fig., 318 pp.
Shinn, E.A. 1963. Spur and groove formation on the Florida Reef
Tract. Jour. Sed. Pet., 33 (2): 291-303.
Shinn, E.A. 1966. Coral growth-rate, an environmental indicator.
Jour. Paleo., 40 (2): 233-240.
Stark, W.A. 1968. A list of the fishes of Alligator Reef, Florida,
with comments on the nature of the Florida reef fish fauna.
Univ. Miami, Inst. Mar. Sci., 890, 28 pp.
Stark, W.A. and W.P. Davis. 1967. Night habits of fishes of Alligator
Reef, Florida. Ichthyologica, 38 (4): 313-356, 25 fig.
124
Stoddart, D.R. 1963. Effects of hurricane Hattie on the British
Honduras reefs and cays, October 30-31, 1961.
Atoll Res. Bull., 95: 1-142.
Stoddart, D.R. 1969. Distribution of corals in reefs. Proc.
Symp. Corals and Coral Reefs, Mandapan, India, pp. 71-80.
Vaughan, T.W. 1918. The temperature of the Florida Reef Tract.
Pap. Tort. Lab., Carnegie Inst. Wash., 9: 319-339.
Vaughan, T.W. and J.W. Wells. 1943. Revision of the suborders,
families, and genera of the Scleractinia. Spec. Papers
Geol. Soc. Amer., New York, 44: 1-363.
Voss, G.L. 1973. Sickness and death in Florida's coral reefs.
Nat. Hist., 82 (7): 40-47.
Wells, J.W. 1973. New and old scleractinian corals from Jamaica.
Bull. Mar. Sco., 23(1): 16-58.
Wiedenmayer, F. 1977. Shallow water sponges of the western
Bahamas. Birkenhauser Verlag, Basel and Struttgart.
180 fig., 43 pi., 336 pp.
125
Economic Analysis
Bell, Frederick W. 1979. Recreational versus commercial fishing in Florida:
An economic impact analysis.
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. 1976. Engineering and Financial Report for the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc.,
Gainesville, Florida.
Cato, James C. 1979. Economic impact estimates concerning commercial fishing in
Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program,
Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Gainesville, Florida,
Cato, James C. , R. Allan Morris and Fred J. Prochaska. 1978. Production costs
and earnings by boat size: Florida Spanish Mackerel Fishery. Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Gainesville, Florida,
Cato, James C. and Fred Pochaska. 1978. Socio-economic assessment of fishery
management in Everglades National Park. U.S. National Park Service,
South florida Research Center, Everglades National Park.
Center for Natural Areas. 1979. Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral Reef
Resources, center for Natural Areas, Washington, D.C.
Florida Department of Administraton. 1979. Analysis of Florida Keys Economic Sec-
tors with Regard to Areas of Critical State Concern Designation. Florida
Bureau of Land and Water Management.
Florida Department of Commerce. 1977. Monroe County Economic Data. Bureau of
Economic Analysis.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Tabulation of Daily Visitors.
Bahia Honda Recreation Area.
Florida Statistical Abstract. 1978. University of Florida Press, Gainesville,
Florida.
Goreau, Thomas F. , Nora I. Goreau and Thomas T. Goreau. 1979. Corals and
Coral Reefs. Scientific American, Vol. 24, No. 2.
Korin, Basil P. 1975. Statistical Concepts for the Social Sciences. Winthrop
Publishers, Cambridge, Md.
Krutilla, John V. and A. C. Fisher. 1979. The Economics of Natural Environments:
Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
126
Mathis, Kary, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner, Paul D. Landrum and Fred J.
Prochaska. 1979. Commercial Fishing activity and Facility Needs in
Florida: Dade and Monroe Counties. Florida Agricultural Market
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Monroe County Statistics. June, 1979. Monroe County Planning Department,
Key West, Florida.
Morris, R. Allan, Fred J. Prochaska, and James C. Cato. 1977. An Economic
Analysis of King Mackerel Production by Hook and Line on the Florida
Atlantic Coast. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine
Advisory Program, Gainesville, Florida.
Morris, R. Allan and Fred Prochaska. 1979. Economic Impact of the Processing
and Marketing of Commercial Florida Marine Landings. Marine Advisory
Program, Gainesville, Florida.
Prochaska, Fred J. 1978. Theoretical and Empirical Consideration for
Estimating Capacity and capacity Utilization in Commercial Fisheries.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
Prochaska, Fred J. and J.R. Baarda. 1975. Florida Fisheries Management
Programs: Their development, administration, and current status.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Prochaska, Fred J. and Joel S. Williams. 1978. An Economic Analysis of
Spiny Lobster Production by Individual Firms at Optimum Stock Levels.
Southern Journal of Economics.
Prochaska, Fred J. and Joel S. Williams. 1976. Economic Analysis of Cost and
Returns in the Spiny Lobster Fishery by Boat and Vessel Size.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Gainesville,
Florida.
Prochaska, Fred J. and R. Allan Morris. 1978. Primary Economic Impact of the
Florida Commercial Fishing Sector. Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Skin Diver Magazine. 1979. 1979 Reader Survey. Petersen Publishing Co.,
Los Angeles, California.
Snell, Ernie. 1979. Personal communication. National Marine Fisheries, Miami,
Florida.
Tilmant, James, Danny Peters and Renate Skinner. 1979. Biscayne National Monument
Fisheries Monitoring Program. Second Quarter Report. U.S. National Park
Service, Biscayne National Monument, Homestead, Florida.
127
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysic
Division. 1977. Industry - Specific Gross Output Multiplier for
BEA Economic Areas. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
U.S. National Park Service, Biscayne National Monument. 1979. Average number of
people per boat for each recreational activity for the whole period of
record. Homestead, Florida.
Williams, Joel S. and Fred J. Prochaska. 1976. The Florida Spiny Lobster Fishery:
Landings, Prices and Resource Productivity. Florida Sea Grant
Program, Gainesville, Florida.
128
APPENDIX A DRAFT DESIGNATION DOCUMENT
DESIGNATION OF THE LOOE KEY MARINE SANCTUARY
APPENDIX A
DRAFT DESIGNATION DOCUMENT
DESIGNATION OF THE LOOE KEY MARINE SANCTUARY
Preamble
Under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, P.L. 92-532, (the Act) the waters at Looe Key are hereby
designated a Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of preserving and protecting
this unique and fragile ecological and recreational resource.
Article 1. Effect of Designation
Within the area designated as the Looe Key Marine Sanctuary (the
Sanctuary), described in Article 2, the Act authorizes the promulgation
of such regulations as are reasonable and necessary to protect the
values of the Sanctuary. Article 4 of the Designation lists those activities
which may require regulation but the listing of any activity does not
by itself prohibit or restrict it. Restrictions or prohibitions may
be accomplished only through regulation and additional activities may
be regulated only by amending Article 4.
Article 2. Description of the Area
The Sanctuary consists of a 5.05 square nautical mile (nmi) area of
the waters located off the coast of Florida 6.7 nmi (12.5 km) southwest
of Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys. The precise boundaries are
defined by regulation.
Article 3. Characteristics of the Area
that Give it Particular Value
The sanctuary area is one of the most diverse and biologically
productive living coral reef communities in the Florida Reef Tract,
supporting representatives of West Indian biota, including an array of
tropical fish species and a well defined classic "spur and groove" reef
system. The Sanctuary will provide recreational experiences and scientific
research opportunities and generally will have special value as an
ecological, recreational, esthetic and educational resource.
Article 4. Scope of Regulation
Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation . In order to protect
the distinctive values of the sanctuary, the following activities may be
regulated within the Sanctuary to the extent necessary to ensure the
protection and preservation of its marine features and the ecological,
recreational, and esthetic value of the area:
a. Coral collecting.
b. Vessel operations.
c. Spearfishing.
d. Wire fish trap fishing.
e. Lobster potting.
f. Bottom trawling and specimen dredging.
g. Discharging or depositing any substance or object.
h. Dredging or alteration of or construction on the seabed.
i. Removing or otherwise harming cultural or historical resources.
Section 2. Consistency with International Law . The regulations
governing the activities listed in Section 1 of this Article will apply
to foreign flag vessels and persons not citizens of the United States
only to the extent consistent with recognized principles of international
law including treaties and international agreements to which the United
States is a party.
Section 3. Erne gency Regulations . Where essential to prevent
immediate, serious and irreversible damage to the ecosystem of the area,
activities other than those listed in Section 1 may be regulated within
the limits of the Act on an emergency basis for an interim period not to
exceed 120 days, during which an appropriate amendment of this Article would
be proposed in accordance with the procedures specified in Article 6.
Article 5. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs
Section 1. Fishing. The regulation of fishing is not authorized under
Article 4 except with respect to the removal or deliberate damage of coral
(paragraph (a)), the use of certain techniques and trawling (paragraphs
(c)-(f))- In addition, fishing vessels may be regulated with respect to
discharges (paragraph) (g)) and anchoring (paragraph (b)). All regulatory
programs pertaining to fishing, including particularly Fishery Management Plans
promulgated under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U. S.C.
1801 et seq. shall remain in effect and all permits, licenses and other
authorizations issued pursuant thereto shall be valid within the Sanctuary
unless authorizing any activity prohibited by any regulation implementing
Article 4.
Section 2. Defense Activities . The regulation of those activities
listed in Article 4 shall not prohibit any activity conducted by the
Department of Defense that is essential for national defense or because
of emergency. Such activities shall be conducted consistently with all
regulations to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 3. Other Programs. All applicable regulatory programs
shall remain in effect and all permits, licenses and other authorizations
issued purusant thereto shall be valid within the Sanctuary unless
authorizing any activity prohibited by any regulation implementing Article
4. The Sanctuary regulations shall set forth any necessary certification
procedures.
A-2
Article 6. Alterations to this Designation
This Designation can be altered only in accordance with the same
procedures by which it has been made, including public hearings, con-
sultation with interested Federal and State agencies and the appropriate
Regional Fishery Management Councils and approval by the President of
the United States.
DRAFT REGULATIONS
PART 937 - THE LOOE KEY MARINE SANCTUARY REGULATIONS
937.1 Authority.
937.2 Purpose.
937.3 Boundaries.
937.4 Definitions.
937.5 Allowed Activities.
937.6 Prohibited Activities.
937.7 Penalties for Commission of Prohibited Acts.
937.8 Certification of Other Permits.
937.9 Appeals of Administrative Action.
937.1 Authority .
The sanctuary has been designated by the Secretary of Commerce
pursuant to the authority of section 302(a) of Title III of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434
(the Act). The following regulations are issued pursuant to the
authorities of sections 302(f), 302(g) and 303 of the Act.
937.2 Purpose .
The purpose of designating the Sanctuary is to protect and preserve
the coral reef ecosystem and other natural resources of the waters at Looe
Key and to ensure the continued availability of the area for public educational
purposes and as an ecological, research and recreational resource. This area
supports a particularly rich and diverse marine biota, including an array of
West Indian species. The area is easily accessible to the lower Florida Keys
and is widely used by boaters, charter boat operators, dive boats, recreational
divers and fishermen. Consequently, both present and potential levels of use
may result in harm to Looe Key in the absence of long term planning, research,
monitoring and adequate protection.
937.3. Boundaries .
The Sanctuary consists of an area of 5.05 square nautical miles of high sea
waters off the coast of lower Florida Keys, 6.7 nautical miles (12.5 km) southwest of
Big Pine Key. The area includes the waters overlaying a section of the submerged
Florida Reef tract at Looe Key.
A-3
937.4 Definitions *
a. "Administrator" means the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
b. "Assistant Administrator" means the Assistant Administrator
for Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
c. "Person" means any private individual, partnership, corporation,
or other entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, agency or
instrumentality of the Federal government, or any State or local unit
of the government.
d. "Tropical fish" means fish of minimal sport and food value, usually
brightly colored, often used for aquaria purposes and which lives in a direct
interrelationship with the corals.
937.5. Allowed Activities .
All activities except those specifically prohibited by section
937.6. may be carried on in the Sanctuary subject to all prohibitions,
restrictions and conditions imposed by any other authority.
937.6. Activities Prohibited Without a Permit.
a. Unless permitted by the Assistant Administrator in accordance with
section 937.8, or as may be necessary for the national defense, in accordance
with Article 5, section 2 of the Designation, or to respond to an emergency
threatening life, property or the environment, the following activities
are prohibited within the Sanctuary. All prohibitions must be applied
consistently with international law.
(1 ) Removing or damaging distinctive natural features
(a) No person shall break, cut or similarly damage, or
take or remove any coral or bottom formation, any marine invertebrates or any
marine plant. Divers are prohibited from handling coral or standing on
coral formations.
(b) No person shall take except incidentally to allowed fishing
activities, any tropical fish.
(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any
items listed in this paragraph found in the possession of a person within
the Sanctuary have been collected or removed from within the Sanctuary.
(2) Operation of watercraft .
All watercraft shall be operated in accordance with Federal
rules and regulations that would apply if there were no sanctuary. The
following constraints also shall be imposed.
A-4
(a) No person shall place any rope, chain, or anchor in
such a way as to injure any coral or other bottom formation anywhere
within the Sanctuary. Anchors shall be dropped on sand flats off the
reefs and placed so as not to drift into the coral formations. When
anchoring dive boats, the first diver down shall inspect the anchor to
ensure that it is placed off the corals and will not shift in such a way
as to damage corals. No further diving is permitted until the anchor is
placed in accordance with these requirements.
(b) Watercraft must use mooring buoys, stations or anchoring
areas when such facilities and areas have been designated and are available.
(c) Watercraft shall not be operated in such a manner as to
strike or otherwise cause damage to the natural features of the Sanctuary.
(d) No watercraft shall be operated at greater than 4 miles
per hour or in such a manner to create a wake within 100 yards of recreational,
sightseeing or fishing boats, with the exception of law enforcement
officials while in the performance of their duties.
(e) All watercraft from which diving operations are being
conducted shall fly in a conspicuous manner, the red and white "divers
down" flag.
(3) Using Harmful Fishing Methods :
(a) No person shall use or place wire fish traps within the sanctuary,
(b) No person shall place lobster traps within the Fore Reef
area of the sanctuary as defined by Loran "C" points 1,2,3,4 of Appendix A.
(c) No person shall use pole spears, Hawaiian slings, rubber-powered
arbaletes, pneumatic and spring loaded guns or similar devices known as
spearguns within the sanctuary.
(d) No person shall use poisons, electric charges, explosives
or similar methods to take any fish, marine animal or plant.
(4) Removing or damaging distinctive historical or cultural resources .
No person shall remove, damage or tamper with any historical or
cultural resource, including cargo, pertaining to submerged wrecks.
(5) Discharges
No person shall deposit or discharge any materials or substances
of any kind except:
(a) Indigenous fish or parts and chumming materials.
(b) Non-polluted cooling water from vessels.
(c) Effluents from marine sanitation devices.
A-5
(6) Markers
(a) No person shall mark, deface or damage in any way or displace,
remove or tamper with any signs, notices, or placards, whether temporary or
permanent, or with any monuments, stakes, posts or other boundary markers
installed by the managers or markers placed for the purpose of lobster
pot fishing.
(b) All activities currently carried out by the Department
of Defense within the Sanctuary are essential for the national defense and,
therefore, not subject to these prohibitions. The exemption of additional
activities having significant impacts shall be determined in consultation
between the Assistant Administrator and the Department of Defense.
(c) The prohibitions in this section are not based on any
claim of territoriality and will be applied to foreign persons and vessels only
in accordance with principles of international law, including treaties,
conventions and other international agreements to which the United States
is signatory.
937.7. Penalties for Commission of Prohibited Acts
Section 303 of the Act authorizes the assessment of a civil
penalty of not more than $50,000 against any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States for each violation of any regulation
issued pursuant to the Act, and further authorizes a proceeding in
rem against any vessel used in violation of any such regulation. Procedures
are outlined in Subpart D of Part 922 (15 CFR Part 922) of this chapter.
Subpart D is applicable to any instance of a violation of these regulations.
937.8. Permit Procedures and Criteria
(a) Any person in possession of a valid permit issued by the
Assistant Administrator in accordance with this section may conduct
any activity in the Sanctuary including marine specimen collection and any
other activity specifically prohibited under section 937.6 provided that
any permit allowing the damaging, taking or removal of coral or historical
or cultural resources shall be granted only if the activity involved
furthers educational or scientific purposes or is related to salvage or
recovery operations.
(b) Permit applications shall be addressed to the Assistant
Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, ATTN: Sanctuary Programs
Office, Division of Operations and Enforcement, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20235. An application shall provide sufficient information to enable
the Assistant Administrator to make the determination called for in
paragraph (c) below and shall include a description of all activities
proposed, the equipment, methods, and personnel (particularly describing
relevant experience) involved, and a timetable for completion of the
proposed activity. Copies of all other required licenses or permits
shall be attached.
A-6
(c) In considering whether to grant a permit the Assistant
Administrator shall evaluate such matters as (1) the general professional
and financial responsibility of the applicant; (2) the appropriateness
of the methods envisioned to the purpose(s) of the activity; (3) the
extent to which the conduct of any permitted activity may diminish or
enhance the value of the Sanctuary as a source of recreation, educational or
scientific information; (4) the end value of the activity and (5) such other
matters as deemed appropriate.
(d) In considering any application submitted pursuant to this Section,
the Assistant Administrator shall seek the view of the Fishery Management
Councils and may seek and consider the views of any person or entity, within
or outside of the Federal Government, and may hold a public hearing, as deemed
appropriate.
(e) The Assistant Administrator, may, in his or her discretion grant
a permit which has been applied for pursuant to this Section, in whole or in
part, and subject to such condition(s) as deemed appropriate. The Assistant
Administrator or a designated representative may observe any permitted activity
and/or require the submission of one or more reports of the status or progress of
such activity. Any information obtained shall be made available to the public.
(f) The permit granted under paragraph (e) may not be transferred.
(g) The Assistant Administrator may amend, suspend or revoke a permit
granted pursuant to this Section, in whole or in part, temporarily or indefinitely,
if the permit holder (the Holder) has acted in violation of the terms of the permit
or of the applicable regulations. Any such action shall be set forth in writing
to the Holder, and shall set forth the reason(s) for the action taken. The Holder
may appeal the action as provided for in 937.10.
937.9. Certifiction of Other Permits
All permits, licenses and other authorizations issued pursuant to any
other authority are hereby certified and shall remain valid if they do not
authorize any activity prohibited by section 937.6. Any interested person may
request that the Assistant Administrator offer an opinion on whether an activity
is prohibited by these regulations.
935.10. Appeals for Administrative Action
(a) Any interested person (the Appellant) may appeal the granting,
denial, or conditioning of any permit under section 937.8 to the Administrator
of NOAA. In order to be considered by the Administrator, such appeal shall be in
writing, shall state the action(s) appealed and the reason(s) therefore and must
be submitted within 30 days of the action(s) by the Assistant Administrator. The
Appellant may request an informal hearing on the appeal.
(b) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this Section, the Administrator
shall notify the permit applicant, if other than the Appellant, and may request
such additional information and in such form as will allow action upon the appeal.
Upon receipt of sufficient information, the Administrator shall decide the appeal
A-7
in accordance with the criteria set in 937.8(c) as appropriate, based upon
information relative to the application on file at OCZM and any additional
information, the summary record kept of any hearing and the Hearing Officer's
recommended decision, if any, as provided in paragraph (c) and such other con-
siderations as deemed appropriate. The Administrator shall notify all interested
persons of the decision, and the reason(s) therefore, in writing, normally within
30 days of the receipt of sufficient information, unless additional time is needed
for hearing.
(c) If a hearing is requested or if the Administrator
determines one is appropriate, the Administrator may grant an informal
hearing before a Hearing Officer designated for that purpose after first
giving notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing in the
Federal Register. Such hearing shall normally be held no later than 30 days
following publication of the notice in the Federal Register unless the
Hearing Officer extends the time for reasons deemed equitable. The Appellant,
the Applicant (if different) and, at the discretion of the Hearing Officer,
other interested persons, may appear personally or by counsel at the
hearing and submit such material and present such arguments as determined
appropriate by the Hearing Officer. Within 30 days of the last day of
the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall recommend in writing a decision
to the Administrator.
(d) The Administrator may adopt the Hearing Officer's
recommended decision, in whole or in part, or may reject or modify it.
In any event, the Administrator shall notify interested persons of the
decision, and reason(s) therefore in writing within 30 days of receipt
of the recommended decision of the Hearing Officer. The Administrator's
action shall constitute final action for the Agency for the purposes of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
(e) Any time limit prescribed in this Section may be
extended for a period not to exceed 30 days by the Administrator for
good cause, either upon his or her own motion or upon written request
from the Appellant or Applicant stating the reason(s) therefore.
A-8
, v B£!?f r« yU-^^ „ /; 26
■>■■■' 25
*— v \ " " 22 ,W* 2B ■■♦»*■• 27
?£)is) , „ 2' -r.^26 . *>
,0 w A"""« 2<. 23
22 22
26 26 27 JN ^
-w^t -
$*^ 25
2i
?e
26 25
"Si ,-> 36
23
3a
19 59'' _-'
-' 3*; «..
25 &>/^ 2 -
»('
32
.••'•" 41 45
gy m ...*** (rtp 4tttro»td)
33
42 <,,
5
5 .4»'"-
' 40 .^ 45
12--J7)
24 ?>r_ 3.
& 27....-^ 2 . ^
20 "
^ 26 (J)
31
33
jo^ 20
to » * 7 H^.r^tf
o,c
3 °^ 34 ->
35 ^^ " - -^'fiFl^
V 26 22
■ ^^ 25
25 n^JV^'T 36 ® SS*U
>l 96 f
1 14 V
iC5
153 >
90
35C
V» »," 144
y
210 -/20« ... y; v "
LORAN-C READINGS
1. NW 7980-W-13973.7, 7980-Y-43532.7
2. SW 7980-W-13975.4, 7980-Y-43532.4
3. NE 7980-W-13975.0, 79 80- Y-4 35 30.1
4. SE 7980-W-13975.4, 7980-Y-43527.7
APPENDIX B SITE ANALYSIS RESEARCH METHODS
APPENDIX B
SITE ANALYSIS RESEARCH METHODS
Next to the ecological complexity of a coral reef, its size poses the
most difficult problem for research. Since coral reefs are usually
much too large to be quantitatively assessed as a whole, a statistically
significant number of samples has to be selected for analysis. This
number has to be high enough to be truly representative for the entire
reef, but small enough to remain manageable. In order to achieve
this goal, a variety of field methods have been developed by
the scientific community. Diverse as they are, they can easily
be divided into two groups, one working with sample-plots, the
other with plotless lines.
The latest synopsis of sample-plot techniques (Stoddart, 1969) lists
over a dozen different methods. They all have in common the establish-
ment of fixed-area, permanent sample plots, inside of which all components
can be measured, mapped, photographed, etc., and the life-history of
their sessile organisms monitored over long periods of time. Dating
back to the beginning of this century, these methods have proved useful
scientifically, but also extremely time-consuming in terms of fieldwork
man-hours. In terrestrial phytosociology, it was finally discovered
(Cottam and Curtis, 1956) that sampling along plotless transect lines
yields no less valuable data, but saves up to 90% of working time.
This discovery was later adopted by some coral reef ecologists,
working on similar problems, but constantly hampered by the inherent
expense of underwater work. Plotless line techniques have been
used successfully for purely scientific purposes by several authors
(e.g. Loya and Slobodkin, 1971; Loya, 1972; Porter, 1972).
For the somewhat different goals of coral reef resource management,
plotless line techniques were recently adapted by Antonius (Antonius,
1974). Using these modified plotless line techniques, sample points
are recorded in evenly spaced intervals (i.e. a random sampling
technique), as opposed to measuring continuously under the transect
line. Because of underwater operating constraints, and the need to
analyze large reef areas with transects in the order of magnitude of
kilometers, sample point intervals of one meter were chosen for the
Looe Key Reef Resource Inventory (Florida Reef Foundation, 1976),
the baseline study used in the Looe Key Environmental Assessment site
analysis.
The Looe Key Resource Inventory, used in the EIA, was directed
towards identifying the main components of the reef ecosystem
in terms of biomass, area coverage, and importance. In the field,
this strategy was manifested in an attempt to accurately sight-
identify dominant reef components.
B-l
Snorkel ing and SCUBA diving techniques were used to visually assess fish
populations at Looe Key. Dives were aimed at covering all
four reef zones as thoroughly as possible without creating any
disturbance. All species were recorded and their relative abundance
noted by direct observation. At the onset of this study, it was
decided that fish-collecting techniques in any form would not be used
to establish the check list or to confirm the identities of any
questionable species. For the scope of this study, the possible
deleterious effects of rotenone use (i.e. poisoning the fish in a given
area for collection and identification) outweighed the advantages of
positive identification of questionable species. Only direct observa-
tions or photodocumentation were used to identify the fish.
Spawning activity was noted by actual observed spawning or by the
presence of demersal egg nests. Coral - fish interactions were
photographed and routinely monitored with particular emphasis placed
on the damselfishes (family Pomacentridae) and their selected coral
species habitat. The different reef zones were analyzed as to the
important species present and comparisons made with similar reefs
in the Key Largo Marine Sanctuary. Night dives were conducted to
account for the cryptic nocturnal species that may not be seen during
the day.
Collecting and laboratory identifying techniques for all species were
minimized, thereby curtailing negative impacts on the reef system
and allowing the project to proceed within its specific time and
funding constraints. Thus, species identifications of some algae,
infrequently observed sponges, octocorals difficult to identify in
the field (e.g. genus Eunicia), rare scleractinians (e.g. genus
Agaricia), a number of small molluscs, as well as some difficult
to observe fishes, have to be considered preliminary at the
present stage.
More extensive collecting and laboratory work in the future would
be highly desirable from a scientific point of view. However, since
all the species in question probably comprise less than one percent
of Looe Key Reef in terms of biomass and organic cover, they should
not be considered especially important for purposes of resource
management.
B-2
Appendix B
SYSTEMATIC LIST OF SPECIES
Thallophyta
Chlorophyta (Green Algae)
Bryopsis pennata v. leprieurii
Caulerpa racemosa v. macrophysa
Caulerpa vickersia
Caulerpa cupressoides
Caulerpa sertularoides f . farlowii
Halimeda opuntia
Halimeda opuntia f . mi nor
Halimeda incrassata
Hali
meda monile
Halimeda tuna
Halimeda discoides
Penicillus capitatus
Penicillus lamourouxii
Rhipocephalus oblongus
Rhipocephalus phoenix f . brevifolius
Udotea flabellum
Udotea sublittoralis
Udotea conglutinata
Cladophora fuliginosa
Anadyomene stellata
Valonia ventricosa
Valonia macrophysa
Acetabularia crenulata
Dasycladus vermicularis
Cladophoropsis macromeres
Cladophoropsis membranacea
Batophora oerstedii
Neomersis annulata
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
Phaeophyta (Brown Algae)
Stypopodium zonale
Dictyota dichotoma
B-3
Piety ota bartay res i i
Dictyota divaricata
Padina sanctae-crucis
Sargassum polyceratium
Rhodophyta (Red Algae)
Li agora ceranoides
Li agora pedicel lata
Peysonellia spp .
Melobesia membranaces
Goniolithon spp .
Lithothamnium incertum
Lithothamnium spp *
Amphiroa fragilissima
Amph i roa rigida v. antillana
Ceramium spp .
Spyridia filamentosa
Spyridia aculeata v. hypneoides
Chondria cnicophylla ~
Pi gen i a simplex
Lithophyllum spp .
Laurencia intricata
Laurenci
a obtusa
Laurencia coral lopsis
Laurencia papillosa
Wrangelia sp .
Polysiphonia spp .
Spermatophyta
Angiospermae - Halophyta (Sea Grasses)
Syri ngodi urn f i 1 i forme (Manatee Grass)
Thalassia testudinum (Turtle Grass)
Porifera (Sponges)
Calcisponges
Leucetta floridana
B-4
Demosponges - Keratosa
Haplosclerina
Poecilosclerina
Oligoceras hemorrhages
Ianthella ardis
Ircinia fascicularis (Stinker Sponge)
Ircinia campana (Vase Sponge)
Ircinia strobilina (Cake Sponge)
Dysidea etheria "(Heavenly Sponge)
Aplysilla sulfurea
Verongia fistularis (Candle Sponge)
Verongia longissima (Branching Candle Sponge)
Hippospongia lachne (Sheepswool Sponge)
Spongia obliqua (Cuban Reef Sponge)
Dasychalina cyathina (Vase Sponge)
Neopetrosia longleyi (Sprawling Sponge)
Xestospongia muta (Barrel Sponge)
Hal iclona rubens (Red Sponge)
Hali
Hali
Hali
dona viridis (Green Sponge)
clona variabilis
dona pernio! 1 i s
Hal iclona subtriangularis
Callyspongia vanalis (Tube Sponge)
Callyspongia plicifera (Tube Sponge)
Iotrochota birotulata (Purple Bleeding Sponge)
Fibulia nolitangere (Do-not-touch-me Sponge_
Halichondria melandocia
Adocia neens
Tedania ignis (Fire Sponge)
Lissodendoryx isodictyal is
Xytopsues griseus
Agelas sparsus
B-5
Hadromerina
Epipolasida
Choristida
Carnosa
Aulospongus schoenus
Mycale angulosa
Homaxinella rudis
Higginsia strigilata
Cliona caribboea
Cliona Tampa [Foring Sponge)
Spheciospongia vesparia (Loggerhead Sponge)
Tethya diploderma (Golf Ball Sponge)
Cinachyra cavernosa
Geodia gibberosa (White Sponge)
Chondrilla nucula (Chicken Liver
Sponge)
Coelenterata
Hydrozoa - Athecata - Milleporina (Hydrocorals)
Millepora a! ci corn is
Millepora complanata
Millepora squarrosa
)
) (Fire Coral)
)
B-6
Anthozoa - Hexacorallia
Act ini aria (Sea Anemones)
Actinia bermudensis
Condylactis gigantea
Bunodosoma cavernata
Phymantis crucifer
Lebrunia danae
Bartholomea annulata
Call i act is tricolor
Stoi enact is helianthus
Zoantharia (Mat Anemones)
Zoanthus sociatu s
Zoanthus pulchellus
Palythoa mammillosa
Coral 1 imorpharia (False Corals)
Ricordia florida
Rhodactis sanctithomae
Scleractinia (Reef Corals)
Stephanocenia intersepta (Blushing
Star Coral )
Madracis decactis (Cactus Coral )
Madracis mirabil is ) (Pencil Corals)
Madracis asperula )
Acropora palmata (Elkhorn Coral)
Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn Coral )
Acropora pro! if era (Fused Staghorn
Coral )
Agaricia agaricites
f . agaricites
f . danai
f. carinata
f . purpurea
f. humilis
(Leaf Corals)
B-7
Agaricia tenui folia
Agaricia undata
Agaricia lamarcki
Agaricia grahamae
Agaricia fragilis
Helioseris cucullata
Siderastrea siderea
Siderastrea radians
Porites astreoides
Porites porites
Porites divaricata
Porites furcata
Favia fragum
(Leaf Corals)
(Sancer Corals)
(Star Corals)
(Mustard Hill oral)
(Finger Corals)
(Golf ball Coral)
Diploria clivosa
Diploria labyrinthiformis (Brain Corals)
Diploria strigosa
Manicina areolata
Colpophyllia natans
Montastrea annularis
Montastrea cavernosa
Solenastrea hyades
Solenastrea bournoni
(Rose Coral)
(Brain Coral)
(Star Corals)
Oculina diffusa
Oculina varicosa (Ivory Bush Corals)
Meandrina meandrites (Brain Coral)
Dichocoenia stokesi
Dichocoenia stellaris
(Star Corals)
Dendrogyra cylindru s (Pil lar Coral )
Mussa angulosa (Flower Coral)
Scolymia lacera (Disc Coral)
Isophyllia sinuosa (Cactus Coral)
Isophyllastrea rigida (Rough Star Coral)
Mycetophyllia lamarcki ana
Mycetophyllia danaana
Mycetophyllia ferox (Fungus Corals)
Mycetophyllia aliciae
B-8
Octocorall ia
Eusmilia fastigiata
Sphenotrochus auritus
Tubastrea aurea
(Flower Coral )
Scleraxonia (Octocorals)
Briareum asbestinum (Corky Sea Fingers)
Iciligorgia schrammi (Deepwater Sea Fan)
Erythropodium caribaeorum
Holaxonia
Plexaura homomalla
Plexaura flexuosa
Plexaura wagenaari
Eun icea asperula
Euni
Euni
Euni
Euni
Euni
Euni
cea fusca
cea mammosa
cea succinea
cea laciniata
cea tourneforti
(Sea Whips)
cea calyculata
Muriceopsis flavida
Plexaurella dichotoma
Plexaurella nutans
Plexaurella grisea
Plexaurella f us if era
Muricea muricata
Muricea atlantica
Muricea elongata
Pseudopterogorgia bipinnata
Pseudopterogorgia acerosa " (Sea Feathers)
Pseudopterogorgia americana
Gorgonia vental ina (Sea Fan)
Pterogorgia citrina
Pterogorgia anceps (Triangular Sea Band)
Pterogorgia guadeTupensis (Flat Sea Band)
Ell i sella barbadensis [Sea Wire)
Annelida
Polychaeta
Amphinomidae
Hermodice carunculata (Fire or Bristleworm)
Sabell idae
B-9
Arthropoda
Crustacea - Decapoda
Sabella melanostigma (Banded Feather Duster)
Serpul idae
Spirobranchus giganteus (Horned
Feather Worm)
Pomatostegus stellatus (Star Feather
Worm)
Stenopodidea
Stenopus hispidus (Banded Coral Shrimp)
Caridea
Periclimenes petersoni
Periclimenes yucatanicus (Cleaning Shrimp)
Astacidea
Palinurus argus (Spiny Lobster)
Palinurus guttatus (Spotted Crawfish)
Anomura
Ranilia muricata
Brachyura (Crabs)
Callapa gallus (Yellow Box Crab)
Portunus spinimanus (Spiny-Handed
Portunus)
Carpi lius coral! inus (Coral Crab)
Gyptoxanthus erosus (Eroded Reef
Crab)
Leptodius floridanus (Florida
Leptodius)
Percnon gibbesi (Spray Crab)
Stenorhynchus seticqrnis (Arrow Crab)
Mithrax verrucosus (Granulated Spider
Crab)
Mithrax hispidus
Mithrax sculptus (Spider Crab)
B-10
Stomatopoda
Pitho anisodan
Macrocoeloma trispinosum
Squill idae
Pseudosquilla ciliata (False Mantis
Shrimp)
Mollusca
Amphineura - Chitonida
Gastropoda - Prosobranchia -
Chaetopleura apiculata (Bee Chiton)
Isnochiton floridanus (Slender Chiton)
Archaeogastropoda (Sea Snails)
Hemitonia octoradiata (Eight-Ribbed
Limpet)
Diodora listen'
Diodora cayenensis
Diodora dyson i
Diodora minuta
Diodora jaumei
(Keyhole Limpets)
Luc a pi
Lucapi
Lucapi
Lucapi
nella limatula
na suffusa
na sowerbii
na philippiana
(Key hold Limpets)
Lucapi na aegi s
Limula frenulata
Limula pycnonema
Fissurella barbadensis
Fissurella angustata
Acmaea pustulata (Spotted Limpet)
Tegula lividomaculata
Tegula hotessieriana (Top Shells)
Calliostoma jayanicum
Calliostoma jubibum
Turbo canaliculatus (Channeled Turban)
Astraea caelata
Astraea tuber (Star Shells)
B-ll
(Risso Shells)
Astrae phoebia
Astrae tecta
Rissoina bryerea
Rissoina cancellata
Caecum floridanum
Caecum pulchellum (Caecum Shells)
Cerithium biminiense
Cerithium guinaicum (Horn Shells)
Seila adamsi (Screw Shell)
Tri
Tri
Tri
phora turris-thomae
phora nigrocincta
phora pulchella " (Tri phora Shells)
Tri phora decorata
Epitonium lamellosum (Wentletrap)
Cheilea equestris (Fa 1 se Li mpet )
Crepidula plana (Slipper Shell )
Strombus gigas (Queen Conch)
Strombus pugilis (Fighting Conch)
Strombus raninus (Hawk Wing Conch)
Erata maugeriae (Erata Shell)
Trivia pediculus
Trivia quadripunctata
Trivia suffusa
(Trivia Shells)
Cyprea zebra
Cyprea cinerea
Cyprea spurca (Cowries)
Cyprea cervus
Cyphoma gibbosum
Cyphoma macgintyi
(Flamingo Tongue)
Polyneces lacteus (Moon Shell)
Morum oniscus (Wood Louse)
Phal ium granulatum (Scotch Bonnet)
Cassis madagascariensis (Helmit Shell)
Cypraecassis testiculus (Baby Bonnet)
Charonia variegata (Trumpet Shell)
Cymat i urn nicobaricum
Cymatium pi lea re ~~ {"Triton)
Cymat ium vespaceum
B-12
Opisthobranchia
Pelecypoda
Bursa thomae (Frog Shell)
Tonna maculosa (Tun Shell)
Neogastropoda
Morula nodulosa
Favartia cellulosa
Favartia alveata
Thais deltoidea (Rock Shell)
Coralliophila abbreviata
Coral liophi la caribaea (Coral Snail)
Col umbel la mercatoria
Col umbel! a rusticoides (Dove Shells)
Nassarinar monilifera
Bailya pava
Bailya intricata (Baily Shells)
Engina turbinella
Pisania pusio
Pisania auntula (Pisa Shells)
Pisania tincta
Latirus infundibulum
Leucozonia nassa TLatirus Shells)
Vasum muricatum (Vase Shell)
Jaspidella jaspidea (Dwarf Olive)
Mitra nodulosa "TMiter Shells)
Mitra albocincta
Pusia gemmata
Marginella aureacincta
Marginella lavalleeana (Marginella)
Conus regiu s
Conus mus
Conus jaspideus (Cone Shells)
Conus juliae
Daphne! la lymeiformis (Turret Shell)
Tecti branch i a
Acteocina candei
Pleurobranchus aerolatus (Sea Slug)
Sacoglossa
Tridachia crispata (Sea Slug)
Fi 1 i branch i a (Sea Shells)
B-13
Cephalopoda
Area imbricata
Barbatia Candida
Barbatia cancel! aria (Ark Shells)
Acropsis adamsi
Anadara notabilis
Modiolus americanus
Brachiodontes exustus
Lioberus castaneus nigra (Mussels)
Lithophaga bi sulcata
Lithophaga aristata
Isogonomon radiatus
PinctadaTadiata (Oysters)
Atrina rigida [Pen Shell)
Chlamys sentis
Chlamys imbricata (Scallops)
Plicatula spondyl'oidea (Cat's Paw)
Lima scabra
Lima pellucida (File Shells)
Eulamellibranchia
Lucina pectinatus (Jamaica Lucine)
Codakia orbicularis (White Lucine)
Chama congregata
Chama sinosa (Jewel Box Shells)
Chama florida
Pseudochama radians
Trachycardium isocardia (Prickly Cockle)
Chi one intapurpurea [Mottled Chione)
Tel 1 i na laevigata
Arcopagia fausta (Tel lin Shells)
Corbula swiftiana (Basket Clam)
Octopoda
Octopus briareus (Common Reef Octopus)
Octopus vulgaris (Common Octupus)
Teuthoidea
Sepioteuthis sepioidea (Reef Squid)
B-14
Echinodermata
Echinoidea (Sea Urchins)
Eucidaris tribuloides (Slate-pencil
Urchin)
Diadema antillarum (Long-spined
Urchin) "
Lytechinus variegatus (Variegated
Urchin)
Tripneustes ventricosus (Sea Egg)
Echinometra lucunter (Rock-bori ng
Urchin)
Echinometra viridis (Green Rock-boring
Urchin)
Clypeaster rosaceus (Brown Sea Biscuit)
Clypeaster subdepressus (Sand Dollar)
Encope michelini (Notched Sand
Dollar)
Echinoneus cyclostomus (Reef
Echinonens)
Meoma ventricosa (West Indian Sea
Biscuit)
Plagiobrissus grandis (Long-spined
Sea Biscuit)
Asteroidea (Starfish)
Oreaster reticularis (Cushion Star)
Ophidi aster guildingi (Guil ding's
Star)
Echinaster sentus (Thorny Starfish)
Ophiuroidea (Brittle Stars)
Ophiomyxa flaccida (Slimy Brittle
Star)
Astrophyton muricatum (Basket Starfish)
Ophiothrix oerstedii (Oersted's
Brittle Star)
Ophiocoma echinata (Spiny Ophiocoma)
Ophiocoma riisei (Common Ophiocoma)
Ophiocoma wendti (Red Brittle Star)
Ophioderma appressum (Harlequin
B-15
Chordata
Vertebrata
Pisces
Brittle Star)
Ophioderma brevispinum (Short-spined
Brittle Star)
Ophiolepis elegans (Elegant Brittle
Star)
Holothuroidea (Sea Cucumbers)
Holothuria floridana (Florida Sea
Cucumber)
Actinopyga agassizi (Agassiz 1 Sea
Cucumber)
Euapta lappa (Sticky-skinned Sea
Cucumber)
Tunicata - Ascidiacea
Didemnumcandium (White Sponge
Tunicate)
Clavelina pi eta (Painted Tunicate)
Ascidia nigra (Black Tunicate)
Bothryllus planus (Flat Tunicate)
Amaroucium stellatum (Starred
Tunicate)
Polycarpa obtecta (Incrusted
Tunicate) "
Chondrichthyes
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus obsc urus
(Great Hammerhead)
Sphyrna makarran
Dasyatis americana
Stingray)
Urolophus jamaicensis
Stingray) "
Aeobatus narinari
Osteichthyes
(Southern
(Yellow-Spotted
B-16
Megalops atlantica (Tarpon)
Harengula humeralTs (Red-Ear Sardine)
Harengula pensacolae
Sardinella anchovia
Sy nodus foetens
Synodus intermedius (Sand Diver)
Enchelycore nigricans (Viper Moray)
Enchelycore sp .
Gymnothorax funebris (Green Moray)
Gymnothorax moringa (Spotted Moray)
Gymnothorax vicinus (Purplemouth
Moray)
Muraena miliaris (Goldentail Moray)
Stronglure notata
Tylosurus crocodilus (Houndfish)
Hemiramphus balaa
Hemi ramphus brasi liens is (Ballyhoo)
Hyperhamphus unifasciatus
Aulostomus maculatus [Trumpet fish)
Fistularia tabacaria (Cornetfish)
Micrognathus crinigerus
Micrognathus crinitus
Adioryx vexillarius (Dusky Squirrel-
fish)
Holocentrus ascensionis
Holocentrus rufus (Squirrel fish)
Myri prist is jacobus (Blackbar
Soldi erf ish)
Centropomus unidecimalis (Snook)
Cephalopholis fulva (Coney)
Pi plectrum formosum
Epinephelus adscensionis (Rock Hind)
Epinephelus guttatus (Red Hind)
Epinephelus morio (Red Grouper)
Epinephelus striatus (Nassau Grouper)
Hypopjectrus gemma
Hypoplectrus pueTTa (Barred Helmet)
Hypoplectrus unicolor (Butter Helmet)
Mycteroperca bonaci (Black Grouper)
Mycteroperca microlepsis (Gag)
Mycteroperca phenax (Scamp)
Mycteroperca tigris
Mycteroperca venenosa (Yellovffin)
Petrometopon cruentatum (Graysby)
Serranus tabacarius (Tobacco Fish)
B-17
Serranus tigrinus (Harlequin Bass)
Rypticus saponaceus (Soapfish[
Rypticus subbifrenatus
Ambiycirrhitus pinos (Red Spotted
Hawkfish)
Lutjanus anal is (Mutton Snapper)
Lutjanus apodus (Schoolmaster)
Lutjanus griseus (Gray Snapper)
Lutjanus jocu (Dog Snapper)
Lutjanus mahogoni (Mahogany)
Lutjanus synagris (Lane)
Ocyurus chrysurus (Yellowfish
Snapper)
Priacanthus cruentatus (Glasseye)
Apogon binotatus (Barred Cardinalfish)
Apogon maculatus (Flamefish)
Apogon planifrons
Apogon townsendi
Astrapogon punticulatus
Malacanthus plumieri (Sand Tilefish)
Cranax bartholomaei
Cranax fusus
Cranax hippos
Cranax latu s
Cranax ruber
Elagatis bipinnulatus
Seriola dumerili [Greater Amberjack)
Trachinotus falcatus (Permit)
Eucinostomus argenteus
Gerres cinereus (Yellowfish Mojarra)
Anisotremus surinamensis (Black
Margate)
Anisotrems virginicus (Porkfish)
Haemulon album (Margate)
Haemulon aurolineatum (Tomtate)
Haemulon carbonari urn (Caesar Grunt)
Haemulon chrysargyreum
Haemulon fl a vol i neat urn (French Grunt)
Haemulon macrostomum (Spanish Grunt)
Haemulon melanurum (Cottonwick)
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri (White Grunt)
Haemulon sclurus (Bluestriped Grunt)
Haemulon striatum
Equetus acuminatus (Cubbyu)
Equetus punctatus (Spotted Drum)
B-18
Odontoscion dentex (Reef Croaker)
Mull oid ichthys martinicus (Yellow
Goatfish)
Pseudupeneus maculatus (Spotted
Goatfish)
Calamus bajonada (Jolthead Porgy)
Calamus c alamus (Saucereye Porgy)
Calamus nodosus (Knobbed Porgy)
Calamus proridens (Littlehead)
Pempheris schomburgki (Copper Sweeper)
Kyphosis incisor (Yellow Chub)
Kyphosis sectatrix (Bermuda Chub)
Chaetodipterus faber (Spadefish)
Chaetodon capi stratus (Foureye
Butterflyfish)
Chaetodon ocellatus (Spotfin Butter-
flyfish)
Chaetodon sedentatius (Reef Butterf ly-
fTih]
Chaetodon striatus (Banded Butterfly-
fish)
Holocanthus ciliaris (Queen Angelfish)
Holocanthus' isabelita (Blue Angelfish)
Holocanthus tricolor (Rock Beauty)
Pomacanthus arcuatus (Gray Angelfish)
Pomacanthus paru (French Angelfish)
Abudefduf saxat ilis (Sergeant Major)
Chromis cyanea (Blue Chromis)
Chromis insolatus
Chromi
s multilineata (Yellow-Edge
Chromis)
Chromis scotti
Eupomacentrus
Eupomacentrus
Gregory
Eupomacentrus mellis
Eupomacentrus
Damsel fish)
Eupomacentrus
Damselfish)
Eupomacentrus variabilis
Damselfish)
Microspathodon chrysurus
Damselfish)
fuscus (Dusky Damselfish)
leucostictus (Beau
parti tus (Bicolor
planifrons (Yellow
(Cocoa
(Yellowtail
Bodianus pulchellus (Spotfin Hogfish)
Bodianus ruf us (Spanish Hogfish)
B-19
Clepticus parrai (Creole Wrasse)
Doratonotus megalepis
Halicoeres bivittatus (Slippery
Dick)
Halichoeres cyanocephalus
Halichoeres garnoti (Yellowhead
Wrasse)
Halichoeres maculi pinna (Clown
Wrasse)
Halichoeres pictus
Halichoeres radiatus (Pudding Wife)
Hemipteronotus martini censis
Henri pteronotus novacula
Hemipteronotus splendens (Green
Razorfish) ~
Lachnolaimus maximum (Hogfish)
Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bluehead)
Nicholsina usta
Scarus coelestinus (Midnight
Parrot fish)
Scarus coeruleus (Blue Parrotfish)
Scarus croi censis
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus taeniopterus (Princess
Parrotfish)
Scarus vetula (Queen Parrotfish)
Sparisoma aurofrenatum (Redband
Par rot fish] -
Sparisoma chrysopterum (Redtail Parrot-
fishT
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma viride (Stoplight Parrot-
fish)
Acanthurus bahianus (Ocean Surgeon)
Acanthuru? chirurgus (Doctorfish)
Acanthurus coeruleus (Blue Tang)
Scomberomorus cavalla
Scomberomorus maculatus
Scomberomorus regal is fCero Mackerel )
Barbulifer ceuthoecus
CoryphopTerus eidolon
Coryphoterus glaucofraenum
Coryphopterus 1 i pernes
Coryphopterus personatus
Coryphoterus punctipectorphorus
Elactinus oceanops
B-20
Gramannia macrodon
Lythrypnus phorellus
Lythrypnus spilus
Scorpaena plumieri
Opistognathus aurifrons (Yellowhead
Jawfish)
Opistognathus whitehursti
Acanthemblemaria aspera
Enneanectes pectoral is
Labrisomus kal isherae
Malacoctenus macropus
Paraclinus fasciatus
Entomacrodus textilus
Ophioblennius atlanticus (Redlip
Blenny)
Sphyraena barracuda (Great Barracuda)
Echeneis naucrates
Alutera schoepfi (Orange Filefish)
Alutera scripta (Scrawled Filefish)
Balistes capriscus (Gray Triggerfish)
Cantherines pullu?
Canthi dermis sufflamen (Ocean Trigger-
TTsh)
Acanthostracion quadricornis (Scrawled
Cowfish)
Lactophrys bicaudalis (Spotted Trunk-
fTTn)
Lactophrys triqueter (Smooth Trunkfish)
Canthi gaster rostata (Sharpnose Puffe£)
Diodon holocanthus (Spiny Puffer)
Diodon hystrix (Porcu pi nef i s h )
B-21
APPENDIX C LOOE KEY ON SITE SURVEY
Appendix C
LOOE KEY ON SITE SURVEY
A. Methodology
In order to assess the costs and benefits of the various regulatory and
boundary alternatives considered in the EIA to the major user groups at Looe
Key, the following steps were taken to: (1) identify the major user groups,
including commercial fishermen, commercial recreational businesses, tropical
fish collectors and individual recreational snorkelers, divers, fishermen and
others who use the Looe Key coral reef area, (2) review the literature to
determine the characteristics of these groups and the likely extent of their
activity at Looe Key, (3) measure the income directly generated by the users
of Looe Key through the use on on site surveys, (4) measure the indirect effects
of the income generated by activity through regional multipliers, (5) examine
the existing and predicted socio-economic circumstances of the Lower Keys, and
(6) evaluate the results of the surveys and the on site information in an
overall economic and demographic context.
All income and catch information from commercial fishermen and income
from commercial recreational businesses of Looe Key were only available at the
County or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area level. To obtain a more
accurate socio-economic picture of the Looe Key area t it was necessary to go
beyond published sources and conduct on on site survey.
Using published literature on the user groups and the expertise of Fisheries
Economists from the University of Florida, questionnaries were designed for
each of the major user groups, with the exception of the individual recreational
users who were too numerous and scattered to interview and count.
Local organizations and key individuals were contacted in an effort to
locate as many of the actual users as possible.
Finally, to get a broad picture of the stream of expenditures of such
diverse, and diffuse user groups, regional multiplier were used, in accordance
with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis methodology.
The recreational value of the reef was determined by estimating the volume
(people) of reef use from information provided by the survey, and the fair market
cost of such activity. These estimates were checked against other data sources
and found to be consistent. Although not often used, this method of valuation
of recreational activities is well established (Krutilla, 1975).
Personal interviews were conducted in mid-October with users most likely
to be affected by the designation of Looe Key as a marine sanctuary.
C-l
The survey questionnaires v/ere distributed to commercial fisherman,
commercial recreational enterprises, fish houses and tropical fish collec-
tors who could be expected, judging from other studies and surveys, to
depend on Looe Key for part of their livelihood. Commercial fisherman
and businesses which provide recreational services, such as dive boat
shops and marinas, were the main businesses surveyed.
Twenty-five questionnaires, dealing with their 1978 catch, were
completed by commercial fishing businesses. This number represents 2.6
percent of fishermen/ boats in Monroe County estimated to be commercially
active in 1977-1978 (see Mathis et al , 1979 p. 15), and represented an
important portion of those active in the area under consideration. One
major tropical fish collector and one fish house responded, as well as
two out of six dive shops and charter boats, one marina and a boat rental
and camping gear business.
The survey questionnaires were designed to obtain (1) a fair sample
from which to derive information on the total population user group in
the Looe Key area, (2) information on businesses' total income generated
by the Looe Key area, (3) information on other potential sources of
income to users, such as fishing or recreational diving areas other than
the area directly around Looe Key reef.
The Looe Key reef itself was part of a 4.9 square mile area in the
survey that contained the five zones of the Looe Key ecological system
and coincided with the intermediate sized proposed danctuary option
(Boundary Option #2).
While proposed sanctuary boundary alternatives range from 1 square
mile (#1) to 10 square miles (#3), this intermediate size provided a
good basis for analysis.
The year 1978 was selected as the sample year. Although new fishermen
and dive shops have entered the area since then, county and state data
are only available for 1978. Thus, to provide a statistical check, 1978
was used.
B. Looe Key Reef Area Sample Survey Results
1. Commercial Fishermen.
Twenty-five commercial fishermen (boats) in the vicinity of Looe Key were
surveyed, living between SevenMile Bridge in the north and Saddlebunch Keys in
the south. The major keys included in the survey were Bahia Honda Key, Big
Pine Key Summerland Key, Cud joe and Ramrod Keys.
A previous survey by the University of Florida in 1978 indicated that 48
percent of Monroe County fishermen lived within one mile of their fishing ports
and roughly 64 percent lived within three miles. (Boat and fisherman travel
information, Matis et al , 1978, p. 19).
C-2
It was expected that the most active fishermen in Looe Key v/ere those
closest to it. Using average marine travel data (Mathis et al , 1979) as
a base, it was decided that an area with a 15 mile radius would be adequate
to obtain an accurate statistical sample for measuring total commercial
fish catch value at Looe Key. In the course of the survey, the coice of
the sample survey area seemed validated. At the fringes of the area,
some commercial fishermen, dive shops and others reported little or no
activity connected with Looe Key.
The twenty-five fishermen in the survey all owned their own boats,
averaging 33 feet in length. The average fisherman had spent 10.32 years in
the business and had been fishing in the Looe Key 5 nmi zone for 7.6 years.
They employed a total of 36 crew (34 non-family). The average weekly wage for
these crewmen was $195.95 per week and they worked an average of 41.5 weeks per
year. Total year]y payroll, not including family members, was $276,499,56 or
$8,132,34 per employee, which was lower than the county average for private
non-farm wage earners.
Fish catches vary seasonally in the Looe Key area. From February to late
July, before the start of the lobster season, the fishermen depended mostly on
yellowtail, mangrove and mutton snapper, and grouper. In the fall and early
winter, they caught mainly lobster with little reported snapper or mackerel.
Spanish, cero and king mackerel began to plan a major role in the catch in
December and continued to March.
The most productive fishing areas reported v/ere those between and includ-
ing Looe Key Reef and Big Pine Shoal, the area surrounding American Shoal areas
in Hawk Channel off Sugar Loaf Key and Cud joe Key.
Most of the boats fished for more than one species, using a combination
of methods, such as hook and line part of the year and trapping during
the lobster season. Trapping for lobster, crab and fish amounted to
57.7 percent, 24.9 percent used hook and line, and 17.4 used nets.
(Table 2) Based on survey tabulations, commercial fishermen did not
all depend on Boundary Option #2 exclusively. Of the 597,356 lbs. caught
in the total area in and around Looe Key, 167,970 lbs. were landed in
the 5 mile area encompassing Looe Key. Most boats seem to fish the Looe
Key 5 nmi zone only part of the time, since the desired species migrate
both seasonally in and adjacent to Looe Key and throughout the entire reef
tract. (Table 1)
This sample of 25 boats is roughly one-fourth of the estimated boats (100)
that could be affected by the Looe Key Sanctuary proposal, according to the
consensus of leading fishermen in the area. In order to obtain the total
estimated catch value of the Looe Key area, it was necessary to get an average
income per boat from the sample survey and multiply it by the total estimated
100 commercial fishing boats.
C-3
CM
, —
LO
o
LO IT)
o o c o
lo
=tfc ^>s
03
CM
ir>
O CO
«sj- 00 LO
LO
00
to
■•->
LO
«3-
CTi <—
CM LO
CO
LO
CO
C X3
o
m
#H
•* ri
A «l
#»
a
#1
O (A C
1—
r^.
CO
LO *3"
CO «*
*3-
LO
o
•1- •!- 3
r~*
r— r—
i— CO
LO
CVJ
4J 1/1 O
CM
«3-
Q- >>Q-
O i—
s_
03 1
CD
r^ c
Q.
S- <£ 03
Q. >>
fO 4->
fO 03
S-
"O CH 03
C $-
CL)
C C Q
CO CD
Cl
3 •!-
CL
o -o >>
i— oS
S-
03
CQ C
03 CU
Q-CO
r—
CU _J S-
to
J-
%l
CL
S-
CU
■O =3
CD
QJ
03
C CU
t-
•r- oo
•r—
•»->
o $-
c
o a.
cu
&-
_i
V)
U
t/> J3
i— cnco
+-> 3
j*:
cu
CD
.O
03
r— C
+J o
(J
-C
h-
3
Q.
O
i-
0J 03
3 fc.
03
■»->
o
o
co
_J
o
>• s:
s: CD 5: o
1—
to
1 —
o o
o o
o o o
O
o
•r—
03
O LO
CO 00
lo cm cr>
O
r^
to
■»->
o a>
CO o
LO
r—
LO
CM
CTi
>>
O
#t
A W\
•*
a
#1
A
«t
h-
CO
Cn 00
LO to 00
i— r
r-v
03
LO
r— r—
n—
CM
CM
vo
C ^-x
r^
«=C to
■a
to c
^~
en 3
c o
CU
•r- D_
r—
-o
as
C |
03
(a
I—
_J «3
+->
o
C\J 03
s-
=tfc Q
CU
CL
X
■1—
c >>
Q- >>
■a
O CU
03 03
J-
c
•r- >
C i.
CU
&
4-> t-
CO CD
CL
a. 3
Q.
CL
O CO
i— ©3
s_
03
«c
**—*
•r—
CU
c
>>
3
J*:
cu
3
CU
-Q 03
i— c
■»->
O
o
^r
I—
o
CL
o s-
CU 03
3
i-
03
+j
o
CO
CO
_l o
>- s:
SUEO
i—
to
>»—
i — to
03 -O
C C
_l 03
Q
03
CU >>
i- CU
< >
i— 3
03 CO
03
LO O LO LO
wocow
LO ">T CM CM
o o o o
CT> O *^- LO
NIVLf) CO
O
#1 #N #» #\
#* 0S •» w
h-
LO ^ LO CM
CO CO CO
CO
CO O CO ^o
CO LO 00
s-
CD
Q.
Cl>->
03 03
c s_
CO CD
i— oC
•^
03 (U
00
s_
^s
QJ
CU
•1—
+->
O t-
u
(/>
JD
i— C7)
CU
as
03
i — c
a.
o
J-
CU 03
CO
_l
CJ) >- S
i_
CU
a.
q.
03
cu co r-
CL i- CU
CL c cu t-
03 O CL CU l-
C -t-> 3 -^ CU
co +j o o or
3 S- 03 4->
s: o S o
C-4
Thus, using average 1978 Monroe County dockside prices, computed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the reported 1978 catch in Boundary
Option #2 was 28% and worth $755,690 or $7,556.90 or $7,556.90/ per
boat/per year. Based on information on total landings (100%) in the
area, boats could be expected to earn approximately $27,000, average
annual income. (Table 2) (Table 3)
Of the $755,690 earned in Boundary Option #2, 61.7 percent came from
lobster trapping, 14.5 percent from wire fish trapping, 17.7 percent
from hook and line fishing, 5.6 percent from netting and 5 percent from
trapping stone crab.
These fishermen, however, do more than just sell fish. They buy food,
gasoline, supplies for their boats. Their activities generate other
activities. The income generation process is usually called the multiplier
process. Each initial increase in income (in this case, sales of fish)
will magnify itself throughout the economy and the final increase will
be a number of times greater than the initial increase. The gross output
regional multiplier for forestry and fish products in the Miami Economic
Area of the Bureau of Economic Analysis is 1.914. (BEA, Regional Economic
Analysis Division, USDC, 1977). No forestry occurs in this region so this
multiplier should be fairly accurate for fishing. This regional multiplier
indicates the "regional" impact of the sales of fish. The impact after
the fish have been moved from the area for distribution, etc., is not
counted. The total economic impact of the fish at final sales will be
greater than 1.914. However, not all this impact is felt in the area of
catch, thus the regional multiplier should be appropriate. Using the
economic value of the commercial fishing in Boundary Option #2, the
economic effect of the fishing effort there, using the regional multiplier
is $1,445,390.
b. Commercial Recreational and Educational Businesses
The questionnaires to gather information about this group went largely
unanswered because of the low response rate, only revenue from the commercial
dive boat operations were calculated in the economic study.
Revenue from dive boat trips generated by dive charter boats was estimated
from the survey to be $250,000 and appears to be the major income outside of
commercial fishing in the Looe Key area. Other income producing businesses such
as marinas and fishing lodges rent boats and equipment.
C-5
.— ,
^~
«o
4->
O
r _
+->
*
©"-*
©--*
O*-^
o--^
o*-*
O*—
o in
CM i—
<— CO
in**
CM 00
o tn
O CM
CM 1^
p^ •
C\J •
o •
o •
f"». •
p— •
CM •
CO •
o o
•>lO
•» vo
• cy>
•>^"
• o
*o
* (■—
a r—
tO«— '
f— ++m**
f" ^M^
tO»_*
«a-^-'
p™ k^**
to to
Os^-'
*d-
m
P»»
CO
tO*-*
P*»
«5f
■t*>
©
to
C3
_J CM^-*
to
U- Z S-
o o «o
UJ h- i— o
© CL O -*=
_l O O +->
< cu
>>-COZ
cm r^
o < CT>
LU o i—
< =>
s: o
cn|
o
o
UJ
o
CVJ
z
CO
CO
©
A
A
z
to
o
00
CNJ
A
CO
CO
z
o
o
o
in
to
• I
O
o
o
o
o
^*
o>
r»*
o
to
«a-
in
r—
to
CVJ
*
A
A
A
in
CO
r^
CTl
««fr
00
Uf)
CO
p—
p*"
o
o
o
o
©
o
o
UJ
o
o
CM
00
CO
o
z
o
o
CO
r-.
^
00
o
p—
CO
A
M
m
0t
z
A
to
c*
to
CM
**■
to
CO
m
O-
o
O
o
r>.
CM
in
*r
CM
CM
•
•
•
00
«3-
*3-
to
CM
«tf-
*
m
*
r*.
to
cr>
©
o>
r»»
I*-
o
to
^
$-
(U
CL
Q.
' fc.
«o
CD
to
c«o
CL
L
J_*-^
to*-^
Q/O
82^
10
cu •
•
JO
i— -O
c •
CL •
•
10 i—
•r- r—
to «o
«C JD
jO
-O ■"■«*
r© ^.
1—
C i—
r—
O i—
•fe> CM
S O
CO -v.
to^.
***
lO
—1 O
> CO
CM
J-00
>CM
P"~ r—
s_ •
O •
a. •
U
C-tp>
1— •*>«♦■
Cn*p>
•t->**
3-fc*
CU
*f— % ^--*'
CU»— '
C««— '
+J»— '
O'—'
Q.
CL
>-
ro
£
U
CO
to
2
C9
to
&
cu
u
cu
o
z:
J3 r-
«3 ^-»
U 00
C_> O
•
cu»—
^->
to
•4->
O
in
CM
CTl
C
•r-
Q.
Cl
«3
oi
t-
c
1-
•r-
Q.
JO
Q.
«D
«o
U
u
o
1—
oO
cu
u
J-
•r"
CU
2
+J
to
jr
X)
to
o
•r-
__l
U_
CM
CM
•
w»
V*
cu
*— <*
•p"
s.
n
cu
JC
JZ
C
U-
d)
to
c
•r-
*o
u
c
p^
>>
«—^
jQ
■
•o
en
CU
£=
"O
•r-
•r-
^
>
o
CU
u
i-
Cl.
to
•
to
o
CU
o
o
•P"
cu
i~
o
CL
J-
CM
c
o
•
CU
z:
>»
p—
+J
ja
u
•P"
to
o
r—
r-
«f-
(0
•P"
V>
4->
O
CU
C
u
CU
X
•r»
T3
•P"
s.
•p-
"O
CL
«+-
c
C
cu
CU
o
CL
•o
o
JZ
4->
en
•P"
T3
cu
CU
3t
4-»
to
00
S 1
o>
u
en
en
cu
f—
•r- CU
CU
t- U
J-
CL«r-
cu
>
J^
r- t.
u
r- CU
«0
«c to
z:
C-6
o
Q-
4->
O
c
U
©Lr>ovocMiocMCOococMcovo»— ©r^co
o • co • to • co • cm • •— ' • r*» • co • co
•»«^ * C3 »^~ *© * CT> *LO *r*» * C5 *
CM CO CO-*-* f^ ^- CM ^~ CM »■ — *3-r- *3" •— «3" *— 'i— O
nv— < ^»-*fsw^ o *— -r— «w ' r>» o
CM r- r— VO
CM
c
LU
o
CM
CM
o
CO
o
o
o
©
o
o
o
CM
o
CM
cr>
vo
o^
CO
z
4J
<
-
o
0)
cc
a.
s:
Q.
o
o
«D
o
CO
r-
o
o
CM
UJ
CO
»—
CM
<
o
o
00
CO
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CO i—
o
o
o
vo
»
©
o
CM
o
CO
CO
CO
I^OICO
lo
^- vo
CO i—
CO
CD
JO
to
o
c
CD
CL
Ol
to
o
o
o
o
O
o
vo
VO
o
s
VO
o
«a-
vo
CO
r*.
vo
*
m
A
A
•
•>
vo
CO
r-»
vo
o
r—
LO
tf>
*■-
CM
^—
o
CM
vo
CM
©
CO
CU
•F"
o
CU
cxl
00
w
to
JQ
O
>>
c
JQ
a. t»
a>
a.
ex
o
s-
c
«o
0J
CL
CL
S O
1—
_l
LU
—
C-7
<
Q
Cd
co o
O _J
< r-
3= O
CO C_5
Ll. UJ
o
—I cc
»— o
o s:
cc
LU O
s: <
o
CJ> C\)
< o
2: D_
u. >-
o q:
<
co o
h-H o
oc CO
D_ >-
21 LU
O M
LU
O
O
CM
t_
o
l»-
co
a; cn
-M r—
j_
o 1
c
cn
CO 1 —
CO
C >>
•r- +J
C 3
ro O
_J O
O) O
cn o
fa s_
i_ r:
qj o
> s:
<
-t CM
>
CO i.
•r- A3
c
fO o
4-> CO
O
CU CO
+-> cn
LO
CD
«5i-
LO
CO
CO
CD
1 —
r—
CO
CM
CO
r—
CM
*d-
LO
co
P-»
CO
r-~
«3"
CO
^—
co
1—
Ol
cn
LO
CD
LO
CD
CO
CO
CD
CM
CM
r^
cn
«?f
CO
mt
*
A
#*
#»
»i
m
r^
O
r-«.
LO
«3-
LO
CM
c-»
r—
O
CM
CO
"«*■
CM
CO
r—
LO
«d-
CO
CD
r—
T—
CO
r--
CO
1—
1—
CO
a;
cn|
L_
QJ
>
CO
r—
CO
<3"
CD
CO
CM
«3-
r^
CO
«3"
CTi
CO
CO
CO
r~-
CD
Cn
r—
CO CO
LO O
CD
O
O
O
CM
CM
Q.
-—O
CO
+-> >»
a; •>-
-0
l—
>> c
CU (O
> _j
i-
3 -o
CO 0)
■M
re
E
•1—
+->
CO
LU
00000
O CO CO LO 1—
O O cm cn CD
co co cn lo
CO
CM
LO O
cn lo
co cn
cn
CM
o
o
^1-
CU
Q.
Q.
c
to
CU
X) f-
c_
Q. i_
CL CU
»o
LO
_l
*
•r—
>>
U
c
!—•
CU
•^
1—
c^
a.
CU
CO
CO
>-
c
CO
CU
>
o
i_
CO
Q.
fO
c
CO
c
o
+->
3
CU
o_
3
o
S-
o
CU
c_
CU
O «3
2: o
i-
cu
o
CO
"8
CU
c
>>
+-> r-
•1- «o
r-
1- 4->
U CU
to
Cf- CO
•r—
-0 -c
C +J
ro ro
SI
>>
+-> •
•r- CO
>
•r- CU
+-> r—
O XJ
fO
a.
4->
X
• •
CU
CU
1—
s_
CU
3
CU
O
CO
CO
C-8
Analysis of Fishing Methods in the Looe Key Area
Based on Sample Survey
Number
Number of fishing boats
Fish for lobsters only
Fish for lobsters & crabs
Fish for crabs
Fish only
Fishermen using hook & line
Fishermen using wire traps
Fishermen using nets
Fish for both lobster & fish
Fishermen who use only nets
25
100
4
16
23
92
10
40
2
8
16
64
7
28
3
12
18
72
Appendix C
Table 5
C-9
The Divers chartering boats also stay in hotels, motels, visit
restaurants, and purchase aid and other equipment, these economic multi-
plier effects were counted by using a regional service sector multiplier.
The multiplier selected for these commercial dive boats was 3.203 (BEA
1977, p. 44). Thus, their total economic value for purposes of analysis
was estimated at $800,750. Almost all of this income is derived from
the 5 square mile or Boundary Option #2.
The Newfound Harbor Marine Institute on Big Pine Key, a non-profit
organization offering one of the most comprehensive marine education opportuni-
ties in the Florida Keys, focuses upon the nearby Looe Key coral reef and other
coral assemblages in the general vicinity for year round teaching. Seacamp, a
part of the Institute, offers a variety of educational programs to students in
the 4th grade through graduate school in college. Between 5,000 and 6,000
persons participate in the 3 to 30 day programs each.
The analysis did not attempt to guantify income generated to the area
from marinas, fishing lodges or educational organizations due to the
lack of sufficient information.
c. Tropical Fish Collectors
Tropical fish collectors who catch and sell the brightly colored reef
fishes of the coral reef for home aquaria and research purposes are one
small user group at Looe Key. While areas of extensive coral growth,
such as Looe Key, are not generally suitable as collecting areas because
of the many hiding places afforded by the reef, questionnaires and
information provided by persons familiar with the tropical fish industry
indicated that there was a limited amount of collecting occurring at
Looe Key.
Estimates, based on these sources, of the total value of tropical fish
collected yearly in the area, ranges from $200,000 to 250,000. Of these
figures, roughly $25,400 to $31,750 worth is collected in Boundary Option
#2. The regional multiplier effect would increase these estimates to
between $582,000 and $782,500 in the entire area. The Boundary Option
#2 generated income would lie between $74,000 and $92,500.
d. Private Recreational Users
Most sources interviewed agreed that the largest user group of the reef
combines skin and SCUBA divers and recreational fishermen. It is in the
measurement of this group's contributed economic value to the reef that
the greatest number of assumptions have to be made and the most qualifiers
have to be placed on any figure.
Commercial recreational questionnaires estimated that average daily
private boat visits to the proposed Looe Key 4.9 nmi sanctuary ranged
between a low of 11 and a high of 23. (Each of these is a weighted
C- 10
average of seasonal averages compiled from the survey since each season
has a different visitation rate.) If these estimates are correct and,
assuming 300 days of clear weather, then there were somewhere between
3,564 and 7,008 private boats visits to the Looe Key reef last year.
A recent Key Biscayne National Monument survey indicates that for all
boat use there was an average of 3.8 persons per boat. The Bahia Honda
State Recreational Area tabulation of daily visitors for FY 1978-79
showed that over 11,000 visitors arrived by boat to that facility in
that period. The Bahia Honda 11,063 visitors should, based on 3.8 per
boat have arrived in 2,911 boats. If only half of these went to Looe
Key Boundary Option #2, then 40 percent of the lower estimated boat
traffic (3,564) could be attributed to Bahia Honda alone. There are
also, of course, many other places from which boats to Looe Key can be
launched. Thus, the Looe Key boat visit estimates seem consistent with
other evidence.
It was assumed, based on personal interviews and published data that
one-third of these boats were used for recreational fishing and sightseeing,
and two-thirds of the boats were used by skin and SCUBA divers, of whom
two-thirds again were assumbed to be skin divers, not SCUBA divers.
The survey at the Biscayne National Monument of the average number of
people per boat for different recreational activities indicated that between
3.7 and 4 .3 persons ride when engaging in diving activities. The weighted
average was 4.08 persons per private diving boat. Using the Biscayne
National Monument and multipying by the number of boats estimated to be
carrying divers to Looe Key. It was estimated that the 2,376 to 4,672
boats which was assumed carried divers to Looe Key had 9,694 to 19,061
divers on board.
These estimates appear to be consistent with other available sources.
Bahia Honda had 351,700 visitors in FY 1978-79. A Florida Department of
Natural Resources survey of park visitors indicated that 4 percent of
visitors in southern Florida parks go SCUBA diving. Thus, at least 14,068
visitors to Bahia Honda could be expected to go SCUBA diving; probably more,
since 4 percent is an average and Bahia Honda is probably above average
with regard to its orientation towards water. In addition, of course,
there are non-Bahia Honda divers at Looe Key. The yearly estimates of
9,694 to 19,061 private divers in Boundary Option #2 thus seems conservative
but consistent with the Bahia Honda data.
An accepted method of imputing value to non-quantifiable activity is to use the
cost of the same or similar activity is paid to a commercial business to arrive
at an economic value.
The average cost of a SCUBA dive trip to the Looe Key Reef ranges from
$17 to $25, according to survey responses. Using $12 as the value of a snorkel-
ing trip, based on the survey and information from the National Dive Center
Washington, D. C. , the combined value of a dive trip was estimated to be $14.17,
C- 11
The activity of the 9,694 to 19, .061 clivers in Boundary Option #3 was worth
between $137,364 and $240,094 in 1978.
These divers, however, do not merely dive they stay in hotels and motels,
rent boats, buy air and other equipment. The multiplier of the relevant
sector selected this region was 2.203 (see BEA, 1977, p. 44), The private
recreational diving activity in Looe Key was thus considered to be generating
between $439,976 and $769,021 for the region in 1978.
It was assumed from personal interview and survey information that the
recreational fishermen and others would occupy one-third of the boats. This
means that 1,188 to 2,336 boats would be visiting Looe Key, carrying recrea-
tional fishermen, sighteers and others. The figure of $40 per boat, the
average rental price, was selected to place a value on the non-quantifiable
activity of recreational fishing, sighteeing, and other related activity.
Recreational non-diving at Looe Key, therefore, was estimated to be
between $27,520 and $93,440. The multiplier effect of this activity
would raise the total value of the activity to the activity to the region
to between $152,200 and $299,288.
The estimated direct value of private recreation uses of the Looe Key
Zone, therefore, lies between $184,887 and $363,534. The value to the
community and region of the private and recreational uses of Looe Key
lies between $592,176 and $1,164,400.
C- 12
APPENDIX D FLORIDA STATE LAWS
AND
EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL MARINE
RESERVES, PARKS AND SANCTUARIES
Appendix D
FLORIDA STATE LAWS AND EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL MARINE
RESERVES, PARKS AND SANCTUARIES
A. Florida State Laws
Florida State laws which regulates human activities similar to
activities found in Looe Key Waters. Legal Authority: Chapter 370,
Florida State Code Enforcement Authority: DNR Division of Law Enforcement
(TableDl^Chapter 370. Saltwater Fisheries and Conservation. 370.114
Taking of marine corals and sea fans regulated; penalties.
1. It is unlawful for any person, as defined in s. 1.01:
a. To take, attempt to take, or otherwise destroy, or to
sell or attempt to sell, any sea fan of the species
Gorgonia flabellum or of the species Gorgonia ventalina
or any hard or stony coral ( Scleractinia ) or any fire
coral ( Millepora ); or
b. To possess any fresh, uncleaned, or uncured sea fan of
the species Gorgonia flabellum or of the species
Gorgonia ventalina or any fresh, uncleaned, or uncured
hard or stony coral (Scleractinia) or any fresh, uncleaned,
or uncured fire coral ( Millepora ).
unless it can be probed by certified invoice that the sea fan or
coral was imported from a foreign country or unless it can be proven
that the sea fan or coral was lawfully taken before July 1, 1976.
2. This section shall not apply to any sea fan or coral taken for
scientific or educational purposes when the taking is approved
and permitted by the department.
3. It is unlawful to take coral from, or possess it in the John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The provisions of s. 592.17
shall be in addition to the provisions of this subsection.
4. A person who violates any provision of this section is guilty
of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
The U. S. Coast Guard and the Florida Marine Patrol have verbal agree-
ments to notify one another of possible State/Federal violations of the
taking of coral in State/Federal waters.
The State law, outside of the John Pennekamp Park, is considered by
some law enforcement personnel and administrators as largely unenforce-
able because "fresh, uncleaned, or uncured sea fan, hard or stony coral
I>1
4J
C
C QJ
O E
•r- 0)
00 4- ^ CJ
•r- O TO S-
> — I O
•i- 4-
Q C
LU
CD *ti * — .
-l-> i_ to
TO =3 CU
+J +-> -r-
00 TO S-.
O C O •!-
a> +j o
E
o cu o
s- j- cu
S o
to i-
LU i— Q- i-
o
.Q tO
a. to
a>
_c cu
+j to
(U
4- .c
O +J
c en
o c
+j "a
to s-
o to
=3 Cn
■a a»
LU fc-
00
to
>
o
s_
s-
a;
3
00
O
cu
to
s-
cu a.
a:
o
^~
•1 —
TO
4->
s-
TO
rs
3
4->
CT
TO
<
> o
-M
O)
C
<_>
<3J
S-
E
Z3
CU
o
en
oo
TO
CD
c
OH
to
s:
■M -Q
C TO
q; +j
E oo
TO O
CL+J
a>
Q XJ
cu
TO N
-a t-
•r- $_
J- O
O J=
i— -t->
Li_ rs
<
c
o
•r-
to
•r- 4-
> o
to
cu
0J
o
c
S-.
1—
3
S_
O
TO
to
^
CU
cc
to
a)
TO Z.
-(-> TO
00 T3
TO C
O =3
CJ> O
CO
4-
O XJ
c
=3 TO
TO _J
cu
J- -o
3 c
CQ TO
CU
-!->
TO CO
•»-> "O
l/)"0 c •
a> to co
4- cni— c
O i- Q.^
cu =j
c E -c
O -O "O -M
•i- 3 C t-
+J W (D 5
C "U 00 to
•r-
or o
cu
to 00
TO rc
CU cu
s- s- .
TO TO CU
+->
C 00 TO
O CO +J
CU CO
+->
TO S_ CU
CU CU -C
CJ i—
CU-r- >,
j- si?
cu
TO
+->
CO
Q.
O
'cu .
> s:
cu rvi
Q o
+J C
1
i
TO
c o >~>
c cu
CU
C
c
cy to t- ^i
O JC
S-
C
c:
O to
o
E ^ +j
+j t- a» i
u
o
o
•r- _i£
•r—
CU J- TO "O .
E +-> J- •■-
cu
• 1—
•r—
-M S-
•4->
CD TO CU i— CU
CU 3 0.+J
E U E i—
i-
-M
to
TO TO
TO
to a. t. cu +j
"O
TO
•
•r- 4-
CU Q_
>
C O JC TO
aoi o 3
cu
c
>
E
> O
J-
s~
— t- oo co
i— cu
o
CU
S-
Q
cu c
to
TO TO
CU TO CU
a.
c:
00
cn
ct; to
cu
■o -a cu cu
> -a >
S-
o
e
o
s-
o- c s-r
CU C 4- •!-
zz
•r—
o
s-
D_
TO O TO TO +->
a to o oo
Q-4->
CJ
Q.
Q
cu
TO
CN
to
00 CU
-a
* c
c TO
o «
•.- +J> c
■»-> c o
to aj •«-
> E +->
s- cu o
cu en cu
00 TO +J
cu c o
i- TO J-
a. E Q-
TO S-
— TO
=3 E
en
•«- TO
O +■> E
s- c s-
CL cu o
•r- 4-
o o c
4-> 00 •!-
cu
c
TO
s: x>
cu
u
1_
zz
o
00
cu
-(-> o
00
s_
O)
en
TO
c
TO
E
C >> 00 c
4- to en cu cu cu to
O -r-
CU r— J- .
(j o cu en to
TO C C J=
CU CU SZ 00
S- -r- _
ZS O CU 4-
CQ CO I
E O CU
cu c oo
c
cu
TO =3
C 00 CJ
U •!— TO tO'i-
E «r- i—
c
o
to
■r- 4-
> O
O)
>
•1 —
+->
to
TO
CU
S-
a
-f->
•i—
to
>
'1 —
i_
c
a>
•1 —
to
E
■o
•i—
t-
u
cu
c
en
00
■»->
c
00
cu
cr
c
CO
TO
c
X5
•i—
cu
•1—
3
OJ
•t—
+J
<_>
en
00
a
oo
TO
• 1—
CU
00
•i—
CU
O
_l
s_
t— 1
i—
i-
JD
or fire coral" can be quickly killed and bleached on board a boat, with
the use of a bleaching agent, before a patrolman can inspect the boat.
The regulation for the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, however,
which simply states "It is unlawful to take coral from, or possess it",
appears the most effective for enforcement purposes.
Penalty: Criminal
Fine: $35.65
The fine of $35.65, set at the present time by a Circuit Court Judge
in the Florida Keys, for a misdemeanor of the second degree (prescribed
in the statute), is considered by most as little deterrent in the
taking of coral from State waters.
Regulations: The Division of Law Enforcement of the Florida DNR has
not, as yet, adopted any regulations to accompany the statute, 370.114,
on the taking of marine corals and sea fans.
Other applicable state regulations:
370.071 Fishermen and equipment; regulation
370.10 Crustacea, marine animals, fish regulations; general provisions
370.101 Saltwater fish; regulations
370.11 Fish; regulation
370.113 Queen conchs of the species Stombus gigas ; regulation
370.12 Marine Animals
370.13 Stone crabs
370.14 Crawfish
370.17 Sponges; regulation
370.172 Spearfishing definition; limitations Penalty
Spearfishing is prohibited within the boundaries of John Pennekamp
Coral Reef State Park, and the salt waters in Monroe County known
as the Upper Keys from the Dade/Monroe County line to and including
Long Key. The DNR also has the power to establish restricted areas
when safety hazards exist or when needs are determined by biological
findings.
370.072 Endangered and threatened species
Threatened and endangered species and their habitat, Monroe County,
from inventory of rare & endangered biota of Florida, Florida Audubon
& Florida Defenders of the Environment.
D-3
Endangered Species
Invertebrates found within the proposed sanctuary:
Elkhorn Coral
Staghorn Coral
Staghorn Coral
Pillar Coral
Large Flower Coral
Lettuce Coral
Flower Coral
Starlet Coral
Brain Coral
Brain Coral
Smal 1 Star Coral
Large Star Coral
Brain Coral
Acropora palmata
A. Cervicornis
A* pro! if era
Dendrogyra cylindrus
Mussa angulosa
Agaricia agari cites
Eusmilia fastigiata
Siderastrea siderea
Diploria cl ivosa
D. labryinthiformis
Montastrea annularis
M. cavernosa
Meandrina meandrites
Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia Mydas mydas
Outer Ree
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
Reef Envi
All habit
f Environment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ronment
ats
Species whose habitat are found within the proposed sanctuary:
Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia Mydas mydas All habitats
Atlantic Hawksbill
Turtle
Atlantic Ridley
Turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata Primary reef
habitats
Lepidocheyls kempi
All habitats
All violations of the above State laws, with the exception of 370.12
Marine Animals (a first degree offense) are criminal offenses; misdemeanors
of the second degree, with punishment prescribed by a Circuit Judge in
Monroe County.
Enforcement Agency: Florida Marine Patrol
Chapter 258. State Parks and Preserves.
258.41 This provision permits the setting aside of State-owned submerged
lands of exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value as aquatic
preserves. Two of the thirty-one State aquatic preserves were established
in Monroe County. One of these, the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve is located
directly adjacent to the sanctuary off Big Pine Key. This Preserve, included
in the State Coastal Management Program as a Geographic Area of Particular
Concern, is a shallow semi-enclosed bay of unique biologic and scientific
valued.
D-4
Chapter 380. Environmental Land and Water Management
380.05 Areas of critical State concern.
The Florida Keys have been so designated by the state
D-5
B. Existing Federal and State Marine Parks and the Key Largo Marine
Sanctuary in the Florida Keys and Their Existing Regulations
1. Everglades National Park at the tip of the Sourth Florida Peninsula
(Department of Interior's National Park Service)
Everglades National Park includes a part of Florida Bay.
Five regulations have been proposed in 1979 to:
Close additional areas of Florida Bay to all public entry to
protect crocodile nesting critical habitat.
Restrict recreational shellfish harvest (blue crab traps,
stone crab traps and spiny lobster).
Establish bag limits for fish species.
Assimilate State of Florida statutes for commercial
stone crabbing.
Eliminate commercial fishing by December 31, 1985,
within the waters of the park.
Permits for all activities except hook-and-line fishing in the Everglades
National Park are required and reviewed by the South Florida Research
Center, NPS, Homestead, Florida, who also review permits for the Fort
Jefferson National Monument, Dry Tortugas.
2. Fort Jefferson National Monument, Dry Tortugas
(Department of the Interior's National Park Service)
Located 110 km (65 miles) west of Key West, Florida, Fort Jefferson
National Monument which was established to protect Ft. Jefferson but also
manages 100,000 acres of coral reefs within park boundaries. The
taking or disturbing of any species of coral, shells, shellfish,
sponges, sea anemones or other forms of marine life is prohibited
with the exception of the recreational catch of spiny lobster
( Panulirus argus ) and conch ( Strombus gigas ) which is limited to
2/person/day. Commercial fishing is limited to 40 percent of the
monument. The use or possession of spears, gigs, or other forms
of spearfishing is prohibited at all times.
3. Biscayne National Monument in the Northernmost Florida Keys
(Department of the Interior's National Park Service)
Biscayne National Monument is primarily an underwater park. The "park"
is actually a monument, as designated by Congress, with rules slightly
D-6
which might damage the coral reef. The location of the moorings
and educational material about certain unique reefs are discussed
in a booklet prepared and distributed by the Biscayne Monument
staff.
The Biscayne National Monument is adjacent to a spiny lobster sanctuary.
4. Bahia Honda State Park in the lower Florida Keys
The Bahia Honda State Park, managed by the Florida State DNR, Division
of Recreation and Parks, is located on Bahia Honda Key adjacent to the
proposed Looe Key Sanctuary. The park offers overnight camping facili-
ties; two marinas; one for campers and one leased by a concessionaire;
and swimming, picnicking facilities. The marinas are approximately 30
minutes running time by boat from the Looe Key Reef area. Staff for the
park includes 17 staff and 14 rangers, most without law enforcement
authority whose responsibilities include search and rescue operations in
waters immediately adjacent to the park.
The Bahia Honda State Park personnel emphasize the protection of State
resources by interpretation of the law to those who use the park rather
than by enforcement.
5. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and U.S. Key Largo Coral Reef
Marine Sanctuary in the upper Florida Keys (State Department of Natural
Resources' Division of Recreation and Parks and Department of Commerce's
Office of Coastal Zone Management under NOAA)
The John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and U. S. Key Largo Coral Reef
Marine Sanctuary are actually two preserves, consisting of an area
extending out three miles from shore and administered by the State of
Florida (Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreaton and
Parks) and a Federally operated sanctuary beginning at the end of
State' jurisdiction and extending seaward, also administered by the DNR,
Division of Recreation and Parks.
Named after the late John Pennekamp, the combined area of both parks was
originally a State Park. The John Pennekamp Park was created in 1961
to protect coral and to prevent spearfishing and tropical fish
collection. The State did not limit commercial fishing and lobstering
in the State Park. In 1975, when the Supreme Court ruled State jusisdic-
tion could only extend three miles, the most luxuriant reefs, which lie
between four and six miles offshore, were without State protection. At
D-7
that time, the State of Florida nominated the offshore waters for
Marine Sanctuary status to insure continued protection of the
resources. The Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary was designated
by NOAA in December, 1975, as prescribed in the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. At the time, the existing State
regulations were adopted for the Federal waters seaward of the John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and are still in force today.
Through a joint management agreement with the State of Florida and
managed by the State, the U.S. Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary
is patrolled by State and Park Rangers and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Collection or possession of coral, dead or alive, and sand or any
other organism, dead or alive, (other than fish or lobster), can
cost up to $5,000. If coral or other materials or organisms
mentioned above are collected outside of John Pennekamp Coral Reef
State Park and U.S. Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary, they
cannot be transported into these areas without danger of the
person possessing them being fined. This is also true of Biscayne
National Monument.
The management and enforcement of the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine
Sanctuary, is of particular interest to the Looe Key EIA. Although
the area is larger and immediately adjacent to an established State
marine park, its ecological system and the human impacts occurring
daily in the sanctuary are very similar to the area known as
Looe Key.
a. Memorandum of Agreement
At present, there is a memorandum of agreement between N0AA/0CZM and
the State DNR, Division of Recreation and Parks, which provides:
o State on-site management in accordance with the rules
and regulations promulgated by OCZM.
o State administered regulation. Proposed regulations
revising existing interim - final regulations are
being considered at the present time.
o At question appears to be how much should the regulations
resemble State regulations in the interest of consistency
and how much should they be a reflection of the objectives
of the Marine Protection Research Sanctuaries Act.
o State evaluation of all permits.
D-8
o State enforcement of the Sanctuary regulations through a
cooperative effort with the U. S. Coast Guard. The State
reviews all citations issued by the USCG and sends a
report of the violation and recommendations to the
NOAA/General Counsel, St. Petersburg, Florida.
o State submissions of semi-annual reports to NOAA and
submission of recommendatons for more effective
management.
b. U.S. Coast Guard Enforcement Agreement
Patrol of the sanctuary is accomplished jointly by the Florida Marine
Patrol and U. S. Coast Guard personnel. Persons found to be in
violation of NOAA regulations are notified at the scene by the
issuance of a Coast Guard Report of Boarding (CG Form 4100).
Evidence is seized by USCG personnel and appropriate statements
taken. NOAA paid the salaries of two Coast Guard personnel
assigned to Key Largo in 1978. In 1979, the Coast Guard continued
its allotment of personnel to the sanctuary but refused payment,
since enforcement was part of their ongoing responsibility.
c. Law Enforcement Procedures
Once all officials and the violator have been notified and the State
park service has evaluated the information, the NOAA General Counsel
draws a Notice of Violation, specifying the precise violation involved,
and the proposed penalty (which may be negotiated).
The BLM coral regulations have rarely been used since these regulations
provide for criminal penalties involving arrest and appearance before
a Federal Magistrate.
d. Enforcement Results in Key Largo
There were six Notices of Violation issued in 1977, fifty-nine in 1978
and twenty-three in 1979. The average proposed penalty for the three
year period was $86.73, the compromise penalty agreed upon by the
violators was $60.92. Total penalty revenues collected for '77-79'
was $2,315,000.
D-9
different from a National Park Service park. To establish Biscayne
National Monument, the State of Florida and the Federal government
agreed that fishing be allowed to continue in accordance with State
laws unless it was determined to be detrimental to the purposes for
which the "park" was established. If so determined, it should be
further regulated following consultation with the State.
The enabling legislation reads, as follows:
Sec. 4 "The Secretary of the Interior shall preserve and administer
the Biscayne National Monument in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat.535;16 U.S.C.
1-4), as amended and supplemented. The waters within the
Biscayne National Monument shall continue to be open to
fishing in conformity with the laws of the State of Florida
except as the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate
officials of said State, designates species for which, areas
and times within which, and methods by which fishing is
prohibited, limited or otherwise regulated in the interest of
sound conservation or in order to achieve the purposes for
which the national monument is established."
Commercial fishing and lobster-trapping are legal, as is sports fishing,
both by hook and line and by spear. Conch and lobster may also be taken
by divers, provided they are caught by hand or by hand-held net when in
season and provided legal limits are not exceeded. Tropical fish collec-
tion is not legal.
Under the laws and regulations of the Park, identical to State laws,
the Superintendent of the Park grants permits. Four patrol boats
survey the area (20' - 28') manned by four Park Rangers with law
enforcement authority. The Florida Marine Patrol enforces in
State waters. Total park acreage is 104,000.
At the present time, the Park management is conducting an extensive
fisheries management information program. Fishermen are interviewed
in the field out to the 60 ft. contour. Major species caught by
commercial fishermen are snapper, grouper, hogfish, grunts, dolphin and
sailfish. No fish traps are permitted. Some permits are granted for
stone crab and crawfish fishing. Aliens and non-residents must have
fishing licenses. Sportfishing must only be for edible fish.
The Park management is also currently experimenting with the use of
mooring buoys which mark an area for visitors and offer them an
opportunity to tie up to a buoy rather than anchoring in an area
D - 10 U.S. GOVERMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1980-0- 319-367/6211
PE TlP| 7 | A |Mi- N,VERSITY LIBRARIES
A00007[HL,o 0fl 4