Caribbean Spiny Lobster - Seafood Watch · Caribbean spiny lobster may be composed of several...

Caribbean Spiny Lobster

Panulirus argus

Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/ www.scandfish.com

Florida

Trap

October 12, 2015

Rachel Simon, Independent Research Analyst

Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

2

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

3

Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

• How does fishing affect the species under assessment? • How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? • How effective is the fishery’s management? • How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

• Factors to evaluate and score • Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

4

Summary

The spiny lobster is a commercially and recreationally fished marine invertebrate. There are many species of spiny lobster located throughout the tropical and subtropical areas of the world. This report will provide information and recommendations for the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) fished with traps in and around Florida, in both state and federal waters. The Caribbean spiny lobster is found and fished along the coast of Florida, within the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the along the coast of South America through Brazil. It should be noted the Caribbean spiny lobster may be composed of genetically distinct stocks in the Caribbean Sea and along the Brazilian coast, although lobsters with genetic markers from each of these stocks are found within the entire range indicating mixing.

The spiny lobster is moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure. They tend to mature fairly quickly (between 1 and 2 years at the earliest, though size is a better determination), compared to their life span (estimated between 10 and 30 years). Mature spiny lobsters spawn at least once a year and females can produce a maximum of 830 eggs per gram of body mass, which can disperse widely. Comprehensive stock assessments were conducted in 2005 and 2010 and the Florida fishery seems to be experiencing steady landing rates. However, the stock status of Caribbean spiny lobster is essentially unknown. Fishing mortality follows a similar pattern to that of stock abundance, but is also essentially unknown as a result of the recruitment dependence of lobster fished in other Caribbean and Central American countries. The impact of the fishery on spiny lobster in Florida is deemed moderate.

The most common non-targeted species caught in the lobster fisheries include white grunts (Haemulon plumierii) and stone crabs (Menippe spp.). Various other finfish and invertebrates, such as grouper, hogfish, snapper, hermit crabs, arrow crabs and spider crabs comprise no more than 5% of the catch. White grunts and stone crabs are assessed under criterion 2, but have low inherent vulnerability and are not overfished or undergoing overfishing.

It should also be noted that the 8%–15% discard rate includes captured invertebrates that are most often returned to the water alive, but does not include the bait used. Studies from other lobster fisheries globally have shown that the volume of bait used regularly exceeds the volume of the target species landed, but that is not the case in the Florida lobster fishery. In the Florida lobster fishery, live, undersized (and sometimes legal sized) lobster are used as an attractant for other lobsters in lieu of baiting the traps. Strips of salted cowhide are used as bait secondarily. Fish carcasses may be used at times but is not preferred for bait use due to the rapid disintegration within the traps. The use of undersized lobsters as attractants does exert up to 10% “bycatch” mortality. However, this is considered in the score for the stock status.

5

Management of the spiny lobster fishery in Florida has been effective at maintaining a relatively stable population over time. Lobster populations are protected through the use of closed areas, specific seasons to protect breeding females, gear restrictions, and limitations on the number of traps. The stock has been assessed fairly regularly, but latest assessments have identified a lack of confidence due to the reliance on recruitment from other populations in the Caribbean. Impacts on other species have been fairly limited to date. Enforcement of existing regulations has increased in recent years and results in punishments for illegal fishing and poaching. Overall, the spiny lobster fishery is a well-managed fishery.

The commercial spiny lobster fishery in Florida is almost entirely trap based (there is some commercial diving, however this is not considered within the scope of this report). Traps result in some damage to the benthic habitat but both state and federal waters off the coast of Florida maintain networks of various representative habitats protected from fishing. There are 60 areas closed for the specific reason of protecting Acropora coral species. The ecosystem impacts from the trap fishery are moderate.

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Stock / Fishery Impacts on the Stock

Impacts on other Spp.

Management Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Caribbean spiny lobster Florida Atlantic - Trap

Yellow (2.64)

Yellow (3.15)

Green (3.87) Yellow (2.74) Good Alternative (3.066)

Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). • Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1)

nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

6

Table of Contents About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ..................................................................... 11

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 15

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 21

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 28

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 32

References .................................................................................................................................................. 33

7

Introduction Scope of the Analysis and Ensuing Recommendation

The spiny lobster is a commercially fished marine invertebrate. There are several distinct species of spiny lobster located in various areas of the world. This report will provide information and recommendations for the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) fished with traps in and around Florida, in both state and federal waters. The Caribbean spiny lobster is found and fished along the coast of Florida, within the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the along the coast of South America through Brazil (Holthuis 1991). It should be noted the Caribbean spiny lobster may be composed of several genetically distinct stocks in the Caribbean Sea and along the Brazilian coast, although lobsters with genetic markers from each of these stocks are found within the entire range indicating mixing (Ehrhardt 2005)(SEDAR 2010).

Figure 1. Distribution of P. argus. Figure from Holthuis 1991

8

Overview of the Species and Management Bodies

The spiny lobster, of the genus Panulirus,contains approximately 20 different species occurring worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters (Pollack 1995). Spiny lobster can be easily distinguished by the long, spiny antennae and by the lack of claws on the first four pairs of legs (Holthuis 1991). Spiny lobsters are typically found at depths from 0 to 90 meters, depending upon the species (Holthuis 1991). Juvenile lobsters usually spend their first few years in nearshore surf grass beds, clumps of red macroalgae and other areas with hard bottom substrate, while adults favor rocky substrates and reefs and areas that provide protection (Bertelsen et al. 2009)(GMFMC & SAFMC 2011b). Spiny lobsters tend to be nocturnal and migrate among depths, and generally moving deeper in winter months (Holthuis 1991).

Several different species of spiny lobster support commercial fisheries worldwide. As previously mentioned, this report covers the Caribbean spiny lobster trap fishery in and around the state of Florida. The state of Florida also allows diving and the use of bully nets to commercially harvest spiny lobster. However, the estimated take by bully nets and diving is 1% and 6% respectively and these methods have little impact on additional species and the benthic habitat. As such, these methods are not analyzed in this report.

In Florida state waters, the Caribbean spiny lobster fishery is managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC 2011). In federal waters, the spiny lobster is managed by the regional fishery management councils. Spiny lobster is regulated under a fishery management plan (FMP) through the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (GMFMC and SAFMC) (GMFMC & SAFMC 2012). Although the management councils encompass the federal economic exclusive zones along the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, there are currently no directed commercial spiny lobster fisheries in those states (NMFS 2009). Florida state regulations and the federal FMP are typically in line with one another. Key measures include a minimum size (3 inches carapace length), a 4-month closed season during the months of greatest reproductive activity, a prohibition on the take of egg-bearing females, as well as various gear restrictions and other measures designed to reduce discard and protect habitat (SEDAR 2010). In 1992, Florida adopted regulations instituting the Lobster Trap Certificate Program to reduce the number of traps in the fishery (Matthews and Williams 2000). The FMP was implemented in 1982 and has been amended several times over the years. A recent amendment, Amendment 10, became effective January 2012 and removed smoothtail spiny lobster, spotted spiny lobster, Spanish slipper lobster, and ridged slipper lobster from the FMP, established an annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures, revised permit requirements and conditions for landing, modified regulations for the use of undersize attractants, and authorized removal of derelict traps (Federal Register 2011)(NMFS

9

2011). Another amendment, Amendment 11, implemented in April 2012, closed 60 specific areas to protect Acropora coral species.

Production Statistics

Landings from the Caribbean spiny lobster in the United States have varied over time, but the last ten years have oscillated around 2,000 metric tons, though 2010 landings increased to roughly 2,600 metric tons (NMFS 2012b). Changes in fishing pressure and patterns may be responsible for some of the fluctuation of landings over time. For the last ten years, Florida was responsible for all Caribbean spiny lobster landings in the United States. The United States imports spiny lobster from countries around the world, including the Caribbean spiny lobster from several countries in the Caribbean, Central and South American. The landings from Brazil and the Bahamas are around 7,000 tons (FAO 2009). The landings from Belize have been fairly consistent around 600 tons (FAO 2009). Honduras and Nicaragua each saw a reduction in capture around the year 2000 and again recently. Landings from 2009 for Honduras and Nicaragua were 3,039 and 4,186 metric tons, respectively (FAO 2009).

Figure 2. US Landings of Caribbean spiny lobster from 1950-2010, in metric tons. Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012b.

Importance to the US/North American Market

Spiny lobsters are fished throughout the Caribbean and Mexico and imported in large numbers to the United States. The combined western Atlantic landings of the species were

10

approximately 28,122 metric tons in 2008, while the US landings of spiny lobster comprised 5.6% of the regional landings (SEDAR 2010).

Common and Market Names

Spiny lobsters, in general, are also known as rock lobsters. While known as spiny lobster, there are other less commonly used nomenclatures. The Caribbean spiny lobster is also known as Bermuda spiny lobster, common spiny lobster, crawfish, crayfish, Florida (spiny) lobster, West Indian langouste and West Indian spiny lobster (Holthuis 1991)(NOAA 2011).

Primary Product Forms

The Caribbean spiny lobster is marketed whole – and sold live, cooked, and/or frozen. Tails are sold fresh and frozen.

11

Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

CARIBBEAN SPINY LOBSTER Region / Method Inherent

Vulnerability Abundance Fishing

Mortality Subscore

Florida Atlantic Trap

2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate Concern

2.33:Moderate Concern

Yellow (2.644)

Criterion 1 Assessment

CARIBBEAN SPINY LOBSTER

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

12

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Florida Atlantic, Trap

Medium

According to the Seafood Watch PSA analysis, Caribbean spiny lobster appears to be of Medium vulnerability. Rationale

Table 1. Inherent vulnerability of the Caribbean spiny lobster

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished.

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

13

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered. Florida Atlantic, Trap

Moderate Concern

The biomass for spiny lobster in Florida is considered fairly stable, but due to recent reviews of existing models the stock status is considered unknown. It is likely the entire Caribbean spiny lobster status/population is unknown due to the recruitment variability in the region and that populations may be locally overfished/depleted in other areas of the Caribbean (Ehrhardt 2000). As a result, we have rated this factor Moderate Concern. Rationale Recent reviews of the stock assessments for spiny lobster in the Southeastern United States have shown a decreasing biomass but have ultimately rejected the latest model results and declared the stock status as unknown due to the uncertainties related to dependence upon external recruitment from the Caribbean populations (SEDAR 2010). Although catch data are available, stock assessments have not been performed for Honduras or Nicaragua since 1999 (pers. comm. Phillips 2012). The 2006 assessment for the Brazilian stock indicated that biomass has decreased (Ehrhardt and Negreiros Aragão 2006). There are also reports that local Florida spawning stock biomass, estimated from an age-structured sequential population analysis, has decreased since 1988 (Ehrhardt and Fitchett 2010). The overall uncertainties which have led regional management to reject the latest stock assessment results in an unknown stock status.

Figure 3. Biomass of Caribbean spiny lobster in southeastern US. Figure from SEDAR 2010.

14

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.


Moderate Concern

The latest review of the spiny lobster stock assessment for the southeastern US has established the Fmsy as unknown because long-term productivity cannot be estimated without further understanding of recruitment levels of spawning stock (SEDAR 2010). There is also a lack of data for the spiny lobster fisheries in other countries (FAO 2003). As a result, we have rated this factor Moderate Concern.

15

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghostfishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Caribbean Spiny Lobster: Florida Atlantic, Trap

Subscore: 3.318 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 3.152

Species Inherent Vulnerability

Abundance Fishing Mortality

Subscore

CARIBBEAN SPINY LOBSTER Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

2.33: Moderate Concern

2.644

WHITE GRUNT Low 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

STONE CRABS: GULF OF MEXICO Low 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

The most common non-targeted species caught in the lobster fisheries include crabs, such as stone crabs, and additional finfish, such as white grunts. According to Matthews and Donaghue (1997), white grunts and stone crabs dominated bycatch in spiny lobster traps, and are therefore assessed under Criterion 2. While turtles are entangled occasionally in trap lines, there are very few interactions between turtles and the lobster fishery; a biological opinion on those interactions found that the spiny lobster fishery has no population level effect on loggerhead, green, hawksbill, leatherback, or Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Therefore, turtles are not included in this assessment. Other bycatch species make up less than 5% of the catch and are not considered species of concern. The total discard rate for lobster fisheries is generally

16

between 8%–15%.

Criterion 2 Assessment

STONE CRABS: GULF OF MEXICO


Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)


Low

Using the productivity analysis tool in the Seafood Watch criteria, stone crabs have low inherent vulnerability (with a score of 2.5), due to their young age at sexual maturity, their reproductive strategy and their moderate lifespan. Rationale

Table 2. Life history characteristics for stone crab, Menippe spp.




17

Low Concern

Stone crabs are not classified as overfished (NOAA 2015). Stock assessments have been conducted, although coverage could be improved and data are limited (Muller et al 2011). Additionally, there is an absence of biological reference points leading to uncertainty in the status of the stock. Rationale Past assessments of the stone crab fishery have concluded that the resource is not overfished, even in the face of dramatic increases in the number of traps used in the fishery, though there is evidence that the fishery is being recruitment-harvested and fished at a maximum level (Bert 1992)(Muller et al. 2006)(Muller et al. 2011).




Low Concern

There is no formal metric for fishing mortality, however, observed fishing practices in the spiny lobster fishery are shown to have minimal impact on bycatch (Matthews and Donaghue 1997); therefore we have rated this factor Low Concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate


20%–40%

Total discard rates given in Shester and Micheli (2011) for spiny lobster trap fisheries are presented as 15%. Although this study refers to the California spiny lobster (P. interruptus) fishery, rather than the Caribbean spiny lobster, it is possible the rates are quite similar. There is little information about the total discard rate in the Caribbean spiny lobster fishery. Most studies to date have been focused on comparing percentages of bycatch in various types of traps and not the impact to the ecosystem as a whole. However, Matthews et al. (2005) did note that the number of fish that died in traps during observations over one season was quite small. Data from Shester and Micheli (2011) include the invertebrates that are most often returned to the water alive, but does not include the bait used. Studies from other lobster fisheries globally have shown that volumes of bait used regularly exceed the volume of the target species landed (Harnish & Martin Willison 2009)(Waddington and Meeuwig 2009), but that is not the case in the Florida lobster fishery. The Florida fishery permits the

18

use of undersized lobsters (or “shorts”) as attractants in traps (GMFMC & SAFMC 2011b). Strips of salted cowhide are used as bait secondarily and fish carcasses may be used at times but is not preferred for bait use due to the rapid disintegration within the traps (personal communication (Gregory 2013). Studies have shown that traps baited with short lobsters catch more lobster than traps baited with any other method (Heatwole et al. 1988). Although there are measures in place to reduce mortality, the impacts of confinement may result in up to 10% mortality (Matthews 2001)(pers. comm. Matthews 2013). Combined with a conservative estimate of 15% discards from the Shester & Micheli (2011), a total bait use and discard rate of 25% is given.

WHITE GRUNT




Low

The FishBase score for white grunt is 62, which is considered high vulnerability (Froese and Pauly 2014), but using the productivity analysis tool in the Seafood Watch criteria, white grunt have low inherent vulnerability with a score of 2.5, due to their young age at sexual maturity, their reproductive strategy and their moderate lifespan. Rationale

19

Table 3. Life history characteristics for the White grunt, Haemulon plumierii.




Moderate Concern

In the 1999 stock assessment, Murphy et al. (1999) estimated B/BMSY to be above 1 between 1994 and 1998, indicating a stable population size. Due to the lack of an updated assessment of biomass relative to reference points, we have rated this factor Moderate Concern.




Low Concern

There is no formal metric for fishing mortality, however, observed fishing practices in the spiny lobster

20

fishery are shown to have minimal impact on bycatch (Matthews and Donaghue 1997). In addition, divers have observed that 90% of fish escape within 24 hours, therefore we have rated this factor Low Concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate


20%–40%

Total discard rates given in Shester and Micheli (2011) for spiny lobster trap fisheries are presented as 15%. Although this study refers to the California spiny lobster (P. interruptus) fishery, rather than the Caribbean spiny lobster, it is possible the rates are quite similar. There is little information about the total discard rate in the Caribbean spiny lobster fishery. Most studies to date have been focused on comparing percentages of bycatch in various types of traps and not the impact to the ecosystem as a whole. However, Matthews et al. (2005) did note that the number of fish that died in traps during observations over one season was quite small. Data from Shester and Micheli (2011) include the invertebrates that are most often returned to the water alive, but does not include the bait used. Studies from other lobster fisheries globally have shown that volume of bait used regularly exceed the volume of the target species landed (Harnish & Martin Willison 2009)(Waddington and Meeuwig 2009), but that is not the case in the Florida lobster fishery. The Florida fishery permits the use of undersized lobsters (or “shorts”) as attractants in traps (GMFMC & SAFMC 2011b). Strips of salted cowhide are used as bait secondarily and fish carcasses may be used at times but is not preferred for bait use due to the rapid disintegration within the traps (personal communication (Gregory 2013). Studies have shown that traps baited with short lobsters catch more lobster than traps baited with any other method (Heatwole et al. 1988). Although there are measures in place to reduce mortality, the impacts of confinement may result in up to 10% mortality (Matthews 2001)(pers. comm. Matthews 2013). Combined with a conservative estimate of 15% discards from the Shester & Micheli (2011), a total bait use and discard rate of 25% is given.

21

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy

(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Management of Retained Species

Management of Non-Retained Species

Overall Recommendation


5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as Ineffective, Moderately Effective, or Highly Effective.

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as Highly Effective for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated Highly

Effective and all other subfactors rated at least Moderately Effective. • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least Moderately Effective. • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for Moderately Effective for Management

Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated Ineffective.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated Ineffective.

22

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion Florida Atlantic Trap

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.


Highly Effective

Since the 1800s, there has been a commercial spiny lobster trap fishery along the Florida coast. Regulations and laws regulating the spiny lobster in the state of Florida have been in place since the early 1900s, namely minimum size limits, a closed season, and the prohibition of taking berried females (FFWCC 2010). The spiny lobster fishery has been managed by a fishery management plan in the South and the Gulf of Mexico Management Council regions since 1982 (GMFMC and SAFMC 1982). The FMP largely extended Florida’s regulations through the EEZ (GMFMC & SAFMC 1982). The FMP has been amended 11 times over the years, usually to adjust the FMP to be more compatible with the regulations of the state (GMFMC & SAFMC 2011b). Current regulations include gear restrictions, minimum size restrictions, closed areas, a seasonal closure, and a prohibition on the take of berried females (GMFMC et al 2011a). A permit is required to take spiny lobsters commercially and, as of 1992, Florida instituted a Lobster Trap Certificate Program to reduce the number of traps in the fishery (Matthews and Williams 2000). FMP Amendment 10 (2011) established annual catch limits and targets for the combined recreational and commercial fishery (7.32 million lb. whole weight and 6.59 million lb, respectively) and modified regulations regarding the use of undersized lobsters as bait (Federal Register 2011). The most recent FMP Amendment (11) closes additional areas to lobster fishing in order to protect threatened coral species (GMFMC & SAFMC 2011b). As a result, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

23

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.


Highly Effective

As noted in Criterion 2, there is potential for sea turtles to be impacted by the spiny lobster fishery, but these impacts are indirect and NMFS (2009) has found that the lobster fishery does not jeopardize the overall sea turtle population. There are no other stocks of concern specifically impacted by the lobster fishery, as the lobster population itself appears stable and no other species is caught in significant numbers. As a result, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.


Highly Effective

The spiny lobster fishery is assessed through the SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment and Review), which is a “process developed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to improve the quality and reliability of stock assessments and to ensure a robust and independent peer review of stock assessment products” (SEDAR 2005). In 2003, SEDAR expanded to include all three southeast councils (South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) and to review assessments developed through the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions and state agencies. The latest SEDAR assessment was developed using fishery dependent data (landings, CPUE, etc.), fishery independent observer programs, and some of the latest research regarding genetic stock (SEDAR 2010). This information is applied to statistical assessment models (the Integrated Catch-at-Age (ICA) model and a Modified DeLury model) to determine mortality rates and biomass (SEDAR 2010). Despite the rigorous scientific review and application of the models, there were sufficient concerns with the performance of the two models used to reject the assessment results and conclude

24

the stock status of spiny lobster in the southeast US as essentially unknown (NMFS 2009). However, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.


Highly Effective

Management in the past has adjusted regulations in response to various cues (decline in landings, assessment results, and/or other impacts). However, the latest stock assessment that determined that the recruitment stock is essentially unknown has not resulted in more restrictive measures, largely because landings have remained relatively stable. Due to the above, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.


Highly Effective

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission maintain a law enforcement division which is charged with enforcing state and federal fisheries and wildlife laws (FFWCC 2012). The Fishery Management Councils (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) do not have any specific law enforcement authority, but occasionally provide recommendations and guidance regarding law enforcement issues. Additionally, NOAA Office for Law Enforcement works closely with the US Coast Guard to enforce federal regulations within the EEZs and has been successful in prosecuting several cases of illegal lobster harvest in Florida (NMFS 2012a). As a result, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

25

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.


Highly Effective

While spiny lobster fishing has been occurring in and around Florida since the 1800s, the landings began to rise dramatically following the Second World War until about 1975 when the Bahamian waters were closed to foreign fishermen (NMFS 2012a)(Hunt 2000). Since 1975, lobster landings have fluctuated without a distinct trend (with the exception of lower harvests tending to occur in El Nino years (Hunt 2000)). Landings over the most recent five years have averaged around five million pounds, which is a decline from the period of 1975-2000 (GMFMC & SAFMC 2012). The Lobster Trap Certificate Program was enacted in 1992 and while the program did not result in a decline in landings by the 1998-1999 fishing season (Matthews and Williams 2000), the relatively stable lower landings in the 2000s may be a reflection of the program. However, the current biomass is unknown due to three main factors: the mortality effects of the PaV1 lobster virus on juvenile lobster recruitment, a non-year-specific age-length key used in current models, and the fraction of recruitment derived from upstream spawning biomass (SEDAR 2010). Despite the large number of unknowns, management measures, to date, have generally resulted in the long-term maintenance of stock abundance and productivity, therefore we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.


Highly Effective

The management of spiny lobster stock in Florida is transparent and includes stakeholder input. Stakeholders are an important part of the fishery management plan process. With every amendment proposed to the FMP, or new rules and regulations proposed in the state of Florida, stakeholder input is heavily sought. The most recent proposed amendment to the FMP (11) will not

26

include changes to trap-line markings as a result of stakeholder input, among other factors (NMFS 2012a). As a result, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

Bycatch Strategy

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce Florida Atlantic Trap

No No Moderately Effective

Moderately Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).



Currently, the FFWC and the GMFMC do not maintain any specific regulations directed at managing and mitigating the impacts on bycatch species, although impacts on non-target species are not a major concern in this fishery. Because of this, we have rated this factor Moderately Effective.

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.



The SEDAR process includes many different species and distributes information broadly and the FFWC observer program is intended to aid in the evaluation of bycatch (SEDAR 2005). Otherwise, there is little

27

data aside from logbook data related to other retained species.

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.


Highly Effective

Little research has been performed about the impacts of the fishery on other species, but the history of the FFWC and fishery management councils to respond to the information that is available indicates they would react to scientific advice and this factor has therefore been scored Highly Effective.

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.


Highly Effective

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission law enforcement division and the NOAA Office for Law Enforcement, along with the US Coast Guard, are charged with patrolling and enforcing current regulations, which would include illegal possession of various species. Beyond this, there is no additional enforcement related specifically to bycatch species. As such, we have rated this factor Highly Effective.

28

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem-based fisheries management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the ecosystem-based fishery management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Gear Type and Substrate

Mitigation of Gear Impacts

EBFM Overall Recomm.



0.50:Moderate Mitigation


Yellow (2.739)

Justification of Ranking

Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet,

bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally)

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand

• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)

29

Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.


Moderate Concern

Spiny lobsters are generally found on rocky substrates and reefs, or wherever protection and shelter can be found (Holthuis 1991). As such, traps are deployed in a variety of habitats including on rocky reefs and coral, as well as in sand and seagrass areas. The impact of the traps on benthic habitat is variable across the fishery. The spiny lobster fishery in Florida has recently implemented 60 closed areas in federal waters to protect Acropora coral species from traps (GMFMC & SAFMC 2012). Gear impact on substrate will vary because benthic habitat varies, so we have rated this factor Moderate Concern.

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

• +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.

• +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats. Florida Atlantic, Trap

Moderate Mitigation

As a result of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), there are ecological reserves and sanctuary preservation areas that are closed to all fishing, and as a result, prohibit spiny lobster fishing (NMFS 2009). The take of spiny lobsters is also prohibited in the Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, and the Card Sound–Biscayne Bay Sanctuary. Additionally, there are 60 other areas recently closed in order to protect coral (Acropora species). Because of this, we have rated this factor Moderate Mitigation. Rationale

30

There are currently several sanctuary preservation areas and ecological reserves within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) intended to preserve ”discrete, biologically important areas that help sustain critical marine species and habitats”(FKNMS 2011). Further, FKNMS regulations prohibit the operation of a vessel in such a manner that will injure coral, as well as anchoring on live coral in water depths less than 40 ft when the bottom can be seen [15CFR 922.163(i) and (ii)](NMFS 2009). Additionally, Final Amendment 11 to the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic FMP closed 60 areas to specifically protect Acropora spp. (GMFMC & SAFMC 2012).

Figure 4. Map of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary protected areas. From FKNMS 2012.

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

• 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.

31

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.


Moderate Concern

While sea turtles may occasionally be impacted by the fishery, the biological opinion (NMFS 2009) prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service for the continued authorization of spiny lobster fishing in the US South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zones found that the impact from the lobster fishery does not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Atlantic sea turtle populations. The spiny lobster management scheme does not hinder sea turtles from fulfilling their ecological role. Additionally, there are policies in place to protect ecosystem functioning therefore we have rated this factor Moderate Concern.

32

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Doug Gregory, Florida Sea Grant Marine Agent, and one anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

33

References Behringer, D.C. and M.J. Butler IV. 2006. Density-dependent population dynamics in juvenile Panulirus argus (Latreille): The impact of artificial density enhancement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 334: 84–95.

Bert, T.M. 1992. Summary of workshop on current issues related to stone crab (genus Menippe) biology and fisheries. In: Proceedings of a symposium on stone crab (genus Menippe) biology and fisheries. T.M. Bert (ed.): Florida Marine Research Publications #50. 108- 115.

Bertelsen, R.D., Butler, M.J., Herrkind, W.F. and Hunt, J.H. 2009. Regional characterization of hard-bottom nursery habitat for juvenile Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) using rapid assessment techniques. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 43: 299-312.

Bertelsen, R. D. and T. R. Matthews. 2001. Fecundity dynamics of female spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) in a south Florida fishery and Dry Tortugas National Park lobster sanctuary. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 1559-1565.

Crawford, D. R. and W. J. J. De Smidt. 1922. The spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, of southern Florida: Its natural history and utilization. United States Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 38: 281-310.

Ehrhardt, N.M. 2005. Population dynamic characteristics and sustainability mechanisms in key Western Central Atlantic spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, fisheries. Bulletin of Marine Science. 76(2): 501-525.

Ehrhardt, N.M. 2000. The Atlantic spiny lobster resources of Central America. In Spiny Lobsters: Fisheries and Culture, 2nd Edition, B.F. Phillips and J. Kittakka, eds. Fishing News Books/Blackwell Science.

Ehrhardt, N.M. and M.D. Fitchett. 2010. Dependence of recruitment on parent stock of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in Florida. Fisheries Oceanography. 19(6): 434-447.

Ehrhardt, N.M. and J.A. Negreiros Aragão. 2006. Executive Summary Brazil spiny lobster P. argus fishery Results of a Regional FAO Workshop on the Assessment and Management of the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus Argus). Mérida, México 19-29 September 2006.

FAO. 2009. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Capture Production. Lobster, spiny-rock lobsters. p 335. Statistics via http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-capture-production/en.

FAO. 2003. Report of the second Workshop on the Management of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in the WECAFC Area. Havana, Cuba, 30 September - 4 October 2002. FAO Fisheries Report No. 715. Rome, 273p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4931b/y4931b00.htm.

Federal Register. 2011. “Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment 10 Final Rule” 76 Federal Register 232 (2 December 2011), pp. 75488-75492.

34

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2012. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Law Enforcement web page. Accessed on 23 June 2012. Available at: http://myfwc.com/about/inside-fwc/le/.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2011. Commercial Saltwater Regulations July 2011. 24p. Available at: http://myfwc.com/media/1419879/ComRegs2011.pdf.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2010. Spiny Lobster In Florida’s Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2010 Status and Trends Report, pp. 246-249. http://myfwc.com/media/195820/caribbean_spiny_lobster.pdf.

FKNMS. 2011. Marine Zones within Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary webpage. Last updated December 2011. Available at: http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/zones/allzones.html?s=zones.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2014. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (11/2014).

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, NOAA. 2012.Final Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. April 2012.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, NOAA. 2011b. Final Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Including Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. August 2011.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1982. Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Regulatory Review for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. March 1982.

Gregory, D. 2013. Executive Director. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Personal communications in 2013.

Harnish, L. and J.H. Martin Willison. 2009. Efficiency of bait usage in the Nova Scotia lobster fishery: a first look. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(3): 345-347.

Heatwole, D.W., J.H. Hunt, and F.S. Kennedy, Jr. 1988. Catch efficiencies of live lobster decoys and other attractants in the Florida spiny lobster fishery. Florida Marine Resources Publication 44. 15 pages.

Holthuis, L.B. 1991. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 13. Marine lobsters of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 13. Rome, FAO. 1991. 292 p. Accessed via: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/t0411e/t0411e00.htm.

Hunt, J.H. 2000. Status of the fishery for Panulirus argus in Florida. In Spiny Lobsters: Fisheries and Culture, 2nd Edition, B.F. Phillips and J. Kittakka, eds. Fishing News Books/Blackwell Science.

35

Lewis, C.F., Slade, S.L., Maxwell, K.E., and Matthews, T.R. 2009. Lobster trap impact on corla reefs: effects of wind-driven trap movement. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater research. 43: 271-282.

Matthews. T.R. 2013. Associate Research Scientist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Personal communications on 1 April 2013.

Matthews, T.R. 2001, Trap induced mortality of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in Florida, USA. Marine Freshwater Research. 52:1509-1516.

Matthews and Donaghue. 1997. Bycatch Abundance, Mortality and Escape Rates in Wire and Wooden Spiny Lobster Traps. Proceedings of the 49th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute: 49.

Matthews, T.R and T.Williams. 2000. Effect of Regulations on harvest in Florida’s spiny lobster fishery. In: Proceedings of the Fifty First Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Pp. 119-127.

Matthews, T.R., Maxwell, K.E., Bertelsen, R.D., and Derby, C.D. 2009. Use of neurolipofuscin to determine age structure and growth rates of Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus in Florida, United States. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 43: 125-137.

Matthews, T.R., Cox, C., Eaken, D. 2005. Bycatch in Florida's Spiny Lobster trap fishery. -In: 47 Proceedings of the Forty Seventh Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. -- pp. 66-78.-- Fort Pierce, Florida USA, 2005.

Maxwell, K.E., Matthews, T.R., Bertelsen, R.D. and Derby, C.D. 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 139-149.

Muller, R.G., D. Chagaris, T.M. Bert, C. Crawford, and R. Gandy. 2011. The 2011 stock assessment update for the stone crab, Menippe spp., fishery in Florida. FFWCC, FMRI: IHR 2011-003.

Muller, R.G., T.M. Bert, and S.D. Gerhart. 2006. The 2006 stock assessment update for the stone crab, Menippe spp., fishery in Florida. FFWCC, FMRI: IHR 2006-011.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012a. NOAA Fisheries Service Seeks Public Comment on Amendment 11 for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Comment Period Ends June 26, 2012. Southeast Fishery Bulletin. 27 April 2012. FB12-030.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012b. Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, M. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/index.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. NOAA Fisheries Service Announces New Regulations for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Small Entity Compliance Guide. Southeast Fishery Bulletin. 2 December 2011. FB11-098.

36

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Authorization of the Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic Spiny Lobster Fishery. Biological Opinion, August 27.

NOAA Fisheries. 2015b. Status of U.S. Fisheries. Office of Sustainable Fisheries. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/.

NOAA 2011. NMFS FishWatch. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/car_spiny_lobster.htm.

Phillips, B. 2012. Personal communications. 7 March 2012.

Pollack, D.E. 1995. Evolution of Life-history patterns in three genera of spiny lobsters. Bulletin of Marine Science. 57(2): 516-526.

SEDAR. 2010. SEDAR 8 Update Spiny Lobster Stock Assessment 2010 (2010 Update Assessment). GMFMC/SAFMC/SEDAR Update Assessment Workshop, November 18-19, 2010. Key West, Florida. 129 pages.

SEDAR. 2005. Stock assessment report of SEDAR 8 Southeastern US Spiny Lobster, SEDAR8 Assessment Report 3. Charleston, SC. 319 pages.

Shester, G.G. and F. Micheli. 2011. Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries: Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation 144: 1673-1681.

Waddington, K.I. and J.J.Meeuwig. 2009. Contribution of bait to lobster production in an oligotrophic marine ecosystem as determine d using a mas balance model. Fisheries Research 99: 1-6.

Caribbean Spiny Lobster - Seafood Watch · Caribbean spiny lobster may be composed of several...

Documents

Transcript of Caribbean Spiny Lobster - Seafood Watch · Caribbean spiny lobster may be composed of several...