• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Sanctuary management plan...
 Survey methodology and respondent...
 Fishing effort and catch profi...
 Summary and discussion
 References
 Appendix A: Commercial fishermen...
 Appendix B: Regulations governing...
 Appendix C: Regulations governing...






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College Program ; no. 89
Title: Commercial fishers' perceptions of marine reserves for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076871/00001
 Material Information
Title: Commercial fishers' perceptions of marine reserves for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Series Title: Technical paper
Physical Description: vi, 50 p. : maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Milon, J. Walter
Florida Sea Grant College
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1997
 Subjects
Subject: Fishers -- Attitudes -- Florida -- Florida Keys   ( lcsh )
Fisheries -- Public opinion -- Florida -- Florida Keys   ( lcsh )
Fishery management -- Public opinion -- Florida -- Florida Keys   ( lcsh )
Marine parks and reserves -- Law and legislation -- Public opinion -- Florida -- Florida Keys   ( lcsh )
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 38-39).
Statement of Responsibility: by J. Walter Milon ... et al..
General Note: "December 1997."
General Note: "Grant no. NA 36RG-0070"--P. 2 of cover.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076871
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 38335799

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Executive summary
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Sanctuary management plan development
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Survey methodology and respondent profile
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Fishing effort and catch profile
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Summary and discussion
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    References
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Appendix A: Commercial fishermen survey instrument
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Appendix B: Regulations governing user activities in sanctuary...
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix C: Regulations governing user activities in ecological reserves...
        Page 49
        Page 50
Full Text

T7- 39
December 1997


Marston Science
Library
JAN 071998


University of Florida
Commercial Fishers'
Perceptions of Marine Reserves
for the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary

by
J. Walter Milon, Daniel 0. Suman, Manoj Shivlani and Kathryn A. Cochran


. 'm, (V


Sealia
Florida


TP-89


I, 1b)







































Technical Papers are duplicated in limited quantities for specialized audiences requiring
rapid access to information. They are published with limited editing and without formal
review by the Florida Sea Grant College Program. Florida Sea Grant college is supported
by award of the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number NA 36RG-0070, under provisions of the
National Sea Grant College and Programs Act of 1966. This paper is funded by a grant
from The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The views expressed herein
are those of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its
sub-agencies. This information is published by the Sea Grant Extension Program which
functions as a component of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Christine Taylor
Stephens, Dean, in conducting Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture, Home
Economics, and Marine Sciences, State of Florida, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners, cooperating. Printed
and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The
Florida Sea Grant College is an Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action employer authorized
to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and
institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap or national
origin. The information in this publication is available in alternate formats. Information
about alternate formats is available from Educational Media and Services, University of
Florida, PO Box 110810, Gainesville, FL 32611-0810. Printed 12/97.










COMMERCIAL FISHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF
MARINE RESERVES FOR THE
FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY


by


J. Walter Milon
Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida


Daniel 0. Suman
Associate Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
University of Miami


Manoj Shivlani
Research Associate, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
University of Miami


Kathryn A. Cochran
Graduate Research Assistant, Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida


Technical Paper 89

December 1997

$3.00

Copies of this report may be ordered by sending
a check or money order to:

Florida Sea Grant College Program
University of Florida
P. O. Box 110409
Gainesville, FL 32611-0409
352/392-2801












TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables ....................................................... ii
List of Figures .................. .................................... iii
Acknowledgments ................................................... iv
Executive Summary ................................................... v
Introduction ........................................ .............. 1
Sanctuary Management Plan Development ................................. 6
Survey Methodology and Respondent Profile ............................... 10
Questionnaire Design and Sample Selection ............................ 10
Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents ............................... 12
Fishing Effort and Catch Profile .......................................... 15
Total Effort and Catch by Region .................................... 15
Effort and Catch by Fishing Areas .................................... 18
Perceptions of the Sanctuary Management Plan Process ....................... 23
Expectations About Effects and Benefits of Sanctuary Zones .................... 28
Summary and Discussion .............................................. 34
Recap of the Survey Results ........................................ 34
The Final M management Plan ........................................ 36
References .................................. ....................... 38
Appendix A: Copy of Survey Instrument ................................. 40
Appendix B: Regulations Governing User Activities in Sanctuary ............... 47
Preservation Areas and Replenishment Reserves
in the Draft Management Plan
Appendix C: Regulations Governing User Activities in Ecological ............... 49
Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas in the
Final Management Plan









LIST OF TABLES


Table No. Page
3-1 Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents in the Total Sample ... ............ 14
and by Region
4-1 Profile of Respondents' Fishing Effort (Average Number of Trips) ........... 16
by Species for the Total Sample and by Region
4-2 Profile of Respondents' Average total Catch in Pounds by Species ........... 18
and Region
4-3 Distribution of Catch (by Percent of Total Catch) by Species Across .......... 20
Fishing Areas for the Total Sample
4-4 Distribution of Catch (by Percent of Total Catch) by Species Across .......... 21
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the upper Keys
4-5 Distribution of Catch (by Percent of Total Catch) by Species Across .......... 22
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the Middle Keys
4-6 Distribution of Catch (by Percent of Total Catch) by Species Across .......... 22
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the Lower Keys
5-1 Sources of Information About Proposed Sanctuary Zones for the ............ 24
Total Sample and by Region
5-2 Most Useful Sources of Information About Proposed Sanctuary ............. 25
Zones for the Total Sample and by Region
5-3 Participation in Activities Related to Development of Management ........... 26
Plan for Total Sample and by Region
5-4 Evaluation of Information Provided by NOAA for Total Sample ............. 27
6-1 Expected Effects on Marine Resource Stocks Due to Sanctuary ............. 30
Zones for the Total Sample
6-2 Expected Beneficiaries from the Sanctuary Zones for the Total Sample ........ 31
6-3 Effectiveness of Sanctuary Zones to Produce Other Benefits ................ 31
6-4 Support for Establishment of Sanctuary Zones and the Sanctuary ............ 33
6-5 Likelihood that Fishers Would Violate Zones if Established ................ 33









LIST OF FIGURES
Page


Figure 1 Location of Proposed Replenishment Reserves, .................. 3
Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and Other Zones
in the Draft Management Plan (U.S. Department
of Commerce 1996, Vol. II, pp. 137).
Figure 2 Fishing Areas Used for the Survey ............................ 19









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Funding for this research was provided through a grant from the U.S. Man and the
Biosphere Program through the Marine and Coastal Ecosystems Directorate. We thank Dr.
Michael Crosby, Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves
Division, NOAA for his continued support and encouragement. We also thank Billy Causey
and Ben Haskell of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary who assisted in development
of the survey and provided useful information to help the authors understand the various
components of the Sanctuary Management Plan.
We also extend our appreciation to Doug Gregory, Monroe County Extension Director
and Florida Sea Grant College Marine Extension Agent for his assistance in developing the
survey. Invaluable assistance was also provided by John Sanchez, Executive Director of the
Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc. (MCCF), and other members of MCCF. Scott
Thomas and Webb Smith, students in the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, assisted in the interviews. Last, but certainly most important of all, we extend our
sincere thanks to the commercial fishermen who shared their time and opinions with us.
Without their cooperation this report would not have been possible.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors based on their research and
should not be attributed to the sponsors or the Florida Sea Grant College Program. Any
errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The marine environment of the Florida Keys supports unique biological communities
and attracts millions of visitors each year. National concerns about the sustainability of the
Key's environment prompted the U.S. Congress to enact the 1990 Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary Act (Public Law 101-605). The Act authorized the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive management plan to
protect a 2,800 square nautical mile area in the southernmost reaches of Florida defined as
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS).
In March 1995, the NOAA published a Draft Management Plan for the FKNMS that
included provisions for three "replenishment reserve" areas (Key Largo (8,000 hectares),
Sambos (3,000 hectares), and Dry Tortugas (38,000 hectares)) and nineteen smaller
Sanctuary Preservation Areas. These areas were designed to protect important biological
habitat and enhance fishery stocks by prohibiting consumptive activities such as fishing and
salvaging. Proponents of marine reserves cite various benefits including biodiversity
protection, recreation, scientific research, and cultural preservation. Reserves could also
enhance fishery stocks by increasing spawning potential and increase total catch through
spillover effects.
This report presents the results of a survey in the Florida Keys of commercial fishers'
perceptions and attitudes about NOAA's Draft Management Plan and the proposed
replenishment reserves. Personal interviews were conducted with 337 fishers to identify
fishing effort and catch (by species) within the FKNMS, participation in the Plan development
process, and perceptions and attitudes.
Survey respondents indicated that a major portion of their total catch was harvested
within the boundaries of the FKNMS. For the total sample, over 85 percent of spiny lobster
catch, 92 percent of reef fish catch, and all of the tropical fish and sponges catch were caught
in the FKNMS. Stone crabs, mackerels, and other pelagic species were generally harvested
outside the FKNMS boundaries.
About 50 percent of the respondents had participated, in some way, in the FKNMS Plan
development process. A large majority believed that newspapers, local organizations, and
other fishers were the most useful sources of information about the Plan.









On the effects of the proposed reserves, a large majority did not believe that stocks of
commercially important species such as spiny lobster and reef fish would increase outside the
reserves and the effects on specific stocks within the Keys would be insignificant. Most
believed that the primary effect would be to conserve and protect corals, fishes, and other
marine life within the boundaries of each reserve. Based on these perceptions, respondents
were nearly unanimous in their opinion that commercial and recreational fishers would not be
the primary beneficiaries of the proposed reserves and that there would not be a positive long-
term effect on the economy in the Keys. Recreational divers were generally perceived as the
primary beneficiaries; only a small minority of respondents viewed the proposed reserves as
an effective way to reduce user conflicts or to restore coral reefs.
These concerns about the proposed reserves were consistent with the finding that a
large majority of respondents rejected the idea of establishing reserves anywhere in the Florida
Keys. Although one-fourth of the sample did express some support for reserves somewhere
in the Keys, support declined when specific locations for a reserve were cited. Over three-
fourths of the respondents stated they did not support establishing the FKNMS. Overall, the
survey results suggested strong differences in expectations between commercial fishers in the
Keys and advocates of marine reserves for fisheries management.
The Final Management Plan for the FKNMS, released by NOAA in September 1996,
contained modifications reflecting commercial fishers' concerns. In the Final Plan, the Key
Largo reserve was dropped and the Dry Tortugas reserve was deferred for two years. Also,
the term "replenishment reserve" was changed to "ecological reserve" to emphasize that the
purpose of reserves was to restore natural ecosystem dynamics and habitat rather than to
enhance fishery stocks.
The final version of the Plan was published in the Federal Register in June 1997 and
contained provisions requested by the Governor of Florida to evaluate the effects of the
marine reserves. An integral part of this evaluation should include an assessment of whether
commercial fishers' perceptions of reserves change over time to provide an understanding of
the impacts on the commercial fishing industry in the Keys.









COMMERCIAL FISHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF MARINE RESERVES
FOR THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
by
J. Walter Milon, Daniel O. Suman, Manoj Shivlani and Kathryn A. Cochran*


1. Introduction

The coral reefs and tropical marine environment of the Florida Keys support rich
biological communities and attract millions of visitors each year (Leeworthy). After a series
of natural and human-induced events raised national concerns about the sustainability of the
Keys' environment, the U.S. Congress and President Bush approved in 1990 the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (Public Law 101-605).' The Sanctuary
stretches 200 miles from north of the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in the upper
Keys to west of the Dry Tortugas. It encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles and is the
second largest marine sanctuary in the U.S.
The Act authorized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
develop a comprehensive management plan to protect the Sanctuary's resources. In March
1995, the NOAA published a Draft Management Plan (U.S. Department of Commerce 1995)
that included ten action plans designed to manage and protect the natural and historic
resources of the Sanctuary. Included among these action plans were proposals to "zone"
specific marine areas. These zones would create marine reserves to protect important
biological areas such as coral reefs by prohibiting consumptive activities such as commercial
and recreational fishing and salvaging.2
The Draft Management Plan included three areas designated "replenishment reserves"
to provide natural spawning, nursery, and residence habitat for species associated with coral


*J. Walter Milon is a professor in the Food and Resource Economics Department, University
of Florida; Daniel O. Suman is an associate professor in the Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Manoj Shivlani is a research associate at the University
of Miami; and Kathryn A. Cochran is a graduate research assistant at the University of Florida.

1Suman provides a review of events and controversies prior to the Act.

A copy of the regulations governing these reserves in the Draft Management Plan is provided
in Appendix B.









reefs and to protect ecosystem functions in contiguous habitats (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1995, Vol. I pp. 46). The names and areas for these reserves (U.S. Department
of Commerce 1995, Vol. I, pp. 264) were:
Key Largo 8,000 hectares
Sambos 3,000 hectares
Dry Tortugas 38,000 hectares


In addition, the Plan proposed 19 "Sanctuary Preservation Areas" (SPAs) to protect shallow,
heavily used coral reefs and minimize user conflicts. The total area encompassed by the SPAs
was 1.55 hectares (U.S. Department of Commerce 1995, Vol. I, pp. 265).
The Draft Plan also included Wildlife Management Areas, Existing Management Areas,
and Special-Use Areas. These areas were not expected to have significant impacts on any
user groups and are not discussed in this report. For more detail on these areas, see U.S.
Department of Commerce 1996, Volume I, pp. 255-309.
A map from the Draft Plan showing the location of the reserves and SPAs is provided
as Figure 1. The combined areas of the reserves and SPAs would be approximately five
percent of the 9,515 km2 within the Sanctuary (U.S. Department of Commerce 1995, Vol.
I, pp. 264).
One of the activities that would be impacted by the proposed replenishment reserves and
SPAs is commercial fishing. In 1995, the Florida Keys (Monroe County) had the largest and
most valuable shellfish and finfish landings in Florida, accounting for $68.9 million in dockside
value (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). A large portion of this total value
was comprised of spiny lobster and finfish such as groupers and snappers that are highly
dependent on coral reef habitats. In the short run, it would be expected that harvesting
restrictions would reduce commercial fishery landings in the Florida Keys. However,
proponents of marine reserves argue that, in the long run, reserves will enhance total fishery
stocks leading to increased landings (Ballantine; Plan Development Team).
Marine reserves can enhance total fishery stocks by increasing spawning potential
through increased population abundance and size structure (Bohnsack and Ault). Total catch
can increase through a spillover effect whereby fish and other organisms emigrate over a
















Zone Type
Replenishmrnt Reserves (a)
Sanctuary Preservaton Area
Specal-use Areas (c)
Wildlife Management Areas
1. Sawyer Keys
2. East Harbor Key
3. Little Mullet Key
4. Upper Habor Key
S. Uttle Crane Key
0. Boca Grande Key
7. Woman Key
8. Horseshoe Key
9. Cottrell Key
10. Marquesas Keys
11. Snipe Keys
12. Mud Keys
13. Big Mullet Key


14. Tidal flat south of Marvin Key
15. West Content Keys
16. East Content Keys
17. Bay Keys
18. Lower Harbor Keys
19. Cayo Agua Keys
20. Pelican Shoal
21. Crocodile Lake
22. Rodriguez Key
23. Tavemler Key
24. Snake Creek
25. Cotton Key
28. Dove Key


Note: Draft Boundares-designated boundaries will require
groundtnrthing.


SCofhs Patch (b)
Sombrero Key (b)


SKey (b1
Sa"3Key b) ----a1


- Dry Tortug (a)


Figure 1. Location of Proposed Replenishment Reserves, Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and Other Zones in the Draft Management

Plan (U.S. Department of Commerce 1996, Vol. II, pp. 137).


25 Kbnmers









reserve boundary into a fishing area. The export of larvae from a reserve may enhance
recruitment into regional fishery stocks. Also, marine reserves may provide a variety of other
benefits including biodiversity protection, recreation, scientific research, and cultural
preservation (Hoagland et al.; Jones; Norse).
Previous studies on the impact of marine reserves focused primarily on their biological
consequences (e.g. Carr and Reed; Dugan and Davis; Polacheck; Rowley). An equally
important yet relatively neglected topic is the social and economic impact of reserves on
commercial and recreational user groups and the general public. Wolfenden et al. used a
general population survey to evaluate support for marine reserves in New Zealand. The study
concluded that a sizable majority supported the concept of marine reserves but support
decreased the closer a proposed reserve area was to a respondent's residence. This is the
classic NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) response to new land uses that individuals perceive
as undesirable. Bohnsack (1993), drawing on anecdotal information from areas with
established marine reserves, has hypothesized that attitudes and perceptions about marine
reserves will change from initial disapproval to approval as the effects of a reserve are
observed by users.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of a survey of commercial fishers in
Monroe County during the latter part of 1995 and early 1996. The survey measured
commercial fishers' perceptions and attitudes about the Draft Management Plan for the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and, in particular, proposed areas for
replenishment reserves. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the Plan development process.
Section 3 describes the questionnaire and survey methods used in personal interviews with
337 commercial fishers based in the Upper, Middle and Lower Keys. A socioeconomic
profile of the interviewees includes descriptive information on personal characteristics (e.g.
age, ethnicity, and education) for the total sample and by region within the Keys. Section 4
provides an analysis of reported fishing effort and catch (by species) within specific areas
encompassed by the Sanctuary as well as activity reported in the designated reserve areas.
Section 5 summarizes respondents' perceptions of the Sanctuary Management Plan
development process in terms of their participation in the process and the usefulness of the
information provided. Section 6 reports respondents' expectations about the effects and
benefits of the Sanctuary zones and their level of support for the zones. Finally, Section 7









provides a summary of commercial fishers' responses to the proposed reserves from this
survey. We conclude with a short postscript on the fate of the proposed reserves in the Final
Sanctuary Management Plan.









2. Sanctuary Management Plan Development3
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990 mandated that
the NOAA develop a comprehensive management plan for the Sanctuary in coordination with
federal, state and local government officials and a public advisory council (Suman). This was
a complex undertaking due to the lack of coordination among federal, state and local agencies
in the Florida Keys prior to the plan development process (Bohnsack; Suman). To combat
this lack of coordination, the NOAA developed the plan using principles of integrated coastal
management (Ehler and Basta) and consultative management (McCay and Jentoft) which
sought to encourage direct participation of managers, planners, scientists, and the public
throughout the planning process. Before a comprehensive plan could be developed, the
NOAA had to identify the issues affecting the natural and cultural resources of the Sanctuary.
The first official forums used to identify these issues were six public scoping meetings
conducted in Florida and one in Washington, D.C. between April and May 1991. These
meetings were designed to collect input on the scope of problems affecting the health of the
region. The issues focused on water quality, physical impacts to marine habitats, the need for
long-term research, declines in the abundance and health of marine resources, and the
protection of cultural and historic resources. Prior to and during the meetings, the NOAA
distributed questionnaires to the participants in order to identify and rank the issues. Written
comments addressing the issues were also sought from the public. The process led to the
identification of four priority issues: declining water quality, physical injury to resources,
decline of marine resources, and user conflicts.
After the scoping meetings, the Core Group, comprising representatives from federal,
state, and county agencies, was created to review the priority issues and oversee the
development and implementation of the Sanctuary Management Plan (Suman, pp. 296-299).
The Group reviewed more detailed issues which were combined to represent six major issue
areas: boating, commercial and recreational fishing, recreation, land use, and water quality.
For each issue, the Group determined the major impacts, causes, data requirements, data
sources, and the lead agency to oversee the acquisition of data. Next, the issues and the data



3Parts of this section are based on information provided in Volume II, pp. 113-138, U.S.
Department of Commerce 1996.









requirements were reviewed by resource managers and scientists, user groups, environmental
groups, and other interested citizens. A series of technical workshops were also held in
Miami and the Keys to further refine the issues between July 1991 and August 1992.
The Core Group continued to focus the formulation of the management strategies by
developing description statements for the major issues. The issues were again regrouped to
include: boating, commercial and recreational fishing, recreation and cultural/historical
resources, land use, and water quality. These served as the framework for the Sanctuary
Management Plan. Each description statement identified activities that may affect the quality
and/or quantity of resources within the Sanctuary, and the problems that may arise from
multiple-use conflicts. Each description also included a discussion of potential impacts to the
habitat, species, users, and water quality.
The next phase in the Management Plan development process was the identification of
strategies to implement the plan. The first work session on strategy development was in early
1992. The work session involved federal, state and local agency managers and scientists with
Sanctuary management interests. The public was invited to attend as an observer. The session
was divided into two parts: strategy identification and description, and strategy
characterization. During the strategy characterization meetings, participants described the
impacts the strategies might have if implemented. From the first work session a set of
strategy description sheets were developed along with a set of impact characterizations for
all high-priority strategies. The strategies were entered into a database and a list of strategies
organized by issue and priority was produced. Throughout the management plan
development process, these strategies were continuously revised and refined with additional
comments from the Core Group, the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), and the public. The
SAC was created in 1992 as required by the 1990 Act to ensure public input into the
Management Plan and to advise and assist the NOAA with the Plan's implementation. The
SAC was a key factor in the planning process because it provided a linkage to the user
communities including the dive industry, environmental groups, and commercial and
recreational fishers (Suman, pp. 297).
The next phase in the management plan development process was formulation of a
series of management alternatives and inclusion of the strategies in these alternatives. This
was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act









of 1969 (NEPA) which was part of the Sanctuary's environmental impact assessment process.
The Core Group developed management alternatives over the course of several working
sessions. Input was also provided by public and private interests including agencies and
departments of the federal, state, and Monroe County governments; national, state and local
non-governmental organizations; industry and trade groups; the SAC; and the citizens of
Monroe County.
The Group established five management alternatives representing different levels of
regulatory control over Sanctuary resources and restrictions on use. Alternative I was the
most restrictive and Alternative V (No Action) the least restrictive. Strategies were not
exclusive to one management alternative; strategies included in Alternative IV were also
represented in Alternatives II and II. Alternatives I and V were eliminated during the
evaluation process because they would not adequately achieve the environmental and
economic requirements set out in the 1990 Act. Alternative II was selected as the Preferred
Management Alternative to achieve the proper balance of resource protection and facilitate
compatible uses. The process used to select the Preferred Alternative involved the
consideration of recommendations by the SAC, the Core Group, andlthe public.
A Draft Management Plan containing the Preferred Alternative I and Environmental
Impact Statement for the FKNMS emerged in March 1995. A nine month public review of
the Plan commenced in April 1995 when it was presented before a SAC meeting. The Draft
Plan included ten action plans on channel marking, education, enforcement, mooring buoys,
regulation, research and monitoring, submerged cultural resources, volunteers, water quality,
and zoning. Info-Expos were conducted by NOAA staff in the Upper, Middle and Lower
Keys which were designed to both provide information about the Plan and answer the public's
questions. The SAC also established ten working groups, one for each action plan, to assist
in public review of the Draft Plan. The purpose of these groups was to broaden public
participation and input. There were also six public hearings held in Miami, Key Largo,
Marathon, Key West, St. Petersburg, and Silver Spring, Maryland to review the draft. Over
6,400 statements with public comment on the Draft Plan were received during the nine month
review period (U.S. Department of Commerce 1996, Vol.I, p. 9).
In September 1996, a Final Management Plan was released with major modifications
to Preferred Alternative III to reflect public comments. The Final Plan was sent to Governor









Lawton Chiles and the Florida Cabinet for approval as required by the 1990 Act. Specific
changes to the Plan approved by the Governor and Cabinet will be discussed in the final
section of this report.









3. Survey Methodology and Respondent Profile
Questionnaire Design and Sample Selection
During the early part of 1995 the research team met with commercial fishers,
representatives of Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc., and the Florida Sea Grant
extension agent in Key West. These discussions focused on the feasibility of eliciting detailed
landings and financial information from commercial fishers in Monroe County and their
perceptions of the Draft Management Plan. The research team decided that the complexity
and sensitive nature of these topics required personal interviews with fishers. The team
developed a draft questionnaire and made revisions based on comments from these individuals
and field tests of the survey instrument. A copy of the final questionnaire is included in
Appendix A to this report.
The 1994-1995 Saltwater Products License (SPL) file maintained by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was used as the sample frame for the
survey. Under Florida law, any person who wishes to sell fish or shellfish products must have
a SPL. The file obtained from FDEP contained 2,430 SPL holders who reside in Monroe
County. Of this total 1,438 (59.2 percent) reported on the SPL application form they were
full-time fishers and 992 (40.8 percent) reported they were part-time fishers.
To evaluate the effects of location on perceptions of the Sanctuary Management Plan,
SPL holders were classified into Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys groups based on their
reported zip code. The cities and zip codes included in each regional group were:
Upper Keys -- Long Key (33001), Plantation (33036), Key Largo (33037),
and Tavernier (33070)

Middle Keys -- Marathon (33050), Marathon Shores (33051), and Key
Colony Beach (33052)

Lower Keys -- Key West (33040-42), Big Pine Key (33043), Summerland
Key (33044), and Ramrod Key (33045)

The number of SPLs by region within Monroe County is presented in the following
tabulation. Commercial fishers who may fish in waters around the Florida Keys but who
reside elsewhere were not included in this sample frame.









REGION FULL-TIME PART-TIME TOTAL
Upper Keys 288 261 549
Middle Keys 423 228 651
Lower Keys 727 503 1,230
TOTAL 1,438 992 2,430


Based on a total of 2,430 SPL holders, a randomized sample size of 332 interviews was
selected to achieve a sampling error of plus or minus 10 percent for the total sample. This
total sample was then stratified into regional and full-/part-time status. This resulted in the
following sample subgroup quotas for each region:

REGION FULL-TIME PART-TIME TOTAL
Upper Keys 41 36 77
Middle Keys 58 31 89

Lower Keys 98 68 166
TOTAL 197 135 332


A total of 337 interviews were completed of which 199 (59.0 percent) were full-time and 138
(41.0 percent) were part-time fishers. Interviews were conducted during the latter part of
1995 and early 1996.
Contacts with full-time fishers to set-up interviews were initially attempted by telephone
based on information from the SPL file. This approach was not successful because the license
holder could not be contacted or he/she was wary of agreeing to meet for an interview.
Therefore, other approaches were utilized: major fish houses in the Florida Keys were
contacted and informed of the study and they in turn identified potential interviewees;
commercial fishing organization representatives identified potential interviews; the Florida Sea
Grant extension agent in Key West and other governmental representatives identified potential
interviewees; the study team attended the various Sanctuary and related governmental
meetings to establish contacts; and, the commercial docks in the various regions were visited
periodically. Typically the best time for interviews was during the late afternoons when
fishers returned from their trips. Efforts were made to avoid bias in the selection of









interviewees by describing the survey as a general purpose survey about commercial fishing
in Monroe County and by avoiding individuals who directly approached the survey team to
be interviewed. Also, the regional stratification helped to minimize the effects of particular
organizations or outspoken individuals in specific areas.
For part-time fishers, telephone contacts were used almost exclusively to solicit
interviews. Many part-time SPL holders were not affiliated with a particular fish house and
several docked out of their homes.
The survey was administered in Spanish for Spanish-speaking fishers. Several fishers,
particularly those in the Key West/Stock Island area, spoke only Spanish.
During the initial phase of interviews, interviewers noted that most of the interviewees
knew about the Sanctuary Management Plan and the proposed reserves and SPAs, but many
did not know the specific boundaries. Therefore, a one page fact sheet was used in the
interviews which described the zoning strategy and contained a map of the proposed
replenishment reserves and SPAs. The fact sheet contained only information directly from
the Sanctuary Draft Management Plan on the locations and regulations for each type of zone.
Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents
Socioeconomic characteristics for respondents are presented in Table 3-1. The
information is presented for the total sample and for the three regions described previously.
The number of usable responses for each question from the total sample is indicated in
parentheses (n=) next to each characteristic.
The results in Table 3-1 indicate that about one-third of the total sample was between
41 to 50 years old and over 70 percent of the sample was over 40 years old. While there is
some variation in the age distributions across the regions, the differences are relatively minor.
More than 80 percent of the sample fished in Monroe County for at least 5 years suggesting
that they had the opportunity to observe the Sanctuary Management Plan development
process since the Sanctuary was first established in 1990. Also, the majority of the sample
fished in Monroe County for at least 10 years suggesting many had long-standing ties to the
local fishing industry.
More than 80 percent of the sample indicated they were Anglo-American. The second
largest ethnic group was Hispanic with 18.2 percent of the total sample. The Hispanic
population, however, tends to be concentrated in the Middle and Lower Keys.









Membership in various local professional and social organizations was limited. Table
3-1 shows that less than one-fourth of the sample belonged to Monroe County Commercial
Fishermen, Inc. (MCCF) and the Organized Fishermen of Florida (OFF). Since some
respondents may belong to more than one group, the percentage of the total sample in
commercial fishing organizations was not large. There was some variation across the regions,
however. The MCCF was the most common membership group in the Lower Keys while
membership was split between MCCF and OFF in the Middle Keys. Very few respondents
in the Upper Keys were members of either MCCF or OFF. The Conch Coalition and Victims
of NOAA, organizations opposed to the Sanctuary, accounted for less than one-fifth of the
total interviewees. Similarly, membership in environmental organizations was relatively low
with the highest involvement in the Upper Keys.
For the total sample, about 61 percent of income was derived from fishing. The
percentage was slightly lower in the Upper Keys at 57.0 percent while the Lower Keys was
higher at 62.3 percent. This reflects, in part, the higher percentage of full-time fishers in the
Lower Keys.
The average reported replacement value of a commercial fisher's vessel and equipment
for the total sample was $121,165. The replacement value of vessels and equipment in the
Upper Keys was lower at $64,572 while the average value in the Lower Keys was $138,549.
This reflects differences in the proportion of full- and part-time fishers in the Upper versus
the Lower Keys and the fact that many fishers in the Lower Keys travel longer distances from
shore and stay out longer to fish in the Marquesas Keys and Dry Tortugas areas (see Figure
1).











Table 3-1. Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents in the Total Sample and by Region'


Variable

AGE OF FISHERS (n=333)

18-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

over 60

YEARS FISHING IN MONROE COUNTY (n=329)


1-5

6-10

11-20

21 or more

ETHNIC GROUP (n=336)

Anglo-American

Hispanic

African-American

Other

FAMILY SIZE (n=329)

Myself

2

3

4 or more

MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS (n=331)

Victims ofNOAA

Conch Coalition

OFF

MCCF

Environmental Group

PERCENT OF INCOME FROM FISHING (n=303)


REPLACEMENT VALUE OF VESSEL AND
EQUIPMENT (n=306)


REGION


Total Sample Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys


10.5%

18.6%

30.3%

23.4%

17.1%


17.0%

22.5%

31.0%

29.5%


80.1%

18.2%

0.9%

0.9%



18.8%

43.2%

15.8%

22.2%



4.2%

16.9%

19.0%

24.2%

6.9%

61.0%
(42.97)2

$121,165
(304,839)2


15.6%

15.6%

24.4%

22.2%

22.2%



11.2%

36.6%

24.6%

27.6%



93.4%

6.6%

0%

0%



24.6%

41.0%

17.9%

17.9%


12.3%

23.0%

30.3%

23.0%

11.5%



16.5%

25.4%

29.5%

28.6%



82.3%

15.3%

0.8%

1.6%



20.7%

46.3%

9.0%

24.0%


2.2% 1.7%

26.7% 182%

8.9% 28.9%

2.2% 28.1%

8.9% 8.3%

57.0% 61.3%
(44.50) (41.14)

$64,572 $118,134
(114,821) (122,986)


8.0%

16.0%

32.5%

23.9%

19.6%


19.0%

16.6%

33.7%

30.7%



74.8%

23.9%

1.2%

0%



16.2%

42.3%

20.4%

21.1%



6.1%

12.3%

14.1%

26.4%

5.5%

62.3%
(43.87)

$138,549
(413,249)


'Percentages across regions may not add up to percentage for the total sample because respondents who lived
outside Monroe County were omitted.
2 Standard deviation in parentheses.


-









4. Fishing Effort and Catch Profile
Total Effort and Catch by Region
Catch information at the individual vessel level is typically not available from state or
federal catch monitoring statistics. Similarly, catch data are only reported for large
geographic areas making it difficult to determine how dependent fishers may be on certain
fishing areas. Their perceptions of marine reserves may be influenced by this dependence.
To address these data deficiencies, interviewees were asked to report their 1994 levels of
effort and catch for specific species and defined geographic areas.
Table 4-1 presents reported results for fishing effort by species for the total sample
based on the regional sample stratification described above. The number of respondents (n=)
indicates the number of interviewees who reported fishing for that species in 1994. Fishing
effort was highest in the crustacean fisheries, with the exception of shrimp. An average of 80
trips per fisher was reported for spiny lobster and 59 trips for stone crabs. Effort in the
shrimp fishery was comparatively low with an average 17 trips per fisher for the total sample.
This reflects the fact that shrimp harvesting in the Keys is highly seasonal with peak
production occurring in the winter months. Shrimp vessels often come from other ports to
fish in the Keys and hence do not have a permanent residence in Monroe County. Also,
shrimp harvested in the Keys are landed at other Florida ports such as Ft. Myers and Tampa.
Thus, the levels of effort for shrimp reflected in this sample do not represent the full level of
effort occurring in the Keys.
The regional breakdown in Table 4-1 shows that effort for stone crab was highest in the
Middle Keys. This indicates the dependence of this fishery on the area surrounding Florida
Bay. Effort in the spiny lobster fishery was highest in the Upper and Middle Keys although
this may be somewhat misleading since fishers in the Lower Keys may take more multi-day
trips.
The highest average level of effort per respondent was reported in the tropical fish and
sponges fishery with an average of 88 trips per fisher. Because collected fish and marine life
specimens are highly perishable, there is a need for frequent trips. The number of participants
in this fishery, however, was low relative to the number of fishers for other species.
In the reef fish fishery, the average number of trips was higher in the Upper and Middle
Keys. The fewer trips in the Lower Keys may once again reflect multi-day trips.









The mackerel fishery had one of the lowest overall levels of effort with an average 31

trips reported. This reflects in part the seasonal nature of the mackerel fishery. Effort in the

Upper Keys was substantially higher with an average 94 trips per fisher but this involved only
a few fishers.
Fishing effort for other species, which may include dolphin, sharks, and swordfish, was

also a significant component of total effort across all three regions. This component of effort

was highest in the Upper Keys with an average of 76 trips per fisher and lowest in the Middle

Keys.


Table 4-1: Profile of Respondents' Fishing Effort (Average Number of Trips) by Species
for the Total Sample and by Region
REGION

Species Group Total Sample Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys

Stone Crabs 59.09 41.11 68.06 51.08
(45.85)' (37.31) (49.62) (40.21)
n=99 n=9 n=52 n=38
Lobster 79.75 102.86 91.24 64.81
(59.45) (67.70) (60.51) (53.64)
n=140 n=14 n=59 n=67
Shrimp 16.56 16.00 12.00 17.20
(8.92) (0) (8.49) (9.38)
n=18 n=l n=2 n=15
ReefFish 43.55 67.14 51.63 33.22
(49.56) (63.36) (49.66) (43.95)
n=119 n=14 n=41 n=64

Mackerel 31.09 93.75 25.95 27.65
(44.79) (112.05) (19.59) (41.73)
n=66 n=4 n=22 n=40
Tropical Fish & 88.00 122.50 162.00 47.14
Sponges (93.51) (49.24) (195.16) (73.22)
n=13 n=4 n=2 n=7
Other Species 55.97 76.32 48.08 53.00
(70.76) (84.15) (59.46) (75.34)
n=110 n=25 n=52 n=33
'Standard deviation in parentheses

While levels of fishing effort are indicative of total fishing activity, levels of average

annual total catch reflect differences in productivity across the Florida Keys. Table 4-2 shows
the average total catch by species reported by respondents. Results are presented by region.









Average total catch of spiny lobster reported for 1994 was highest in the Lower Keys.
Respondents reported average landings of 18,779 pounds in the Lower Keys compared to
13,450 pounds in the Upper Keys and 16,635 pounds in the Middle Keys. Given the large
variation in catch by region, these differences are not statistically significant.
Stone crab catch also showed differences across regions. While the average catch for
the total sample was 7,183 pounds, the highest stone crab catch occurred in the Middle Keys
where an average of 8,816 pounds was landed. In the Lower Keys, an average of 6,254
pounds was landed.
The shrimp fishery was heavily concentrated in the Lower Keys where an average of
71,887 pounds were reported while there were no reported landings of shrimp in the Upper
Keys. For the reasons cited above, these figures for the shrimp fishery should be viewed with
caution since they may not fully reflect catch by region in the fishery.
The most similar pattern of catch across the three regions occurred in the reef fish
fishery. Average total catch for the sample was 7,861 pounds with the highest average catch
of 8,427 pounds in the Lower Keys and the lowest catch of 7,169 pounds in the Upper Keys.
This pattern across the three regions may reflect a relative lack of seasonality for reef fish and
a relatively even distribution of reef fish species across the Florida Keys marine environment.
For mackerels, the highest total catch occurred in the Lower Keys where 10,141 pounds
was landed on average compared to 8,764 pounds landed for the total sample. Total catch
for tropical fish and sponges was highest in the Upper Keys where an average 31,667 pounds
was landed compared to 11,705 pounds landed for the total sample. Average total catch for
other species equaled 12,628 pounds for the total sample with the highest average total catch
occurring in the Upper Keys.









Table 4-2: Profile of Respondents' Average Total Catch in Pounds by Species and Region
REGION

Species Group Total Sample Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys
Stone Crabs 7,182.54 1,122.22 8,815.82 6,253.921
(7,959.96)' (1,020.76) (9,740.81) (15,934.17)
n=102 n=9 n=55 n=38

Lobster 17,353.19 13,450 16,635.25 18,779.71
(17,980.91) (12,718.96) (16,772.51) (19,873.60)
n=141 n=14 n=59 n=68

Shrimp 67,011.76 0 30,600.00 71,866.67
(83,787.54) (41,577.88) (87,664.84)
n=17 n=2 n=15

ReefFish 7,861.35 7,168.75 7,217.95 8,426.56
(12,580.98) (9,028.90) (14,308.09) (12,363.96)
n=119 n=16 n=39 n=64

Mackerel 8,764.62 5,425.00 6,931.82 10,141.03
(14,500.88) (8,476.79) (7,788.05) (17,603.78)
n=65 n=4 n=22 n=39

Tropical Fish & 11,705 31,666.67 7,880.00 4,242.86
Sponges (19,233.45) (34,034.30) (2,998.13) (4,638.20)
n=12 n=3 n=2 n=7

Other Species 12,628.32 21,907.00 12,352.04 7,252.19
(35,044.44) (66,025.96) (25,428.75) (14,248.70)
n=101 n=20 n=49 n=32
'Standard deviation in parentheses


Effort and Catch by Fishing Areas
To provide more detailed analysis, respondents were also asked to report total effort

and catch for each species group for the six fishing areas shown in Figure 2. The map in
figure 2 was used in the interview process to aid in identifying the fishing areas. Areas 2, 3,
and 5 are within the Sanctuary boundaries.
Catch of specific species was somewhat concentrated in certain areas of the six defined

for this study. Table 4-3 shows that more than 62 percent of the stone crab catch occurred
in Area 1. This suggests that the area west of Florida Bay was the primary fishing ground for
stone crabs. This area is not included in the Sanctuary.
On the other hand, catch of spiny lobsters was concentrated in Areas 2 and 3 indicating

that the majority of catch occurred in the Middle and Lower Keys. For the sample as a










































Figure 2. Fishing Areas Used for the Survey.









whole, 85.1 percent of the total catch of spiny lobster was harvested within the Sanctuary
(Areas 2, 3, and 5). A little more than half of the shrimp catch was concentrated in the Lower
Keys and the Dry Tortugas. Sixty-seven percent of reef fish catch occurred in Area 2.
Tropical fish and sponges were caught predominately in Areas 3 and 5. Thus, fishers for most
of the major species groups in the Keys were fishing within the boundaries of the Sanctuary.


Table 4-3. Distribution of Catch (by percent of Total Catch) by Species Across
Fishing Areas for the Total Sample
FISHING AREAS
Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stone Crabs 62.66% 1.56% 33.06% 0 2.71% 0
Lobsters 14.36% 28.03% 45.57% 0.41% 11.53% 0.10%
Shrimp 37.44% 39.13% 11.39% 1.08% 0.88% 0
Reef Fish 5.49% 67.65% 15.23% 1.80% 9.21% 0.63%
Mackerels 50.03% 26.66% 18.23% 0.45% 4.60% 0.04%
Tropical Fish & Sponges 0.00 12.15% 25.21% 0 62.65% 0
Other Species 3.0% 7.31% 12.22% 30.52% 17.82% 29.34%


Catch by fishing area is also reported using the regional breakdown of the Keys
described in Section 3. Beginning first in the Upper Keys, Table 4-4 shows about 79 percent
of stone crabs were caught in Area 5 by fishers from the Upper Keys. Almost all spiny
lobsters were caught in Area 5 and about half of the reef fish catch occurred in this area.
Most of the tropical fish and sponges and other species were caught in Area 5. No shrimp
catch by fishers in the Upper Keys was reported. Table 4-4 also shows that there were some
fishers who fished for mackerels in Area 2. About 44 percent of the reef fish were captured
in Area 2 by fishers from the Upper Keys.









Table 4-4. Distribution of Catch (by percent of Total Catch) by Species Across
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the Upper Keys
FISHING AREAS

Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stone Crabs 21.29% 0 0 0 78.71% 0
Lobsters 0 0 0 0 98.65% 1.35%
Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0
ReefFish 0 43.99% 1.74% 0 53.52% 0.74%
Mackerels 0 82.95% 0 0 16.13% 0.92%
Tropical Fish & Sponges 0 6.32% 6.32% 0 87.36% 0
Other Species 0 0.11% 0 2.20% 77.91% 14.55%


Fishers in the Middle Keys reported a somewhat wider distribution of catch by area.
Table 4-5 shows that the majority of stone crabs were caught in Area 1 (about 74 percent)
and Area 3 (about 25 percent). Spiny lobsters were mostly caught in Areas 1 and 3. Shrimp
fleets operating out of the Middle Keys mostly fished for shrimp in Area 1. Most of the reef
fish catch by fishers in the Middle Keys occurred in Areas 2 and 3. Mackerel catch was
distributed across several areas with slightly higher catch in Areas 2 and 3. Tropical fish and
sponges catch by respondents in the Middle Keys were evenly distributed across zones 2, 3,
and 5. Most of the other species were caught in Areas 5 and 6. This reflects the fact that the
other species group includes mostly pelagic species.









Table 4-5. Distribution of Catch (by percent of Total Catch) by Species Across
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the Middle Keys
FISHING AREAS

Species Group 1 2 3 4 45 6
Stone Crabs 73.64% 0.00 24.46% 0.00 1.90% 0.00
Lobsters 20.30% 0.05% 69.85% 0.00 9.80% 0.00
Shrimp 98.04% 0.00 1.96% 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reef Fish 6.83% 58.77% 22.06% 1.78% 8.79% 1.78%
Mackerels 10.62% 30.65% 43.84% 0.00 14.89% 0.00
Tropical Fish & Sponges 0.00 36.55% 31.73% 0.00 31.72% 0.00
Other Species 2.11% 4.13% 13.73% 51.74% 2.56% 25.73%


Table 4-6 shows that fishers originating from the Lower Keys focused most of their

effort in Areas 1, 2, and 3. For example, about 66 percent of stone crab catch was reported
in Area 3 and 27 percent in Area 1. More than half the lobster catch occurred in Area 2 with

about 34 percent of the total catch in Area 3. For shrimp, most of the respondents were
operating in Areas 1 and 2. The majority of reef fish were caught in Area 2 and mackerel
catches occurred mostly in Areas 1 and 2. Area 3 was the primary site for tropical fish and
sponge catches by respondents in the Lower Keys. Catch of other species was widely
distributed across Areas 1 through 4.


Table 4-6. Distribution of Catch (by percent of Total Catch) by Species Across
Fishing Areas for Respondents in the Lower Keys.
FISHING AREAS

Species Group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stone Crabs 27.03% 7.19% 65.78% 0 0 0
Lobsters 11.92% 53.67% 33.63% 0.78% 0 0
Shrimp 38.45% 36.90% 11.92% 1.14% 0.93% 0
ReefFish 5.96% 77.32% 14.53% 2.19% 0 0
Mackerels 67.96% 22.04% 9.35% 0.65% 0 0
Tropical Fish & Sponges 0 17.85% 82.15% 0 0 0
Other Species 10.78% 29.20% 31.37% 28.66% 0 0









5. Perceptions of the Sanctuary Management Plan Process
To identify the various sources of information about the Sanctuary Management Plan
that may have shaped commercial fishers's perceptions and opinions, interviewees were asked
what sources they used to obtain information and which were most useful. More than one
source could be identified. The majority of respondents indicated that they relied heavily on
the media and personal contacts as primary sources of information. As shown in Table 5-1,
75 percent of the total sample reported they obtained their information from newspapers and
66.4 percent relied on information via rumors or the grapevine. About one-third of the total
sample relied on information provided by the NOAA, including NOAA personnel, public
meetings sponsored by NOAA, and NOAA literature. Approximately one-fourth of the total
sample referred to the NOAA Comprehensive Management Plan as a source of information
about the proposed sanctuary zones. One-third of the total sample also cited special interest
groups such as the Conch Coalition, Victims ofNOAA, and commercial fishing organizations
as sources of information. A similar pattern was evident across the three regions except that
respondents in the Lower Keys had the least contact with NOAA sources.
Table 5-2 provides information about how the respondents rated the usefulness of the
various sources of information. For the total sample, 27 percent reported that newspapers
were the most useful sources of information followed by personal contacts at 24 percent, and
commercial fishing organizations at 23 percent. In terms of information supplied by NOAA,
13 percent of all respondents rated the NOAA Comprehensive Plan and NOAA public
meetings as most useful. Citizens groups like the Conch Coalition and Victims of NOAA
were rated about the same as these NOAA sources. On the other hand, NOAA personnel
and other NOAA literature were cited as useful sources of information by relatively few
respondents. A small number of fishers (7.4 percent) rated the Sea Grant Extension Service
as most useful. Table 5-2 also shows a similar pattern of responses occurred across the three
regions. The primary exception was that respondents in the Middle and Lower Keys more
frequently cited commercial fishing organizations (MCCF and OFF) as the most useful
sources of information.










Table 5-1. Sources of Information About Proposed Sanctuary Zones for the
Total Sample and by Region
REGION

Total Upper Middle Lower
Sources of Information Sample Keys Keys Keys

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 22.6% 34.8% 25.2% 17.2%
Administration (NOAA) Personnel
NOAA Comprehensive Management Plan 35.4% 39.1% 40.7% 30.7%

Other NOAA Literature 28.9% 32.6% 33.3% 24.5%

NOAA Public Meetings 37.5% 54.4% 39.8% 31.3%

Newspapers 75.0% 84.8% 80.5% 68.1%
TV/Radio 45.5% 54.4% 46.3% 42.3%
Conch Coalition/Victims of NOAA 33.3% 37.0% 37.4% 29.5%
Commercial Fishing Organizations 36.3% 19.6% 49.6% 30.7%
Environmental Organization Literature 7.4% 8.7% 9.8% 4.9%
Government Fisheries Scientists 15.5% 13.0% 15.5% 16.1%
Sea Grant Extension Service 15.2% 0% 16.3% 18.4%
Rumors or Grapevine 66.4% 69.6% 70.7% 62.6%

Don't know about Proposed Sanctuary Zone 7.1% 2.2% 8.9% 6.8%










Table 5-2. Most Useful Sources of Information About Proposed Sanctuary
Zones for the Total Sample and by Region
REGION

Total Upper Middle Lower
Sources of Information Sample Keys Keys Keys
National Oceanic and Atmospheric 5.1% 15.2% 4.1% 3.1%
Administration (NOAA) Personnel
NOAA Comprehensive Management Plan 13.1% 23.9% 13.0% 9.8%
Other NOAA Literature 6.8% 10.9% 9.8% 3.7%
NOAA Public Meetings 13.7% 23.9% 18.9% 7.4%
Newspapers 27.2% 37.0% 28.9% 23.0%
TV/Radio 7.1% 10.9% 5.7% 6.8%
Conch Coalition/Victims of NOAA 13.1% 15.2% 14.6% 11.0%
Commercial Fishing Organizations 22.6% 6.5% 30.9% 20.9%
Environmental Organization Literature 1.5% 0% 2.4% 1.2%
Government Fisheries Scientists 2.7% 4.4% 2.4% 2.5%
Sea Grant Extension Service 7.4% 15.2% 4.1% 3.1%
Rumors or Grapevine 23.5% 34.8% 16.3% 25.8%
Don't know about Proposed Sanctuary Zones 6.8% 2.2% 8.1% 6.8%



Interviewees were also asked about their participation in the various activities related

to development of the Draft Management Plan (see Section 2). Table 5-3 indicates that less

than half the sample participated in any of these activities. Approximately one-half of the
total sample had read the Sanctuary Management Plan and 44 percent participated in NOAA-

sponsored public workshops, hearings, and/or meetings. About 43 percent of the total sample

read other NOAA literature about the Plan. About one-quarter of the total sample attended

Sanctuary Advisory Council meetings. The level of participation in all activities across the

three regions was generally highest in the Upper Keys and lowest in the Lower Keys.









Table 5-3. Participation in Activities Related to Development of the Management
Plan for Total Sample and by Region
REGION

Total Upper Middle Lower
Activities Sample Keys Keys Keys
Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) Meetings 25.3% 43.5% 29.3% 17.2%
NOAA-sponsored public 44.0% 58.7% 46.3% 38.0%
workshops/hearings/meetings
Info Expos 9.5% 23.9% 11.4% 4.3%
Visits to any FKNMS offices 16.4% 39.1% 17.1% 9.8%
Letter Writing to FKNMS/NOAA 16.1% 19.6% 18.7% 12.9%
Read Sanctuary Management Plan 48.2% 60.9% 54.5% 40.5%
Read NOAA Literature 42.6% 47.8% 52.9% 33.7%
Town Meetings with Government Officials 27.4% 43.5% 32.5% 19.6%


Finally, respondents evaluated the quality of information provided by NOAA about the
Plan and the proposed zones. Respondents were asked to agree (strongly or moderately) or
disagree (strongly or moderately) with three statements about the NOAA information. Table
5-4 shows respondents who were familiar with the NOAA information generally disagreed
that it provided everything they needed to know. More than one-fourth strongly disagreed
and 11 percent moderately disagreed with the statement that the Sanctuary Comprehensive
Management Plan contained everything they needed to know about the plan. A similar
percentage of the total sample disagreed strongly to moderately that NOAA information
about the sanctuary zones contained everything they needed to know about the zones.
When asked ifNOAA information helped them understand the positive and negative effects
of the sanctuary zones, nearly 30 percent of the total sample strongly disagreed. For all three
questions, however, it should be noted that nearly one-half of the respondents did not use or
receive information from NOAA (see also Table 5-1). No regional breakdown is provided
because there were no significant differences in responses across the regions.









Table 5-4. Evaluation of Information Provided by NOAA for Total Sample

Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Don't Average
Question Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know' Response2
Information provided by NOAA about the
Sanctuary Management Plan contains
Sanctuary Management Plan contains 2.1% 7.5% 5.1% 11.3% 26.9% 47.2% 4.0
everything you need to know about the
Plan.
Information provided by NOAA about the
sanctuary zones contains everything you 3.6% 7.8% 4.8% 11.1% 26.7% 45.9% 3.9
need to know about the sanctuary zones.
Information provided by NOAA about the
sanctuary zones helped you understand the 2.7% 7.5% 5.4% 8.4% 29.7% 46.2% 4.0
positive and negative effects of sanctuary
zones.
'Includes respondents who did not use or receive information from NOAA.
2Strongly agree = 1, strongly disagree = 5.









6. Expectations About the Effects and Benefits of Sanctuary Zones
As discussed in the Introduction, one of the stated purposes of the zoning plan, in
particular the replenishment reserves, was to enhance fishery stocks. To evaluate commercial
fishers' perceptions of the effects of the zones, respondents were asked to agree (strongly or
moderately) or disagree (strongly or moderately) with a series of statements about the likely
effects of the zones on different species in the Keys' marine environment. The results in Table
6-1 show that the majority of respondents moderately to strongly agreed that the main
purpose of the sanctuary zones was to conserve and protect corals, fish and other marine life
within the boundaries of the zones. Also, nearly half of the respondents agreed that the
purpose of the sanctuary zones was to increase overall stocks and biomass within the
boundaries of the zones.
Respondents indicated, however, that the effects of the zones on specific fishery stocks
within the marine environment of the Keys would be insignificant. When asked if they
thought the zones would help to increase a particular fish stock (i.e. spiny lobster, reef fish,
stone crab) outside the zones, for every stock more than half of the total sample strongly
disagreed. Similarly, when asked if the main purpose of the sanctuary zones was to increase
overall stocks and biomass outside the boundaries, more than one-half the respondents
strongly disagreed. These results suggest strong differences in opinion between commercial
fishers in the Keys and members of the scientific community who have advocated reserves for
fisheries management.
Given these results, it is not surprising that most commercial fishers believed they would
not benefit from the zones. Table 6-2 shows that over 90 percent of respondents disagreed
that commercial fishers would be the-primary group to benefit and 82.4 percent strongly
disagreed. A majority also felt that recreational fishers would not benefit from the zones.
The Draft Plan permitted no fishing by any means in the reserves and SPAs. (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 127-129). Most commercial fishers believed
that recreational divers would be the primary beneficiaries. This is consistent with the
majority belief that the main purpose of the zones was to protect corals and other marine life
(see Table 6-1). These concerns about the effects of the zones were not just short-term in
nature. Table 6-2 also shows that more than two-thirds of the respondents disagreed that the
zones would have a long-term beneficial effect on the Keys' economy. These perceptions of









the expected effects of the zones were generally consistent across the three regions in the
Keys. Therefore, no regional breakdown of responses is provided.
The survey also asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed that the sanctuary
zones would produce other non-fishing related benefits. Table 6-3 shows that a large majority
of commercial fishers strongly disagreed that the zones were the most effective way to
reduce conflicts between user groups. Similarly, although a majority of respondents agreed
that the main purpose of the sanctuary zones was to conserve the coral reefs (see Table 6-1),
nearly 60 percent disagreed that the zones were the most effective way to restore the coral
reefs to what they used to be. The survey did not include questions to determine whether
respondents believed the reefs needed to be restored or whether they knew of a more effective
alternative.










Table 6-1. Expected Effects on Marine Resource Stocks due to the Sanctuary Zones for the Total Sample


Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Don't Average
Question Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Response'

Sanctuary zones will help to increase the 8.7% 20.1% 6.9% 9.3% 50.6% 4.5% 3.8
stock of reef fish in the Florida Keys.
Sanctuary zones will help to increase the
stocks of spiny lobster (crawfish) in the 6.3% 11.4% 6.0% 8.4% 58.1% 9.9% 4.1
Florida Keys.
Sanctuary zones will help to increase the 6.0% 11.4% 5.4% 5.7% 57.8% 13.8% 4.1
stocks of stone crabs in the Florida Keys.
Sanctuary zones will help to increase the 3.3% 5.7% 5.7% 6.3% 49.2% 29.7% 4.3
stocks of shrimp in the Florida Keys.
The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is
to increase overall stocks (and biomass) 18.3% 26.0% 5.4% 6.9% 37.7% 5.7% 3.2
w within the boundaries of the zones.

The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is
to increase overall stocks (and biomass) 8.7% 14.4% 6.3% 10.2% 53.3% 7.2% 3.9
outside the boundaries of the zones.

The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is
to conserve and protect corals, fish, and 39.0% 22.0% 6.3% 3.9% 25.0% 3.9% 2.5
other marine life within the boundaries of
the zones.
'Strongly agree = 1, strongly disagree = 5.










Table 6-2.


Question

Primary group t
is commercial

Primary group t
is recreational

Primary group t
is recreational

Long-term effec
economy of the
'Strongly agree =


Expected Beneficiaries from the Sanctuary Zones for the Total Sample

Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately
Agree Agree Disagree
o benefit from sanctuary zones 1.5% 3.9% 2.1% 8.0%
fishers.

o benefit from sanctuary zones 20.5% 11.6% 6.5% 8.6%
fishers.

o benefit from sanctuary zones 49.4% 18.5% 4.5% 4.2%
divers.

ts of the sanctuary zones on the 6.3% 10.4% 9.3% 9.0%


e Keys will be positive.
1, strongly disagree = 5.


Effectiveness of Sanctuary Zones to Produce Other Benefits

Strongly Moderately Ne
Agree Agree


-utral Moderately
Disagree


Sanctuary zones are the most effective way to
reduce conflicts between different user 4.2% 7.8% 4.8% 8.7% 65.7% 9.0% 4.4
groups.

Sanctuary zones are the most effective way of
restoring the coral reefs in the Keys to what 7.8% 12.0% 5.4% 8.7% 59.3% 6.9% 4.1
they used to be.


'Strongly agree = 1, strongly disagree = 5.


Strongly
Disagree

82.4%


47.9%


15.8%


59.4%


Don't
Know

2.1%


4.8%


7.7%


5.7%


Average


Average
Response'

4.7


3.5


2.1


4.1


Table 6-3.


Question


Strongly
Disagree


Don't
Know


Average
Response'









Another sequence of survey questions sought to determine whether commercial fishers
preferred to have zones located in a particular region in the Keys and their overall support for
the zoning concept. The results in Table 6-4 show a large majority of respondents disagree
with locating zones anywhere in the Keys. While about one-fourth of the sample did support
zones somewhere in the Keys, the level of support declined whenever a specific location was
suggested. Moreover, for the exact locations identified as zones in the Draft Management
Plan, nearly 80 percent of the respondents strongly disagreed with these locations. Similarly,
more than three-fourths of the sample did not support the establishment of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. The results in Table 6-4, combined with the earlier results in
Table 6-1, clearly indicate that commercial fishers perceived very few biological or economic
advantages from the zoning proposals in the Draft Plan.
Finally, the survey included a question to determine how their fellow fishers would
comply with zoning restrictions in the Draft Plan. The results in Table 6-5 show that the
sample was fairly evenly split on the issue of compliance. More than 56 percent of
respondents believed it was not likely or not likely at all that fishers would fish inside a closed
area. But, 27 percent thought it was likely and 16.5 percent thought it was somewhat likely
fishers would violate the boundaries. Thus, enforcement of zoning restrictions within the
Sanctuary may be a problem.










Table 6-4. Support for Establishment of Sanctuary Zones and the Sanctuary

Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Don't Average
Question Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know Response'
I support the establishment of a sanctuary zone 9.6% 13.5% 7.2% 3.3% 61.6% 4.8% 4.0
somewhere in the Upper Keys.
I support the establishment of a sanctuary zone 7.5% 10.8% 5.4% 5.4% 65.7% 5.1% 4.2
somewhere in the Middle Keys.
I support the establishment of a sanctuary zone 7.8% 13.8% 5.1% 3.3% 66.4% 3.6% 4.1
somewhere in the Lower Keys.
I support the establishment of a sanctuary zone 11.9% 15.8% 6.5% 3.6% 60.1% 2.1% 3.9
somewhere in the Florida Keys.
I support establishing sanctuary zones in the
exact locations proposed in the Sanctuary 2.1% 3.9% 3.6% 6.5% 79.5% 4.5% 4.6
Comprehensive Management Plan.
I generally support the establishment of the 4.2% 9.3% 6.3% 6.3% 71.8% 2.1% 4.3
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
'Strongly agree = 1, strongly disagree = 5.




Table 6-5. Likelihood that Fishers Would Violate Zones if Established
Very Likely Somewhat Not Likely Not Likely Average
Question Likely at All Response'

If the sanctuary zones were put into effect and no
commercial harvesting were allowed inside the 27.0 16.5% 27.0% 29.5% 2.6
boundaries, how likely do you think it is that fishers
would still fish inside the zones and risk being caught.
'Very likely = 1, Not likely at all = 4.









7. Summary and Discussion


Recap of the Survey Results
A survey of a representative sample of 337 commercial fishers in the Florida Keys was
conducted to identify their perceptions of marine reserves as part of a management plan for
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sample size and regional distribution was
based on information from the 1994-1995 Florida Saltwater Products License data file. The
surveys were conducted during the latter part of 1995 and early 1996 (after the release of the
Draft Management Plan) using personal interviews.
Survey respondents indicated that a major portion of their total catch was harvested
within the boundaries of the FKNMS. For the total sample, over 85 percent of spiny lobster
catch, 92 percent of reef fish catch, and all of the tropical fish and sponges catch were caught
in the FKNMS. Stone crabs, mackerels, and other pelagic species were generally harvested
outside the FKNMS boundaries. Respondents in the Upper Keys reported the highest
percentage of total catch from the FKNMS. No data were collected on catch in the reserves
proposed in the Draft Management Plan.
The survey results also indicated that about half of the interviewees had participated,
in some way, in the management plan development process. Many had attended NOAA
sponsored meetings or read other NOAA literature related to the planning process. While
most of the interviewees were aware of the proposed regulations and areas for the
replenishment reserves and SPAs in the Draft Management Plan, a large majority believed that
newspapers, local organizations, and other fishers were the most useful sources of information
about the proposed reserves.
On issues relating to expected effects of the proposed reserves, a large majority of
commercial fishers did not believe that stocks of commercially important species such as spiny
lobster and reef fish would increase outside the reserves. Most believed that the primary
effect would be to conserve and protect corals, fishes, and other marine life within the
boundaries of each reserve. Based on these perceptions, respondents were nearly unanimous
in their opinion that commercial fishers would not be the primary beneficiaries of the
proposed reserves and there would not be a positive long-term effect on the economy in the
Keys. A large majority also did not think other consumptive users, such as recreational
fishers, would benefit from the reserves. They believed that recreational divers would be the









primary beneficiaries. Only a small minority of respondents perceived that the reserves were
an effective way to reduce user conflicts or to restore the coral reefs.
Commercial fishers' perceptions that the proposed reserves would not benefit their
interests was consistent with the finding that a large majority of respondents rejected the idea
of establishing reserves anywhere in the Florida Keys. While about one-fourth of the
respondents did express some support for reserves somewhere in the Keys, support declined
when specific regions were cited for a reserve. Opposition to the reserves also apparently
played an important role in over three-fourths of the respondents stating that they did not
support the establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
To help the reader of this report provide some perspective on the results, some
anecdotal information provided by respondents and others in the commercial fishing industry
may be useful. Many commercial fishers in the Florida Keys felt that the Sanctuary
Management Plan and the reserves were another in a long line of regulations intended to
sharply curtail or eliminate commercial fishing in the Keys. Beginning in the late 1970s, parts
of the Upper Keys in Everglades National Park and waters around the Dry Tortugas in the
Lower Keys were closed to commercial (but not recreational) fishing. In 1984, the South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils established regulations to prohibit
certain harvesting methods in coral habitat areas of particular concern and to set closed
seasons for reef fish in stressed areas. In 1991, the Florida Legislature established the Spiny
Lobster Trap Certificate Program to reduce total effort in the Florida spiny lobster fishery (90
percent of which is harvested in the Keys). In 1994, the citizens of Florida voted for a
constitutional amendment to eliminate large-scale (commercial) fishing nets in state waters.
And, throughout the 1990s the federal fishery management councils and the Florida Marine
Fisheries Commission adopted various regulations to restrict harvesting practices and limit
the harvests of commercially important species in the Florida Keys such as mackerels,
snappers and groupers, red drum, and seatrout. In light of the historical record, it is difficult
to downplay commercial fishers' concerns that a Sanctuary Management Plan which prohibits
commercial (and recreational) harvesting in the reserves is another step along the path to
further retrenchment in the industry.









The Final Management Plan
A Final Management Plan was released by NOAA in September 1996. Some changes
that were made in the number of reserves and the regulations governing these reserves from
the Draft to the Final Plan should be noted. The text of the regulations for the reserves
included in the Final Plan is provided in Appendix C.
First, the three replenishment reserves in the Draft Plan (Key Largo, Sambos, and Dry
Tortugas) were reduced to one (Sambos) in the Final Plan. The Key Largo reserve was
dropped "partly because it would have duplicated the protection provided by the John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and the Key Largo Existing Management Area" (U.S.
Department of Commerce 1996, Vol III, pp. M-14). However, neither the Park nor the
Management Area (the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary) regulations prohibit
commercial or recreational fishing. An additional, unstated, factor in dropping the Key Largo
reserve was strong opposition from recreational fishing groups and from residents in Key
Largo (Dr. James Bohnsack, National Marine Fisheries Service, personal communication).
Florida Sportsman Magazine, a leading advocate for recreational anglers, issued a position
paper in December 1995 that strongly attacked the scientific basis and regulatory need for the
replenishment reserves. These concerns from the sportfishing community contributed to the
Sanctuary Advisory Council's decision to vote against including the Key Largo reserve in the
Final Plan. The Dry Tortugas reserve was deferred for two years during which "NOAA will
continue the process for establishing a proposed final boundary ... in coordination with the
National Park Service, fishing representatives, scientists, and others to identify the appropriate
final boundary for the Reserve, which may include portions of the Dry Tortugas National
Park." It was further noted that "public comments indicated that the impacts on fishers from
the proposed Replenishment Reserves were greater than considered in the Draft Management
Plan. ... The Key Largo and Dry Tortugas areas were not made reserves in order to minimize
adverse impacts to fishers" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1996, Vol. III, pp. L-29).
Second, the term "replenishment reserves" was changed to "ecological reserves" in the
Final Plan because this term "more accurately represents the purpose of this zone, that is, to
restore natural ecosystem dynamics and habitat, by setting aside a portion of the coral reef
environment (including seagrass beds, hardbottom, rubble habitat, patch reefs, and sand areas)
that is protected from all forms of'harvesting'" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1996, Vol.









II, pp. L-28). This renaming and defining the purpose of the reserves is significant because
it suggests the primary impacts occur within the boundaries of the reserve rather than in
spillover effects to areas outside the reserves. This viewpoint is consistent with the
perceptions of a large majority of the commercial fishers interviewed for this report (see Table
6-1).
Third, the number of SPAs in the Final Plan decreased from 19 to 18 and some of the
regulations for activities in the SPAs were modified. Catch and release trolling was allowed
in four SPAs (Conch Reef, Alligator Reef, Sombrero Reef, and Sand Key). This would
"facilitate multiple uses and allow for comparisons to be made between SPAs, therefore
determining the impact of catch and release trolling" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1996,
Vol. II, pp. L-29). Also, baitfishing can occur in the SPAs under a permit system controlled
byNOAA.
The Final Management Plan was sent to the Governor and Cabinet of Florida as
required by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Act. In January and March 1997 the
Governor and Cabinet raised several concerns about the Final Plan and requested additional
revisions (Suman, pp. 318-319). Specific concerns were expressed about the "purpose, goals
and measures of success associated with the Western Sambos Ecological Reserve" (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1997, pp. 32156). Following revisions, the Plan was approved
by the Governor and Cabinet on May 13, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on June
12, 1997. One amendment requires a review of the Sanctuary regulations every five years and
the regulations must be reproposed for the Governor's review. To facilitate this review, a
research plan is being developed to provide biological and socioeconomic data to compare
and contrast the effects of the reserves and SPAs (Ben Haskell, NOAA, personal
communication). Following up on the conjecture by Bohnsack (1993) that initial opposition
to reserves will turn to approval, a useful component of these monitoring studies would be
to evaluate whether commercial fishers' perceptions of marine reserves change over time.
This analysis would provide Sanctuary managers, scientists, and the public a more complete
understanding of the impacts of marine reserves on the commercial fishing community in the
Keys.









REFERENCES


Ballantine, W.J. "Networks of "No-Take" Marine Reserves are Practical and Necessary." In
N.L. Shackell and J. Willison, Eds., Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries.
Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, 1995.

Bohnsack, J.A. "Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries, Reduce Conflicts, and Protect
Resources." Oceanus 36(1993):63-71.

Bohnsack, J.A. and J.S. Ault. "Management Strategies to Conserve Marine Biodiversity."
Oceanography 9(1996):73-82.

Carr, M.H. and D.C. Reed. "Conceptual Issues Relevant to Marine Harvest Refuges:
Examples from Temperate Reef Fishes." Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences
50(1993):2019-2028.

Center for Economic and Management Research. "Economic Impact of Commercial Fisheries
in the Florida Keys: Case Study Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management
Plan." Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, 1995.

Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. "Applications of Marine Refugia to Coastal Fisheries
Management." Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 50(1993):2029-2042.

Ehler, C. and D. Basta. "Integrated Management of Coastal Areas and Marine Sanctuaries."
Oceanus 36(1993):15-18.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "1995 Florida Statewide and Monroe
County Edited Landings Data." St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Marine Research Institute, 1996.

Florida Sportsman Magazine. "Florida's Marine Waters: One Big Replenishment Zone."
(mimeo) December 1995.

Hoagland, P., Y. Kaoru, and J.M. Broadus. "A Methodological Review of Net Benefit
Evaluation for Marine Reserves." Environment Department Papers, Paper No. 027.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1995.

Jones, P.J. "A Review and Analysis of the Objectives of Marine Nature Reserves." Ocean and
CoastalManagement 24(1994):149-178.

Leeworthy, V.R "Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay."
Silver Spring, MD:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996.

McCay B.J. and S. Jentoft. "From the Bottom Up: Participatory Issues in Fisheries
Management." Society andNatural Resources 9(1996):237-250.









Norse, E.A, ed. GlobalMarine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation
into Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

Plan Development Team. "The Potential of Marine Fishery Reserves for Reef Fish
Management in the U.S. Southern Atlantic." Snapper-Grouper Plan Development Team
Report for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFC-261, 1990.

Polacheck, T. "Year Round Closed Areas as a Management Tool." Natural Resources
Modeling 4(1990):327-354.

Rowley, R.W. "Case Studies and Reviews: Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management."
Aquatic Conservation in Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 4(1994):233-254.

Suman, D.O. "The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: A Case Study of an Innovative
Federal-State Partnership in Marine Resource Management." Coastal Management
25(1997):293-324.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement." Volumes I, II and III. Washington, D.C.: Sanctuaries
and Reserves Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, March 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement." Volumes I, I and m. Washington, D.C.: Sanctuaries
and Reserves Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Final
Rule." Federal Register 15 CFR Parts 922, 929 and 937 (June 12, 1997): pp. 32154-32176.

Wolfenden, J., F. Cram, and B. Kirkwood. "Marine Reserves in New Zealand: A Survey of
Community Reactions." Ocean and Coastal Management 24(1994):31-51.








APPENDIX A


COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN SURVEY INSTRUMENT












COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN SURVEY


The following questions are asked about you and the primary vessel that you use
for fishing in Monroe County.

Name_

Telephone

Address or Contact Site



Date


Saltwater Products License YES


1. Which of the following includes your age?

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 over60

2. Ethnic background?

Anglo Cuban African-American Other


3. How many family members do you support (including yourself)?

myselfonly 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


4. Are you a member of any of the following groups?

Victims of NOAA YES NO
Conch Coalition YES NO
OFF YES NO
MCCF YES NO
an environmental group YES NO


5. What is your fish house?


P.act

GENERAL INFORMATION

6. Which of the following would you describe as your primary hauling port/dock?

Key West/Stock Island Summerland Key

Big Pine Key Marathon

Islamorada Key Largo

Tavernier Other


7. How many years have you been a commercial fishermen in Monroe County?

1-5 6-10 11-20 21 years or more


8. Please give your BEST ESTIMATE of the replacement value for the following items
used for commercial fishing in 1994.

Vessel(s) and Electronic Equipment: S

Nets: Number S

Traps: Number S


9. Please give your BEST ESTIMATE of the following expenses you incurred in 1994.

Docking Fees: S

Interest Payments on Vessel(s): S

Maintenance and Repairs on Vessel(s): S

Maintenance and Repairs on Nets and Traps: S


10. What approximate percentage of your income is derived from commercial fishing?
comer fisherman b.cha at c pa-time d. rcr onal
a. commercial fisherman b. chanerboat c. part-time d. recreational












D Catch Information

The following map shows the Monroe County region and 6 areas that divide the region into the Upper and Lower Keys and areas
within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Please refer to this map and use the following table to write in your BEST
ESTIMATE of your TOTAL CATCH in each fishery in 1995-96 and the percent of the total catch you caught in each area.


Total Catch by Species and by Area

Fishery Total catch in pounds I 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Stone Crabs 100%
Lobster 100%
Shrimp 100%
Snapper/Grouper 100%
Mackerels 100%
Sharks 100%
Others 100%



Now, use the following table to write in your BEST ESTIMATE of the TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS in each fishery and the percent
of total trips in each area.

Total Number of Trips by Species and by Area


Fishery Total number of trips I 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Stone Crabs 100%
Lobster 100%
Shrimp 100%
Snapper/Grouper 100%
Mackerels 100%
Sharks 100%
Others 100%



Please use the following table to write in your BEST ESTIMATE of your costs for a TYPICAL TRIP in each of the fisheries you
participated in during 1995-96.


Eishly

Stone Crabs Lobster Shrimp Snapper/Grouper Mackerels Others
Fuel and Oil $ $ $ $ S S
Ice $ S $ S
Bait $S $ S S S
Food & Supplies $ S $ $S $
SpotterPlane S $ $ S $ $
Other $ $ $S S S
Number of Crew Members $ S $ S S S













PartmI


A. INFORMATION

1. What are your sources of information about the proposed sanctuary zones (Sanctuary
zones include the Replenishment Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas
(SPAs))?

I National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) personnel
2 NOAA Comprehensive Management Plan
3 Other NOAA literature
4 NOAA public meetings
5 Newspapers
6-TV/Radio
7 Conch Coalition/Victims of NOAA
8 Commercial fishing organization literature
9 Environmental organization literature
10 Government fisheries scientists
11 Sea Grant Extension service
12 rumors, grapevine
13 I didn't know about the proposed sanctuary zones.


2. Who do you feel provided you with the mnat seful information about
the proposed sanctuary zones?

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) personnel
2 NOAA Comprehensive Management Plan
3 Other NOAA literature
4 NOAA public meetings
5 Newspapers
6-TV/Radio
7 Conch Coalition/Victims of NOAA
8 Commerical fishing organization literature
9 Environmental organization literature
10 Government fisheries scientists
11 Sea Grant Extension service
12 rumors, grapevine
13 I don't know about the proposed sanctuary zones


For each of the following statements, please refer to the scale sheet that demonstrates
levels of agreement or disagreement. Please point to your choice on the scale.

3. The information you were provided by NOAA about the Sanctuary Comprehensive
Management Plan contains everything you needed to know about the plan.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


4. The information you were provided by NOAA about the sanctuary zones contains
everything you needed to know about the sanctuary zones.


1 2 3 4


5 I don't know


5. The information provided by NOAA about the sanctuary zones has helped you
understand the positive and negative effects of the sanctuary zones

1 2 3 4 5 I don't know

RB PROCESSES

6. Did you participate in any of the following activities related to the development of
the Sanctuary Comprehensive Management Plan?

I frequently, 2 occasionally, 3 never

SSanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) meetings
SNOAA-sponsored public workshops/hearings/metings
Info Expos
SVisits to any FKNMS offices (in Key Largo, Marathon, Key West)
SLetter-writing to FKNMS/NOAA
SRead Sanctuary Comprehensive Management Plan
Read NOAA literature ("Sounding Lines" "Sanctuary Currents", pamphlets,
etc.)
Town meetings with government officials (congressmen, Monroe County
representatives, county commissioners, etc.)














C OUTCOMES


7. The process of workshops and meetings used by NOAA to develop
regulations for the Sanctuary has been open and fair to all groups.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


8. The process used by NOAA to develop boundaries and regulations
for the proposed sanctuary zones has been open and fair to all groups.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon'tknow


9. It really doesn't matter whether the average person participated in the
workshops and meetings on the Sanctuary because the average person
could not influence the decisions.


2 3 4 5 I don't know


10. NOAA has not given enough consideration to local government concerns
in developing regulations for the Sanctuary.


1 2 3 4 5 1 don't know


11. NOAA has not given enough consideration to individual citizen concerns in
developing regulations for the Sanctuary.

1 2 3 4 5 1 don't know


12. Once the Sanctuary regulations are enacted, there will be no way that the
average person can voice his/her opinion about the usefulness of the
regulations.

1 2 3 4 5 I don't know


13. The procedures that NOAA has established to deal with violations of the
Sanctuary regulations are (will be) fair and just


14. The sanctuary zones will help to increase the stocks of reef fish such as snapper
and grouper in the Florida Keys

1 2 3 4 5 I don'tknow


IS. The sanctuary zones will help to increase the stocks of spiny lobster (crawfish)
in the Florida Keys.

1 2 3 4 5 I don't know


16. The sanctuary zones will help to increase the stocks of stone crabs in the Florida
Keys.

1 2 3 4 5 I don't know



17. The sanctuary zones will help to increase the stocks of shrimp in the Florida Keys.

I 2 3 4 5 I don't know



18. The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is to increase overall stocks (and biomass)
within the boundaries of the zones.

I 2 3 4 5 I don't know


19. The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is to increase overall stocks (and biomass)
outside the boundaries of the zones.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know



20. The main purpose of the sanctuary zones is to conserve and protect corals, fish. and
other marine life within the boundaries of the zones.


I 2 3 4 5 don't know


1 2 3 4 5 1 don't know















21.The primary group that will benefit from the sanctuary zones is commercial
fishermen.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


22. The primary group that will benefit from the sanctuary zones is recreational
fishermen.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon'tknow


23. The primary group that will benefit from the sanctuary zones is recreational
divers.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


24. Sanctuary zones are the most effective way to reduce conflicts between different
user groups.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


25. Sanctuary zones are the most effective way of restoring the coral reefs in the Keys
to what they used to be.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon'tknow


26. The long-term effects of the sanctuary zones on the economy of the Keys will be
positive.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


27.1 support the establishment of a sanctuary zone somewhere in the Upper Keys.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


28.1 support the establishment of a sanctuary zone somewhere in the Middle Keys.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


29.1 support the establishment of a sanctuary zone somewhere in the Lower Keys (and
the Dry Tortugas region).

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


30. 1 support establishing sanctuary zones somewhere in the Florida Keys.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


31.1 support establishing sanctuary zones in the exact locations proposed in the
Sanctuary Comprehensive Management Plan.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know


32.1 generally support the establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary.

1 2 3 4 5 Idon't know









33. Do you fish in any of the sanctuary zones? YES NO

IF YES, then which ones?


IF YES, then which species do you target in the zones?


IF YES, then what percentage of your total fishing effort (or catch) is spent in the
sanctuary zones? %















PartIV

ENFORCEMENT


1. How many times did you see the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) when you were fishing
during the last 12 months?

# of times


2. How many times did you see the Coast Guard when you were fishing during the last
12 months?

# of times


3. How many patrol boats do you think that these two agencies operate in the areas
where you normally fish?

# of vessels


4. Within the last 12 months, have you been checked by the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP)
or Coast Guard for compliance with fisheries regulations?


1. YES


2. NO


If YES, then how many times were you checked? # of times

If NO, then have you ever been checked by the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) or Coast
Guard for compliance with fisheries regulations?


1. YES


2. NO


5. Based on your own observations, how often would you say that other commercial
fishermen violate fisheries regulations?


6. Based on your own observations, how likely would you say it is that a fishermen
violating fisheries regulations would be seen or detected by the Florida Marine
Patrol (FMP) or Coast Guard? Would you say:

1. Very likely
2. Not very likely
3. Not likely
4. Not likely at all

7. How likely is it that a fisherman who is violating fisheries regulations would be caught
and penalized by the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) or Coast Guard? Would you say:

1. Very likely
2. Not very likely
3. Not likely
4. Not likely at all

8. If a fishermen were caught and penalized, how likely do you think it is that this
fisherman would violate fisheries regulations again. Would you say:

1. Very likely
2. Not very likely
3. Not likely
4. Not likely at all

9. If the sanctuary zones were put into effect and no commercial harvesting were allowed
inside the sanctuary zone boundaries, how likely do you think it is that fishermen
would still fish inside the zones and take the risk of being caught Would you say:

1. Very likely
2. Not very likely
3. Not likely
4. Not likely at all


1. On almost every trip
2. On most trips
3. Occasionally, on I or 2 trips per year
4. Never









APPENDIX B


REGULATIONS GOVERNING USER ACTIVITIES IN SANCTUARY
PRESERVATION AREAS AND REPLENISHMENT RESERVES
IN THE DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN
(U.S. Department of Commerce 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 127-128)

(d) Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Replenishment Reserves. (1) In addition to the
prohibitions set forth in 929.6, the following activities are prohibited within the
Replenishment Reserves described in Appendix IV to this part, and within the Sanctuary
Preservation Areas, described in Appendix V to this part:
(i) Possessing (regardless of where taken from), moving, harvesting, removing, taking,
damaging, disturbing, breaking, cutting, spearing, or otherwise injuring any coral, marine
invertebrate, fish, bottom formation, algae, seagrass or other living or dead organism,
including shells, or attempting any of these activities.
(ii) Fishing by any means. However, possession of gear capable of harvesting fish
aboard a vessel, provided such gear is stowed away prior to entering and during transit
through the zone, shall not be deemed a violation of this prohibition, and no presumption of
fishing activity shall be drawn therefrom.
(iii) Touching living or dead coral, including but not limited to, standing on a living or
dead coral formation.
(iv) Placing any anchor in a way that allows the anchor or any portion of the anchor
apparatus (including the anchor, chain or rope) to touch living or dead coral, or any sessile
organism. When anchoring dive boats, the first diver down shall inspect the anchor to ensure
that it is not touching living or dead coral, and will not shift in such a way as to touch such
coral or other sessile organisms. No further diving is permitted until the anchor is placed in
accordance with these requirements.
(2) vessels shall use mooring buoys or anchoring areas when such facilities or areas have
been designated and are available.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1) of this section, the following activities are
allowed within the Key Largo Replenishment Reserve described in Appendix IV to this part:
(i) catch-and-release fishing from the shore to a depth of 12 feet; and
(ii) harvest of spiny lobster by trap from sand or seagrass bottom habitats.









(4) The Director or designee may impose a limited access designation, or temporary
area closure, within any Sanctuary Preservation Area if the Director determines that such
action is reasonably necessary to allow for recovery of the living resources of such area from
the adverse, cumulative effects of concentrated use;
(i) Except for passage without interruption through the area, for law enforcement or for
monitoring pursuant to subparagraph (2)(iv) below, no person shall:
(A) enter a Sanctuary Preservation Area subject to a limited access designation, except
by the use of such mooring buoys or anchoring areas as are designated and available for use
within such area at the time of the entry; or
(B) enter a Sanctuary Preservation Area subject to a temporary area closure, during the
pendency of the area closure.
(ii) In adopting any limited access designation or temporary area closure pursuant to this
paragraph, the Director or designee will determine, on the basis of the best available data,
information and studies, that:
(A) a concentration of use appears to be causing or contribution to significant
degradation of the living resources of the area;
(B) the access restriction or temporary area closure to be imposed is reasonably
necessary to allow recovery of the living resources of the area;
(iii) The Director or designee will provide for continuous monitoring of the area during
the pendency of the limited access designation or temporary area closure.
(iv) The Director or designee will provide public notice of the limited access designation
or temporary area closure through publishing notice in the Federal Register, and such other
means as the Director or designee may deem appropriate. With respect to a temporary area
closure, the Director or designee will specify the period of such closure.









APPENDIX C


REGULATIONS GOVERNING USER ACTIVITIES IN ECOLOGICAL
RESERVES AND SANCTUARY PRESERVATION AREAS IN THE FINAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN
(U.S. Department of Commerce 1996, Vol. 1, pp. 122-123)

(d) Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas. (1) The following activities
are prohibited within the Ecological Reserves described in Appendix IV to this part, and
within the Sanctuary Preservation Areas, described in Appendix V to this part:
(I) Discharging or depositing any material or other matter except cooling water or
engine exhaust.
(ii) Possessing, moving, harvesting, removing, taking, damaging, disturbing, breaking,
cutting, spearing, or otherwise injuring any coral, marine invertebrate, fish, bottom formation,
algae, seagrass or other living or dead organism, including shells, or attempting any of these
activities. However, fish, invertebrates, and marine plants may be possessed aboard a vessel
in an Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area, provided such resources an be
shown not to have been harvested within, removed from, or taken within, the Ecological
Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area, as applicable, by being stowed in a cabin, locker, or
similar storage area prior to entering and during transit through such reserves or areas.
(iii) Except for catch and release fishing by trolling in the Conch Reef, Alligator Reef,
Sombrero Reef, and Sand Key SPAs, fishing by any means. However, gear capable of
harvesting fish may be aboard a vessel in an Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation
Area, provided such gear is not available for immediate use when entering and during transit
through such Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area, and no presumption of
fishing activity shall be drawn therefrom.
(iv) Touching living or dead coral, including but not limited to, standing on a living or
dead coral formation.
(v) Placing any anchor in a way that allows the anchor or any portion of the anchor
apparatus (including the anchor, chain or rope) to touch living or dead coral, or any attached
organism. When anchoring dive boats, the first diver down must inspect the anchor to ensure
that it is not touching living or dead coral, and will not shift in such a way as to touch such









coral or other attached organisms. No further diving shall take place until the anchor is
placed in accordance with these requirements.
(vi) Anchoring instead of mooring when a mooring buoy is available or anchoring in
other than a designated anchoring area when such areas have been designated and are
available.
(vii) Except for passage without interruption through the area, for law enforcement
purposes, or for purposes of monitoring pursuant to paragraph (d)(2), violating a temporary
access restriction imposed by the Director pursuant to paragraph (d)(2).
(2) The Director may temporarily restrict access to any portion of any Sanctuary
Preservation Area of Ecological Reserve if the Director, on the basis of the best available
data, information and studies, determines that a concentration of use appears to be causing
or contributing to significant degradation of the living resources of the area and that such
action is reasonably necessary to allow or recovery of the living resources of such area. The
Director will provide for continuous monitoring of the area during the pendency of the
restriction. The Director will provide public notice of the restriction by publishing a notice
in the Federal Register, and by such other means as the Director may deem appropriate. The
Director may only restrict access to an area for a period of 60 days, with one additional 60
day renewal. The Director may restrict access to an area for a longer period pursuant to a
notice and opportunity for public comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
Act. Such restriction will be kept to the minimum amount of area necessary to achieve the
purposes thereof.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs