What Is an MPA? - Oculina Experimental Closed
Area
Genesis
and Management of the Reserve Additional
Protections Habitat
Restoration Enforcement
Challenges References
Slide
Show
Ranging from 15 to 30 parallel miles off the
east coast of Florida, a series of submarine pinnacles and
ridges extends from Ft. Pierce to Cape Canaveral. Reaching as
high as 65 feet above the sea floor, these features act as a
foundation for a habitat made distinct by the unique ivory
tree coralóOculina varicosa. A slow-growing, delicate and
branchlike coral, ivory tree coral thickets often are
associated with high biodiversity because they provide ideal
spawning sites for numerous species, including economically
important fish like several species of grouper (gag, scamp,
snowy and warsaw), black sea bass, speckled hind and red
snapper (NOAA,
Ocean Explorer, 2001).
 |
Healthy Oculina coral
heads, such as this one on Jeff’s Reef within Oculina
Bank, stand three to four feet high and three to four
feet across. Such habitat creates “thickets” that are
used by diverse fish and invertebrate
assemblages.
| During the 1960s and ë70s, hook-and-line fishers
frequented Oculina Bank and landed large catches of several
species of groupers. By the early 1990s, much of the habitat
was destroyed, and fish stocks appeared to be severely
depleted. The ivory tree coral that provided reef structure
needed by many resident species had been decimated in many
placesóan outcome believed to be the result primarily of
destructive bottom trawling, though other causes have been
implicated (NOAA,
Ocean Explorer, 2001).With the habitat in ruins, fish
spawning dropped sharply. In an effort to protect what was
left and perhaps repair the damage, scientists moved to
protect the remainder of the unique Oculina coral habitat and
reestablish corals and their associated fish
population.
Genesis and Management of
the Reserve
In 1975, scientists with the Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institution (HBOI) were conducting
underwater surveys of the continental shelf when they
discovered that the high relief pinnacles along the shelf were
colonized by living, deep-water coral reefs composed of
Oculina coral. Ensuing studies investigated the distribution
of the coral, its growth rate, community structure, biological
and geological processes, and the effects of upwelling and
bioerosion. Studies also predicted the drastic decline in fish
stocks and the destruction of the coral (Reed,
2001).
(top)
 |
A small
sample of ivory tree coral, Oculina varicosa. The coral is as fragile as
it appears and is no match for heavy objects such as
anchors or
trawls.
| Bottom trawling is believed to be the major reason
for the coralís destruction. But other factors may account for
some of the dead coral. For instance, episodic coral die-offs
or extensive bioerosion may have occurred. In addition, it is
widely known that anti-submarine patrols during World War II
frequently and liberally employed underwater explosives in
their search for German U-boats off the coast of Florida. Such
activity may have adversely affected the benthic
habitat.
Regardless of the causes for damage, many
scientists believed the area needed protection. In 1980, John
Reed, chief scientist in the Division of Biomedical Marine
Research at HBOI, petitioned NOAAís National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (SAFMC) to protect the Oculina coral habitat from
further harm. Reed, who had conducted extensive research of
the habitat and was intimately familiar with the ecology of
the bank, had published numerous articles describing the
distribution and growth of the coral, and the diverse animal
communities living among it (HBOI,
2001).
 |
Gag grouper,
one of the most important commercial fish species in the
southeast, taking cover in Oculina coral. Populations of all grouper
species have been severely reduced on Oculina Bank, most
likely the result of habitat loss and
overfishing.
| In 1982, the SAFMC published the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Corals and Coral
Reefs, which included a proposed action to develop, adopt and
implement a fishery management plan for coral and coral reef
habitats within the areas under the authority of the SAFMC and
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Among other
objectives, the action proposed setting aside a portion of the
Oculina Bank as a habitat of particular concern (HAPC), a
designation that would categorize it as an area of special
biological significance worthy of stricter regulatory and
enforcement activity (SAFMC,
1982).). In 1984, the proposed action was finalized, and
NMFS set aside 92 square miles of the 300 square-mile Oculina
Bank as an HAPC (HBOI,
2001). ). The new designation prohibited mobile fishing
gear like trawls and dredges, but it did not affect anchoring
or weights used for bottom fishing.
 |
Approximate
location of Oculina Banks off the east coast of Florida.
Here Oculina coral "thickets" grow at depths of about
230 to 400 ft on a series of pinnacles and ridges that
extend from Ft. Pierce to Cape
Canaveral.
| (top)
Additional
Protections
Nine years later (in 1991), damaged
corals showed few signs of recovery. To encourage coral
recovery, NMFS and SAFMC proposed to establish the Oculina
HAPC as an experimental closed areaóa much stricter
designation. The action, which became effective on June 27,
1994, prohibited all bottom fishing within the newly
designated Oculina Experimental Closed Area (OECA). The OECA
was established as a 10-year experiment to determine if
depleted species, such as snapper and grouper, would rebound.
The restrictions, however, did not prohibit midwater or
surface fishing from moving vessels (SAFMC,
1993). Just two years later, SAFMC implemented additional
protections for the OECA by prohibiting anchoring activities
of fishing vessels within the area. Fishing vessels could not
drop anchors, grapples or attached chains, which were known to
damage or destroy the coral, within the OECA (SAFMC,
1995).
By 1998, efforts were underway to amend the
Oculina HAPC even further. SAFMC was mandated by a 1996
amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act to
describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH), including
adverse impacts on such habitat, in order to minimize damage
to EFH resulting from fishing activities. In addition, the
agency was required to identify other actions that encourage
the conservation and enhancement of EFH (Magnuson-Stevens
Act, 1996). Because Oculina Bank was considered EFH
needing additional protection, SAFMC proposed extending the
boundaries of the reserve by 60 square miles to provide a
larger protected area (SAFMC,
1998). The amendment included creating two protected
satellite sites of three square miles each. In 2000, this
marine protected area (MPA) was expanded to encompass an
additional 208 square miles (300 nm2) from Sebastian Inlet up
to Cape Canaveral to reduce gear impacts by eliminating all
trawling in the expanded area. Bottom tending gear and
anchoring were also prohibited in the expanded area, but
fishing for snapper and grouper are allowed.
(SAFMC).
 |
Oculina coral rubble.
Currently, large areas of Oculina Bank are in this
condition. Note the faint outline of a reef ball in
darkness on the far right. Scientists hope that these
experimental structures will help to reestablish
Oculina habitat.
|
The proposed change met with some
opposition, particularly from the longline fishing industry,
which feared that the new rule would be unduly burdensome.
Some detractors argued that the proposed expansion included
large areas that did not contain Oculina coraló only flat mud
bottom habitat. Restricting these areas would not help the
coral habitat, but it would affect bottom longline fisheries
for tilefish, grouper and shark, according to the commenters
(Federal
Register, 2000).
However, NMFS reasoned that
including the non-coral habitats within the HAPC would create
“buffer zones” around the coral habitat. The buffer zones
would reduce the likelihood of accidental incursions and would
simplify enforcement activities, according to NMFS. In
addition, NMFS noted that previous rules established similar
zones around areas fished by the rock shrimp and calico shrimp
industries. The agency argued that the new rule would further
streamline fishing regulations (Federal
Register, 2000).
Finally, some commenters contended
that the amendment was overly broad and exceeded the agencyís
authority. NMFS, however, believed that its legal authority
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act was broad enough to restrict
activities, fishing and otherwise, that may adversely affect
EFH. Thus, in July 2000, the new rule took effect. All gear
prohibitions and anchoring restrictions that were applicable
within the old boundaries applied to the expanded boundaries
and the satellite sites as well (Federal
Register, 2000).
On April 26, 2004, Amendment 13A to the
fishery management plan for the snapper-grouper fishery of the
South Atlantic region became effective. Amendment 13A’s
intended effect is to continue the benefits of the closed
area, namely, enhanced stock stability and increased
recruitment of South Atlantic snapper-grouper by providing an
area where deepwater snapper-grouper species can grow and
reproduce without being subjected to fishing
mortality.
(top)
Habitat
Restoration
Since 1995, scientists have been trying
to reestablish the fragile, slow-growing Oculina corals by
deploying concrete substrate to encourage colonization. In
1996, they began by deploying clusters of concrete ìreef
ballsî throughout the reserve, hoping that the corals would
attach, settle and grow. Some were deployed with live coral
already attached, and some were deployed bare. Three years
later, the scientists discovered that live coral remained on
some of the balls. On others, the coral was stripped off, and
only one reef ball deployed without coral attached showed
coral recruitment (NOAA,
Ocean Explorer, 2001).
 |
In September
2001, a grouper shows interest in one of 105 reef balls
a year after they were deployed on Oculina Bank. On the
right is an arm of the submersible Clelia, used by scientists to examine progress
in this effort to reestablish Oculina habitat and the
associated fish and invertebrate
communities.
|
In 2000, a different type of reef
ball—dome-shaped equipped with holes through which fish could
swim—were deployed. The balls, which were similar in size and
shape to an Oculina coral colony, were released with live
coral attached. In the summer of 2001, explorers found that
several fish species, including groupers, amberjacks,
snappers, angelfish, butterflyfish and small basses, had
colonized the structures—an encouraging sign of initial
habitat restoration. Researchers also observed more gag and
scamp grouper at the southern end of the EORR. Just 10 years
ago, researchers saw no gag grouper, fewer than 10 scamp
grouper, and very few amberjacks in the same area (NOAA,
Ocean Explorer, 2001). Though too soon to tell how
successful the coral reestablishment efforts will be,
scientists are optimistic about their initial restorative
efforts (NOAA,
Ocean Explorer, 2001).
Enforcement
Challenges
Because the OECA is isolated and
relatively distant from shore (17 mi), consistent enforcement
of the fishing and trawling ban has been difficult.
Enforcement authorities are aware that illegal shrimp trawling
occurs in the no-fishing zone. Though spotter planes and
helicopters can survey the area, they cannot enforce the
no-fishing zone restrictions alone. If they suspect illegal
activity, they must alert U.S. Coast Guard surface vessels,
which may not be available or in an advantageous position to
respond immediately. Authorities believe that much of the
illegal fishing activity occurs at night, making enforcement
more difficult. Also, aerial surveillance missions often
cannot distinguish between legal fishing activities, such as
trolling for pelagic fish, and illegal anchoring and bottom
fishing. Moreover, enforcement officers cannot determine or
prove where fish were caught after a suspected boat returns to
port (Reed,
2001).
(top)
 |
This image
shows the likely impact of bottom trawling on Oculina
Bank. The linear mounds of coral rubble, shown on the
right, are created immediately adjacent to the track of
the trawl.
|
Working closely with the rock shrimp
industry, the SAFMC developed Amendment 5 to the Shrimp
Fishery Management Plan, requiring any vessel fishing with a
limited access rock shrimp permit in the Councilís area of
jurisdiction to use an approved vessel monitoring system
(VMS). The VMS program, implemented in October of 2003, has
greatly increased the ability to enforce trawling restrictions
in the area. By using the VMS and conducting random
surveillance missions of the protected area, as well as
implementing educational efforts aimed at both commercial and
recreational fishers, law enforcement agents and managers hope
that self-regulation will improve and the Oculina habitat
eventually will recover.
Trawling continues to be the
primary threat to the ecosystem as evident from recent
photographs of trawl nets found on the bottom, destroyed
reefball modules, and the documented destruction of the Cape
Canaveral Pinnacle reef in the past 25 years. Since 2000,
illegal trawling has been documented within the Oculina MPA,
and several poachers have been intercepted by the Coast
Guard.(Reed et al) Illegal trawling has been observed in the
HAPC as recently as October 2002, and rock shrimp trawlers
were caught dragging their steel doors and nets through the
reserve in 2001.(Shepard and Reed, 2001)
In June 2003,
researchers submitted written testimony to the SAFMC, which
sets fishery regulations for the region, about the results of
the spring cruise and past Oculina Banks research. Based in
large part on the critical needs for further protection that
this research has highlighted, the council voted unanimously
to continue existing fishing and trawling restrictions in the
area, which were set to expire in 2004.(SAFMC, 2003)
In March 2004, the SAFMC received approval to continue
indefinitely the current prohibition on fishing for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper in the experimental closed area and
on retaining such species in or from the area. The final rule,
effective April 26, 2004, continues the closure, which would
have expired in June 2004. The Council will review the
configuration and size of the experimental closed area within
3 years of the publication date of the final rule (March 26,
2004) that continues the closure and re-evaluate all measures
applicable to the area after 10 years. (SAFMC, 2003)
In the larger HAPC, which extends another 30 miles
north to Cape Canaveral, trawling will still be banned, as
will anchoring and commercial bottom long-line fishing
throughout both areas. Sport fishermen can still troll through
the HAPC for such open water fish as dolphin, tuna and
sailfish. In the entire HAPC no person may: (1) use a bottom
longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap; (2) if aboard a
fishing vessel, anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a
grapple and chain; or (3) fish for rock shrimp or possess rock
shrimp in or from the area on board a fishing vessel. In the
experimental closed area, no person may fish for South
Atlantic snapper/grouper or retain such species from the area.
The SAFMC believes these actions provide the most
biological, social, and economic benefits while allowing for
adaptive management. Extending the prohibition on fishing for
snapper/grouper species in the experimental closed area for an
indefinite period will continue to protect fishery
populations, Oculina coral and associated habitat. Such
extension will also provide a hedge against a high degree of
scientific uncertainty associated with the status of
snapper-grouper species and to reduce the possibility that
these populations may fall below sustainable levels. The
Council wants to provide the highest level of protection to
the Oculina coral in this area by prohibiting the use of all
gears that may impact them. Economically it is expected that
the long-term benefits, such as ëëinsuranceíí against the
uncertainty of stock assessments and the non-use benefits of
extending the prohibitions on snapper/grouper fishing in the
closed area, outweigh the short-term benefits of opening the
area to harvest. These measures are also expected to provide
the most long-term positive impacts because they allow for
adaptive management which can be seen as an assurance to the
public that the area will be monitored and reviewed. The
10ñyear reevaluation period will assure the public that the
area will not be closed and forgotten. (SAFMC, 2003)
References
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico,
and South Atlantic; Essential Fish Habitat for Species in the
South Atlantic; Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South
Atlantic Region (Coral FMP). Federal Register, June 14, 2000
(65, 37292-37296). Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing
Office.
Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution (HBOI). 2001. Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution’s Web site.
www.hboi.edu.news/features/oculina.html.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Public Law 94-265 (as
amended through October 11, 1996).
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). 2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Ocean Explorer Web site.
Oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/background/ islands/sup6_oculina.html.
Reed, J. K. In press. Deep-water Oculina Coral
Reefs of Florida: Biology, Impacts and Management.
Hydrobiologia. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Amendment 4 to the
Coral, Coral Reefs and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery
Management Plan. Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential
Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic
Region.
South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC). 1995.Amendment 3 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs and Live/Hard Bottom
Habitats of the South Atlantic Region.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(SAFMC). 1993. Amendment 6, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment
for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region.
South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC). 1982. Fishery Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Coral and Coral
Reefs.
(top)
|