1

Casitas: A Summary of Information

A Staff Report

to the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

December 2020

2

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This report provides an overview of knowledge regarding the history of casita use in Florida and an overview of research results on casitas placed in the hardbottom north of the lower Keys. Further, the report briefly summarizes casita use and management in several Caribbean nations and begins to outline a suite of challenges should the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission decide to consider incorporating casita use into its spiny lobster management program. This report will serve as a starting point for internal agency discussion and decision making for a possible casita fishery management plan.

EVENTS THAT LED TO REGULATORY AND RESEARCH RESPONSE

Regulations prohibiting the dumping or placement of materials on the ocean bottom have been in place for many years. These regulations effectively made the unpermitted, private placement of all artificial materials in Florida’s waters illegal. Despite these regulations, the use of casitas, small artificial structures specifically designed to aggregate and shelter spiny lobsters, became

more frequent in the 1990s. Their primary purpose was to aid in the commercial harvest from commercial spiny lobster divers, but some were likely placed for recreational purposes. FWC scientists observed a slow increase in the proportional landings from the commercial dive sector during the 1990’s (Figure 1). By the end of the 1999/2000 fishing season dive caught landings were 7% of the total commercial landings in this fishery. By the 2001/02 season, lobster landings by commercial divers increased to 15% of total commercial landings amid mounting evidence of

continuous placement of casitas primarily north of the Lower Keys. At that time, the dramatic change in the longstanding de facto allocation, where dive caught landings were historically slightly less than 4 percent of total commercial landings, became a concern for the management of the spiny lobster fishery. This shift prompted the FWC to enact a suite of regulations beginning in 2003 (see next section for regulatory history). Following these regulations and increased state and federal enforcement, the commercial dive landings returned to approximately 4% of the commercial fishery in 2009/10 season and have remained at that level through today.

Increase of marine debris was also a concern associated with the creation of casitas from what, at the time, was apparently any readily available material. For many years in the Florida Keys, dumping of old appliances, construction demolition materials, old traps, or other relatively large items for the creation of illegal private artificial structures used to attract fish and lobsters was not uncommon. However, by the late 1990s, many casitas were specifically

Figure 1: Percentage of commercial lobster landings taken by divers. Bully net landings are not depicted.

3

designed following examples from Cuba and the Bahamas to attract dozens of lobsters. Many casitas were made from 6-inch PVC with a metal top. Others were entirely made of metal materials. Many but not all casitas were affixed to the seafloor using steel reinforcing bars to prevent movement. FWC action to prohibit harvest of spiny lobster from casitas starting in 2003 appears to have reduced, but not eliminated, casita use, as demonstrated by several arrests involving the use of hundreds of casitas in 2007 and 2008. REGULATORY RESPONSE

FWC developed and implemented a series of regulations to address the increase in dive landings and the shift away from the commercial trap fishery toward the commercial dive fishery. Below, the key actions taken by FWC are listed in chronological order. • Effective July 1, 2003: ◦ Established a commercial dive permit requirement (CD). Eligibility for the dive permit

was based on reported commercial spiny lobster dive landings during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 license years.

◦ Prohibited possession of both dive and trap certifications. The CD permit could not be issued to harvesters with lobster trap certificates.

◦ Established a moratorium on new CD permits. The permit was only transferrable to another harvester in the event of death or disability of the permit holder. Specifically, the permit could be transferred to an immediate family member within 12 months of the date of death or disability. Immediate family is defined as mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, son, daughter, step-father, step-mother, step-son, step-daughter, half-sister, half-brother, son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the endorsement holder.

◦ Limited commercial dive harvest to 250 lobsters per day in Monroe County ◦ Harvest from illegal artificial habitat (casitas) was prohibited. Illegal artificial habitat

is any material placed in the water that is reasonably suited to provide cover and habitat for spiny lobster. Legally permitted structures or artificial reef sites constructed pursuant to permits are not considered illegal habitat.

• Effective April 1, 2004: ◦ Expanded the daily 250 lobster per day commercial dive limit to additional Florida

counties. In addition to Monroe County, the limit was expanded to also include Broward, Dade, Collier, Lee counties.

• Effective March 21, 2010: ◦ Extended the moratorium on the issuance of new CD permit until July 1, 2015. This

rule was intended to provide adequate time for research on the environmental and fishery impacts of casitas (described in the Research Summary section below) to inform possible resulting management options to be completed. Staff worked with an industry group of commercial divers and this group was not opposed to continuing the moratorium on the issuance of new CD permit until the research was complete.

• Effective July 1, 2015: ◦ Allowed the CD permit to be transferrable. Owners of a CD permit had to renew it

each year to retain it. The number of CD permits decreased from 404 during 2004 to 252 by 2014, which was estimated to be similar to historical participation levels prior to the expansion of the dive fishery and was a number staff considered to be sustainable.

◦ Extended the moratorium on issuing new CD permits indefinitely.

4

◦ Removed the requirement that the CD permitholder be onboard the vessel. RESEARCH SUMMARY State and Federal waters north of the lower Florida Keys were the core area where commercial fishermen used casitas to harvest lobsters (Figure 2). Three surveys over seven years counted the number of casitas in this 232 square mile area. Estimates of the number of casitas decreased following casita removal programs that occurred between surveys (Table 1). NOAA investigated the number of casitas in 2004 (Herron 2005) and again in 2007 (Herron & Thompson 2008). NOAA used two types of side-scan sonar, a magnetometer, and video cameras to count and extrapolate the number of casitas in this area. In 2010, FWC used side-scan sonar, a towed camera, and divers to count casitas. The first survey in 2004 estimated 1,463 casitas within the study area. After a modest casita removal effort by NOAA in 2006, a more thorough survey by NOAA in 2007 estimated 1,352 casitas within the study area. A more rigorous casita removal effort by NOAA in 2008 and 2009 preceded the FWC survey, which estimated 990 casitas remained in 2010. Each of these surveys encountered other types of debris; however, only the 2007 NOAA video survey used this information to estimate 3,231 pieces of debris within the study region. Of this debris, ~17% was thought to be functional casitas. FWC researchers attempted to validate the estimates of the number of casitas using lobster landings records (trip tickets) and the observed number of lobsters typically caught per casita. From these data, FWC calculated that potentially 1,499 casitas were used by commercial divers from 1999 through 2002, when landings by commercial divers peaked. This estimate corresponds well with the NOAA side-scan sonar surveys in 2004 and 2007.

Figure 2: Study area and the general location of casita use in the Florida Keys

Table 1: Estimates of the number of casitas north of the lower Florida Keys

5

In 2007, Commissioners directed biologists with the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) to assess the environmental and fishery impacts of casitas. Commercial divers had formed a fishery representative organization, the Ecologically Concerned Commercial Divers (ECCD). The ECCD supported use of casitas with proper management and regulation. They contended that casitas could be a more ecologically sustainable fishing gear than traps and casita use should be reconsidered as an allowable fishing gear. In response to this directive, FWRI received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and NOAA’s Marine Debris Program and partnered with the ECCD to investigate the effects of casitas on the lobster population, lobster fishery, and marine ecosystem in the Florida Keys.

FWC investigated the impacts of casitas on natural habitat between 2009-2011 in the

same area, north of the lower Keys, where previous casita counts were conducted. The habitat in this study area is unlike other regions in the Keys, and results of future research conducted in different areas may vary. The unique habitat in the study area included large (6 foot or greater diameter), isolated and mostly dead boulder corals dispersed among vast areas of seagrass, sand, and hardbottom. A complex assortment of macroalgae and numerous, small sponges, corals, and octocorals (i.e., sea whips) dominate the hardbottom habitat. Between 2009 and 2010, FWC examined 56 casitas, likely placed by commercial divers, to study the impacts of casitas on the surrounding benthic habitat, fish, and invertebrate communities. Additionally, in 2011, nine of these casitas, seven large coral heads, and 16 hardbottom sites were surveyed to compare whether the benthic habitat, fish, and invertebrate communities differed among artificial structures (casitas), natural habitats with structure (coral heads), and natural habitat without structure (hardbottom).

The most pronounced natural habitat

structures in our study area were large, isolated, spherical coral heads. Although these coral heads were largely dead, their structure still harbored a diverse assemblage of new coral recruits, sponges, and encrusting organisms. There was a similar assemblage in coral, sponge, and other organisms on the top of casitas (Figure 3). Both dead coral heads and casitas exhibited increased amounts of these organisms on their surface compared to natural habitat areas without structure. Areas adjacent to coral heads and casitas also exhibited a loss of algae resulting in “halos,” or areas of bare substrate surrounding the structure. Halos in our study were on average 3 feet wide. This decrease in algae cover adjacent to coral heads and casitas is typically associated with fish and invertebrate foraging.

The fish and invertebrate communities surveyed near casitas were as abundant and

diverse as those surveyed near coral heads. At casitas, fish and invertebrates were significantly more abundant than natural habitat areas without structure (Figure 4). Artificial structures were also significantly more diverse in the number of species observed. On average, we observed 14

Figure 3: Benthic habitat found at artificial structure (casitas) and natural habitat with structure (corals heads) were similar.

6

fish species, and 5 invertebrate species at casitas and only 4 fish species, and 3 invertebrate species at bare hardbottom.

In summary, casitas replicated the habitat, fish, and invertebrate communities found at coral heads. Casitas affected their surrounding habitat in two ways including a loss of algae resulting in areas of bare substrate surrounding the casita and an increase in coral, sponge, and other organisms on the top of casitas. Casitas had more fish and invertebrate species than natural habitat areas without structure. Overall, artificial structure mimicked the ecological communities found on natural habitat areas with structure.

Outside FWC, research on casitas in the Florida Keys has been conducted in the lobster nursery grounds of the Everglades. Casitas placed there attracted juvenile lobsters but also increased the abundance of juvenile lobster predators resulting in high mortality of those juvenile lobsters (Eggleston et al. 1990, Gutzler et al. 2015). In contrast, FWC scientists observed no mortality or injury of large lobsters associated with casitas during our research north of the lower Keys, even though these casitas were frequented by large predators like goliath grouper, nurse sharks, and cobia. Casitas placed in sand that could be excavated underneath occasionally became permanent habitats for nurse sharks, red grouper, and goliath grouper. Lastly, previous work on casitas in the upper

Florida Keys has shown that casitas, and the halo they create, have negative effects on seagrass beds (Eggleston & Lipcius 1999).

To examine the potential catch of lobsters from casitas, FWC experimentally fished existing casitas within the study region. Casitas were fished at two-week intervals from August 6 through September 2, 2010, then monthly until the end of the fishing season on March 31, 2011. For each of the first three fishing trips, an average of 85 lbs., 57 lbs., and 25 lbs. of lobsters per casita were caught, respectively, through September 2, 2010. After those initial fishing events, catch rates averaged less than 6 lbs. per casita (Table 2). This peak in lobster catch rates from experimental casitas corresponded with the peak lobster catch reported by commercial divers in landings records, wherein 50% of commercial landings were reported by divers in August. Lobster catch is known to vary from year to year, and our catch rate study was only conducted in one year and in one region. Therefore, casita catch rates in other years or regions of the Florida Keys may vary from the results of our study. It is possible that our study area, which historically has been dominated by large, transient, non-reproductive lobsters (Gregory et al. 1982), may be a location with particularly high catch rates in casitas relative to other locations. To this point, a majority (80%) of the lobsters found in our study area were legal-sized.

Figure 4: The average number of fish, invertebrate and lobster individuals was significantly higher at artificial structure (casitas) than at natural habitat without structure (bare hardbottom).

7

EXAMPLES OF CASITA FISHERY MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE CARIBBEAN

The Caribbean spiny lobster supports numerous lucrative fisheries throughout the Caribbean region. Many types of fishing gear are used to harvest lobster, including casitas. Casitas are typically placed in clear, shallow waters, and lobsters are harvested by free diving, scuba diving, or compressed air (hookah). Casitas are effective at aggregating lobsters and are used extensively in some of the top producing countries of spiny lobster landings including the Bahamas, Cuba, Mexico, and to a lesser extent, Belize (Cochrane and Chakalall 2001). Casita fisheries management varies with each country. Here, we provide case summaries of casita fisheries management for the most well-known and well-documented fisheries in the Caribbean region. Bahamas

Casitas (also locally called condos) are the most widely used fishing gear in the Bahamas, but they are unregulated (Gittens 2017). Casitas are typically deployed in shallow water with most of the fishery concentrated on the Great and Little Bahama Banks (Gittens 2017). Casitas are not protected as private property and fishers report using casitas whether they deployed them or not resulting in numerous conflicts (Doerr 2014). The Bahamian government does not require fishers to have a license to catch or sell lobster unless their catch is over 250 lbs. or they are using a vessel over 20 feet, thus there is no formal information on the number of casitas or the number of fishers using casitas (Gascoigne et al. 2018). Research suggests that there may be approximately 800,000 casitas used throughout Bahamian waters (Erhardt et al. 2011). Fishers deploy 419 condos per year on average, though some deploy as many as 4,000 casitas per year (Callwood 2016). In 2015, the lobster fishery landed approximately 14.3 million lbs. of lobster (whole weight, Gittens 2017).

Table 2: Summary of lobster harvest from casitas during the 2010-2011 fishing season. At the beginning of the fishing season, most lobsters caught from casitas were legal-sized. Catch of lobsters quickly declined as the season progressed.

8

Belize The Belize spiny lobster fishery is primarily carried out in shallow waters in the reef

lagoon between the mainland and the barrier reef. Lobsters are harvested using traps and casitas, also known as shades. Belize does not require special licenses to use these fishing gears, thus the available data is limited and difficult to parse between fisheries and gear types. There are over 3,000 full and part-time fishers in Belize and 90% of these fishers participate in the lobster and conch fisheries (FAO 2003; McDonald et al. 2017). In 2000, there were a reported 2,470 shades used in Belize (FAO 2003). Belize fishers are organized into five fishing cooperatives. These cooperatives are led by a manager who is advised by a committee of members from the cooperative. Committee members are elected, serve two-year terms, and can be re-elected. Lobster landings in Belize declined by 24% from 600,000 lbs. in 1999 to 465,000 lbs. in 2009. Since 2006, landings appear to be stable (Gongora 2010). Cuba

The Cuban spiny lobster fishery is located in shallow waters around the Cuban shelf with the majority of landings coming from the Gulf of Batabanó on the southern coast (70-75%) (Cruz and Adriano 2001; Martinez 2015). Casitas, or pesqueros, account for approximately 70% of the fishing gear used to harvest lobster (Cruz and Adriano 2001). There are an estimated 143,000 pesqueros used throughout Cuba, though the majority of these are likely used in the Gulf of Batabanó (Puga et a. 2005; Muñoz-Nuñez 2009). The lobster fishery is managed by the Cuban government using a limited-entry regime and territorial use rights for fishing (TURFs) (Baisre 2000; Alzugaray et al. 2018). The lobster fishery is divided into four large management zones that are further partitioned into nine smaller fishing districts, each controlled by local fishing enterprises (fish house and fishermen). Exclusive fishing rights are assigned to each fishing enterprise for the area. Landings specific to pesqueros were not available but the lobster fishery landed an average of 10 million lbs. annually from 2011 to 2015. During this same time frame there were on average 170 boats fishing for lobster annually (Alzugaray et al. 2018). Lobster recruitment and landings have been below-average since 1996 but have stabilized at lower levels since 2008 (Puga et al. 2013; Alzugary et al. 2018). Mexico

Casitas are the predominant method of harvest in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo. Fisheries regulations are developed and enforced by the federal government. The federal government grants fishing grounds to fishing cooperatives run by local fishers. These cooperatives divide the fishing grounds into individual plots of seafloor, called campos, that they internally allocate to individual fishers for deployment of casitas (Sosa-Cordero et al. 2008). By law, fishers cannot own the seafloor, but the casitas are recognized as property of individual fishers. Fishing cooperatives develop their own sets of rules in addition to the federal regulations, and members conduct surveillance and enforcement of the rules and regulations. Entry into the fishing cooperatives is closed except to sons of current fishers (Orensanz and Seijo 2013). Much of the available fisheries data pertains to the three fishing cooperatives located within the Sian Ka´an Biosphere Reserve where an estimated 22,800 casitas were fished by ~150 fishers from 2006-2007 (Sosa-Cordero et al. 2008). During this same time frame landings were approximately 280,000 lbs. whole weight (Orensanz and Seijo 2013).

Brazil Fishing for lobster from casitas, or marambaias, is relatively new in Brazil and limited to the State of Rio Grande do Norte and Ceara (FAO 2003). Fishery data is not available and the practice of fishing from casitas is frowned upon due to the large number of immature lobsters harvested and the materials used (Cruz et al. 2013).

9

MANAGEMENT TOPIC AREAS

Agency Authorities in Florida

Due to the overlap in jurisdiction for managing structures placed on the sea floor,

multiple agencies would have different authorities and permitting guidelines. Permitting, consultation, and coordination between multiple agencies and FWC will be required. The below information was gathered as part of an informal discussion with state and federal government agencies in 2007. Because these discussions occurred in 2007, the determinations should be revisited if the Commission decides to consider a casita fishery. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) requires a permit for anything anchored to the sea floor. Further, because a casita is likely to be classified as an artificial reef by the USACOE, a permit application must be submitted. The district engineer will review the applicant’s provisions for siting, constructing, monitoring, operating, maintaining, and managing the “artificial reef” (e.g., casita) and shall determine if those provisions are consistent with USACOE standards. The standards include minimum vertical clearance, buffer areas, deployment methodologies, construction material must be effective for a minimum of 25 years, and the structure must be stable and not move or break up with resultant habitat loss. Additionally, the USACOE has specified acceptable material requirements. A pre-application consultation with the applicant, USACOE, FWC, and stakeholders is the first step once an application has been received. Following the pre-application consultation, a formal project review would then occur. The proposal will be reviewed by USACOE, local, state and federal agencies, stakeholders, and the general public. Additionally, the USACOE, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, National Marine Fisheries Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service would ensure that endangered or threatened species would not be affected by the construction of a casita. Further, NOAA and the US Coast Guard would ensure navigational safety. A decision to accept or reject the permit application would be made following all of the above steps and can take 1-2 years to issue. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, like all national marine sanctuaries, prohibits the placement of artificial structures on the sea floor. The regulations of the FKNMS prohibit the alternation of, or construction on, the seabed. Further, drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary, or engaging in prop dredging; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary is prohibited, except as an incidental result of several exemptions. One such exemption is for “traditional fishing practices” within the sanctuary. However, the FKNMS does not believe that casitas would not qualify for such a designation in the Florida Keys. It should be noted that the FKNMS is currently proposing to modify their definition of “traditional fishing practices” as part of the Restoration Blueprint process. In comments provided on this definition in April 2020, FWC suggested FKNMS develop a process to accommodate gear innovations and changes to fisheries management (such as use of casitas) in FKNMS waters. The FKNMS issues permits to place artificial structures, such as artificial reefs, on the seafloor. Permits authorized by the FKNMS are categorized as: research, education, and special use.

However, casitas do not fit neatly into these categories and authorization from another

permitting agency would be required for the FKNMS to consider such a permit application.

10

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Permits have been established by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) for live rock aquaculture leases on the seafloor, but the agency did not consider the use of casitas to be an aquaculture activity in the same manner as live rock and instead considers casitas to be a type of fishing gear. Therefore, permitting would not be required through FDACS. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Placement of casitas on the seafloor would require Environmental Resource Permit(s) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). It should be noted that a joint application can be utilized for both the FDEP Environmental Resource Permit and USACOE permit. Relative to FDEP Environmental Resource Permits, there are two types that are relevant for casitas. A Noticed General Permit can be applied for artificial reefs and other defined activities. These typically take 30 days to issue if the project meets specific, minimum guidelines. The other type of permit is an Individual Permit and would be required if dredging or filling of the sea floor is conducted. Structures that involve stationary installations constructed of materials that are intended to remain affixed to the bottom are regulated as “fill” material under the Environmental Resource Permit guidelines. Due to the potential for movement and adjacent resource damage caused by movement, casitas would likely need to be anchored to the sea floor and as such an Individual Permit would likely be required. These permits typically take 6-12 months to issue and the applicant must demonstrate how the project would impact water quality, natural resource issues such as endangered species, stability, and that the project is in the interest of the public. Additionally, if the location of a proposed casita is on sovereign submerged lands, then an authorization would be required of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The form of authorization required would be different if the spiny lobster is consumed directly by the collector or is harvested for sale.

Jurisdictional Issues in Federal Waters of Florida

Everything discussed above represents jurisdictional issues that would need to be considered in state waters of Florida. However, if the use of casitas were to be expanded into Florida federal waters then additional agency coordination would need to be considered. Spiny lobsters are managed at the federal level by NOAA Fisheries, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Federal lobster regulations do not define artificial habitats and clarification from the Councils would be required to determine if casitas would be considered a type of fishing gear. Although regulations from NOAA and the fishery management councils mirror FWC regulations, federal rulemaking would be needed to allow harvest in federal waters and this process could take over a year. Summary

A necessary first step for establishing a spiny lobster casita fishery will be to develop a consensus approach to streamline agency authorities for the placement of casita structures on the seafloor.

11

Fishery Management Considerations for Florida Casita Use In addition to working with our agency partners to understand and resolve jurisdictional authorities, a suite of management considerations will need to be addressed for the creation of a managed casita fishery in Florida. An initial and partial list of questions that would need to be considered follows.

• How would a casita fishery be incorporated into management of the commercial spiny lobster fishery?

o Should existing lobster fishery participants (trap, dive, and/or bully net) be able to participate in the casita fishery?

o If a goal of the program is to reduce the number of traps by shifting trap landings to casitas, then: Should casitas be part of the certificate program? In other words, should

fishers that desire to commercially fish with casitas be required to purchase or otherwise receive certificates? If so, how will the number of certificates required per casita be determined?

How could trap certificate holders “convert” to the casita fishery? Would trappers be permitted to own traps and casitas?

o Should there be an allocation goal for the percentage of lobster harvested by the casita fishery relative to existing sectors? In other words, what should the “new” de facto allocation among commercial sectors be?

o Should new entrants be allowed in this fishery? o Should casita fishermen be bound to a trip limit similar to the existing commercial

dive fishery or be permitted to land the full complement of lobsters from their casitas if greater than the existing trip limit?

o Should there be an FWC permit to commercially harvest from casitas? How much would it cost? Should the number of permits be limited? Would permits have to be associated with specific casitas (assuming casitas are deployed by private individuals or businesses)?

o Should harvest of other species (i.e., reef fish, marine life) be allowed on casita trips, either directly or as “bycatch”?

• What materials and design (shape, dimensions, etc.) are appropriate for casita construction and anchoring (considering effectiveness, habitat, costs, resiliency, etc.)?

• Where (locations and habitat types) should casitas be allowed? • Should traps (or other fishing activity) be allowed in the same area as casitas? • Are proposed casita regulations enforceable? Would additional law enforcement

resources be needed?

12

Literature cited Alzugaray, R., Puga, R., Piñeiro, R., Estela de León, Susana Cobas, L., Morales, O. 2018. The

Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) fishery in Cuba: current status, illegal fishing, and environmental variability. Bulletin of Marine Science 92(2): 393-408.

Baisre,J. 2000. Chronicle of Cuban marine fisheries (1935-1995): trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 394 pp.

Callwood, K.A. 2016. Condos, connectivity, and catch: analyzing the state of the Bahamian spiny lobster fishery. University of Miami.

Cochrane, K.L., Chakalall, B. 2001. The spiny lobster fishery in the WECAFC region-an approach to responsible fisheries management. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:1623-1631.

Cruz, R., Adriano, R. 2001. Regional and seasonal prediction of the Caribbean lobster (Panulirus argus) commercial catch in Cuba. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:1633-1640.

Cruz, R., Silva, K.C.A., Neves, S.D.S., Cintra, I.H. 2013. Impact of lobster size on catches and prediction of commercial spiny lobster landings in Brazil. Crustaceana 86:1274-1290.

Doerr, A. 2014. Condos, culture, and conflict: the social and ecological impacts of artificial habitat use in the Bahamian spiny lobster fishery. University of California, Davis.

FAO. 2003. Report of the second Workshop on the Management of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in the WECAFC Area. Havana, Cuba, 30 September - 4 October 2002. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Informe de Pesca. No. 715. 273 pp.

FAO/Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission. 2001. Report on the FAO/DANIDA/CFRAMP/WECAFC Regional workshops on the assessment of the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Belize City, Belize, 21 April – 2 May 1997 and Merida, Yucatan Mexico, 1-12 June 1998. FAO Fisheries Report No. 619. Rome, FAO. 2001. 381 pp.

Gascoigne, J., Matthews, T., Groeneveld, J. 2018. The Bahamas spiny lobster fishery. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) final report on behalf of the Bahamas Marine Exporters Association. Prepared by Control Union Pesca Ltd.

Gittens, L.G. 2017. The effect of “casitas” on lobster biology and fishery sustainability in the Bahamas. Old Dominion University.

Gongora, M. 2010. Assessment of the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) of Belize based on fishery-dependent data. Belize Fisheries Department. Belize City.

Herron, R.C. 2005. The use of sidescan sonars, magnetometer, and video cameras in detecting illegal artificial reefs in waters of the Florida Keys. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SECSC-530 23p.

Herron, R.C. and C.H. Thompson 2008. The use of sidescan sonars and video cameras in detecting and mapping marine debris and illegal artificial reefs in the waters of the Florida Keys: final report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 13 p.

Martinez, R. 2015. Recruitment and population dynamics of the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) in the Gulf of Batabanó, Cuba. United Nations University Fisheries Training Programme, Iceland. Final project.

Muñoz-Nuñez, D. 2009. The Caribbean spiny lobster fishery in Cuba: an approach to sustainable fishery management. Duke University.

McDonald, G. 2017. An indicator-based adaptive management framework and its development for data-limited fisheries in Belize. Marine Policy: 28-37.

13

Puga, R., Hernández Vázquez, S., López Martinez, J., de León, M.E. 2005. Bioeconomic modelling and risk assessment of the Cuban fishery for spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Fisheries Research 75:149-163.

Puga, R. Integrating anthropogenic and climatic factors in the assessment of the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) in Cuba: implications for fishery management. International Journal of Material Science 3(6): 36-45.

Orensanz, J.M., Seijo, J.C. 2013. Rights-based management in Latin American fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 582. Rome, FAO. 136 pp.

Sosa-Cordero, E., Liceaga-Correa, M.L.A., Seijo, J.C. 2008. The Punta Allen lobster fishery: current status and recent trends. In: R. Townsend, R. Shotton, H. Uchida (eds.). Case studies in fisheries self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, pp. 149-162. Rome, FAO.