[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4268-4378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-978]



[[Page 4267]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



15 CFR Part 922



Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 4268]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 000510129-1004-02]
RIN 0648-A018


Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations

AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean 
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of boundary expansion; supplemental 
management plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this document, NOAA expands the boundary of the Florida 
Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS or Sanctuary) in the remote 
westernmost portion of the Sanctuary by 96 square nautical miles 
(nm\2\) and establishes the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (Ecological 
Reserve or Reserve) (a 151 nm\2\ no-take zone) in the expanded area and 
in 55 nm\2\ of the existing Sanctuary, to protect important coral reef 
resources. This document publishes the boundary coordinates for the 
expansion area and for the Reserve, announces the availability of the 
Supplemental Management Plan (SMP) for the Reserve, and publishes the 
text of the Revised Designation Document for the Sanctuary. The SMP 
details the goals and objectives, management responsibilities, research 
activities, interpretive and educational programs, and enforcement, 
including surveillance activities, for the Reserve. By this document, 
NOAA also issues regulations to implement the boundary expansion and 
the establishment of the Reserve and to regulate activities in the 
Reserve consistent with the purposes of its establishment and to make 
minor revisions to the existing Sanctuary boundary and to the 
boundaries of various zoned areas within that boundary to correct 
errors, provide clarification, and reflect more accurate data. This 
action is necessary to comprehensively protect some of the healthiest 
and most diverse coral reefs in the Florida Keys. The intended effect 
of this rule is to protect the deep water coral reef community in this 
area from being degraded by human activities.

DATE: Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 
(NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1434(b), the Revised Designation and regulations shall 
take effect and become final after the close of a review period of 45 
days of continuous session of Congress, beginning on the day on which 
this document is published in the Federal Register, unless the Governor 
of the State of Florida certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that the 
Revised Designation or any of its terms is unacceptable, in which case 
the Revised Designation or any unacceptable term shall not take effect. 
Announcement of the effective date of the Final Regulations will be 
published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement/Supplemental Management Plan (FSEIS/SMP) and the Record of 
Decision for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve are available upon request 
to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East-West 
Highway, 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, (301) 713-3125. The 
FSEIS/SMP is also available on the Internet at: http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov. Comments regarding the collection-of-
information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC, 20503 (Attention: Desk Officer for NOAA) and to 
Richard Roberts, NOAA, Work Station 8118, 1305 East-West Highway, 8th 
Floor, Silver Spring, MD, 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Billy Causey, Sanctuary 
Superintendent, (305) 743-2437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    NOAA establishes the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (a no-take zone) 
in the Tortugas region (Tortugas or region) of the Florida Keys to 
protect nationally significant coral reef resources and to protect an 
area that serves as a source of biodiversity for the Sanctuary as well 
as for the southwest shelf of Florida. Establishment of the Reserve 
includes expansion of the Sanctuary boundary to ensure that the Reserve 
protects sensitive coral habitats lying outside the existing boundary 
of the Sanctuary.
    With this expansion, the FKNMS, which was designated by the Florida 
Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA, Pub. L. 
101-605) on November 16, 1990, consists of approximately 2900 
nm2 (9660 square kilometers) of coastal and oceanic waters, 
and the submerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys and 
the Dry Tortugas.
    NOAA expands the boundary of the FKNMS and establishes the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve to protect the nationally significant coral reef 
resources of the Tortugas region. This action furthers the objectives 
of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 
and the FKNMSPA and meets the objectives of E.O. 13089, Coral Reef 
Protection. With the addition of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, the 
network of no-take zones in the FKNMS is increased to 24, two of which 
are ecological reserves (Western Sambo and Tortugas Ecological 
Reserves).

II. Background

    The Tortugas region is located in the westernmost portion of the 
FKNMS approximately 70 miles west of Key West, a very strategic 
position oceanographically that makes it an ideal location for an 
ecological reserve. It contains the healthiest coral reefs found in the 
Sanctuary. Coral pinnacles as high as forty feet with the highest coral 
cover (>30%) found in the Keys jut up from the ocean floor. These coral 
formations are bathed by some of the clearest and cleanest waters found 
in the Florida Keys. This occurs where the tropical waters of the 
Caribbean mingle with the more temperate waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
    Recent studies reveal that the Tortugas region is unique in its 
location and the extent to which oceanographic processes impact the 
area. The Tortugas plays a dynamic role in supporting marine ecosystems 
throughout south Florida and the Florida Keys. Larvae that are spawned 
from adult populations in the Tortugas are spread throughout the Keys 
and south and southwest Florida by a persistent system of currents and 
eddies that provide the retention and current pathways necessary for 
successful recruitment of both local and foreign spawned juveniles with 
larval stages remaining from hours for some coral species up to one 
year for spiny lobster. In addition, the upwellings and convergences of 
the current systems provide the necessary food supplies in concentrated 
frontal regions to support larval growth stages.
    The Tortugas is located at the transition between the Gulf of 
Mexico and the Atlantic and is strongly impacted by two major current 
systems, the Loop Current in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Florida 
Current in the Straits of Florida, as well as by the system of eddies 
that form and travel along the boundary of these currents. Of 
particular importance to the marine communities of the Tortugas and 
Florida Keys is the formation of a large

[[Page 4269]]

counterclockwise rotating gyre (large eddy) that forms just south of 
the Tortugas where the Loop Current turns abruptly into the Straits of 
Florida. This gyre can persist for several months before it is forced 
downstream along the Keys decreasing in size and increasing in forward 
speed until its demise in the middle Keys. This gyre serves as a 
retention mechanism for local recruits and as a pathway to inshore 
habitats for foreign recruits. It may also serve as a potential food 
provider through plankton production and concentration.
    The Tortugas is also located adjacent to two coastal current 
systems, including the wind-driven currents of both the Florida Keys 
coastal zone and the west Florida Shelf.
    Persistent westward winds over the Keys create a downwelling system 
that drives a westward coastal countercurrent along the lower Keys to 
the Tortugas. The countercurrent provides a return route to the 
Tortugas and its gyre-dominated circulation, and onshore surface Ekman 
transport (a process whereby wind-driven upwelling bottom water is 
transported 45 degrees to the left of the actual wind direction in the 
northern hemisphere) provide a mechanism for larval entry into coastal 
habitats. Circulation on the west Florida shelf is strongly influenced 
by wind forcing, but there also appears to be a significant southward 
mean flow, possibly due to the Loop Current. The effect of these 
currents on the Tortugas is to provide a larval return mechanism to the 
Florida Bay nursery grounds during periods of southeast winds, as well 
as the transport mechanism for low-salinity shelf waters from the north 
when the mean southward flow is strong.
    The combination of downstream transport in the Florida Current, 
onshore Ekman transport along the downwelling coast, upstream flow in 
the coastal countercurrent and recirculation in the Tortugas gyre forms 
a recirculating recruitment pathway stretching from the Dry Tortugas to 
the middle Keys that enhances larval retention and recruitment into the 
Keys coastal waters of larvae spawned locally or foreign larvae from 
remote upstream areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. 
Convergences between the Florida Current front and coastal gyres 
provide a mechanism to concentrate foreign and local larvae, as well as 
their planktonic food supply. Onshore Ekman transport and horizontal 
mixing from frontal instabilities enhance export from the oceanic 
waters into the coastal zone. A wind- and gyre-driven countercurrent 
provides a return leg to aid larval retention in local waters. Seasonal 
cycles of the winds, countercurrent and Florida Current favor 
recruitment to the coastal waters during the fall when the 
countercurrent can extend the length of the Keys from the Dry Tortugas 
to Key Largo, onshore Ekman transport is maximum and downstream flow in 
the Florida Current is minimum. The mix and variability of the 
different processes forming the recruitment conveyor provide ample 
opportunity for local recruitment of species with larval stages ranging 
from days to several months. For species with longer larval stages, 
such as the spiny lobster, which has a six to 12-month larval period, a 
local recruitment pathway exists that utilizes retention in the 
Tortugas gyre and southwest Florida shelf and return via the Loop 
Current and the Keys conveyor system. Return from the southwest Florida 
shelf could also occur through western Florida Bay and the Keys coastal 
countercurrent, due to a net southeastward flow recently observed 
connecting the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic through the Keys.
    The Tortugas North portion of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
consists of coral reef communities that are unparalleled in the Florida 
Keys in their diversity and composition. Several carbonate banks of 
varying size and depth (30 feet to 75 feet) and low relief hardbottom 
habitats with patches of sand and rubble characterize Tortugas North. 
The most prominent features in the Tortugas North portion of the 
Reserve are Tortugas Bank and Sherwood Forest. Tortugas Bank crests at 
66 feet and supports abundant attached reef organisms such as sponges, 
corals, and soft corals. North of Tortugas Bank, in an area previously 
believed to be composed only of sand, are several pinnacles covered 
with hard and soft corals and reef fish.
    Sherwood Forest is an ancient stony coral forest exhibiting 30% or 
more bottom cover located along the western flank of Tortugas Bank 
(compared to 10% for the rest of the Florida Keys). The area's name was 
inspired by the bizarre mushroom-shaped coral heads that are an 
adaptation to the low light conditions. There seem to be indications 
that the mushroom shape is the result of a composite of two coral 
species. The coral reef is so well developed, that it forms a veneer 
over the true bottom approximately three feet below the reef. It is an 
area of low relief but high coral cover that rises to a depth of about 
65 feet and covers an area of many acres. The area exhibits a complex 
habitat with various rock ledges, holes, and caves, providing hiding 
places for marine life. Unusual coral formations and previously 
unidentified coral species associations have been observed in this 
location. Gorgonians and black corals (Antipathies sp.), which are not 
common elsewhere in the Florida Keys, are also prolific. An abundance 
of groupers has been documented in Sherwood Forest as have sightings of 
uncommon and rare fish species such as jewfish, white-eyed goby, and 
orangeback bass.
    The Tortugas South portion of the Reserve includes a wide range of 
deep water coral reef habitats that will protect and conserve many rare 
and unusual reef species, and incorporates sufficient area to provide a 
buffer to the critical coral reef community. The upper portion of 
Tortugas South includes the relatively shallow Riley's Hump area in 
less than 100 feet of water. Riley's Hump consists of attached algae, 
scattered small coral colonies, sand, and hardbottom habitats. It is 
also a known fish aggregating and spawning site for several snapper-
grouper species.
    Deep reef habitats with numerous soft corals but few stony corals 
are found in Tortugas South in depths from 200 to 400 feet. A series of 
small pinnacles that surround a larger seamount have been identified as 
part of an east-west running ledge that begins around 250 feet and 
drops to close to 400 feet in a nearly vertical profile. This is unlike 
any other coral reef habitat discovered within Sanctuary waters. These 
complex habitats support numerous fish species including streamer bass, 
yellowmouth grouper, snowy grouper, scamp, speckled hind, creole fish, 
bank butterflyfish, amberjack, and almaco.
    The deepest portions (1,600 to 1,800 feet) of Tortugas South 
encompass limestone ledges where unusual deep-dwelling sea life such as 
lantern fish (myctophids), tilefish, golden crabs, and giant isopods 
have been observed. The sand bottom habitat has been observed to be 
teeming with unique deep sea species of shrimp, fish, sea cucumbers, 
anemones, and crabs.
    These critical deep water communities of Tortugas South are 
vulnerable to a wide range of impacts from fishing gear including deep 
water trawls and traps, and impacts from anchoring. Fishing gear 
impacts have been observed on sand and limestone substrates in some 
deep water areas.
    In order for the Reserve to be biologically effective and to ensure 
protection and conservation of the full range of coral reef habitats 
and species in the Tortugas region, it is critical that all of the 
various benthic habitats and their associated marine communities, from 
the shallowest to the greatest

[[Page 4270]]

depths, be included within the boundary of the Reserve.
    Despite its beauty and productivity, the Tortugas has been 
exploited for decades, greatly diminishing its potential as a source of 
larval recruits to the downstream portion of the Florida Keys and to 
itself. Fish and lobster populations have been significantly depleted 
thus threatening the integrity and natural dynamics of the ecosystem. 
Large freighters have been using Riley's Hump as a secure place to 
anchor between port visits. The several-ton anchors and chains of these 
ships have devastated large areas of fragile coral reef habitat that 
provide the foundation for economically important fisheries.
    Visitation to the Tortugas region has increased dramatically over 
the past 10 years. Visitation in the DRTO increased 300% from 1984 
through 1998. The population of South Florida is projected to increase 
from the current 6.3 million people to more than 12 million by 2050. 
With continued technological innovations such as global positioning 
systems (GPS), electronic fish finders, better and faster vessels, this 
increase in population will translate to more pressure on the resources 
in the Tortugas. By designating this area an ecological reserve, NOAA 
hopes to create a seascape of promise--a place where the ecosystem's 
full potential can be realized and a place that humans can experience, 
learn from and respect. This goal is consistent with E.O. 13089, Coral 
Reef Protection, and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's recommendations.
    The FSEIS/SMP supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Final Management Plan (FEIS/MP) for the Sanctuary and fulfills the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
for the Sanctuary boundary expansion, the establishment of the Reserve, 
and the issuance of the regulations implementing the boundary expansion 
and the Reserve. Because establishment of the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve includes a Sanctuary boundary expansion NOAA has followed the 
procedures and has complied with the requirements of section 304(a) of 
the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a).
    Other actions by various other jurisdictions are underway to ensure 
comprehensive protection of the unique resources of the Tortugas 
region:
     The National Park Service (NPS) is revising the General 
Management Plan for the Dry Tortugas National Park (DRTO) that will 
include as the preferred alternative a proposal to create a Research/
Natural Area (RNA) within the Park. The proposed boundary and 
regulations for the RNA will be compatible with the establishment of 
the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
     Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council (GMFMC) has primary federal responsibility and 
expertise for the development of fishery management plans (FMPs) 
throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The GMFMC has developed an amendment for 
addressing Essential Fish Habitat requirements for the various Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Plans (GMFMPs) which cover the area of the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The GMFMPs are implemented by regulations 
promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (50 CFR 
part 622). At the GMFMC's meeting on November 9, 1999, the NOS and NMFS 
requested that the GMFMC take steps to prohibit fishing, consistent 
with the purpose of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The GMFMC accepted 
this request and at its July 10-13, 2000 meeting, adopted the Generic 
Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for 
Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico. That amendment to the 
GMFMPs is consistent with the Tortugas Ecological Reserve and the 
regulations governing ecological reserves within the FKNMS, at 15 CFR 
922.164(d).
     NMFS intends to issue regulations consistent with the no-
take status of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve for the species covered 
by the GMFMPs and for Atlantic tunas, Swordfish, sharks, and Atlantic 
billfishes.
     The State of Florida is drafting regulations to prohibit 
fishing in those portions of Tortugas North that lie within State 
waters.
    Combined with the establishment of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, 
these actions would result in comprehensive protection for the 
nationally significant coral reef habitats from shallow to deep water 
extending from the DRTO into Sanctuary and GMFMC waters.
    The process by which NOAA arrived at its proposal to establish the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve is described in the preamble to the 
Proposed Rule published on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31634). The five 
boundary alternatives and the four regulatory alternatives considered 
by NOAA are also set forth and described in the preamble to the 
Proposed Rule and in the FSEIS.
    Consistent with the proposal, NOAA has selected Boundary 
Alternative III (the Preferred Boundary Alternative) (Figure 1) and 
expands the boundary of the Sanctuary by approximately 96 nm\2\ to 
include two significant coral reef areas known as Sherwood Forest and 
Riley's Hump. The boundary of the Sanctuary in its northwesternmost 
corner is expanded by approximately 36 nm\2\ to include Sherwood Forest 
and in its southwesternmost corner is expanded by adding a 
noncontiguous area of approximately 60 nm\2\ to include Riley's Hump. 
By the final regulations issued with this document, NOAA establishes a 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve of approximately 151 nm\2\. The Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve incorporates the expanded area and approximately 55 
nm\2\ of the existing Sanctuary in its northwest corner. The area of 
the Reserve surrounding Sherwood Forest encompasses approximately 91 
nm\2\ and is called Tortugas North; the area surrounding Riley's Hump 
is called Tortugas South.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.000

    While NOAA proposed Regulatory Alternative C as its Preferred 
Regulatory Alternative, NOAA has selected Regulatory Alternative D and 
implements it by the final regulations issued with this document. The

[[Page 4272]]

difference between Regulatory Alternatives C and D is that Regulatory 
Alternative D prohibits access in Tortugas South except for continuous 
transit, law enforcement, or for scientific research or educational 
activities pursuant to a sanctuary permit. Under Alternative C, which 
is less restrictive, access to Tortugas South would have been allowed 
and, except for continuous transit and law enforcement purposes, would 
have required a simple, no-cost permit and call-in for entering and 
leaving.
    The GMFMC, at its July 10-13, 2000, meeting, took final action on 
its Generic Amendment Addressing the Establishment of Tortugas Marine 
Reserves, which would create the Council's own 60 nm\2\ marine reserve 
in the same location as Tortugas South and in the 13 nm\2\ portion of 
Tortugas North that is within the Council's jurisdiction. The GMFMC has 
proposed a prohibition on any fishing (consumptive activity) or 
anchoring by fishing vessels. The Council also requested that NOAA 
prohibit anchoring by all vessels in the reserve and that NOAA prohibit 
all diving in the areas of Tortugas North and Tortugas South that are 
subject to Council jurisdiction.
    The GMFMC expressed concern that non-consumptive diving would make 
the no-take prohibitions difficult to enforce, particularly with regard 
to diving for lobsters and spearfishing. The Council believes that 
eliminating all diving activities would greatly simplify enforcement. 
In addition, the GMFMC stated that non-consumptive diving can impact 
and damage bottom habitat through the inadvertent contact with coral or 
by stirring up sand and silt on the bottom. The Council also expressed 
concern about the biological impact of diving on the behavior of reef 
fish populations. Tortugas South is a known spawning area for many fish 
including red snapper, yellow tail snapper, mutton snapper, mangrove 
snapper, snowy grouper, black grouper, red grouper, red hind, and rock 
hind. The Council believes that the potential for diver impact on fish 
spawning would be eliminated by the closure. In addition, other 
commentors expressed concern over the effects of non-consumptive diving 
on sensitive coral reef resources.
    Based on the comments received, NOAA revised the Preferred 
Alternative in the FSEIS from the Preferred Alternative in the DSEIS to 
prohibit all diving in Tortugas South except for research or 
educational activities pursuant to a Sanctuary permit. Non-consumptive 
diving will still be allowed in Tortugas North. The resources of 
Tortugas North are not as sensitive to diver impacts as those in 
Tortugas South and permitting non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North 
with careful monitoring of the impacts of such diving will provide 
exceptional resource appreciation and public education benefits. Also, 
prohibiting diving in Tortugas South will provide a reference for 
assessing the impact of diving activities in Tortugas North.
    Socio-economic impacts, determined by analyzing the costs and 
benefits of no-take regulations on various industries, indicate 
moderate impacts on fishermen, mostly lobster and handline fishermen, 
and some recreational charter operators, and minimal or small impacts 
on recreational fishermen, commercial shippers, and treasure salvors. 
The potential for benefits to non-consumptive users and the scientific 
community is high due to the educational and research value of a no-
take ecological reserve. Positive effects to surrounding areas through 
long-term fisheries replenishment are also likely.
    The action taken today adequately protects the nationally 
significant coral reef resources of the Tortugas region and fulfills 
the objectives of the FKNMSPA and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 
(NMSA). The Tortugas Ecological Reserve established by this action is 
of sufficient size and the regulations impose adequate protective 
measures to achieve the goals and objectives of the FKNMSPA and the 
NMSA while not unduly impacting user groups.

III. Revised Designation Document

    The Designation Document for the Sanctuary is revised to 
incorporate the coordinates for the expanded boundary of the Sanctuary, 
to authorize the regulation of entering or leaving specified areas of 
the Sanctuary, and to make necessary technical and editorial 
corrections of the Designation Document. The text of the Revised 
Designation Document follows:

REVISED DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE 
SANCTUARY

Article I. Designation and Effect

    On November 16, 1990, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 
and Protection Act, Pub. L. 101-605 (16 U.S.C. 1433 note), became 
law. That Act designated an area of waters and submerged lands, 
including the living and nonliving resources within those waters, as 
described therein, as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 
(Sanctuary). By this revised Designation Document, the boundary of 
the Sanctuary is expanded to include important coral reef resources 
and resources in two areas known as Sherwood Forest and Riley's 
Hump, just beyond the westernmost portion of the statutory Sanctuary 
boundary.
    Section 304 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 
U.S.C. 1431 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue 
such regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement the 
designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, 
recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, 
cultural, archaeological or aesthetic resources and qualities of a 
national marine sanctuary. Section 1 of Article IV of this 
Designation Document lists activities of the type that are presently 
being regulated or may have to be regulated in the future, in order 
to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing in section 1 
does not mean that a type of activity will be regulated in the 
future, however, if a type of activity is not listed, it may not be 
regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1 is 
amended, following the procedures for designation of a sanctuary set 
forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, to 
include the type of activity.
    Nothing in this Designation Document is intended to restrict 
activities that do not cause an adverse effect on the resources or 
qualities of the Sanctuary or on Sanctuary property or that do not 
pose a threat of harm to users of the Sanctuary.

Article II. Description of the Area

    The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary boundary encompasses 
approximately 2900 nm2 (9,800 square kilometers) of 
coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, 
surrounding the Florida Keys in Florida. The easternmost point of 
the Sanctuary is the northeasternmost point of Biscayne National 
Park and the westernmost point is approximately 15 kilometers to the 
west of the western boundary of Dry Tortugas National Park, a linear 
distance of approximately 335 kilometers. The contiguous area 
boundary on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Florida Keys runs south 
from Biscayne National Park generally following the 300-foot 
isobath, curving in a southwesterly direction along the Florida Keys 
archipelago until south of the Dry Tortugas. The contiguous area 
boundary on the Gulf of Mexico side of the Florida Keys runs from 
this southern point in a straight line to the northwest and then 
when directly west of the Dry Tortugas in a straight line to the 
north. The boundary then turns to the east and slightly south and 
follows a straight line to just west of Key West and then turns to 
the northeast and follows a straight line parallel to the Florida 
Keys approximately five miles to the south, and then follows the 
Everglades National Park boundary until Division Point where the 
boundary then follows the western shore of Manatee Bay, Barnes 
Sound, and Card Sound. The boundary then follows the southern 
boundary of Biscayne National Park and up its eastern boundary until 
its northeasternmost point. Starting just to the east of the most 
western boundary line of the contiguous portion of the Sanctuary 
there is a vertical rectangular shape area of 60 nm2 just 
to the south.
    The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is the mean high-water 
mark except around

[[Page 4273]]

the Dry Tortugas where it is the boundary of the Dry Tortugas 
National Park. The Sanctuary boundary encompasses the entire Florida 
coral reef tract, all of the mangrove islands of the Florida Keys, 
and some of the sea grass meadows of the Florida Keys. The precise 
boundary of the Sanctuary is set forth at the end of this 
Designation Document.

Article III. Characteristics of the Area That Give it Particular 
Value

    The Florida Keys extend approximately 223 miles southwest from 
the southern tip of the Florida peninsula. Adjacent to the Florida 
Keys land mass are located spectacular unique, nationally 
significant marine environments, including sea grass meadows, 
mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs. These marine 
environments support rich biological communities possessing 
extensive conservation, recreational, commercial, ecological, 
historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values which give 
this area special national significance. These environments are the 
marine equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support high 
levels of biodiversity, are fragile and easily susceptible to damage 
from human activities, and possess high value to humans if properly 
conserved. These marine environments are subject to damage and loss 
of their ecological integrity from a variety of sources of 
disturbance.
    The Florida Keys are a limestone island archipelago. The Keys 
are located at the southern edge of the Florida Plateau, a large 
carbonate platform made of a depth of up to 7000 meters of marine 
sediments, which have been accumulating for 150 million years and 
which have been structurally modified by subsidence and sea level 
fluctuation. The Keys region is generally divided into five distinct 
areas: the Florida reef tract, one of the world's largest coral reef 
tracts and the only barrier reef in the United States; Florida Bay, 
described as an active lime-mud factory because of the high 
carbonate content of its silts and muds; the Southwest Continental 
Shelf; the Straits of Florida; and the Keys themselves.
    The 2.5 million-acre Sanctuary contains one of North America's 
most diverse assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine, and marine fauna 
and flora, including, in addition to the Florida reef tract, 
thousands of patch reefs, one of the world's largest sea grass 
communities covering 1.4 million acres, mangrove fringed shorelines, 
mangrove islands, and various hardbottom habitats. These diverse 
habitats provide shelter and food for thousands of species of marine 
plants and animals, including more than 50 species of animals 
identified under Federal or State law, as endangered or threatened. 
The Keys were at one time a major seafaring center for European and 
American trade routes to the Caribbean, and the submerged cultural 
and historic resources (i.e., shipwrecks) abound in the surrounding 
waters. In addition, the Sanctuary may contain substantial 
archaeological resources of pre-European cultures.
    The uniqueness of the marine environment draws multitudes of 
visitors to the Keys. The major industry in the Florida Keys is 
tourism, including activities related to the Keys' marine resources, 
such as dive shops, charter fishing and dive boats and marinas, as 
well as hotels and restaurants. The abundance of the resources also 
supports a large commercial fishing employment sector.
    The number of visitors to the Keys grows each year, with a 
concomitant increase in the number of residents, homes, jobs, and 
businesses. As population grows and the Keys accommodate ever-
increasing resource-use pressures, the quality and quantity of 
Sanctuary resources are increasingly threatened. These pressures 
require coordinated and comprehensive monitoring and researching of 
the Florida Keys' region.

Article IV. Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation

    The following activities are subject to regulation under the 
NMSA, either throughout the entire Sanctuary or within identified 
portions of it or, as indicated, in areas beyond the boundary of the 
Sanctuary, to the extent necessary and reasonable. Such regulation 
may include prohibitions to ensure the protection and management of 
the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, 
educational, cultural, archaeological or aesthetic resources and 
qualities of the area. Because an activity is listed here does not 
mean that such activity is being or will be regulated. All listing 
means is that the activity can be regulated, after compliance with 
all applicable regulatory laws, without going through the 
designation procedures required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 
304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b). Further, no regulation 
issued under the authority of the NMSA except an emergency 
regulation issued with the approval of the Governor of the State of 
Florida may take effect in the area of the Sanctuary lying within 
the seaward boundary of the State of Florida if the Governor of the 
State of Florida certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that such 
regulation is unacceptable within the forty-five-day review period 
specified in NMSA. Detailed definitions and explanations of the 
following ``activities subject to regulation'' appear in the 
Sanctuary Management Plan:
    1. Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, and/or 
minerals (e.g., clay, stone, sand, gravel, metalliferous ores, 
nonmetalliferous ores) in the Sanctuary;
    2. Touching, climbing on, taking, removing, moving, collecting, 
harvesting, injuring, destroying or causing the loss of, or 
attempting to take, remove, move, collect, harvest, injure, destroy 
or cause the loss of, coral in the Sanctuary;
    3. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of 
the Sanctuary, except incidental to allowed fishing and boating 
practices or construction activities permitted by county, state or 
federal regulatory agencies; or constructing, placing or abandoning 
any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the 
Sanctuary, except as authorized by appropriate permits or incidental 
to allowed fishing practices;
    4. Discharging or depositing, within or beyond the boundary of 
the Sanctuary, any material that subsequently enters the Sanctuary 
and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality;
    5. Operating water craft in the Sanctuary
    (a) in a manner that could injure coral, hardbottoms, seagrass, 
mangroves, or any other immobile organism attached to the seabed,
    (b) in a manner that could injure or endanger the life of 
divers, fishermen, boaters or other users of the Sanctuary,
    (c) in a manner that could disturb marine mammals, marine 
reptiles, or bird rookeries;
    6. Diving or boating activities in the Sanctuary including 
anchoring that could harm Sanctuary resources, Sanctuary property, 
or other users of the Sanctuary;
    7. Stocking within the Sanctuary or releasing within the 
Sanctuary or from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, native or 
exotic species of plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian or mammals;
    8. Defacing, marking, or damaging in any way or displacing, 
removing, or tampering with any markers, signs, notices, placards, 
navigational aids, monuments, stakes, posts, mooring buoys, boundary 
buoys, trap buoys, or scientific equipment in the Sanctuary;
    9. Removing, injuring, preserving, curating, and managing 
historic resources within the Sanctuary without all required state 
and/or federal permits;
    10. Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, harvesting, 
feeding, injuring, destroying, or causing the loss of, or attempting 
to take, remove, move, catch, collect, harvest, feed, injure, 
destroy or cause the loss of any marine mammal, marine reptile, or 
bird within the Sanctuary, without all required state and/or federal 
permits;
    11. Possessing, moving, harvesting, removing, taking, damaging, 
disturbing, breaking, cutting, spearing, or otherwise injuring any 
marine invertebrate, fish, bottom formation, algae, seagrass or 
other living or dead organism, including shells, or attempting any 
of these activities in any area of the Sanctuary designated as an 
Existing Management Area, Wildlife Management Area, Ecological 
Reserve, Sanctuary Preservation Area, or Special-Use Area;
    12. Carrying or possessing specified fishing gear in any area of 
the Sanctuary designated as an Existing Management Area, Wildlife 
Management Area, Ecological Reserve, Sanctuary Preservation Area, or 
Special-Use Area except for passage through without interruption;
    13. Entering and leaving any Wildlife Management Area, 
Ecological Reserve, Sanctuary Preservation Area, or Special-Use Area 
except for passage through without interruption or for law 
enforcement purposes;
    14. Harvesting marine life as defined and regulated by the State 
of Florida under its marine life rule;
    15. Mariculture;
    16. Possessing or using explosives or releasing electrical 
charges or substances poisonous or toxic to fish and other living 
marine resources within the Sanctuary or beyond the boundary of the 
Sanctuary (possession of ammunition shall not be considered 
possession of explosives);
    17. Removing and disposing of lost, out-of-season, or illegal 
gear discovered within the Sanctuary; removing of vessels grounded, 
lodged, stuck or otherwise perched on coral

[[Page 4274]]

reefs, hardbottom, or seagrasses within the Sanctuary; and removing 
and disposing of derelict or abandoned vessels or other vessels 
within the Sanctuary for which ownership cannot be determined or for 
which the owner takes no action for removal or disposal; and 
salvaging and towing of vessels abandoned or disabled within the 
Sanctuary vessels or of vessels within the Sanctuary otherwise 
needing salvaging or towing; and
    18. Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an 
investigation, search, seizure or deposition of seized property in 
connection with enforcement of the NMSA or any regulation or permit 
issued under the NMSA.

Section 2. Emergency Regulation

    Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss 
of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality; or to minimize the 
imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury, any activity, 
including any not listed in Section 1 of this article, is subject to 
immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. However, no 
such regulation may take effect in any area of the Sanctuary lying 
within the seaward boundary of the State of Florida without the 
approval of the Governor of the State of Florida.

Article V. Effect on Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights

    Pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 
U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval or 
other authorization issued by any federal, State, or local authority 
of competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or 
access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or 
her designee, as a result of a designation, or as a result of any 
sanctuary regulation, if such authorization or right was in effect 
on the effective date of the designation (November 16, 1990 with 
respect to the statutory Sanctuary boundary; __________, 2001 with 
respect to the revision to the Sanctuary boundary expansion made by 
this Revised Designation Document).
    In no event may the Secretary of Commerce or his or her designee 
issue a permit authorizing, or otherwise approving: (1) the 
exploration for, development of, or production of oil, gas, or 
minerals within the Sanctuary; or (2) the disposal of dredged 
materials within the Sanctuary (except by certification in 
accordance with applicable National Marine Sanctuary Program 
regulations of valid authorizations in existence on the effective 
date of Sanctuary designation). Any purported authorizations issued 
by other authorities after the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation for any of these activities within the Sanctuary shall 
be invalid.

Article VI. Alteration of this Designation

    The terms of designation, as defined in paragraph (a) of section 
304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a), may be modified only by the 
procedures outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the 
NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b), including public hearings, 
consultation with interested federal, state, and local government 
agencies, review by the appropriate Congressional committees, review 
by the Governor of the State of Florida, and approval by the 
Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee. No designation, term 
of designation, or implementing regulation may take effect in the 
area of the Sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State 
of Florida if the Governor of the State of Florida certifies to the 
Secretary of Commerce that such designation or term of designation 
regulation is unacceptable within the forty-five-day review period 
specified in NMSA.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates (based 
on North American datum of 1983)

    The boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary--
    (a) begins at the northeasternmost point of Biscayne National 
Park located at a point approximately 25 degrees 39 minutes north 
latitude, 80 degrees 05 minutes west longitude, then runs eastward 
to the point located at 25 degrees 39 minutes north latitude, 80 
degrees 04 minutes west longitude; and
    (b) then runs southward and connects in succession the points at 
the following coordinates:
    (i) 25 degrees 34 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 04 minutes 
west longitude,
    (ii) 25 degrees 28 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 05 minutes 
west longitude,
    (iii) 25 degrees 21 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 07 
minutes west longitude, and
    (iv) 25 degrees 16 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 08 minutes 
west longitude;
    (c) then runs southwesterly and connects in succession the 
points at the following coordinates:
    (i) 25 degrees 07 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 13 minutes 
west longitude,
    (ii) 24 degrees 57 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 21 minutes 
west longitude,
    (iii) 24 degrees 39 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 52 
minutes west longitude,
    (iv) 24 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 23 minutes 
west longitude,
    (v) 24 degrees 25 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 50 minutes 
west longitude,
    (vi) 24 degrees 22 minutes north latitude, 82 degrees 48 minutes 
west longitude,
    (vii) 24 degrees 37 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 06 
minutes west longitude,
    (viii) 24 degrees 46 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 06 
minutes west longitude,
    (ix) 24 degrees 46 minutes north latitude, 82 degrees 54 minutes 
west longitude,
    (x) 24 degrees 44 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 55 minutes 
west longitude,
    (xi) 24 degrees 51 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 26 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (xii) 24 degrees 55 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 56 
minutes west longitude;
    (d) then follows the boundary of Everglades National Park in a 
southerly then northeasterly direction through Florida Bay, 
Buttonwood Sound, Tarpon Basin, and Blackwater Sound;
    (e) after Division Point, then departs from the boundary of 
Everglades National Park and follows the western shoreline of 
Manatee Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card Sound;
    (f) then follows the southern boundary of Biscayne National Park 
to the southeasternmost point of Biscayne National Park; and
    (g) then follows the eastern boundary of Biscayne National Park 
to the beginning point specified in paragraph (a).
    The shoreward boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary is the mean high-water mark except around the Dry Tortugas 
where the boundary is conterminous with that of the Dry Tortugas 
National Park, formed by connecting in succession the points at the 
following coordinates:
    (i) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (ii) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
58 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (iii) 24 degrees 39 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
58 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (iv) 24 degrees 43 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (v) 24 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
52 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (vi) 24 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
48 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (vii) 24 degrees 42 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
46 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (viii) 24 degrees 40 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 
degrees 46 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (ix) 24 degrees 37 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
48 minutes 0 seconds west longitude; and
    (x) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude.
    The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary also includes the 
area located within the boundary formed by connecting in succession 
the points at the following coordinates;
    (i) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minutes 
west longitude,
    (ii) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 05 minutes 
west longitude,
    (iii) 24 degrees 18 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 05 
minutes west longitude,
    (iv) 24 degrees 18 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (v) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minute 
west longitude.

(End of Revised Designation Document.)

IV. Supplemental Management Plan

    The Supplemental Management Plan (SMP) complements the existing 
Sanctuary Management Plan (MP) in several respects. Many of the 
strategies described in the MP that are now being implemented in the 
Sanctuary will be applied to the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. However, 
due to the unique characteristics of the Tortugas region (remoteness, 
deep water) some new strategies have been developed and will be 
implemented. Some of these strategies are described below. The SMP adds 
strategies to the Education and Outreach Action Plan, Enforcement

[[Page 4275]]

Action Plan, Mooring and Boundary Buoy Action Plan, Research Monitoring 
Action Plan and adds an Administrative Action Plan.

Administrative Action Plan

    The SMP adds an Administrative Action Plan to the Management Plan. 
It targets the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 
clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies 
responsible for resource management in the Tortugas region. The MOU 
will cover, at a minimum, the following activities: cooperative 
enforcement, research, and sharing of facilities. Management of the 
Reserve necessitates a high degree of coordination and cooperation 
between the affected agencies, particularly NOAA and the NPS. Both 
agencies have similar missions and responsibilities. Consequently, 
cooperation will not only save money but will also improve resource 
protection. The NPS has a variety of assets such as land, housing, and 
dockage that, under a workable agreement, could potentially be used to 
support management of the Reserve. An agreement on the use of these 
lands and facilities will be pursued by NOAA and NPS.
    The State of Florida is the co-trustee for a significant portion of 
the waters and marine resources within the Reserve and will co-manage 
these resources with the NOAA.
    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has considerable 
expertise and some assets that could be utilized in managing the 
reserve, particularly in the areas of research and monitoring. The NMFS 
Office of Law Enforcement has responsibility for enforcing fishing 
regulations and has assets and technology that could potentially be 
used for enforcement.
    The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for enforcing fishing 
regulations in federal waters of the Reserve. They have several large 
offshore patrol vessels based in Key West that could be used, in 
conjunction with Sanctuary patrol vessels, for enforcement of the 
reserve areas.
Strategy 1: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    Develop and enter into an MOU that clearly defines the roles and 
responsibilities of the various agencies responsible for resource 
management in the Tortugas region. The MOU should cover, at a minimum, 
the following activities: cooperative enforcement, research, and 
sharing of facilities and assets.

Education and Outreach Action Plan

    The SMP supplements the Education and Outreach Plan in the MP by 
adding education and outreach strategies for the Reserve. These 
strategies are expected to have a significant effect on protecting and 
preserving the natural resources found in the Tortugas by enhancing the 
general public's understanding of this unique region and the 
regulations applicable to the reserve. These strategies were developed 
according to the Sanctuary Education and Outreach goals and outcomes 
identified in the MP.
Strategy E.13: Tortugas Site Brochure
    To a large extent, marine reserves rely on visitor compliance and 
understanding in order for their regulations to be effective. This is 
even more critical when reserves like the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
are remotely located or large in size. NOAA has learned from experience 
that an important tactic for increasing regulatory compliance is to 
provide appropriate educational products and information to visitors of 
protected areas. This strategy is to produce a site brochure which 
details the regulations and boundaries for the Reserve, how to obtain a 
permit to enter and visit Tortugas North area, the locations and 
numbers of mooring buoys, and the unique ecological features of the 
area. This product will complement the existing Sanctuary regional site 
brochures, and will interpret an area of the Sanctuary that is not 
currently covered in any existing products.
    Activity 1--Design layout and content of brochure;
    Activity 2--Identify partners to assist with brochure costs;
    Activity 3--Print and distribute brochure.
Strategy E.14: Tortugas Ecological Reserve Exhibit, Garden Key
    Most visitors to the Tortugas Ecological Reserve will stop at Fort 
Jefferson on Garden Key in the DRTO at some point during their visit. 
Garden Key provides a convenient anchorage for private pleasure boats, 
commercial fishing vessels, live-aboard dive vessels, recreational 
fishing guides, and ferries and seaplanes that bring campers and day 
visitors from Key West. This strategy involves the development and 
construction of an information kiosk at Fort Jefferson that will take 
advantage of this contact point to educate visitors about the Reserve. 
The exhibit will include practical information on reserve boundaries 
and regulations, as well as information on the habitats and marine life 
found in the reserve and the reasons for designating the Reserve. The 
exhibit will be visually appealing, educational and interesting for the 
general public, while still conveying necessary regulatory information 
for those visitors who may be entering the reserve.
    Activity 1--Consult with National Park Service staff to determine 
size and location of kiosk. Review construction designs and materials 
of similar kiosks;
    Activity 2--Design content and layout for kiosk;
    Activity 3--Produce and install kiosk.
Strategy E.15: Interagency Visitor Center, Key West
    Due to the geographical remoteness of the Tortugas area and 
considerable depths at which unique coral reef resources are located, 
it is important to provide educational opportunities for the over 2.5 
million visitors to the Keys that will not see these special features 
first-hand. NOAA, working in conjunction with the NPS and the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service, is establishing an interagency 
visitor center in Key West. This strategy will develop an exhibit for 
the visitor center in which the natural characteristics and habitats of 
the Tortugas region are featured. This exhibit will educate the visitor 
about natural resources while interpreting the multi-agency 
jurisdiction of the region. The development and designation of the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve and the DRTO's Research Natural Area will 
also be explained.
    Activity 1--Consult with National Park Service staff to determine 
content, design, and layout of exhibit;
    Activity 2--Identify other possible agency or private partners for 
exhibit production;
    Activity 3--Produce and install exhibit.
Strategy E.16: Tortugas Site Characterization
    Several years ago a comprehensive site characterization of the 
FKNMS was produced. This 10 volume series is rich in biological, 
oceanographic, chemical, geological, and other scientific information. 
A similar, though less voluminous, site characterization of the 
Tortugas region was produced as a component of the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve planning process. In order to heighten the Reserve users' 
awareness of the oceanographic and biological uniqueness of the 
Tortugas resources, a layperson's summary of the site characterization 
will be developed under this strategy. NOAA will seek to create a 
product in cooperation with the National Park Service that takes an

[[Page 4276]]

ecosystem approach to interpretation, starting at the islands of the 
Park, and progressing through the deep-water environments of the 
Reserve. This product will be produced in both electronic and printed 
format to increase accessibility and reduce printing costs. The web 
site document will contain hyperlinks to the full site characterization 
document and to research data from the region, including GIS maps.
    Activity 1--Obtain electronic versions of Tortugas Site 
Characterization document and upload to Sanctuary web site;
    Activity 2--Write summary of Site Characterization and conduct 
review of summary by original authors;
    Activity 3--Produce printed version of summary and post electronic 
version to web site;
    Activity 4--Improve web site page by identifying and creating 
relevant links to data, photos, and GIS maps.
Strategy E.17: Tortugas Ecological Reserve Documentary
    This strategy will produce a video documentary on the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve to interpret the unique ecological resources of the 
reserve, explain the necessity of protection, summarize the use of 
marine zoning as an effective management tool, and explain the process 
by which the Reserve was created. NOAA has received and continues to 
receive multiple requests from national and international sources on 
the process used to create the Reserve. This documentary will convey 
the breadth of information associated with the reserve and its 
creation. The documentary will also be duplicated for use by the many 
agencies that have undertaken action within the Tortugas area relative 
to reserve designation (e.g., National Park Service, regional fishery 
management councils, the State of Florida).
    Activity 1--Contract with videographer to produce documentary;
    Activity 2--Produce duplicate copies of documentary and distribute 
as needed.
Strategy E.18: Traveling Exhibit on Marine Zoning
    Sanctuary Education and Outreach staff participate in more than 
twenty-five community fairs, trade shows, scientific and management 
conferences, and related events annually. A variety of traveling 
exhibits and display materials are used to interpret Sanctuary 
resources, regulations, and special projects. This strategy involves 
the development and production of a traveling exhibit on marine zoning 
in the Sanctuary, including the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Components 
of the exhibit will be interchangeable, focusing on a variety of topics 
such as zone designation, resources protected by various zone types, 
regulations, research and monitoring of zone performance, and the use 
of marine zoning in other national and international arenas.
    Activity 1--Design content and layout for traveling exhibit;
    Activity 2--Produce exhibit components.
Strategy E.19: Interpretive Wayside Exhibits on the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve
    Of the 2.5 million visitors to the Florida Keys annually, 14.4% 
participate in boating activities using private vessels. In recent 
years, visitation to the DRTO has increased from 18,000 visitors in 
1984 to 72,000 in 1998. This strategy aims to educate private boaters 
traveling to the Tortugas by developing and installing interpretive 
wayside exhibits such as information signs at boat ramps, chambers of 
commerce, and other strategic locations. Exhibits will provide 
important information about the Tortugas waters, natural resources, and 
regulations for the new reserve. The signs will also display 
information on minimal impact usage and safety considerations for 
traveling to this remote area.
    Activity 1--Identify number of exhibits needed and appropriate 
locations for exhibits. Prioritize exhibit placement;
    Activity 2--Investigate production costs and possible partners for 
funding exhibits;
    Activity 3--Design content and layout for wayside exhibits;
    Activity 4--Produce and install exhibits by priority area as 
funding permits.

Enforcement Action Plan

    The SMP supplements the Enforcement Action Plan in the MP by adding 
the goals of gaining the highest level of compliance by the public who 
enter and visit the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. This compliance can be 
achieved through several management actions including education and 
outreach and on the water presence of Sanctuary staff in programs such 
as Team OCEAN, where Sanctuary information is distributed along the 
waterfront or boat to boat by Sanctuary staff and volunteers.
    The most effective management action that can be used to achieve 
compliance with Sanctuary regulations is an effective law enforcement 
program. Currently, the primary enforcement of Sanctuary regulations is 
accomplished through an enforcement agreement between NOAA/Office of 
National Marine Sanctuaries and the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission. The enforcement efforts are consistent with 
the goals and objectives for enforcement described in the MP. The MP 
also calls for cross-deputization of other agency law enforcement 
personnel (e.g., National Park Service Rangers) to accomplish law 
enforcement responsibilities within the Sanctuary. This approach to 
enforcement continues to remain an option.
    The success of the Reserve will depend to a large extent on the 
level of enforcement resources dedicated to the Reserve. Several 
enforcement options are presently available and are being evaluated for 
deployment in the Reserve. These options include:
     Installation and monitoring of a long-range radar unit at 
the Dry Tortugas National Park. This would allow remote monitoring of 
vessels entering and leaving the Reserve.
     Place two 82' vessels into service for patrolling the 
Ecological Reserve.
     Cross-deputize and fund National Park Service Rangers to 
assist in enforcement in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    The SMP commits substantial enforcement resources for the Reserve. 
The SMP sets forth the law enforcement budget as follows:
Personnel
Law Enforcement Officers (4-6)  $50,000 per position
General Support  $50,000
Vessels
82' Patrol Vessels (2)  No Cost--Agency Property Transfer
    NOAA will work with the FWC and other enforcement agencies to 
develop the enforcement resources that are necessary to assure the 
success of the Reserve.
Other Enforcement Factors
    Because vessels are prohibited from stopping within the Tortugas 
South portion of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, except for law 
enforcement or for scientific research or educational activities 
pursuant to a sanctuary permit, it will be possible to monitor vessel 
traffic remotely by radar and response will only be necessary when 
vessels without a permit stop within Tortugas South. Additionally, 
access to Tortugas North will be allowed only by permit. This will help 
Sanctuary managers monitor the level of visitor

[[Page 4277]]

use in the reserve and will facilitate enforcement efforts.

Mooring and Boundary Buoy Action Plan

    The SMP supplements the MP by revising the title to the Mooring 
Buoy Action to read Mooring and Boundary Buoy Action Plan and by adding 
several strategies specific to the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
Tortugas Ecological Reserve Supplement
    Strategy 1. Install and maintain boundary buoys for Tortugas North.
    Strategy 2. Install and maintain an adequate number of mooring 
buoys in Tortugas North in appropriate locations.
    Strategy 3. Determine whether buoys are appropriate for Tortugas 
South and, if so, determine the number, type, and locations of buoys.

Regulatory Action Plan

    The SMP supplements the Regulatory Action Plan in the MP by calling 
for extensive coordination with other governmental entities, 
particularly the State of Florida, to ensure that all required 
regulations are put in place. The Plan calls for publication on NOAA 
nautical charts of the new boundaries for the Sanctuary and the 
reserve.

Research and Monitoring Action Plan

    The SMP supplements the Regulatory Action Plan in the MP by 
identifying and describing research and monitoring strategies for the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. These strategies are expected to have 
significant effects on Sanctuary resources by providing the knowledge 
necessary to make informed decisions about protecting the biological 
diversity and natural ecosystem processes of the Tortugas region. These 
strategies were developed according to the Sanctuary Research and 
Monitoring goals and objectives identified in the MP.
Strategy T.1: Ecological Reserve Support Staff
    This strategy involves hiring support staff to assist with 
regulatory implementation and interpretation of the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve. This staff member will establish a permit issuance and 
tracking system for entrance into Tortugas North, answer inquiries from 
the general public while on-site at the reserve, and assist with 
research and other reserve issues as needed.
    Activity 1--Review support staff logistics (office space, 
communications, lodging) with National Park Service personnel.
    Activity 2--Advertise for and hire support staff.
Strategy T.2: Design and Implement Long-term Ecological Monitoring to 
Test the Efficacy and Ecological Integrity of the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve
    Ecological reserves are established within the Sanctuary to protect 
and enhance biodiversity and to provide natural spawning, nursery, and 
permanent residence areas for marine life. This strategy establishes 
monitoring activities that compare reserve areas before and after 
designation, as well as monitoring which captures changes occurring 
inside and outside the protected area, which is critical to gauge the 
effectiveness of ecological reserves as a management tool. This 
monitoring will also assist Sanctuary management in determining if the 
area's biodiversity, productivity, and ecological integrity are being 
adequately protected by the regulations in place.
    Consistent with the existing Zone Monitoring Program, indicators 
for assessing ecosystem function and ecological integrity (such as 
changes in coral and fish diversity, trophic structure, and water 
quality) will be monitored. An important element will be monitoring 
diving impacts by comparing changes in gross habitat morphology in 
Tortugas South and Tortugas North, particularly around mooring buoys.
    Activity 1--Assess existing Tortugas monitoring activities. 
Prioritize baseline monitoring data needs and provide support to 
existing monitoring programs to gather necessary data. Contract with 
additional researchers as needed to fill baseline data gaps.
    Activity 2--Develop post-implementation monitoring plan for the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve and adjacent areas of varying protection 
levels.
    Activity 3--Convene annual or biannual meeting of Tortugas 
researchers to share monitoring data with Sanctuary management and 
review monitoring schedule.
Strategy T.3: Dry Tortugas Marine Laboratory and Research Support 
Feasibility Study
    Historically, the Dry Tortugas have been a place of marine 
research, supporting early pioneers in the fields of coral reef 
biology, ecology, oceanography, and underwater photography. A remote 
marine research station supported by the Carnegie Institution existed 
in the late 1800's and early 1900's on Loggerhead Key. The Carnegie 
facility was closed and dismantled decades ago, and since that time 
research efforts in the region have been sporadic. This strategy 
undertakes a feasibility study for the re-establishment of this 
laboratory or a similar facility. Such a facility would address the 
growing interest in Tortugas research and support the collection of 
much-needed data to assist National Park Service and Sanctuary managers 
in future decisions about Tortugas resources. Additionally, the 
feasibility study will consider other logistical needs to support 
researchers working in the Dry Tortugas area, such as shore-based 
lodging.
    Activity 1--Meet with NPS personnel to plan feasibility study and 
desired conditions of research station. Discuss funding options for 
feasibility study.
    Activity 2--Conduct feasibility study and discuss results with NPS. 
Implement next steps as appropriate.
Strategy T.4: Wireless Data Transfer
    This strategy will establish wireless data transfer capabilities 
using the existing Motorola two-way radio network.
    Activity 1--Contact Motorola to determine wireless data transfer 
capabilities using the existing two way radio network.
    Activity 2--If the existing network can be used to transfer data, 
procure needed software and hardware.
    Activity 3--Train staff on wireless data transfer.
    Activity 4--Maintain and upgrade system as needed.
    Activity 5--If existing two way radio network will not permit data 
transfer, research additional options.
Strategy T.5: Automated Oceanographic Data Collection
    Throughout the Sanctuary a series of automated, continuously 
functioning sensors mounted on remote platforms or structures (C-MAN 
Stations) collect physical oceanographic data and report this 
information real-time to the Internet. This strategy will expand the C-
MAN network to include similar data collection at a remote location in 
the Tortugas. Additionally, instruments that continuously collect data 
on biological parameters will also be installed.
    Activity 1--Assess existing remote data collection activities in 
the Dry Tortugas.
    Activity 2--Contract with current C-MAN Station research team to 
install a new station in the Tortugas area. Develop maintenance plan.
    Activity 3--Investigate instrument capabilities and costs to expand 
data collection to include biological parameters. Purchase and install 
necessary instrumentation.

[[Page 4278]]

Strategy T.6: Tortugas Region Non-Use Valuation Study
    In the development of the Sanctuary Final Management Plan, user 
attitude and economic values of the Sanctuary were established through 
a comprehensive socio-economic study. This strategy will complement the 
existing socio-economic studies of the Sanctuary by specifically 
identifying the non-use values that exist within the Tortugas region. 
Establishing these non-use values is critical for managers to 
accurately estimate the economic benefits and costs of newly designated 
reserve areas.
    Activity 1--Discuss non-use valuation study requirements with 
Sanctuary economist.
    Activity 2--Contract with economist to conduct study and publish 
results.

V. Summary of Final Regulations

    The regulations applicable to the Reserve start with the current 
Sanctuary-wide regulations (15 CFR part 922, subpart P, in particular, 
Sec. 922.163) and those additional regulations applicable to ecological 
reserves (15 CFR 922.164(d)). The Sanctuary-wide regulations prohibit 
mineral and hydrocarbon exploration; removal of, injury to, or 
possession of coral or live rock; alteration of, or construction on, 
the seabed; discharge or deposit of materials or other matter; 
operation of vessels in a manner that injures or endangers life, marine 
resources, or property; diving or snorkeling without flying a diver's 
down flag; releasing exotic species; damaging or removing markers; 
moving, removing, injuring, or possessing Sanctuary historical 
resources; taking or possessing protected wildlife; possessing or using 
explosives or electrical charges; harvesting or possessing marine life 
species not in accordance with the Florida Administrative Code; and 
interfering with law enforcement authorities.
    The ecological reserve regulations prohibit the discharge or 
deposit of any material except cooling water or engine exhaust; taking, 
disturbing or injuring any dead or living organism; fishing; touching 
living or dead coral; and anchoring when a mooring buoy is available or 
on living or dead coral. Transit by vessels is allowed provided that 
all fishing gear is stowed away.
    In addition to the Sanctuary-wide and ecological reserve 
regulations, the regulations for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve:
     Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft in length overall (LOA), and control access to Tortugas 
North, other than for continuous transit or for law enforcement 
purposes, via access permit and require permitted vessels to call-in 
prior to entering or when leaving.
     Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft in length overall (LOA), and restrict access to Tortugas 
South, other than for continuous transit with fishing gear stowed away 
or for law enforcement purposes, to research or educational purposes. A 
National Marine Sanctuary General Permit (see 15 CFR 922.166(a)) would 
be required for all research or educational activities.
    The access permit for Tortugas North is free, no paperwork is 
required, and Sanctuary staff will be available year-round to handle 
requests. Applicants must call the Key West or Marathon Sanctuary 
office to request a permit and must radio into the Sanctuary staff 
person at Fort Jefferson (DRTO) prior to entering and upon leaving the 
reserve.
    Applicants must furnish the following information:
    1. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of owner, captain, and 
applicant.
    2. Vessel name and home port.
    3. USCG documentation number, state license, or boat registration 
number.
    4. Length of vessel and primary propulsion type (i.e., motor or 
sail).
    5. Number of divers.
    6. Requested effective date and duration of permit.
    The permit will be valid for the time the vessel is in the area, 
not to exceed two weeks. Vessels longer than 100 ft LOA exceed the 
capacity of the mooring buoys and are therefore prohibited from using 
them. Advance reservations will not be accepted more than one month in 
advance. Doubling-up on mooring buoys is permitted and leave and return 
privileges (dive during the day, stay at the park overnight) are 
allowed within the time period covered by the permit. Permit holders 
must notify FKNMS staff at Fort Jefferson by radio no less than 30 
minutes and no more than six hours before entering the reserve and upon 
leaving.
    The regulations issued today implement Regulatory Alternative D and 
amend 15 CFR 922.161 to expand the boundary of the FKNMS to be 
consistent with Boundary Alternative III. The revised Sanctuary 
boundary coordinates are set forth in Appendix I to Part 922 which is 
also revised to make minor revisions in the existing boundary to 
correct errors, provide clarification, and reflect more accurate data 
and, in the area of Biscayne National Park, to provide a fixed 
enforceable boundary. Appendix IV to Part 922 is also revised to make 
the area within the coordinates for Boundary Alternative III an 
ecological reserve, to provide clarification, and to remove no longer 
needed introductory text. Appendices II, V, VI, and VII are revised to 
correct errors, provide clarification, and reflect more accurate data.
    The regulations prohibit anchoring in the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve; entering the Tortugas North area of the Ecological Reserve 
without a valid access permit (except for continuous transit or law 
enforcement purposes); entering the Tortugas South area of the 
Ecological Reserve except for continuous transit or law enforcement, or 
for scientific research or educational activities pursuant to a 
sanctuary permit; or tying a vessel greater than 100 ft (30.48 meters) 
LOA to a mooring buoy in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve or tying more 
than one vessel (other than vessels carried on board a vessel), if the 
combined lengths would exceed 100 feet (30.48 meters) in length overall 
(LOA), to a mooring buoy or to a vessel tied to a mooring buoy in the 
ecological reserve. The reason for the length restriction is to prevent 
a buoy from being ripped off its mooring.
    Because all anchoring is prohibited in the northern portion of the 
Tortugas Bank no-anchoring zone established by 15 CFR 922.164(g), the 
regulations revise the zone to be consistent. The existing zone is an 
area within the Sanctuary boundary where vessels 50 meters or greater 
in LOA are prohibited from anchoring. The northern portion of the zone 
overlaps the reserve.
    The regulations add a new section to provide for permits for access 
to the Tortugas North area of the Ecological Reserve. A person with a 
valid access permit is allowed to enter the Tortugas North area of the 
Ecological Reserve. Access permits do not require written applications 
or the payment of any fee. Access permits must be requested at least 72 
hours but no longer than one month before the date the permit would be 
effective. Permits may be requested via telephone or radio by 
contacting FKNMS at the Sanctuary offices at Key West or Marathon. 
Permit applicants must provide, as applicable, the following 
information: vessel name; the names, addresses, and telephone number of 
the owner, operator and applicant; USCG documentation, state license, 
or registration number; home port; length of vessel and propulsion type 
(i.e., motor or sail); number of divers; and the requested effective 
date and duration of permit (two weeks, maximum). The Sanctuary 
Superintendent will issue a permit to the owner or to the owner's

[[Page 4279]]

representative for the vessel when all applicable information has been 
provided. FKNMS will provide a permit number to the applicant and 
confirm the effective date and duration period of the permit. Written 
confirmation of permit issuance will be provided upon request. Permit 
holders must notify FKNMS staff at the Dry Tortugas National Park 
office by telephone or radio no less than 30 minutes and no more than 
six hours, before entering and upon leaving the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve. Permit holders may leave and return to the Tortugas North area 
of the ecological reserve during the time their permit is effective.
    Finally, the regulations add a new definition to 15 CFR 922.162, to 
define ``length overall (LOA) or length of a vessel.''

VI. Differences Between the Proposed and Final Regulations

    There are two primary differences between the proposed and final 
regulations. The first is a prohibition on all activities in Tortugas 
South, including non-consumptive diving. The proposed regulations would 
have allowed non-consumptive activities in Tortugas South including 
diving. The second is that the prohibition on fishing does not exclude 
fishing in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve that might be authorized by 
NMFS under 50 CFR parts 622 and 635. The final regulation applies the 
existing ecological reserve regulations at Sec. 922.164(d)(iii) to 
prohibit fishing in the Reserve. This is consistent with the Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Council's recommendation for a total ban on 
all fishing in the Reserve. As discussed in the preamble, no-take 
protection for the critically important coral reef ecosystem of the 
Tortugas is necessary to preserve the richness of species and help the 
fish stocks in the Tortugas and throughout the Florida Keys. 
Preservation of the full biodiversity of the area cannot be 
accomplished if exceptions are made to the no-take prohibition. 
Additional changes to the regulations have been made to correct errors, 
provide clarification and reflect more accurate boundary coordinate 
data.

VII. Summary of Comments and Responses

    More than 4,000 comments were received on the DSEIS/SMP and the 
proposed implementing regulations for the proposed Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve. All comments received were treated as being directed to both 
the DSEIS/SMP and the proposed regulations. Almost 3000 of the comments 
were form letters expressing general support for the creation of the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Two hundred and forty-five persons 
commented by signing a petition. The substantive comments received are 
summarized below followed by the agency's responses. Multiple but 
similar comments have been treated as one comment for purposes of 
response. Comments merely stating personal support or opposition to the 
establishment of the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve and comments 
supporting the process employed or complimenting the many individuals 
who participated in that process, while certainly appreciated, do not 
require responses. Comments beyond the scope of the proposed action, 
such as establishment of an ecological reserve within the Dry Tortugas 
National Park, establishing more ecological reserves in the Sanctuary, 
or making the entire Sanctuary a ``no-take'' zone, are neither 
summarized nor responded to. No comments were received on the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IFRA) per se. However, a number of 
the comments requested changes to the Preferred Alternative because of 
impacts on users, all of which are considered small entities for 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Comments 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 
16-19, 21-23, 36, 41-43, and 50 and the responses thereto summarize the 
significant issues raised by those comments and the assessment of the 
agency of such issues. Although changes were made to the proposed 
regulations, no changes were made as a result of those comments.
    Comment 1: A commentor wrote on behalf of over 100 commercial 
fishermen who are opposed to ecological reserves in the Sanctuary. They 
believe that ecological reserves are unnecessary for stock or 
environmental preservation and that reserves are a ``back-door'' 
approach to the eventual elimination of all commercial fishing within 
the Sanctuary. They believe that the statement in the DSEIS that the 
Tortugas process was a joint effort with the commercial fishing 
industry is misleading and highly offensive to the rank and file 
fishermen who oppose the reserve. The commentor stated that he did not 
participate in the process because he believed that establishment of 
the Tortugas Ecological Reserve was a ``done deal'' from the beginning. 
He requested that the FSEIS not state that establishment of the Reserve 
was supported by the commercial fishing industry.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA recognizes that some individual 
fishermen oppose reserves in the Sanctuary. However, NOAA worked with 
leaders in the commercial fishing industry who served on the Sanctuary 
Advisory Council, as well as the Tortugas 2000 Working Group. The 
commercial fishing representatives contacted other commercial fishermen 
for their input into the Tortugas 2000 process. Dozens of commercial 
fishermen participated in the process to draft the boundary 
alternatives for the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve. NOAA also 
worked cooperatively with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 
in the development of the Reserve.
    The successful use of ecological reserves or marine reserves as 
management tools to conserve, protect, and preserve stocks and marine 
environments is documented in the scientific literature. NOAA has its 
own positive experiences with the use of ``no-take'' reserves in the 
FKNMS since July 1997, as data from scientific research and monitoring 
of these areas supports the positive benefits of reserves. The Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve is proposed to protect remote areas that include 
varied habitats, exceptional coral reefs, and excellent water quality.
    NOAA strongly disagrees that reserves are a ``back-door'' approach 
to the eventual elimination of commercial fishing in the Sanctuary. The 
proposal in no way represents an effort to eliminate commercial fishing 
from the rest of the Sanctuary. Including the Tortugas Reserve, 
approximately 6% of the total geographical area of the Sanctuary will 
be closed to fishing.
    NOAA recognizes that some of the commercial fishing that formerly 
occurred in the Reserve will relocate to other areas within and outside 
the Sanctuary.
    Comment 2: NOAA should select Boundary Alternative III (Preferred 
Boundary Alternative). This alternative provides distinct longitudinal 
and latitudinal boundary lines for both compliance and enforcement 
purposes; incorporates important benthic communities that serve as 
critical foraging areas for coral reef species; provides important 
buffer areas to the critical coral reef community; protects Riley's 
Hump, a known fish aggregating and fish spawning site; and protects a 
wide range of deep water coral reef habitats.
    Response: NOAA agrees. Boundary Alternative III remains the 
Preferred Boundary Alternative. The protection of the diverse and 
productive benthic communities of the Tortugas region is consistent 
with the FKNMSPA and NMSA, and it is therefore critical that the full 
extent of coral reef and related

[[Page 4280]]

habitats lying within Boundary Alternative III be included in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Expansion of the Sanctuary boundary as 
proposed in the Preferred Boundary Alternative is necessary to include 
unique coral structures and significant habitats lying outside the 
present boundary, such as Sherwood Forest and Riley's Hump. The on-
going and immediate threat of anchor damage and other direct human 
impacts to the coral reef community outside the existing Sanctuary 
boundary further supports the Preferred Alternative.
    The provision of buffer areas within the design of the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve is necessary for several reasons. NOAA has learned 
from the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve and the Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas that fishermen will fish along the boundaries of 
these areas due to the success of no-take areas in increasing fish and 
other marine life abundance. Without an adequate buffer, traps and 
other fishing gear could become entangled in coral, threatening the 
effectiveness of the Ecological Reserve. Several different groups of 
scientists over the past two years have documented shrimp nets 
entangled on sensitive coral reef habitat in the proposed Tortugas 
North portion of the Reserve.
    Scientists conducting research in the area of the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve have found that benthic primary production provides 
the base for the food web on this portion of the west Florida shelf. 
They also found that high levels of fishery production associated with 
the live bottom habitats are in fact directly supported by the 
surrounding open sand, algae and seagrass communities in the area. 
Buffer areas that include these habitat types will contribute to the 
overall functionality of the Ecological Reserve.
    The Tortugas North portion of the Ecological Reserve as contained 
in Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative) consists 
of coral reef communities that are unparalleled in the Florida Keys in 
their diversity and composition. Several carbonate banks of varying 
size and depth (30 feet to 75 feet) and low relief hardbottom habitats 
with patches of sand and rubble characterize Tortugas North. The most 
prominent features in the Tortugas North reserve are Tortugas Bank and 
Sherwood Forest. Tortugas Bank crests at 66 feet and supports abundant 
attached reef organisms such as sponges, corals, and soft corals. North 
of Tortugas Bank, in an area previously believed to be composed only of 
sand, are several pinnacles covered with hard and soft corals and reef 
fish.
    Sherwood Forest is an ancient stony coral forest exhibiting 30% or 
more bottom cover located along the western flank of Tortugas Bank. The 
top of Sherwood Forest rises to a depth of about 65 feet and covers an 
area of many acres. The area exhibits a complex habitat with various 
rock ledges, holes, and caves, providing hiding places for marine life. 
Unusual coral formations and previously unidentified coral species 
associations have been observed in this location. Gorgonians and black 
corals (Antipathies sp.), which are not common elsewhere in the Florida 
Keys, are also prolific. An abundance of groupers has been documented 
in Sherwood Forest as have sightings of uncommon and rare fish species 
such as jewfish, white-eyed goby, and orangeback bass.
    The Tortugas South portion of the Ecological Reserve as contained 
in Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative) includes a 
wide range of deep water coral reef habitats that will protect and 
conserve many rare and unusual reef species, and incorporates 
sufficient area to provide a buffer to the critical coral reef 
community. The upper portion of Tortugas South includes the relatively 
shallow Riley's Hump area in less than 100 feet of water. Riley's Hump 
consists of attached algae, scattered small coral colonies, sand, and 
hardbottom habitats. It is also a known fish aggregating and spawning 
site for several snapper-grouper species.
    During the 2000 Sustainable Seas Expedition (SSE), submersible 
pilots explored the lower (southern) portions of Tortugas South. Deep 
reef habitats with numerous soft corals but few stony corals were found 
in depths from 200 to 400 feet. A series of small pinnacles that 
surround a larger seamount were identified as part of an east-west 
running ledge that begins around 250 feet and drops to close to 400 
feet in a nearly vertical profile. This is unlike any other coral reef 
habitat discovered within Sanctuary waters. These complex habitats 
support numerous fish species including streamer bass, yellowmouth 
grouper, snowy grouper, scamp, speckled hind, creole fish, bank 
butterflyfish, amberjack, and almaco.
    The deepest portions (1,600 to 1,800 feet) of Tortugas South 
encompass limestone ledges where unusual deep-dwelling sea life such as 
lantern fish (myctophids), tilefish, golden crabs, and giant isopods 
have been observed by submersible pilots. Contrary to some opinions 
that these depths were devoid of life, the sand bottom habitat was 
observed to be teeming with unique deep sea species of shrimp, fish, 
sea cucumbers, anemones, and crabs.
    These critical deep water communities of Tortugas South are 
vulnerable to a wide range of impacts from fishing gear including deep 
water trawls and traps, and impacts from anchoring. Fishing gear 
impacts have been observed on sand and limestone substrates in some 
deep water areas.
    In order for the Ecological Reserve to be biologically effective 
and to ensure protection and conservation of the full range of coral 
reef habitats and species in the Tortugas region, it is critical that 
all of the various benthic habitats and their associated marine 
communities, from the shallowest to the greatest depths, be included 
within the boundary of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    Comment 3: NOAA should select the No-Action Alternative I. NOAA 
should not expand the FKNMS boundary or create an ecological reserve. 
The reserve ``punishes the general public for the sins of commercial 
interests.''
    Response: NOAA disagrees. If the no-action alternative is selected 
and the Sanctuary boundary is not expanded to create the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve as contained in the Preferred Alternative, 
significant coral reef resources would be left at risk to physical 
destruction by ship and boat anchors and other human impacts including 
fishing. If the Sanctuary boundary is not expanded to include the 
geographical extent of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve as proposed in 
the Preferred Boundary Alternative (III), some of this nation's most 
significant coral reef resources would be left vulnerable (see 
environmental description contained in Response to Comment 2).
    The Sanctuary boundary established by Congress in the FKNMSPA in 
1990 was based upon the very best information available at the time 
related to the coral reef resources located to the far-western extent 
of the Florida Keys. Over the last decade scientists and managers have 
learned and documented a considerable amount about the existence of 
extensive and unique coral reef resources that are located outside the 
boundary of the FKNMS. This new information regarding those significant 
coral reef resources and the threats to them emphasizes the critical 
need to take action and protect them.
    The Tortugas Ecological Reserve is intended to preserve for all, 
including future generations, the critical coral reef ecosystem of the 
Tortugas and the extraordinary resources and qualities that are found 
there. Consumptive recreational activities have resource

[[Page 4281]]

impacts that are inconsistent with the protection needed for these 
resources. All consumptive commercial and recreational activities are 
being prohibited in the Reserve. Most of the data used in the analysis 
of the environmental consequences and socio-economic impacts in the 
DSEIS/SMP refer to commercial activities because commercial activities 
represent the majority of use of the Tortugas area and because 
commercial data are more readily available.
    Comment 4: NOAA should adopt Boundary Alternative II.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The benthic community contained within 
the boundary of Alternative II does not include the significant and 
biologically diverse coral community known as Sherwood Forest. Unless 
this area is included within the Ecological Reserve, some of this 
nation's most significant coral reef resources will not be adequately 
protected for future generations. These unique coral reefs comprise 
some of the most biologically diverse coral reef communities and best 
water quality in the Florida Keys. Failure to protect these unique 
coral reefs will result in their decline from a variety of human 
impacts.
    Additionally, Boundary Alternative II does not contain Riley's 
Hump, a known fish aggregating and spawning site, or its adjacent deep 
water shelf communities. Boundary Alternative II would not offer 
protection and preservation of these unique deep water habitats and 
their associated fish and invertebrate species (see description 
contained in Response to Comment 2).
    Comment 5: NOAA should adopt Boundary Alternative IV.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. While this alternative would protect a 
larger area than the Preferred Alternative and provide greater 
ecological benefits, the adverse socio-economic impacts of this 
alternative on various fishing activities such as recreational charter 
fishing, commercial fishing, and spearfishing, would be significantly 
greater because all of Tortugas Bank would be closed to consumptive 
activities. On balance, the benefits of the increased area protected 
would be outweighed by the greater socio-economic costs.
    Comment 6: NOAA should adopt Boundary Alternative V.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. While Alternative V would protect an even 
larger area than Alternative IV, it would not protect the full range of 
critical deep water habitat at the southern end of Tortugas South that 
would be protected by Alternatives III and IV (see description 
contained in Response to Comment 2). While it would expand protection 
to the west, the majority of the benthic communities located there are 
not as threatened from direct impact as those located within the 
boundary of the Preferred Alternative. Alternative V would not result 
in significant increased protection to coral reef communities located 
outside Alternative III, yet would have increased socio-economic costs.
    Comment 7: Alternatives IV and V are more consistent than 
Alternative III with the goals that the Sanctuary has set for the 
ecological reserve, in addition to being more consistent with Executive 
Order 13089 by protecting nationally significant coral reef resources.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. See Responses to Comments 2, 5 and 6. 
Boundary Alternative III is the Preferred Boundary Alternative because 
it will protect ecosystem integrity; protect biodiversity; enhance 
scientific understanding of marine ecosystems; facilitate human uses to 
the extent consistent with the other objectives; minimize socio-
economic impacts to the extent consistent with the other objectives; 
and facilitate enforcement and compliance. The Preferred Alternative is 
of sufficient size, together with the Dry Tortugas National Park, to 
protect all known nationally significant coral reef resources of the 
Tortugas region and fulfill the objectives of the FKNMSPA and the NMSA, 
while not unduly impacting user groups, and is consistent with 
Executive Order 13089.
    The Preferred Boundary Alternative (Alternative III) provides an 
appropriate balance of significant resource protection while leaving 
other areas of Tortugas Bank available for consumptive uses, including 
commercial and recreational fishing, and spearfishing. A detailed 
comparison of the alternatives and an explanation for the selection of 
the Preferred Alternative is set forth in the FSEIS. The Preferred 
Boundary Alternative is consistent with the criteria and objectives 
established for selecting a Preferred Alternative.
    Comment 8: NOAA should adopt Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred 
Regulatory Alternative).
    Response: NOAA agrees. Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred 
Regulatory Alternative) differs from Regulatory Alternative C (the 
Preferred Regulatory Alternative in the DSEIS) by prohibiting all 
activities in Tortugas South except for continuous transit, law 
enforcement, and, pursuant to a sanctuary permit, scientific research 
and educational activities. Both Regulatory Alternatives C and D would 
prohibit any take. The reasons that Alternative D is now the Preferred 
Regulatory Alternative are to more fully protect fish spawning 
aggregations found on Riley's Hump, to permit effective enforcement of 
Tortugas South, the most remote region of the Sanctuary, and to provide 
a reference area for comparison to gauge the impacts of non-consumptive 
activities in Tortugas North. Riley's Hump is a known fish spawning 
aggregation site for at least five species of snapper and several 
species of grouper. Riley's Hump is also one of the only known spawning 
aggregation sites for mutton snapper, a highly targeted species for 
commercial fisheries.
    Comment 9: NOAA should adopt Regulatory Alternative C.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. See Response to Comment 8.
    Comment 10: The resources in the Tortugas area are in good shape 
overall and do not need the protection of an ecological reserve. The 
size and number of recreationally and commercially important species of 
fish remain healthy.
    Response: The importance of the resources of the Tortugas region to 
the rest of the Florida Keys is documented throughout the DSEIS and 
FSEIS. Over the past few decades the Florida Keys have experienced a 
significant increase in visitation, particularly at Dry Tortugas 
National Park where visitation increased 300% from 1984 to 1998 (18,000 
to 72,000 visitors). The current population of South Florida of 
approximately 6 million is expected to double by 2050. It is likely 
that population pressures, increase in tourism, and improved boating 
and fishing technology making it easier for more people to regularly 
visit the same remote sites, located well offshore, will result in 
greater visitation and pressure on the resources of the Tortugas area. 
By protecting the resources of the Tortugas area now, NOAA will be able 
to maintain them in a nearly pristine state, for the benefit of present 
and future generations. The protection of areas of the marine 
environment of special national significance due to their resource or 
human use values, such as the Tortugas region, is consistent with the 
FKNMSPA and NMSA.
    Fisheries biologists have documented alarming declines in the size 
and abundance of commercially and recreationally important species of 
snapper, grouper, and grunts throughout the Florida Keys including the 
Tortugas region.
    Comment 11: NOAA must provide an adequate number of mooring buoys 
in the Reserve. One commentor suggested that NOAA place at least 25 
buoys in Tortugas North and a lesser number in

[[Page 4282]]

Tortugas South. Several commentors suggested rotation of mooring buoys.
    Response: NOAA agrees that an adequate number of mooring buoys will 
have to be provided in Tortugas North. It is not now known how many 
mooring buoys will be needed and where they should be installed. Some 
buoys will be installed at the more popular dive locations in Tortugas 
North prior to the effective date of the regulations. Non-consumptive 
users, such as dive charter operators, will be consulted to determine a 
desirable number and appropriate locations for buoys. The rotation of 
mooring buoys will be considered.
    It has not yet been determined whether buoys will be installed in 
Tortugas South because, under the Preferred Alternative, diving will 
only be allowed for scientific research and educational purposes. 
Submerged moorings (i.e., moorings located beneath the surface) are 
being considered as a means to facilitate scientific research 
activities in this portion of the Ecological Reserve.
    Comment 12: Non-consumptive diving should be prohibited throughout 
the Reserve to prevent any disturbance to the ecosystem. Even non-
consumptive diving activity can cause substantial damage to corals.
    Response: Prohibiting non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North is 
not needed to protect the resources or their ecosystem. One of the 
basic tenets of the FKNMSPA, the NMSA and indeed the Designation 
Document for the FKNMS, is to allow activities in the Sanctuary that do 
not cause an adverse effect on the resources or qualities of the 
Sanctuary, or that do not pose a threat of harm to users of the 
Sanctuary. However, the resources of Tortugas South, particularly the 
spawning aggregation areas, are unique and warrant the additional 
protection of prohibiting diving. Enforcement surveillance in this 
remote part of the Reserve would be facilitated by prohibiting all 
activities in Tortugas South except for continuous transit, law 
enforcement, and, pursuant to a sanctuary permit, scientific research 
and educational activities. Additionally, prohibiting diving in 
Tortugas South will provide a baseline to gauge the effects of non-
consumptive activities on the resources in Tortugas North.
    Tortugas North is less remote and protection and conservation can 
be more easily afforded to it than to Tortugas South. Allowing non-
consumptive diving that is carefully monitored in Tortugas North will 
provide significant educational and resource appreciation benefits. 
Further, prohibiting non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North would 
unnecessarily increase adverse socio-economic impacts on charter dive 
operators without providing corresponding resource protection. The 
permit system for Tortugas North will allow the level of diving 
activity to be monitored, and combined with the reference of Tortugas 
South, will allow the effects of non-consumptive diving on resources in 
Tortugas North to be determined.
    Education and outreach programs are being implemented that will 
continue to raise the awareness of divers about the potential impact 
from their activity on coral reefs. The presence of ``no-take'' divers 
in the Reserve is viewed by marine reserve experts as important to help 
convey the message of the benefits of marine reserves.
    Comment 13: NOAA should prohibit commercial fishing in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve but allow recreational fishing, especially catch-
and-release fishing. Recreational spearfishing should be allowed in the 
Reserve because it has little impact on the fish populations of the 
Tortugas region.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. No-take protection for the critically 
important coral reef ecosystem of the Tortugas is necessary to preserve 
the richness of species and health of fish stocks in the Tortugas and 
throughout the Florida Keys. Preservation of the full biodiversity of 
the area cannot be accomplished if exceptions are made to the ``no-
take'' prohibition.
    Even catch-and-release fishing can result in direct and indirect 
mortality. According to biologists, release mortality can be a 
significant contribution to total mortality depending on the intensity 
of fishing. Reef fishes are particularly vulnerable to catch-and-
release mortality because of their behavior, long lives, and ecology. 
Fisheries biologists have reported mortalities ranging from 15-30% of 
fish that are caught and released. One study suggests high mortality 
for Barracuda that fight for an extended period.
    Spearfishers tend to target the largest members of particular 
species. Scientists have demonstrated the impact spearfishing 
activities have of removing top predators in the food chain. The 
selective removal of the largest individuals of a fish species by 
spearfishing affects the over-all trophic structure of coral reef 
communities. Spearfishing charters in the Tortugas region, in 
particular, often target ``trophy'' fish for their customers. Research 
at the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary between 1983 and 1985 
demonstrated a marked increase in fish populations after spearfishing 
was prohibited. Continued spearfishing in the Tortugas Reserve would 
adversely affect fish populations and undermine the ecological 
integrity of the Reserve.
    Impacts from commercial and recreational fishing activities are 
occurring in the Tortugas, where the average size of black grouper has 
decreased from 22.5 pounds to 9 pounds. The scientific literature as 
well as NOAA's own experience in the Sanctuary have shown that 
prohibiting fishing in select areas directly benefits species 
abundance, size and diversity. Prohibiting all consumptive activities, 
including commercial and recreational fishing, will greatly help the 
species within the Reserve achieve greater ecological and demographic 
potential. As described in the FSEIS, this should result in benefits to 
some fish populations outside the Reserve. Prohibiting all forms of 
take will also yield significant scientific benefits because the 
Reserve will more accurately reflect a natural system against which the 
effects of extractive human activities can be compared.
    In addition, enforcement of the remote Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
would be complicated significantly if limited extractive activities 
such as catch and release fishing or spearfishing were not prohibited. 
NOAA's experience with the existing Sanctuary Preservation Areas is 
that no-take regulations are more easily enforced and gain more 
compliance and acceptance from visitors than areas that allow varying 
extractive activities.
    Comment 14: Adequate law enforcement cannot be provided for the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The 90+ square mile Oculina Marine Reserve 
off Fort Pierce is unenforceable and the Tortugas Reserve will be, 
also.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
is substantially different with respect to enforcement than the Oculina 
Marine Reserve. The Oculina Reserve is located in a remote area, well 
offshore of the east coast of Florida. It is not associated with an 
existing marine protected area and does not have the benefits of all 
the management programs that help increase the public's awareness of 
the reserve and the regulations with which they must comply. Education 
and outreach are important tools that help to gain the compliance of 
the general public, the majority of which are law-abiding citizens. The 
Management Plan commits substantial enforcement resources for the 
Reserve.
    As set forth in the Enforcement Action Plan of the Supplemental 
Management Plan, one of the goals of

[[Page 4283]]

Sanctuary management is to gain the highest level of compliance by the 
public who enter and visit the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. This 
compliance can be achieved through several management actions including 
education and outreach and on-the-water presence of Sanctuary staff in 
programs such as Team OCEAN, where Sanctuary information is distributed 
along the waterfront or boat to boat by Sanctuary staff and volunteers.
    The most effective management action that can be used to achieve 
compliance to Sanctuary regulations is an effective law enforcement 
program. Currently, the primary enforcement of Sanctuary regulations is 
accomplished through an enforcement agreement between NOAA/National 
Marine Sanctuary Program and the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission. The enforcement efforts are consistent with 
the goals and objectives for enforcement described in the Final 
Management Plan for the FKNMS (July 1997). The Final Management Plan 
for the Sanctuary also calls for cross-deputization of other agency law 
enforcement personnel (e.g., National Park Service Rangers) to 
accomplish law enforcement responsibilities within the Sanctuary. This 
approach to enforcement continues to remain an option.
    A successful Ecological Reserve will depend to a large extent on 
the level of enforcement resources dedicated to the Reserve. Several 
enforcement options are presently available and are being evaluated for 
deployment in the Reserve. These options include:
     Installation and monitoring of a long-range radar unit at 
the Dry Tortugas National Park. This would allow remote monitoring of 
vessels entering and leaving the Reserve.
     Place two 82' vessels into service for patrolling the 
Ecological Reserve.
     Cross-deputize and fund National Park Service Rangers to 
assist in enforcement in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    Prohibiting vessels from stopping within Tortugas South except 
pursuant to a valid sanctuary permit for scientific research or 
educational activities will facilitate enforcement. This will make it 
possible to monitor vessel traffic remotely by radar and response will 
only be necessary when vessels without a permit stop within the 
reserve.
    The permit system for Tortugas North will help Sanctuary managers 
monitor the level of visitor use in the reserve and facilitate 
enforcement efforts.
    As set forth in the Management Plan for the Reserve, the law 
enforcement budget is as follows:
Personnel
Law Enforcement Officers (4-6)  $50,000 per position
General Support  $50,000
Vessels
82' Patrol Vessels (2)  No Cost--Agency Property Transfer
    Comment 15: The economic analysis contained in the DSEIS/SMP did 
not adequately consider activities of fishing clubs in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve Study Area. In public testimony, one fishing club 
estimated that its membership had 673 person-days of fishing in the Dry 
Tortugas National Park area in 1998 and was not contacted for input for 
the socio-economic analyses.
    Response: The recreational use of the Tortugas region has been 
adjusted in the socio-economic impact analysis in the FSEIS/SMP to 
reflect this comment. In preparing the DSEIS/SMP, NOAA staff relied on 
directory assistance search to locate private fishing clubs. Only one 
was found, and that was in Miami. The president of that club indicated 
that very few if any of its members went to the Dry Tortugas region. He 
provided names of a few members who were knowledgeable of the region's 
fishing patterns. Phone calls to these contacts produced no new 
information and their names were not kept. Additionally, commercial 
operators who work in the Tortugas area were asked if they saw other 
boats in the Tortugas but outside the boundaries of the Dry Tortugas 
National Park. They consistently said that they did not. Some members 
of the club said they fished in the National Park, but not in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area (TERSA). NOAA was not able to 
identify any private households that did any activity in the TERSA.
    Comment 16: Representatives of shrimping activities criticized the 
socio-economic impact analyses on the shrimp industry provided in 
Leeworthy and Wiley (October 1999). First, they claim that the total 
catch estimate of 58,374 pounds of shrimp from the area within the 
Preferred Boundary Alternative should be one million pounds instead. 
Second, they claim the prices for shrimp used were incorrect and a 
higher price should have been used. Third, they claim that the 
assumption that shrimp lost from the no-take areas could be caught 
elsewhere is incorrect.
    Response: The use of the total catch estimate of 58,374 pounds of 
shrimp caught in the area within the Preferred Boundary Alternative is 
valid. The commentors offered no quantitative support to justify their 
assertion that the estimate should be one million pounds. The only 
information they offered was boat tracking data. No quantities of catch 
were offered, only that 30 percent of their fishing time was spent in 
the Tortugas North area. The sample of shrimp fishermen used in the 
socio-economic impact analysis accounted for 90 percent of the 58,374 
pounds that was estimated. Non-sampled fishermen, including those that 
landed shrimp in counties other than Monroe and Lee (i.e., 
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Franklin) accounted for the other 10 
percent. If all the shrimp catch from the non-sampled population 
estimated in the TERSA were caught in the area within the Preferred 
Boundary Alternative, this would only amount to 71,500 pounds. If 30 
percent of all the shrimp caught in the Florida Marine Research 
Institute (FMRI) areas 2.0 and 2.9 and landed in Hillsborough, Pinellas 
and Franklin counties (183,319 pounds) were caught from the area within 
the Preferred Boundary Alternative, this would only amount to 54,996 
pounds. None of these estimates support an estimate of one million 
pounds. Not even all the shrimp catch estimated in the TERSA (715,500 
pounds) is close to the one million pound estimate and the economists' 
sample accounted for 90 percent of all the shrimp caught in FMRI areas 
2.0 and 2.9.
    NOAA economists used an average price per pound at the ex-vessel 
level of $2.40. This estimate was derived from the NMFS landings and 
ex-vessel value reported for Monroe County for the year 1997. The 
landings for Monroe County were reported in a mix of heads-on and 
heads-off (tails). NOAA economists converted all weights to heads-on 
before deriving the price per pound (price per pound is equal to total 
ex-vessel value divided by total pounds of heads-on weight). Data 
provided by the commentors included a table showing pounds and ex-
vessel value from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 
yields an average price of $4.31 per pound. Both of these prices are 
correct, however the commentors did not specify the geographic region 
or the species mix of the sample with which they calculated their 
price. Furthermore, the NMFS weights cited by the commentors are heads-
off weight, whereas the socio-economic analysis used heads-on weight. 
Most of the shrimp caught in the TERSA was landed in either Monroe 
County (Stock Island) or in Lee County (Ft. Myers Beach). NOAA 
economists concluded that the Monroe County landings price per

[[Page 4284]]

pound was the appropriate price to use in the analysis.
    The commentors stated that lost catch cannot be replaced by catch 
from other areas. This presumes that they are fishing all areas as 
intensely as they can be fished. This is why the socio-economic study 
uses 58,374 pounds of shrimp as the upper bound estimate of maximum 
potential loss of from the Preferred Boundary Alternative.
    Comment 17: Shrimping should not be prohibited in areas outside the 
20 fathom contour at the western end of the Tortugas North because 
these are not areas of high environmental value or special ecological 
sensitivity. The eastern boundary of Tortugas North, above the DRTO, 
should be moved to the west from 82E 47' to 82E 57' to accommodate 
shrimping. Shrimpers are already prohibited from fishing within a 3 
million acre Tortugas Shrimp Nursery year-round in State waters and 
seasonally in EEZ waters. Shrimpers cannot afford to be excluded from 
any additional areas in the Tortugas region.
    Response: A substantial sand buffer area around the coral reef 
community is needed to provide foraging areas for reef inhabitants 
without the potential of capture by shrimp trawling. Additionally, the 
bycatch of shrimping activities is well-known and documented. Trawling 
outside the 20 fathom contour at the western end of Tortugas North or 
moving the eastern boundary of Tortugas North to the west would result 
in mortality of reef fish species and other reef inhabitants through 
bycatch. Other shrimp fishermen have questioned the need to move the 
eastern boundary of Tortugas North in light of the bathymetric profile 
in this area.
    Scientists have discovered and documented the remains of shrimp 
nets entangled around living corals in the proposed Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve. It is well known and stated by shrimp trawlers that they do 
not trawl on coral reefs. However, they do trawl off the reefs. 
Prohibiting shrimping in the Reserve will eliminate the incidental 
impact of shrimping gear to the living coral reefs.
    Preservation of the richness of the species and health of the fish 
stocks in the Tortugas region and throughout the Florida Keys, and 
indeed preservation of the biodiversity of the Tortugas region, cannot 
be accomplished if only the coral reefs are protected. The protection 
of diverse habitats including sand and other benthic habitats is 
essential. A recent scientific study has substantiated the importance 
of sand and other ``barren'' habitats to the ecology of the west shelf 
of Florida. Scientists conducting research in the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve have found that benthic primary production provides 
the base for the food web on this portion of the west Florida shelf. 
They also found that high levels of fishery production associated with 
the live bottom habitats are in fact directly supported by the 
surrounding open sand, algae and seagrass communities in the area.
    Comment 18: Shrimpers were not, but should have been, represented 
on the Tortugas 2000 Working Group.
    Response: Prior to the establishment of the Working Group, 
shrimpers stated that the 110 square mile area to the east of the Dry 
Tortugas National Park originally proposed for the ecological reserve 
should not be established because it would have an adverse economic 
impact on their shrimping. In response to them and to other fishers, 
NOAA did not include this area in the proposed ecological reserve.
    Commercial fishing representatives on the Tortugas 2000 Working 
Group communicated with and received input from shrimpers regarding the 
proposal and reported this information back to the Working Group. 
Shrimpers, when shown the proposed boundaries, expressed no concern 
over the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve boundaries. No shrimper 
expressed an interest in participating in the Tortugas Working Group.
    Additionally, 18 of the 28 shrimp operations known to fish in the 
area were interviewed by NOAA economists. These operations accounted 
for 65 of the 75 shrimp vessels and 193 of the 213 captains or crew 
that fish in the TERSA.
    Comment 19: The following comments were provided by a charter 
spearfishing operation:
    1. The majority of the reefs where the company takes passengers 
spearfishing are in the proposed Reserve area. Areas south of Fort 
Jefferson (not on Tortugas Bank) are not suitable for spearfishing 
because they are too deep and therefore unsafe, and have poor 
visibility. The Tortugas Bank area south of the proposed Reserve (south 
of 24E 30') is mostly sand and low patch reef, with poor conditions for 
spearfishing.
    2. The company provided detailed information to NOAA regarding the 
number of trips, days, and passengers the company takes. The survey 
that was done on the company in 1988 indicates 60 trips per year, 180 
days with 550 divers. The information on pages 46 and 47 of the DSEIS 
is incorrect. The DSEIS does not reflect the company's information and 
it appears that deliberately falsified information was provided to the 
Working Group. The Working Group was provided incorrect information 
regarding the socio-economic impact on small businesses creating a 
false impression that small businesses would not be negatively 
impacted.
    3. The commentor questioned the data attributed to one of the other 
two operators. The commentor requested the identity of the operator.
    4. The company will go out of business and its employees will lose 
their jobs if it cannot conduct spearfishing charters in the area of 
the proposed Reserve, because 90% of the company's business is on the 
reefs north of latitude 24E 39'. South of that area are sandy patch 
reefs. A permit should be issued to the company allowing it to continue 
its business or the southern boundary of Tortugas North should be moved 
to 24E 40' 50"N.
    5. The DSEIS does not reflect that the company conducts 
approximately 30 spearfishing trips per year on Riley's Hump.
    6. The commentor challenged specific conclusions regarding his 
business at pages 46, 47, and 123 of the DSEIS, which indicate a 
maximum potential loss of $13,700.00 of lost revenue and $5,580.00 of 
lost profits. The commentor claims that his business has grown 
significantly and that he now operates in the Tortugas more than 260 
days per year. He states that he would lose $288,000.00 in revenues and 
experience a potential profit loss of $144,000.00. The real potential 
loss could be $460,000.
    7. The figures on the Nitrox membrane system are not accurate. The 
amount should be increased by $10,000.
    8. Statements about increased visits to Dry Tortugas National Park 
are misleading because most visitors only go to Garden Key because of 
the daily ferry boat service from Key West. These visitors never leave 
the island and do not impact the reefs.
    Response: The DSEIS reports a total maximum potential adverse 
impact on spearfishing revenues of $66,816 for Boundary Alternatives II 
and III, $196,944 for Alternative IV, and $230,380 for Alternative V. 
The analysis and estimates of impacts were based upon survey data 
collected in 1998 and included information provided by three 
spearfishing operators. Data provided by the company submitting the 
above comment indicated that it operated in 48 one square nautical mile 
grid cells identified in the study area. Boundary Alternatives II and 
III would exclude the company from only 8 of those grid cells (16.67%). 
Alternative IV would exclude the company from 26 grid cells (54.17%) 
and Alternative V would

[[Page 4285]]

exclude the company from 29 of the 48 grid cells (60.42%). The DSEIS 
and information provided to the Working Group accurately reflect the 
information that was reported by the three operators in response to the 
survey.
    The impact estimates in the DSEIS are the maximum losses from 
displacement of the consumptive recreational activities. Based on the 
existing patterns of use provided by each of the three operators, it 
was concluded that they could relocate to other sites in the study area 
that they indicated they are using and completely offset their losses. 
While monitoring would be required to verify this conclusion, the 
estimates of maximum potential loss in the DSEIS represent the upper 
bound of potential losses based on the data collected in 1998. The 
FSEIS has been revised based on the assumed validity of the more recent 
data provided by the commentor. While it is hoped that the spearfishing 
operators will be able to shift to different locations and to different 
economic activities (such as non-consumptive dive charters), the need 
to protect the ecosystem of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve from the 
impacts of spearfishing justifies the adverse economic impacts on the 
operators. See also the Response to Comment 13.
    NOAA accurately forwarded information to the Working Group. No 
information was falsified.
    The laws governing the collection of business information by the 
government prevent the disclosure of proprietary information.
    The cost estimate for the Nitrox system has been revised.
    The overall trend in tourism at Dry Tortugas National Park suggests 
increased visitor use in the Tortugas area, particularly with the 
ability of larger, faster vessels from Key West to reach the Park and 
reef areas beyond the Park. See Response to Comment 10. One company has 
indicated that its business has increased in the Tortugas area in the 
last two years.
    Comment 20: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) commented 
that it is incorrect to state, ``the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) is amending the Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic 
Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (FMP) and its implementing regulations to 
be consistent with the no-take status of the proposed reserve.''
    Response: The FSEIS/SMP has been corrected to reflect this, as it 
is not necessary under that FMP's framework provision to amend the FMP.
    Comment 21: NMFS stated that there is a lack of analyses of impacts 
on commercial and other fishermen and businesses from other counties 
who may be displaced by the proposed Reserve.
    Response: The socio-economic analyses includes catch landed in 
Monroe, Collier and Lee Counties from each boundary alternative. Catch 
from the Tortugas that was landed in other counties was insignificant. 
The quantities and values cited by NMFS are irrelevant as far as 
impact, since the numbers referred to measure the total catch from FMRI 
areas 2.0 and 2.9. In Leeworthy and Wiley (October 1999), a set of 
steps are described showing how they estimated the proportion of this 
catch from the Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area (TERSA). The 
TERSA is a 1,020 nm\2\ area and is a sub-set of the larger FMRI Areas 
2.0 and 2.9. They estimated how much of the TERSA catch was caught in 
each boundary alternative. These are the relevant numbers for potential 
impact. They included all catch landed in all counties but only 
reported estimates of impact for Monroe, Collier and Lee counties 
because the catch in all other counties impacted was not significant. 
Below are summarized the steps used in estimating the impacts from 
shrimp catch since it was the most valuable portion of total catch, but 
the same procedures were followed for all species.

Steps in Estimating Economic Impact

    Step 1. Examine Landings Data in FMRI Areas 2.0 and 2.9 FMRI areas 
2.0 and 2.9 represent a large area generally referred to as the 
Tortugas, but also include the Marquesas. FMRI keeps landings and value 
information for this large statistical grid from Florida's trip ticket. 
The landings cited by NMFS for FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9 are correct. But 
these values do not represent impact by the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve. Only a small portion of these landings are impacted 
by any of the proposed boundary alternatives.
    Step 2. Examine Landings from the Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study 
Area (TERSA). Leeworthy and Wiley selected a portion of FMRI Areas 2.0 
and 2.9 for the study area and a 1,020 nautical square mile area, 
called the Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area (TERSA). NOAA 
attempted to collect information on catch from all commercial fishermen 
that reported catch from FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9. Thomas Murray and 
Associates limited the sample to those in Monroe, Dade, Collier and Lee 
counties for cost reasons and because the catch from FMRI areas 2.0 and 
2.9 landed outside Monroe, Collier and Lee counties was only a small 
proportion of total catch. For example, 97.21 percent of the shrimp 
caught in FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9 was landed in Monroe and Lee counties. 
The other 2.79 percent was landed in Hillsborough, Pinellas and 
Franklin counties which amounted to 183,319 pounds valued at $450,021.
    The sample of shrimp fishermen included 18 of the 28 shrimp 
operations known to fish in FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9. These 18 operations 
accounted for 65 of the 75 shrimp vessels and 193 of the 213 captain or 
crew shrimping in the area. The sample accounted for over 90 percent of 
the shrimp catch in FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9.
    The sample indicated they caught only 10 percent of all their catch 
from FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9 in the TERSA. Using an average of 1997-1998 
catch in FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9, Leeworthy and Wiley estimated that 
715,500 pounds of shrimp were caught from the TERSA. This amount 
includes those amounts landed in all counties of Florida, not just 
Monroe and Lee counties. NOAA used a factor of 1.10 to account for the 
non-sampled shrimp catch. This factor was applied to each one square 
mile grid cell to extrapolate sampled shrimp catch to the total 
population estimate of shrimp catch. See Leeworthy and Wiley (October 
1999). The 715,000 pounds of shrimp caught in the TERSA still do not 
represent impacted catch, it simply represents the total amount 
estimated for the study area.
    Step 3. Examine Landings Potentially Impacted by a Particular 
Boundary Alternative for the No-Take Area.
    The spatial distribution of shrimp catch from our sample of 
shrimpers was used to derive the distribution of all shrimp catch for 
the TERSA. The Leeworthy and Wiley sample accounted for 665,500 pounds 
of the total of 715,500 pounds of shrimp catch estimated for the TERSA. 
The key assumption used was that the non-sampled catch had the same 
distribution as the sampled catch.
    Catch within a boundary alternative was labeled maximum potential 
loss under the assumption that all catch within the no-take area could 
not be replaced. For the Preferred Boundary Alternative, they estimated 
the maximum potential loss of 58,374 pounds of shrimp. This amount 
includes catch landed in all counties of Florida including Monroe, Lee, 
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Franklin counties. Since 2.79 percent of the 
total shrimp catch from FMRI areas 2.0 and 2.9 was landed in 
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Franklin counties, this would imply that 
only 1,629 pounds of shrimp (.0279 times 58,374) valued at $3,910 would 
be lost from the three counties. Given the insignificance of this 
amount, they did not present separate estimates of this

[[Page 4286]]

impact in Leeworthy and Wiley (October 1999). Actually, Leeworthy and 
Wiley included the amounts in the impacts for Monroe, Collier and Lee 
counties, thus slightly overstating the impacts in these counties. But 
again, these amounts are insignificant.
    The same procedures were followed for finfish and all other species 
and are documented in Leeworthy and Wiley (October 1999). The document 
Proposed Tortugas 2000 Ecological Reserve, Draft Socio-economic Impact 
Analysis of Alternatives, October 1999 by Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy 
and Peter C. Wiley can be found at http://www-orca.nos.noaa.gov/projects/econkeys.econkeys.html.
    Comment 22: NMFS stated that ``the economic outcomes relative to 
private recreational fishing and diving do not appear to be 
addressed.''
    Response: Leeworthy and Wiley (October 1999) and the DSEIS 
documented that no information could be found to support private 
household use for any recreational activity in the TERSA. Leeworthy and 
Wiley identified the known population of charter/party operators in the 
TERSA. The Rod and Reel Club, Inc. in Miami, Florida, provided other 
contacts and which also reported no activity in the TERSA. Leeworthy 
and Wiley found that although some members of the club occasionally 
went to the Dry Tortugas National Park, they did not fish in the TERSA. 
In addition, each of the commercial operators that operated in the 
TERSA was asked whether s/he had seen any private household boats in 
the TERSA and all reported seeing each other, but no private household 
boats. Leeworthy and Wiley concluded that the private household boat 
usage, if it existed at all, was insignificant. In this case, usage was 
close enough to zero to be treated as zero.
    Comment 23: NMFS stated that the DSEIS lacks an analysis of 
community impacts and should be analyzed at the City or Census 
Designated Place level.
    Response: Leeworthy and Wiley had Thomas Murray and Associates go 
back to the data and assign FIPSCODES for City and Census Designated 
Places for where commercial fishermen live and where they landed their 
catch. They did the same for recreational charter boat operations.
    Comment 24: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
rated the DSEIS as ``EC-2'' which means EPA has environmental concerns 
regarding the proposed Reserve, and believes more information is needed 
to fully assess the impacts. In particular, EPA stated further details 
are needed regarding measurable activities that could be used to manage 
natural resources in the Reserve, such as the number of permits NOAA 
plans to issue and the amount of visitor education/communication 
expected. Information should also be given regarding the frequency of 
ecological monitoring activities. It would also be helpful if the FSEIS 
included a map that showed the formerly proposed area that was in the 
Draft EIS and DMP for the FKNMS (1997) but that was later rejected, as 
compared to the Preferred Alternative in the DSEIS (2000), explaining 
how the Preferred Alternative protects the environment and prevents 
adverse economic impacts, as contrasted with the former proposal.
    Response: At this time, there are no plans to limit the number of 
access permits for Tortugas North. However, as described in the Final 
Supplemental Management Plan, it will be possible to use the access 
permit system to determine the number of divers visiting Tortugas North 
annually and the areas in the vicinity of mooring buoys will be 
examined as primary sites for diver impact. This will enable sites to 
be monitored for impacts from diving. This information can then be used 
to determine whether it is necessary to limit the number of access 
permits for those who visit Tortugas North. The questions regarding 
public education and outreach and the frequency of ecological 
monitoring have also been addressed in the Education and Outreach 
Action Plan and Research and Monitoring Action Plan of the FSEIS/SMP. A 
map showing the previously considered site for the Reserve has not been 
added to the FSEIS because NOAA believes it would confuse the public 
with regards to the current Ecological Reserve proposal.
    Comment 25: The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, commented that the importance of the Tortugas area as 
a spawning site and as a ``source'' reef for the fish communities found 
in the Key West and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges is just 
beginning to be understood scientifically. The ability of the Refuges 
to maintain a healthy ecosystem for the wildlife that inhabit them is 
directly dependent upon a healthy marine component. The avian resources 
of the Refuges feed upon the fish communities of the Refuges. Those 
fish communities depend upon a healthy ``upstream'' ecosystem, which 
includes the Tortugas region. Marine reserves are a viable tool for 
resource protection. The protection of marine resources in the Tortugas 
region will benefit the Refuges. Because of this, the USFWS endorses 
the Tortugas 2000 Preferred Alternative and proposed rules.
    Response: The FSEIS has been revised to reflect the importance of 
the Tortugas area to the Key West and Great White Heron National 
Wildlife Refuges. It is recognized that the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
will serve as important feeding grounds for many bird species that 
frequent the Key West and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges. 
Additionally, several threatened and endangered sea turtles that nest 
in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge spend a portion of their life 
cycle in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve region.
    Comment 26: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
(FWC) was concerned that no limits were being placed on the level of 
non-consumptive diving that would be allowed. The FWC stated that non-
consumptive diving results in some morbidity and mortality to coral 
reef habitat and asked that controls be placed on the number of divers 
and dive trips to assure minimal acceptable damage to the habitat. The 
FWC was also concerned over the adequacy of the enforcement resources. 
The FWC believes that the minimal enforcement resources needed to 
enforce the Reserve would be two vessels 50 feet or greater in length 
with a Lieutenant and two officers for each vessel. The FWC encourages 
NOAA to work with it to develop these enforcement resources in order to 
assure the success of the reserve.
    Response: Regulatory Alternative D allowing non-consumptive diving 
in Tortugas North but closing Tortugas South to all diving except for 
scientific research or educational purposes, pursuant to a valid 
sanctuary permit, provides an appropriate degree of public access. See 
Response to Comment 12 regarding non-consumptive diving in the Reserve. 
If the monitoring of impacts from non-consumptive diving in Tortugas 
North demonstrates that its carrying capacity is being exceeded, limits 
can be imposed. See Response to Comment 14 regarding the Enforcement 
Action Plan for the Tortugas Reserve. NOAA will work with the FWC and 
its other enforcement partners to develop the enforcement resources 
that all agree are necessary to assure the success of the Reserve.
    Comment 27: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) 
requested that the Sanctuary Program use its authority to prohibit 
anchoring and all diving within the portions of Tortugas North and 
Tortugas South that are within the Council's jurisdiction (all of 
Tortugas South and 13 nm\2\ of Tortugas North). Non-consumptive

[[Page 4287]]

diving can impact and damage bottom habitat through the inadvertent 
touching of corals or the stirring up of sand and silt on the bottom. 
Non-consumptive diving can adversely affect sensitive habitats, the 
normal behavior of fish, and spawning activity. Anchoring and non-
consumptive diving could also adversely affect essential fish habitat 
in the Reserve. In addition, if non-consumptive diving is allowed, it 
will be difficult to enforce prohibitions against spearfishing and the 
taking of lobster.
    Response: Under the Preferred Alternative, all anchoring in 
Tortugas North and South would be prohibited as well as all activities 
in Tortugas South except for continuous transit, law enforcement, and, 
pursuant to a sanctuary permit, scientific research and educational 
activities. Non-consumptive diving will be allowed in all of Tortugas 
North. See Responses to Comments 8 and 12. NOAA does not anticipate 
that there will be significant non-consumptive diving in the area of 
Tortugas North within the GMFMC's jurisdiction because of the lack of 
coral reef formations.
    Comment 28: Monroe County commented that the socio-economic section 
of the DSEIS seems to have been inserted out of context. This rather 
lengthy section should be reduced to some simpler explanations, tables 
and conclusions, then attach the larger document as an appendix.
    Response: NOAA has retained the socio-economic section in the main 
body of the FSEIS/SMP but has revised it to make it clearer.
    Comment 29: Monroe County commented that the FSEIS should provide 
some additional explanation concerning the table of benthic habitats in 
the DSEIS. It is not clear whether the 59% of unmapped acreage is a 
less significant area within the overall total (it should be noted if 
so). If it is not, then this area needs significant additional 
exploration.
    Response: The benthic habitats categorized in Table 1 of the FSEIS 
represent those identified as the result of one mapping project based 
on aerial photographs and limited groundtruthing in the Tortugas 
region. Extensive characterization of the benthic communities within 
Dry Tortugas National Park has been completed (Agassiz 1883, Davis 
1982, and Jaap 1998). Also, scientific exploration of benthic habitats 
within the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve area has occurred since 
the completion of the DSEIS (Miller, unpubl. data). However, NOAA 
agrees that additional mapping and exploration are needed to accurately 
assess the full extent of marine resources throughout the Tortugas 
region.
    Comment 30: Monroe County commented that the FSEIS should include a 
table summarizing the regulatory alternatives.
    Response: A table summarizing the regulatory alternatives has been 
added to the FSEIS.
    Comment 31: The management plan should be designed to: (1) Protect 
ecosystem structure, function, and integrity; (2) improve fishery 
yields; (3) expand knowledge and understanding of marine systems; and 
(4) enhance non-consumptive opportunities.
    Response: The regulations implementing the designation of the 
reserve are designed to protect ecosystem structure, function and 
integrity and should improve fishery yields outside of the closed 
areas. The management plan has been redesigned with many objectives 
including better understanding of marine systems as well as providing 
better opportunities for non-consumptive activities within the Tortugas 
North area of the Reserve.
    Comment 32: The regulations concerning fishing in the Reserve 
should be issued pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and 
the exception clause that would authorize fishing pursuant to 
regulations issued pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act at 50 CFR Parts 622 and 635 should be 
eliminated from the fishing prohibition.
    Response: The fishing regulations will be issued under the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act and have been revised to prohibit all fishing in 
the reserve without exception.
    Comment 33: Fishing and other consumptive activities should be 
prohibited in the Reserve, including all forms of diving-related 
extraction. Carefully regulated non-consumptive diving should be 
allowed to continue to the extent consistent with resource protection.
    Response: See Response to Comment 12. All consumptive activities 
are prohibited within the Reserve. As described in the FSEIS/SMP, the 
permit system for Tortugas North will allow NOAA to monitor the level 
of non-consumptive diving activity and its effect on resources in 
Tortugas North.
    Comment 34: The Reserve should be permanent and should not be 
subject to sunset provisions.
    Response: The only portion of the Tortugas Reserve that would be 
subject to termination would be the areas located in State waters. 
Pursuant to NOAA's Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Florida, 
the State has the right to review the portions of the Sanctuary located 
in State waters and the applicable regulations after 5 years. Based on 
its review, the Governor of the State may object to the designation of 
any portion of the Sanctuary in State waters and the continued 
application of the regulations.
    Comment 35: NOAA should implement the Tortugas Reserve with strong 
enforcement, research and monitoring, education and outreach programs, 
and interagency cooperation to maximize the value of the Reserve.
    Response: The Final Supplemental Management Plan so provides. See 
Response to Comment 14.
    Comment 36: The economic analysis contains a bias toward 
hypothetical, short-term economic losses to a handful of consumptive 
users. Such losses are highly speculative in real-world terms and the 
quantitative analysis provided in the DSEIS lends them more weight than 
appears appropriate. The economic analysis also does not appear to 
account adequately for likely future migration of fishing economic 
activity to other economic sectors. The likelihood of continuing future 
reductions in fishing activities as a result of overfishing do not 
appear to be incorporated into the DSEIS' discussion.
    Response: NOAA staff primarily analyzed data from users engaged in 
activities within the Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area. To assess 
maximum economic impacts, they assumed that the users could not replace 
their losses if the Tortugas Reserve were closed to consumptive 
activities. This is a very conservative assumption because, as stated 
in the DSEIS, many users will likely be able to relocate their 
activities outside of the Reserve. The protections afforded to the 
habitats in the Tortugas Reserve will also benefit displaced users by 
increasing production in areas outside of the Reserve. However, there 
is no hard data indicating the extent of mitigation or the likely 
future migration of fishing economic activity to other economic 
sectors.
    Comment 37: The DSEIS does not describe clearly defined and 
scientifically justifiable goals. In particular, there are five 
fundamental objectives that are consistent with the overarching goal of 
maintaining the native biodiversity of a region in perpetuity: (1) 
represent all ecosystem types across their natural range or variation; 
(2) maintain or restore viable populations of all native species in 
natural patterns of abundance and distribution; (3) sustain ecological 
and evolutionary processes within their

[[Page 4288]]

natural ranges of variability; (4) build a conservation network that is 
adaptable and resilient to short-term and long-term environmental 
change; and (5) regulate human uses that are consistent with 
conservation of native biodiversity, and eliminate those that are not.
    The Plan should also consider additional criteria in order to 
protect endangered, threatened, rare or imperiled species, small 
populations, species with limited vitality, species with very specific 
habitat requirements, areas of high endemism, areas of productivity, 
areas of high diversity, and movement and migration corridors.
    Response: Most of the five biodiversity goals are contained within 
the criteria for choosing the location and protection measures for the 
Ecological Reserve (see Part VI of this FSEIS). Specific subcriteria 
have been added to clarify what is contained in each criterion. 
Likewise, protecting endangered, threatened, rare, or imperiled species 
is included within the criterion ``Protecting biodiversity, including 
the maintenance or restoration of viable populations of native 
species.''
    Part II of the FSEIS includes clear objectives for the Reserve. As 
stated, the goal for the Sanctuary zoning plan is to protect areas 
representing diverse Sanctuary habitats and areas important for 
maintaining natural resources and ecosystem functions. The objectives 
of the Reserve are to: protect ecosystem integrity; protect 
biodiversity including the maintenance or restoration of viable 
populations of native species; enhance scientific understanding of 
marine ecosystems; and facilitate human uses to the extent consistent 
with the other objectives. These are scientifically justifiable goals 
and objectives.
    The goals listed by the commentor are essentially the goals and 
objectives that the establishment of the Reserve and issuance of the 
implementing regulations are designed to achieve. Likewise, the 
Supplemental Management Plan is designed to achieve the goals and 
objectives for which the reserve is being established and regulated.
    Comment 38: The DSEIS does not define or identify indicators for 
assessing ecological integrity.
    Response: Indicators for assessing ecological integrity have been 
incorporated in the Research and Monitoring Action Plan. These 
indicators include: changes in fish and coral diversity, changes in 
predation, herbivory and trophic structure, changes in water quality 
(nutrients and transmissivity), and changes in user activities.
    Comment 39: The Draft Supplemental Management Plan is inadequate 
and needs to be more comprehensive. It should include:
     Specific goals and objectives;
     Performance measures with an implementation schedule;
     An estimate of management costs for implementing and 
maintaining the reserve;
     An expanded education plan;
     An expanded enforcement plan;
     A description of the permitting system with defined 
criteria and capacity limits;
     A mooring and boundary buoy component that includes 
criteria for placement and costs for placement and maintenance; and
     An expanded research and monitoring plan that includes a 
resource inventory, monitoring of ecological performance measures, 
cooperative research agreements, and database of research.
    Response: See Response to Comment 37. The FSEIS/SMP includes:
     Specific goals and objectives;
     Estimate of management costs for implementing and 
maintaining the reserve;
     An expanded education plan;
     An expanded enforcement plan;
     A description of the permitting system;
     A mooring and boundary buoy component that includes costs 
for placement and maintenance; and
     An expanded research and monitoring plan that includes a 
resource inventory, monitoring of ecological performance measures for 
assessing ecological integrity, and cooperative research agreements.
    Comment 40: NOAA should develop a broader research initiative 
including, at a minimum:
     Further identification and study of spawning aggregations 
including grouper, snapper and jewfish;
     Further studies of patterns of short-and long-distance 
larval dispersal;
     Complete inventories of biodiversity and habitat structure 
in the Reserve and Sanctuary waters in the region;
     Further documentation of the distribution and abundance of 
threatened, endangered, and rare species in the Reserve; and,
     Field experiments and comparative studies to test 
hypotheses generated by these studies.
    Response: The Research and Monitoring Action Plan has been expanded 
to include long-term ecological monitoring to test the efficacy of the 
Reserve. As modified, the Plan will compare reserve areas before and 
after designation, as well as monitor changes occurring inside and 
outside the protected areas, in order to determine the overall 
effectiveness of the reserve. Over time, these efforts will examine 
larval dispersion and spawning aggregations. There should also be 
complete inventories of biodiversity and habitat structure in the 
Reserve, which would include more complete descriptions of the presence 
of endangered, threatened and rare species. Also the Plan has been 
expanded to monitor the effects of non-consumptive diving activities on 
the resources in Tortugas North using the reference provided by 
Tortugas South.
    Comment 41: Scuba diving and underwater exploration in the Reserve 
should be permitted only in the company of a qualified guide.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. It is not necessary to require that 
diving in the Reserve be conducted with a guide to adequately protect 
coral reef resources. As explained elsewhere (see Response to Comment 
12) diving effects will be monitored to determine whether the Reserve's 
resources are being impacted. Also, a sufficient enforcement presence 
will be maintained to deter and detect violations of the no-take 
provisions.
    Comment 42: Neither the Everglades National Park nor the Dry 
Tortugas National Park prohibit recreational fishing and they have the 
best fishery management system in the world. NOAA should not prohibit 
recreational fishing in the Tortugas Reserve.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. See Responses to Comments 3 and 13. The 
Dry Tortugas National Park is proposing changes to its management plan 
that would prohibit recreational fishing in approximately 40% of the 
Park that would be adjacent to the Tortugas Reserve.
    Comment 43: The United States Government does not have jurisdiction 
over the area that would be included in the proposed reserve.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The Tortugas Reserve is within the 
Exclusive Economic Zone and the authority of the United States to 
establish and manage the Reserve is well-established and consistent 
with international law. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan declared a 200 
nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, in which the United States may 
conserve and manage natural resources, consistent with international 
law (Presidential Proclamation 5030, March 10, 1983). The NMSA 
expressly applies to the EEZ. In 1989, President Reagan extended the 
territorial sea to twelve nm (Presidential Proclamation 5928, December 
27, 1988). In 1999, President William J. Clinton extended the

[[Page 4289]]

contiguous zone from twelve to twenty-four nm, extending the 
jurisdiction of the United States over customs, fiscal, immigration, 
and sanitary laws (Presidential Proclamation 7219, August 2, 1999).
    Comment 44: Sanctuary staff working at Dry Tortugas National Park 
should live and work aboard ships rather than increase environmental 
pressure on existing facilities at the Park.
    Response: NOAA will work with the National Park Service so that 
Sanctuary personnel will be stationed at the Park in a manner that is 
consistent with environmental protection of the islands and waters in 
the Park.
    Comment 45: NOAA's plan for a visitor center in Key West is 
redundant and would detract from other visitor centers in Key West 
dedicated to interpretation of the marine environment.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The creation of the visitor facility in 
Key West is not a part of this action. The facility has already been 
established and is located within the existing Dr. Nancy Foster 
Environmental Center at the Truman Annex. The visitor center 
complements existing interpretive centers in Key West. Among other 
things, the facility will present information derived from research 
conducted within the Sanctuary (including the Reserve) as well as 
describe ongoing research projects and other various activities related 
to the Sanctuary.
    Comment 46: A nominal charge should be assessed for access permits 
to the Reserve.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. As proposed, the access permit system 
will require minimal effort by users and will be relatively inexpensive 
for NOAA to operate. The system will be simple and reduce the time 
imposed on permit applicants. The cost to NOAA of administering the 
access permit system is expected to be small. If a fee were charged to 
offset the cost, the system would increase in complexity, increasing 
the cost that would need to be offset as well as increasing the burden 
on users applying for permits. In the interest of administrative 
efficiency and of not placing a burden on permit applicants, a permit 
fee is not being imposed.
    Comment 47: The greatest threat to the marine resources of the area 
is pollution and degradation of water quality. Vessel discharges should 
not be permitted in the Reserve.
    Response: Pollution and degradation of water quality is a serious 
threat to Sanctuary resources. Under the regulations applicable to 
ecological reserves, only engine cooling water and exhaust can be 
discharged in the Reserve.
    Comment 48: Select a Preferred Alternative for the reserve that 
allows for fishing to the northwest of Loggerhead Key.
    Response: The only alternative that would allow fishing to the 
northwest of Loggerhead Key is the No-Action Alternative (see Response 
to Comment 3).
    Comment 49: Prohibit the use of motorized Personal Watercraft in 
the Ecological Reserve.
    Response: While the use of Personal Watercraft has not been 
documented in the TERSA, Regulatory Alternative D will prohibit all 
activities in Tortugas South except for continuous transit, law 
enforcement, and pursuant to a Sanctuary permit, scientific research 
and educational activities. Should the use of motorized Personal 
Watercraft in Tortugas North be documented as a problem, NOAA will 
consider initiating appropriate rulemaking.
    Comment 50: The Tortugas 2000 Working Group did not have a 
representative of the tourism industry and did not consider non-
consumptive activities.
    Response: Among its membership, the Tortugas 2000 Working Group had 
two non-consumptive diving representatives and one citizen-at-large 
representative. Additionally, the Working Group's proposal was 
recommended to Sanctuary managers by the Sanctuary Advisory Council 
which, among its members, has representatives of the tourism industry 
and other non-consumptive interests.
    Comment 51: Several commentors addressed vessel discharge 
restrictions, pumpout facilities, and other public access issues 
related to the DRTO and surrounding Sanctuary waters. One commentor 
suggested that NOAA charts be updated to reflect any new regulatory 
changes in the Tortugas area.
    Response: The NPS General Management Plan revisions are taking into 
consideration pressures and limitations on infrastructure and other 
Park resources. Sanctuary regulations will prohibit vessel discharges 
in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, with the exception of engine 
cooling water and exhaust. NOAA nautical charts will be updated to 
include relevant information once regulations to implement the 
Ecological Reserve are issued and effective.
    Comment 52: A number of commentors suggested various education, 
mooring buoy, research and monitoring, and enforcement programs for the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    Response: The Final Supplemental Management Plan has been updated 
to reflect these comments and suggestions.
    Comment 53: A commentor stated that it appeared that several 
disparate agency processes were going on with regard to an appropriate 
fishing regime for the Tortugas area and that no proposal should be 
adopted until all disparate processes are concluded.
    Response: Providing comprehensive protection to the critical coral 
reef resources of the Tortugas must take precedence over awaiting the 
completion of the many other agency processes. However, NOAA has 
gathered input from the seven resource management agencies with 
jurisdiction in the TERSA with the ultimate goal of achieving a 
consensus to the extent consistent with requirements of the FKNMSPA, 
NMSA, and other applicable law. The Tortugas 2000 Working Group 
process, boundary and regulatory alternative development, and 
subsequent public hearings effectively brought all resource management 
entities to the table and ensured that federal and state regulations 
will be thoroughly integrated. This process has served as a model for 
interagency and stakeholder collaboration.

VIII. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

    Paragraph (b)(1) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1), 
requires the Secretary, in designating a national marine sanctuary, to 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of the designation together 
with final regulations to implement the designation and any other 
matters required by law, and submit such notice to the Congress. The 
Secretary also is required to advise the public of the availability of 
the final management plan and the final environmental impact statement 
with respect to the Sanctuary. While this action does not designate a 
new national marine sanctuary, it revises the boundary and changes the 
terms of designation of an existing sanctuary, the FKNMS, and therefore 
must satisfy the requirements of section 304. In accordance with 
section 304, the public was advised on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75285) 
of the availability of the FSEIS/SMP and this notice is being submitted 
to the Congress for its review.

Executive Order 12866

    This action has been determined to be significant for purposes of 
E.O. 12866. That Order requires that the draft text of the final 
regulations, a reasonably

[[Page 4290]]

detailed description of the need for the action, an explanation of how 
the action will meet that need, and an assessment of the potential 
costs and benefits, including an explanation of the manner in which the 
action is consistent with statutory mandates, and, to the extent 
permitted by law, promotes the President's priorities and avoids undue 
interference with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise 
of their governmental functions (referred to as a Regulatory Impact 
Review (RIR)) be prepared and be submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget for review. In accordance with the requirements of the 
Executive Order, NOAA has prepared a RIR for this action and has 
submitted it to OMB for review. The RIR is contained in part V of the 
FSEIS/SMP.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the requirements of section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(a)), NOAA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) describing the impact of the 
proposed action on small entities. No comments were received on the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IFRA) per se. However, a 
number of the comments requested changes to the Preferred Alternative 
because of impacts on users, all of which are considered small entities 
for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Comments 1, 3, 4, 9, 
13, 16-19, 21-23, 36, 41-43, and 50 and the responses thereto summarize 
the significant issues raised by those comments and the assessment of 
the agency of such issues. Although changes were made to the proposed 
regulations, no changes were made as a result of those comments.
    Section 604(b) (5 U.S.C. 604(b)) requires that NOAA prepare a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA is 
required to contain: (1) A succinct statement of the need for and 
objectives of the rule; (2) a summary of the significant issues raised 
by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the 
assessment of the agency of such issues, a statement of any changes 
made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) a 
description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which 
the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is 
available; (4) a description of the projected reporting, record keeping 
and other compliance requirements of the regulations, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to these 
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary to prepare 
any required report or record; and (5) a description of the steps the 
agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small 
entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, 
including a statement of the factual policy and legal reasons for 
selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency 
which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
    NOAA has prepared the required FRFA. The complete FRFA is contained 
in Parts I, IV, V, VI and Appendix H of the FSEIS/SMP. The following is 
a summary of the FRFA.

Statement of Need

    As previously set forth in this regulatory preamble.

Goals, Objectives and Legal Basis

    As previously set forth in this regulatory preamble.

Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such 
Issues, a Statement of Any Changes Made to the Proposed Rule as a 
Result of Such Comments

    No comments were received on the IFRA per se. However, a number of 
the comments requested changes to the Preferred Alternative because of 
impacts on users, all of which are considered small entities for 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Comments 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 
16-19, 21-23, 36, 41-43, and 50 and the responses thereto appearing in 
Section VI Summary of Comments and Responses, above, summarizing the 
significant issues raised by those comments and the assessment of the 
agency of such issues. Although changes were made to the proposed 
regulations, no changes were made as a result of those comments.

Discussion of All Relevant State and Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 
Overlap or Conflict with the Regulations

    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the GMFMC has primary federal 
responsibility and expertise for the development of FMPs throughout the 
Gulf of Mexico and has developed an Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 
for the various GMFMPs, which includes the area of the proposed 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The GMFMPs are implemented by regulations 
promulgated by the NMFS (50 CFR 622). At the GMFMC's meeting on 
November 9, 1999, the NOS and NMFS requested that the GMFMC take steps 
to prohibit fishing, consistent with the purpose of the proposed 
ecological reserve. The GMFMC accepted this request and at its July 10-
13, 2000 meeting, adopted a Generic Amendment Addressing the 
Establishment of Tortugas Marine Reserves. That amendment to the GMFMPs 
is consistent with the no-take Tortugas Ecological Reserve proposed by 
NOAA and NOAA's regulations for ecological reserves in the FKNMS, at 15 
CFR 922.164(d).
    NMFS intends to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
consistent with the no-take status of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
for the species covered by the GMFMPs and for Atlantic tunas, 
swordfish, sharks, and billfish. In federal waters, these regulations 
will duplicate and overlap, but not conflict, with the Sanctuary 
regulations prohibiting fishing in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. 
Regulations issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act must satisfy the 
requirements of that Act including the National Standards set forth in 
that Act. Sanctuary regulations including those governing fishing are 
issued under the NMSA. While some of the goals and objectives of the 
two Acts are similar, many of the goals and objectives of the two 
statutes are different.
    The State of Florida may implement a no-fishing rule for the area 
of Tortugas North within State waters. In State waters, this rule could 
duplicate and overlap with the Sanctuary, but not conflict with the 
Sanctuary no-take rule for the Reserve. The State of Florida is co-
manager of the Reserve with NOAA and Sanctuary regulations affecting 
State waters must have the approval of the State.

Description of the Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Regulations, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes of Small Entities that Will be Subject to These 
Requirements and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary to Prepare 
Any Required Report or Record

    The access permit application and call in requirements are 
described in the Summary of Final Regulations, above. Any entity 
desiring to enter Tortugas North for other than continuous transit or 
for law enforcement purposes will be subject to these requirements. It 
is anticipated that dive charters operators and individuals wishing to 
dive from private vessels will be the primary class of small entity 
subject to this requirement. No special skills will be necessary to 
comply with the permitting or call-in requirements.
    Any entity desiring to conduct educational or scientific research 
activities in Tortugas South will be

[[Page 4291]]

required to apply for a National Marine Sanctuary General Permit. Each 
permit applicant will be required to provide a detailed description of 
the proposed activity, including a timetable for completion of the 
activity and the equipment, personnel and methodology to be employed; 
the qualifications and experience of all personnel; a statement of the 
financial resources available to the applicant to conduct and complete 
the proposed activity; a statement as to why it is necessary to conduct 
the activity within the Sanctuary; a statement of the potential impacts 
of the activity, if any, on Sanctuary resources and qualities; and a 
statement of the benefit to be derived from the activity; and such 
other information as the Director may request. Copies of all other 
required licenses, permits, approvals, or other authorizations must be 
attached to the application. The application requirements for such a 
permit are set forth in 15 CFR 922.166(e). There will be additional 
reporting and record keeping requirements associated with a Sanctuary 
permit. These will include submitting interim reports on the status of 
the activity and final reports including relevant research findings.
    It is anticipated that marine scientists affiliated with public and 
private research institutions, universities, and conservation 
organizations, and associated graduate students or assistants, will be 
the primary class of small entity subject to this requirement.
    The skills necessary for preparing a permit application and 
subsequent reports are the same as those that are required to prepare 
research proposals, grant applications, and their associated activity 
reporting requirements.

A Description of the Steps the Agency has Taken to Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual Policy and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative Adopted 
in the Final Rule and Why Each of the Other Significant Alternatives to 
the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the Impact on Small 
Entities was Rejected

    In the DEIS/MP for the FKNMS, NOAA proposed a boundary for a 110 nm 
\2\ Replenishment Reserve (Ecological Reserve) in the Tortugas area to 
protect significant coral resources while minimizing or avoiding 
adverse impacts to users. NOAA postponed establishing a reserve in part 
because public comment identified serious adverse economic impacts on 
commercial fishers from the proposed boundary and the proposed no-take 
regulations. Accepting these comments, NOAA went back to the drawing 
board by convening an ad hoc 25 member Working Group (WG) of the 
Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), that included key stakeholder 
representatives from the fishing, diving, and recreation industries, as 
well as eight SAC members, and government agency representatives with 
resource management authority in the Tortugas area to recommend a 
``Preferred Boundary Alternative'' for the reserve.
    The WG held five meetings in 1998 and 1999. In addition to 
ecological information, socio-economic data were gathered from the 
commercial and recreational users of the area. This was an 
unprecedented data collection effort spearheaded by Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) 
Leeworthy of NOAA. His contractors first determined that approximately 
105-110 commercial fishermen used the area. They then collected 
information on catch, costs, and trips from 90 of the fishermen. These 
90 fishermen caught over 90% of the total harvest from the Tortugas. 
The entire population of recreational charter users was interviewed and 
data on trips and costs were obtained. Through the help of the Florida 
Marine Research Institute, the commercial and recreational data were 
input into a GIS format and maps were produced showing intensity of 
use.
    A critical aspect of this GIS data was the creation of maps at a 
consistent scale using the same grid cell framework so comparisons 
could be made between maps. The study area was partitioned into one 
minute by one minute (approximately one square nautical mile) grid 
cells which facilitated the collection and analysis of data and the 
creation of boundary alternatives.
    In February 1999, the WG developed criteria for the ecological 
reserve that addressed ecological and socio-economic concerns. One of 
the objectives of these criteria was to try to choose an area and craft 
recommendations that would serve to minimize adverse socio-economic 
impacts on established users of resources in the area. The preferred 
alternative recommended by the WG (and that subsequently was selected 
by NOAA as its Preferred Alternative in the DSEIS/SMP) was selected, in 
part, because it provided environmental protection while leaving open 
significant fishing grounds for lobster and reef fish such as the 
southern half of Tortugas Bank, which is an important fishing area in 
the winter, and leaves open fishing areas for King mackerel.
    The SAC unanimously adopted the WG's recommendation, recognizing 
that the WG's proposal for an ecological reserve would protect 
biodiversity and minimize impacts to users. The SAC that adopted the 
WG's recommendation included members from the fishing, diving, boating, 
and tourism industries. The geographical area for an ecological reserve 
and application of no-take regulations recommended by the SAC have been 
adopted by NOAA as the Preferred Alternative.
    NOAA encouraged the public to comment on the alternatives contained 
in the DSEIS and held a series of public hearings throughout South 
Florida to accept comments. More than 4,000 comments were received and 
considered.

Approach to the Analysis of Alternatives

    The analysis of the alternatives focuses on market economic impacts 
as measured by direct revenue, costs, and profits of the business firms 
directly affected by the ``no-take'' regulations. These impacts are 
then translated into the secondary or multiplier impacts on the local 
economy. For the recreational industry, the impact area is defined as 
Monroe County, Florida and, for the commercial fisheries the impact 
areas are Monroe County and Lee/Collier counties. For the commercial 
fisheries, the results presented here are an aggregation of the impacts 
on both Monroe and Lee/Collier Counties. The market economic impacts 
include estimates of output/sales, income and employment. The details 
by impacted area can be found in Leeworthy and Wiley (2000). Although 
the results are only presented for impacts on Monroe and Lee/Collier 
Counties, the impacts are based on catch landed in all counties. The 
results for Monroe and Lee/Collier counties are slightly overstated 
because they include the amounts landed in other counties, but for the 
boundary alternatives, these amounts are insignificant.
    The approach begins by first analyzing the affects of the ``no-
take'' regulation for each boundary alternative. Analyses are presented 
for the recreation industry (broken down into consumptive and non-
consumptive), the commercial fisheries, commercial shipping, treasure 
salvors and then other benefits (non-users, scientific and education 
values). The next step is to analyze other regulations. Other 
regulations include the no anchoring/required mooring buoy use 
regulation, access restrictions, and sanctuary-wide regulations (for 
boundary alternatives that include areas outside current Sanctuary 
boundary). For most of the sanctuary-wide regulations, there is no 
additional or

[[Page 4292]]

incremental impact over the ``no-take'' regulation.
    The approach proceeds in two basic steps for the recreation 
industry and the commercial fisheries. First, the impacts are estimated 
under the assumption that all the activities displaced result in 
complete loss. This is done by summing all the activities within the 
geographic area defined by an ecological reserve boundary (i.e., the 
no-take area) and applying the appropriate economic parameters. Second, 
whether the results from step 1 are likely to occur is assessed by 
using a qualitative analysis. Mitigating and offsetting factors are 
taken into account and whether net benefits or costs exist in the short 
and longer terms is assessed. Over the long term, the ecological 
reserve is expected to generate replenishment effects to the fisheries. 
In the commercial reef fisheries, there may be some short term losses, 
however over the longer term, the expectation is that there would be 
long-term benefits even to commercial reef fishermen and related 
dependent businesses.
    Results are presented in four sections. The first section addresses 
the recreation industry. Consumptive recreation is separated from non-
consumptive recreation since consumptive recreation activities are 
displaced from the ``no-take'' areas and may potentially be negatively 
impacted, while non-consumptive activities would be beneficiaries of 
the ``no-take'' area in Tortugas North. The second section addresses 
the commercial fisheries which would all be displaced from the ``no-
take'' areas and thus potentially negatively impacted. The third 
section addresses other potential benefits of the ``no-take'' areas 
including non-use economic values, scientific values, and education 
values. The fourth section addresses the costs of the management action 
to create the reserve. This analysis assumes that all entities impacted 
are small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act.

Analysis of Alternatives

Definition of the Study Area
    For purposes of this analysis, NOS examined a 1,020 nm2 
area called the Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area (TERSA) (Figure 
2). All socio-economic information was collected and organized for the 
TERSA at a geographical resolution of one nm2. Detailed 
descriptions of the data are included for the recreation industry and 
for the commercial fisheries. Four separate boundary alternatives were 
identified within the TERSA and analyzed using the information 
collected for the TERSA.

Boundary Alternatives (Figure 1)

[[Page 4293]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.001

    Boundary Alternative I. This alternative would be taking no-action, 
that is, not expanding the Sanctuary boundary and not establishing a 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve.

[[Page 4294]]

    Boundary Alternative II. This alternative would limit the reserve 
to the existing Sanctuary boundary for a total area of approximately 55 
nm2. This alternative includes a portion of Sherwood Forest 
and the coral pinnacles north of Tortugas Bank; it does not include 
Riley's Hump. It includes some coral and hardbottom habitat north of 
the DRTO.
    Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative). This 
alternative would expand the boundary of the Sanctuary and its 
westernmost corner by approximately 36 nm2 to include 
Sherwood Forest. In addition, this alternative would expand the 
boundary by adding a non-contiguous area of approximately 60 
nm2 to include Riley's Hump. The Reserve would also 
incorporate approximately 55 nm2 of the existing Sanctuary 
in its northern section, for a total area of approximately 151 
nm2. The area of the Reserve surrounding Sherwood Forest 
would be called Tortugas North and encompass approximately 91 
nm2; the area surrounding Riley's Hump would be called 
Tortugas South and encompass approximately 60 nm2.
    Boundary Alternative IV. This alternative would increase the area 
of Tortugas North over that in Alternative III by an additional 23 
nm2 to make it conterminous with the DRTO's proposed 
Research/Natural Area for a total area of approximately 175 
nm2. It would involve the same boundary expansion as in 
Alternative III. The Tortugas South area would be the same as in 
Alternative III.
    Boundary Alternative V. This alternative would expand the Sanctuary 
boundary to the west by 3 nm over Alternatives III and IV to make the 
boundary extend as far west as the western boundary of Tortugas South. 
The area of Tortugas North would be expanded over Alternatives III and 
IV to include the three nm boundary expansion. The area of Tortugas 
North would be approximately 145 nm2. The area of Tortugas 
South would be approximately 45 nm2, by reducing its 
southern extent over alternatives III and IV. Under Alternative V the 
overall area of the Reserve would be approximately 190 nm2.

No-take Regulations

Recreation Industry
    Boundary Analysis. The estimates from the geographic information 
system (GIS) analysis for the different boundary alternatives are the 
sum of each measurement within the boundaries of each alternative. The 
estimates therefore represent the maximum total potential loss from 
displacement of the consumptive recreational activities. This analysis 
ignores possible mitigating factors and the possibility of net benefits 
that might be derived if the proposed ecological reserve has 
replenishment effects. Although the extent of the mitigating factors or 
the potential benefits from replenishment is unknown, this analysis 
discusses these as well as other potential benefits of the proposed 
ecological reserve after the maximum potential losses from displacement 
of the current consumptive recreational uses are presented and 
discussed.
    There are two types of potential losses identified and quantified 
in the analysis, non-market economic values and market economic values.
    Non-Market Economic Values. There are two types of non-market 
economic values. The first is consumer's surplus, which is the amount 
an individual is willing to pay for a good or service over and above 
what he or she is required to pay for the good or service. It is a net 
benefit to the consumer and in the context of recreation use of natural 
resources, where the natural resources go unpriced in markets, this 
value is often referred to as the net user value of the natural 
resource. The second type of non-market economic value is one received 
by producers or owners of the businesses providing goods or services to 
the users of the natural resources. This is commonly referred to as 
producer's surplus. The concept is similar to consumer's surplus in 
that the businesses do not pay a price for the use of natural resources 
when providing goods or services to users of the resources. However, 
this concept is a little more complicated because, in ``welfare 
economics'', not all producer's surplus is considered a proper 
indicator in the improvement of welfare. Only that portion of 
producer's surplus called ``economic rent'' is appropriate for 
inclusion. Economic rent is the amount of profit a business receives 
over and above a normal return on investment (i.e., the amount of 
return on investment that could be earned by switching to some 
alternative activity). Again, because businesses that depend on natural 
resources in the Tortugas do not have to pay for the use of them, there 
exists the possibility of earning above normal rates of return on 
investment or ``economic rent''. This like consumer's surplus, would be 
additional economic value attributable to the natural resources (i.e., 
another user value).
    Economic rents are different from consumer's surplus in that supply 
and demand conditions are often likely to lead to dissipation of the 
economic rents. This is generally true for most open access situations. 
As new firms enter the industry because of the lure of higher than 
normal returns on investment, the net effect is to eliminate most if 
not all of the economic rent. However, given the remoteness of the 
TERSA, it is likely that all economic rents would not be eliminated. 
Accounting profits are used as a proxy for economic rents in the 
analysis. The absolute levels of accounting profits are not a good 
proxy for economic rents, however, they are used here as an index for 
assessing the relative impacts across the different boundary 
alternatives.
    The estimates for consumer's surplus were derived by combining 
estimates of person-days from all the operators in the TERSA with 
estimates of consumer's surplus per person-day from Leeworthy and 
Bowker (1997). The estimates were derived separately by season (see 
Leeworthy and Wiley 2000).
    Market Economic Values. Revenues from the charter boat operations 
that provided service to the consumptive recreational users provide the 
basis for this portion of the analysis. Total output/sales, income and 
employment impacts on the Monroe County economy are then derived from 
these estimates. These impacts include the ripple or multiplier 
impacts. Total output/sales is equal to business revenue times the 
total output multiplier of 1.12 from English et al 1996. Income is then 
derived by taking the total output/sales impact and dividing by the 
total output-to-income ratio (2.63) from English et al. Total 
employment was derived by dividing the total income impact by the total 
income-to-employment ratio ($23,160) from English et al.

[[Page 4295]]

Boundary Alternative I: No Action

    The no-action alternative is not establishing a reserve and not 
issuing the implementing regulations. The costs of imposing the no-take 
regulations, for any given alternative with no-take regulations, would 
be the benefits of the no-action alternative. That is, by not adopting 
the no-take regulations, the costs are avoided. Similarly, any benefits 
from imposing the no-take regulations, for any given alternative with 
no-take regulations, would be the costs of the no-action alternative. 
That is, by not adopting the no-take regulations, the costs are the 
benefits lost by not adopting the no-take regulations. Said another 
way, the costs are the opportunities lost. The impacts of the no-action 
alternative can only be understood by comparing it to one of the 
alternatives. Thus the impacts of the no-action alternative can be 
obtained by reading the impacts from any of the alternatives in reverse 
(Tables 1-8). Table 1 shows the 1997 baseline conditions.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4296]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.002


[[Page 4297]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.003


[[Page 4298]]



Boundary Alternative II

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace over 
26% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, about 26% of the 
spearfishing, and just over 1% of the fishing. Across all three 
consumptive recreational activities just under 6% of the person-days 
would be displaced (Table 2). This alternative is entirely within the 
FKNMS boundary. Because of the way in which consumer's surpluses are 
calculated, they generally mirror the patterns in displaced use. Minor 
differences would be due to the distributions across activities by 
season. Only in the case of diving for lobsters are the impacts on 
person-days and profits equal. For spearfishing, the impacts on profits 
are lower than the affect on person-days (18.7% versus 25.9%), while 
for fishing the affect is greater on profits than on person-days (6.5% 
versus 1.2%). The GIS generated maps show why diving for lobsters and 
spearfishing are relatively more affected than fishing. The reason is 
that diving for lobsters and spearfishing are concentrated on Tortugas 
Bank, while relatively little fishing currently takes place on the 
Tortugas Bank. Private boat usage does not impact commercial 
recreational fishing operations, therefore the only impacts are the 
loss of person days and the non-market value (consumer's surplus) of 
the activity. During the public comment period it was noted that there 
were 673 person days of activity taking place in the TERSA. This 
translates to a maximum potential loss of $53,392 in consumer's 
surplus.
    Market Economic Values. Presently, there are 12 charter boats 
operating within the TERSA, nine of which would be potentially affected 
by this alternative. Direct business revenue would include potential 
losses of 26.6% for diving for lobsters, 20% for spearfishing, and 3% 
for fishing. Across all three consumptive recreational activities, 9.5% 
of revenue would be potentially affected (Table 2).
    Through the ripple or multiplier effects, 11-13% of output/sales, 
income and employment associated with all the consumptive recreational 
activities in the TERSA could potentially be lost (Table 7). Although 
these costs could have an effect on the nine firms operating in the 
TERSA, the effect would not likely be noticed in the Monroe County 
economy because the effect would amount to only a fraction of a percent 
of the total economy supported by recreating visitors to the Florida 
Keys (Table 8).

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    Non-Market Economic Values. Because the portion of this alternative 
that is within the FKNMS boundary is exactly the same as Alternative 
II, the analysis for these two activities is exactly the same for the 
two alternatives. This alternative would displace over 26% of the total 
person-days of diving for lobsters, about 26% of the spearfishing, and 
just over 3% of the fishing. Across all three consumptive recreational 
activities over 7% of the person-days would be displaced (Table 3). For 
fishing, 40% of the displaced activity would be from within the FKNMS 
boundary. Consumer's surpluses generally mirror patterns of displaced 
use. Again, minor differences would be due to the distributions across 
activities by season. Only in the case of diving for lobsters are the 
effects on person-days and profits equal. For spearfishing, the effects 
on profits is lower than the effect on person-days (18.7% versus 
25.9%), while for fishing the effect is greater on profits than on 
person-days (10.02% versus 3.0%).
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.004


[[Page 4300]]


    Private boat usage does not impact commercial recreational fishing 
operations, therefore the only impacts are the loss of person days and 
the non-market value (consumer's surplus) of the activity. A total of 
673 person days of private boat use takes place in the TERSA. This 
translates to a maximum potential loss of $53,392 in consumer's 
surplus.
    Market Economic Values. Nine of the twelve charter boats operating 
within the TERSA would be potentially affected by this alternative. 
Direct business revenue would include potential losses of 26.6% for 
diving for lobsters, 20.0% for spearfishing, and 6.3% for fishing. 
Across all three consumptive recreational activities, 11.7% of revenue 
would be potentially affected (Table 3).
    Through the ripple or multiplier effects, 16-17% of output/sales, 
income and employment associated with all the consumptive recreational 
activities in the TERSA could potentially be lost (Table 7). Although 
these costs could have an effect on the nine firms operating in the 
TERSA, the effect would not likely be noticed in the Monroe County 
economy because it would amount to only a fraction of a percent of the 
total economy supported by recreating visitors to the Florida Keys 
(Table 8).

Boundary Alternative IV

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace over 
73% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, just under 72% of 
the spearfishing, and over 6% of the fishing. Across all three 
consumptive recreational activities over 18% of the person-days would 
be displaced (Table 4). All the diving for lobsters and spearfishing 
activity displaced would be from within the FKNMS boundary. For 
fishing, 71% of the displaced activity would be from within the FKNMS 
boundary. Similarly to the other alternatives, consumer's surpluses 
mirror the patterns in displaced use because of the way in which they 
are calculated. Minor differences would be due to the distributions 
across activities by season. Again, profits are only equal to the 
effect on person-days for diving for lobsters. For spearfishing, the 
effects on profits is lower than the effect on person-days (56.2% 
versus 71.7%), while for fishing the effect is greater on profits than 
on person-days (17.6% versus 6.3%).
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.005


[[Page 4302]]


    Private boat usage does not impact commercial recreational fishing 
operations, therefore the only impacts are the loss of person days and 
the non-market value (consumer's surplus) of the activity. A total of 
673 person days of private boat use takes place in the TERSA. This 
translates to a maximum potential loss of $53,392 in consumer's 
surplus.
    Market Economic Values. Ten of the twelve charter boats operating 
within the TERSA would be potentially affected by this alternative. 
Direct business revenue would include potential losses of 73.4% for 
diving for lobsters, 59.0% for spearfishing, and 10.5% for fishing. 
Across all three consumptive recreational activities, 28.7% of revenue 
would be potentially affected (Table 4).
    Through the ripple or multiplier effects, 38-39% of output/sales, 
income and employment associated with all the consumptive recreational 
activities in the TERSA could potentially be lost (Table 7). Although 
these impacts could have significant effect on the ten firms operating 
in the TERSA, the effect would not likely be noticed in the Monroe 
County economy because the effect would amount to only a fraction of a 
percent of the total economy supported by recreating visitors to the 
Florida Keys (Table 8).

Boundary Alternative V

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace over 
86% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, over 84% of the 
spearfishing, and over 7% of the fishing. Across all three consumptive 
recreational activities over 21% of the person-days would be displaced 
(Table 5). For diving for lobsters 85% of the displaced activity would 
be from within the FKNMS boundary, 59% of the fishing, and 85% of the 
spearfishing. Because of the way in which consumer's surpluses are 
calculated, they generally mirror the patterns in displaced use. Minor 
differences would be due to the distributions across activities by 
season. Profits are only equal to the affect on person-days for diving 
for lobsters. For spearfishing, the effects on profits are lower than 
the affect on person-days (65.5% versus 84.7%), while for fishing the 
affect is greater on profits than on person-days (21.9% versus 7.6%).
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.006


[[Page 4304]]


    Private boat usage does not impact commercial recreational fishing 
operations, therefore the only impacts are the loss of person days and 
the non-market value (consumer's surplus) of the activity. A total of 
673 person days of private boat use takes place in the TERSA. This 
translates to a maximum potential loss of $53,392 in consumer's 
surplus.
    Market Economic Values. Eleven of the twelve charter boats 
operating within the TERSA would be potentially affected by this 
alternative. Direct business revenue would include potential losses of 
86.7% for diving for lobsters, 69.0% for spearfishing, and 12.9% for 
fishing. Across all three consumptive recreational activities, 34.1% of 
revenue would be potentially affected (Table 5).
    Through the ripple or multiplier effects, 45% of output/sales, 
income and employment associated with all the consumptive recreational 
activities in the TERSA could potentially be lost (Table 7). Although 
these effects could have significant affect on the ten firms operating 
in the TERSA, the affect would not likely be noticed in the Monroe 
County economy because the affect would amount to only a fraction of a 
percent of the total economy supported by recreating visitors to the 
Florida Keys (Table 8).

[[Page 4305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.007


[[Page 4306]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.008


[[Page 4307]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.009

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

Addendum to Economic Impact Estimates Based on One Commentor's Revised 
Input

    Economic Impact Estimates Based on Commentor's Revised Input. In 
the course of the public comment period, several pieces of 
correspondence were received from a charter spearfishing operator 
indicating information and data that differ from that which he provided 
to us during our initial interview with him conducted on December 10, 
1998. The following are the impact estimates based on the revised 
information received. These estimates are based on the assumption of a 
constant rate of profit, where no revised profit is indicated and a 
constant relationship between revenue and person-days of activity. The 
first column is the company's revised estimates, the second is the 
revised estimates for Spearfishing and the third is the revised 
estimates for Total Consumptive Recreational Activities.
    The revised estimates indicate maximum potential impact on 
spearfishing and total consumptive recreational use based on the 
commentor's revised estimates. These estimates were submitted after the 
analysis based upon the alternative boundaries, including the Preferred 
Alternative, was complete.
    Data from original survey--Revised Assumption: All activity takes 
place within Preferred Boundary Alternative (based on comments received 
in June 2000).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Spearfishing     Total
                                   Commentor       total     consumptive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue.........................     $214,000      $245,142     $301,565
Profit..........................     $124,000      $130,160     $150,225
Person-days of activity.........        1,650         1,860        3,194
Total Output/Sales Impact.......     $239,680      $274,519     $337,713
Total Income Impact.............      $91,133      $104,395     $128,423
Total Employment Impact.........            4             4            5
Consumer's Surplus..............     $151,465      $170,743     $284,812
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Assumption: Revenue $288,000, Profit $144,000 and all 
activity takes place within Preferred Boundary Alternative (based on 
comments submitted in June 2000).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Spearfishing     Total
                                   Commentor       total     consumptive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue.........................     $288,000      $319,142     $375,565
Profit..........................     $144,000      $150,160     $170,225
Person-days of activity.........        2,221         2,431        3,765
Total Output/Sales Impact.......     $322,560      $357,399     $420,593
Total Income Impact.............     $122,646      $135,908     $159,936
Total Employment Impact.........            5             5            6
Consumer's Surplus..............     $203,841      $223,119     $337,188
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Assumption: Revenue $416,000 and all activity takes place 
within Preferred Boundary Alternative (based on comments submitted in 
June 2000).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Spearfishing     Total
                                   Commentor       total     consumptive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue.........................     $416,000      $447,142     $503,565
Profit..........................     $241,047      $247,207     $267,272
Person-days of activity.........        3,207         3,417        4,751
Total Output/Sales Impact.......     $465,920      $500,759     $563,953
Total Income Impact.............     $177,156      $190,418     $214,446
Total Employment Impact.........            8             8            9
Consumer's Surplus..............     $294,437      $313,715     $427,784
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Assumption: Revenue $460,000 and all activity takes place 
within Preferred Boundary Alternative (based on comments submitted in 
May 2000).

[[Page 4308]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Spearfishing     Total
                                   Commentor       total     consumptive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue.........................     $460,000      $491,142     $547,565
Profit..........................     $266,542      $272,702     $292,767
Person-days of activity.........        3,547         3,757        5,091
Total Output/Sales Impact.......     $515,200      $550,039     $613,233
Total Income Impact.............     $195,894      $209,156     $233,184
Total Employment Impact.........            8             8            9
Consumer's Surplus..............     $325,579      $344,857     $458,926
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitigating Factors--Are the Potential Losses Likely?

    In the above GIS-based analysis, effects are referred to as 
``potential losses.'' The reason is that there are several factors that 
could mitigate these potential losses and further there is a 
possibility that there might not be any losses at all. It is quite 
possible that there might be actual benefits to even the current 
displaced users. These factors are referred to only in qualitative 
terms because it is not possible to quantify them. Below two possible 
mitigating factors, how likely they might mitigate the potential losses 
from displacement, and further how this might differ for each of the 
three alternatives, are discussed.
    Substitution. If displaced users are simply able to relocate their 
activities, they may be able to fully or partially mitigate their 
losses. This of course depends on the availability of substitute sites 
and further depends on the substitute site qualities. Several scenarios 
are possible. Even when total activity remains constant (i.e., person-
days remain the same as they simply go to other sites), if the quality 
of the site is lower there could be some loss in consumer's surplus. If 
it costs more to get to the substitute sites, there could still be 
increases in costs and thus lower profits. If there is not a completely 
adequate supply of substitute sites, then there could be losses in 
total activity and in all the non-market and market economic measures 
referenced in our above analysis of displaced use. The possibilities 
for substitution vary by alternative.
    Long-term benefits from Replenishment Effects. Ecological reserves 
or marine reserves may have beneficial effects beyond the direct 
ecological protection for the sites themselves. That is, both the size 
and number of fish, lobster and other invertebrates both inside and 
outside the reserves may increase. The following quote from Davis 
(1998) summarizes the replenishment effect of reserves:

    [W]e found 31 studies that tested whether protected areas had an 
effect on the size, reproductive output, diversity, and recruitment 
of fish in adjacent areas. Fisheries targeted species were two to 25 
times more abundant in no-take areas than in surrounding areas for 
fish, crustaceans, and mollusks on coral and temperate reefs in 
Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, Kenya, South Africa, 
the Mediterranean Sea, Venezuela, Chile, and the United States 
(California, Florida and Rhode Island). Mean sizes of fished species 
protected in no-take zones were 12 to 200 percent larger than those 
in surrounding areas for all fishes studied and in 75 to 78 percent 
of the invertebrates. Eighty-six percent of the studies that tested 
fishery yields found that catches within three kilometers of the 
marine protected areas were 46 to 50 percent higher than before no-
take zones were created. It is clear that fishers all over the world 
believe no-take zones increase yields because they fish as close to 
the boundaries as possible.

    The long-term benefits from the reserve could offset any losses 
from displacement and may also result in long-term benefits and no 
costs to recreational users that are displaced by the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve. Again, this conclusion may still vary by 
alternative.

Boundary Alternative II

    Substitution. Complete mitigation by substituting to alternative 
sites has a high probability for this alternative because over half of 
the Tortugas Bank would still be available for all consumptive 
recreation activities. Given the equal distribution of use for diving 
for lobsters and spearfishing on the Tortugas Bank, it is not likely 
that increased costs of relocation would occur or that there would be 
losses from users forced to go to sites of lower quality. Crowding 
effects, by pushing all the use currently spread over the whole 
Tortugas Bank onto half the bank, would also be unlikely given the 
small absolute amounts of activity. For fishing, only 1% of the 
activity would be displaced, so for this activity it would also be 
expected there would be no crowding effects and recreational fishermen 
would not likely suffer any losses.
    Long-term Benefits from Replenishment Effects. Eight fish spawning 
areas have been identified in the western portion of the TERSA. One of 
these spawning areas is in the Alternative II boundary area. 
Alternative II is the portion of the Preferred Alternative that lies 
within the existing boundary of the Sanctuary. Therefore the long-term 
benefits to stocks derived from the portion of the Preferred 
Alternative that lies outside of the FKNMS boundary would not be 
realized. This alternative has the smallest area of those analyzed here 
and so the potential long-term benefits to stocks outside the protected 
area would be smaller than the other alternatives. But by the same 
token, the displaced activity to be mitigated is also much smaller and 
thus on net there is a high likelihood that there would be long-term 
benefits to all the consumptive recreational users in the TERSA.

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    Substitution. As with Alternative II, complete mitigation by 
substituting to alternative sites has a high probability for this 
alternative because of the small proportion of the Tortugas Bank 
included in the alternative. Given the equal distribution of use for 
diving for lobsters and spearfishing on the Tortugas Bank, it is not 
likely that increased costs of relocation would occur or that there 
would be losses from users forced to go to sites of lower quality. 
Crowding effects, again, would be unlikely given the small absolute 
amounts of activity. For fishing, only 3% of the activity would be 
displaced, so recreational fishermen would not likely suffer any 
losses.
    Long-term Benefits from Replenishment Effects. Five of the eight 
fish spawning sites in the western portion of the TERSA are located 
within the boundary of this alternative. Because this alternative 
includes areas outside the Sanctuary, the potential long-term benefits 
to stocks outside the protected area would be comparatively larger than 
it would be for Alternative II. The mitigating effort required on the 
part of operators in the boundary alternative would also be 
comparatively larger, but as mentioned above, because of the small 
percentage of the active recreational area included in the

[[Page 4309]]

alternative, the effect is likely to be very small. Therefore, there is 
a high likelihood that there would be long-term benefits to all the 
consumptive recreational users in the TERSA.

Boundary Alternative IV

    Substitution. Under this alternative, about 73% of the diving for 
lobsters and 72% of the spearfishing would be displaced. The potential 
for substituting to other sites is greatly reduced as compared with 
Alternatives II and III. The reason is that under this alternative all 
of the Tortugas Bank falls within this boundary alternative. Some 
substitution is possible, but the probability of crowding effects rises 
considerably for diving for lobsters and spearfishing.
    For fishing, substitution mitigating all the losses is still highly 
probable since only about 6% of the fishing activity would be 
displaced. This represents a relatively low amount of activity and 
given the wide distribution of this activity in the study area, 
crowding effects are still a low probability under this alternative.
    Long-term Benefits from Replenishment Effects. Seven of the eight 
fish spawning sites in the western portion of the TERSA are located 
within the boundary of this alternative. For diving for lobsters and 
spearfishing, it is not clear whether there would be significant 
benefits offsite given that most of this activity currently takes place 
on the Tortugas Bank and none of the bank is available for the 
activity. Not much is currently known about other areas which might 
benefit from the stock effect and where they could relocate to reap 
these benefits. Whether those doing the activities displaced could find 
alternative sites where both the quantity and quality of activity could 
be maintained or enhanced seems less likely given the extent of 
displacement.
    For fishing, however, the small amount of displacement relative to 
the entire area plus the wider distribution of fishing activity still 
makes it highly likely that the long-term benefits of replenishment 
would more than offset the potential losses from displacement resulting 
in net benefits to this group.

Boundary Alternative V

    Substitution. This alternative displaces about 87% of the diving 
for lobsters and 85% of the spearfishing. Substitution possibilities 
for these activities are reduced even more, meaning that losses given 
in Table 7 are more likely to actually occur.
    For fishing, mitigating all the losses through substitution is 
still highly probable since only about 8% of the fishing activity would 
be displaced. This again, represents a relatively low amount of 
activity and given the wide distribution of this activity in the study 
area, crowding effects are still a low probability under this 
alternative.
    Long-term Benefits from Stock Effects. Seven of the eight fish 
spawning sites identified in the western portion of the TERSA are 
located within the boundary of this alternative. However, because the 
entire Tortugas Bank would be closed to diving for lobsters and 
spearfishing and the additionally large area encompassed by the 
proposed reserve, it is highly unlikely that these two user groups 
would benefit from the enhanced stocks of lobster and fish. Therefore, 
under this alternative, the maximum potential losses listed in Table 7 
are highly likely to occur.
    For fishing, however, the stock effects for the reserve could be 
substantial. Whether the benefits would be large enough to offset the 
displacement cannot immediately be determined. But given the past 
experience with reserves, it is still somewhat likely that the long-
term benefits would offset the displacement costs yielding net 
benefits.

Benefits of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve to Recreational Users

    Recreational Users on Entire Florida Keys Reef Tract. The 
possibility that consumptive recreational users could possibly benefit 
if there were long-term offsite impacts was discussed above. Given the 
work by Ault et al. (1998), Bohnsack and Ault (1996), Bohnsack and 
McClellan (1998), and Lee et al. (1994 and 1999), there is also the 
possibility that a protected area in the Tortugas could yield 
beneficial stock effects to a wide variety of species all along the 
entire Florida Keys reef tract and to species such as sailfish that are 
primarily offshore species. Even small increases in recreational 
tourist activities along the entire Florida Keys reef tract could more 
than offset the total displacements from the most extreme alternative 
analyzed here. Table 8 shows the total effects for each alternative 
relative to the total Florida Keys recreational visitor economic 
contribution. They are only fractions of a percent of the total 
recreational visitor economic contribution. One-tenth of one percent 
increase in the total recreational visitor contribution along the 
entire Florida Keys reef tract would more than offset the maximum 
potential losses from Alternative V (Table 7).
    Non-consumptive Users (Divers) in Tortugas. Currently there is one 
operator that brings divers to the TERSA for non-consumptive diving. 
There were 1,048 person-days of non-consumptive diving which account 
for 4.98% of the total recreational activity in the TERSA (excluding 
the National Park). Of the total non-consumptive diving, 83.3% is 
currently done within the FKNMS boundary. Table 9 summarizes the 
information for non-consumptive divers. It is expected that this group 
would be benefited by Tortugas North. As the site improves in quality, 
it is expected that the demand for this site would increase and person-
days, consumer's surplus, business revenues and profits would all 
increase. This would be expected to vary by alternative with the more 
protective alternatives having greater benefits.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.010


[[Page 4311]]



Commercial Fishery

Boundary Analysis
    Boundary Analysis Methodology. In performing the boundary analysis, 
for the each alternative, the impact estimates are broken out by 
``within the FKNMS boundary'' and ``outside the FKNMS boundary.''
    Commercial fishing is prohibited in the DRTO so these grid cells 
are ``true'' zeroes in the analysis. Before breaking out the impact, 
the status of each grid cell (i.e., inside or outside of the boundary) 
had to be determined. Two methods were considered to carry out this 
task: the ``centroid method'' and the ``intersection method.'' The 
centroid method characterizes a grid cell as within a boundary if the 
center point of the cell is within the boundary. The intersection 
method characterizes a grid cell as within a boundary if any part of 
the cell is intersected by the boundary. The centroid method was 
selected because it was more consistent with how the data were 
collected (i.e., 1 nm\2\ grid cells was the finest resolution).
    The estimates from the geographic information system (GIS) analysis 
for the different boundary alternatives are the sum of each measurement 
within the boundary for each alternative. The estimates therefore 
represent the maximum total potential loss from displacement of the 
commercial fishing activities. This analysis ignores possible 
mitigating factors and the possibility of net benefits that might be 
derived if the proposed ecological reserve has replenishment effect. 
Although the extent of the mitigating factors or the potential benefits 
from replenishment cannot be quantified, these as well as other 
potential benefits of the proposed ecological reserve are discussed 
after presenting and discussing the maximum potential losses from 
displacement of the current commercial fisheries.
    The boundary analysis is driven by the catch summed across grid 
cells within each boundary alternative. The set of relationships, 
measures and methods described in Leeworthy and Wiley (1999) are then 
used to translate catch into estimates of market and non-market 
economic values potentially affected. These estimates are broken-down 
by area both inside and outside FKNMS boundary and are done by species. 
Table 10 shows the results for catch for each alternative. Catch for 
the total TERSA is also presented to allow assessment of the proportion 
of the TERSA fishery potentially affected by each alternative.

[[Page 4312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.011


[[Page 4313]]


    The boundary alternatives are ordered according to size and 
potential impact. Alternative I is the ``No Action'' alternative and is 
the least protective alternative. Alternative III is the ``Preferred 
Alternative''. Alternatives IV and V are the largest and ``most 
protective'' alternatives. For catch, generally the higher the 
alternative number the greater the potential affect on catch, except 
for King mackerel and shrimp. Potential affect on King mackerel catch 
is the same for both alternatives IV and V and, the potential affect on 
shrimp catch is the same for the Preferred Alternative (III) and 
alternative IV.
    Both the market and non-market economic values potentially lost 
from displacement for each alternative, except the ``No-action'' 
Alternative (Boundary Alternative I), are summarized in Leeworthy and 
Wiley (2000), includes greater detail by species/species groups, and 
for the market economic values, separate estimates for Monroe and 
Collier/Lee counties. Although the impacts on only Monroe and Collier/
Lee counties are presented, the catch impacted that is landed in other 
counties is included in the analyses. The result is that the impacts in 
Monroe and Collier/Lee Counties are slightly overstated. However, in 
the boundary alternative analyses only a small amount of catch is 
landed in other counties and the amounts are insignificant.

[[Page 4314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.012

Boundary Alternative I: No Action

    The no-action alternative is not establishing a reserve and not 
issuing the implementing regulations. The costs of imposing the no-take 
regulations, for any given alternative with no-take regulations, would 
be the benefits of the no-action alternative. That is, by not adopting 
the no-take regulations, the costs are avoided. Similarly, any benefits 
from imposing the no-take regulations, for any given alternative with 
no-take regulations, would be the costs of the no-action alternative. 
That is, by not adopting the no-take regulations, the costs are the 
benefits lost by not adopting the no-take regulations. Said another 
way, the costs are the opportunities lost. The impacts of the no-action 
alternative can only be understood by comparing it to one of

[[Page 4315]]

the alternatives. Thus the effects of the no action alternative can be 
obtained by reading the effects from any of the proposed alternatives 
in reverse.

Boundary Alternative II

    Market Economic Values. This alternative could potentially affect 
4.2% of the catch of King mackerel, 6% of the lobster catch, 12.96% of 
the Reef Fish catch, and 1% of the shrimp catch in the TERSA. This 
would lead to a reduction in about $411 thousand in harvest revenue or 
6% of the TERSA harvest revenue. This reduction in revenue would result 
in a reduction of 5.8% of total output, income and employment generated 
by the TERSA fishery. Since this alternative was restricted to reside 
within FKNMS current boundary, the effects are all inside FKNMS 
boundary. Although these effects may be significant to those firms that 
might potentially be affected, the overall affect on the local 
economies would be so small they would not be noticed. Harvest revenue 
potentially impacted was only 0.67% of all harvest revenue of catch 
landed in Monroe County. In addition, this lost revenue would translate 
(accounting for the multiplier effects) into only fractions of a 
percent of the total Monroe County economy; 0.035% of total output, 
0.046% of total income and 0.045% of total employment.
    Non-market Economic Values. For all species/species groups, this 
alternative could result in a potential loss of over $473 thousand in 
consumer's surplus. This is 6.28% of the consumer's surplus generated 
by the entire TERSA. Although producer's surplus or economic rents are 
estimated to be zero, about 5.54% of the return to labor and capital of 
the TERSA fishery is potentially affected by this alternative.

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    Market Economic Values. This alternative could potentially affect 
14% of the catch of King mackerel, 11.58% of the lobster catch, 20.30% 
of the Reef Fish catch, and 8.16% of the shrimp catch in the TERSA. 
This would lead to a reduction in about $844,000 in harvest revenue or 
12.26% of the TERSA harvest revenue. This reduction in revenue would 
result in a reduction of 12.16% of total output, income and employment 
generated by the TERSA fishery. The impacts are split almost evenly 
between the areas inside and outside the FKNMS boundary. Although these 
costs may be significant to those firms that might potentially be 
affected, the overall affect on the local economies would be so small 
they would not be noticed. Harvest revenue potentially affected was 
only 1.16% of all harvest revenue of catch landed in Monroe County. In 
addition, this lost revenue would translate (accounting for the 
multiplier effects) into only fractions of a percent of the total 
Monroe County economy; 0.0596% of total output, 0.0779% of total income 
and 0.0785% of total employment.
    Non-market Economic Values. For all species/species groups, this 
alternative could result in a potential loss of about $880,000 in 
consumer's surplus. This was 11.7% of the consumer's surplus generated 
by the entire TERSA. Whereas the market economic values were almost 
evenly split inside and outside the FKNMS, 53.76% of the consumer's 
surplus potentially affected is from inside the FKNMS boundary. This is 
due to the distributions of lobster and reef fish catch where a higher 
proportion of the potentially affected catch come from inside the FKNMS 
boundary, whereas the distributions of shrimp and King mackerel come 
largely from outside the FKNMS boundary.
    Although producer's surplus or economic rents are estimated to be 
zero, about 11.5% of the return to labor and capital of the TERSA 
fishery is potentially affected by this alternative. The distribution 
inside versus outside the FKNMS boundary follows that of the market 
economic values with 48% from catch inside the FKNMS boundary.

Boundary Alternative IV

    Market Economic Values. This alternative could potentially affect 
15.57% of the catch of King mackerel, 16.4% of the lobster catch, 
28.19% of the Reef Fish catch, and 8.16% of the shrimp catch in the 
TERSA. This would lead to a reduction in about $1.126 million in 
harvest revenue or 16.45% of the TERSA harvest revenue. This reduction 
in revenue would result in a reduction of 16.05% of total output, 
income and employment generated by the TERSA fishery. About 61.65% of 
the harvest revenue and 60.34% of the output, income and employment 
impacts would come from catch displaced from within FKNMS boundary. 
Although the costs may be significant to those firms that might 
potentially be affected, the overall impact on the local economies 
would be so small they would not be noticed. Harvest revenue 
potentially affected was only 1.82% of all harvest revenue of catch 
landed in Monroe County. In addition, this lost revenue would translate 
(accounting for the multiplier effects) into only fractions of a 
percent of the total Monroe County economy; 0.0968% of total output, 
0.127% of total income and 0.1281% of total employment.
    Non-market Economic Values. For all species/species groups, this 
alternative could result in a potential loss of about $1.1 million in 
consumer's surplus. This is 14.64% of the consumer's surplus generated 
by the entire TERSA. Approximately 63.14% of the consumer's surplus 
potentially affected is from catch from inside the FKNMS boundary. This 
is due to the distributions of lobster and reef fish catch where a 
higher proportion of the potentially affected catch come from inside 
the FKNMS boundary, whereas the distributions of shrimp and King 
mackerel come largely from outside the FKNMS boundary.
    Although producer's surplus or economic rents are estimated to be 
zero, about 15.6% of the return to labor and capital of the TERSA 
fishery is potentially affected by this alternative. The distribution 
inside versus outside the FKNMS boundary follows that of the market 
economic values with 61.68% from catch inside the FKNMS.

Boundary Alternative V

    Market Economic Values. This alternative could potentially affect 
15.57% of the catch of King mackerel, 17.58% of the lobster catch, 
29.57% of the Reef Fish catch, and 10.26% of the shrimp catch in the 
TERSA. This would lead to a reduction in about $1.224 million in 
harvest revenue or 17.89% of the TERSA harvest revenue. This reduction 
in revenue would result in a reduction of 17.5% of total output, income 
and employment generated by the TERSA fishery. About 56.68% of the 
harvest revenue and 55.26% of the output, income and employment impacts 
would come from catch displaced from within the FKNMS boundary. 
Although the costs may be significant to those firms that might 
potentially be affected, the overall impact on the local economies 
would be so small they would not be noticed. Harvest revenue 
potentially affected was only 1.98% of all harvest revenue of catch 
landed in Monroe County. In addition, this lost revenue would translate 
(accounting for the multiplier effects) into only fractions of a 
percent of the total Monroe County economy; 0.106% of total output, 
0.138% of total income and 0.1399% of total employment.
    Non-market Economic Values. For all species/species groups, this 
alternative could result in a potential loss of about $1.24 million in 
consumer's surplus. This was 16.4% of the consumer's surplus generated 
by the entire TERSA. 56.2% of the consumer's surplus

[[Page 4316]]

potentially affected is from catch from inside the FKNMS boundary. This 
is due to the distributions of lobster and reef fish catch where a 
higher proportion of the potentially affected catch come from inside 
the FKNMS boundary, whereas the distributions of shrimp and King 
mackerel come largely from outside the FKNMS boundary.
    Although producer's surplus or economic rents are estimated to be 
zero, about 16.97% of the return to labor and capital of the TERSA 
fishery is potentially affected by this alternative. The distribution 
inside versus outside the FKNMS boundary follows that of the market 
economic values with 56.7% from catch inside the FKNMS boundary.

Profiles of Fishermen Potentially Affected

    A profile of the approximately 110 fishermen using TERSA based on a 
sample of 90 was completed with a comparison with other commercial 
fishermen in Monroe County. The profiles of those potentially affected 
by each alternative were compared. The profiles are summarized in Table 
12. Statistical tests were performed comparing the sample distributions 
for the groups that fished within each boundary alternative as compared 
with TERSA fishermen as a whole. Except for the number of fishing 
operations potentially affected, the only significant differences for 
all alternatives were in membership in organizations and in fish house 
usage.
    Fishermen potentially affected by Boundary Alternative II were the 
only group that was significantly different for any other 
characteristics listed in Table 12. These fishermen had less experience 
fishing in Monroe County than the general TERSA fishermen, however they 
were not significantly different with respect to years fishing in the 
TERSA. Fishermen potentially affected by Boundary Alternative II also 
earned a significantly lower proportion of their income from fishing 
than the general TERSA fishermen; however, they earned a significantly 
higher proportion of their income from fishing within the TERSA than 
the general TERSA fishermen.
    Fishermen potentially affected by Boundary Alternative II were also 
significantly different from the general TERSA fishermen in the 
distribution of their primary hauling port. A significantly higher 
proportion of those potentially affected by this alternative used Key 
West/Stock Island and Tavenier than the general TERSA fishermen, and 
they used Big Pine Key, Marathon and Naples/Ft. Myers significantly 
less than the general TERSA fishermen.
    Fifty-one (51) or 57% of the sampled fishing operations could be 
potentially affected by Boundary Alternative II followed by 64 
operations or 71% for Alternative III, and 65 operations or 72% for 
both Alternatives IV and V. Twenty-four (24) of the 28 or 86% of all 
the lobster operations could be potentially affected by Boundary 
Alternative II, while 27 of the 28 lobster operations or 96% are 
potentially affected by Boundary Alternatives III, IV, and V. Six (6) 
of the 18 or 33.3% of the shrimp operations are potentially affected by 
Alternative II, while Alternative III could potentially affect 15 of 18 
or 83% of the shrimp operations. Boundary Alternatives IV and V could 
potentially affect 14 of the 18 or 78% of the shrimp operations. 
Fifteen (15) of the 16 King mackerel operations could be potentially 
affected by Boundary Alternative II, while Boundary Alternatives III, 
IV and V could potentially affect all 16 of the King mackerel 
operations. Thirty-seven (37) of the 42 or 88% of the reef fish 
operations could be potentially affected by Alternative II, while 40 or 
95% of the reef fish fishing operations could be potentially affected 
by Alternative III. Boundary Alternatives IV and V could potentially 
affect all 42 reef fish operations.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.013


[[Page 4318]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.014

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 4319]]

Other Potential Costs and Mitigating Factors--Are the Potential Losses 
Likely?

    In the above GIS-based analysis, the effects are referred to as 
``potential losses'' or ``maximum potential losses''. There is the 
possibility that there could be an additional cost not discussed but 
which cannot be quantified, that is, crowding and the resulting 
conflicts among users forced to compete in a smaller area. There are 
also several factors that could mitigate all the potential losses and 
further there is a possibility that there might not be any losses at 
all. It is quite possible that there might be actual net benefits to 
even the current displaced users. Below the issue of crowding costs and 
the mitigating factors and potential for beneficial outcomes are 
discussed in qualitative terms because it is not possible for us to 
quantify them. Two mitigating factors, how likely they might mitigate 
the potential losses from displacement, and how this might differ for 
each of the alternatives are discussed.
    Crowding. As shown above, each of the alternatives would result in 
a certain amount of displacement. Displacement of commercial fishing 
activity is a certainty under all boundary alternatives, except 
Alternative I, the No-action Alternative. If this displacement results 
in the activity being transferred to other sites, there is a potential 
for crowding effects. Crowding effects could raise the costs of 
fishing, both private costs to each fishing operation and social costs 
in resolving conflicts.
    Crowding conflicts were one of the issues mentioned when the State 
of Florida created the lobster trap certificate program which was 
designed to reduce the number of lobster traps. If fishing stocks 
outside the protected area are already fished to their limits (i.e., 
limits of sustainable harvests), then displacement could also lead to 
adverse stock effects and a lower level of catch from all commercial 
fisheries. Crowding effects would represent a potential cost not 
accounted for in our above GIS-based analysis and the potential for the 
existence of crowding effects would vary by alternative. Whether 
crowding effects are experienced would depend on the status of the 
fisheries outside the proposed protected area, the extent of 
displacement, the current knowledge and fishing patterns of the 
displaced fishermen, and other potential regulations. The trap 
reduction program is an example where crowding effects could be 
mitigated by making room for the displaced traps.
    Relocation. If displaced commercial fishermen are simply able to 
relocate their fishing effort and they are able to partially or 
completely replace their lost catch by fishing elsewhere, then there 
might be less or no effect. However, the possibility exists that 
displacement, even if it does not result in lower overall catch, may 
result in higher costs. This would result in lower profits to fishing 
operations. Whether fishermen are able to relocate to other fishing 
sites and replace lost catch or avoid cost increases would depend, like 
with the issue of crowding, on the status of the fisheries outside the 
proposed protected area, the extent of the displacement, the current 
knowledge and fishing patterns of the displaced fishermen, and other 
potential regulations.
    Long-term benefits from Replenishment Effects. Ecological reserves 
or marine reserves may have beneficial effects beyond the direct 
ecological protection from the sites themselves. That is, both the size 
and number of fish, lobster, and other invertebrates both inside and 
outside the reserves may increase i.e., the replenishment effect. The 
following quote from Davis 1998 summarizes the replenishment effect of 
reserves:

    [W]e found 31 studies that tested whether protected areas had an 
effect on the size, reproductive output, diversity, and recruitment 
of fish in adjacent areas. Fisheries targeted species were two to 25 
times more abundant in no-take areas than in surrounding areas for 
fish, crustaceans, and mollusks on coral and temperate reefs in 
Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, Kenya, South Africa, 
the Mediterranean Sea, Venezuela, Chile, and the United States 
(California, Florida and Rhode Island). Mean sizes of fished species 
protected in no-take zones were 12 to 200% larger than those in 
surrounding areas for all fishes studied and in 75 to 78% of the 
invertebrates. Eighty-six percent of the studies that tested fishery 
yields found that catches within three kilometers of the marine 
protected areas were 46 to 50% higher than before no-take zones were 
created. It is clear that fishers all over the world believe no-take 
zones increase yields because they fish as close to the boundary as 
possible.

    The long-term benefits from the reserve could offset any losses 
from displacement and may also result in long-term benefits and no 
costs (net benefits) to commercial fishermen that would be displaced by 
a proposed reserve. Again, this conclusion may vary by alternative.

Boundary Alternative II

    Crowding and Relocation. For the lobster fishery, it appears that 
the lobster trap reduction program could fully mitigate the potential 
for crowding costs. This boundary alternative would displace 2,228 
traps. A ten percent reduction in traps in the TERSA would provide 
space for 3,690 traps. Further, lobster fishermen in the TERSA only 
catch 68% of their lobsters from the TERSA. Thus, lobster fishermen are 
knowledgeable about fishing in other areas of the Keys where they might 
move their displaced traps. Thus, under this boundary alternative there 
would be no crowding costs for lobsters and they would be able to 
replace catch from other areas. Thus, for lobsters, the potential 
economic losses identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under 
Alternative II.
    Crowding is not an issue for King mackerel because they are a 
pelagic species and thus move around and catching them elsewhere is 
highly likely without interfering with other fishermen. Shrimp 
fishermen currently only catch ten percent of their total shrimp catch 
from the TERSA. Displacement of shrimp catch under Boundary Alternative 
II would only be about one percent of their TERSA catch and less than 
one percent of their total shrimp catch. It would seem highly likely 
that there would be no crowding costs from displacement and given the 
small amounts of catch affected, it is highly likely that shrimp 
fishermen would be able to replace lost catch from other sites. 
However, some shrimp fishermen have said that they cannot replace lost 
catch from other sites. Thus, for King mackerel, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative II, but for shrimp the economic losses could range from 
zero to the maximum potential losses reported in Table 11.
    Reef Fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative II, 37 of the sampled 42 fishermen would be 
affected. Reef fishermen are knowledgeable of other fishing locations 
outside the TERSA. In 1997, they caught 52% of their reef fish from 
areas in the Keys outside the TERSA. However, stocks of reef fish in 
the TERSA and throughout the Keys appear to be overfished. Alternative 
II displaces about 13% of the reef fish catch in the TERSA. Given the 
status of reef fish stocks, the losses identified in Table 11 are 
likely to occur in the short-term until the benefits of replenishment 
could off-set these losses in the longer-term.
    Replenishment. No replenishment benefits to King mackerel or shrimp 
are expected. For lobsters and reef fish, replenishment benefits are 
expected. Davis (1998) provided an estimate that

[[Page 4320]]

invertebrates and reef fish at other marine reserves had shown 
increases in yields of 46-50% within three kilometers of the protected 
areas. Eight fish spawning areas have been identified in the western 
portion of the TERSA. Only one of the eight fish spawning areas is 
located within the Alternative II boundary and would be protected, and 
to thus support the replenishment effect. For lobsters, long-term net 
benefits to the commercial fishery of the TERSA are expected. For reef 
fish, it is not clear whether the full 13% lost catch from displacement 
would be replaced from replenishment, but the costs of displacement 
would be mitigated and the losses expected to be less than the 13% 
reductions that are the basis for the losses calculated and presented 
in Table 11.

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    Crowding and Relocation. For the lobster fishery, there is some 
potential for crowding costs. This boundary alternative would displace 
4,346 traps. A ten percent reduction in traps in the TERSA would 
provide space for 3,690 traps. However, if the remaining 656 traps are 
relocated to zones 1-3 in the Keys, there would be more than adequate 
space given the 10% reduction in traps that took place in Monroe County 
between 1997-98 and 1998-99 (475,094 to 428, 411). See FMRI, 1998. 
Lobster fishermen in the TERSA only catch 68% of their lobsters from 
the TERSA. Thus, lobster fishermen are knowledgeable about fishing in 
other areas of the Keys where they might move their displaced traps. 
Thus, under this alternative their would be no crowding costs for 
lobsters and it is expected that they would be able to replace catch 
from other areas. Thus, for lobsters, the potential economic losses 
identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under this alternative.
    Crowding is not an issue for King mackerel because they are a 
pelagic species and thus move around and catching them elsewhere is 
highly likely without interfering with other fishermen. Shrimp 
fishermen currently only catch ten percent of their total shrimp catch 
from the TERSA. Displacement of shrimp catch under Boundary Alternative 
III (Preferred Boundary Alternative) would only be about eight percent 
of their TERSA catch and less than one percent of their total shrimp 
catch. It would seem highly likely that there would be no crowding 
costs from displacement and given the small amounts of catch affected, 
it is highly likely that shrimp fishermen would be able to replace lost 
catch from other sites. However, some shrimp fishermen have said that 
they cannot replace lost catch from other sites. Thus, for King 
mackerel, the potential economic losses identified in Table 11 are not 
likely to occur under Boundary Alternative III, but for shrimp the 
economic losses could range from zero to the maximum potential losses 
reported in Table 11.
    Reef Fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative), 40 of 
the sampled 42 fishermen would be affected. Reef fishermen are 
knowledgeable of other fishing locations outside the TERSA. In 1997, 
they caught 52% of their reef fish from areas in the Keys outside the 
TERSA. However, stocks of reef fish in the TERSA and throughout the 
Keys appear to be overfished. Boundary Alternative III (Preferred 
Boundary Alternative) displaces 20% of the reef fish catch in the 
TERSA. Given the status of reef fish stocks, the losses identified in 
Table 11 are likely to occur in the short-term until the benefits of 
replenishment could offset these losses in the longer-term.
    Replenishment. No replenishment benefits to King mackerel or shrimp 
are expected. For lobsters and reef fish, replenishment benefits are 
expected. Davis (1998) reports increases in yields of invertebrates and 
reef fish of 46-50% within three kilometers of the protected areas at 
other marine reserves. Five of the eight fish spawning areas identified 
in the western portion of the TERSA are located within the Alternative 
III boundary and would be protected, thus bolstering the replenishment 
effect. For lobsters, long-term net benefits would be expected under 
Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative). For reef 
fish, it is not clear whether the full 20% lost catch from displacement 
would be replaced from replenishment, but the costs of displacement 
would be mitigated and the losses expected to be less than the 20% 
reductions that are the basis for the losses calculated and presented 
in Table 11.

Boundary Alternative IV

    Crowding and Relocation. For the lobster fishery, there is some 
potential for crowding costs. It is estimated that this boundary 
alternative would displace 6,050 traps. A ten percent reduction in 
traps in the TERSA would provide space for 3,690 traps. However, if the 
remaining 2,360 traps are relocated to zones 1-3 in the Keys, there 
would be more than adequate space given the 10% reduction in traps that 
took place in Monroe County between 1997-98 and 1998-99 (475,094 to 
428, 411). See FMRI, 1998. Lobster fishermen in the TERSA only catch 
68% of their lobsters from the TERSA. Thus, lobster fishermen are 
knowledgeable about fishing in other areas of the Keys where they might 
move their displaced traps. Thus, under this alternative there would be 
no crowding costs for lobsters and fishermen would be able to replace 
catch from other areas. Thus, for lobsters, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative IV.
    Crowding is not an issue for King mackerel because they are a 
pelagic species and thus move around and catching them elsewhere is 
highly likely without interfering with other fishermen. Shrimp 
fishermen currently only catch ten percent of their total shrimp catch 
from the TERSA. Displacement of shrimp catch under Boundary Alternative 
IV would only be about eight percent of their TERSA catch and less than 
one percent of their total shrimp catch. It would seem highly likely 
that there would be no crowding costs from displacement and given the 
small amounts of catch affected, it is highly likely that shrimp 
fishermen would be able to replace lost catch from other sites. 
However, some shrimp fishermen have said that they cannot replace lost 
catch from other sites. Thus, for King mackerel, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative IV, but for shrimp the economic losses could range from 
zero to the maximum potential losses reported in Table 11.
    Reef fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative IV, all 42 of the sampled fishermen would be 
affected. Reef fishermen are knowledgeable of other fishing locations 
outside the TERSA. In 1997, they caught 52% of their reef fish from 
areas in the Keys outside the TERSA. However, stocks of reef fish in 
the TERSA and throughout the Keys appear to be overfished. Boundary 
Alternative IV displaces 28% of the reef fish catch in the TERSA. Given 
the status of reef fish stocks, the losses identified in Table 11 are 
likely to occur in the short-term until the benefits of replenishment 
could off-set these losses in the longer-term.
    Replenishment. No replenishment benefits to King mackerel or shrimp 
are expected. For lobsters and reef fish, replenishment benefits are 
expected. Davis (1998) reports increases in yields of invertebrates and 
reef fish of 46-50% within three kilometers of the protected areas at 
other marine reserves. Seven of

[[Page 4321]]

the eight fish spawning areas identified in the western portion of the 
TERSA are located within the Alternative IV boundary and would be 
protected, thus bolstering the replenishment effect. For lobsters, 
long-term net benefits to the commercial fishery of the TERSA are 
expected. For reef fish, it is not clear whether the full 28% lost 
catch from displacement would be replaced from replenishment, but the 
costs of displacement would be mitigated and the losses expected to be 
less than the 28% reductions that are the basis for the losses 
calculated and presented in Table 11.

Boundary Alternative V

    Crowding and Relocation. For the lobster fishery, there is some 
potential for crowding costs. This boundary alternative would displace 
6,487 traps. A ten percent reduction in traps in the TERSA would 
provide space for 3,690 traps. However, if the remaining 2,797 traps 
are relocated to zones 1-3 in the Keys, there would be more than 
adequate space given the 10% reduction in traps that took place in 
Monroe County between 1997-98 and 1998-99 (475,094 to 428,411). See 
FMRI, 1998. Lobster fishermen in the TERSA only catch 68% of their 
lobsters from the TERSA and they are knowledgeable about fishing in 
other areas of the Keys where they might move their displaced traps. 
Thus, under this boundary alternative there would be no crowding costs 
for lobsters and fishermen would be able to replace catch from other 
areas. Therefore, for lobsters, the potential economic losses 
identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative V.
    Crowding is not an issue for King mackerel because they are a 
pelagic species and thus move around and catching them elsewhere is 
highly likely without interfering with other fishermen. Shrimp 
fishermen currently only catch ten percent of their total shrimp catch 
from the TERSA. Displacement of shrimp catch under Boundary Alternative 
V would only be about ten percent of their TERSA catch and about one 
percent of their total shrimp catch. It would seem highly likely that 
there would be no crowding costs from displacement and given the small 
amounts of catch affected, it is highly likely that shrimp fishermen 
would be able to replace lost catch from other sites. However, some 
shrimp fishermen have said that they cannot replace lost catch from 
other sites. Thus, for King mackerel, the potential economic losses 
identified in Table 11 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative V, but for shrimp the economic losses could range from zero 
to the maximum potential losses reported in Table 11.
    Reef fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Of the 90 TERSA fishermen sampled, 42 were reef fish fishermen. Under 
Boundary Alternative V, all 42 would be affected. Reef fishermen are 
knowledgeable of other fishing locations outside the TERSA. In 1997, 
they caught 52% of their reef fish from areas in the Keys outside the 
TERSA. However, stocks of reef fish in the TERSA and throughout the 
Keys appear to be overfished. Boundary Alternative V displaces 29% of 
the reef fish catch in the TERSA. Given the status of reef fish stocks, 
the losses identified in Table 11 are likely to occur in the short-term 
until the benefits of replenishment could off-set these losses in the 
longer-term.
    Replenishment. No replenishment benefits to King mackerel or shrimp 
are expected. For lobsters and reef fish, replenishment benefits are 
expected. Davis (1998) reports increases in yields of invertebrates and 
reef fish of 46-50% within three kilometers of the protected areas at 
other marine reserves. Seven of the eight spawning areas identified in 
the western portion of the TERSA are located within the Alternative V 
boundary and would be protected, thus bolstering the replenishment 
effect. For lobsters, long-term net benefits under Alternative V are 
expected. For reef fish, it is not clear whether the full 29% lost 
catch from displacement would be replaced from replenishment, but the 
costs of displacement would be mitigated and the losses expected to be 
less than the 29% reductions that are the basis for the losses 
calculated and presented in Table 11.
Commercial Shipping
    No effect for any of the alternatives.
Treasure Salvors
    No expected effect for any of the alternatives. One permit for 
inventorying submerged cultural resources in Sanctuary waters was 
issued for the Tortugas area of the Sanctuary. There were no submerged 
cultural resources found on the Tortugas Bank. Whether there are any 
submerged cultural resources on Riley's Hump is unknown.
Other Potential Benefits
    In both the recreation industry (fishing and diving) and the 
commercial fishery sections above, the potential benefits to 
recreational and commercial fisheries from the replenishment effect of 
an ecological reserve were discussed. Also discussed in the recreation 
industry section were the potential benefits to non-consumptive 
recreational users (divers). Below, some of the most important benefits 
of an ecological reserve--scientific values, and education values--are 
discussed.
    Ecological reserves provide a multitude of environmental benefits. 
Sobel (1996) provides a long list of these benefits. Most of those 
benefits have been described above. Sobel (1996) categorizes scientific 
and education values into those things a reserve provides that increase 
knowledge and understanding of marine systems. Sobel provides the 
following lists of benefits:
Scientific Values:
     Provides long-term monitoring sites
     Provides focus for study
     Provides continuity of knowledge in undisturbed site
     Provides opportunity to restore or maintain natural 
behaviors
     Reduces risks to long-term experiments
     Provides controlled natural areas for assessing 
anthropogenic impacts, including fishing and other impacts
Education Values:
     Provides sites for enhanced primary and adult education
     Provides sites for high-level graduate education

Other Regulations

    Each of the four regulatory alternatives (A-D) are analyzed for 
each boundary alternative (I-V).

Boundary Alternative I

    This is the No-Action Alternative and would not result in the 
expansion of the Sanctuary boundary and would not establish a Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve. None of the regulatory alternatives would apply.

Boundary Alternative II

    This alternative limits the reserve to the existing Sanctuary 
boundary for a total area of approximately 55 nm \2\. (Figure 1). This 
alternative includes a portion of Sherwood Forest and the coral 
pinnacles north of Tortugas Bank; it does not include Riley's Hump. It 
includes some coral and hardbottom habitat north of the DRTO. Tortugas 
South would not exist under Boundary Alternative II. None of the 
regulatory alternatives would apply to the Tortugas South area.
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South. 
The Sanctuary-wide regulations already

[[Page 4322]]

apply to Tortugas North and the effects of the ecological reserve 
regulations have been analyzed under the no-take discussion above. The 
existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are 
presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the regulations 
are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological 
reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve consistent 
with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation 
Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas South, other than for continuous transit or 
law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for entering and 
leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from using a 
mooring buoy. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The Sanctuary-
wide regulations already apply to Tortugas North and the effects of the 
ecological reserve regulations have been analyzed under the no-take 
discussion above. The existing ecological reserve regulations would 
prohibit fishing in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve consistent with 15 
CFR 922.164(d) Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative C: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas North and South, other than for continuous 
transit or law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for 
entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from 
using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory Alternative B). The 
existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are 
presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the regulations 
are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The Sanctuary-wide 
regulations already apply to Tortugas North and the effects of the 
ecological reserve regulations have been analyzed under the no-take 
discussion above. The existing ecological reserve regulations would 
prohibit fishing in the Reserve consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), 
Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    This regulatory alternative has no incremental impact on commercial 
fishing or recreational consumptive users since they are displaced by 
the ``no-take'' regulation. The dive operator servicing non-consumptive 
diving and currently operating in Tortugas North would be prohibited 
from anchoring. His vessel is less than 100 ft LOA and thus he would be 
unaffected by the prohibition on mooring. The location and availability 
of mooring buoys would constrain the number and choice of available 
dive sites. Whether this would have any impact on the future business 
volume of dive operators or the quality of the experience to non-
consumptive divers is unknown. The extent of impact would be dependent 
on the number and locations of mooring buoys (to be determined).
    This regulatory alternative would have little impact on commercial 
shipping because continuous transit would be allowed. Vessels 50m or 
greater in registered length are already prohibited from anchoring in 
19.3% of Tortugas North. The main effect would be to ban such vessels 
from anchoring on the remainder of Tortugas North. There would be no 
incremental impact to treasure salvors since they would be displaced by 
the ``no-take'' regulation. The one dive operator servicing non-
consumptive diving and currently operating in Tortugas North would be 
required to obtain Tortugas access permits. Any new dive operators 
would also be required to obtain permits. There would be minor time 
costs associated with obtaining a permit for calling-in and calling-out 
to access the reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all the permit 
requirements and calling-in and calling-out will not exceed 10 minutes 
of each permittee's time for each visit to the reserve. No special 
professional skills would be necessary to apply for a permit.
    Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described in Regulatory Alternative A); 
prohibit anchoring in and control access to Tortugas North via permit, 
require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer 
than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory 
Alternative B); and prohibit anchoring and restrict access to Tortugas 
South, other than for continuous transit or law enforcement purposes, 
to research or education activities only pursuant to a sanctuary 
permit. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The impacts of 
this regulatory alternative for this boundary alternative are the same 
as those described for Regulatory Alternative C, above. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    This alternative would expand the boundary of the Sanctuary and its 
westernmost corner by approximately 36 nm \2\ to include Sherwood 
Forest. In addition, this alternative would expand the boundary by 
adding a non-contiguous area of approximately 60 nm \2\ to include 
Riley's Hump. The Reserve would also incorporate approximately 55 nm 
\2\ of the existing Sanctuary in its northern section, for a total area 
of approximately 151 nm \2\. The area of the Reserve surrounding 
Sherwood Forest would be called Tortugas North and encompass 
approximately 91 nm \2\; the area surrounding Riley's Hump would be 
called Tortugas South and encompass approximately 60 nm \2\. A small 
portion of Tortugas North and all of Tortugas South would be outside 
the existing Sanctuary boundary. (Figure 1).
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South. 
Boundary Alternative III includes areas currently outside the Sanctuary 
boundary. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in the 
expansion areas of Tortugas North and South. The existing and proposed 
Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 13. More 
detailed descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to 
the FSEIS/SMP. The effects of the ecological reserve regulations have 
been analyzed under the no-take discussion above. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas South, other than for continuous transit or 
law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for entering and 
leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from using a 
mooring buoy. The Sanctuary-

[[Page 4323]]

wide regulations would become effective in the expansion areas of 
Tortugas North and South. The existing and proposed Sanctuary 
regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed 
descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to the 
FSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological reserve regulations would prohibit 
fishing in the Reserve consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological 
Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    The effects of the ecological reserve regulations have been 
analyzed under the no-take discussion above. The prohibition on 
anchoring would have no incremental impact on commercial fishing or 
recreational consumptive users since they are displaced by the ``no-
take'' regulation. The one dive operator servicing non-consumptive 
diving and currently operating in Tortugas North would be prohibited 
from anchoring. There are no known recreational dive operators 
servicing Tortugas South. The location and availability of mooring 
buoys would constrain the number and choice of available dive sites. 
Whether this would have any impact on the future business volume of 
dive operators or the quality of the experience to non-consumptive 
divers is unknown. The extent of impact would be dependent on the 
number and locations of mooring buoys (to be determined). The 
prohibition on anchoring would impact commercial shipping in the 
boundary expansion areas, especially in Tortugas South. The prohibition 
on anchoring in Tortugas North is discussed under Boundary/Regulatory 
Alternative IIC above. Anchoring by large commercial vessels is known 
to occur in Tortugas South on Riley's Hump. The impact of this 
regulation on commercial vessel operators is expected to be small since 
other anchorages are available a short distance outside the Sanctuary 
boundary.
    There would be no incremental impact on treasure salvors from the 
no-anchoring prohibition since they would be displaced by the ``no-
take'' regulation. The permit requirements would have no incremental 
impact on fishermen or salvors because they would be displaced by the 
``no-take'' regulations. There are no known non-consumptive dive 
operators currently operating in Tortugas South. Any non-consumptive 
dive operators operating in Tortugas South in the future would be 
required to obtain Tortugas access permits. It is not possible to gauge 
the extent of any such future activity. There would be minor time costs 
associated with obtaining a permit and calling-in and calling-out to 
access the reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all the permit 
requirements and calling-in and calling-out would not exceed 10 minutes 
of each permittee's time for each visit to the reserve. No special 
professional skills would be necessary to apply for a permit.
    Regulatory Alternative C: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas North and South, other than for continuous 
transit or law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for 
entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from 
using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory Alternative B). The 
only difference between the impacts of this regulatory alternative from 
those discussed under Regulatory Alternative B would be those 
associated with the requirement to obtain a permit for other than 
continuous transit access to Tortugas North. The permit requirements 
would have no incremental impact on fishermen or salvors because they 
would be displaced by the ``no-take'' regulations. There is only one 
known non-consumptive dive operator currently operating in Tortugas 
North. He and any new non-consumptive dive operators operating in 
Tortugas North would be required to obtain Tortugas access permits. 
There would be minor time costs associated with obtaining a permit and 
calling-in and calling-out to access the reserve. It is expected that 
fulfilling all the permit requirements and calling-in and calling-out 
would not exceed 10 minutes of each permittee's time for each visit to 
the reserve. No special professional skills would be necessary to apply 
for a permit. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described in Regulatory Alternative A); 
prohibit anchoring in and control access to Tortugas North via permit, 
require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer 
than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory 
Alternative B); and prohibit anchoring and restrict access to Tortugas 
South, other than for continuous transit or law enforcement purposes, 
to research or education activities only pursuant to a sanctuary 
permit. The only difference between the impacts of this regulatory 
alternative from those discussed under Regulatory Alternative C would 
be those associated with limiting noncontinuous transit access to 
Tortugas South to research/educational purposes. For the commercial 
fisheries, salvors, and recreational consumptive users, there would be 
no incremental impacts since the ``no-take'' regulation would displace 
these user groups. There are no known non-consumptive dive operators 
currently operating in Tortugas South and no recreational diving is 
known to occur there. Under this alternative, none would be allowed in 
the future. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.

Boundary Alternative IV

    Over Boundary Alternative III, this alternative would expand 
Tortugas North to the south by 23 nm2 to be conterminous 
with the NPS's proposed Research/Natural Area within the DRTO. The 
total area of the Reserve would be approximately 175 nm2. It 
also involves the same boundary expansion as Boundary Alternative III. 
A small portion of Tortugas North and all of Tortugas South would be 
outside the existing Sanctuary boundary. (Figure 1).
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South. 
The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in the expansion 
areas of Tortugas North and South. The existing and proposed Sanctuary 
regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed 
descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to the 
FSEIS/FSMP. The effects of the ecological reserve regulations which, 
under Boundary Alternative IV would apply to a larger area because of 
the southern expansion of Tortugas North, have been analyzed under the 
no-take discussion above. The existing ecological reserve regulations 
would prohibit fishing in the Reserve consistent with 15 CFR 
922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.

[[Page 4324]]

    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas South, other than for continuous transit or 
law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for entering and 
leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from using a 
mooring buoy. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in 
the expansion areas of Tortugas North and South. The existing and 
proposed Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 
13. More detailed descriptions of the regulations are included in 
Appendix C to the FSEIS/FMP. The existing ecological reserve 
regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve consistent with 15 
CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    The effects of the ecological reserve regulations which under 
Boundary Alternative IV would apply to a larger area because of the 
southern expansion of Tortugas North have been analyzed under the no-
take discussion above. The prohibition on anchoring would have no 
incremental impact on commercial fishing or recreational consumptive 
users since they are displaced by the ``no-take'' regulation. There are 
no known recreational dive operators servicing Tortugas South. The 
location and availability of mooring buoys would constrain the number 
and choice of available dive sites. Whether this would have any impact 
on the future business volume of dive operators or the quality of the 
experience to non-consumptive divers is unknown. The extent of impact 
would be dependent on the number and locations of mooring buoys (to be 
determined).
    The prohibition on anchoring would impact commercial shipping in 
the boundary expansion areas, especially in Tortugas South. The 
prohibition on anchoring in Tortugas North is discussed under Boundary/
Regulatory Alternative IIC above. Anchoring by large commercial vessels 
is known to occur in Tortugas South on Riley's Hump. The impact of this 
regulation on commercial vessel operators is expected to be small since 
other non-coral reef anchorages outside the Sanctuary boundary are 
available a short distance away.
    There would be no incremental impact on treasure salvors from the 
no-anchoring prohibition since they would be displaced by the ``no-
take'' regulation.
    The permit requirements would have no incremental impact on 
fishermen or salvors because they would be displaced by the ``no-take'' 
regulations. There are no known non-consumptive dive operators 
currently operating in Tortugas South. Any non-consumptive dive 
operators operating in Tortugas South in the future would be required 
to obtain Tortugas access permits. It is not possible to gauge the 
extent of any such future activity. There would be minor time costs 
associated with obtaining a permit and calling-in and calling-out to 
access the reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all the permit 
requirements and calling-in and calling-out would not exceed 10 minutes 
of each permittee's time for each visit to the reserve. No special 
professional skills would be necessary to apply for a permit.
    Regulatory Alternative C: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas North and South, other than for continuous 
transit or law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for 
entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from 
using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory Alternative B). The 
only difference between the impacts of this regulatory alternative from 
those discussed under Alternative B would be those associated with the 
requirement to obtain a permit for other than continuous transit access 
to Tortugas North. Under this boundary alternative there are 2.75 more 
person-days of recreational non-consumptive use than under Boundary 
Alternatives II and III. While the area of Tortugas North would be 
increased by the expansion to the south, the permit requirements would 
have no incremental impact on fishermen or salvors because they would 
be displaced by the ``no-take'' regulations. There is only one known 
non-consumptive dive operator currently operating in Tortugas North. He 
and any new non-consumptive dive operators operating in Tortugas North 
would be required to obtain Tortugas access permits. There would be 
minor time costs associated with obtaining a permit and calling-in and 
calling-out to access the reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all 
the permit requirements and calling-in and calling-out would not exceed 
ten minutes of each permittee's time for each visit to the reserve. No 
special professional skills would be necessary to apply for a permit. 
The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are 
presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the regulations 
are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological 
reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve consistent 
with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation 
Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described in Regulatory Alternative A); 
prohibit anchoring in and control access to Tortugas North via permit, 
require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer 
than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory 
Alternative B); and prohibit anchoring and restrict access to Tortugas 
South, other than for continuous transit or law enforcement purposes, 
to research or education activities only pursuant to a sanctuary 
permit. The only difference between the impacts of this regulatory 
alternative from those discussed under regulatory Alternative C would 
be those associated with limiting non-continuous transit access to 
Tortugas South to research/educational purposes. For the commercial 
fisheries, salvors, and recreational consumptive users, there would be 
no incremental impacts since the ``no-take'' regulation would displace 
these user groups. There are no known non-consumptive dive operators 
currently operating in Tortugas South and no recreational diving is 
known to occur there. Under this alternative, none would be allowed in 
the future. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.

Boundary Alternative V

    Over Boundary Altenative III, this alternative would expand the 
Sanctuary boundary to the west by three minutes ending at longitude 
83 deg.09' instead of 83 deg.06' and would increase the reserve area to 
190 nm2. Tortugas North would be expanded to the west and 
Tortugas South would be shortened to the north. A small portion of 
Tortugas North and all of Tortugas South would be outside the existing 
Sanctuary boundary. (Figure 1).
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to

[[Page 4325]]

Tortugas North and South. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become 
effective in the expansion area. The existing and proposed Sanctuary 
regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed 
descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to the 
FSEIS/FSMP. The effects of the ecological reserve regulations which, 
under Boundary Alternative V apply to a larger area because of the 
Sanctuary expansion, have been analyzed under the no-take discussion 
above. The existing ecological reserve regulations would prohibit 
fishing in the Reserve consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological 
Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas South, other than for continuous transit or 
law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for entering and 
leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from using a 
mooring buoy. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in 
the expansion area. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and 
their impacts are summarized in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of 
the regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/FSMP. The 
existing ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the 
Reserve consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and 
Sanctuary Preservation Areas.
    The effects of the ecological reserve regulations which, under 
Boundary Alternative V would apply to a larger area because of the 
Sanctuary expansion, have been analyzed under the no-take discussion 
above. The prohibition on anchoring would have no incremental impact on 
commercial fishing or recreational consumptive users since they are 
displaced by the ``no-take'' regulation. There are no known 
recreational dive operators servicing Tortugas South. The location and 
availability of mooring buoys would constrain the number and choice of 
available dive sites. Whether this would have any impact on the future 
business volume of dive operators or the quality of the experience to 
non-consumptive divers is unknown. The extent of impact would be 
dependent on the number and locations of mooring buoys (to be 
determined).
    The prohibition on anchoring would impact commercial shipping in 
the boundary expansion area, especially in Tortugas South. Anchoring by 
large commercial vessels is known to occur in Tortugas South on Riley's 
Hump. The impact of this prohibition on commercial vessel operators 
would be small since other non-coral reef anchorages are available a 
short distance away outside the Sanctuary boundary.
    There would be no incremental impact on treasure salvors from the 
no-anchoring prohibition since they would be displaced by the ``no-
take'' regulation.
    The permit requirements would have no incremental impact on 
fishermen or salvors because they would be displaced by the ``no-take'' 
regulations.
    There are no known non-consumptive dive operators currently 
operating in Tortugas South. Any non-consumptive dive operators 
operating in Tortugas South in the future would be required to obtain 
Tortugas access permits. It is not possible to gauge the extent of any 
such future activity. There would be minor time costs associated with 
obtaining a permit and calling-in and calling-out to access the 
reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all the permit requirements and 
calling-in and calling-out would not exceed 10 minutes of each 
permittee's time for each visit to the reserve. No special professional 
skills would be necessary to apply for a permit.
    Regulatory Alternative C: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and 
existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas North and South (as 
described in Regulatory Alternative A); and prohibit anchoring in and 
control access to Tortugas North and South, other than for continuous 
transit or law enforcement purposes, via permit, require call-in for 
entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer than 100 ft LOA from 
using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory Alternative B). The 
only difference between the impacts of this regulatory alternative from 
those discussed under Regulatory Alternative B would be those 
associated with the requirement to obtain a permit for other than 
continuous transit access to Tortugas North. Under this boundary 
alternative there are 3.25 more person-days of recreational non-
consumptive use than under Boundary Alternatives IV. While the area of 
Tortugas North would be increased by the expansion to the west, the 
permit requirements would have no incremental impact on fishermen or 
salvors because they would be displaced by the ``no-take'' regulations. 
There is one known non-consumptive dive operator currently operating in 
Tortugas North. He and any new non-consumptive dive operators operating 
in Tortugas North would be required to obtain Tortugas access permits. 
There would be minor time costs associated with obtaining a permit and 
calling-in and calling-out to access the reserve. It is expected that 
fulfilling all the permit requirements and calling-in and calling-out 
would not exceed 10 minutes of each permittee's time for each visit to 
the reserve. No special professional skills would be necessary to apply 
for a permit. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.
    Regulatory Alternative D (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described in Regulatory Alternative A); 
prohibit anchoring in and control access to Tortugas North via permit, 
require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels longer 
than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy (as described in Regulatory 
Alternative B); and prohibit anchoring and restrict access to Tortugas 
South, other than for continuous transit or law enforcement purposes, 
to research or education activities only pursuant to a sanctuary 
permit. The only difference between the impacts of this regulatory 
alternative from those discussed under Regulatory Alternative C would 
be those associated with limiting noncontinuous transit access to 
Tortugas South to research/educational purposes. For the commercial 
fisheries, salvors, and recreational consumptive users, there would be 
no incremental impacts since the ``no-take'' regulation would displace 
these user groups. There are no known non-consumptive dive operators 
currently operating in Tortugas South and no recreational diving is 
known to occur there. Under this alternative, none would be allowed in 
the future. The existing and proposed Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 13. More detailed descriptions of the 
regulations are included in Appendix C to the FSEIS/SMP. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would prohibit fishing in the Reserve 
consistent with 15 CFR 922.164(d), Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 4326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.015


[[Page 4327]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.016


[[Page 4328]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.017


[[Page 4329]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.018


[[Page 4330]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.019


[[Page 4331]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.020


[[Page 4332]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.021


[[Page 4333]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.022


[[Page 4334]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.023


[[Page 4335]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.024


[[Page 4336]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.025


[[Page 4337]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.026


[[Page 4338]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.027


[[Page 4339]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.028


[[Page 4340]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.029


[[Page 4341]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.030


[[Page 4342]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.031


[[Page 4343]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.032


[[Page 4344]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.033


[[Page 4345]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.034


[[Page 4346]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.035


[[Page 4347]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.036


[[Page 4348]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.037


[[Page 4349]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.038


[[Page 4350]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.039


[[Page 4351]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.040


[[Page 4352]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.041


[[Page 4353]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.042


[[Page 4354]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.043


[[Page 4355]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.044


[[Page 4356]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.045


[[Page 4357]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.046


[[Page 4358]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.047


[[Page 4359]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.048


[[Page 4360]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.049


[[Page 4361]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.050


[[Page 4362]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.051


[[Page 4363]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JA01.052


[[Page 4364]]


BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

    This section sets forth the Preferred Alternative and why it was 
selected as the Preferred Alternative.

Preferred Alternative

    The Preferred Alternative is Boundary Alternative III (Figure 1) 
combined with Regulatory Alternative D.

General Rationale

    Boundary Alternative III combined with Regulatory Alternative D has 
been selected as the Preferred Alternative because this combination 
achieves the objectives of all of the criteria listed below.
    This Preferred Alternative is of sufficient size and imposes 
adequate protective measures to satisfy the selection criteria and to 
fulfill the goals and objectives of the FKNMSPA and the NMSA. Boundary 
Alternative III is consistent with the recommendations of the WG and 
SAC to NOAA and the State of Florida. While the WG and SAC recommended 
Regulatory Alternative A (application of the existing Sanctuary-wide 
and existing ecological reserve regulations), the more protective 
approach of Regulatory Alternative D is warranted because of the threat 
to coral reef resources posed by the anchoring of vessels, the threat 
to the sensitive resources of Tortugas South from non-consumptive 
activities, and the difficulty of enforcement in this remote area, 
particularly in Tortugas South. Extremely high coral cover and deep 
water in the Tortugas preclude anchoring without damaging coral.
    The Preferred Regulatory Alternative in the DSEIS was Alternative 
C. The Preferred Regulatory Alternative in the FSEIS is Alternative D. 
Under Alternative D, Tortugas South will be accessible only for 
continuous transit and law enforcement or, pursuant to a sanctuary 
permit, for scientific research and educational purposes. This change 
was made because of comments received regarding the potential effects 
of non-consumptive activities, particularly non-consumptive diving. 
Alternative D will better protect resources in Tortugas South, such as 
the spawning aggregation areas, which are more sensitive to this 
activity than those in Tortugas North, and will enhance enforcement 
surveillance in this remote part of the Reserve. Leaving Tortugas North 
accessible to non-consumptive activities, including diving, will not 
only provide significant opportunities for resource appreciation and 
public education but will also allow the comparison of Tortugas North 
to Tortugas South over time to better understand and document the 
possible effects of non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North. The 
permit system for access to Tortugas North will provide information 
that will allow NOAA to determine the number of vessels and divers 
using the area and will assist in monitoring impacts.
    The final regulations are revised from those proposed to make them 
consistent with Regulatory Alternative D. Also, the prohibition on 
fishing has been revised to prohibit all fishing in the Reserve without 
exception. This change was made in response to comments that the 
prohibition should be issued under the NMSA and that the exception 
clause that would have authorized fishing to the extent allowed under 
regulations issued pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act should be eliminated. Regulations 
issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act must satisfy the requirements of 
that Act including the National Standards set forth in that Act. 
Sanctuary regulations including those governing fishing are issued 
under the NMSA. While some of the goals and objectives of the two Acts 
are similar, many of the goals and objectives of the two statutes are 
different.

Comparison of Alternatives

    This section compares Boundary Alternatives II-V and Regulatory 
Alternatives A-D based on the selection criteria. Boundary Alternative 
I, the No-Action Alternative, is not compared because it would not be 
consistent with the goals of the FKNMSPA, the NMSA, the MP for the 
Sanctuary, and Executive Order 13089. Among other things, Part V of the 
FSEIS sets forth the environmental and socio-economic consequences of 
the No-Action Alternative. The selection criteria are: (1) protect 
ecosystem integrity; (2) protect biodiversity, including the 
maintenance or restoration of viable populations of native species; (3) 
enhance scientific understanding of marine ecosystems; (4) facilitate 
human uses to the extent consistent with meeting the other criteria; 
(5) minimize adverse socio-economic impacts to the extent consistent 
with meeting the other criteria; and (6) facilitate enforcement and 
compliance (Table 14). Subcriteria for and the goals and sources of 
each of the criteria are set forth in the table below. The criteria are 
consistent with the goals of the FKNMSPA, the NMSA, the MP, public 
scoping comments, design criteria developed by the Tortugas 2000 
Working Group, Executive Order 13089 regarding Coral Reef Protection, 
the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) recommendations, and scientific 
literature on marine reserves. The criteria have been revised from 
those contained in the DSEIS based on comments received.

                                Table 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criteria                  Objective         Rationale/Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect ecosystem integrity.  Choose an area and    FKNMSPA, NMSA,
 This includes the following   protection measures   public comment,
 sub-criteria:                 that protect a wide   Working Group,
                               range of contiguous   CRTF, and
                               habitats, establish   literature
                               connectivity
                               between those
                               habitats, and
                               protect unique
                               structural
                               formations.
   Protect a wide
   range of contiguous
   habitats through deep
   water.
   Maximize
   connectivity among
   habitats.
   Protect unique
   coral formations and
   areas of high coral
   cover, including Sherwood
   Forest.
   Provide adequate
   buffer areas.
   Sustain
   ecological & evolutionary
   processes.
   Protect against
   short and long-term
   environmental
   perturbations, and,

[[Page 4365]]

 
   Encompass an area
   that is large enough and
   sufficiently protected
   that, when combined with
   existing protections,
   maintains the Tortugas
   region's contribution to
   the Florida Keys'
   ecosystem.
Protect biodiversity,         Choose an area and    Final Management
 including the maintenance     protection measures   Plan, public
 or restoration of viable      that will protect     comment, Working
 populations of native         areas of high         Group, and
 species. This includes the    biodiversity, known   literature
 following sub-criteria:       or reported
                               spawning areas and
                               habitats that
                               support resident
                               fish and other
                               marine life.
   Protect the full
   range of species.
   Protect natural
   spawning, nursery, and
   permanent residence
   areas, including Riley's
   Hump.
   Protect and
   enhance commercially and
   recreationally important
   fish species.
   Protect species
   with specific habitat
   requirements.
   Protect
   endangered, threatened,
   rare, or imperiled
   species.
   Protect areas
   with physical
   oceanographic
   characteristics that will
   enhance larval dispersal.
   Protect areas of
   high coral and fish
   diversity.
   Protect areas of
   high productivity.
   Protect foraging
   areas for seabird and
   endangered sea turtle
   populations, and,
   Protect areas of
   high endemism.
Enhance scientific            Choose an area and    FKNMSPA, NMSA,
 understanding of marine       protection measures   public comment,
 ecosystems. This includes     that will             Working Group,
 the following sub-criteria:   facilitate the        CRTF, and
                               monitoring of         literature
                               anthropogenic
                               impacts and the
                               evaluation of the
                               efficacy of the
                               ecological reserve
                               for protecting
                               coral reef health
                               and biodiversity.
   Provide a
   reference area to monitor
   the effects of both
   consumptive and non-
   consumptive activities on
   ecosystem structure and
   processes, and,
   Provide a
   reference area to
   discriminate between
   human-caused and natural
   changes in the Florida
   Keys' marine ecosystem.
Facilitate human uses to the  Choose an area and    FKNMSPA, NMSA, Final
 extent consistent with the    protection measures   Management Plan,
 other criteria                that will allow       public comment,
                               uses and provide a    Working Group, and
                               range of habitats     literature
                               to observe and
                               study, consistent
                               with the attainment
                               of the other
                               objectives.
Minimize adverse socio-       Choose an area and    FKNMSPA, NMSA,
 economic impacts to the       protection measures   public comment, and
 extent consistent with the    that meet the         Working Group
 other criteria.               objectives of the
                               other criteria but
                               that do not unduly
                               impact users.
Facilitate enforcement and    Choose an area and    Working Group and
 compliance.                   protection measures   literature
                               that facilitate
                               enforcement of the
                               ecological reserve
                               and encourage
                               compliance by users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protect ecosystem integrity. Boundary Alternative II does not 
encompass enough range of habitat or area to adequately protect the 
integrity of the ecosystem. Boundary Alternative II does not adequately 
protect the full range of habitats and species found in the Tortugas 
area. The unique and ancient coral formations of Sherwood Forest are 
not part of this alternative. Boundary Alternative II does not include 
contiguous habitats nor is connectivity between habitats maximized. 
Boundary Alternative II does not provide a reasonable buffer area for 
coral reef features. Alternative II includes no deep water habitats 
greater than approximately 200 feet. By not having two reserve 
components, Alternative II offers no insurance against the effects of a 
catastrophic event (e.g., cold weather, low salinity) that could 
potentially damage resources of the area. Alternative II is not large 
enough to sustain local or regional ecological or evolutionary 
processes. Boundary Alternatives III, IV and V, when combined with 
existing protections in the region, are sufficient to protect ecosystem 
integrity in the Tortugas and that region's contribution to the Florida 
Keys ecosystem. Boundary Alternatives III-V include two replicate 
components that help to ensure against the effects of catastrophic 
events. Boundary Alternative III includes a sufficient range of 
essential habitats for many species life stages and includes adequate 
buffers. The increased area of Boundary Alternatives IV and V has 
negligible increased benefit to protecting ecosystem integrity compared 
to Alternative III. Boundary Alternative V does not capture additional 
significant habitat to the west of the

[[Page 4366]]

Tortugas Bank and does not preserve the critical deep water habitat 
south of Riley's Hump. Regulatory Alternative A would not adequately 
protect ecosystem integrity because of the threat to coral reef 
resources by anchoring. Regulatory Alternative B would not adequately 
protect ecosystem integrity in Tortugas North and the Sherwood Forest 
area because of the threat to coral reef resources by anchoring. 
Regulatory Alternative C adequately protects ecosystem integrity by 
prohibiting anchoring and controlling access to Tortugas North and 
South via an access permit. Regulatory Alternative D increases 
protection of ecosystem integrity over Alternative C by prohibiting 
access to Tortugas South except by permit for research or educational 
reasons. This will virtually eliminate human degradation and protect 
the ecological integrity of the Tortugas region.
    Protect biodiversity, including the maintenance or restoration of 
viable populations of native species. Boundary Alternative II does not 
protect the high coral species diversity of Sherwood Forest or the 
unique fish species richness of Tortugas South. Boundary Alternative II 
protects only one of eight known fish spawning aggregations and does 
not include Riley's Hump, which is an area of high endemism and a 
critical source area for larvae. Sherwood Forest, an important 
permanent residence area for a variety of species and area of high 
productivity, is not part of Alternative II. Boundary Alternative III 
protects 5 of the 8 known fish spawning areas as well as approximately 
87% of the known coral reef habitat and 76% of the known hardbottom 
habitat. Boundary Alternative III also protects the habitat of several 
commercially important fish species and several uncommon species found 
in the deep water regions of Tortugas South. Boundary Alternatives III, 
IV, and V protect the high coral diversity of Sherwood Forest and they 
protect Riley's Hump and the deep habitat around it which are a 
critical source of larvae for downstream areas of the Florida Keys. In 
addition, they help protect important foraging areas for seabirds and 
sea turtles. Boundary Alternative IV encompasses 7 of the 8 known fish 
spawning sites as well as 100% of the known coral and hardbottom 
habitat. Boundary Alternative V encompasses 7 of the 8 known fish 
spawning sites and would protect all of the known coral and hardbottom 
habitat. Alternative V's expansion of Tortugas North to the west would 
provide increased protection for some additional habitats and 
associated species. However, its reduction in size of Tortugas South 
would provide less protection for critical deep water habitats and 
thereby has the least protection for associated species such as golden 
crab and snowy grouper. Regulatory Alternative A would not adequately 
preserve biodiversity and maintain viable populations because of the 
threat to associated habitats of many species by anchoring and the lack 
of protection for high diversity areas such as Sherwood Forest and 
Riley's Hump. Regulatory Alternative B would not adequately preserve 
biodiversity and maintain viable populations in Tortugas North because 
of the threat to associated habitats of many species by anchoring. 
Regulatory Alternative C would preserve biodiversity by prohibiting 
habitat destruction from anchoring. However, Regulatory Alternatives A, 
B, and C would not protect the several natural fish spawning 
aggregations in Tortugas South from disturbance. Regulatory Alternative 
D would adequately preserve biodiversity and maintain viable 
populations by protecting critical habitat in Tortugas North and 
Tortugas South from anchor damage and by minimizing disturbance to 
natural spawning aggregations in Tortugas South.
    Enhance scientific understanding of marine ecosystems. Given the 
absence of unexploited areas in the Tortugas region, Boundary 
Alternatives II-V would all serve to increase our scientific 
understanding of marine ecosystems and their response to management of 
consumptive and non-consumptive activities, including their recovery 
from fishing impacts. Boundary Alternatives II-V would also facilitate 
scientific understanding by providing a reference area to gauge the 
broader changes occurring in the Florida Keys marine ecosystem. 
Boundary Alternatives III-V offer the added scientific benefit of 
protecting Riley's Hump, which would add to our knowledge of effective 
reserve design regarding networks and energy flow between marine 
reserves. The inclusion of Tortugas South will also significantly add 
to our knowledge of the importance of the Tortugas region in sustaining 
the Florida Keys ecosystem. Boundary Alternatives IV and V encompass 
all of Tortugas Bank and would compromise the study of fishing effects 
because there would be no comparable habitat for use as a reference 
site. Regulatory Alternatives A, B, and C would provide for essentially 
the same level of scientific understanding. Regulatory Alternative D 
will facilitate the most scientific understanding of human effects on 
ecosystem processes because it would create a research/education-only 
area in the Tortugas which could serve as a reference site from which 
to gauge the impacts of non-consumptive activities.
    Facilitate human uses to the extent consistent with the other 
criteria. All of the alternatives would serve well in enhancing 
opportunities for non-consumptive activities such as education, 
photography, underwater wilderness exploration, and ecotourism. 
Boundary Alternatives III-V provide enhanced opportunities over 
Boundary Alternative II because of the addition of Tortugas South and 
the expansion of Tortugas North to include the unique coral reef region 
known as Sherwood Forest. Regulatory Alternatives A, B, and C would 
provide the same non-consumptive opportunities. Though Regulatory 
Alternative D will prohibit all consumptive and non-consumptive 
activities in Tortugas South other than research and education, the 
disallowance of these activities will establish Tortugas South as a 
critical reference area by which any impacts of the non-consumptive 
activities occurring in Tortugas North may be assessed.
    Minimize adverse socio-economic impacts to the extent consistent 
with the other criteria. As stated in Part V of the FSEIS, all users 
are considered to be small entities within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Boundary Alternatives I and II and 
Regulatory Alternatives A, B, and C would have less of an adverse 
impact on users than the Preferred Alternative (Boundary Alternative 
III coupled with Regulatory Alternative D). Boundary Alternatives IV 
and V would have a greater adverse impact on users than the Preferred 
Boundary Alternative. Boundary Alternative III has moderate impacts on 
users, mostly lobster fishermen and handline fishermen. Alternatives IV 
and V have significantly greater impacts because they include the 
southern half of Tortugas Bank, which is heavily utilized by both 
recreational and commercial users. Alternative III offers a compromise 
because it allows for continued consumptive use of the southern half of 
Tortugas Bank including trolling for pelagic fish species. Ignoring the 
potential of such effects as replenishment that would result in a net 
economic benefit, Regulatory Alternative A has significant adverse 
socio-economic effects on users. There are 12 recreational charter 
operations that would be affected by this alternative and approximately 
110 commercial fishing operations. Regulatory Alternative A would not

[[Page 4367]]

provide a sufficient degree of protection to Tortugas resources. It 
would not protect coral reef resources from anchoring and from the 
possible effects of non-consumptive uses and would not provide the 
FKNMS with adequate notice to facilitate enforcement. Regulatory 
Alternative B would provide adequate protection from anchoring damage 
in Tortugas South and would provide adequate notification to FKNMS to 
facilitate enforcement there, but would not provide adequate protection 
to Tortugas North. It would also not protect the resources of Tortugas 
South from non-consumptive uses. Regulatory Alternative C would provide 
adequate protection from anchoring damage in Tortugas North and South 
and would provide adequate notification to FKNMS to facilitate 
enforcement with insignificant incremental costs to users. However, it 
would not protect the sensitive coral reef resources from the possible 
effects of non-consumptive uses. The Preferred Alternative (Boundary 
Alternative III/Regulatory Alternative D) could potentially impact, if 
one assumes no mitigating factors, 9 recreational charter users with 
total annual revenue losses of approximately $152,054, 64 commercial 
fishermen with total annual revenue losses of approximately $843,583, 
and 673 person days of recreational fishermen using private boats with 
a maximum potential loss of $53,392 in consumer's surplus. Though 
Regulatory Alternative D would prohibit use of Tortugas South except 
for continuous transit, for law enforcement purposes, or for research 
or education activities pursuant to a sanctuary permit, this 
alternative would provide an important reference area to facilitate the 
study of non-consumptive impacts in Tortugas North. Additionally, 
unlike in Tortugas North where a moderate amount of non-consumptive 
diving activities has been identified, little diving has been 
identified in Tortugas South and as such the socio-economic impacts of 
the more restrictive Regulatory Alternative D are not expected to be 
significant or substantial to this user group in Tortugas South.
    Facilitate enforcement and compliance. Boundary Alternative II 
would be less likely to facilitate enforcement of and compliance by 
users of the ecological reserve due to its irregular boundary shape. 
Boundary Alternative III is the most likely to facilitate enforcement 
and compliance by users because the boundaries of Tortugas North and 
Tortugas South follow lines of latitude/longitude and share several of 
the existing boundaries and marked corners of the Dry Tortugas National 
Park. Boundary Alternatives IV and V would be less likely than Boundary 
Alternative III to facilitate compliance by users because the southern 
boundary of Tortugas North does not terminate at a marked corner of the 
Dry Tortugas National Park. Regulatory Alternative B would not 
adequately facilitate enforcement because it would not provide notice 
to FKNMS of the presence of users in the ecological reserve. Regulatory 
Alternative C adequately facilitates enforcement and compliance of 
Tortugas North but does not provide significant solutions for enforcing 
Tortugas South, the more remote portion of the ecological reserve. 
Regulatory Alternative D best facilitates enforcement and encourages 
compliance by limiting access to Tortugas South to continuous transit 
through the area with fishing gear stowed. Regulatory Alternative D 
will ease enforcement and provide additional environmental benefits by 
helping to control illegal spearfishing and lobster diving, as well as 
other illegal fishing and anchoring.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure 
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of 
information displays a currently valid control number issued by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. The only additional record 
keeping or reporting requirements are the permit and call-in, call-out 
requirements for the Reserve previously described in the Preamble under 
Final Regulations. There are two classes of users that will be affected 
by these requirements: commercial dive boat operators and private 
boaters. The type of skills necessary to request an access permit (if 
not requested by telephone) and to provide notification when entering 
or leaving the Reserve is the ability to use marine radio equipment. 
The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to be 
10 minutes per application for a permit and 2 minutes per call-in or 
call-out. These collection-of-information requirements have been 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0418.
    Collection-of-information requirements for certification of 
preexisting leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or other 
authorizations in National Marine Sanctuaries, have been approved under 
OMB control number 0648-0141. The regulations apply the certification 
requirement of Sec. 922.168 to holders of preexisting leases, licenses, 
permits, approvals, or other authorizations, in the boundary expansion 
area. The estimated response time for this requirement is 30 minutes.
    These response estimates include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collections of information. Send comments regarding these burden 
estimates, or any other aspect of these data collections, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NOAA and OMB (See ADDRESSES).

E.O. 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 sets forth Fundamental Federalism Principles 
(section 2) to guide federal agencies in formulating and implementing 
policies that have federalism implications and Policymaking Criteria 
(section 3) to adhere to, to the extent permitted by law, when 
formulating and implementing policies that have federalism 
implications. Since these final regulations do not preempt State law, 
the requirements of section 4 and section 6 (c) of the Executive Order 
do not apply.

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    In 1998, NOAA convened a 25-member Working Group (WG) of the 
Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) composed of key stakeholder 
representatives, eight SAC members, and government agency 
representatives with resource management authority in the Tortugas area 
to recommend a preferred boundary alternative for an ecological 
reserve. The WG included government agency representatives from the 
Florida Marine Patrol, the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection and the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission.
    Over a 13 month period, the WG met five times and built up a 
knowledge base on the Tortugas region using scientific information 
provided by Sanctuary staff and experts, personal knowledge, knowledge 
passed on by their constituents, and anecdotal information. All of the 
WG meetings were facilitated to ensure timely discussion of relevant 
issues and help build consensus.
    On June 15, 1999, a presentation on the WG's process and 
recommendation for an ecological reserve was given to

[[Page 4368]]

the SAC. The SAC included a member from Monroe County, and several 
representatives from the State of Florida attended SAC meetings to 
provide information and comment. The SAC voted unanimously to adopt the 
recommendation of the WG and forwarded it to NOAA and the State of 
Florida. County and State representatives were involved throughout the 
site selection process and development of regulatory recommendations, 
were present at all meetings and deliberations of the WG and SAC at 
which the proposal for an ecological was considered, and regularly 
communicated with NOAA.
    NOAA adopted the recommendation of the SAC regarding the 
geographical area and the application of no-take regulations to the 
ecological reserve. NOAA held public hearings in conjunction with the 
State of Florida on the DSEIS and the proposed regulations and 
consulted with the State on the proposed boundary expansion, as 
required by section 303 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 
16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. In July 1999 and July 2000, NOAA provided to the 
Governor, Cabinet, and staff members a status report on the proposed 
ecological reserve.
    The County and State also submitted comments to NOAA on the DSEIS/
SMP and the proposed rule.
    The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) was 
concerned that no limits were being placed on the level of non-
consumptive diving that would be allowed. The FWC stated that non-
consumptive diving results in some morbidity and mortality to coral 
reef habitat and asked that controls be placed on the number of divers 
and dive trips to assure minimal acceptable damage to the habitat. The 
FWC was also concerned over the adequacy of the enforcement resources. 
The FWC believes that the minimal enforcement resources needed to 
enforce the Reserve would be two vessels 50 feet or greater in length 
with a Lieutenant and two officers for each vessel. The FWC encourages 
NOAA to work with it to develop these enforcement resources in order to 
assure the success of the reserve.
    The Final Regulations allow non-consumptive diving in Tortugas 
North but closes Tortugas South to all diving except for scientific 
research or educational purposes, pursuant to a valid sanctuary permit. 
This provides an appropriate degree of public access.
    Prohibiting non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North is not needed 
to protect the resources or their ecosystem. One of the basic tenets of 
the FKNMSPA, the NMSA and indeed the Designation Document for the 
FKNMS, is to allow activities in the Sanctuary that do not cause an 
adverse effect on the resources or qualities of the Sanctuary, or that 
do not pose a threat of harm to users of the Sanctuary. However, the 
resources of Tortugas South, particularly the spawning aggregation 
areas, are unique and warrant the additional protection of prohibiting 
diving. Enforcement surveillance in this remote part of the Reserve 
will be facilitated by prohibiting all activities in Tortugas South 
except for continuous transit, law enforcement, and, pursuant to a 
sanctuary permit, scientific research and educational activities. 
Additionally, prohibiting diving in Tortugas South will provide a 
baseline to gauge the effects of non-consumptive activities on the 
resources in Tortugas North.
    Tortugas North is less remote and protection and conservation can 
be more easily afforded to it than to Tortugas South. Allowing non-
consumptive diving in Tortugas North that is carefully monitored will 
provide significant educational and resource appreciation benefits. 
Further, prohibiting non-consumptive diving in Tortugas North would 
unnecessarily increase adverse socio-economic impacts on charter dive 
operators without providing corresponding resource protection. The 
permit system for Tortugas North will allow the level of diving 
activity to be monitored, and combined with the reference of Tortugas 
South, will allow the effects of non-consumptive diving on resources in 
Tortugas North to be determined.
    The SMP commits substantial enforcement resources for the Reserve. 
As set forth in the Enforcement Action Plan as supplemented by the SMP, 
one of the goals of Sanctuary management is to gain the highest level 
of compliance by the public who enter and visit the Reserve. This 
compliance can be achieved through several management actions including 
education and outreach and on-the-water presence of Sanctuary staff in 
programs such as Team OCEAN, where Sanctuary information is distributed 
along the waterfront or boat to boat by Sanctuary staff and volunteers.
    The most effective management action that can be used to achieve 
compliance to Sanctuary regulations is an effective law enforcement 
program. Currently, the primary enforcement of Sanctuary regulations is 
accomplished through an enforcement agreement between NOAA/National 
Marine Sanctuary Program and the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission. The enforcement efforts are consistent with 
the goals and objectives for enforcement described in the MP. The MP 
also calls for cross-deputization of other agency law enforcement 
personnel (e.g., National Park Service Rangers) to accomplish law 
enforcement responsibilities within the Sanctuary. This approach to 
enforcement continues to remain an option.
    Prohibiting vessels from stopping within Tortugas South except 
pursuant to a valid sanctuary permit for scientific research or 
educational purposes will facilitate enforcement. This will make it 
possible to monitor vessel traffic remotely by radar and response will 
only be necessary when vessels without a permit stop within the 
reserve.
    The permit system for Tortugas North will help Sanctuary managers 
monitor the level of visitor use in the reserve and facilitate 
enforcement efforts.
    The success of the Reserve will depend to a large extent on the 
level of enforcement resources dedicated to the Reserve. Several 
enforcement options are presently available and are being evaluated for 
deployment in the Reserve. These options include:
     Installation and monitoring of a long-range radar unit at 
the Dry Tortugas National Park. This would allow remote monitoring of 
vessels entering and leaving the Reserve.
     Place two 82' vessels into service for patrolling the 
Ecological Reserve.
     Cross-deputize and fund National Park Service Rangers to 
assist in enforcement in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    As set forth in the SMP, the law enforcement budget is as follows:
Personnel
Law Enforcement Officers (4-6)  $50,000 per position
General Support  $50,000
Vessels
82' Patrol Vessels (2)  No Cost--Agency Property Transfer
    NOAA will work with the FWC and other enforcement agencies to 
develop the enforcement resources that are necessary to assure the 
success of the Reserve.
    Monroe County commented that the socio-economic section of the 
DSEIS seems to have been inserted out of context. This rather lengthy 
section should be reduced to some simpler explanations, tables and 
conclusions, then attach the larger document as an appendix. NOAA has 
retained the socio-economic section in the main body of the FSEIS/SMP 
but has revised it to make it clearer.
    Monroe County commented that the FSEIS should provide some 
additional

[[Page 4369]]

explanation concerning the table of benthic habitats in the DSEIS. It 
was not clear to the County whether the 59% of unmapped acreage is a 
less significant area within the overall total and, if so, that it 
should be noted. If it is not, the County believed that this area needs 
significant additional exploration.
    The benthic habitats categorized in Table 1 of the FSEIS represent 
those identified as the result of one mapping project based on aerial 
photographs and limited groundtruthing in the Tortugas region. 
Extensive characterization of the benthic communities within Dry 
Tortugas National Park has been completed (Agassiz 1883, Davis 1982, 
and Jaap 1998). Also, scientific exploration of benthic habitats within 
the Tortugas Ecological Reserve area has occurred since the completion 
of the DSEIS (Miller, unpubl. data). However, NOAA agrees that 
additional mapping and exploration are needed to accurately assess the 
full extent of marine resources throughout the Tortugas region.
    Monroe County commented that the FSEIS should include a table 
summarizing the regulatory alternatives. A table summarizing the 
regulatory alternatives has been added to the FSEIS.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA)) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. 
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education, 
Environmental protection, Marine resources, Penalties, Recreation and 
recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.

    Dated: January 8, 2001.
Margaret A. Davidson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR part 
922 is amended as follows:

PART 922--NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.


    2. Section 922.161 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 922.161  Boundary.

    The Sanctuary consists of an area of approximately 2900 square 
nautical miles (9,800 square kilometers) of coastal and ocean waters, 
and the submerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys in 
Florida. Appendix I to this subpart sets forth the precise Sanctuary 
boundary.

    3. In Sec. 922.162, definitions for ``Length overall (LOA) or 
length,'' ``Stem,'' and ``Stern'' are added alphabetically as follows:


Sec. 922.162  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Length overall (LOA) or length means, as used in Sec. 922.167 with 
respect to a vessel, the horizontal distance, rounded to the nearest 
foot (with 0.5 ft and above rounded upward), between the foremost part 
of the stem and the aftermost part of the stern, excluding bowsprits, 
rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments.
* * * * *
    Stem means the foremost part of a vessel, consisting of a section 
of timber or fiberglass, or cast, forged, or rolled metal, to which the 
sides of the vessel are united at the fore end, with the lower end 
united to the keel, and with the bowsprit, if one is present, resting 
on the upper end.
    Stern means the aftermost part of the vessel.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 922.164, paragraphs (d)(1)(v), (d)(1)(vi), and (g) are 
revised, and paragraphs (d)(1)(viii) and (ix) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 922.164  Additional activity regulations by Sanctuary area.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Anchoring in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. In all other 
Ecological Reserves and Sanctuary Preservation Areas, 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 living 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 organism. No further diving shall 
take place until the anchor is placed in accordance with these 
requirements.
    (vi) Except in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve where mooring buoys 
must be used, 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.
* * * * *
    (viii) Except for passage without interruption through the area, 
for law enforcement purposes, or for purposes of monitoring pursuant to 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section: entering the Tortugas South area of 
the Tortugas Ecological Reserve; or entering the Tortugas North area of 
the Tortugas Ecological Reserve without a valid access permit issued 
pursuant to Sec. 922.167 or entering or leaving the Tortugas North area 
with a valid access permit issued pursuant to Sec. 922.167 without 
notifying FKNMS staff at the Dry Tortugas National Park office by 
telephone or radio no less than 30 minutes and no more than 6 hours, 
before entering and upon leaving the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    (ix) Tying a vessel greater than 100 feet (30.48 meters) LOA, or 
tying more than one vessel (other than vessels carried on board a 
vessel) if the combined lengths would exceed 100 feet (30.48 meters) 
LOA, to a mooring buoy or to a vessel tied to a mooring buoy in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
* * * * *
    (g) Anchoring on Tortugas Bank. Vessels 50 meters or greater in 
registered length, are prohibited from anchoring on the portion of 
Tortugas Bank within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary west of 
the Dry Tortugas National Park that is outside of the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve. The boundary of the area closed to anchoring by 
vessels 50 meters or greater in registered length is formed by 
connecting in succession the points at the following coordinates (based 
on the North American Datum of 1983):
(1) 24 deg. 32.00' N 83 deg. 00.05' W
(2) 24 deg. 37.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
(3) 24 deg. 39.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
(4) 24 deg. 39.00' N 83 deg. 00.05' W
(5) 24 deg. 32.00' N 83 deg. 00.05' W

    5. Revise the heading of Sec. 922.166 to read as follows:


Sec. 922.166  Permits other than for access to the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve-application procedures and issuance criteria.


Sec. 922.167  [Redesignated as Sec. 922.168]

    6. Redesignate Sec. 922.167 as Sec. 922.168 and revise it to read 
as follows:

[[Page 4370]]

Sec. 922.168  Certification of preexisting leases, licenses, permits, 
approvals, other authorizations, or rights to conduct a prohibited 
activity.

    (a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by Secs. 922.163 or 
922.164 if such activity is specifically authorized by a valid Federal, 
State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other 
authorization in existence on July 1, 1997, or by any valid right of 
subsistence use or access in existence on July 1, 1997, provided that:
    (1) The holder of such authorization or right notifies the 
Director, in writing, within 90 days of July 1, 1997, of the existence 
of such authorization or right and requests certification of such 
authorization or right; for the area added to the Sanctuary by the 
boundary expansion for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, the holder of 
such authorization or right notifies the Director, in writing, within 
90 days of the effective date of the boundary expansion, of the 
existence of such authorization or right and requests certification of 
such authorization or right.
    (2) The holder complies with the other provisions of this 
Sec. 922.168; and
    (3) The holder complies with any terms and conditions on the 
exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a condition of 
certification, by the Director, to achieve the purposes for which the 
Sanctuary was designated.
    (b) The holder of an authorization or right described in paragraph 
(a) of this section authorizing an activity prohibited by Secs. 922.163 
or 922.164 may conduct the activity without being in violation of 
applicable provisions of Secs. 922.163 or 922.164, pending final agency 
action on his or her certification request, provided the holder is in 
compliance with this Sec. 922.168.
    (c) Any holder of an authorization or right described in paragraph 
(a) of this section may request the Director to issue a finding as to 
whether the activity for which the authorization has been issued, or 
the right given, is prohibited by Secs. 922.163 or 922.164, thus 
requiring certification under this section.
    (d) Requests for findings or certifications should be addressed to 
the Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; ATTN: 
Sanctuary Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. 
Box 500368, Marathon, FL 33050. A copy of the lease, permit, license, 
approval, or other authorization must accompany the request.
    (e) The Director may request additional information from the 
certification requester as he or she deems reasonably necessary to 
condition appropriately the exercise of the certified authorization or 
right to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. 
The information requested must be received by the Director within 45 
days of the postmark date of the request. The Director may seek the 
views of any persons on the certification request.
    (f) The Director may amend any certification made under this 
Sec. 922.168 whenever additional information becomes available 
justifying such an amendment.
    (g) Upon completion of review of the authorization or right and 
information received with respect thereto, the Director shall 
communicate, in writing, any decision on a certification request or any 
action taken with respect to any certification made under this 
Sec. 922.168, in writing, to both the holder of the certified lease, 
permit, license, approval, other authorization, or right, and the 
issuing agency, and shall set forth the reason(s) for the decision or 
action taken.
    (h) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this 
Sec. 922.168 may be extended by the Director for good cause.
    (i) The holder may appeal any action conditioning, amending, 
suspending, or revoking any certification in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in Sec. 922.50.
    (j) Any amendment, renewal, or extension made after July 1, 1997, 
to a lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization or right is 
subject to the provisions of Sec. 922.49.

    7. Add a new Sec. 922.167 to read as follows:


Sec. 922.167  Permits for access to the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.

    (a) A person may enter the Tortugas North area of the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve other than for passage without interruption through 
the reserve, for law enforcement purposes, or for purposes of 
monitoring pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 922.164 , if authorized 
by a valid access permit issued pursuant to Sec. 922.167.
    (b)(1) Access permits must be requested at least 72 hours but no 
longer than one month before the date the permit is desired to be 
effective. Access permits do not require written applications or the 
payment of any fee. Permits may be requested via telephone or radio by 
contacting FKNMS at any of the following numbers:

Key West office: telephone: (305) 292-0311
Marathon office: telephone: (305) 743-2437

    (2) The following information must be provided, as applicable:
    (i) Vessel name.
    (ii) Name, address, and telephone number of owner and operator.
    (iii) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant.
    (iv) USCG documentation, state license, or registration number.
    (v) Home port.
    (vi) Length of vessel and propulsion type (i.e., motor or sail).
    (vii) Number of divers.
    (viii) Requested effective date and duration of permit (2 weeks, 
maximum).
    (c) The Sanctuary Superintendent will issue a permit to the owner 
or to the owner's representative for the vessel when all applicable 
information has been provided. The Sanctuary Superintendent will 
provide a permit number to the applicant and confirm the effective date 
and duration period of the permit. Written confirmation of permit 
issuance will be provided upon request.

    8. Revise Appendices I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII to Subpart P of Part 
922 to read as follows:

Appendix I to Subpart P of Part 922--Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

(Appendix Based on North American Datum of 1983)

    (1) The boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary--
    (a) Begins at the northeasternmost point of Biscayne National 
Park located at approximately 25 degrees 39 minutes north latitude, 
80 degrees 05 minutes west longitude, then runs eastward to the 
point at 25 degrees 39 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 04 minutes 
west longitude; and
    (b) Then runs southward and connects in succession the points at 
the following coordinates:
    (i) 25 degrees 34 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 04 minutes 
west longitude,
    (ii) 25 degrees 28 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 05 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (iii) 25 degrees 21 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 07 
minutes west longitude;
    (iv) 25 degrees 16 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 08 minutes 
west longitude;
    (c) Then runs southwesterly approximating the 300-foot isobath 
and connects in succession the points at the following coordinates:
    (i) 25 degrees 07 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 13 minutes 
west longitude,
    (ii) 24 degrees 57 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 21 minutes 
west longitude,
    (iii) 24 degrees 39 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 52 
minutes west longitude,
    (iv) 24 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 23 minutes 
west longitude,
    (v) 24 degrees 25 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 50 minutes 
west longitude,
    (vi) 24 degrees 22 minutes north latitude, 82 degrees 48 minutes 
west longitude,
    (vii) 24 degrees 37 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 06 
minutes west longitude,

[[Page 4371]]

    (viii) 24 degrees 46 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 06 
minutes west longitude,
    (ix) 24 degrees 46 minutes north latitude, 82 degrees 54 minutes 
west longitude,
    (x) 24 degrees 44 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 55 minutes 
west longitude,
    (xi) 24 degrees 51 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 26 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (xii) 24 degrees 55 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 56 
minutes west longitude;
    (d) Then follows the boundary of Everglades National Park in a 
southerly then northeasterly direction through Florida Bay, 
Buttonwood Sound, Tarpon Basin, and Blackwater Sound;
    (e) After Division Point, then departs from the boundary of 
Everglades National Park and follows the western shoreline of 
Manatee Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card Sound;
    (f) then follows the southern boundary of Biscayne National Park 
to the southeasternmost point of Biscayne National Park; and
    (g) then follows the eastern boundary of Biscayne National Park 
to the beginning point specified in paragraph (a).
    (2) The shoreward boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary is the mean high-water mark except around the Dry Tortugas 
where the boundary is coterminous with that of the Dry Tortugas 
National Park, formed by connecting in succession the points at the 
following coordinates:
    (a) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (b) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
58 minutes 0 second west longitude;
    (c) 24 degrees 39 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
58 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (d) 24 degrees 43 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (e) 24 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
52 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (f) 24 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
48 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (g) 24 degrees 42 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
46 minutes, 0 seconds west longitude;
    (h) 24 degrees 40 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
46 minutes 0 seconds west longitude;
    (i) 24 degrees 37 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
48 minutes 0 seconds west longitude; and
    (j) 24 degrees 34 minutes 0 seconds north latitude, 82 degrees 
54 minutes 0 seconds west longitude.
    (3) The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary also includes the 
area located within the boundary formed by connecting in succession 
the points at the following coordinates:
    (a) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minutes 
west longitude,
    (b) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 05 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (c) 24 degrees 18 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 05 minutes 
west longitude;
    (d) 24 degrees 18 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minutes 
west longitude; and
    (e) 24 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 09 minutes 
west longitude.

Appendix II to Subpart P of Part 922--Existing Management Areas 
Boundary Coordinates

    (1) The boundary of each of the Existing Management Areas is 
formed by connecting in succession the points at the following 
coordinates:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                        Key Largo-Management Area
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.19'45" N.....  80 deg.12'00" W.
2...........................  25 deg.16'02" N.....  80 deg.08'07" W.
3...........................  25 deg.07'05" N.....  80 deg.12'05" W.
4...........................  24 deg.58'03" N.....  80 deg.19'08" W.
5...........................  25 deg.02'02" N.....  80 deg.25'25" W.
6...........................  25 deg.19'45" N.....  80 deg.12'00" W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Looe Key Management Area
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.31'62" N.....  81 deg.26'00" W.
2...........................  24 deg.33'57" N.....  81 deg.26'00" W.
3...........................  24 deg.34'15" N.....  81 deg.23'00" W.
4...........................  24 deg.32'20" N.....  81 deg.23'00" W.
5...........................  24 deg.31'62" N.....  81 deg.26'00" W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

               Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
               [Based on the North American Datum of 1983]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.48.6' W.
2...........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.37.2' W.
3...........................  24 deg.49.2' N......  81 deg.37.2' W.
4...........................  24 deg.49.2' N......  81 deg.19.8' W.
5...........................  24 deg.48.0' N......  81 deg.19.8' W.
6...........................  24 deg.48.0' N......  81 deg.14.4' W.
7...........................  24 deg.49.2' N......  81 deg.14.4' W.
8...........................  24 deg.49.2' N......  81 deg.08.4' W.
9...........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.08.4' W.
10..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.14.4' W.
11..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.14.4' W.

[[Page 4372]]

 
12..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.16.2' W.
13..........................  24 deg.42.6' N......  81 deg.16.2' W.
14..........................  24 deg.42.6' N......  81 deg.21.0' W.
15..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.21.0' W.
16..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.22.2' W.
17..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.22.2' W.
18..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.22.8' W.
19..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.22.8' W.
20..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.24.0' W.
21..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.24.0' W.
22..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.26.4' W.
23..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.26.4' W.
24..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.27.0' W.
25..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.27.0' W.
26..........................  24 deg.43.2' N......  81 deg.29.4' W.
27..........................  24 deg.42.6' N......  81 deg.29.4' W.
28..........................  24 deg.42.6' N......  81 deg.30.6' W.
29..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.30.6' W.
30..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.31.2' W.
31..........................  24 deg.40.8' N......  81 deg.31.2' W.
32..........................  24 deg.40.8' N......  81 deg.32.4' W.
33..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.32.4' W.
34..........................  24 deg.41.4' N......  81 deg.34.2' W.
35..........................  24 deg.40.8' N......  81 deg.34.2' W.
36..........................  24 deg.48.0' N......  81 deg.35.4' W.
37..........................  24 deg.39.6' N......  81 deg.35.4' W.
38..........................  24 deg.39.6' N......  81 deg.36.0' W.
39..........................  24 deg.39.0' N......  81 deg.36.0' W.
40..........................  24 deg.39.0' N......  81 deg.37.2' W.
41..........................  24 deg.37.8' N......  81 deg.37.2' W.
42..........................  24 deg.37.8' N......  81 deg.37.8' W.
43..........................  24 deg.37.2' N......  81 deg.37.8' W.
44..........................  24 deg.37.2' N......  81 deg.40.2' W.
45..........................  24 deg.36.0' N......  81 deg.40.2' W.
46..........................  24 deg.36.0' N......  81 deg.40.8' W.
47..........................  24 deg.35.4' N......  81 deg.40.8' W.
48..........................  24 deg.35.4' N......  81 deg.42.0' W.
49..........................  24 deg.36.0' N......  81 deg.42.0' W.
50..........................  24 deg.36.0' N......  81 deg.48.6' W.
51..........................  24 deg.43.8' N......  81 deg.48.6' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Key West National Wildlife Refuge
               [Based on the North American Datum of 1983]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.40.0' N......  81 deg.49.0' W.
2...........................  24 deg.40.0' N......  82 deg.10.0' W.
3...........................  24 deg.27.0' N......  82 deg.10.0' W.
4...........................  24 deg.27.0' N......  81 deg.49.0' W.
5...........................  24 deg.40.0' N......  81 deg.49.0' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) When differential Global Positioning Systems data becomes 
available, these coordinates may be publication in the Federal 
Register to reflect the increased accuracy of such data.

Appendix IV to Subpart P of Part 922--Ecological Reserves Boundary

Coordinates

    (1) The boundary of the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve is 
formed by connecting in succession the points at the following 
coordinates:

                              Western Sambo
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.33.70' N.....  81 deg.40.80' W.
2...........................  24 deg.28.85' N.....  81 deg.41.90' W.

[[Page 4373]]

 
3...........................  24 deg.28.50' N.....  81 deg.43.70' W.
4...........................  24 deg.33.50' N.....  81 deg.43.10' W.
5...........................  24 deg.33.70' N.....  81 deg.40.80' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Tortugas Ecological Reserve consists of two discrete 
areas, Tortugas North and Tortugas South.
    (3) The boundary of Tortugas North is formed by connecting in 
succession the points at the following coordinates:

                             Tortugas North
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.46.00' N.....  83 deg.06.00' W.
2...........................  24 deg.46.00' N.....  82 deg.54.00' W.
3...........................  24 deg.45.80' N.....  82 deg.48.00' W.
4...........................  24 deg.43.53' N.....  82 deg.48.00' W.
5...........................  24 deg.43.53' N.....  82 deg.52.00' W.
6...........................  24 deg.43.00' N.....  82 deg.54.00' W.
7...........................  24 deg.39.00' N.....  82 deg.58.00' W.
8...........................  24 deg.39.00' N.....  83 deg.06.00' W.
9...........................  24 deg.46.00' N.....  83 deg.06.00' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The boundary of Tortugas South is formed by connecting in 
succession the points at the following coordinates:

                             Tortugas South
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.33.00' N.....  83 deg.09.00' W.
2...........................  24 deg.33.00' N.....  83 deg.05.00' W.
3...........................  24 deg.18.00' N.....  83 deg.05.00' W.
4...........................  24 deg.18.00' N.....  83 deg.09.00' W.
5...........................  24 deg.33.00' N.....  83 deg.09.00' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix V to Subpart P of Part 922--Sanctuary Preservation Areas 
Boundary Coordinates

    The boundary of each of the Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) 
is formed by connecting in succession the points at the following 
coordinates:

                             Alligator Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitute              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.50.98' N.....  80 deg.36.84' W.
2...........................  24 deg.50.51' N.....  80 deg.37.35' W.
3...........................  24 deg.50.81' N.....  80 deg.37.63' W.
4...........................  24 deg.51.23' N.....  80 deg.37.17' W.
5...........................  24 deg.50.98' N.....  80 deg.36.84' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catch and release fishing by trolling only is allowed in this 
SPA.

                     Carysfort/South Carysfort Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.13.78' N.....  80 deg.12.00' W.
2...........................  25 deg.12.03' N.....  80 deg.12.98' W.
3...........................  25 deg.12.24' N.....  80 deg.13.77' W.
4...........................  25 deg.14.13' N.....  80 deg.12.78' W.
5...........................  25 deg.13.78' N.....  80 deg.12.00' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Cheeca Rocks
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.54.42' N.....  80 deg.36.91' W.

[[Page 4374]]

 
2...........................  24 deg.54.25' N.....  80 deg.36.77' W.
3...........................  24 deg.54.10' N.....  80 deg.37.00' W.
4...........................  24 deg.54.22' N.....  80 deg.37.15' W.
5...........................  24 deg.54.42' N.....  80 deg.36.91' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Coffins Patch
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.41.47' N.....  80 deg.57.68' W.
2...........................  24 deg.41.12' N.....  80 deg.57.53' W.
3...........................  24 deg.40.75' N.....  80 deg.58.33' W.
4...........................  24 deg.41.06' N.....  80 deg.58.48' W.
5...........................  24 deg.41.47' N.....  80 deg.57.68' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Conch Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.57.48' N.....  80 deg.27.47' W.
2...........................  24 deg.57.34' N.....  80 deg.27.26' W.
3...........................  24 deg.56.78' N.....  80 deg.27.52' W.
4...........................  24 deg.56.96' N.....  80 deg.27.73' W.
5...........................  24 deg.57.48' N.....  80 deg.27.47' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catch and release fishing by trolling only is allowed in this 
SPA.

                               Davis Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.55.61' N.....  80 deg.30.27' W.
2...........................  24 deg.55.41' N.....  80 deg.30.05' W.
3...........................  24 deg.55.11' N.....  80 deg.30.35' W.
4...........................  24 deg.55.34' N.....  80 deg.30.52' W.
5...........................  24 deg.55.61' N.....  80 deg.30.27' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Dry Rocks
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.07.59' N.....  80 deg.17.91' W.
2...........................  25 deg.07.41' N.....  80 deg.17.70' W.
3...........................  25 deg.07.25' N.....  80 deg.17.82' W.
4...........................  25 deg.07.41' N.....  80 deg.18.09' W.
5...........................  25 deg.07.59' N.....  80 deg.17.91' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Grecian Rocks
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.06.91' N.....  80 deg.18.20' W.
2...........................  25 deg.06.67' N.....  80 deg.18.06' W.
3...........................  25 deg.06.39' N.....  80 deg.18.32' W.
4...........................  25 deg.06.42' N.....  80 deg.18.48' W.
5...........................  25 deg.06.81' N.....  80 deg.18.44' W.
6...........................  25 deg.06.91' N.....  80 deg.18.20' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4375]]


                            Eastern Dry Rocks
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.27.92' N.....  81 deg.50.55' W.
2...........................  24 deg.27.73' N.....  81 deg.50.33' W.
3...........................  24 deg.27.47' N.....  81 deg.50.80' W.
4...........................  24 deg.27.72' N.....  81 deg.50.86' W.
5...........................  24 deg.27.92' N.....  81 deg.50.55' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                The Elbow
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.08.97' N.....  80 deg.15.63' W.
2...........................  25 deg.08.95' N.....  80 deg.15.22' W.
3...........................  25 deg.08.18' N.....  80 deg.15.64' W.
4...........................  25 deg.08.50' N.....  80 deg.16.07' W.
5...........................  25 deg.08.97' N.....  80 deg.15.63' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               French Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.02.20' N.....  80 deg.20.63' W.
2...........................  25 deg.01.81' N.....  80 deg.21.02' W.
3...........................  25 deg.02.36' N.....  80 deg.21.27' W.
4...........................  25 deg.02.20' N.....  80 deg.20.63' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Hen and Chickens
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.56.38' N.....  80 deg.32.86' W.
2...........................  24 deg.56.21' N.....  80 deg.32.63' W.
3...........................  24 deg.55.86' N.....  80 deg.32.95' W.
4...........................  24 deg.56.04' N.....  80 deg.33.19' W.
5...........................  24 deg.56.38' N.....  80 deg.32.86' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Looe Key
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.33.24' N.....  81 deg.24.03' W.
2...........................  24 deg.32.70' N.....  81 deg.23.85' W.
3...........................  24 deg.32.52' N.....  81 deg.24.70' W.
4...........................  24 deg.33.12' N.....  81 deg.24.81' W.
5...........................  24 deg.33.24' N.....  81 deg.24.03' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Molasses Reef
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.01.00' N.....  80 deg.22.53' W.
2...........................  25 deg.01.06' N.....  80 deg.21.84' W.
3...........................  25 deg.00.29' N.....  80 deg.22.70' W.
4...........................  25 deg.00.72' N.....  80 deg.22.83' W.
5...........................  25 deg.01.00' N.....  80 deg.22.53' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4376]]


                           Newfound Harbor Key
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.37.10' N.....  81 deg.23.34' W.
2...........................  24 deg.36.85' N.....  81 deg.23.28' W.
3...........................  24 deg.36.74' N.....  81 deg.23.80' W.
4...........................  24 deg.37.00' N.....  81 deg.23.86' W.
5...........................  24 deg.37.10' N.....  81 deg.23.34' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Rock Key
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.27.48' N.....  81 deg.51.35' W.
2...........................  24 deg.27.30' N.....  81 deg.51.15' W.
3...........................  24 deg.27.21' N.....  81 deg.51.60' W.
4...........................  24 deg.27.45' N.....  81 deg.51.65' W.
5...........................  24 deg.27.48' N.....  81 deg.51.35' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Sand Key
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.27.58' N.....  81 deg.52.29' W.
2...........................  24 deg.27.01' N.....  81 deg.52.32' W.
3...........................  24 deg.27.02' N.....  81 deg.52.95' W.
4...........................  24 deg.27.61' N.....  81 deg.52.94' W.
5...........................  24 deg.27.58' N.....  81 deg.52.29' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catch and release fishing by trolling only is allowed in this 
SPA.

                              Sombrero Key
         [Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.37.91' N.....  81 deg.06.78' W.
2...........................  24 deg.37.50' N.....  81 deg.06.19' W.
3...........................  24 deg.37.25' N.....  81 deg.06.89' W.
4...........................  24 deg.37.91' N.....  81 deg.06.78' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catch and release fishing by trolling only is allowed in this 
SPA.

Appendix VI to Subpart P of Part 922--Special-Use Areas Boundary

Coordinates and Use Designations

    The boundary of each of the Special-Use is formed by connecting 
in succession the points at the following coordinates:

                               Conch Reef
(Research Only)--[Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.56.83' N.....  80 deg.27.26' W.
2...........................  24 deg.57.10' N.....  80 deg.26.93' W.
3...........................  24 deg.56.99' N.....  80 deg.27.42' W.
4...........................  24 deg.57.34' N.....  80 deg.27.26' W.
5...........................  24 deg.56.83' N.....  80 deg.27.26' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Eastern Sambo
(Research Only)--[Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.29.84' N.....  81 deg.39.59' W.
2...........................  24 deg.29.55' N.....  81 deg.39.35' W.
3...........................  24 deg.29.37' N.....  81 deg.39.96' W.

[[Page 4377]]

 
4...........................  24 deg.29.77' N.....  81 deg.40.03' W.
5...........................  24 deg.29.84' N.....  81 deg.39.59' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Looe Key
(Research Only)--[Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.34.17' N.....  81 deg.23.01' W.
2...........................  24 deg.33.98' N.....  81 deg.22.96' W.
3...........................  24 deg.33.84' N.....  81 deg.23.60' W.
4...........................  24 deg.34.23' N.....  81 deg.23.68' W.
5...........................  24 deg.34.17' N.....  81 deg.23.01' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Tennessee Reef
(Research Only)--[Based on differential Global Positioning Systems data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  24 deg.44.77' N.....  80 deg.47.12' W.
2...........................  24 deg.44.57' N.....  80 deg.46.98' W.
3...........................  24 deg.44.68' N.....  80 deg.46.59' W.
4...........................  24 deg.44.95' N.....  80 deg.46.74' W.
5...........................  24 deg.44.77' N.....  80 deg.47.12' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix VII to Subpart P of Part 922--Areas To Be Avoided Boundary

Coordinates

                   In The Vicinity of the Florida Keys
 [Reference Charts: United States 11466, 27th Edition--September 1, 1990
          and United States 11450, 4th Edition--August 11,1990]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  25 deg.45.00' N.....  80 deg.06.10' W.
2...........................  25 deg.38.70' N.....  80 deg.02.70' W.
3...........................  25 deg.22.00' N.....  80 deg.03.00' W.
4...........................  25 deg.00.20' N.....  80 deg.13.40' W.
5...........................  24 deg.37.90' N.....  80 deg.47.30' W.
6...........................  24 deg.29.20' N.....  81 deg.17.30' W.
7...........................  24 deg.22.30' N.....  81 deg.43.17' W.
8...........................  24 deg.28.00' N.....  81 deg.43.17' W.
9...........................  24 deg.28.70' N.....  81 deg.43.50' W.
10..........................  24 deg.29.80' N.....  81 deg.43.17' W.
11..........................  24 deg.33.10' N.....  81 deg.35.15' W.
12..........................  24 deg.33.60' N.....  81 deg.26.00' W.
13..........................  24 deg.38.20' N.....  81 deg.07.00' W.
14..........................  24 deg.43.20' N.....  80 deg.53.20' W.
15..........................  24 deg.46.10' N.....  80 deg.46.15' W.
16..........................  24 deg.51.10' N.....  80 deg.37.10' W.
17..........................  24 deg.57.50' N.....  80 deg.27.50' W.
18..........................  25 deg.09.90' N.....  80 deg.16.20' W.
19..........................  25 deg.24.00' N.....  80 deg.09.10' W.
20..........................  25 deg.31.50' N.....  80 deg.07.00' W.
21..........................  25 deg.39.70' N.....  80 deg.06.85' W.
22..........................  25 deg.45.00' N.....  80 deg.06.10' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   In the Vicinity of Key West Harbor
  [Reference Chart: United States 11434, 21st Edition--August 11, 1990]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23..........................  24 deg.27.95' N.....  81 deg.48.65' W.
24..........................  24 deg.23.00' N.....  81 deg.53.50' W.
25..........................  24 deg.26.60' N.....  81 deg.58.50' W.
26..........................  24 deg.27.75' N.....  81 deg.55.70' W.

[[Page 4378]]

 
27..........................  24 deg.29.35' N.....  81 deg.53.40' W.
28..........................  24 deg.29.35' N.....  81 deg.50.00' W.
29..........................  24 deg.27.95' N.....  81 deg.48.65' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Area Surrounding the Marquesas Keys
  [Reference Chart: United States 11434, 21st Edition--August 11, 1990]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30..........................  24 deg.26.60' N.....  81 deg.59.55' W.
31..........................  24 deg.23.00' N.....  82 deg.03.50' W.
32..........................  24 deg.23.60' N.....  82 deg.27.80' W.
33..........................  24 deg.34.50' N.....  82 deg.37.50' W.
34..........................  24 deg.43.00' N.....  82 deg.26.50' W.
35..........................  24 deg.38.31' N.....  81 deg.54.06' W.
36..........................  24 deg.37.91' N.....  81 deg.53.40' W.
37..........................  24 deg.36.15' N.....  81 deg.51.78' W.
38..........................  24 deg.34.40' N.....  81 deg.50.60' W.
39..........................  24 deg.33.44' N.....  81 deg.49.73' W.
40..........................  24 deg.31.20' N.....  81 deg.52.10' W.
41..........................  24 deg.28.70' N.....  81 deg.56.80' W.
42..........................  24 deg.26.60' N.....  81 deg.59.55' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Area Surrounding the Dry Tortugas Islands
  [Reference Chart: United States 11434, 21st Edition--August 11, 1990]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                   Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
43..........................  24 deg.32.00' N.....  82 deg.53.50' W.
44..........................  24 deg.32.00' N.....  83 deg.00.05' W.
45..........................  24 deg.39.70' N.....  83 deg.00.05' W.
46..........................  24 deg.45.60' N.....  82 deg.54.40' W.
47..........................  24 deg.45.60' N.....  82 deg.47.02' W.
48..........................  24 deg.42.80' N.....  82 deg.43.90' W.
49..........................  24 deg.39.50' N.....  82 deg.43.90' W.
50..........................  24 deg.35.60' N.....  82 deg.46.40' W.
51..........................  24 deg.32.00' N.....  82 deg.53.50' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-978 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P