[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31634-31680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12150]



[[Page 31633]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



15 CFR Part 922



Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 31634]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 000510129-0129-01]
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: Proposed rule; proposed boundary expansion; summary of draft 
supplemental management plan for expansion area; public availability of 
draft supplemental management plan of expansion area; public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: By this document, NOAA is proposing to expand 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 to establish a 151 nm\2\ no-take ecological reserve in the 
expanded area and in 55 nm\2\ of the existing Sanctuary, to protect 
important coral reef resources.
    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 proposed rule is to protect the deepwater coral 
reef community in this area from being degraded by human activities.

DATES: Comments will be considered if received by July 31, 2000. For 
dates of hearings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Sanctuary 
Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 
500368, Marathon, Florida, 33050. Comments may also be sent by 
facsimile to: (305) 743-2357. Comments will not be considered if 
submitted by e-mail or internet. For addresses of hearings, see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA proposes to establish a no-take 
ecological reserve in the Tortugas 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 proposed 
reserve would include expansion of the Sanctuary boundary to ensure 
that the reserve protects sensitive coral habitats lying outside the 
existing boundary of the Sanctuary.
    This document publishes the coordinates for the proposed expansion 
area and for the proposed ecological reserve, summarizes the draft 
supplemental management plan for the proposed ecological reserve and 
publishes the text of the Proposed Revised Designation Document for the 
Sanctuary. The draft supplemental management plan details the proposed 
goals and objectives, management responsibilities, research activities, 
interpretive and educational programs, and enforcement, including 
surveillance activities, for the proposed ecological reserve. By this 
document, NOAA also proposes regulations to implement the proposed 
boundary expansion and establishment of an ecological reserve and to 
regulative 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. NOAA will announce shortly the public availability of 
the Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Supplemental 
Management Plan (DSEIS/SMP) prepared for the proposed expansion and 
proposed establishment of the ecological reserve.
    Public hearings on the proposed actions and on the DSEIS/SMP will 
be held on the following locations on the dates and times indicated:

June 12, 2000: Homestead Senior High School, SE 12th Avenue, Homestead, 
FL, Main Cafeteria; 3:00-8:00 p.m.
June 13, 2000: Comfort Inn Executive Suites, 3860 Toll Gate Blvd., 
Naples, FL, 2nd Floor Conference Room; 3:00-8:00 p.m.
June 14, 2000: University of South Florida, Campus Activities Center, 
2nd Street and 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL, CAC Central Room; 
3:00-8;00 p.m.
June 21, 2000: The Sombrero Country Club, 4000 Sombrero Blvd., 
Marathon, FL Nautilus Room, 3:00-8:00 p.m.
June 22, 2000: Holiday Inn Beachside, 3841 N. Roosevelt Blvd., Key 
West, FL, Main Ballroom; 3:00-8:00 p.m.
July 11, 2000: U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 
First Floor, HCHB Auditorium, Washington, D.C., 2:00-5:00 p.m.
    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 aproximately 2800 nm\2\ (9500 square kilometers) of 
coastal and oceanic waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, 
surrounding the Florida Keys and the Dry Tortugas. These waters contain 
the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support 
high levels of biological diversity, are fragile and easily susceptible 
to damage from human activities, and possess high value to human beings 
if properly conserved. These environments support a vibrant tourist-
based economy worth more than $1.2 billion per year. The management 
plan (MP) for the Sanctuary was implemented by regulations that became 
effective on July 1, 1997.
    The FKNMS currently contains a network of 23 no-take zones, one of 
which is an ecological reserve (Western Sambo Ecological Reserve). This 
proposal would establish a second ecological reserve to protect the 
nationally significant coral reef resources of the Tortugas area. This 
proposal is being made to further the objectives of the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1431 et seq.) and the FKNMSPA and 
to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection.
    The Torugas 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

[[Page 31635]]

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 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.
    Two coral reef areas of unusual biological diversity and abundance 
would be included in the proposed ecological reserve: Sherwood Forest 
and Riley's Hump. Sherwood Forest is an area of low relief but high 
coral cover on the northwest flank of Tortugas Bank, lying just outside 
the existing Sanctuary boundary. 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 (ft) below the reef. This veneer is riddled 
with holes and caves, providing ideal habitats for a high diversity of 
fish. Soft corals, gorgonian forests, sponges, and black corals are 
also present. Coral abundance exceeds 30% cover in many areas, compared 
to 10% for the rest of the Florida Keys.
    Riley's Hump is a deep reef terrace (22-27 meters (m) deep) 
dominated by algae interspersed with coral, located approximately 10 nm 
southwest of the dry Tortugas National Park (DRTO). It is not known for 
spectacular coral formations but for its richness of fish and other 
marine life. A small population of sargassum, or red-tailed 
triggerfish, is among the unique species found in the area. Large 
pelagic fish (tunas, jacks, and sharks) are common in the area as well 
as dolphins. Evidence suggests that this low profile reef is an 
aggregation or spawning site for snapper-grouper species, including 
gray, cubera, mutton, dog, red and yellowtail snapper, black grouper 
and ocean triggerfish. The deeper water habitats to the south of 
Riley's Hump contain important habitat for red and goldeye snapper, 
tilefish, golden crab and snowy grouper.
    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. 
Currently large freighters use Riley's Hump as a secure place to anchor 
between port visits. The several-ton anchors and chains of these ships 
are devastating 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 400% 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.
    This DSEIS/SMP supplements the FEIS/MP for the Sanctuary. Further, 
because this proposed reserve includes a Sanctuary boundary expansion, 
this

[[Page 31636]]

DSEIS/SMP is developed pursuant to section 304(a)(2) of the NMSA, 16 
U.S.C. Sec. 1434(a)(2), consistent with, and in fulfillment of, the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Four other actions under various jurisdictions are underway to 
ensure comprehensive protection of the unique resources of the Tortugas 
region (Fig. 1):
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.000

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31638]]

    <bullet> The National Park Service (NPS) is revising the General 
Management Plan for the 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 NOAA's proposed ecological reserve.
    <bullet> 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 and has developed an Essential Fish 
Habitat Amendment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan (GMFMP) 
which includes the area of the proposed ecological reserve. The GMFMP 
is 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 FKNMS 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 is now working 
toward amending the GMFMP to prohibit fishing in the proposed area. At 
its meeting on March 21, 2000, the GMFMC considered an options paper on 
the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve and voted to proceed with a 
preferred alternative that would be consistent with the no-take status 
of the reserve. Based on the GMFMC's action, the regulations for the 
ecological reserve proposed by the FKNMS would also prohibit fishing. 
Because the GMFMC's action is not yet final and NMFS has not issued 
final regulations to implement that action, the proposed ecological 
reserve regulations would state that fishing would be prohibited in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR 
parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that the GMFMC's action and NMFS 
implementation would prohibit fishing in the location of the proposed 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve). The FKNMS regulations prohibiting fishing 
would be consistent with the GMFMC's preferred alternative.
    <bullet> NMFS is amending the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic 
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks to be consistent with the no-take status 
of the proposed reserve.
    <bullet> The State of Florida is drafting fishing regulations to 
prohibit fishing in those portions of Tortugas North that lie within 
State waters. Sanctuary regulations implementing the reserve would not 
become effective in State waters until approved by the State of 
Florida.
    Combined with the establishment of the proposed ecological reserve, 
these actions would result in comprehensive protection for the 
nationally significant coral reef habitats from shallow to deep water 
extending from the Park into Sanctuary and GMFMC waters.

Process To Define a Proposed Ecological Reserve Boundary

    Since 1991, NOAA has been concerned about the need to better 
protect the Tortugas area. This need is documented in the Draft and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Management Plans for the 
Sanctuary (DOC 1995 and 1996). In the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement and Draft Management Plan (DEIS/MP), NOAA proposed a boundary 
for a 110 nm<SUP>2</SUP> Replenishment Reserve (Ecological Reserve) in 
the Tortugas area to protect significant coral resources while 
minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to users. Public comment 
indicated that the then-proposed boundary would not protect the most 
significant coral reef resources and identified serious adverse 
economic impacts on commercial fishers from the then-proposed boundary 
and then-proposed no-take regulations. Accepting these comments, NOAA 
postponed establishing a reserve and went back to the drawing board by 
convening an ad hoc 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 the reserve.
    One of the key stakeholders in the WG process was the NPS because 
of its stewardship of the DRTO which is surrounded by but 
jurisdictionally separate from the FKNMS. The NPS's involvement in the 
design of the reserve was critical because of the important shallow 
water coral reef resources found within the Park and the connectivity 
of those resources with surrounding Sanctuary waters. Coordination with 
the NPS was further motivated by the fact that the Park is revising its 
general management plan concurrent with the design of the ecological 
reserve and is considering making part of the Park a no-take area.
    The process to develop the proposed ecological reserve can be 
described in three phases. The design phase (Phase I) took place from 
April 1998 to June 1999 and culminated with the SAC's recommendation 
and NOAA's acceptance of a preferred boundary. Phase II is the 
development of this DSEIS/SMP and solicitation of public comments on 
them. Phase III will be the development of a Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement/Final Supplemental Management Plan 
(FSEIS/MP), responding to public comment and establishing the reserve.
    The WG collaborated and reached agreement on a recommendation to 
the State of Florida and the SAC regarding a preferred alternative for 
an ecological reserve in the Tortugas area. The WG developed criteria 
for evaluating a broad range of location, size and regulatory 
alternatives.
    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, personal knowledge, information received 
from constituents, and anecdotal information. To inform the WG of the 
resources and human uses of the area, two forums were held: one on 
ecological aspects of the region and one on socioeconomic uses. 
Scientists and knowledgeable locals were invited to present their 
information to the WG. The Tortugas 2000 website (http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/tortugas) was a critical tool for disseminating 
information and was constantly updated as the process evolved and 
products were produced.
    The Sanctuary and the NPS commissioned an ecological site 
characterization document composed of three chapters covering: physical 
oceanography and recruitment; fish and fisheries; and benthic 
communities. The information contained in these analyses was used to 
inform the WG of the resources and uniqueness of the Tortugas region 
and the data was used to create geographic information system (GIS) 
maps of the resources.
    In addition to the ecological information, socioeconomic data was 
gathered from the commercial and recreational users of the area. It was 
first determined that approximately 105-110 commercial fishermen used 
the area. Information was collected on catch, costs, and trips from 90 
of the fishermen. These 90 fishermen caught more than 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. The commercial and recreational data were input into a GIS 
format and maps were produced showing use intensity.
    A critical aspect of this GIS data was the creation of maps with a 
consistent scale and a consistent grid cell

[[Page 31639]]

framework so comparisons could be made between the maps. The study area 
was partitioned into one minute by one minute (approximately one nm\2\) 
grid cells which facilitated the collection and analysis of data and 
the creation of boundary alternatives.
    In February, the WG developed criteria for the ecological reserve 
that addressed ecological and socioeconomic concerns. On April 7, 1999, 
a packet of GIS maps was sent to the WG to assist in formulating draft 
alternatives. At its April 22-23 meeting, the criteria were first 
prioritized by the entire WG and then, in order to develop a broad 
range of alternatives, the WG broke into two groups: those who were 
conservation-oriented and those who were use-oriented. The groups 
reprioritized the criteria according to their interests, resulting in a 
less protective profile and a more protective profile. This exercise 
produced a matrix of criteria profiles that were used to develop the 
draft alternatives. In order to develop alternatives, the WG was broken 
up into four groups of varied perspectives (this was done to facilitate 
the development of a consensus).
    These groups convened around roundtables and were presented with 
large, blank grid maps with corresponding transparent overlays. They 
also had workbooks showing maps of resources and uses. Each group was 
instructed to develop one alternative for each criteria profile. 
Observers who were not WG members were allowed to provide input into 
the drawing of the maps. Twelve draft alternatives were produced 
representing a range of protection options.
    At the May 22 meeting, the WG chose two of the 12 alternatives to 
focus on and from those two alternatives a compromise arose that was 
presented by members of the WG. After considerable deliberation, this 
compromise was ultimately endorsed by the WG through consensus as the 
recommended ``preferred alternative.''
    The preferred alternative would expand 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 and establish a 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve of approximately 151 nm\2\. This 
alternative would expand the boundary of the Sanctuary in its 
northwesternmost corner by approximately 36 nm\2\ to include Sherwood 
Forest and would expand the boundary in its southwesternmost corner by 
adding a noncontiguous area of approximately 60 nm\2\ to include 
Riley's Hump. The proposed ecological reserve would also incorporate 
approximately 55 nm\2\ of the existing Sanctuary in its northwest 
corner. The area of the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
surrounding Sherwood Forest would encompass approximately 91 nm\2\ and 
would be called Tortugas North; the area surrounding Riley's Hump would 
be called Tortugas South.
    On June 15, 1999, a presentation on the WG's process and 
recommended preferred alternative was given to the SAC. Following a 
lengthy and thorough deliberation the SAC voted unanimously to adopt 
the recommendation of the WG and forward it to NOAA and the State of 
Florida.
    In developing the boundary alternatives presented in this document, 
Sanctuary staff took into consideration the deliberations of the WG, 
the recommendation of the SAC, the requirements of the FKNMSPA, 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act and NEPA, and the NPS's proposed 
Research/Natural Area alternative. Sanctuary staff developed five 
boundary alternatives for analysis which represent a broad range of 
areas for protection. The basis for these alternatives was the SAC's 
recommended preferred boundary alternative as well as the two 
alternatives that the WG chose to focus on at their final meeting. The 
alternatives were modified in order to create a broad range of options 
for consideration.
    Boundary Alternative I. This alternative would be taking no action, 
that is, not expanding the boundary of the Sanctuary and not 
establishing a Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
    Boundary Alternative II (Fig. 2). This alternative would establish 
a Tortugas Ecological Reserve of approximately 55 nm\2\ in the 
northwesternmost portion of the existing Sanctuary boundary.
    Areas within the SAC's recommended reserve boundary that would be 
not protected by this alternative would have to be protected by the 
relevant management agency. 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.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.001

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31641]]

    Boundary Alternative III (Fig. 3--Preferred Boundary Alternative). 
This alternative would expand the boundary of the Sanctuary in its 
northwesternmost corner by approximately 36 nm\2\ to include Sherwood 
Forest. In addition, this alternative would expand the boundary in its 
southwesternmost corner by adding a noncontiguous area of approximately 
60 nm\2\ to include Riley's Hump. The proposed ecological reserve would 
also incorporate approximately 55 nm\2\ of the existing Sanctuary in 
its northwest corner, for a total Tortugas Ecological Reserve area of 
approximately 151 nm\2\. The area of the proposed Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve surrounding Sherwood Forest would encompass approximately 91 
nm\2\ and would be called Tortugas North; the area surrounding Riley's 
Hump would be called Tortugas South. This alternative would involve 
four different management jurisdictions: FKNMS, State of Florida, 
GMFMC, and NMFS, all of which are in the process of taking steps to 
protect the areas within their respective jurisdictions. This 
alternative represents the WG's recommendation adopted by the SAC and 
recommended to NOAA and the State of Florida.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31642]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.002

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31643]]

    Boundary Alternative IV (Fig. 4). This alternative would increase 
the area of Tortugas North over that in Alternative III by an 
additional 23 nm\2\ to the south to make it conterminous with the NPS's 
proposed Research/Natural Area within the DRTO. The total area of the 
Tortugas North portion of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve would be 
approximately 115 nm\2\. The Tortugas South area would be the same as 
in Alternative III. The total area for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
would be about 175 nm\2\. This alternative would involve the same 
Sanctuary boundary expansion as in Alternative III.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31644]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.003

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31645]]

    Boundary Alternative V (Fig. 5). This alternative would expand the 
Sanctuary boundary over the expansions of Alternatives III and IV by 
three nm to the west in the northwesternmost corner of the Sanctuary. 
This would extend the western boundary of Tortugas North to the same 
longitude as the western boundary of Tortugas South. The area of 
Tortugas North would be increased by 31 nm\2\ over Alternatives III and 
IV. The area of Tortugas North would be approximately 145 nm\2\. 
Tortugas South would be reduced it in its southern extent over 
Alternatives III and IV by moving its southern boundary approximately 
15 nm to the north. The area of Tortugas South would be approximately 
45 nm\2\ making the total area of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
approximately 190 nm\2\.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.004

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31647]]

    Boundary Expansion (Fig. 6). Boundary Alternatives III, IV, and V 
would require expansion of the existing Sanctuary boundary. The 
original boundary in the western portion of the Sanctuary was drawn 
based on bathymetry as there was little information available at the 
time on significant ecological features. Consistent with E.O. 13089, 
Coral Reef Protection, and consistent with establishing an ecological 
reserve that comprehensively protects the resources, NOAA is now 
proposing to expand the boundary of the Sanctuary through the adoption 
of Boundary Alternative III to protect nationally significant coral 
reef resources that were unknown to the agency and to Congress at the 
time the Sanctuary was designated.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.005

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31649]]

Development and Description of Regulatory Alternatives

    Four alternatives for regulating human activities within the 
reserve were developed. The regulatory alternatives are independent of 
the boundary alternatives (i.e., regulatory alternatives can be paired 
with various boundary alternatives).
    The foundation for these alternatives is the current FKNMS 
Sanctuary-wide regulations (15 CFR part 922, subpart P, in particular, 
Sec. 922.163) and the additional regulations applicable to ecological 
reserves (15 CFR 922.164(d)). All of the alternatives begin with this 
foundation. In summary, 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 endangers life, marine resources, or property; diving 
and 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.
    In summary, the ecological reserve regulations prohibit the take or 
disturbance of any dead or living material; fishing; discharge or 
deposit of any material except cooling water or engine exhaust; 
anchoring when a mooring buoy is available or on living or dead coral; 
and touching living or dead coral. Transit by vessels is allowed 
provided that all fishing gear is stowed away. Currently, there is one 
ecological reserve in the Sanctuary (Western Sambo Ecological Reserve).
    Other regulatory alternatives considered but rejected were taking 
no action, or making the entire proposed ecological reserve a no 
access, research/education-only area. The no-action alternative was 
rejected because it would not provide sufficient protection to coral 
reef resources from anchoring and other consumptive activities. Making 
the entire reserve a no access, research/education-only area appears to 
unnecessarily restrict non-consumptive activities.

Regulatory Alternative A

    <bullet> Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor 
modifications described below, existing ecological reserve regulations, 
to Tortugas North and South.
Proposed regulations:
    <bullet> Tortugas North: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications described below, existing ecological reserve 
regulations.
    <bullet> Tortugas South: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications described below, existing ecological reserve 
regulations.
    <bullet> The existing ecological reserve regulations would be 
revised at 15 CFR 922.164(d)(1) to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR Parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
Parts).
    <bullet> Objective: To minimize human disturbance in order to 
restore and maintain ecological integrity including a full assemblage 
of fishes, coral, and other benthic invertebrates.

Regulatory Alternative B

    <bullet> Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor 
modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas 
North and South (as described in Alternative A).
    <bullet> Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft in length overall (LOA), and control access to Tortugas 
South via permit and require a call-in prior to entering or when 
leaving.
Proposed regulations:
    <bullet> Tortugas North. Same as in Alternative A above.
    <bullet> Tortugas South. Same as in Alternative A above. In 
addition, prohibit anchoring, prohibit mooring by vessels more than 100 
ft LOA, require a permit to enter the reserve for other than continuous 
transit, and require permitted vessels to call-in prior to entering or 
when leaving.
    Description of access permit: Permit would be free, no paperwork 
would be required, and Sanctuary staff would be available year-round to 
handle requests.
    Application: Applicant must call the Key West or Marathon Sanctuary 
office to request a permit and would have to radio into the Sanctuary 
staff person at Fort Jefferson (DRTO) prior to entering and upon 
leaving the reserve.

Required 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.,s motor or 
sail).
    5. Number of divers.
    6. Requested effective date and duration of permit.
    Permit duration: For the time the vessel is in the area, not to 
exceed two weeks.
    Restrictions: Vessels longer than 100 ft LOA cannot use the mooring 
buoys. Advance reservations no more than one month in advance.
    Special Conditions: Doubling-up on mooring buoys would be 
permissible, leave and return privileges (dive during day, stay at the 
park overnight) would be allowed within the time period covered by the 
permit.
    Call-in requirement: 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.
    Objective: To minimize human disturbance in order to restore and 
maintain ecological integrity including a full assemblage of fishes, 
coral, and other benthic invertebrates and to create a reference area 
for studying human impacts on the ecosystem. This alternative would 
better protect Tortugas South by prohibiting anchoring and by 
controlling access (except for continuous transit) by a new type of 
permit. Prohibiting anchoring would better protect the coral reef 
resources in Tortugas South because the high cover of coral and the 
deep water depths make it difficult to anchor without damaging coral. 
The prohibition on mooring by vessels more than 100 ft LOA would 
protect the buoys from being ripped off their moorings by vessels 
exceeding the buoy's mooring capacity. Making Tortugas South a 
controlled access area would enhance its utility as a reference site 
for research and would facilitate enforcement of the regulations by 
giving advance notice to enforcement officers of the presence of a user 
vessel in this remote area.

Regulatory Alternative C (Preferred Regulatory Alternative)

    <bullet> Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor 
modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas 
North and South (as described in Alternative A).
    <bullet> Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft LOA, and control access to Tortugas North and South via 
permit and require call-in prior to entering and upon leaving (as 
described in Alternative B).
    Proposed regulations:

[[Page 31650]]

    <bullet> Tortugas North. Same as for Tortugas South in Alternative 
B above.
    <bullet> Tortugas South. Same as for Tortugas South in Alternative 
B above.
    Objective: To minimize human disturbance in order to restore and 
maintain ecological integrity including a full assemblage of fishes, 
coral, and other benthic invertebrates and to create a reference area 
for studying human impacts on the ecosystem. Over Regulatory 
Alternative B, this alternative provides increased protection to 
Tortugas North by prohibiting anchoring and by controlling access 
(except for continuous transit) by access permit. Prohibiting anchoring 
would better protect the coral reef resources in Tortugas North because 
of the difficulty of anchoring without damaging coral due to the high 
cover of coral and the deep water depths. Anchoring by vessels 50 m or 
greater in length is already prohibited in approximately 19% of 
Tortugas North. The prohibition on mooring by vessels more than 100 ft 
LOA would protect the buoys from being ripped off their moorings by 
vessels exceeding the buoy's mooring capacity. Making Tortugas North a 
controlled access area would enhance its utility as a reference site 
for researching and would facilitate enforcement of the regulations by 
giving advance notice to enforcement officers of the presence of a user 
vessel in this remote area. The existing ATBA already prohibits vessels 
50 m or greater from accessing approximately 23% of Tortugas North.

Regulatory Alternative D

    <bullet> Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor 
modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to Tortugas 
North and South (as described in Alternative A).
    <bullet> Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft LOA, and control access to Tortugas North via permit and 
require call-in prior to entering and upon leaving (as described in 
Alternative B).
    <bullet> Prohibit anchoring in, prohibit mooring by vessels more 
than 100 ft LOA, and restrict access to Tortugas South to research or 
educational activities only.
    Proposed regulations:
    <bullet> Tortugas North. Same as in Alternative C above.
    <bullet> Tortugas South. Except for passage without interruption 
through the area with fishing gear stowed away or for law enforcement 
purposes, no person could enter Tortugas South except to conduct or 
cause to be conducted scientific research, or for educational use 
specifically authorized by and conducted in accordance with the scope, 
purpose, terms and conditions of a valid National Marine Sanctuary 
General permit (see 15 CFR 922.166(a)).
    Objective: To minimize human disturbance in order to restore and 
maintain ecological integrity including a full assemblage of fishes, 
coral, and other benthic invertebrates and to create a reference area 
for studying human impacts on the ecosystem. Tortugas North would have 
the same protections as outlined in Regulatory Alternative C above. 
This alternative provides increased protection to Tortugas South over 
Alternative C by making it a research/education-only area. Making 
Tortugas South a research/education-only area would greatly enhance its 
utility as a reference site for researching and monitoring the effects 
of human activities on the functioning of a coral reef ecosystem. The 
prohibition on mooring by vessels more than 100 ft LOA would protect 
the buoys from being ripped off their moorings by vessels exceeding a 
buoy's mooring capacity.
    The regulations proposed by this action would implement Regulatory 
Alternative C and would amend 15 CFR 922.161 to expand the boundary of 
the FKNMS to be consistent with Boundary Alternative III. The revised 
Sanctuary boundary coordinates would be set forth in Appendix I to part 
922 which would also be 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 would be 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 would be 
revised to correct errors, provide clarification, and reflect more 
accurate data.
    The proposed regulations would revise the ecological reserve 
regulations at 15 CFR 922.164(d)(1) to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
parts); to prohibit anchoring in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve; 
entering the Tortugas Ecological Reserve without a valid access permit 
(except for continuous transit, law enforcement purposes, or 
monitoring); 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 ft (30.48 meters) 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 would be prohibited in the northern portion 
of the Tortugas Bank no-anchoring zone established by 15 CFR 
922.164(g), the proposed regulations would revise the zone to be 
consistent. The existing zone is an area within the Sanctuary boundary 
where vessels 50 m or greater in LOA are prohibited from anchoring. The 
northern portion of the zone overlaps the proposed ecological reserve.
    The proposed regulations would add a new section to provide for 
permits for access to the ecological reserve. A person with a valid 
access permit would be allowed to enter the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve. Access permits would not require written applications or the 
payment of any fee. Access permits would have to be requested at least 
72 hours but no longer than one month before the date the permit would 
be effective. Permits could be requested via telephone or radio by 
contacting FKNMS at the Sanctuary offices at Key West or Marathon. A 
permit applicant would be required to 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 would issue a permit to the owner or to 
the owner's representative for the vessel when all applicable 
information has been provided. FKNMS would provide a permit number to 
the applicant and confirm the effective date and duration period of the 
permit. Written confirmation of permit issuance would be provided upon 
request. Permit holders would be required to 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 could leave and return 
to the ecological reserve during the time their permit is effective.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would add a new definition to 15 
CFR

[[Page 31651]]

922.162, to define ``length overall (LOA) or length of a vessel.''

Proposed Revised Designation Document

    Because NOAA is proposing to expand the boundary of the Sanctuary, 
the Designation Document for the Sanctuary needs to be revised to 
incorporate the new boundary coordinates, 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 Proposed Revised Designation Document 
follows:

Proposed 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 future 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 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, research, educational and 
esthetic 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 nm\2\ (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 shaped area of 60 nm\2\ just to the south.
    The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is the mean high-water mark 
except around 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 sea 
faring 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

[[Page 31652]]

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, research, 
educational, 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. Removal, injury, preservation, curation, and management of 
historic resources within the Sanctuary without the appropriate 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 the appropriate 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. The carrying and possessing of 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 without interruption 
through;
    13. Entering or leaving any Wildlife Management Area, Ecological 
Reserve, Sanctuary Preservation Area, or Special-Use Area except for 
passage without interruption through or for law enforcement purposes;
    14. Harvest of marine life as defined and regulated by the State of 
Florida under its marinelife 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. Removal and disposal of lost, out-of-season, or illegal gear 
discovered within the Sanctuary; removal of vessels grounded, lodged, 
stuck or otherwise perched on coral reefs, hardbottom, or seagrasses 
within the Sanctuary; and removal and disposal 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,

[[Page 31653]]

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;______, 2000 with respect to the expansion area made 
by this revision to the 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,

[[Page 31654]]

    (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 Proposed Revised Designation Document.

Summary of Draft Supplemental Management Plan

    The draft supplemental management plan complements the existing 
Management Plan in several respects.
    A supplement to the Administrative Action Plan targets the 
development of a memorandum of understanding to clearly define the 
roles and responsibilities if the various agencies responsible for 
resource management in the Tortugas region. The MOU would cover, at a 
minimum, the following activities: cooperative enforcement, research, 
and sharing of facilities. Management of the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve would necessitate a high degree of coordination and cooperation 
between the affected agencies particularly the FKNMS and the NPS. Both 
agencies have similar missions and responsibilities. Consequently, 
cooperation would not only save money but would 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 ecological reserve. An agreement on the use 
of these lands and facilities would be pursued by the FKNMS and NPS.
    The State of Florida is the co-trustee for a significant portion of 
the waters and marine resources within the proposed reserve and would 
co-manage them with the FKNMS.
    The NMFS has responsibility for regulating the fisheries in the 
federal waters of the reserve. NMFS has considerable expertise and some 
assets that could be utilized in managing the reserve, particularly in 
the areas of research and monitoring.
    NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement also has responsibility for 
enforcing fishing and Sanctuary regulations and has assets and 
technology that could potentially be used for enforcement.
    The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for enforcing federal laws 
within U.S. waters. It has several large offshore patrol vessels based 
in Key West that could be used in conjunction with Sanctuary patrol 
vessels for enforcement of the Sanctuary regulations within the reserve 
areas.
    A supplement to the Education and Outreach Action Plan would 
facilitate the production of a documentary video or film on the 
development and environmental qualities and characteristics of the 
ecological reserve. In addition, the supplement to the Plan would 
develop a visitor's center in Key West to interpret the marine 
environment and resources of the reserve and the Tortugas region for 
the visiting public.
    A supplement to the Enforcement Action Plan would be the hiring of 
additional enforcement officers to patrol the reserve; the 
installation, operation and maintenance of surveillance radar; the 
purchase and installation of housing for Sanctuary staff at Fort 
Jefferson; and the purchase, operation and maintenance of an offshore 
patrol vessel.
    A supplement to the Mooring and Boundary Buoy Action Plan would be 
the installation and maintenance of mooring buoys in Tortugas North and 
South and boundary buoys in Tortugas North.
    A supplement to the Regulatory Action Plan would be the issuance of 
final regulations to implement the boundary expansion and the 
establishment of the reserve. The supplement would call for extensive 
coordination with the State of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council, and NMFS to ensure that all approvals and required 
regulations are obtained and in place. A collateral aspect to the 
issuance of regulations would be publication on NOAA nautical charts of 
the new boundaries for the Sanctuary and the reserve.
    A supplement to the Research and Monitoring Action Plan would be 
the hiring of additional support staff; the design and implementation 
of long-term ecological monitoring; the undertaking of a feasibility 
study in conjunction with the NPS on reestablishing the Dry Tortugas 
Marine Laboratory; establishment of a wireless data transfer capability 
using the existing two-way radio network; establishment of the Tortugas 
as a long-term ocean ecosystem observatory with continuous, automated 
collection of key physical and biological parameters; and the design 
and implementation of a non-use valuation study of the national 
significance of the coral reef resources in the Tortugas region.

Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

    Paragraph (a)(4) of section 304 the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4), 
requires that the procedures specified in section 304 for designating a 
National Marine Sanctuary be followed for modifying any term of 
designation. Because this action would revise the Sanctuary boundary to 
include an additional 96 square nautical miles, it would revise the 
boundary terms of designation thus triggering the requirements of 
section 304. In particular, section 304 requires that the Secretary of 
Commerce to submit to the Committee on Resources of the United States 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the United States Senate, on the same day as this 
notice is published, a prospectus on the proposal, which must contain, 
among other things, the terms of the proposed designation, the proposed 
regulations, a draft management plan detailing the proposed goals and 
objectives, management responsibilities, research activities for the 
area, and a draft environmental impact statement. In accordance with 
section 304, the required prospectus is being submitted to the 
specified Congressional Committees.

Executive Order 12866

    This action has been determined to be significant for purposes of 
E.O. 12866. That Order requires a draft text of the regulations to be 
proposed, a reasonably 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). In accordance with the requirements of 
the Executive Order, NOAA has prepared an RIR for this action. The RIR 
is contained in part V of the DSEIS/SMP. NOAA will announce shortly the 
public availability of the DSEIS/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 has prepared an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the

[[Page 31655]]

impact of this proposed action on small entities. Section 603(b) (5 
U.S.C. 603(b)) requires that each IRFA contain a description of the 
reasons why the action is being considered, a succinct statement of the 
objectives of, and legal basis for, the action, a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which 
the proposed action will apply, a description of the projected 
reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the 
proposed action, including an estimate of the classes of small entities 
which would be subject to the requirement and the type of professional 
skills necessary for preparation of the report or record, and an 
identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal 
rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed 
action. In addition, section 603(c) (5 U.S.C. 603(c)) requires that 
each IRFA contain a description of any significant alternatives to the 
proposed action which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed action on small entities. The complete IRFA is contained in 
Parts I, IV, and V of the DSEIS/SMP.
    The following is a summary of the IRFA:

Statement of Need and Why Regulatory Action is being Considered

As previously set forth in this regulatory preamble.

Goals, Objectives, and Legal Basis

As previously set forth in this regulatory preamble.

Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements.

    The only record keeping or reporting requirements are the permit 
and call-in, call-out requirements for the reserve previously described 
in the Preamble under proposed regulations. There are two classes of 
users that would be affected by these proposed requirements: commercial 
dive boat operators and private boaters. The type of skills necessary 
to request an access permit and to provide notification when entering 
or leaving the proposed ecological reserve would be use of marine radio 
equipment.

Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With 
the Proposed Action.

    The GMFMC is amending the GMFMP to prohibit fishing in the areas of 
Tortugas North and South that are beyond State of Florida waters in the 
Exclusive Economic Zone. NMFS would implement these amendments by 
issuing a no-fishing rule for those areas. Also, NMFS is amending the 
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and 
its implementing regulations to be consistent with the no-take status 
of the proposed reserve.
    The State of Florida is drafting fishing regulations to prohibit 
fishing in those portions of Tortugas North that lie within State 
waters. Sanctuary regulations implementing the reserve would not become 
effective in State waters until approved by the State of Florida. These 
actions in conjunction with the Sanctuary rule on no-take would ensure 
comprehensive protection for the coral reef resources and to facilitate 
user awareness and compliance with the rules.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rule Would Apply.

    It is estimated that there are up to 64 commercial fishers and 10 
recreational charter vessel (fishing and/or diving) operators who could 
be affected by the proposed rule. All of these are considered small 
entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Action on 
Small Entities

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 approach begins by first analyzing the ``no-take'' regulation 
for each boundary alternative.
    Analyses are presented for the recreation industry (broken down 
into consumptive and nonconsumptive), the commercial fisheries, 
commercial shipping, treasure salvors and then other benefits 
(nonusers, scientific and education values). The other regulations are 
then analyzed. These include the no anchoring 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 incremental 
impact over the ``no-take'' regulation.
    For the recreation industry and the commercial fishing industry, 
the impacts first are estimated by assuming a complete loss for any 
activity displaced. This is done by adding up 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. 
Next, a qualitative approach is used to assess whether the results from 
step 1 are likely to occur. Mitigating and offsetting factors are taken 
into account. With respect to the recreational industry sector, 
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'' areas. 
With respect to the commercial fisheries, all would be displaced from 
the ``no-take'' areas and, potentially, would be negatively impacted in 
the short term. Over the long term, creation of the ecological reserve 
is expected to generate replenishment effects to the fisheries. Over 
the longer term, there would be long-term benefits even to commercial 
reef fishermen and related dependent businesses. The analysis assumes 
that all entities impacted are small entities within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    Definition of the Study Areas. For purposes of the analyses 
presented in this report, there are five basic study areas. The first 
is a 1,020 nm\2\ area called the TERSA (see Fig.1). This was the area 
selected by the FKNMS for analyzing different alternatives for the 
proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve. All socioeconomic information was 
collected and organized in the TERSA at geographical resolution of one 
nm<SUP>2</SUP>. Detailed descriptions of the data are included for the 
recreation industry and for the commercial fisheries.

Boundary Alternatives

    As described earlier in this Preamble.

[[Page 31656]]

No-take Regulations
Recreation Industry
Boundary Analysis
    The interpretation of the estimates provided in this analysis is 
critical to understanding the ``true'' impact of the various 
alternatives proposed for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The 
estimates from the geographic information system (GIS) analysis for the 
different boundary alternatives are simply the sum of each measurement 
within the boundaries for a given 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 are 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 
of economic value a consumer receives by consuming a good or service 
over and above what he or she pays 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 producers' 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. The estimates were 
derived separately by season.
    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. Income was then derived by taking the 
total output/sales impact and dividing by the total output-to-income 
ratio (2.63). Total employment was derived by dividing the total income 
impact by the total income-to-employment ratio ($23,160).

Boundary Alternative I: No Action

    The no-action alternative simply means that the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve would not be established and the corresponding no-
take regulations would not be issued. The no-action alternative has a 
simple interpretation in that any 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 opportunities lost. The impacts of the no-action alternative 
can only be understood by comparing them to the impacts of one of the 
alternatives.

Boundary Alternative II (See Fig. 2)

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace more 
than 26% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, about 26% of 
the spearfishing, and just more than 2% of the fishing. Across all 
three consumptive recreational activities just less than 6% of the 
person-days would be displaced. This alternative is entirely within the 
existing Sanctuary 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 is 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.
    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. Through the ripple or 
multiplier effects, 9.5% of output/sales, income and employment 
associated with all the consumptive recreational activities in the 
TERSA could potentially be lost. Although these costs could have an 
affect on the nine 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

[[Page 31657]]

supported by recreating visitors to the Florida Keys.

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative--See Fig. 3)

    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 that portion of this alternative is exactly the 
same. The entire alternative would displace more than 26% of the total 
person-days of diving for lobsters, about 26% of the spearfishing, and 
just more than 3% of the fishing. Across all three consumptive 
recreational activities more than 7% of the person-days would be 
displaced. 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 effect on profits is lower than the affect on person-
days (18.7% versus 25.9%), while for fishing the effect is greater on 
profits than on person-days (10.2% versus 3.0%).
    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. Through the ripple or multiplier 
effects, 11.7% of output/sales, income and employment associated with 
all the consumptive recreational activities in the TERSA could 
potentially be lost. Although these costs could have an affect on the 
nine 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.

Boundary Alternative IV (See Fig. 4)

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace more 
than 73% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, just less 
than 72% of the spearfishing, and more than 6% of the fishing. Across 
all three consumptive recreational activities more than 18% of the 
person-days would be displaced. 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 affect on person-days for diving for lobsters. For 
spearfishing, the effect on profits is lower than the affect on person-
days (56.2% versus 71.7%), while for fishing the affect is greater on 
profits than on person-days (17.6% versus 6.3%).
    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. Through the ripple or multiplier 
effects, 28.7% of output/sales, income and employment associated with 
all the consumptive recreational activities in the TERSA could 
potentially be lost. Although these impacts 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.

Boundary Alternative V (See Fig. 5)

    Non-Market Economic Values. This alternative would displace more 
than 86% of the total person-days of diving for lobsters, more than 84% 
of the spearfishing, and more than 7% of the fishing. Across all three 
consumptive recreational activities more than 21% of the person-days 
would be displaced. 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%).
    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. Through the ripple or multiplier 
effects, 34.1% of output/sales, income and employment associated with 
all the consumptive recreational activities in the TERSA could 
potentially be lost. 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.

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

[[Page 31658]]

number of fish, lobster and other invertebrates both inside and outside 
the reserves may increase. Five spawning areas have been identified in 
the western portion of the TERSA. 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 would be 
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 we would also expect 
there would be no crowding effects and recreational fishermen would not 
likely suffer any losses.
    Long-term Benefits from Replenishment Effects. One spawning area 
has been identified in the Alternative II boundary area. As previously 
described, Alternative II is the portion of the preferred alternative 
(Alternative III) that lies within the existing Sanctuary boundary. 
Therefore the long-term benefits to stocks derived from the portion of 
the preferred alternative that lies outside of the existing Sanctuary 
boundary would not be realized. This alternative is the smallest one 
analyzed and so the potential long-term benefits to stocks outside the 
protected area would be smaller than for the other alternatives. 
However, 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. Three spawning areas 
have been identified in the Alternative III boundary area. Because this 
alternative includes areas outside the existing sanctuary boundary, 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 also would be comparatively larger, but as mentioned above, 
because of the small percentage of the active recreational area 
included in the 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 all of the Tortugas Bank 
lies 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. Four spawning sites 
have been identified within the Alternative IV boundary area. 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 
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 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 
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. Four spawning sites have 
been identified in the Alternative V boundary area. 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 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 Proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve to 
Recreational Users on Entire Florida Keys Reef Tract. Above we 
discussed the possibility that consumptive recreational users could 
possibly benefit if there were long-term offsite impacts. But 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

[[Page 31659]]

reef tract could more than offset the total displacements from the most 
extreme alternative analyzed here. 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 Boundary Alternative V.
    Non-consumptive Users (Divers) in Tortugas. Currently there is one 
operator who 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 existing Sanctuary boundary. It is expected 
that this group would be benefitted by the ecological reserve. As the 
site improves in quality, we would expect 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.

Commercial Fishery

Boundary Analysis

    Boundary Analysis Methodology. In performing the boundary analysis, 
the impact estimates for each alternative 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 
centroid (e.g., 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 
was collected (i.e., 1 nm<SUP>2</SUP> grid cells was the finest 
resolution).
    The interpretation of the estimates provided in this analysis is 
critical to understanding the ``true'' impact of the various 
alternatives proposed for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The 
estimates from the geographic information system (GIS) analyses for the 
different boundary alternatives are the sum of each measurement within 
the boundary for a given 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.
    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 (1999), which includes greater detail by species/species groups, 
and for the market economic values, separate estimates for Monroe and 
Collier/Lee counties.

Boundary Alternative I: No Action

    The no action alternative simply means that the proposed Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve would not be established and the corresponding no-
take regulations would not be issued. The no action alternative has a 
simple interpretation in that any 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 opportunities lost. The effects of the no action alternative 
can only be understood by comparing it to one of the alternatives. Thus 
the effects of the no action alternative can be obtained by reading the 
effects from any of the 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 might seem 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 was 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

[[Page 31660]]

reduction in about $844 thousand 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 might 
seem 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 thousand 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 might seem 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 was 14.64% of the consumer's surplus generated 
by the entire TERSA and 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 might seem 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 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

    In the overview section, a profile of the approximately 110 TERSA 
fishermen based on a sample of 90 was given with a comparison with 
other commercial fishermen in Monroe County. The profiles of those 
potentially affected by each alternative are compared. 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.
    In terms of memberships in organizations, the fishermen potentially 
affected by all alternatives had significantly lower participation 
rates in the Conch Coalition, the Organized Fishermen of Florida (OFF) 
and in the Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc. (MCCF), but had a 
significantly higher participation rates in environmental organizations 
and the Chambers of Commerce. Fish house usage was significantly lower 
for those fishermen potentially affected by all alternatives.
    Fishermen potentially affected by Boundary Alternative II were the 
only group that was significantly different. These fishermen had less 
experience

[[Page 31661]]

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 Boundary 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 
Boundary Alternative II, while Boundary 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 Boundary 
Alternative II, while 40 or 95% of the reef fish fishing operations 
could be potentially affected by Boundary Alternative III. Boundary 
Alternatives IV and V could potentially affect all 42 reef fish 
operations.

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 of the difficulty in quantifying 
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 
Boundary 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 affect. 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. 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 commercial 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 the commercial lobster 
fishery and the fishermen would be able to replace catch from other 
areas. Thus, for the commercial lobster fishery, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative II.
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P

[[Page 31662]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MY00.006

BILLING CODE 3510-08-C

[[Page 31663]]

    Crowding is not an issue for the king mackerel commercial fishery 
because king mackerel is a pelagic species and thus moves 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. Thus, for the king mackerel and shrimp commercial 
fisheries, the potential economic losses identified in Table 1 are not 
likely to occur under Boundary Alternative II.
    Reef fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative II, 37 of the sampled 42 fishermen would be 
affected. Reef fish 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 1 
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 the king mackerel or 
shrimp commercial fisheries are expected. For the lobster and reef fish 
fisheries, replenishment benefits are expected. Invertebrates and reef 
fish at other marine reserves had shown estimated increases in yields 
of 46-50% within three kilometers of the protected areas. Also, five 
spawning areas were identified in the western portion of the TERSA. 
Only one of the five spawning areas is located within the Boundary 
Alternative II boundary. The reserve would protect this area, and this 
area would support the replenishment effect. For the commercial lobster 
fishery, we expect long-term net benefits under Boundary Alternative 
II. For the commercial reef fish fishery, 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 1.

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). 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 we expect 
that the lobster fishermen would be able to replace catch from other 
areas. Thus, for the lobster fishery, the potential economic losses 
identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur under this alternative.
    Crowding is not an issue for king mackerel commercial fishery 
because king mackerel is a pelagic species and thus moves 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 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. Thus for the commercial king mackerel and shrimp 
fisheries, the potential economic losses identified in Table 1 are not 
likely to occur under this alternative.
    Reef fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative III, 40 of the sampled 42 fishermen would be 
affected. Reef fish 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 displaces 20% of the reef fish catch in the 
TERSA. Given the status of reef fish stocks, the losses identified in 
Table 1 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 the commercial king 
mackerel or shrimp fisheries are expected. For the commercial lobsters 
and reef fish fisheries, replenishment benefits are expected. Yields of 
invertebrates and reef fish of 46-50% have been reported within three 
kilometers of the protected areas at other marine reserves. Five 
spawning areas have been reported in the western portion of the TERSA. 
Three of the five spawning areas are located within the alternative III 
boundary and would be protected, thus bolstering the replenishment 
effect. For the commercial lobster fishery, long-term net benefits 
would be expected under Boundary Alternative III. For the commercial 
reef fish fishery, 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 1.

Boundary Alternative IV

    Crowding and Relocation. For the commercial lobster fishery, there 
is some potential for crowding costs. This boundary alternative would 
displace an estimated 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).
    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 the 
commercial lobster fishery and fishermen would be able to replace catch 
from other areas. Thus, for the commercial lobster fishery, the 
potential economic losses identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur 
under Boundary Alternative IV.
    Crowding is not an issue for the king mackerel fishery because king 
mackerel is a pelagic species and thus moves around and catching them 
elsewhere is highly likely without interfering with other fishermen. 
Shrimp fishermen

[[Page 31664]]

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. Thus, for the 
commercial king mackerel and shrimp fisheries, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative IV.
    Reef fish fishermen comprise the largest group of TERSA fishermen. 
Under Boundary Alternative IV, all 42 of the sampled fishermen would be 
affected. Reef fish 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 1 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 the commercial king 
mackerel and shrimp fisheries are expected. For the commercial lobster 
and reef fish fisheries, replenishment benefits are expected. Increases 
in yields of invertebrates and reef fish of 46-50% have been reported 
within three kilometers of the protected areas at other marine 
reserves. Five spawning areas have been in the western portion of the 
TERSA. Four of the five spawning areas are located within the Boundary 
Alternative IV boundary and would be protected, thus bolstering the 
replenishment effect. For the commercial lobster fishery, no long-term 
net benefits would be expected under Boundary Alternative IV. For the 
commercial reef fish fishery, 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 1.

Boundary Alternative V

    Crowding and Relocation. For the commercial 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). 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 the commercial lobster 
fishery and fishermen would be able to replace catch from other areas. 
Therefore, for the commercial lobster fishery, the potential economic 
losses identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur under Boundary 
Alternative V.
    Crowding is not an issue for the king mackerel commercial fishery 
because king mackerel is a pelagic species and thus moves 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. 
Thus, for the king mackerel and shrimp commercial fisheries, the 
potential economic losses identified in Table 1 are not likely to occur 
under Boundary Alternative V.
    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 fish 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 1 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 the king mackerel and 
shrimp commercial fisheries are expected. For the lobster and reef fish 
commercial fisheries, replenishment benefits are expected. Increases in 
yields of invertebrates and reef fish of 46-50% have been reported 
within three kilometers of the protected areas at other marine 
reserves. Five spawning areas have been identified in the western 
portion of the TERSA. Four of the five spawning areas are located 
within the Boundary Alternative V boundary and would be protected, thus 
bolstering the replenishment effect. For the lobster commercial 
fishery, long-term net benefits under Boundary 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 1.

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. Currently, it is unknown 
whether there are any submerged cultural resources on Riley's Hump, 
located in Tortugas South.

Other Regulations

Boundary Alternative I

    This alternative is the no-action alternative required by NEPA that 
assumes that no reserve would be established and that the current 
management regime and range of human activities would continue. Thus, 
no regulatory alternatives are applicable.

Boundary Alternative II

    This alternative limits the reserve to the existing Sanctuary 
boundary for a total area of approximately 55 square nautical miles 
(Fig. 2). 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.
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North

[[Page 31665]]

and South. The provisions of this alternative applicable to Tortugas 
South are not relevant under this boundary alternative. 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 be 
revised to reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR Parts 622 
and 635 (it is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 via 
permit, require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels 
longer than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy. The provisions of 
this alternative applicable to Tortugas South are not relevant under 
this boundary alternative. 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 be revised to reflect that fishing 
would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the 
extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that 
no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by 
these Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative C (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor modifications, 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 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 provisions of this alternative applicable to Tortugas South are not 
relevant under this boundary alternative. 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 be 
revised to reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 
and 635 (it is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these Parts).
    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 nonconsumptive 
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. It is unknown whether this would have any impact on the 
future business volume of dive operators or the quality of the 
experience to nonconsumptive divers. 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 
nonconsumptive 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 a permit. There would be minor time 
costs associated with obtaining a permit and getting permission to 
access the reserve. It is expected that fulfilling all the permit 
requirements and obtaining permission to access the reserve 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: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 to research or education activities only. Because the provisions 
of this alternative applicable to Tortugas South are not relevant under 
this boundary alternative, the impacts of this alternative are the same 
as described for Regulatory Alternative C, above. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing 
would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the 
extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that 
no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by 
these Parts).

Boundary Alternative III (Preferred Boundary Alternative)

    This alternative involves a Sanctuary boundary expansion and 
represents the WG's recommendation adopted by the SAC and recommended 
to NOAA and the State of Florida for a reserve with a total area of 
approximately 151 nm<SUP>2</SUP> (Fig. 3). It is NOAA's preferred 
boundary alternative.
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South. Boundary Alternative III includes areas 
currently outside the Sanctuary boundary. A small portion of Tortugas 
North and all of Tortugas South would be outside the existing Sanctuary 
boundary. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in the 
expansion areas of Tortugas North and South. The existing Sanctuary 
regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 21 of the DSEIS/
SMP. More detailed descriptions of the regulations are included in 
Appendix C to the DSEIS/SMP. The effects of the ecological reserve 
regulations have been analyzed under the no-take discussion above. The 
existing ecological reserve regulations would be revised to reflect 
that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 
except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is 
anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve by these Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 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). Boundary Alternative III includes areas 
currently outside the Sanctuary boundary. A small portion of Tortugas 
North and all of Tortugas South would be outside the existing Sanctuary 
boundary. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in the 
expansion areas of

[[Page 31666]]

Tortugas North and South. The existing Sanctuary regulations and their 
impacts are presented in Table 21 of the DSEIS/SMP. More detailed 
descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to the 
DSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological reserve regulations would be revised 
to reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it 
is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve by these Parts).
    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 nonconsumptive 
diving and currently operating in Tortugas North would be prohibited 
from anchoring. There are no known recreational dive operators 
servicing Tortugus South. The location and availability of mooring 
buoys would constrain the number and choice of available dive sites. It 
is unknown whether this would have any impact on the future business 
volume of dive operators or the quality of the experience to 
nonconsumptive divers. 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 II.C above. Anchoring by large commercial vessels is known 
to occur on Riley's Hump, which would be included in the Sanctuary as 
part of Tortugas South under Boundary Alternative III and thus would be 
subject to the anchoring prohibition. 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 nonconsumptive dive 
operators currently operating in Tortugas South. Any nonconsumptive 
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 getting permission to access the 
reserve.
    It is expected that fulfilling all the permit requirements and 
obtaining permission to access the reserve 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 (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor modifications, 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 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 nonconsumptive dive operator currently operating in Tortugas 
North. He and any new nonconsumptive 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 
getting permission to access the reserve. It is expected that 
fulfilling all the permit requirements and obtaining permission to 
access the reserve 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 ecological reserve 
regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative D: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 to research or education activities only. 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 nonconsumptive 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 
ecological reserve regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing 
would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the 
extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that 
no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by 
these Parts).

Boundary Alternative IV

    This alternative involves an expansion to the south by 23 nm\2\ of 
Tortugas North to make it conterminous with the NPS's proposed 
Research/Natural Area within the DRTO for a total area of approximately 
175 nm\2\ not including the Park area (Fig. 4). It also involves the 
same boundary expansion as Boundary Alternative III.
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South. A small portion of Tortugas North and all of 
Tortugas South would be outside the existing Sanctuary boundary. The 
Sanctuary-wide regulations would become effective in the expansion 
areas of Tortugas North and South. The existing Sanctuary regulations 
and their impacts are presented in Table 21 of the DSEIS/SMP. More 
detailed descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to 
the DSEIS/SMP. 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 be revised to reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the 
Tortugas Ecological

[[Page 31667]]

Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it 
is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve by these parts).
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 via 
permit, require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels 
longer than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy. A small portion of 
Tortugas North and all of Tortugas South would be outside the existing 
Sanctuary boundary. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become 
effective in the expansion areas of Tortugas North and South. The 
existing Sanctuary regulations and their impacts are presented in Table 
21 of the DSEIS/SMP. More detailed descriptions of the regulations are 
included in Appendix C to the DSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological 
reserve regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
parts).
    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 Tortugus South. The 
location and availability of mooring buoys would constrain the number 
and choice of available dive sites. It is unknown whether this would 
have any impact on the future business volume of dive operators or the 
quality of the experience to nonconsumptive divers. 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 II.C. above. Anchoring by large commercial 
vessels is known to occur on Riley's Hump, which would be included in 
the Sanctuary as part of Tortugas South under Boundary Alternative IV 
and thus would be subject to the anchoring prohibition. 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 nonconsumptive dive operators currently 
operating in Tortugas South. Any nonconsumptive 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 getting permission to access the reserve. It is 
expected that fulfilling all the permit requirements and obtaining 
permission to access the reserve 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 (Preferred Regulatory Alternative ): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor modifications, 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 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 nonconsumptive 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 nonconsumptive dive operator currently operating in 
Tortugas North. He and any new nonconsumptive 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 
getting permission to access the reserve. It is expected that 
fulfilling all the permit requirements and obtaining permission to 
access the reserve 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 ecological reserve 
regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative D: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, 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 to research or education activities only. 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 nonconsumptive 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 
ecological reserve regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing 
would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the 
extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that 
no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by 
these Parts).

Boundary Alternative V

    This alternative involves a Sanctuary boundary expansion to the 
west by three minutes ending at longitude 83'09" instead of 83'06" and 
would increase the reserve area to 190 nm<INF>2</INF> (Fig. 5). 
Tortugas North would be expanded to the west and Tortugas South would 
be shortened to the north. Sanctuary-wide

[[Page 31668]]

regulations would be applied to the expansion area.
    Regulatory Alternative A: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become 
effective in the expansion area. The existing Sanctuary regulations and 
their impacts are presented in Table 21 of the DSEIS/SMP. More detailed 
descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to the 
DSEIS/SMP. 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 be revised to 
reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it 
is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve by these parts).
    Regulatory Alternative B: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described under regulatory Alternative A); 
and prohibit anchoring in and control access to Tortugas South via 
permit, require call-in for entering and leaving, and prohibit vessels 
longer than 100 ft LOA from using a mooring buoy. A small portion of 
Tortugas North and all of Tortugas South would be outside the existing 
Sanctuary boundary. The Sanctuary-wide regulations would become 
effective in the expansion area. The existing Sanctuary regulations and 
their impacts are summarized in Table 21 of the DSEIS/SMP. More 
detailed descriptions of the regulations are included in Appendix C to 
the DSEIS/SMP. The existing ecological reserve regulations would be 
revised to reflect that fishing would be prohibited in the Tortugas 
Ecological Reserve except to the extent authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 
and 635 (it is anticipated that no fishing would be authorized in the 
Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these Parts).
    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 
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 Tortugus South. The location and availability of 
mooring buoys would constrain the number and choice of available dive 
sites. It is unknown whether this would have any impact on the future 
business volume of dive operators or the quality of the experience to 
nonconsumptive divers. 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 on Riley's Hump, which would 
be included in the Sanctuary as part of Tortugas South under Boundary 
Alternative V and thus would be subject to the anchoring prohibition. 
While the Sanctuary area has been expanded, the impact of this 
regulation on commercial vessel operators is still expected to 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 nonconsumptive dive operators currently 
operating in Tortugas South. Any nonconsumptive 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 getting permission to access the reserve. It is 
expected that fulfilling all the permit requirements and obtaining 
permission to access the reserve 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 (Preferred Regulatory Alternative): Apply 
existing Sanctuary-wide and, with minor modifications, 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 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 
nonconsumptive 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 nonconsumptive dive operator currently operating in 
Tortugas North. He and any new nonconsumptive 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 
getting permission to access the reserve. It is expected that 
fulfilling all the permit requirements and obtaining permission to 
access the reserve 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 ecological reserve 
regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing would be 
prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the extent 
authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that no 
fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by these 
Parts).
    Regulatory Alternative D: Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and, with 
minor modifications, existing ecological reserve regulations to 
Tortugas North and South (as described in 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 to research or education activities only. 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 nonconsumptive dive operators currently operating in Tortugas 
South and no recreational diving is known to occur there. Under

[[Page 31669]]

this alternative, none would be allowed in the future. The existing 
ecological reserve regulations would be revised to reflect that fishing 
would be prohibited in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve except to the 
extent authorized by 50 CFR Parts 622 and 635 (it is anticipated that 
no fishing would be authorized in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve by 
these Parts).

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Introduction

    This section sets forth the agency's preferred alternative (Fig. 3) 
and why it was selected.

Preferred Alternative

    NOAA has selected Boundary Alternative III combined with Regulatory 
Alternative C as its preferred alternative.

General Rationale

    NOAA has adopted Boundary Alternative III and Regulatory 
Alternative C because this combination achieves the objectives of all 
five of the criteria listed below. Based on its analysis, NOAA believes 
that this preferred alternative would adequately protect the nationally 
significant coral reef resources of the Tortugas region and fulfill the 
objectives of the FKNMSPA and the NMSA.
    The preferred alternative is of sufficient size and imposes 
adequate protection measures to achieve the goals and objectives of the 
FKNMSPA and the NMSA while not unduly impacting user groups. Boundary 
Alternative III is consistent with the recommendations of the 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) NOAA believes that the 
more protective approach of Regulatory Alternative C is warranted 
because of the threat to coral reef resources posed by the anchoring of 
vessels and the difficulty of enforcing regulations in this remote 
area, particularly Tortugas South. Coral cover is so high and water 
depths so deep in the Tortugas that anchoring is virtually impossible 
without damaging coral. Enforcement would be greatly facilitated by the 
notice of user presence that would be provided to the FKNMS by the 
permit requirement.

Comparison of Alternatives

    This section compares the four alternatives based on five criteria 
which are: (1) Protect ecosystem integrity, (2) increase scientific 
understanding, (3) facilitate non-consumptive human activities, (4) 
protect natural spawning, nursery, and permanent residence areas, and 
(5) minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts. These criteria are 
consistent with the goals of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 
and Protection Act (FKNMSPA), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 
(NMSA), the Final Management Plan (MP), the public scoping comments, 
the Working Group's criteria, and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) 
recommendations.
    Criteria: Protect ecosystem integrity.
    Objective: Choose an area and protective measures that protect the 
highest biological diversity and widest range of contiguous habitats.
    Rationale/Source: FKNMSPA, NMSA, scoping comments, and WG/SAC.
    Analysis: Boundary Alternative II does not encompass enough range 
of habitat to adequately protect the integrity of the ecosystem. The 
critical areas of Sherwood Forest and Riley's Hump are not part of this 
alternative. Boundary 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. Boundary Alternatives 
III, IV and V include a sufficient range of viable habitats to protect 
ecosystem integrity and include two replicate components that would 
help to ensure against the effects of catastrophic events. The 
increased area of Boundary Alternatives IV and V has negligible 
increased benefit to protecting ecosystem integrity compared to 
Alternative III. 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 because of the threat to coral 
reef resources by anchoring and would not provide notice to FKNMS of 
the presence of users to facilitate enforcement. Regulatory Alternative 
C adequately protects ecosystem integrity and facilitates enforcement. 
Regulatory Alternative D would adequately protect ecosystem integrity 
and facilitates enforcement but would unduly restrict uses in Tortugas 
South.

    Criteria: Increase scientific understanding of human effects on 
ecosystem processes
    Objective: Choose an area and protective measures that will 
facilitate the monitoring of anthropogenic impacts and the evaluation 
of the efficacy of the ecological reserve for protecting coral reef 
health and biodiversity.
    Rationale/Source: FKNMSPA, NMSA, scoping comments, and WG/SAC.
    Analysis: Given the absence of unexploited areas in the Tortugas 
region, Boundary Alternatives II-V would serve to increase scientific 
understanding of marine ecosystems, their response to management and 
their recovery from fishing impacts. Boundary Alternatives III-V offer 
the added scientific benefit of protecting Riley's Hump which would add 
to existing knowledge of effective reserve design regarding networks 
and energy flow between reserves. Also, the inclusion of Tortugas South 
would significantly add to the understanding of the importance of the 
Tortugas region in sustaining the Florida Keys ecosystem. Boundary 
Alternatives IV and V encompass all of Tortugas Bank which 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 would 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 to areas where recreational diving is 
allowed.

    Criteria: Facilitate non-consumptive uses.
    Objective: Choose an area and protective measures that will allow 
non-consumptive uses and provide a range of habitats to observe and 
study.
    Rationale/Source: FKNMSPA, NMSA, MP.
    Analysis: Boundary Alternatives II-V would serve well in enhancing 
opportunities for non-consumptive activities such as education, 
photography, underwater wilderness opportunities, and ecotourism. 
Boundary Alternatives III-V provide enhanced opportunities over 
Alternative II because of the addition of Tortugas South. Regulatory 
Alternatives A, B, and C would provide the same non-consumptive 
opportunities. Regulatory Alternative D would prohibit all consumptive 
and non-consumptive activities in Tortugas South other than research 
and education.

    Criteria: Protect natural spawning, nursery, and permanent 
residence areas.
    Objective: Choose an area and protective measures that will protect 
known or reported spawning areas and habitat that supports resident 
fish and other marine life.
    Rationale/Source: MP, scoping comments, and WG/SAC.
    Analysis: Boundary Alternative II protects only one of eight known 
fish

[[Page 31670]]

spawning aggregations and does not include Riley's Hump which is a 
critical source area for larvae. Sherwood Forest, an important 
permanent residence area for a variety of species, is not part of 
Boundary Alternative II. Boundary Alternative III would protect 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 IV would encompass 6 out of 8 known fish spawning 
sites as well as 100% of the known coral and hardbottom habitat. 
Boundary Alternative V would encompass 7 out of the 8 known fish 
spawning sites and would protect all of the known coral and hardbottom 
habitat. Boundary Alternative V's expansion of Tortugas North to the 
west would provide increased protection for deepwater habitats and 
associated species. The reduction in size of Tortugas South would 
provide less protection for deep water habitat has the least and 
associated species.

    Criteria: Minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts.
    Objective: Choose an area and protective measures that meets the 
objectives of the other criteria but that does not unduly impact users.
    Rationale/Source: FKNMSPA, NMSA, scoping comments, and WG/SAC.
    Analysis: Boundary Alternative II will have the least impact on 
recreational and commercial users whereas Boundary Alternatives IV and 
V will have the most. Boundary Alternative III has moderate impacts on 
users, mostly lobster fishermen and handline fishermen. Altenatives 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 exploitation of the southern half of 
Tortugas Bank including trolling for pelagic species. Ignoring the 
potential of such effects as replenishment that would result in a net 
economic benefit, Regulatory Alternative A has significant adverse 
socioeconomic effects on users including small entities. There are 12 
recreational charter operations that would be affected by this 
alternative and approximately 110 commercial fishing operations all of 
which are small entities. No lesser degree of protection than that 
provided by Regulatory Alternative A would provide an adequate degree 
of protection for the resources of the Tortugas and even Regulatory 
Alternative A by itself would not provide sufficient protection to 
coral reef resources from anchoring and would not provide FKNMS 
adequate notice to facilitate enforcement. Accordingly, other than the 
no-action alternative, no other regulatory alternatives that would 
provide a lesser degree of protection were considered. Regulatory 
Alternative B would provide adequate protection from anchoring damage 
in the Tortugas South and would provide adequate notification to FKNMS 
to facilitate enforcement there but would not provide adequate 
protection to Tortugas North. Regulatory Alternative C would provide 
both adequate resource protection and adequate notification to FKNMS to 
facilitate enforcement with insignificant incremental costs to users. 
NOAA's preferred alternative (Boundary Alternative III/Regulatory 
Alternative C) could potentially impact, if one assumes no mitigating 
factors, 9 recreational charter uses with total annual revenue losses 
of approximately $152,054 and 64 commercial fishermen with total annual 
revenue losses of approximately $843,583. Regulatory Alternative D 
would facilitate the study of fishing impacts and diver impacts but 
would prohibit any uses of the area.

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 OMB control number.
    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The only record keeping or reporting requirements 
are the permit and call-in, call-out requirements for the reserve 
previously described in the Preamble under proposed regulations. There 
are two classes of users that would be affected by these proposed 
requirements: commercial dive boat operators and private boaters. The 
type of skills necessary to request an access permit and to provide 
notification when entering or leaving the proposed ecological reserve 
would be use of marine radio equipment. These requirements have been 
submitted to OMB for approval. 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, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether these proposed 
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of NOAA, including whether the information has practical 
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimates; ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information, including through use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

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: May 10, 2000.
Ted Lillestolen,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management.
    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR part 
922 is proposed to be 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

[[Page 31671]]

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)(ii), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(v) 
and (d)(1)(vi) are revised as follows:


Sec. 922.164  Additional activity regulations by Sanctuary area.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Possessing, moving, harvesting, removing, taking, damaging, 
disturbing, breaking, cutting, spearing, or otherwise injuring any 
coral, marine invertebrate, fish, bottom formation, algae, seagrass or 
other living or dead organism, including shells, or attempting any of 
these activities, except as authorized by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this 
section. However, fish, invertebrates, and marine plants may be 
possessed aboard a vessel in an Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary 
Preservation Area, provided such resources can be shown not to have 
been harvested within, removed from, or taken within, the ecological 
reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area as applicable, by being stowed 
in a cabin, locker, or similar storage area prior to entering and 
during transit through such reserves or Areas, provided further that in 
an Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area located in Florida 
State waters, such vessel is in continuous transit through the 
Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area.
    (iii) Except for catch and release fishing by trolling in the Conch 
Reef, Alligator Reef, Sombrero Reef, and Sand Key Sanctuary 
Preservation Areas, and except for fishing in the Tortugas Ecological 
Reserve authorized by 50 CFR parts 622 and 635, fishing by any means. 
However, gear capable of harvesting fish may be aboard a vessel in an 
Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area, provided such gear 
is not available for immediate use when entering and during transit 
through such Ecological Reserve or Sanctuary Preservation Area, and no 
presumption of fishing activity shall be drawn therefrom. * * *
    (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.
    4. In Sec. 922.164, paragraphs (d)(1)(viii) and (d)(1)(ix) are 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 922.164  Additional activity regulations by Sanctuary area.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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 Ecological 
Reserve without a valid access permit issued pursuant to Sec. 922.167 
or entering or leaving the Tortugas Ecological Reserve 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.
    5. In Sec. 922.164, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 922.164  Additional activity regulations by Sanctuary area.

* * * * *
    (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. 39.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
    (2) 24 deg. 32.00' N 83 deg. 00.05' W
    (3) 24 deg. 37.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
    (4) 24 deg. 40.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
    (5) 24 deg. 39.00' N 83 deg. 06.00' W
    6. 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.

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


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 __, 2000, 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

[[Page 31672]]

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.
    8. 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 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. 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.
    9. 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,
    (viii) 24 degrees 46 minutes north latitude, 83 degrees 06 
minutes west longitude,
    (ix) 24 degrees 44 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 55 minutes 
west longitude,
    (x) 24 degrees 51 minutes north latitude, 81 degrees 26 minutes 
west longitude, and
    (xi) 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

[[Page 31673]]

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.
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.

[[Page 31674]]

 
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 revised by publication in the 
Federal Register Notice 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.
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. 45'05" N....  82 deg. 48'00" W.
4...........................  24 deg. 43'32" N....  82 deg. 48'00" W.
5...........................  24 deg. 43'32" 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
                               8183 deg. 06'00" W..
9...........................  24 deg. 46'00" N
                               8183 deg. 06'00" W..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31675]]



                             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                   Latitude              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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31676]]

    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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Eastern Dry Rocks
         [Based on Differential Global Positioning Systems Data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Point                    atitude              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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31677]]


                            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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           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.

[[Page 31678]]



                              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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31679]]

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.
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.

[[Page 31680]]

 
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. 00-12150 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P