31634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

(nm2) and to establish a 151 nm2 no-take

ecological reserve in the expanded area

and in 55 nm2 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 nm2 (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.

§ 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

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

31636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DSEIS/SMP is developed pursuant to

section 304(a)(2) of the NMSA, 16

U.S.C. § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31637

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

31638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

nm2 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31639

framework so comparisons could be

made between the maps. The study area

was partitioned into one minute by one

minute (approximately one nm2) 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 conservationoriented and those who were useoriented. 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 nm2 to include two

significant coral reef areas known as

Sherwood Forest and Riley’s Hump and

establish a Tortugas Ecological Reserve

of approximately 151 nm2. This

alternative would expand the boundary

of the Sanctuary in its

northwesternmost corner by

approximately 36 nm2 to include

Sherwood Forest and would expand the

boundary in its southwesternmost

corner by adding a noncontiguous area

of approximately 60 nm2 to include

Riley’s Hump. The proposed ecological

reserve would also incorporate

approximately 55 nm2 of the existing

Sanctuary in its northwest corner. The

area of the proposed Tortugas Ecological

Reserve surrounding Sherwood Forest

would encompass approximately 91

nm2 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

nm2 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

31640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 nm2 to include

Sherwood Forest. In addition, this

alternative would expand the boundary

in its southwesternmost corner by

adding a noncontiguous area of

approximately 60 nm2 to include Riley’s

Hump. The proposed ecological reserve

would also incorporate approximately

55 nm2 of the existing Sanctuary in its

northwest corner, for a total Tortugas

Ecological Reserve area of

approximately 151 nm2. The area of the

proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve

surrounding Sherwood Forest would

encompass approximately 91 nm2 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

31642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31643

Boundary Alternative IV (Fig. 4). This

alternative would increase the area of

Tortugas North over that in Alternative

III by an additional 23 nm2 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

nm2. The Tortugas South area would be

the same as in Alternative III. The total

area for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve

would be about 175 nm2. This

alternative would involve the same

Sanctuary boundary expansion as in

Alternative III.

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P

31644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 nm2 over Alternatives III and IV. The

area of Tortugas North would be

approximately 145 nm2. 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 nm2 making the total

area of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve

approximately 190 nm2.

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P

31646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

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

31648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

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

• Apply existing Sanctuary-wide and,

with minor modifications described

below, existing ecological reserve

regulations, to Tortugas North and

South.

Proposed regulations:

• Tortugas North: Apply existing

Sanctuary-wide and, with minor

modifications described below, existing

ecological reserve regulations.

• Tortugas South: Apply existing

Sanctuary-wide and, with minor

modifications described below, existing

ecological reserve regulations.

• 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).

• 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

• 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, 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:

• Tortugas North. Same as in

Alternative A above.

• 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)

• 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, 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:

31650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

• Tortugas North. Same as for

Tortugas South in Alternative B above.

• 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

• 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, 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).

• 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:

• Tortugas North. Same as in

Alternative C above.

• 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/educationonly 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 nm2 (9,800 square

kilometers) of coastal and ocean waters,

and the submerged lands thereunder,

surrounding the Florida Keys in Florida.

The easternmost point of the Sanctuary

is the northeasternmost point of

Biscayne National Park and the

westernmost point is approximately 15

kilometers to the west of the western

boundary of Dry Tortugas National Park,

a linear distance of approximately 335

kilometers. The contiguous area

boundary on the Atlantic Ocean side of

the Florida Keys runs south from

Biscayne National Park generally

following the 300-foot isobath, curving

in a southwesterly direction along the

Florida Keys archipelago until south of

the Dry Tortugas. The contiguous area

boundary on the Gulf of Mexico side of

the Florida Keys runs from this southern

point in a straight line to the northwest

and then when directly west of the Dry

Tortugas in a straight line to the north.

The boundary then turns to the east and

slightly south and follows a straight line

to just west of Key West and then turns

to the northeast and follows a straight

line parallel to the Florida Keys

approximately five miles to the south,

and then follows the Everglades

National Park boundary until Division

Point where the boundary then follows

the western shore of Manatee Bay,

Barnes Sound, and Card Sound. The

boundary then follows the southern

boundary of Biscayne National Park and

up its eastern boundary until its

northeasternmost point. Starting just to

the east of the most western boundary

line of the contiguous portion of the

Sanctuary, there is a vertical rectangular

shaped area of 60 nm2 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 preEuropean cultures.

The uniqueness of the marine

environment draws multitudes of

31652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 resourceuse 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 SpecialUse Area except for passage without

interruption through;

13. Entering or leaving any Wildlife

Management Area, Ecological Reserve,

Sanctuary Preservation Area, or SpecialUse 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, outof-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,

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

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,

31654 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 nm2 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 nm2.

Detailed descriptions of the data are

included for the recreation industry and

for the commercial fisheries.

Boundary Alternatives

As described earlier in this Preamble.

31656 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 notake 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

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

31658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 longterm 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31659

reef tract could more than offset the

total displacements from the most

extreme alternative analyzed here. Onetenth 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 nonconsumptive 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 nm2 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 nonmarket economic values potentially

affected. These estimates are brokendown 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 notake 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

31660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

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

31662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–08–C

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

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 longerterm.

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

31664 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 longerterm.

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 longerterm.

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, longterm 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 nm2

(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 Sanctuarywide 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 Sanctuarywide regulations would become

effective in the expansion areas of

31666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 noanchoring 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 nm2 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 nm2 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 noanchoring 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 nm2 (Fig. 5).

Tortugas North would be expanded to

the west and Tortugas South would be

shortened to the north. Sanctuary-wide

31668 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 callin 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 Sanctuarywide 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 noanchoring 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 persondays 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

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

31670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 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 § 922.162, definitions for

‘‘Length overall (LOA) or length,’’

‘‘Stem,’’ and ‘‘Stern’’ are added

alphabetically as follows:

§ 922.162 Definitions.

* * * * *

Length overall (LOA) or length means,

as used in § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 § 922.164, paragraphs (d)(1)(ii),

(d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi) are

revised as follows:

§ 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 § 922.164, paragraphs (d)(1)(viii)

and (d)(1)(ix) are added to read as

follows:

§ 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

§ 922.167 or entering or leaving the

Tortugas Ecological Reserve with a valid

access permit issued pursuant to

§ 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 § 922.164, paragraph (g) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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 § 922.166 to

read as follows:

§ 922.166 Permits other than for access to

the Tortugas Ecological Reserveapplication procedures and issuance

criteria.

7. Redesignate § 922.167 as § 922.168

and revise it to read as follows:

§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 §§ 922.163 or 922.164

may conduct the activity without being

in violation of applicable provisions of

§§ 922.163 or 922.164, pending final

agency action on his or her certification

request, provided the holder is in

compliance with this § 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

31672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

by §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 922.167 to read as

follows:

§ 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

§ 922.164, if authorized by a valid

access permit issued pursuant to

§ 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

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

31674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

GREAT WHITE HERON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE—Continued

[Based on the North American Datum of 1983]

Point Latitude Longitude

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:

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

31676 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

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

31678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

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

31680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

AREA SURROUNDING THE DRY TORTUGAS ISLANDS—Continued

[Reference Chart: United States 11434, 21st Edition—August 11, 1990]

Point Latitude Longitude

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