On March 30, 1995 NOAA published a proposed Designation Document and proposed implementing regulations and announced the availability of the draft management plan and environmental impact statement (DMP/EIS) (60 FR 16399). Public hearings to receive comments on the proposed regulations, and the DMP/EIS were held on November 1 in Miami; November 3 in Key Largo; November 6 in Marathon; November 7 in Key West; November 9 in St. Petersburg; and November 14 in Silver Spring, MD.

The nine month public review period ending on December 31, 1995, resulted in NOAA receiving over 6,400 statements of public comment on the DMP/EIS. In addition, the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) provided NOAA with its comments on the plan. All comments received on the DMP/EIS were recorded in a computerized database and assigned a unique comment identification number. These records consist of the reviewer's name; company, organization, or agency; address; a synopsis of the comment; and NOAA's response. Details of this public review process are provided in the general introduction to Volume I of the final management plan and environmental impact statement (FMP/EIS).

Comments were received about many aspects of the management plan and EIS, however, a majority of the comments focused on a limited number of issues. Comments were received from diverse groups and individuals, including private businesses and organizations, elected officials, the SAC and representatives of Federal, State, and county agencies.

NOAA received a number of specific comments on the DMP/EIS, including recommendations on strategies, activities, and priority levels. Some comments were specific enough to cite page numbers and recommended language revisions. NOAA appreciates the level of public comment and has revised the document based on a balance of these comments in light of the requirements of the NMSA, FKNMSPA, NEPA, and other applicable laws. Consistent with the requirements of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this section discusses the significant issues and substantive concerns that the commentors have brought to NOAA's attention.

All comments received by NOAA in response to the Federal Register notices and public hearings were considered and, where appropriate, were incorporated. A summary of the significant comments on the proposed regulations and DMP/EIS and NOAA's responses is set forth below. The comments are also presented and responded to in the administrative record.

The Term Replenishment Reserve

Comment Some reviewers expressed that the term Replenishment Reserve is confusing because it implies that these areas are for fisheries replenishment.

Response NOAA has changed the name Replenishment Reserve to Ecological Reserve (ER). Ecological Reserve more accurately represents the purpose of this zone, that is, to restore natural ecosystem dynamics and habitat, by setting aside a portion of the coral reef environment (including seagrass beds, hardbottom, rubble habitat, patch reefs and sand areas) that is protected from all forms of "harvesting".

Establishment of Zones

Comment

Many commented on the Zoning Action Plan and proposed regulations regarding Sanctuary Preservation Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, Special-use Areas, and Ecological (formerly Replenishment) Reserves. Some recommended deleting all marine zoning; others recommended the zoned areas be expanded; while still others supported the zoning concept but recommended delay in implementation until there was more detailed scientific research and economic impact analysis of certain proposed zones. Some reviewers recommended zoned areas be closed to all human uses, except for boat transit. Many reviewers supported the proposed Zoning Action Plan including, in some instances, an increase in the amount of area proposed as Ecological Reserves.

As regards the Key Largo ER, some reviewers suggested that because of the existing protection afforded by the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and the existing Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, that the Key Largo ER would not provide significant additional protection for the area and should, therefore, be eliminated. A number of reviewers suggested that if not eliminated, the boundaries of the Key Largo ER should be shifted to the south. Several reviewers suggested that the elimination of the Key Largo ER be accompanied by an increase in the size of the Carysfort SPA to protect additional patch reef and coral habitat. Other reviewers suggested that the boundaries of the Dry Tortugas ER be reconfigured to minimize impacts on fishers. In addition, a number of reviewers suggested reconfiguring the Dry Tortugas ER to encompass more of the reef community as opposed to low-profile, barren habitat, but not reducing its overall size. A number of reviewers also expressed concerns about commercial fishing displacement as a result of establishment of the Western Sambos ER.

Comments from some representatives of the recreational and commercial fishing industries and some individuals recommended elimination of all or some SPAs and ERs. These reviewers cited unreasonable burdens and negative economic impacts resulting from the closures, primarily due to displacement from closed areas. Examples of the uses most commonly cited as likely to be displaced are baitfishing, shrimping, and lobster trapping. Some recommended that bait fishing and catch and release trolling be allowed, while others were opposed to all fishing in SPAs.

The State of Florida Marine Fisheries Commission generally supported the proposed zoning, but recommended the elimination of the Key Largo ER and suggested making provisions to allow certain baitfish harvest. Other State and Federal agencies supported the proposed zoning and one recommended establishing an additional replenishment zone in the back country of the Keys. Other reviewers supported the Zoning Action Plan as proposed or recommended additional areas for inclusion.

The SAC recommended that the management plan: (1) keep the proposed Special Preservation Areas as configured with provisions to allow bait fishing and catch and release trolling in selected SPAs; (2) keep the research-only areas; and (3) keep the Western Sambos ER but eliminate the proposed Key Largo ER; and reconfigure the Dry Tortugas ER.

Response

NOAA developed the Ecological Reserves to protect some of the most significant habitat, but in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to fishers and other users. In the DMP/EIS, NOAA proposed boundaries based on distribution of the most significant coral habitats and spur and groove configurations and a user survey identifying where fishing, diving and other uses occur. NOAA also used maps provided by the SAC members that indicated specific information about the resources and uses of the marine resources. The goal was to include the most coral reef communities in a manner which avoids or minimizes economic impact to users, particularly fisherman. NOAA has modified the final regulations and management plan to reflect several of the recommendations made in the comments. Consistent with recommendations from the SAC and others, and upon careful weighing the environmental and socioeconomic impacts, NOAA has retained the Western Sambos ER but revised its Zoning Plan to eliminate the Key Largo and defer the Dry Tortugas Ecological Reserves, add the Eastern Sambos Research-only Special-use Area and slightly expand the Carysfort SPA to include additional intermediate reef, back reef, and patch reef areas. In weighing the socioeconomic impacts on commercial and recreational users against the additional benefit of the Key Largo ER, NOAA eliminated that Reserve from the final plan and regulations. The resource protection provided by the existing protected areas, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, and Biscayne National Park contributed to this decision. NOAA has, however, enlarged the SPA at Carysfort Reef to protect additional patch reef and coral habitat..

Public comment also identified serious adverse economic impacts which would result from implementation of the no-take regulations within the proposed boundary of the Dry Tortugas ER. Recommendations suggested reconfiguring the boundary of that Reserve to minimize such impacts. Others recommended the Dry Tortugas ER be reconfigured to include additional reef communities. Consequently, NOAA did not set forth a boundary or regulations for the Dry Tortugas ER. Rather, NOAA will continue the process for establishing a proposed final boundary of the Dry Tortugas ER in coordination with the National Park Service, fishing representatives, scientists, and others to identify an appropriate final boundary for the Reserve, which may include portions of the Dry Tortugas National Park. NOAA and the National Park Service will use the information gathered as part of the public review of the draft management plan, and hold workshops with users, agency representatives, environmental organizations, scientists, and the pubic. Prior to making a final decision, the proposed final boundary of the Dry Tortugas ER will be published for public comment.

In summary, public comments indicated that the impacts on fishers from the proposed Replenishment Reserves were greater than considered in the DMP/EIS. As a result, the final regulations designate the Western Sambos area as an ER. The Key Largo and Dry Tortugas areas were not made ERs in order to minimize adverse impacts to fishers. An area of the Dry Tortugas with a boundary with less of an adverse impact on fishers will be proposed to be designated at a later date.

Support the Zoning Plan

Comment NOAA received a number of comments generally supporting the Zoning Action Plan as proposed or requesting a larger proportion of zoned areas.

Response NOAA appreciates the support of the zoning plan. This is the first attempt at large scale marine zoning in the USA. Five years after their implementation, NOAA will lead a team to evaluate the effectiveness of zoning in ecosystem protection. At that time the zones will be reevaluated and may be modified as necessary and/or appropriate.

Zoning is Too Overbearing or Will Limit Work/Play

Comment A number of reviewers expressed concern that the zoning scheme is too restrictive and will unduly limit their ability to conduct recreational and commercial activities.

Response NOAA does not agree that the Zoning Action Plan overly restricts traditional uses of the resources. The area encompassed by the zones, including a Dry Tortugas ER, a boundary for which will be proposed in the future, will comprise no more than five percent of the Sanctuary. Moreover, non-consumptive uses (e.g., diving, snorkeling) will not be prohibited in all zones. Consumptive uses (e.g., commercial and sport fishing) will be restricted in SPAs and ERs and some Special-use Areas. However, based on aerial surveys and visitor use data, approximately 94 percent of the recreational fishers fish outside these zones on a regular basis. Commercial fishers agreed early in the planning process that they do not rely on SPAs as areas to conduct their activities. The impact of ERs has been raised as a concern because of the perceived displacement of commercial activities (e.g., fishers). The ERs have been redesigned to minimize impacts to such activities through a process that relied on input from commercial fishers. This input, in part, led NOAA to eliminate the Key Largo ER, and postpone the establishment of a Dry Tortugas ER.

Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Ecological Reserves

Comment Some reviewers expressed opposition to all SPAs and ERs.

Response The purpose of a SPA is to protect a heavily used area of the marine environment (e.g., coral reefs) where conflicts often occur between user groups. These areas are critical for protecting the coral reefs and biodiversity of the FKNMS. The purpose of an ER is to minimize human influences, to provide natural spawning, nursery, and permanent residence areas for the replenishment and genetic protection of marine life, and to protect and preserve natural assemblages of habitats and species, and restore natural ecosystem dynamics. The FKNMSPA directed NOAA to consider temporal and geographic zoning. Zoning is a proven tool for marine conservation and is consistent with NOAA's mandate to accommodate multiple, compatible uses by providing long-term benefits to all consumptive and non-consumptive users through increased biodiversity.

Ecological Reserves are Redundant with Fisheries Management

Comment Eliminate all ERs because they are redundant with traditional fisheries management.

Response

NOAA does not agree. Zoning in the FKNMS is for habitat protection and to preserve biodiversity, not for fisheries management. Traditional fisheries management focuses on managing stocks of a small number of the over 6000 species reported in the FKNMS. The primary purpose of an ER is to protect a portion of the coral reef environment (including seagrass beds, hardbottom, rubble habitats, patch reefs and sand areas) from all forms of harvesting in order to restore natural ecosystem dynamics.

The establishment of no-take areas in specific portions of the coral reef tract should lead to replenishment of reef inhabitants that are currently being lost, or whose balance in the ecosystem has been altered. Moreover, with respect to fish stocks, some fisheries scientists suggest that ERs provide ancillary benefits to fisheries, similar to "harvest refugia" and other protected fisheries areas. The ERs are an important tool for effective ecosystem management in the FKNMS. NOAA will monitor the effectiveness of zoning in ecosystem protection and consider modifications as necessary and reasonably appropriate.

Monitoring Program is Needed to Determine the Viability of Zoning

Comment A number of reviewers recommended the establishment of a monitoring program to assess the viability of the zoning scheme.

Response The Zoning Action Plan provides for the establishment of a five-year monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of zoning in the Sanctuary.

Western Sambos Ecological Reserve

Comment A number of reviewers expressed concerns about commercial fishing displacement as a result of establishment of the Western Sambos ER.

Response NOAA believes there will be some displacement of fishermen, but that the long-term environmental benefits will far outweigh short-term economic losses. The ecological value of protecting the area does not warrant eliminating or modifying the boundary of the ER.